Beet L. Jooz

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) faced backlash on Wednesday after tweeting a mocking response to a story about threats being made against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and staff at her office in D.C. over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the allegation of sexual assault against him.

Swalwell was quote tweeting an article from The Hill detailing threats that were being made toward Collins and staff.

“My office has received some pretty ugly voicemails, threats, terrible things said to my staff,” Collins said in an interview with WVOM on Wednesday.
[…]
“We’ve had some very abusive callers. … We’ve had some very vulgar calls and sort of harassing the staff,” Steve Abbot, Collins’s chief of staff, told a Maine TV station at the time.

In response, Swalwell tweeted “Boo hoo hoo” to the female senator. He received a lot of backlash on Twitter (along with approval and retweets), and on Thursday morning even engaged some of the criticism. Here is his reply to CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Yes. No one should make threats. This is a democracy: Be loud and be heard. We don’t use violence. I didn’t mean to suggest that. But I’m pissed how this victim’s safety has been ignored and a rush to confirm has been prioritized. Why not offer the witness security? https://t.co/xzds16EuRx

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 20, 2018

He first says he did not mean to suggest not taking threats seriously or being dismissive of violence. Then he asked “Why not offer the witness security?”

Tapper replied and pointed out that Sen. Susan Collins had herself suggested the same thing.

.@SenatorCollins said in that same radio interview: “I think we need to provide her with any protection that she may ask for, for herself and for her family.”

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 20, 2018

He deleted the mocking tweet and, about ten minutes after the exchange with Tapper, offered his apology via Twitter.

Sexual assault victims deserve respect. And senators shouldn’t be threatened by the public. I said something stupid and minimized ugly behavior. That tweet is deleted and I’m sorry for that.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 20, 2018

Currently there is no response from Susan Collins.

Flash floods in Tunisia’s Cap Bon peninsula have killed at least five people, authorities said Sunday, as surging waters caused by heavy rains carried away homes, cars and chunks of road.

New allegations of past sexual misconduct of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh came to light over the weekend, further imperiling the already troubled confirmation process for the Trump appointee.

With Dr. Christine Ford set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify over the potential derailing allegations, Joe Scarborough and panel took issue with the “presumed innocent” standards of pro-Kavanaugh opinionators.  Since this is not a criminal court of law, the standard is not proof of guilt or innocence, but rather a political standard of character.

Or as Scarborough summed up, “who presents best who is the most believable who nods their head at the appropriate time who doesn’t sort of have nervous flop sweat who is best on television. That’s what this has come down to it’s going to be a gut instinct who do you believe of course.”

Scarborough continued “we’re not going to be talking about a preponderance of the evidence, we’re not going to be talking about any standards that we carry in courtrooms or in civil or criminal cases.” He added  “It’s going to be who is the most convincing on television and that’s, unfortunately, no way to pick a Supreme Court justice”

Amid weekend negotiations for Thursday hearing, the New Yorker dropped a new bombshell report that Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation that dates back to the 1983-84 school year when Kavanaugh was a student at Yale. Stormy Daniels‘ lawyer Michael Avenatti also weighed into the controversy surrounding the accusation made against Kavanaugh by claiming he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

Watch the clip above courtesy of MSNBC.

Any hopes that Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg’s documentary “Reversing Roe” was going to be even vaguely unbiased have been dashed to pieces.

The filmmakers claimed again and again that they wanted to show both sides of the story. They interviewed a cadre of beloved pro-life spokespeople and intellectuals: Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager turned hard-hitting life advocate; Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, leader of the New Wave Feminists; Professor Helen Alvaré, president of Women Speak for Themselves and a George Mason University law professor; Jeanne Mancini, president of the annual March for Life; and Catherine Glenn Foster, an experienced attorney and president of Americans United for Life.

Yet the only pro-life woman whose interview was even remotely featured in the documentary was Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. Instead, Stern and Sundberg decided to slant the film through their own angle. The angle couldn’t have been more obvious: 1) men are the only ones who push to end abortion and 2) most pro-life activity is driven by religion that oppresses people.

While both points are inherently, intellectually, logically, and historically incorrect, one of the most horrendous problems with the film is the makers’ refusal to show the “both sides” they claimed they wanted to highlight. It’s one thing to actually be ignorant. It’s another entirely to be disingenuous — to promote your film based on your desire to tell a true story, to pursue that story, then to hide the truth that doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative.

“There’s no doubt that the film has been made from a pro-abortion-rights perspective,” The New York Times conceded. Of course, no one should really be surprised, but it still takes a heightened level of deceptiveness to spend days following and interviewing pro-life women, only to silence their voices in the end.

That’s exactly where the “anti-woman” part of Stern and Sundberg’s film comes in. Women’s advocates believe deeply in the right of every woman to raise her voice — at least, so they say. To the liberal left, particularly the pro-abortion forces, the only voices that are actually welcomed are the voices that cry out for sex on demand, without consequences, which leads to abortion on demand, also without (legal) consequences.

When the liberal side of the women’s movement encounters a woman who shares her views on equal pay for women, equal rights for women, and equal voices for women — but, crucially, not on abortion — they begin to work overtime to find a way to shut down and silence her. These women claim it’s men who shut the mouths of women and refuse to hear us, yet the women’s abortion army are the ones who truly castigate any female human who dares to speak in favor of life for all.

