The USS Beloit, one of the Navys newest ships, has launched after sliding into the waters of Lake Michigan on May 7.

According to a Lockheed Martin press release, the company is confident that the sailors of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 29, the future USS Beloit, will play a critical role in supporting maritime security and deterrence. The LCS Freedom-variant, operationally deployed today, is an unmatched and highly adaptable warship, designed to outpace the growing threat of our adversaries and fulfill the dynamic missions of the U.S. Navy.

The Beloit is the latest Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship to take to the seas, although just how long the vessel will be cruising remains in question.While the Navy has planned for 35 Independence and Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships, a Government Accountability Office report published in February found that the LCS still has not demonstrated the operational capabilities it needs to perform its mission.

And even as this Littoral Combat Ship is commissioning, the class overall seems to be on its way out. The ship that gave the class its name, the USS Freedom, was decommissioned last year after only 13 years of service. The Navys latest budget proposal includes decommissioning nine of the so-called little crappy ships, even though theyre among the newest ships in the fleet.

For years, the fleet of ships has been plagued by problems with the vessels combat system elements and a distinct lack of redundancies for vital systems, leaving the Littoral Combat Ship unable to survive in high intensity conflict, according to a 2018 review from the Pentagons Operational Test & Evaluation office.

Problems with its propulsion system have also hampered the Freedom-variant. Designed to give the ship a top speed of over 40 knots, the combining gear on these ships has been beset with multiple issues.

It isnt much better for the second class of Littoral Combat Ships, the Independence-variant. According to documents acquired by the Navy Times, these ships are suffering from structural defects that have led to hull cracks on several vessels, limiting the speed and sea states in which some ships can operate.

Whether any ships will be decommissioned remains to be seen, as the Pentagons budget request has not yet been approved and Congress has previously resisted attempts to decommission these ships. Last year, Congress blocked the decommissioning of the Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships USS Fort Worth, Detroit, and Little Rock, which were commissioned in 2012, 2016, and 2017 respectively.

Of course, the Littoral Combat Ship hasnt been a complete failure. In 2021, six of the ships were deployed. And while they still have relatively limited capabilities operationally, they are still entering service and one LCS even deployed to European waters for the first time. That same ship making the inaugural voyage, though, is one that is part of the proposed decommissioning program for these troubled vessels.

So even with the Navy seemingly ready to move on from the Littoral Combat Ship era, for however long the USS Beloit takes to the seas we wish the crew good luck.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

Read the original post:

The Navy just launched a brand new ship it doesnt even want - Task & Purpose

How much freedom should we be willing to give up in order to prevent many people from dying?

Its been more than two years since that ceased to be an airy debate-club hypothetical, and turned into a central policy question of the pandemic age. There is still no widely agreed-upon, unambiguous answer and in many places, there remains a lethal fear of confronting it.

In recent days, however, weve witnessed two milestones in the history of this question, each leading to very different insights.

The first was in New Zealand where, for the first time in two years, people from abroad are now allowed to visit. That follows the February announcement that citizens could return to their country without a two-week military-guarded hotel quarantine (though proof of vaccination is still required, sensibly). It was an easy decision to make, because 95 per cent of New Zealands vaccine-eligible population are now fully vaccinated, thus making the disease more of an inconvenience than a death threat for most.

The informed consensus is that these infringements on freedom of travel were entirely worth it, because they prevented an estimated 10,000 COVID-19 deaths from taking place in a country of five million, and because they gave New Zealanders freedoms, during that deadly year before vaccination, that most of the rest of the world could only dream of.

New Zealand managed to keep itself all but coronavirus-free during that crucial year, and thus has recorded the lowest death rate among countries with accurate measurements. That allowed daily life to continue more or less as normal during most periods (much as Atlantic Canadians experienced during its travel-bubble months), along with unprecedented economic growth while the rest of the world slumped.

The second milestone was in Shanghai, where about half of the citys 25 million people were recently allowed to go outside for the first time in weeks, and about four million were allowed to leave their neighbourhoods, in a slight easing of the draconian COVID zero policies enforced in response to a modest Omicron-variant outbreak.

