science

US Office Focused On Shipbuilding Aims To Counter China’s Maritime Dominance

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Creating an office of U.S. shipbuilding to facilitate America’s return to being a true maritime power is long overdue and is necessary to counter China’s growing maritime dominance.

At the end of World War II, the United States had over 100 shipyards, and its flagged fleet, the largest in the world, carried  57 percent of U.S. trade, while the majority of world trade was carried in U.S.-built ships.

Today, only about 0.2 percent of global commercial tonnage is being carried in ships built in the United States. Collectively, China, South Korea, and Japan build over 90 percent of the world’s large commercial ships. And with China building over 50 percent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, it is by far and away the world’s largest shipbuilder, with 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States.

While the lack of commercial shipbuilding capacity is not the only reason we have seen the U.S. Navy decline in size and capability, it has created an environment that makes correcting the issues plaguing the Navy very difficult. Indeed, the lack of commercial shipbuilding is arguably the root cause of our Navy’s decline in readiness, its exploding ship costs, and its inability to hold vendors accountable when they deliver underperforming ships overbudget and years behind schedule.

Examples of underperforming, overbudget ships include the Constellation-class frigate, the Littoral combat ship, the Ford-class carriers, and the massive Zumwalt destroyer. It is the failures in these key shipbuilding  programs that has led to the decline of the U.S. Navy’s size and readiness. Moreover, the vendors associated with these failed and or grossly underperforming programs have at worst received a slap on the wrist and are collectively lined up to receive many hundreds of billions more in U.S. Defense contracts over the coming decades.

Shipbuilders have been able to underdeliver with near impunity, in part due to the fact that they are the only game in town, i.e., if you cancel major defense contracts then the government-dependent companies will go out of business and there will be no shipbuilding capacity. For example, there is currently only one shipbuilder that can build and execute the Refueling and Complex Overhaul work on U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. While there are two firms that can build U.S. nuclear submarines, they are suffering from a lack of skilled labor. In the vast majority of cases, the prime contractors who build the Navy’s ships are almost wholly reliant on military contracts to survive. 

All this means that when contracts are put in place, they are not just put in place to deliver the most powerful ships at the best price, they are put in place to ensure that the company executing the contract can keep its people employed from contract to contract. Thus, contracts are strung out for many years. This makes sense, as having enough people trained up in the skills to rapidly deliver a ship or a number of ships, only…

Judge Upholds California Law Restricting 18- to 20-Year-Olds’ Access To Guns

A federal judge has upheld a California law that restricts young adults from buying guns, finding the statute fits within the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

California penal code Section 27510 bars federal gun dealers from selling or otherwise giving possession of guns to people younger than 21. The law does allow 18- to 20-year-olds to buy certain types of guns if they obtain a hunting license, are serving in the military, or were honorably discharged from the armed forces.

Some young adults and gun rights groups challenged the law, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the case has been proceeding through the court system for years. U.S. District Judge James Lorenz said in 2020 that the law did not violate the Constitution, then an appeals court panel said it did. The appeals court later remanded the case back to Lorenz for renewed consideration following the U.S. Supreme Court ordering lower courts to figure out if gun regulations were based on the nation’s history of gun restrictions when deciding whether they are constitutional.

Lorenz on March 26 sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, concluding that even though 18- to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, the young adults have faced gun restrictions throughout much of American history.

The law “is consistent with the Founding Era common law that curtailed commercial firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20,” Lorenz wrote in a 23-page decision.

He also said the law is constitutional because the young adults can buy guns that are not handguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles if they receive a hunting license or are in the U.S. military. Tens of thousands of young adults have obtained guns under the exceptions in recent years, including 5,431 in 2022.

The young adults can also acquire guns as gifts from family members, the ruling noted.

“Defendants’ evidence supports a reasonable inference that Section 27510 is a commercial restriction that does not meaningfully impair 18-to-20-year-olds’ access to firearms and is therefore not covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the judge said.

The summary judgment ruling means the case is over, unless the plaintiffs appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said on social media platform X that it is reviewing the opinion.

Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the ruling represents a victory in the fight against gun violence.

“This commonsense regulation will continue to protect our young and vulnerable communities from preventable gun violence,“ he said. ”I am proud of the countless hours my team has put in to defend this law and we know the fight is not over. We will continue to lead efforts to defend commonsense gun-safety laws and protect our communities from senseless violence.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 23:00…

This Is The Income Needed To Be Middle Class In Every US State

How much do you need to make to be considered middle class in the U.S.? According to research by SmartAsset, that can range from $36,000 to $200,000, depending on where you live.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the income needed to be considered middle class in every U.S. state. Middle class in this graphic is defined as earning between two-thirds and double the median household income. SmartAsset compiled the data as of February 2025.

To Be Middle Class

The median household income in the U.S. is approximately $75,000, with half of Americans earning less. States with high urbanization and economic activity, like California and New York, tend to have much higher income requirements to count as middle class, while rural states with lower costs, like West Virginia and Arkansas, have lower thresholds.