As Erika Bachiochi, an attorney and the author of the Harvard Journal of Law article, “Embodied Equality: Debunking Equality Arguments for Abortion Rights,” explains, abortion is deeply anti-woman at its roots. Its proponents place the burdens of society squarely on women, refusing to accept biological realities:

Abortion expects nothing more of men, nothing more of medicine, and nothing more of society at large. Abortion betrays women by having us believe that we must become like men — that is, not pregnant — to achieve parity with them, professionally, socially, educationally. And if we are poor, overwhelmed or abandoned by the child’s father, or if medical expenses would be too great for us or for our child, social ‘responsibility’ requires us to rid ourselves of our own offspring. Today’s feminists cheer us on. Is this really the equality we were looking for 42 years ago?

Beyond the prevalent anti-woman factor demonstrated in “Reversing Roe,” there is a smelly anti-religion theme as well. The only religious figure portrayed positively is a man of the collar who helped run an illegal, covert abortion referral operation prior to Roe v. Wade. He openly admits that he did not ask women why they wanted an illegal abortion or make any attempt to see if he could help them find a way out of abusive or other dangerous circumstances. Instead, he happily led their children (and possibly some of their mothers) to the slaughter.

Every other religious figure in the movie is portrayed as a heavy-handed “Jesus freak.” The only scene the makers choose to show of the man who shot late-term abortionist George Tiller, who was known for having a personal crematorium in his office, was his account of becoming a born-again Christian. The filmmakers allow another person in the film to make claims that amount to calling religion, Christianity in particular, dangerous and oppressive.

Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Christianity has been the redeeming force in many a society throughout history. While all Christians are sinners, Christians have also been the main forces of good, historically speaking. Furthermore, it’s inherently unfair to categorize all pro-lifers as fighting for the lives of children solely because their religion calls them to oppress women.

Jesus was not only the savior, but a culture-changer of his day. He welcomed, taught, befriended, and defended women in a society that ground them into the dust. He taught the equality of men and women. Also, like his pro-life followers of today, he said, “Let the little children come.”

“Reversing Roe” is merely one documentary that will soon be lost in a myriad of films, articles, and speeches. Since it is not based on truth, it will not last. But the truth — that women can stand for themselves and their children simultaneously, and that Christianity is a positive force in culture, one that raises all humanity with it — will last forever. One day soon, it is this truth that will triumph.

You have to be 16 obtain a driver’s license in California, 18 to buy a rifle, engage in consensual sex, or get married without parental consent, and 21 to buy a handgun, alcohol, or marijuana. But in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.

The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”

The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”

That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter.

The law’s authors seem to mean well. The bill also states:

It is the policy of the state that all minors and nonminors in foster care shall have the following rights:

(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.

(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.

Those provisions within this law—and many of the others that follow them—are laudable at first glance. Who would oppose kids living in safe homes and being free of abuse? But meaning well often differs from doing well. The difference can be found in the sub-provisions that enunciate the methods for the well-meaning provisions. One provision says, for example:

The right of minors and nonminors in foster care to health care and mental health care described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 16001.9 includes covered gender affirming health care and gender affirming mental health care. This right is subject to existing laws governing consent to health care for minors and nonminors and does not limit, add, or otherwise affect applicable laws governing consent to health care.

Remember that the right to “gender affirming health care” extends to foster-care children as young as 12. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Children in this age group [12-14] might:

Show more concern about body image, looks, and clothes.

Focus on themselves; going back and forth between high expectations and lack of confidence.

Experience more moodiness.

Show more interest in and influence by peer group.

Express less affection toward parents; sometimes might seem rude or short-tempered.

Feel stress from more challenging school work.

Develop eating problems.

Feel a lot of sadness or depression, which can lead to poor grades at school, alcohol or drug use, unsafe sex, and other problems.

What is the common link in all those points listed above? Immaturity. Adolescents are no longer little children, but they are not even close to being ready to make adult decisions. Choosing one’s gender—as if that really is a choice—is also certainly not a decision to be placed in the hands of one who “goes back and forth between high expectations and lack of confidence,” or one who “experiences more moodiness,” or who “feels a lot of sadness or depression.”

Many studies have found that human brains take a long time to develop fully—as long as 25 years or more. That means that adolescents are at a distinct disadvantage in decision making. That’s why you see the immaturity issues listed in the CDC analysis above. Chronologically, adolescents are only about halfway to full brain development. Yet the new California allows—and almost compels—adolescents to make irreversible, potentially life-altering decisions.

“The vast majority of gender dysphoric children affirmed as the opposite sex go on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are permanently sterilized as a result,” the American College of Pediatricians states in “Protect Children: Vote No on AB 2119.” Should a 12-year-old be allowed to make a decision that might cause him or her to be permanently sterilized?

This presumably well-meaning law has placed children as young as 12 ahead of caring foster parents in making decisions that could render those children incapable of one day having and raising children of their own—children who would have one day grown up and made decisions of their own. Wise decisions, we would hope. Those capable of making wise choices must stand firm in the struggle against those who simply mean well.

Much of the political anger directed at digital tech today is aimed at social media. On the left, people fret that social media gives bad people big platforms or influence behind the scenes. On the right, social media is blamed for suppressing free speech and coarsening the culture.

A particular fear fuels this anger. Regardless of their partisan bent, critics frequently treat social media as the vanguard of digital life. Almost everyone agrees that no institution today can stop digital tech from dominating our everyday. So the fear has arisen that, increasingly, what happens on social media will control or invade real life. People worry that if social media trends aren’t stopped now, or if social media isn’t stopped, the things that define the social media environment will swallow up our whole lives.

