For those unaware of what's happening in Missouri: The Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, has enacted an "emergency regulation" placing limitations on gender affirming health care for trans youth and adults requiring 15 one hour therapy sessions over 18 months for puberty blockers, 3 years for hormone therapy, and up to in some cases 9 years of documented therapy for trans gender individuals to receive hormone replacement therapy and other gender affirming treatments. In addition doctors are required to screen trans patients for autism and depression, if diagnosed with either they can be refused gender affirming care. Andrew Bailey enacted this emergency order under the Missouri Merchandising Protections Act, far over reaching the legal scope of the act, due to a claim that a St. Louis transgender clinic was prescribing "experimental drugs to kids without parental consent." These claims are untrue and are currently under investigation. Andrew Bailey's website now has a tip line to report trans affirming health clinics for “reports of questionable gender transition interventions.”

This is what trans genocide looks like in Missouri.

If you would like to fill Adrew Bailey's tip line with complaints about his actions the website is as follows.

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

Planned Parenthood must turn over some records on transgender health care to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a judge has ruled. Bailey, a Republican, is investigating providers of gender-affirming care in the state, which has outlawed the provision of such care to minors and certain adults. His demand for information from Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri came in March 2023 as part of his investigation of whether Washington University’s Pediatric Transgender Center or other health care entities in Missouri “have engaged in or are engaging in any practices declared to be unlawful,” as he stated in a letter to Planned Parenthood. The Planned Parenthood affiliate then sued Bailey in an attempt to block his demand, saying it was unauthorized and that the attorney general hadn’t shown how Planned Parenthood is directly involved in his investigation. Bailey argued that his request “should stand because he has an affidavit that alleges intentional dishonesty in Plaintiff's medical and billing practices,” St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote in his ruling. Ruling in Bailey’s favor, Stelzer said the AG’s office has “broad investigative powers” and that Bailey has the right to obtain any documents that aren’t protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which provides for patient privacy.

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey (R) has been granted snooping powers on Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri's records for transgender health services.

Happy Good News Day Everyone!

We are kicking off this week by celebrating good news from Missouri, where AG Bailey’s emergency rule was delayed again! Learn more below.

So the Missouri Attorney General website has a reporting form for "transgender concerns." For those who don't know, AG Andrew Bailey is a transphobe who is hell bent on stripping trans rights away. Be a shame if people used this link to submit false reports...

Taken For Fools

Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, is so awash with money he doesn’t remember the exact amount he is paid.

“Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, who came under fire for suggesting people shouldn’t ask for pay rises in the cost of living crisis, has again sparked anger when he “couldn’t remember” his £575,000 salary."  (LBC: 23/02/23)

But Mr Bailey isn’t the only banker enjoying a financial bonanza. At the beginning of 2022, UK bankers had the biggest salary and bonus rise since 2008.

“‘We’ve had a run on champagne:’ Biggest UK banker bonuses since financial crash” (Guardian: 16/02/22)

In October 2022, despite bankers pocketing the "biggest bonuses" since before the financial crash, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt reaffirmed he was keeping the Liz Truss policy of scrapping the banker’s bonus cap.

“The new chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is pressing on with plans to scrap the bankers’ bonus cap, protecting one of the most divisive policies from his predecessor’s disastrous mini-budget.”  (Guardian: 17/10/22)

You have to hand it to the Tories, when it comes to protecting their own wealth and the wealth of their rich friends they never fail to deliver. From former Chancellor's lying about their tax affairs, to Prime Minister’s wives saving millions in tax through non-dom status,  from Tory MP's taking on lucrative second jobs, to “cash for influence" scandals, the Tories are up to their necks in shady economic deals.

People might forgive the Tories for being so self-serving if they too benefited from Tory economic policies but the sad fact is ordinary people are becoming poorer, not richer. This is what one American journal had to say:

“In the UK, the number of people seeking help to feed themselves and their families through food banks has increased from 26,000 in 2010, to more than 2.56 million in 2022. At the same time, the cumulative wealth of the top ten billionaires in the UK has grown from £48 billion in 2009 to £182 billion in 2022 - an increase of 281 percent.” (Forbes: 24/03/23)

The massive increase in the gap between the rich and the rest of us in the UK is not an accident but the result of deliberate Tory policies.