In Massachusetts, a household needs to earn between $67,000 and $200,000 to be considered middle class. The state has a high cost of living due to expensive housing, high taxes, and strong demand for services. Its economy is driven by industries like technology, healthcare, and education, attracting well-paid professionals and increasing competition for housing, especially in cities like Boston.

State
Lower bound on middle class income
Upper bound on middle class income
Massachusetts
$66,565
$199,716
New Jersey
$66,514
$199,562
Maryland
$65,779
$197,356
New Hampshire
$64,552
$193,676
California
$63,674
$191,042
Hawaii
$63,542
$190,644
Washington
$63,064
$189,210
Utah
$62,274
$186,842
Colorado
$61,934
$185,822
Connecticut
$61,104
$183,330
Virginia
$59,948
$179,862
Alaska
$57,748
$173,262
Minnesota
$56,718
$170,172
Rhode Island
$56,642
$169,944
New York
$54,725
$164,190
Delaware
$54,235
$162,722
Vermont
$54,135
$162,422
Illinois
$53,532
$160,612
Oregon
$53,435
$160,320
Arizona
$51,538
$154,630
North Dakota
$51,012
$153,050
Nevada
$50,904
$152,728
Texas
$50,515
$151,560
Idaho
$49,956
$149,884
Georgia
$49,750
$149,264
Wisconsin
$49,749
$149,262
Nebraska
$49,722
$149,180
Pennsylvania
$49,211
$147,648
Maine
$49,150
$147,466
Florida
$48,869
$146,622
Wyoming
$48,272
$144,830
South Dakota
$47,869
$143,620
Iowa
$47,617
$142,866
Montana
$47,198
$141,608
North Carolina
$47,198
$141,608
Kansas
$46,884
$140,666
Indiana
$46,313
$138,954
Michigan
$46,117
$138,366
Missouri
$45,692
$137,090
South Carolina
$45,198
$135,608
Ohio
$45,175
$135,538
Tennessee
$45,083
$135,262
New Mexico
$41,508
$124,536
Alabama
$41,471
$124,424
Oklahoma
$41,421
$124,276
Kentucky
$40,741
$122,236
Arkansas
$39,129
$117,400
Louisiana
$38,815
$116,458
West Virginia
$37,295
$111,896
Mississippi
$36,132
$108,406
Meanwhile, in Mississippi, the minimum household income to be considered middle class is $36,162. Mississippi is one of the cheapest states to live in due to its low housing costs, lower-than-average wages, and relatively low taxes. The cost of goods and services, including groceries, healthcare, and transportation, is also lower than the national average. Additionally, Mississippi has a lower population density and is less of an economic hub compared to wealthier states.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this graphic, which ranks the income a family needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 18:00…

Israel Parliament Passes Bill Bringing Judicial Appointments Under Political Control

Via Middle East Eye

Israel’s Knesset has passed a bill enabling greater political control over the appointment of judges, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court’s power.

The measure, which will come into effect after the October 2026 general elections, marks the first time in Israel’s history that the selection process for judges will be controlled by politicians.
Via Reuters

It will change the composition of the nine-member committee that selects judges, comprising judges, lawmakers, and bar association representatives, overseen by the justice minister.

The bill will see representatives of the Israeli Bar Association replaced with lawyers appointed by the ruling coalition and the opposition, and give politicians veto power over lower court appointments. It will also remove any influence of the three judges who sit on the committee overseeing appointments to the Supreme Court.

The committee is currently handling petitions against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, and the reappointment of Itamar Ben Gvir as national security minister.

The bill was passed almost unanimously after the opposition boycotted the vote, with 67-1 in favor of the legislation.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin will bar the committee from naming new judges until the law comes into effect, leaving the country with only 11 supreme court justices – short of the full complement of 15.

Knesset opposition leaders condemned the legislation, saying that its sole aim is “to ensure judges are subjected to the will of politicians”.

“This is happening while 59 hostages are still held in Gaza. Instead of focusing all efforts on bringing them home and healing the divisions in the nation, this government is once again engaging in the very legislation that divided the public before October 7,” they added.

A ‘dangerous direction’

A flurry of petitions against the bill were filed by opposition parties and a government watchdog to the High Court of Justice shortly after its approval. In one of them, opposition leader Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party stated that the law’s approval “is not an amendment, but the eradication of an entire system”.

National Unity party chairman, and former member of the war cabinet, Benny Gantz, warned lawmakers ahead of the vote that the nation was headed in a “dangerous direction”.

Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis gathered outside the Knesset to protest the legislation.Before October 2023, the Netanyahu government pushed a package of bills seeking to overhaul the judicial system, sparking mass protests across the country.

On January 1, 2024, the Supreme Court nullified controversial legislation passed by the government in July 2023 that eliminated the court’s ability to overturn government decisions.

The legislation eliminated the Supreme Court’s reasonableness clause, a power given to the court to overturn government rulings deemed unreasonable.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political party, Likud, called the court’s decision unfortunate and said it opposed “the will of the people for unity, especially during wartime”. Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption. Since being indicted in 2019, he has railed publicly against the justice system, calling it biased against him.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 06:30…