This is certainly a scary story. But is it true? Can it be true, if its core assumption is a mistake? Even very smart critics can reflexively talk as if social media is the ultimate in digital living. Yet today, news keeps rolling in that would make calmer people draw a much different conclusion. Perhaps strangely, the drumbeat of ostensibly “new media” companies “pivoting to video” has become a source of gallows humor about failing startups, rather than a recognized source of knowledge that social media is more old media—specifically, television—than new.

Consider the latest “shocking” development involving BuzzFeed, long hailed and even envied as one of the most digital, meaning social, media companies on Earth. In a staff memo, BuzzFeed News Vice President Shadi Hilton announced that “we’ve decided to move to a production model that is more like our TV projects”—and to move away, the memo made clear, from the company’s podcasts and in-house producers.

Nothing about this should be surprising. For years, journalists and media observers have watched Vice—another A-list social-driven online media company—transform, as quickly as possible, into a television brand focused heavily on its very few high-end TV products. Journalism and editing jobs are on the decline, even though automation isn’t yet to blame. As Steve LeVine of Axios Future recently noted, “the news business as a whole has not landed on a lucrative financial model in the internet age.”

But it’s more than social news that’s collapsing back into television. It’s social as a whole. Twitter and television exist in an abusive but deeply symbiotic relationship. The basic value proposition of Snapchat, Instagram, and Google’s YouTube is that, with them, you can be your own TV channel, and so can everybody else. Rather than destroying the mass medium that defined the pre-digital age, social media has simply democratized it.

Unfortunately for social, more and more people on social media—including those at the top of the audience food chain—are coming to accept the “unthinkable” truth that, at least regarding television, they don’t like democracy very much.

Consider the case of Jerry Holkins, co-founder of the hugely popular Penny Arcade webcomic media enterprise. Writing as his alter ego Tycho Brahe, Holkins recently published a scathing strip depicting YouTube as “a perpetually salivating squid crab” with an insatiable appetite for the unpaid labor of creative stars.

“You’re feeling burned out because you’re light bulbs,” the crab malevolently reveals. “And there are always more light bulbs. You create young, energetic light bulbs with every video you make. We’ll never run out.”

Acknowledging complaints from its beleaguered stars, the crab unveils a newer, better form of toil. “Our new Community Tab is a way to keep in touch with your ravenous fans whenever you aren’t killing yourself uploading videos or livestreaming. You don’t have to use it. But if you don’t, you’ll appear cold and aloof.” Live by the broadcast, die by the broadcast. It’s your “choice.”

That’s not some dark new law handed down by terrifying digital overlords. It’s the same old creed of the TV age, taken to its nightmarishly logical conclusion. Like TV, social media is a platform for ads. Like TV, social media promises entertainment and delivers enervation. Like TV, there are a zillion channels on social media, and all too often, nothing’s on. Also like TV, social media is fundamentally about what Neil Postman said it was about in his 1985 bestseller “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

To an ordinary person who enjoys a few shows, that sounds like a cruelly harsh verdict. (“Does this mean I have to give up ‘The Great British Baking Show’?”) But you don’t have to throw your big screen out the window to understand why the truth about television is so important to grasp today.

Both social media and traditional television depend at their core on illusion—fantasy and make-believe, dreams and visions. Thanks to the long and traumatizing pre-digital age of world war, mass politics, mind control, and television, we’re accustomed to thinking that illusion and fantasy are at the core of being human.

Digital technology—digital in its content and logic, not just its trappings—has begun to tell us something far different. Instead of mistakenly looking to social media as the epitome of digital tech, we ought to look squarely at social credit.

The rising new system of organization points toward a future where democratized broadcast surrenders supremacy to a ubiquitous and universal library about everyone and everything. There are now some signs that the smart social masters grasp this. Consider Mark Zuckerberg’s moves to make Facebook first and foremost about finance and identity, not about viewing, choosing, and sharing opinions. The fork in the road is clear.

People will respond to the truth about the logic of digital tech in different ways. But the democratization of television has already done the opposite of what its wizards imagined. All by itself, it has gone a long way toward disenchanting our democratic dreams.

Television clearly dies hard. But if you don’t want to be lost in the new, onrushing world, you’d be well advised to recognize that today’s social media already belongs to a nearly bygone era.

I’m a wife and mother of four boys, and what I am seeing right now angers me. The number of people—politicians, members of the media, and even people I know—who are willing to sacrifice due process for men is shocking. If we go down this road, it is hard to see how we can come back.

My husband is in the military, so I am no stranger to a culture of double standards, but until now we thought it was more isolated. In the military it is common knowledge, whether senior leaders will acknowledge it or not, that a mere accusation of sexual harassment or assault, proven or not, is enough to end a man’s career.

This is an unfortunate but expected development in a military that is entirely beholden to the forces of feminism. The effects of such an environment are terrible and destructive, but they have at least been contained. This Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford affair has shown me that wives and mothers of sons everywhere need to take a stand.

All indications now are that too many in our society have abandoned the idea that all people, men and women, are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt through due process. Instead people want a guilty until proven innocent standard for men accused of sexual assault.

