Category Archives: National Vanguard

What just happened?

Of all the bonkers details of the truly bonkers past 10-12 months, theres one in particular that stands out.

Early last fall, as vaccine euphoria bumped up against concerns that something might go wrong with the roll-out, and as relief over the end of the long presidential race gave way to fears that it might not be decided on November 3, MarketWatch published a series of stories meant to help investors shield their portfolios against big shocks.

Just launched: an ETF made for black-swan moments like these, which highlighted an options-based stock ETF, the Simplify US Equity PLUS Convexityfund SPYC, +0.19%, ran in early September. On October 1, we followed up with Anything can happen: Why the hottest investing trend is playing it safe, which considered a range of products designed to mitigate big upside or downside risks.

Flash forward five months or so, and stop to consider. Not only was the election contested, but it turned shockingly violent. Not only has the vaccine roll-out been botched, but its gone so badly that one public health official has warned of perpetual infection for most of 2021.

And what have markets done? In the months since the publication of that first Black swan story, arguably an arbitrary moment in time except that it was shortly after a small correction, through the close of business Wednesday, the S&P 500 SPX, +0.17% is up nearly 13%. Bond yields and oil prices have jumped, as have commodities all normal signs of a growing economy.

Its a bit baffling a variation of the old the economy isnt the stock market narrative, to the billionth power. Katie Martin, a Financial Times columnist, this week called it a boiling frog moment.

Investors are proving adept at ignoring signs of the extraordinary, she wrote. As we said last week, time will tell.

Thanks for reading, as always.

Last June, amid the unrest after the killing of George Floyd, MarketWatch profiled a unique fund. The Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF NACP, -0.03% is the only financial product that explicitly addresses racial inequity, relying on input from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to select stocks from companies that follow certain principles, like workplace diversity, collective bargaining policies, community development initiatives, and more.

Recently, after a nudge from a familiar analyst, it seemed to be a good time for an update on the fund. We spoke with Marvin Owens, who was previously the NAACPs liaison to the fund. In November Owens joined the Impact Shares staff in a newly-created position.

My goal is to really begin to live out the mission ofImpact Shares, which is a platform for engagement, Owens said. He plans towork with investors, social advocacy organizations, and corporate America, notjust to grow assets under management, but to also show proof of concept thatcapital can be used to create social change.

Heres a small bit of proof: NACP returned 26% in 2020, trouncing the S&P 500, which gained 18.4%.

Owens says that kind of performance helps make the case to investors that you do not have to give up returns to make impact.

Theres still work to do to attract investor dollars. When MarketWatch first covered the fund, there was an agreement in place that once assets hit $20 million, it would start to share proceeds with the NAACP. (As of this writing, assets are just over $21 million). Thats been renegotiated, and the fund will now remit fees once it hits $100 million.

Owens refers to the asset-gathering conundrum in terms that are familiar to many ETF-watchers: as a chicken and egg problem. Institutional investors want funds to have achieved certain benchmarks before theyll consider investing, but its often hard to get there without deep-pocketed investors.

Owens isnt fazed, though. The fund is coming up on its three-year anniversary, which is one of the goalposts investors often want to see, he said. Were really in a mode of getting out there and talking to people, being in the marketplace, representing the fund and raising its profile.

Read next: There is no such thing as passive investing in an America so deeply scarred by racism, says Rachel Robasciotti

Graphic courtesy of Statista; original found here.

MarketWatch has launched ETF Wrap, a weekly newsletter that brings you everything you need to know about the exchange-traded sector: new fund debuts, how to use ETFs to express an investing idea, regulations and industry changes, inflows and performance, and more. Sign up at this link to receive it right in your inbox every Thursday.

Go here to see the original:

ETF Wrap: The chicken and the egg, ETFs' record-setting year, and an infrastructure wager - MarketWatch

Dhesegaan Bala Krishnan is a journalist based in Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysia's king, Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin, consented to declare a state of emergency earlier this month -- the country's first emergency proclamation since the 1969 racial riots.

Officially, COVID-19 was cited as the reason, but the real intention was to stall the ongoing power struggle that has dominated Malaysian politics since former Prime Minister Najib Razak unexpectedly lost power in the May 2018 general elections.

Many saw the emergency proclamation as a stamp of royal approval for current Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, strengthening his hold on power. Such a scenario might appear plausible, if not for one serious flaw. If the palace did indeed favor Muhyiddin, why has the king declined his advice to declare an emergency in October last year?

Firstly, the king's consent to an emergency can be seen as a royal rebuke to the United Malays National Organization, or UMNO, and its relentless attempts to snatch back the power it believes to be something of a birthright.

For despite being a part of the ruling Perikatan Nasional coalition, UMNO no longer calls the shots in Putrajaya as it had for over sixty years until its shock 2018 defeat. Instead it is UMNO's allies -- Parti Islam Malaysia, or PAS, and Muhyiddin's Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, or Bersatu, both UMNO splinter parties, who feature more prominently in the current government.

To put things into perspective, it is worth revisiting the political events that have transpired in Malaysia since October last year. On Oct. 13, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim met Sultan Abdullah, during which Anwar claimed to have presented documents showing that he commanded a "strong, formidable and convincing" parliamentary majority.

The palace, however, affirmed that Anwar had only informed the king that he had the numbers, without revealing the names of the parliamentarians who he claimed were backing him. On the same day, UMNO threatened to withdraw support for Muhyiddin's government unless the prime minister renegotiated the terms of their coalition agreement.

In response, the king issued a decree, calling on all politicians to display maturity and put the people before their own political ambitions.

Then, on Oct. 23, Muhyiddin advised Sultan Abdullah to declare an emergency to enable his government to effectively combat the pandemic. The king rejected the premier's advice, instead issuing another royal decree on Oct. 25 urging politicians to cease politicking and to start acting responsibly.

A short time later, however, the king declared an emergency in areas covering the Batu Sapi and Gerik parliamentary seats, as well as the Bugaya state assembly seat in Sabah, in order to defer by-elections after the seats there had been vacated.

A third royal decree followed on Oct. 28, in which the king called for a "political cease-fire," urging all parliamentarians to fully support the 2021 Budget.

And yet, despite these three royal decrees, UMNO went on to topple the Perak state government which was helmed by the prime minister's Bersatu party in December. UMNO only agreed to further political cooperation with Bersatu on the condition that UMNO be allowed to lead the new Perak state government.

UMNO's ruthless political gambit irked Perak's ruling Sultan Nazrin Shah -- Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy consisting of 13 states and three federal territories -- and during the swearing-in ceremony of the new Perak Chief Minister -- an UMNO member -- Sultan Nazrin issued a stern rebuke slamming the swearing-in of the third state government in just two years, saying it was "not a history to be proud of."

"A pious leader need not offer bribes or gratifications to get support. Neither does he have to intimidate or threaten others for support," Sultan Nazrin said.

UMNO shrugged off the criticism, neither stopping to regret or repent its win at all costs actions. And earlier this month, UMNO set out to push Muhyiddin from power with a plan to raise a motion to sever ties with Bersatu at the coalition's general assembly on Jan. 31.