“How the U.K. Became One of the Poorest Countries in Western Europe. Britain chose finance over industry, austerity over investment, and a closed economy over openness to the world.”  (The Atlantic: 25/10/22)

The Governor of the Bank of England agrees:

 “Brits must accept they’re poorer and stop demanding pay rises says Bank of England chief” (Mirror: 25/04/23)

So, while bankers are set to enjoy even greater champagne-popping bonuses,  and Tory millionaire MP’s continue to live the high life, the rest of us are expected to  tighten our belts and meekly submit to wage cuts and a declining standard of living.

Are we really this stupid?

The assumption of a certain kind of stability over time is hardwired into many of the kinds of economic models used today. That even if the economy is temporarily knocked off-balance, it will swing, eventually, back to its steady growth path, plodding on into the future. “Shocks” such as sudden hikes in the price of oil, or wars in eastern Europe, may happen, but, like a roly-poly toy, the economy springs back to where it was before.

Any deviation from this stable, long-run growth path is assumed by the models to be temporary, with the deep structures of the economy – demographics and technological change, primarily – asserting themselves over any short-term fluctuations. The big question is how quickly the economy can respond to a shock, and get back to its long-run path.

From the birth of modern economics two centuries ago until now, this unstated assumption didn’t matter. The Earth’s climate was broadly stable. But what if the environmental shocks just keep coming? Think about the last few years: from peat fires in summer 2019 to the extraordinary (and ongoing) disruption of Covid, to the extreme heat this year. The shocks have not ended, and, if the climate forecasters are correct, they will most likely get bigger and more frequent from this point onwards. The serious danger is that economic models insisting on a return to stable normality will lead our policymaking dramatically astray.

After the NRA’s wildly successful lobbying to turn the Second Amendment into an absolute individual right was emboldened by the Bruen decision, several states have been toeing the line to determine what prohibitions, if any, stand in the way of gun ownership. One of them, Missouri, passed a law that put a chilling effect on state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws in Missouri. The Show Me State just got shown that it can’t do that. Not for now, anyway. From Reuters:

“A Missouri state law that declared several federal gun laws 'invalid' is unconstitutional, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Tuesday, handing the U.S. Justice Department a victory in its bid to get the law tossed out.

At issue was a measure Republican Governor Mike Parson signed into law in 2021 that declared that certain federal gun laws infringed on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes in Jefferson City, Missouri, said the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws take priority over conflicting state laws.”

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is like the Commerce Clause and the Insurrection Clause in some ways — they are some of the threads that bind together an otherwise mostly independent series of states. And as neat as it is to think of the states as individual laboratories of democracy, there has to be some overlapping and enforceable code of conduct that can separate otherwise good science from a bumbling series of OSHA violations in a lab coat.

“Wimes, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in a siding with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration called the practical effects of the Republican-led state’s law ‘counterintuitive to its stated purpose.’

‘While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the federal government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens,’ he wrote.”

It it pretty hard to argue against that — just take a look at this clip that goes into detail about how laws like SAPA would make it harder for the police who aren’t killing unarmed protestors to do domestic abuse calls.

As expected, Missouri has already announced that it will appeal the decision.

“Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, in a statement promised an appeal, saying he was committed to ‘defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms.’

‘If the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment, they have the authority to do that,’ he said.”

Sure would be nice if some Missouri representatives were more committed to defending Missourians’ fundamental right to live. Missouri has the fourth highest gun death rate in the nation, due at least in part to the vigorous defense of the Second Amendment by representatives like Bailey. As easy as it is to view this as a concrete example of the tension between state rights and federal authority, let’s not forget about the real consequences we have to stomach in the process.

Diiv pt 2 so great & so humble ❤️ vid Skin Game

Diiv - Fleece Bristol 24th Aug 2022

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

Republican attorneys general in Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas have been using “abusive legal demands” to collect transgender patients’ medical records in pursuit of “ideological and political goals,” according to a 10-page report recently released by the staff of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s Democratic majority.