People think mere accusations, made without evidence and decades after the fact, should result in intrusive and embarrassing investigations simply because a woman made them. Men are to be afforded no due process or opportunity to defend themselves, whether or not they are innocent. These new standards inhibit civil society, for under them vindictive or zealous people can threaten, shame, or marginalize unpopular voices using unfounded and fabricated accusations.

Likewise, many seem to think that men and women should be judged by different standards. This is the opposite of equality before the law. Without equality before the law, how can we say the law rules and not men (or women)? As we make this turn toward “believe women” regardless of a trial or presence of proof, our society will only get worse.

Many also seem willing to abandon all statutes of limitation and questions of jurisdiction. I’m not a lawyer, but as a citizen it is easy to see how this idea is a protection, not an obstruction of justice. Certain agents enforce certain laws, so we can hold various bodies accountable in appropriate ways. Accusations made after certain limits are unreliable and often can no longer be proven. Who wants to go to trial for something that happened so long ago that a fair trial is impossible? We all benefit from statutes of limitation.

As we turn away from these protections for men, what is the logical outcome? If a vindictive woman or ideological zealot in this polarized time decides a man must be silenced, isolated, or otherwise moved out of the way, what protections will he have? What due process will protect the innocent? Should we pretend people, both women and men, do not make false accusations for a whole host of reasons?

I understand that some women have been, still are, and will be abused by men. I imagine every woman knows someone who has suffered in this way. But if we abandon the rule of law in our pursuit of some perfect justice, what will stand in the way when that pursuit comes back around? We will reap what we sow, and conviction without evidence and unequal protection under the law will be a terrible whirlwind.

Then what will happen to the legitimate claims of abuse that should be investigated with diligence? How will we keep them from being lost in the sea of false accusations? We punish ourselves as women as much as we punish our men if we go down the road of “believe all women.” I’m not the only one to make this point. The Federalist’s own David Harsanyi tweeted about it. Mollie Hemingway echoed his sentiment. Radio host Hugh Hewitt has made a similar point.

To pursue perfect justice or to wield the law against a certain group of people is to abandon the rule of law. It is to abandon our grounding in actual, fallen human nature for some ideological utopia. This happened in the French Revolution; we can expect the same outcome now.

I know that we live in perilous times. As conservatives and orthodox Christians, my husband and I are not welcome in polite society or government service. We have to conceal that we believe mothers should generally stay home with their babies, God is a he, husbands have authority in marriage and the household, and women should not do certain jobs such as be a pastor or an infantryman. We deny that women have special “reproductive rights” that allow them to murder their unborn children in the name of liberation. We think marriage is between a man and a woman.

These views make us bigots in the eyes of many, and we can accept that. True love is rarely understood by people who want to be left to their own desires and passions. If this were the only problem, we could commit ourselves to doing our duty quietly and carefully persuading those closest to us.

But things are changing now in a way I cannot accept. I cannot accept a world in which my sons will be raised under the tyranny of a lawless, vindictive society that wants to subdue and oppress men in the name of equality for women. It’s time to take a stand. Mammas, we have to fight for our men, because they are in danger. My father is, my husband is, and my sons are. Your father is, your husband is, and your sons are. This madness will consume them all.

The future isn’t female; it belongs to both your daughters and my sons. Abandoning the basic standards of the rule of law will not empower women; it will enslave us all. We must stop the insanity before it is too late.

U.S. stock futures followed European and Asian shares lower in thin volume after China called off planned trade talks with the U.S. and the Trump administration imposed another $200 billion in "Phase II" China tariffs just after midnight; oil jumped 2.4% as OPEC+ members defied Trump’s calls for lower oil prices during a weekend conference, refusing to boost output.

Asia set the downbeat tone as Hong Kong stocks fell, while thinner than average volumes across Asia due to holidays in China, South Korea and Japan.  "Given that the trade talks are off, investors will be watching what happens after the implementation of the tariffs and particularly whether the U.S. will move to the next phase, which would be tariffs on a further $267 billion of Chinese goods," said Dushyant Padmanabhan, a currency strategist at Nomura in Singapore. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said on NPR’s Morning Edition that “the president was crystal clear in his statement: if China retaliates, the process will move forward on the additional amount.”

European stocks followed lower, with miners and carmakers, both sectors heavily exposed to global trade, among the biggest decliners in the Stoxx Europe 600 Index, while futures on the S&P 500 and Dow pointed to a weaker open. Randgold Resources and bucked the trend to rally on merger news following news of a merger with Barrick, creating the world's largest gold miner; Sky also rose after Comcast beat Fox in the auction for the broadcaster with a $39 billion bid, a deal that has been two years in the making. Comcast will start buying Sky shares in the market in order to reach the 50% threshold before the Oct. 11 deadline. Current shareholders just got an extra 9% for their patience as Comcast will pay 1,728p for the shares. What Fox will do with its 39% stake is still unknown. Elsewhere, Carrefour denied it approached Casino Guichard-Perrachon only hours after the rival grocer said its board rebuffed a proposal for a possible merger.

Surprisingly, with a new round in the trade war now live and with the Fed set to hike rates in just a few days, the dollar initially pushed higher, but failed to sustain an early-London advance. Pound volatility was the highlight in options space for another day as Brexit headlines were in focus, while the euro advanced after stronger than expected German IFO data beat across the board, and ahead of a Mario Draghi speech Monday.

As the dollar declined, the Chinese yuan dipped even more, weakening over 200 pips to as low as 6.87 as traders were unable to trade the Shanghai Composite which was closed on Monday.