Since the start of the year, two UMNO MPs have withdrawn their support from the ruling coalition, leaving Muhyiddin's government with a mere 110 seats in the 222-member lower house, which technically means that Malaysia has a hung parliament according to the country's constitution.

UMNO is also insisting on holding fresh elections by March, although Malaysia will only be receiving the first batch of COVID vaccines next month, and only just enough to vaccinate one million Malaysians out of over 32 million citizens.

Dissolving parliament early would leave a majority of Malaysians vulnerable to the virus, and only the king's emergency proclamation could checkmate UMNO's potentially disastrous plan.

UMNO's relentless lust for power comes at the expense of its own political narrative. Since its inception in 1946, in protest at the British colonial government's Malayan Union proposal, the party has branded itself as being at the vanguard of the nine sultans who make up Malaysia's Conference of Rulers, from which a new king is chosen every five years.

The party's symbol -- a Malay-dagger called a keris -- is in fact a royal weapon associated with Malaysia's sultanates. And the party's continuous attempts to subvert the king's decrees will certainly not augur well with the party's grassroots.

Meanwhile, Malaysia's king has rekindled the nation's reverence and conviction for the monarchy. Sultan Abdullah's tactful use of his constitutional powers has reassured Malaysians that the Conference of Rulers represents the nation's interest as a whole.

See original here:

Malaysia's king works to restore public trust in the monarchy - Nikkei Asia

Editors Note: This is the first article in a series on hybrid armed actors in the Middle East. The concept for the series emerged from a Chatham House project on the same topic.

On Sept. 20, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Iraqs Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to relay a threat: If the Iraqi government did not put an end to the militias that were launching rockets at the U.S. embassy, then Washington would be left with no choice but to withdraw its ambassador and diplomatic representation from Baghdad. Months earlier, Kadhimi had visited Washington, where he met with President Donald Trump, Pompeo, and other senior White House officials, many of whom considered Kadhimi the most pro-American prime minister since 2003. Kadhimi, too, wants to see an end to such armed groups, which, over the summer of 2020, directly threatened him by sending fighters to his front gate. These groups also consider the prime minister pro-American. Then, on Jan. 9, 2021, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Faleh al-Fayadh, an Iraqi government official who heads the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) al-hashd al-shaabi in Arabic leading the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to express its surprise and displeasure.

Despite the strong relationship between Washington and Kadhimi and their seemingly shared concern about militias, for the first time since 2003, the United States threatened to vacate its largest embassy in the world. For the first time since reinstating diplomatic relations after toppling Saddam, it threatened to treat Iraq as a rogue state all this at a time when Washington had its best relations with the executive leadership in Baghdad. This strange paradox provides insights into the nature of power in both the Iraqi state and these armed groups.

For much of its time, the Trump administration focused on Ketaeb Hizballah as the main channel of Iranian influence in Iraq and the main chokepoint to rebuilding the Iraqi state. The two sides escalated their dispute. In areas such as al-Qaem, Iraq and al-Bukamal, Syria, the group competed against American interests. The United States then ran a campaign of bombings in 2019. Ketaeb Hizballah and its affiliates responded by storming the Green Zone a secured area in the heart of Baghdad housing much of the Iraqi government and foreign representations and surrounding the American embassy at the end of 2019. It also helped the proliferation of so-called resistance groups seeking revenge against the United States and its allies for the killings of Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani and Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis, who led the PMF, which included Ketaeb Hizballah. These groups are responsible for launching missiles into the Green Zone. To senior U.S. officials, the key to remedying the current instability in Iraq is to remove Ketaeb Hizballah as a medical doctor would remove a cancerous tumor. This can be done through bombing, isolating, and undermining Ketaeb Hizballah. Once this is done, the theory goes, the Iraqi government can chart a path toward stabilization.

However, Ketaeb Hizballah is more than a group of fighters that can be isolated and removed from the security sector. Likewise, it is more than a typical non-state actor. It has metastasized across the Iraqi body politic. Ketaeb Hizballah is a vanguard network of armed groups under the PMF. But the network also includes politicians in local and federal government, civil servants in government bureaucracy, businesspeople, religious authorities, and even civil society and humanitarian organizations. This network is entrenched in the Iraqi state such that military strikes, sanctions, and isolation strategies have, thus far, failed to root it out.

This story is not distinct. In the Middle East and North Africa, a seemingly increased number of armed groups appear to be more than the typical non-state actor. Groups such as Lebanese Hizballah or the PMF in Iraq acquire public authority over communities, operate sophisticated economic networks in formal economies, and even run for public office in local and national elections. Yet, despite their official titles and uniforms, these groups also function like irregular militias. Their ability to command forces independent of the government, their unaccountable economic power, and informal social capital at times compete with government authority and control. So, how should analysts and officials understand these groups?

In Search of a Term

Some policy researchers have turned to the word hybrid actor to describe groups like the PMF in Iraq, Hizballah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or the National Defense Forces in Syria. They argue that these hybrid armed actors are not quite local warlords operating in limited areas, or insurgents like ISIL fighting to bring down political systems, or criminal organizations running economic enterprises without a political mandate. Instead, they, at times, seem to be de facto state actors. But, crucially, they are not completely state actors because they are not entirely under the command of the formal government. They seem to sometimes operate with the government and sometimes compete against it, making them hybrid.

But hybrid actor has its own set of analytical limitations. As Toby Dodge notes, accepting these organizations as operating in both state and non-state areas means a compromise: the separation of the formal state from the rest of society. Researchers who use the term accept this mindset of the Western policymaker who guided by international Westphalian norms agrees that state power should be found in familiar formal government institutions and, when it is not, then something is hybrid. In the Middle East, however, the two spaces state and non-state are not so neatly separated. State power and formal government may not always be the same thing. Hybridity has been used as a stopgap to challenge, but not redefine, the state versus non-state binary. It has still accepted the existence of that binary.

Yet, the state is not only found where the outside policymaker may think to look, such as in a formal ministry or in a parliament. It can be found across a multiplicity of actors who, at different points, enjoy state power. Many of these actors may seem like distant militias like Ketaeb Hizballah but are nonetheless connected to state networks. In Iraq, this helps to explain why the United States continues to threaten to sever its relations with the country, even though it has strong relations with the prime minister. The fragmented state is not only found in the prime ministers office. Instead, actors such as the PMF are both deeply embedded in the state network and often practice the same activities as actors who more closely resemble the Westphalian state ideal.

How the PMF Does the State

The PMF is commonly described as an umbrella organization of some 50 armed groups that rose in 2014 to defend the state from the rise of ISIL after the Iraqi security forces crumbled. But the PMF is more than the typical non-state actor. Unlike ISIL, the PMF is not an insurgent group pursuing a new state. It is not just a criminal organization pursuing profit and primarily engaging in economic activities. Moreover, it is not a local warlord pursuing local governance structures. Not only does the PMF leadership claim to be part of the state, but it claims to be defending the post-2003 political system and the state from perceived threats, whether that be insurgent groups or, more recently, popular uprisings calling for an end to the corrupt political system.