The report accuses the attorneys general of using misleading legal pretexts to make civil investigative demands of gender-affirming healthcare providers. The investigations have contributed to hostile anti-LGBTQ+ social and political climates and have also worsened queer people’s mental health, leading to “suicidal ideation, severe depression, and intense anxiety,” the report added. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s investigation alleged clinicians’ misuse of Medicaid funds as a “money-making scheme.” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey both alleged that gender-affirming clinics had violated consumer protection laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded records from clinics in his state, Georgia, and Washington state without ever explaining why. All four states mentioned above have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors. “In their sweeping anti-LGBTQIA+ campaigns, Attorney General offices demand a host of invasive items such as unredacted physical and mental health records, photographs of children’s bodies, correspondence to hospitals’ general email addresses for LGBTQIA+ patients, and lists of people referred for transgender health care,” the report stated.

A 10-page report from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that 4 Republican AGs committed abusive privacy-eroding practices to obtain trans patient data as part of their crusade against gender-affirming care for trans minors.

The 4 Republican Attorneys General named in the report are: Todd Rokita (IN), Andrew Bailey (MO), Ken Paxton (TX), and Jonathan Skrmetti (TN).

From the March 26, 2024 article:

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey yesterday sued Media Matters in an attempt to protect Elon Musk and X from the nonprofit watchdog group's investigations into hate speech on the social network. Bailey's lawsuit claims that "Media Matters has used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to trick advertisers into removing their advertisements from X, formerly Twitter, one of the last platforms dedicated to free speech in America."

Bailey didn't provide much detail on the alleged fraud but claimed that Media Matters is guilty of "fraudulent manipulation of data on X.com." That's apparently a reference to Media Matters reporting that X placed ads for major brands next to posts touting Hitler and Nazis. X has accused Media Matters of manipulating the site's algorithm by endlessly scrolling and refreshing.

(Via Ground News.)

SCOTUS Leaning Left? - 03/19/2024

State's Attorney's General from Missouri and Louisiana yesterday gave their oral arguments to the Supreme Court of The United States on that the Biden team breached the first amendment by coercing social media outlets to remove content associated with the 2020 election and Covid-19, claiming it was misinformation. Louisiana's AG, Liz Merrill said that she feels "cautiously optimistic" on the court's upcoming decision. She also said that she believes this case to be "hugely important." Yet the justices overall seemed to be indicating that they are unwilling to restrict the ability of government in pushing social media to censor content that might appear as harmful to the public. Liz Merrill continued to say, "We are engaging in a lot of conversations now about how modern technology adapts to tried and true principles of liberty and justice and freedom that protect us and have protected us since the Constitution was ratified." She continued on about her cautious optimism that the justices will land where she wholeheartedly believes they should land, in favor of protecting free speech: “And that’s some of the concerns that were laid out here with regard to where the line is drawn from encouragement to coercion, that there is a way to sort of determine that that’s what judges do every day … and it will be a fact-based inquiry.”

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, who was standing with the attorney generals, said this to the Epoch Times: “Clearly, several of the justices grasp what is at stake, they review the evidentiary record carefully, and I’m optimistic that they will do the right thing.” He continued after expressing his belief that social media platforms have censored truthful speech at the behest of the government: “we need not make the case that the speech that was censored was truthful in order to win the legal argument. The reason for that is that the government has no role in deciding what is and what is not truthful speech and policing and forcing that speech to be removed from the public square. The government’s only job is to draw the line between legal and illegal speech, illegal speech being very narrowly defined by the courts, jurisprudence.”

Missouri Attorney General, Andrew Bailey said this: “I think the justices appropriately recognized the level of government activity here and then it was coercive in nature.” Justice Clearance Thomas made the point that sometimes: "the tech companies in question are blurring the lines between private action and public enforcement." - noted Bailey. When questioned whether the censored content was true, he said: “This has never been about truth; it’s always been about power. But the distinction between truth and untruth really exemplifies why the federal government is not in the truth-determining business. If they don’t think something is true, then their authority is to speak out against what they believe is untrue, not to censor speech.”