Elsewhere in overnight FX trading, the euro reversing earlier losses to edge higher in early London session. The pound strengthened on increasing talk of a second U.K. referendum on the final Brexit deal, recovering above $1.31 as some traders took profit on short positions; as Bloomberg notes, the premium to protect against losses in the pound versus the dollar over the next three months has widened to the most since January 2017 after U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May said Friday that Brexit negotiations had reached an impasse.  The Australian and New Zealand dollars declined, leading losses among the Group-of-10 peers, with the offshore yuan as China canceled trade talks with the U.S. and $200 billion of American tariffs on Chinese goods took effect after midnight Washington time.

As noted last night, JPMorgan said it was starting to factor into its strategy a growing potential for a “Phase III” of the tariff war next year affecting all Chinese imports, which would lead to weaker growth in the country and hit U.S. stocks. While the escalation in cross-Pacific trade tensions are proving a new test for global stocks which have posted two strong weeks of gains, today's decline was virtually negligible in the context of the recent sharp move higher.

And with trade war progressing, attention now turns to the Fed's policy meeting that will see rates increased for the third time this year, with markets pricing in another hike in December.

Elsewhere, market jitters continued in Indian shares where the rupee slid as cracks appeared in Asia’s best-performing stock market this year amid concerns about troubles in the shadow banking sector after IL&FS announced several defaults on Friday following by key management resignation.

Emerging-market shares and currencies initially weakened but have since recouped many of their losses as the dollar rally fizzled. The rupee and rupiah led a drop in Asian currencies; Hong Kong stocks fell the most in the region on a day when most North Asian markets were closed for holidays.

Treasuries declined with European sovereign bonds: the 10-year TSY yield gained 2 bps to 3.08%, hitting the highest in more than four months with its fifth straight advance. Germany’s 10-year yield increased two basis points to 0.48%.

Crude oil hit a fresh cycle high, as Brent rose above $80/barrel, a 4 year high, after OPEC shunned U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls to increase supply. Looking at the oil rally, traders are looking increasingly convinced the it has more juice, while the OPEC meeting on Sunday showed its members clearly have no urgency to boost their output.

Switching to gold, the bullion is still holding around its $1,200 level. Credit Suisse strategists have now abandoned their bearish view on the precious metal, while BofAML sees gold topping $1,300 on fiscal deficit. What’s in it for gold miners? Their valuation level is near an all-time low, the rand is weak and GEM stocks have underperformed their U.S. peers.

In the latest Brexit news, UK PM May’s aides have reportedly begun contingency planning for a snap election in November to save the Brexit talks and her job after EU leaders rebuffed the PM’s Chequers plan. Strategists have begun “war-gaming” an autumn vote to win public backing for a new plan, according to the Times. However, there were also reports UK Brexit Secretary Raab dismissed claims of a snap general election in Autumn, while playing down the chances of the government pivoting towards a Canada-style deal and EU officials are also thought to be working on a counter-proposal to Chequers, which is likely to appear in early October, the Guardian reported. Meanwhile, Telegraph said that a majority of the UK cabinet is now supporting moves towards a Canada-style Brexit deal. As such, May will now be asked to reassess her approach and opt for a free trade agreement that represents a ‘clean Brexit’. UK Cabinet Ministers will be required to grant limitless access to European Union migrants for more than two years after a “no-deal” Brexit, according to the Times. Such a move proposed by Home Secretary Javid will likely anger Brexiteers.

In central bank news, ECB's Dolenc said that ECB's interest rates will remain low through the summer of 2019, says he can't comment on when they will change.

On the geopolitical front, there was a shooting at a military parade in Iran that was claimed by anti-government group as well IS militants, while Iranian President Rouhani criticised the US and Gulf states as having enabled the attack. Iran revolutionary guards threatened retaliation for the attack on the Iranian military parade; although it is not clear who they will retaliate against.

Data include Chicago Fed National Activity and Dallas Fed Manufacturing Activity. Amalgamated Bank and Ascena Retail are reporting earnings.

Market Snapshot

• S&P 500 futures down 0.2% to 2,928.25
• STOXX Europe 600 down 0.2% to 383.38
• MXAP down 0.6% to 165.18
• MXAPJ down 1% to 524.49
• Nikkei up 0.8% to 23,869.93
• Topix up 0.9% to 1,804.02
• Hang Seng Index down 1.6% to 27,499.39
• Shanghai Composite up 2.5% to 2,797.49
• Sensex down 1.7% to 36,221.78
• Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 0.1% to 6,186.87
• Kospi up 0.7% to 2,339.17
• German 10Y yield rose 1.1 bps to 0.473%
• Euro up 0.1% to $1.1763
• Brent Futures up 2.2% to $80.56/bbl
• Italian 10Y yield fell 5.1 bps to 2.47%
• Spanish 10Y yield rose 0.2 bps to 1.497%
• Brent futures up 2.6% to $80.86/bbl
• Gold spot down 0.1% to $1,198.99
• U.S. Dollar Index down 0.1% to 94.15