Since its inception, the PMF has valued legal standing. In June 2014, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistanis carefully worded fatwa called for volunteers to enlist with state forces to fight ISIL. Then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formed the PMF commission as a military institution under the national security council of the prime ministers office. Through the years, PMF leaders pursued ways to gain even greater legal recognition and influence over Iraqs government institutions. In November 2016, the Iraqi parliament passed a law recognizing the PMF as an independent military formation as part of the Iraqi armed forces and linked to the commander-in-chief. This law was only two pages long and left considerable ambiguity. Namely, the use of independent was intentional, allowing the PMF to be state-recognized but operate outside the centralized command structure of the formal government.

The PMF, at times, even looks like a formal state. Its military formation is organized through brigade numbers. Its fighters wear official uniforms linked to the commission. The commission manages its own military justice and disciplinary system and lobbies for a separate law granting their members the rights and benefits of regular armed forces.

PMF groups also act like a formal state. Around the country, they issue formal letters that grant citizens and businesses access through official federal checkpoints. Many Iraqis both supportive and critical of the PMF have told the author that, when faced with any legal or bureaucratic problem, they do not go to their local government officials. Instead, they go directly to PMF leaders, who are quicker and better able to navigate government bureaucracies than the very officials who sit in those governments.

Despite looking and acting like a state, policymakers view the PMF as separate from the Iraqi state. In many meetings on the issue, they have argued that the lack of centralized command structure and accountability to the formal government means the PMF is outside the state. The standard definition of a non-state actor is any armed group, distinct from and not operating under the control of, the state or states in which it carries out military operations, and which has political, religious, and/or military objectives. Since the PMF is distinct from the control of the prime ministers office, it has been viewed as a non-state actor. Moreover, security sector reform programs often do not include the PMF because of its distance from accountable centralized command. American policymakers who advocate for cutting out the cancer view the PMF to some extent as separate from the state, like ISIL. However, in security, politics and economics, the PMF is very much an Iraqi state actor, even if it does not adhere to the Westphalian idealized command structure.

The PMF Competes in Iraqi State Politics

PMF groups play the same politics as other parties in the Iraqi state. They competed in the 2018 elections under the Fateh coalition and came second, behind Muqtada al-Sadrs Sairoon Alliance which, itself, also had brigades and fighters linked to the PMF.

After the election, PMF groups got together with all major political parties to divide up the ministries. Since 2016, a technocratic drive in Iraq has meant that most parties no longer directly send their representatives to become ministers, but instead they select weak independent ministers who they can coopt. As such, in Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimis new cabinet, the PMF pursued the same strategy. Its main groups within Fateh included the Badr Organization; Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which called its political wing al-Sadiqoon; the Sanad Alliance, which consisted of a number of smaller PMF parties; and a loose coalition linked to Shibl al-Zaidi and others who works closely with Ketaeb Hizballah. Each group managed to secure at least one ministry. This does not mean these ministers are directly linked to the PMF, but rather that each minister had to agree to certain terms and conditions.

Critically, this practice is not distinct to the PMF. It is the nature of Iraqi politics today. Most political parties do not send their own representatives to serve as ministers but agree to so-called independent technocratic ministers, who remain weak. The political parties then send officials into senior civil service positions, such as the director general or deputy minister positions, known as the special grades. These proxies then enforce the political partys interests when it comes to government contracts and all major decisions, often overstepping their own independent minister. The PMF, again, does the same thing and has now secured its share of special grades across the government agencies in Iraq.

Looking into the political activity and not at formal versus informal legal structures reveals that the PMF may look different from typical Westphalian norms, but it is not distinct to all major actors competing within the state in Iraq. What makes one a state actor, another a hybrid actor, and another a non-state actor if they all practice the same politics?

The PMF Compete in Iraqi State Economics

Like all other parties in Iraq, the PMFs economic activities, operating across formal and informal lines, reveal a system of actors that seek rent both from the government and outside government accountability. Yet, to the Westphalian policymaker, some are considered state actors and some are considered non-state or hybrid.

PMF groups receive formal salaries from the central government. There are formal decision-making and management processes embedded in Iraqi law and bureaucracy that nominally govern these salary payments. Each group submits a list of names to the government. Formally, the PMF general manager of the finance department and the manager of the central administration vet these names. These administrators sit in the PMF commission, under the national security council of the prime ministers office, presenting the image of the governments administration and control of these groups. However, PMF members and security researchers have told me that the real decision-making on salary payments is negotiated through informal channels and power holders who do not sit in this formal bureaucracy. Prior to his death, Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis made these decisions. After his death, an informal committee that includes leaders such as Abu Fadak, Abu Zainab al-Lami, Abu Muntazir al-Husseini, Abu Ali al-Basri, and Abu Iman al-Bahli meets to decide the flow of governments payments. These senior PMF leaders send a lump request of money to the ministry of finance which then asks the central bank of Iraq to pay the PMF. With greater political power, PMF allocations in the federal budget have increased from 1.28 trillion Iraqi dinar ($877.5 million) in 2017 and 2018, to 2.1 trillion Iraqi dinar in 2019 the first budget after their electoral success. This increased to 3.1 trillion Iraqi dinar in 2020 and 3.55 trillion Iraqi dinar in 2021.

The so-called informal or conflict economy in Iraq represents another blurred line. The minister of finance recently admitted that the Iraqi government expects some $8 billion per year in customs revenue, but the groups running all the border crossings only send to Baghdad $1 billion at most. From checkpoints to border customs, actors cooperate and compete for revenue. This process includes PMF groups, which share revenue at checkpoints, along borders, and in cities, with other groups, including the Iraqi security forces, police units from the Ministry of Interior, and, at times, other forces under the prime ministers office. According to interviews with Iraqi researchers, a dozen or so of these checkpoints make up to $100,000 per day. Autonomous divisions from the Iraqi army; operations commands from the ministry of defense and prime ministers office; the federal police from the Ministry of Interior; and PMF brigades, even those linked to Ketaeb Hizballah share these major checkpoints. Across the country, these so-called state, non-state, or hybrid actors work together to generate revenue outside the control of the formal government.

These economic practices are not distinct to the PMF but are common to all major state-linked groups and political parties. Is it worthwhile to differentiate an Iraqi security forces commander as a state commander but a Ketaeb Hizballah commander as a non-state or hybrid actor if they are part of the same economic activity? Or are all these actors, then, hybrid because they do not conform to a centralized command structure? Political and economic state power, in this sense, is not found only in formal government institutions. The analytical clarity of hybridity is complicated in this application.

Is it Time to Call a State a State?

In the everyday practices of politics and economics in Iraq, PMF groups are indistinguishable from Iraqi state actors across the spectrum. They take on the same mundane practices of a state. They compete for representation in the government. They work with formal government officials to generate revenue in the formal and informal economies. This reality complicates any attempt to split all these actors into state, non-state, and hybrid categories. Far from monolithic organizations, many of these actors are better understood as networks of state power, which I analyze in an upcoming Chatham House paper entitled Networks of Power: The Popular Mobilization Forces and the State in Iraq.