Mary Holland, President and Gerneral Counsel for the Children's Health Defense, chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, said this: “If the justices decide unwisely, what we wrote in our brief is we are living in a brave new world … We already have a massive censorship complex, and that will get bigger and it will get more entrenched.” She went on, telling the Epoch Times: “It’s incredibly disappointing to me as a liberal that the classical organizations that defended free speech like the ACLU is not involved in this case.” Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, she said: “My colleague told me that 70 percent of Democrats favor censorship today. I can’t fathom that. You know, it used to be that the Left, so-called, was skeptical of big, big, big business. And now they’re embracing emergency use authorization, medical products that have the potential to cause severe harm. I’m flabbergasted.” She's disappointed with the liberal movement, saying: “Historically, it was liberals who stood up for free speech.”

Another party listed in the case, journalist Jim Hoft, opined that the government was "lying" about the reasons for censorship. He believes this is a “very pivotal case,” and if the government is allowed to “get away” with the censorship experienced by the parties in this suit, “it’s only going to get worse.” He continued telling the Epoch Times: “This has to be where they put a stop to this. The government shouldn’t be doing this, especially when they’re wrong, and pushing their own opinion, silencing dissenting voices. Of course, it’s against the Constitution. It’s a no-brainer.”

My own personal opinion, I think the government should only allow social media platforms to censor or remove content that is illegal, obscene as defined by their stated guidelines, defamatory, or that which clearly encourages illegal acts and/or self-harm or suicide. I don't think they should be allowed to alter or remove in any way any content they don't agree with, politically or otherwise. Even if the content in question is not truthful or misleading. The counter to lies should be to post the truth, not to remove them. I also think, in spite the justices appearing to be leaning more to the left and censorship, that they will more likely rule on the side of free speech, but I wouldn't hold my breath...

DIIV setlist right of the stage 14/03/24

Bank of England Governor: AI won't lead to mass job losses

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/bank-of-england-governor-ai-wont-lead-to-mass-job-losses/

Bank of England Governor: AI won't lead to mass job losses

.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper display:none; img width:100%;

Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, has rebutted fears that AI will lead to widespread unemployment.

“I’m an economic historian, before I became a central banker. Economies adapt, jobs adapt, and we learn to work with it. And I think, you get a better result by people with machines than with machines on their own,” Bailey told the BBC.

Bailey’s comments come as the latest economic assessment shows that UK businesses investing in AI are expected to see gains in efficiency and output. Utilising AI is anticipated to provide productivity benefits across multiple sectors.  

However, Baroness Stowell of the House of Lords has cautioned that the UK risks “missing out on the AI goldrush” if it does not act quickly.

A report from the Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee honed in on large language models and tools like ChatGPT. The report called for updated copyright laws and urged the government to provide clarity on AI regulation—warning too much could hinder AI development in the country.

Both Bailey and the Lords committee seem to agree that the focus should be on harnessing the upsides of AI while managing legitimate risks. 

The financial services industry also stands to gain from responsible AI adoption.

“Generative AI brings potentially exciting benefits for financial institutions. When it comes to fighting financial crime, for example, AI can improve the accuracy and speed of detection by analysing large data sets,” said Dr Henry Balani, Head of Industry & Regulatory Affairs at Encompass Corporation.

Balani emphasised however that key roles like Know Your Customer (KYC) analysts are irreplaceable for now. “It will instead accelerate existing processes and augment the work of analysts, empowering them to detect financial crime risk more quickly and comprehensively,” he added.

“The maximum value of generative AI can only be realised if banks and financial institutions have already put in place robust digital and automated processes to optimise the quality of data collated and deliver deeper customer insights. By prioritising this now, banks will be well equipped to take advantage of this new technology as it continues to evolve and mature.”

Last month, research from EXL found that around 89 percent of insurance and banking firms in the UK have introduced AI solutions over the past year. However, issues with data optimisation are often hindering their benefits.

(Image Credit: Bank of England under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED license. Cropped from original for effect.)

See also: Experts from 30 nations will contribute to global AI safety report

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with Digital Transformation Week and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: ai, andrew bailey, artificial intelligence, bank of england, careers, economy, finance, jobs, uk

'Teetering on the edge': Hunt does nothing for local councils

Complete Hunt: the Chancellor on his way to the Commons yesterday. His Autumn Statement does nothing for teachers, the NHS or local councils TV politics pundit ANDREW FISHER, pictured right, assesses the fine detail of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, and amid the tax giveaways for the already wealthy, identifies the glaring gaps in financial provision for the NHS, teachers and local…

View On WordPress