Top Overnight News

• China dashed hopes for a near-term resolution to the trade war with the U.S., warning Trump that his threats of further tariffs are blocking any potential negotiations. The response, which came just over an hour after the U.S. imposed new duties on $200 billion in Chinese goods on Monday, underscores a deepening gulf between both governments
• ECB should consider tightening monetary policy sooner than originally planned, ECB Governing Council member Ewald Nowotny said Sunday on Austrian television
• Theresa May’s fiercest critics spelt out their Brexit demands on Monday, just as the embattled Conservative leader heads into a potential showdown with her top ministers; The Sunday Times reported that May’s aides have discussed the possibility of a November general election, in which she would seek a public endorsement of a harder Brexit stance
• Bank of England policy makers have the chance this week to share their thoughts on interest rates now that Governor Mark Carney has said he’s staying for longer
• Donald Trump’s demand that OPEC take rapid action to reduce oil prices received a tepid response, with the group saying it would boost output only if customers requested it
• All signs point to Prime Minister Stefan Lofven losing the first round in his battle to remain in power as Sweden seats its new parliament
• Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is at risk of unraveling after new sexual misconduct allegations emerged, just as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to hear testimony from a woman claiming he assaulted her in high school
• The European Central Bank should consider tightening its monetary policy sooner than originally planned, ECB Governing Council member Ewald Nowotny said Sunday on Austrian television
• The European Union’s trade chief heads to New York this week to continue negotiations with the U.S. and Japan, as the three parties seek a way to end what they see as China’s unfair commercial policies and dial down global tensions

Asian stocks traded lower with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and mainland China away due to public holidays, with risk sentiment dampened after China cancelled trade talks with the US. In addition, fresh US-tariffs took effect from today with 10% US tariffs on USD 200bln worth of Chinese goods and China had previously announced a retaliation of 5-10% tariffs on USD 60bln of US goods. ASX 200 (-0.1%) losses were led by weakness in the metals sector, while healthcare and financial names also weighed on the index. Hang Seng (-1.6%) extended on losses from the open as trade concerns remained in focus and amid continued increases in money market rates in Hong Kong with the 3-month HIBOR at its highest in 10 years. China cancelled upcoming trade talks with the US. (WSJ) In related news, there were comments from US President Trump stating the US have a lot more tariffs if China retaliates. (Newswires)

Top Asian News

• China Says Talks Can’t Happen Under U.S. Tariff Threat: Xinhua
• China Beige Book Says Manufacturers Stressed Even Before Tariffs
• Tiny Maldives Boots Out Pro-China President in Election Surprise
• China Firms May Face Strains on 364-Day Dollar Bonds: Law Firm
• India Said to Plan Raising $2.8 Billion by Merging Power Firms

European equities have started the day on the back foot as trade concerns have come back into the fray after US-China sanctions have taken effect and China cancelled US trade talks. The automotive sector is struggling in the wake of this, with weakness in Daimler (-1.3%) and Volkswagen (-1.0%) pressuring both the DAX and consumer discretionary sector into underperformance. This is being further exacerbated by The German Government and carmakers failing to strike a deal on hardware retrofits for older diesel vehicles. The energy sector is the outperformer and benefitting from higher oil prices as market participants digest commentary from the JMMC meeting in Algiers over the weekend. The 2 year takeover saga of Sky (+9.0%) has reached a conclusion as the Co. have accepted Comcast’s bid of GBP 17.28/share made in a blind auction over the weekend. Comcast beat out 21st Century Fox and value the UK broadcaster at over GBP 30bln. Randgold Resources (+4.9%) and Barrick Gold have confirmed they are in late stage discussions regarding a merger valued at USD 18bln.

Top European News

• ECB on Runway to Rate Liftoff Considers What Should Happen Next
• German Business Sentiment Slid Amid New Round in Trade Spat
• The Secret Plot to Tie the Hands of Italy’s Populist Government
• Italian Bonds Extend Drop Amid Budget-Deficit Concerns
• Drax in Talks to Buy U.K Power Generation Plants From Iberdrola

In FX, the Pound has regained some composure after last week’s fall from grace, and its recovery is perhaps even more impressive given weekend UK press reports full of talk about a snap election. Moreover, some market observers are pinning the rebound on latest remarks from Raab striking a defiant message amidst all the growing criticism of and opposition to PM May’s Chequers plan as he maintains that this is the best formula for a deal with the EU, but M&A flows also look supportive given Comcast’s conquest in the battle for Sky. Cable has reclaimed 1.3100+ status, and techs are also noting the fact that a daily cloud base around 1.3055 has held on a couple of occasions, while Eur/Gbp is back below 0.8900 even though the single currency looks more solid around 1.1750 bs the Dollar. In fact, Eur/Usd is trying to probe higher towards 1.1800 in wake of Germany’s Ifo survey that saw a clean sweep of beats vs consensus and only minor moderation in components from the previous month. However, a 1.1780 Fib still needs to be breached from a chart perspective and there is decent option expiry interest from 1.1740-50 (1.4 bn) exerting a gravitational pull.  EM - In contrast to the Cad, Brent’s outperformance vs WTI and further advances towards $81/brl have boosted the Rub to test sub-66.0000 peaks vs the Usd, while the Try has resumed its recovery momentum vs the Usd and bounced off 6.3300+ lows to sit just off 6.2150.