Some argue that calling these groups a state actor reflects a normative judgement which, in a sense, recognizes or legitimizes these armed groups and militias. This is not the intention of this debate. Indeed, a number of Iraqi actors recognized and unrecognized are responsible for human rights violations. However, this debate seeks to reach an understanding of the nature of power that these groups enjoy and the nature of the Iraqi state which has not conformed well to Western expectations.

Hybridity lacks a clear litmus test of which groups or parties are hybrid and which are state versus non-state, since these networks all operate in the same arenas and conduct the same activities. In the Middle East, where the state is often not found in formal institutions but across a fragmented society, many state actors with armed elements might fairly be argued to be hybrid, notwithstanding if they sit in formal or informal institutions.

To overcome this predicament, the focus, then, should not be on the nature of these groups but rather on the nature of the state itself. Rather than a neo-Weberian institution where the government has a monopoly over legitimate violence and where power is primarily located in formal institutions, the state in Iraq resembles a network of actors that compete and cooperate across government and society. The Ketaeb Hizballah example shows this network is fluid and adaptable. It can play both formal politics in parliament and also morph into smaller resistance groups with different names that fire missiles into the Green Zone. It is very much a vanguard network that competes for power inside the Iraqi state, itself an arena where networks meet.

Yet, Western policymakers will still consider some of these groups as state and some as non-state simply because they hold (or do not hold) an official government position. The cabinet ministers office in Baghdad is formal, yet a political partys or armed organizations economic office is informal. This reality of international norms is why policy researchers looking to overcome the confusion have resorted to the word hybridity to explain the blurriness.

Is hybridity the right term for these organizations, or for the space in which they operate, or for their actions more generally? Academics and policymakers will never stop fundamentally dancing around this debate given that state officials will always see things in a state or non-state construct, and academics will always see nuance.

Hybridity has been important because it serves as a vehicle to bridge the gap between status, theory, and policy reality. The concept was an attempt for policymakers to reconceive the nature of non-state actors in the Middle East. But it is only a step toward a final understanding that accepts that the state and society in Iraq are far less divided than the neo-Weberian would like. The next step, then, should be for policymakers to focus less on formal and informal titles and more on the principles of accountability and social power, wherever it may reside.

In the forthcoming papers in this series, experts engaging in a Chatham House project on hybrid armed actors in the Middle East will discuss the oft-used term and its application to a variety of contexts in the Middle East and North Africa. Erica Gaston looks at how these Western states have responded to hybrid armed actors in the Middle East and North Africa region and beyond. She argues that, while international legal norms and Western states policies are still largely state-centric, there are ample examples of de facto recognition and partnership with so-called hybrid actors. Tim Eaton contends that, in the case of Libya, the term hybrid actor is preferable to explain the activities of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces, which cannot be viewed as a state military actor because it lacks legal status, is unaccountable to the formal government, and is an alliance of loosely affiliated armed groups. To him, these three traits define a state military actor. Yet, he also contends that the Libyan Arab Armed Forces cannot be considered a non-state military actor but instead as a hybrid armed actor. Ariel Ahram focuses on hybrid security arrangements that have emerged in the region, arguing that the Westphalian state is still present but that functional control over security and economic welfare does not fall into the hands of armed non-state actors. He argues that these changes need to be reflected in Western policies in these countries.

Renad Mansour is a senior research fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Program and director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House. He is the co-author of Once Upon a Time in Iraq: History of a Modern Tragedy, which came out from BBC Books in July 2020 and was based on a documentary for which he consulted. He tweets at @renadmansour.

Image: Tasnim News Agency (Photo by Mahmoud Hosseini)

See the article here:

The 'Hybrid Armed Actors' Paradox: A Necessary Compromise? - War on the Rocks

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BET announces coverage plans of the historic Biden/Harris inauguration with BET NEWS Presents: Inauguration 2021. Co-anchored by Soledad OBrien and Marc Lamont Hill, this news special will feature exclusive commentary and analysis provided by live guests, on-site reports and special interviews. Live coverage is scheduled to begin Wednesday, January 20 at 11:00 am ET/10c on BET.

BET NEWS Presents: Inauguration 2021 will feature live coverage of the Inauguration Day events including the official swearing-in and inauguration speech of the 46th President of the United States, Joe Biden. This BET News broadcast special will also feature on-the-ground reports and taped packages spotlighting Kamala Harris and the powerful and undeniable impact of Black voters in the 2020 election.

Hosts Soledad OBrien and Marc Lamont Hill will be joined by special guest commentators Presidential historian, Professor Martha Jones (author of Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All), noted activist, author and Black Lives Matter co-founder, Alicia Garza and CBS News political analyst Jamal Simmons.

In addition, BET NEWS Presents: Inauguration 2021 will feature interviews with notable Black activists and political figures, including Congressman James Clyburn, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, National Action Network Founder Reverend Al Sharpton, NAACP President Derrick Johnson, National Urban League President Marc Morial, Black Voters Matter Fund Co-Founder LaTosha Brown and others, all of whom discuss the historic 2020 election and the challenges facing the incoming Biden/Harris administration.

BET Digital will commemorate the inauguration by launching a microsite, BETCelebratesHer.com, that honors Black womens achievement starting with our ground-breaking new Vice President Kamala Harris. The microsite will pay tribute to Vice President Harris accomplishments while celebrating other change agents and achievers. BET Digital is proud to collaborate with Unilever/Dove as the launch partner on this new initiative.

For more information visit http://www.bet.com and follow @bet and @betnews to engage across social media platforms.

ABOUT BET

BET, a subsidiary of ViacomCBS Inc. (NASDAQ: VIACA, VIAC), is the nation's leading provider of quality entertainment, music, news and public affairs television programming for the African-American audience. The primary BET channel is in 90 million households and can be seen in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean, the United Kingdom, sub-Saharan Africa and France. BET is the dominant African-American consumer brand with a diverse group of business extensions including BET.com, a leading Internet destination for Black entertainment, music, culture, and news; BET HER, a 24-hour entertainment network targeting the African-American Woman; BET Music Networks - BET Jams, BET Soul and BET Gospel; BET Home Entertainment; BET Live, BETs growing festival business; BET Mobile, which provides ringtones, games and video content for wireless devices; and BET International, which operates BET around the globe.

Originally posted here:

BET Announces Its Multiplatform Programming Strategy for Inauguration 2021 - Business Wire

THE ISSUE

The nation continues to deal with the consequences of the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol, in which pro-Trump domestic terrorists ransacked congressional offices, occupied the Senate and House chambers, killed a Capitol Police officer, and threatened to do bodily harm to Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The insurrection was instigated by President Donald Trump, who was impeached for a second time Wednesday for that incitement.

The inauguration of the 46th president of the United States, Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on Wednesday will be at once a turning of the page and a stark reminder of the horrific events of Jan. 6.

More than 20,000 National Guard troops will be in the nations capital. The National Mall will be closed to the general public. The perimeter of the Capitol grounds has been sealed with a tall fence.

This is what the pro-Trump domestic terrorists who mounted a deadly insurrection in the citadel of American democracy have wrought.

Meanwhile, state capitals around the nation are on high alert, in case pro-Trump extremists gather near statehouses and cause mayhem.

In the state Capitol in Harrisburg, Republican lawmakers face an internal conflict: Will their party recover from the events of Jan. 6?

In our view, the leaders of the Republican Party have some serious soul-searching to do.

They would much rather change the subject. They would like us all to move on in the cause of unity.

But as Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, pointed out on Twitter last week, investigation and accountability must precede unity and healing.

And as Bernice King, daughter of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., noted, We cant skip justice and get to peace. She quoted her late father: True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.

For there to be justice, we need to address the entitlement that led the mostly white protesters to take over the U.S. Capitol, and the entitlement that led them to insist, in the first place, that this country is theirs and theirs alone and that an election that suggested otherwise couldnt possibly have been legitimate.

We also need to face the reality that the lawmakers who provided fodder for the insurrection belong to a party that clings in large part to an interpretation of the Constitution as written by the founders when only white male landowners could vote.

Some Republicans, of course, have rejected racism and Trump himself.

But as Franklin & Marshall College professor Van Gosse writes in todays Perspective, The belief in white superiority and domination goes back to this nations founding, and lingers over our history like a cloud of shame, polluting everything it touches.

He writes of Lancasters own Thaddeus Stevens, who, as a leader of the Radical Republicans, sought to properly suppress racial supremacists after the Civil War by sending federal troops to the South to oversee the establishment of civil rights and more democratic governments in the former Confederacy.

Tragically, Radical Reconstruction did not endure. Had it lasted, Gosse writes, there would have been no opening for Goldwater and Reagan Republicans to pick up their banner via Richard Nixons Machiavellian Southern strategy, which kept a barely veiled white nationalism alive as a political option into the present.

Writes Gosse: As anyone active in national politics knows, the pretense that President Donald Trumps overt racism is a newfangled aberration is absurd. It is merely the culmination of the standard Republican playbook since the 1970s.

Consider the language that Trump used in addressing the crowd at the rally that preceded the Capitol siege. It echoes the language of the losers of the Civil War and of Jim Crow mayors and governors. (The added italics are ours.)

We will never give up, we will never concede, he said.

Those who voted against him were stupid people.

Youre stronger, youre smarter, youve got more going than anybody, he told his supporters, stressing their superiority. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And youre the real people, youre the people that built this nation. Youre not the people that tore down our nation.

He invoked the names of Stacey Abrams, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey powerful Black women and referred to Barack Hussein Obama.

He said they he didnt need to specify for the crowd want to indoctrinate your children in school. ... Its all part of a comprehensive assault on our democracy.

He talked of restoring the vital civic tradition of in-person voting on Election Day which would restrict voting to those who have the luxury of voting on a single day, and would make it easier for voter suppression methods to persist.

He said, We fight like hell. And if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore.

This is the language of white supremacy and exclusion.

This is the president for whom Congressman Lloyd Smucker was fighting on the floor of the U.S. House, when he argued that Congress should reject Pennsylvanias certified electoral votes.

Smucker said he was just representing his constituents.

But he wasnt representing the voters of the 11th Congressional District who cast legal ballots for Biden and Harris.

He wasnt representing the dozens of letter writers who have lambasted him on these pages for seeking to nullify their votes.

Smucker wasnt the only Pennsylvania Republican who fought for only one portion of the electorate, thereby providing fodder to the insurrectionists. He was joined by seven other GOP congressmen from this state in voting to reject Pennsylvanias 20 electoral votes.

Lawmakers in Harrisburg also added kindling that led to the conflagration on Jan. 6.

As Mike Wereschagin of The Caucus, an LNP Media Group watchdog publication, pointed out last week, state Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Franklin, spent much of the last two months helping the president spread falsehoods about the election and seeking to reverse its outcome.

Mastriano also organized a bus trip to the Jan. 6 D.C. rally that preceded the Capitol siege.

And just two days before the joint session of Congress in which electoral votes were to be counted, Republican state senators from Pennsylvania including Lancaster County Sens. Scott Martin and Ryan Aument sent a letter to GOP leaders of the U.S. House and Senate calling on them to delay certification of the electoral votes from Pennsylvania.

In whose interests were they acting?

As Dennis B. Downey, Millersville University professor emeritus of history, writes in todays Perspective section, the terrible and resilient forces of conspiracy theories, extremist social ideology and a culture of grievance were at work in the insurrection.

Among its players, he notes, were QAnon, the Proud Boys, other apostles of hate and an opportunistic paramilitary vanguard.

The iconography of radical anti-government and hate culture was on full display on Jan. 6, Downey notes. The Confederate battle flag was proudly paraded through the Capitols hallways; anti-Semitic and racist chants echoed through the chambers; and a gallows reserved for Vice President Mike Pence was erected on the grounds.

President Trump and his allies may have lit the match that sparked the larger conflagration on Jan. 6, Downey writes, but it was the apocalyptic vision of The Turner Diaries, a 1978 novel by the neo-Nazi leader William Luther Pierce, which animated anti-government militiamen and white nationalists in a common front to upend the voting process and thwart democratic institutions.

The insurrectionists savagely attacked the police officers defending the Capitol with lead pipes, fire extinguishers, flagpoles and bear spray. And yet, because federal officials didnt fear their presence and didnt deploy the forces needed to fend off the insurrection, most of the insurrectionists walked away from the scene and only now are being rounded up by the FBI.

Contrast this treatment with that of Black Lives Matter protesters who have marched not to take over the U.S. government, but for social and racial justice, and have been met with phalanxes of law enforcement officers wearing the gear, and wielding the instruments, of battle.

If were to find a way forward, we need to draw inspiration from Thaddeus Stevens and Dr. King, and launch a new reconstruction that roots out, and remedies, the systemic racism that leads to such disparate treatment in every area of American life.

Were going to need Republican leaders to confront rather than pander to those in their party who think they have a special claim to this nations privileges.

Were going to need a full and honest reckoning with the truth, however painful that might be.

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Original post:

In the wake of the insurrection, Republicans must confront the racism that besets their party [editorial] - LancasterOnline

Democracy is a fragile enterprise, as events in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 have reminded us. And to quote from a preeminent white nationalist who lauded the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Terrorism is nasty business.

Politicians and commentators have expressed shock and bewilderment at the assault on the U.S. Capitol during the Electoral College vote count. Five people died (a sixth has committed suicide) and others were terrorized as Capitol chambers and congressional offices were violated. That the president of the United States could incite a mob to insurrection is unprecedented, but not necessarily surprising in this instance.

What played out in Washington can be framed as an alarming three-act political drama shaped by the terrible and resilient forces of conspiracy theories, extremist social ideology and a culture of grievance. QAnon, the Proud Boys, other apostles of hate and an opportunistic paramilitary vanguard were all actors on the stage Jan. 6, as were Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and other confidantes of President Donald Trump.