In commodities, the oil sector is benefitting from commentary over the weekend where OPEC stated that they would only boost production should customers require it, with Saudi Energy Minister Al-Falih also saying that the “market is well supplied”, and that demand will increase in October. This commentary disregarded US President Trump’s calls to markedly increase output to reduce oil prices, and also came amid the OPEC world outlook that stated demand is expected to continue growing at a healthy rate in the mediumterm. This has seen Brent up over 2% today and with it finding a firm footing above USD 80/bbl in European trade. In reaction to this markets are gearing up for higher oil prices in the medium-term, with Bank of America Merrill Lynch revising their 2019 oil price forecasts. This has gone from USD 75/bbl to USD 80/bbl for Brent and USD 65/bbl to USD 67/bbl for WTI.  In the metals space, gold is essentially unmoved after declining over a percent on Friday, with the yellow metal trading within a thin USD 5/oz range. London copper has fallen from 10 week highs as trade concerns hit the market, with the construction material trading around USD 6,330/T in Monday’s session.

US Event Calendar

• 8:30am: Chicago Fed Nat Activity Index, est. 0.2, prior 0.1
• 10:30am: Dallas Fed Manf. Activity, est. 31, prior 30.9

DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

The Fed (Wednesday) is the main event although Italy’s draft 2019 budget (Thursday) could grab the global market spotlight away from Washington if the recent run of better political headlines proves illusory. So, Wednesday will likely see the widely anticipated 25bps rise to 2.25% (upper bound) in the Fed Funds rate but the statement and press conference will be the main market mover. A reminder that DB continue to expect 5 more hikes after this one out to the end of 2019. Thursday is the deadline for Italy's draft 2019 budget. As has been the case of late expect daily newsflow leading up to this. Will the more market-friendly Finance Minister Tria’s recent rhetoric win out or will the populist Deputy Prime Ministers Salvini and Di Maio influence be felt? The former favours a deficit target of around 1.6% of GDP, while the latter have pushed for a target above 2%. Our economists believe that any target below 2.3% will be enough to maintain debt sustainability for now and satisfy the market, but the European Commission may be more demanding. We’ll also be attentive to any one-off measures that may act as a backdoor way of raising the deficit without affecting the headline number.

Meanwhile the main data highlights this week revolve around the inflation prints in the US and Europe. On Friday we'll get the August PCE report in the US where the consensus expects a +0.1% mom print which would be enough to hold the annual rate at +2.0% yoy. In Europe we'll get the September CPI report for the euro area on Friday too with the consensus expecting no  change in the +1.0% yoy core reading. Country level data in Europe is also due out in Germany (Thursday), France (Friday), Italy (Friday) and Spain (Friday).

Brexit might also grab the headlines after a turbulent end to last week which we detail below. The U.K. Labour Party (the opposition) have their annual conference this week and there’s every chance that the membership might recommend a second EU referendum which may start to shape the opposition’s actual policy on the issue. Party leader Corbyn suggested over the weekend that he would respect the membership’s vote (Tuesday) but he would prefer a general election. Talking of which, the Sunday Times reported that aides of PM May have been preparing the grounds for a snap election in November to try to break the Brexit deadlock. This was flatly denied but it shows how fluid this situation is at the moment. The FT also reported that Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was pushing for a policy whereby every large British company would be forced to hand over 10% of the company’s equity to workers within a decade. If Labour were to get elected and if they enacted this it would be a monumental upheaval to capitalism in the U.K. There are so many permutations possible before Xmas on both Brexit and who leads the country into 2019. See the link later for the latest DB Brexit view and fresh Sterling short recommendation.

Kick starting the week, the 10% tariffs on $200bn of Chinese goods by the US took effect overnight with China set to retaliate with tariffs on $60bn of US goods imminently. Over the weekend China called off trade talks which were planned with US officials with Bloomberg reporting a source as saying that talks are unlikely to resume until after the US mid-term elections now. So any hopes of de-escalation any time soon appear low. Markets-wise, a number of holidays in Asia today means it’s been a fairly thin session for volumes although of the bourses that are open the Hang Seng (-1.25%), ASX (-0.07%), Jakarta Comp (-0.96%) and Nifty (-0.52%) are all in the red. Futures in the US are also lower along with most EM currencies.

As for last week, equity markets advanced amid mostly positive data, though PMIs in Europe disappointed slightly. The S&P 500 (-0.04% Friday) and DOW (+0.32% Friday) have hit new all-time highs during last week, though only the DOW closed at its peak. The NASDAQ (-0.51% Friday) shed -0.29% amid another tough week for the tech sector- the IT-heavy index is now down -1.51% this month versus the S&P 500’s +0.97% rally. The Euro Stoxx 600 rallied +1.70% last week, its best performance since March, with Italian stocks leading gains (FTSEMIB +3.12%).

In the US, jobless claims fell to a fresh 48-year low, while regional business surveys from the New York and the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Banks printed firmly in expansionary territory. In Japan, August CPI beat expectations at 1.3% yoy, sparking a 1.5bps selloff in JGB – not much a move in absolute terms, but it makes last week the sharpest selloff since July. Digging into the European data, the highlight was a 2pt miss for Germany’s manufacturing PMI, which fell to 53.7 from 55.9, dragging down the composite PMI as well. The new export orders sub-index dipped to 48.2, its lowest level since June 2013. Services held up though and the overall Euro Area composite PMI printed at 54.2 from 54.5 last month, consistent with still above-potential growth. The employment sub-index stayed flat at 55.3, its highest level in over a decade.

Government debt mostly soldoff last week, with Treasury yields up 6.7bps to 3.063%, their highest level since May. That marks the 4th consecutive advance for US yields, the longest streak since January-February. In Europe, yields had traded higher for most of the week, but partially retraced after Friday’s softer PMIs. German bund yields rose 1.1bps on the week, while BTPs continued to rally. Italian 10y yields are 40.6bps lower this month (-15.3bps last week), on track for their best month since July 2015 and their second-best month since 2013.