Giuliani, Trump Jr. and the president himself repeated the screeds angry and baseless claims of a stolen election that had been preached by pardoned Trump allies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone on Jan. 5 at another pro-Trump rally, which served as a curtain-raiser for the main show.

As in any movement or mob, there were leaders and followers, and here was a chief executive who exhorted them on with a promise to march with them to the U.S. Capitol before he headed in another direction. Many, but not all, of the rioters wore Trump caps, shirts and jackets, and Trump banners were everywhere, including the House and Senate chambers. Fight for Trump! was the battle cry as hundreds vaulted up the Capitol steps and into the building.

A prologue might be the November presidential election and its outcome.

Act One is the subsequent long buildup to Jan. 6 that includes false accusations of fraud and official misconduct fueled by the president and his allies. It concludes with the U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia on Jan. 5 and the curtain-raising twilight Rally to Revival that very evening on Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.

Act Two includes the Jan. 6 rally and assault on the Capitol, and the chaos and destruction that followed.

Act Three encompasses the failed insurrections immediate aftermath and the calls for Trumps resignation or impeachment as participants are arrested in places near and far from Washington.

Finally, the epilogue, which is yet to be written, will focus on criminal prosecutions and hearings to ascertain how security breaches and other institutional failures came to be.

The actions of the mob that stormed the Capitol represent the latest and perhaps most public example of purposeful political violence in American history.

The litany of anti-government violent protest includes Pennsylvanias 1794 Whiskey Rebellion; anti-draft riots during the Civil War; anarchist bombings after World War I; the 1960s Weather Underground bombings; Charlottesvilles 2017 Unite the Right insurgency; and the events in the nations capital in this years first week.

The Jan. 6 insurrection reminds us of the danger of far-right domestic terrorists who creep from the shadows of our political culture to foment revolution in defense of a perverse notion of national renewal.

This convergence of sentiments was not accidental, nor was it spontaneous. The Jan. 6 morning rally on the Ellipse, like the Capitol break-in itself, was well planned through a network of social media and internet postings that encouraged like-minded people from as far away as Arizona and the Pacific Northwest to join in the melee.

Law enforcement did not take seriously the many early warning signs, including an armed protest last spring inside the Michigan State Capitol and the horrifying attempted kidnapping of that states Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

I digress, but not without a reason. Watching events unfold Jan. 6, I could not help but think of the ghost of Timothy McVeigh that haunts our collective experience, and the parallels between the assault on the Capitol our temple of democracy and the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995 in Oklahoma City.

President Trump and his allies may have lit the match that sparked the larger conflagration on Jan. 6, but it was the apocalyptic vision of The Turner Diaries, a 1978 novel by the neo-Nazi leader William Luther Pierce, which animated anti-government militiamen and white nationalists in a common front to upend the voting process and thwart democratic institutions.

McVeigh was a devotee of that novel; he sold copies at gun shows and extremist venues and endorsed the novels radical message. Lest we forget, this domestic terrorist claimed to be an American patriot and soldier at war with his own government.

The Turner Diaries is considered the bible of the extreme far-right anti-government hate culture. (I found my copy decades ago at a now-defunct bookstore near Park City Center.) Pierce tells the fictional tale of a white nationalist insurrection to overthrow the U.S. government and take back the nation by exterminating liberal politicians, race traitors and other social groups he views as undesirable. It is a rambling and incoherent tome, but at its heart is a messianic call for redemption and renewal through racial and political violence. Washington, D.C., is the stage for much of this incendiary fictional conflict, and amid the confrontation the Department of Justice and other government buildings are destroyed.

The Turner Diaries is not well known outside the extremist subculture, but it has inspired numerous acts of political violence and domestic terrorism, including McVeigh and Terry Nichols plot to blow up the Murrah Federal Building and its regional FBI office. Savagely dismissing the 168 people who were killed as collateral damage, McVeigh claimed he was trying to send the government a wake-up call.

It is worth noting that like the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in 2001, the Murrah Building and the U.S. Capitol were symbolic targets that carried a meaning larger than the structures themselves.

In Washington on Jan. 6, the iconography of radical anti-government and hate culture was on full display. The Confederate battle flag was proudly paraded through the Capitols hallways; anti-Semitic and racist chants echoed through the chambers; and a gallows reserved for Vice President Mike Pence was erected on the grounds. Disillusioned white males, much like McVeigh, were especially vocal in their avowed grievances against the status quo.

Wherever President Trump goes after his presidency ends this week, this subculture of anti-government violence will not disappear. Already there is great fear about what might happen on Inauguration Day on Wednesday and in these few days leading up to it. A well-publicized armed march is being promoted by the very groups behind the assault on the U.S. Capitol. State capitols are in jeopardy as well.

One can only hope that the reports of intended mayhem that are now circulating will be taken seriously unlike Jan. 6 by law enforcement and security officials and order can be maintained. Lest the past be merely a foreshadowing of what is to come, it is essential we cultivate a sense of historical perspective.

Otherwise, the forces of homegrown anarchy stand every chance of overwhelming democracy.

Dennis B. Downey, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of history at Millersville University. His most recent publication is Pennhurst and the Struggle for Disability Rights (Penn State Press 2020).

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

See the rest here:

On democracy, insurrection and the ghost of Timothy McVeigh [column] - LancasterOnline

There is no gain saying the fact that 2020 has indeed been the year for ventilators and their manufacturers. At a time of the most nerve-wracking public health crisis in recent memory when more than a million people have lost their lives and hundreds of millions severely impacted stretching the global healthcare infrastructure to the limits, this ultimate lifesaving breathing device has turned out be the angel of hope for thousands and thousands of Indians. As such in a sense, in a country where people were literally gasping for breath, these man-made devices have helped the country as a whole successfully do that one thing that defines our very being breathe. And no one more than the ventilator manufacturers themselves have been in the vanguard of what can be termed a war against the pandemic, notwithstanding the guiding role of the government.

The status at the onset of the pandemic

As news of the fast-spreading contagion across the globe reached the Indian shores, the authorities in India scrambled to get the healthcare infrastructure up and running to meet the upcoming public health challenge. And ventilators had definitely constituted as one of the frontline weapons in this battle against the deadly coronavirus. However, the problem was that by most accounts, India was deeply short on the supply of ventilators. In February this year, there were only eight ventilator manufacturers in the country. According to collaborative research between the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy and Princeton University, India possessed only 48,000 ventilators for 1.3 billion people at the time of the outbreak of the pandemic. The same research had also estimated that most of the beds and ventilators in India were concentrated in seven states only underlining the inequality of distribution in the country. In a similar vein, a Brookings research had forecasted the need for as many as 1.1-2.2 lakh ventilators while estimating the availability of ventilators at 57,000 based on a news report in the first week of April. Going by government sources, the ministry of health and family welfare had predicted demand of 75,000 ventilators by June 2020 itself. Against this, the government healthcare sector only had 19,398 ventilators.

The big turnaround in a matter of months

However, these skeptical forecasts and estimates were not enough to deter the determination and fortitude of the domestic ventilator manufacturers in the country. Taking up the challenge head-on and encouraged further by the government, they got into some sort of a war mode

pressing on the accelerator to shore up the indigenous manufacturing of the breathing device in a major way. For the governments part, it already had contracted out to several domestic players for the manufacturing and supply of as many as nearly 60,000 ventilators. A sum of Rs 2,000 crore was also allocated out of the PM Cares Fund for manufacturing 50,000 of these ventilators. This step was also taken with a long-term view to give an impetus to the indigenization of manufacturing of this critical care equipment within the country. And sure enough, the domestic manufacturers did not disappoint and duly rose to the occasion. In a matter of three months, the massive drive saw the country manufacture the estimated 60,000 ventilators. Besides, 1,000 ventilators were also ordered to be imported. As a matter of fact, not only ventilators per se, the manufacturing of several components such as sensors, filters, and valves, among many others, was also ramped up in the country.

Pitching in by non-ventilator manufacturers: became a national enterprise

The exigent need to manufacture ventilators within the country saw not only established ventilator manufacturers pulling up their sleeves but even other industry players joining in the collective effort. From automobile manufacturers to technology companies to public sector organisations and research bodies, everyone contributed in this national effort for raising ventilator production.

Supply eventually outstripped demand

Against the hugely projected shortages of ventilators, soon enough by the middle of the year, the supplies shot up so much against the demand that the authorities even lifted the ban on exports for these lifesaving devices. And the supplies rose for all kinds of ventilators: from invasive to non-invasive to turbine-based to ICU-based to anesthesia to emergency and transport and homecare ventilators.

Even as the vaccines are just around the corner and will most likely finally help humanity stem the onslaught of the pandemic, the importance of ventilators can never be understated. A vast number of patients will require ventilators even post-Covid for other respiratory illnesses. As such, because of the Covid-driven public health exigency, while 2020 might seem like the year of the ventilator, the importance of this godsend device will endure forever.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

View original post here:

Helping the country breathe: Year 2020 for ventilator manufacturers - The Times of India Blog

TipRanks

Watching the markets with an eye to the main chance, Raymond James strategist Tavis McCourt sees both risk and opportunity in current market conditions. The opportunity, in his opinion, stems from the obvious factors: the Democrats won both Georgia Senate seats in the recent runoff vote, giving the incoming Biden Administration majority support in both Houses of Congress and increasing the odds of meaningful fiscal support getting signed into law in the near term. More importantly, the coronavirus vaccination program is proceeding, and reports are showing that Pfizers vaccine, one of two approved in the US, is effective against the new strain of the virus. A successful vaccination program will speed up the economic recovery, allowing states to loosen lockdown regulations and get people back to work. The risks are also coming from the political and public health realms. The House Democrats have passed articles of impeachment against President Trump, despite the imminent natural closure of his term of office, and that passage reduces the chances of political reconciliation in a heavily polarized environment. And while the COVID strain is matched by current vaccines, there is still a risk that a new strain will develop that is not covered by existing vaccinations which could restart the cycle of lockdowns and economic decline. Another risk McCourt sees, beyond those two, would be a sharp rise in inflation. He doesnt discount that, but sees it as unlikely to happen soon. product/service inflation is only really a possibility AFTER re-openings, so the market feels a bit bullet proof in the very near term, and thus the continued rally, with Dems winning the GA races just adding fuel to the stimulus fire, McCourt noted. Some of McCourts colleagues among the Raymond James analyst cadre are keeping these risks in mind, and putting their imprimatur on strong dividend stocks. Weve looked into Raymond James' recent calls, and using the TipRanks database, weve chosen two stocks with high-yield dividends. These Buy-rated tickers bring a dividend yield of 7%, a strong attraction for investors interested in using the current good times to set up a defensive firewall should the risks materialize. Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) Well start in the energy sector, a business segment long known for both high cash flows and high dividends. Enterprise Products Partners is a midstream company, part of the network that moves hydrocarbon products from the wellheads to the storage farms, refineries, and distribution points. Enterprise controls over 50,000 miles worth of pipelines, shipping terminals on Texas Gulf coast, and storage facilities for 160 million barrels oil and 14 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The company was hurt by low prices and low demand in 1H20, but partially recovered in the second half. Revenues turned around, growing 27% sequentially to reach $6.9 billion in Q3. That number was down year-over-year, slipping 5.4%, but came in more than 6% above the Q3 forecast. Q3 earnings, at 48 cents per share, were just under the forecast, but were up 4% year-over-year and 2% sequentially. EPD has recently declared its 4Q20 dividend distribution, at 45 cents per common share. This is up from the previous payment of 44 cents, and marks the first increase in two years. At $1.80 annualized, the payment yields 7.9%. Among the bulls is Raymond James' Justin Jenkins, who rates EPD a Strong Buy. The analyst gives the stock a $26 price target, which implies a 15% upside from current levels. (To watch Jenkins track record, click here) Backing his bullish stance, Jenkins noted, "In our view, EPD's unique combination of integration, balance sheet strength, and ROIC track record remains best in class. We see EPD as arguably best positioned to withstand the volatile landscape With EPD's footprint, demand gains, project growth, and contracted ramps should more than offset supply headwinds and lower y/y marketing results" Its not often that the analysts all agree on a stock, so when it does happen, take note. EPDs Strong Buy consensus rating is based on a unanimous 9 Buys. The stocks $24.63 average price target suggests an upside of 9% from the current share price of $22.65. (See EPD stock analysis on TipRanks) AT&T, Inc. (T) AT&T is one of the markets instantly recognizable stock. The company is a member in long standing of the S&P 500, and it has reputation as one of the stock markets best dividend payers. AT&T is a true large-cap industry giant, with a market cap of $208 billion and the largest network of mobile and landline phone services in the US. Its acquisition of TimeWarner (now WarnerMedia), in a process running between 2016 and 2018, has given the company a large stake in the mobile content streaming business. AT&T saw revenues and earnings decline in 2020, under pressure from the corona pandemic but the decline was modest, as that same pandemic also put a premium on telecom and networking systems, which tended to support AT&Ts business. Revenues in 3Q20 were $42.3 billion, 5% below the year-ago quarter. On positive notes, free cash flow rose yoy from $11.4 billion to $12.1 billion, and the company reported a net gain of 5.5 million new subscribers. The subscriber growth was driven by the new 5G network rollout and by premium content services. The company held up its reputation as a dividend champ, and has made its most recent dividend declaration for payment in February 2021. The payment, at 52 per common share, is the fifth in a row at current level and annualizes to $2.08, giving a yield of 7.2%. For comparison, the average dividend among tech sector peer companies is only 0.9%. AT&T has kept its dividend strong for the past 12 years. Raymond James analyst Frank Louthan sees AT&T as a classic defensive value stock, and describes Ts current state as one with the bad news baked in. [We] believe there is more that can go right during the next 12 months than can get worse for AT&T. Throw in the fact that shares are heavily shorted, and we believe this is a recipe for upside. Large cap value names are hard to come by, and we think investors who can wait a few months for a mean reversion while locking in a 7% yield should be rewarded for buying AT&T at current levels, Louthan opined. In line with these comments, Louthan rates T an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $32 price target implies room for 10% growth from current levels. (To watch Louthans track record, click here) What does the rest of the Street think? Looking at the consensus breakdown, opinions from other analysts are more spread out. 7 Buy ratings, 6 Holds and 2 Sells add up to a Moderate Buy consensus. In addition, the $31.54 average price target indicates ~9% upside potential. (See AT&T stock analysis on TipRanks) To find good ideas for dividend stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