Despite the divergence in US and European yields last week, the Euro rallied +1.07% and the DXY index shed -0.74%. Both moves came off their peaks/ troughs after the softer European data caused the euro to partially retrace. Emerging market currencies mostly rallied, with the EM FX index up +1.30% on the week. The Turkish Lira retreated -1.93%, as investors were not impressed with the governments new macro plan, while the Argentine Peso (+6.91%), South African Rand (+4.27%) and Russian Ruble (+2.49%) all advanced.

The sharpest FX mover of the week was the pound, which erased gains of +1.76% to end the week virtually flat after Brexit headlines exploded on Friday. Prime Minister May declared that negotiations with the EU are “at an impasse” and reiterated that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This follows an acrimonious EU summit on Thursday and comes ahead of the Conservative party conference on 30 Sep-1 Oct. Our economists believe that it will be hard for May to maintain her strength into the conference while simultaneously negotiating a compromise with Brussels. They still think a deal by November is possible, but downgrade the odds that Parliament approves one to 50%. There is likely to be more rhetoric and volatility ahead. Full note here.

Finally, oil markets whipped around last week amid competing reports about Saudi Arabia and OPEC’s production plans. Early in the week, reports like Bloomberg suggested that Saudi Arabia was comfortable with oil at $80/barrel, and Brent crude oil  futures duly tested that level, which has held since 2014 without breaking. On Friday, however, various reports have suggested that OPEC may support a 500k barrel per day expansion in production. After trading as much as +2.60% higher on the week, Brent retraced to close +0.91% higher. Over the weekend OPEC and its allies suggested that output would only be
increased should customers demand it.

It's a quiet start to the week for data. In Europe, we get the September IFO survey in Germany along with September CBI Trends total orders and selling prices data for the UK. In the US, we'll get the August Chicago Fed national activity index and  September Dallas Fed manufacturing activity index. Away from that, ECB President Draghi is due to speak in Brussels. Away from that, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will speak in Hanover, France will unveil its 2019 budget and French President Emmanuel Macron will meet US President Donald Trump in New York.

A Kenyan county governor was charged in court on Monday with murdering a university student whom he had got pregnant.

Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 11.

The U.

The sentencing of comedian Bill Cosby on a sex assault conviction will begin Monday and is expected to last for two days.

Russia will supply Syria with an S-300 surface-to-air missile system within two weeks, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Monday.

A second Kavanaugh accuser is spurring calls to further delay Kavanaugh's confirmation vote

It's terrible

Ellison's former girlfriend Karen Monahan has accused him of domestic abuse.

The U.S. television audience for the Emmy Awards slumped about 11 percent to a new all-time low, according to Nielsen ratings data on Tuesday, drawing just 10.2 million American viewers.

A CNN reporter tweeted that it’s “VERY dangerous” for people to ask questions about the allegation of sexual assault made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Yes, seriously. A reporter — whose job it is to ask questions and get to the bottom of a story — is now saying that asking questions about an accusation is problematic. Republican Sen. John Conryn asked Tuesday for more details missing from Christine Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed and covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream while they were both in high school.

“The problem is, Dr. Ford can’t remember when it was, where it was, or how it came to be,” Cornyn said, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.”

In response, Chris Cillizza said asking these questions is “walking a VERY dangerous line.”

Walking a VERY dangerous line here….. https://t.co/GTKVb1Q7XU

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) September 18, 2018

Cillizza also tweeted that President Trump had told the FBI to ignore the allegations made against Kavanaugh — even though the FBI already issued a statement last week saying they had passed the information along to the White House and would not be investigating it.

No big deal: Just the president telling the FBI to ignore an allegation of sexual assault https://t.co/lvO8w9ccOm

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) September 18, 2018

The Department of Justice clarified Monday the FBI would not be getting involved in the allegations against Kavanaugh, because it “does not involve any potential federal crime.”

Government says move will help tackle country's pollution problem

With turmoil continuing over President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, the chief political analyst for ABC News says there’s already a “sexual predator” on the high court in the person of Justice Clarence Thomas.

“It was despicable and outrageous what happened to Anita Hill more than 25 years ago, and a sexual predator was given a lifetime seat on the SC,” Matthew Dowd of ABC tweeted on Monday.

“Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself in 2018.”

It was Anita Hill who, in 1991, accused Thomas of sexual harassment when the jurist was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush. Thomas was eventually confirmed after the woman’s credibility suffered when it was learned Hill followed Thomas from job to job.

Dowd also tweeted he apparently has no interest in treating accused men including Kavanaugh fairly.

“Enough with the ‘he said, she said’ storyline,” said Dowd.

“If this is he said, she said, then let’s believe the she in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios. Enough is enough.”

John Nolte of Breitbart News noted that “Dowd is virulently anti-Trump, anti-NRA, pro-Medicare for all (which is socialized medicine), regularly defends Planned Parenthood, and has already endorsed Democrat Beta O’Rourke, who is running to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas.”

Follow Joe Kovacs on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews

Germany's government said on Tuesday it would replace the head of its domestic spy agency who has faced accusations of harbouring far-right sympathies, putting an end to a row that exposed divisions in Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet.

Read 20 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Another Iowa State student...