See original here:

U.s. closing National Mall, landmarks in Washington ahead of inauguration - Yahoo Finance

- Collaboration with Richard Childs, M.D., yields potential first-ever antibodies targeting human endogenous retrovirus associated with renal cell carcinoma

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. and SUZHOU, China, Jan. 12, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Adagene, Inc., a platform-driven, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with precision antibody engineering, discovery and development capabilities, today announced the successful completion of its component of the collaboration with Richard Childs, M.D., Chief of the Laboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As a result of the collaboration, Adagene discovered antibodies that Dr. Childs laboratory has turned into a CAR-T cell therapy candidate for the potential treatment of renal cell carcinoma, the most common type of kidney cancer in adults, according to Frost & Sullivan.

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), remnants of ancient germ-line infections with exogenous retroviruses, are estimated to comprise up to 8% of the human genome. A growing number of HERV genes and proteins have been found to be expressed in different cancers, and they might represent new targets for tumor immunotherapy.

The novel antibodies that were co-discovered and tested by Adagene and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have enabled us to potentially develop the first CAR-T cell therapy candidate targeting a human endogenous retrovirus expressed in the majority of clear cell kidney tumors, said Dr. Childs. This is an encouraging development that builds on decades of research in our quest to find ways to adapt and enhance immune cells to target and kill even the most aggressive cancers. I look forward to the evaluation and hopefully the development of this novel CAR-T cell and other antibody-based therapies in clinical trials.

The NIH will lead and be responsible for the manufacturing and clinical development of the CAR-T cell therapy candidate.

Adagene is honored to have worked with Dr. Childs and his laboratory on this novel family of HERV as a potential target for tumor immunotherapy, said Peter Luo, Ph.D., Co-founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Adagene. Using our NEObody technology, we identified novel antibodies against HERV expressed targets in renal cell carcinoma, which to our knowledge has never before been accomplished. We look forward to the advancement of the first-in-class CAR-T cell therapy Dr. Childs laboratory has pioneered based on antibodies discovered at Adagene. In the meantime, Adagene continues to progress its pipeline of programs developed with NEObody and SAFEbody technologies, to address unmet medical needs.

NEObody is part of Adagenes Dynamic Precision Library (DPL) platform, which combines computational biology and synthetic biology to enable the selection of antibody candidates with novel epitopes, robust CMC profiles and desired safety and efficacy attributes for downstream development.

About AdageneAdagene, Inc. is a platform-driven, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed to transforming the discovery and development of novel antibody-based cancer immunotherapies. Adagene combines computational biology and artificial intelligence to design novel antibodies that address unmet patient needs. Its proprietary pipeline is comprised of novel immunotherapy programs. Adagene has forged strategic collaborations with reputable global partners that leverage its technology in multiple approaches at the vanguard of science.

Forward Looking Statements

This article contains forward-looking statements that reflect our current expectations and views of future events, including but not limited to those regarding the therapeutic potential of and potential clinical development and commercialization plans for Adagenes pipeline candidates, its strategic and financial plans and expectations, as well as financial projections.

In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by words or phrases such as may, will, expect, anticipate, aim, estimate, intend, plan, believe, is/are likely to, potential, continue or other similar expressions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. These forward-looking statements include statements relating to: our goals and strategies; our future business development, financial conditions and results of operations; results of our clinical trials and preclinical studies; the expected collaboration between NIH and us; our expectations regarding our relationships with our business partners and our other stakeholders; competition in our industry; and relevant government policies and regulations relating to our industry.

Although we believe that our expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, our expectations may later be found to be incorrect. Our actual results could be materially different from our expectations. Known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Managements expectations and, therefore, any forward-looking statements in this presentation could also be affected by risks and uncertainties relating to a number of other factors, many of which are beyond Adagenes control. All information in this article is as of the date hereof, and Adagene disclaims any obligation to update or revise such information unless required by law.

Investors ContactRaymond TamAdagene86-8777-3626Raymond_tam@adagene.combusiness@adagene.com

Media ContactAnnie Starr6 Degrees973-768-2170astarr@6degreespr.com

More:

Adagene Announces Milestone of CAR-T Collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health -...

A new study released from MMGY Globalreveals the significant contributions Black travelers make to the United States tourism economy. The report, titledThe Black Traveler: Insights, Opportunities & Priorities, was created byMMGY Travel Intelligenceon behalf of Black travel advocacy organizations, including the National Coalition of Black Meeting Professionals (NCBMP), theNational Association of Black Hotel Owners, Operators and Developers (NABHOOD), and theBlack Travel Alliance (BTA). According to the global marketing firm, the research initiative intends to facilitate a much-needed shift toward understanding the behaviors and needs of Black travelers.

The first phase of the report, released mid-November, analyzes the MMGYs 2019 Shifflet Travel Performance/Monitor(which surveyed 4,800 Black U.S. leisure travelers) as well as a 2020 survey of 200 members of the NCBMP. According to the findings,Black Americans spent an estimated $109.4 billion on leisure travel in 2019, representingroughly 13.1 percent of the U.S. leisure travel market. (Black Americans spent an estimated $63 billion on leisure travel in 2018, according to a study byMandala Research.)The findings show that in 2019, Black U.S. leisure travelers took an average of three overnight vacations with an average stay of 2.5 nights for each trip. They also reveal that the surveyed travel parties typically spent about $600 on each overnight stay.

The report also looked at travel spendings for Black professionals, and it showed equally significant numbers.NCBMPs members plan an average of 7.5 business meetings per year and typically spend an average of over $900,000 annually on those meetings. Still, the study indicates thatBlack meeting professionals encounter hardships when organizing events for Black groups. Roughly 42 percent of meeting organizers said that attendees have felt unwelcome in past destinations. (Notably, 77 percent of the Black American meeting professionals surveyed said they looked for representation in a destinations marketing materials as a key indicator of receptivity.)

It is vital for travel industry executives to better understand the needs, behaviors and concerns of underrepresented traveler communities,MMGY Global CEO Clayton Reid said in a press release. The findings from the report should be a call to action for travel professionals and are an important step in both underscoring the value of Black travelers and identifying solutions to better serve this important travel audience.

The Black Traveler: Insights, Opportunities & Priorities report feels particularly relevant following a year when conversations around race, and specifically around justice for Black Americans, have remained at the national forefront.

The second phase of MMGYsreport, set to be released in January 2021, will analyze current opinions and attitudes of Black leisure travelers globally. According to a press release, the report aims to uncover the barriers and experiences that Black leisure travelers encounter across international markets including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland, France, and Germany.

Read more here:

New Study Reveals the Spending Power of Black U.S. Travelers - AFAR Media