Most of the pandemics so-called lockdowns, such as those experienced in Northern Italy or New York City in 2020 when their hospitals were overwhelmed, were mere stay-at-home requests. Shanghai authorities, who faced no such catastrophe, have literally locked citizens into their apartment buildings, sometimes even constructing fences around complexes.

Unlike in New Zealand, this was not a sacrifice of some external freedoms in exchange for greater internal freedoms than one might otherwise experience during a plague. It was a total loss of the most rudimentary freedoms, in exchange for nothing.

And unlike in New Zealand, it was not a modest loss of freedoms in order to prevent a large loss of life. Although Chinas two available vaccines have been found considerably less effective in reducing serious illness and death than the mRNA vaccines used elsewhere, there is no indication that Chinas Omicron outbreak would have been particularly deadly without the restrictions (even after the lockdowns eased, numbers of deaths and hospitalizations there have been negligible at best).

In fact, to judge by the numerous reports coming from Shanghai of malnourishment-related deaths, abandonment of vulnerable people, and neglect of elders during these weeks, it seems that the lockdown has killed more people than it might have saved from the disease.

When the pandemic was at its most terrifying peak in 2020, many commentators suggested that the worlds democracies were at a disadvantage, because only dictatorships such as China could quickly and easily respond to medical data and impose the strict controls necessary to keep the disease from killing millions.

After more than six million unnecessary deaths around the world, the flaw in that logic is more visible. Perhaps authoritarian countries can crack down on their citizens more easily, or at least in more painful ways but its turned out that theyre not adept at tying policies to data. Single-party states such as China, and authoritarian-leaning democracies such as India, have used the pandemic as cover to brutalize and sometimes starve the most vulnerable.

The next time a worldwide disease strikes, we may not wish to be the United States, which suffered a staggering number of unnecessary deaths (a death rate more than three times higher than Canadas, and 23 times higher than New Zealands) in the name of symbolic freedom from basic hygiene principles. Indeed, the U.S. still has a vaccination rate that is far too low to prevent deadly outbreaks. Nor would we want to be Shanghai a place with neither freedom nor safety. But we may at least have a better idea where the ideal balance lies, having tested both extremes. And that place looks a lot like the South Pacific.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Here is the original post:

Opinion: More freedom or more death: A pandemic quandary we have yet to solve - The Globe and Mail

Yes, segregation exists in our state. Yes, there are things we can do about it. But the important question is: are we?

The failure to pass H.B. 5429 reminds us yet again of the answer: not enough.

The raised bill was an act concerning transit-oriented development, which essentially means building with access to public transportation in mind. The bill proposed to allow municipalities to build, as of right, an average of at least 15 homes near at least one train or CTFastrak station and set aside at least 10% for affordable housing. As of right means without public hearings or special permits, which can significantly slow development, and municipalities would still have the power to decide how they would meet the average units per acre.

While the bill was not the panacea for exclusionary zoning practices, it did address a critical component of public health that current zoning laws severely impact: access to public transportation. Public transportation connects people to jobs, education, nutritious food, and health care. Women, people ages 25-29, Black workers, and low-income workers are also more likely than other commuters to rely on public transportation, and restricting access to public transit also disproportionately impacts older individuals and people with disabilities.

As echoed by rising gas prices, owning and maintaining a vehicle is expensive. For people in lower-income households, cars can be out of reach, and since people of color are overrepresented in lower income households, barriers to owning a vehicle disproportionately impact Black and brown communities. In Connecticut, although Black and Latinx residents made up 10.5 % and 16.5% of the population for whom poverty status was determined, 17.5% of Black and 20.1% of Latinx residents reported living below the poverty level.

The state has 40 towns with at least one train or CTFastrak station but over half make it difficult or impossible to build as of right, multifamily housing near them. The municipalities that make it easier to build around transit stations are larger, more diverse cities like Hartford and Bridgeport. The towns with the most restrictions are the wealthiest and Whitest of the group, including Greenwich and Fairfield.

Denying people the choice of where to live denies their livelihood. Research has illustrated the powerful connection between health and housing people who live in urban areas face poorer housing conditions, less access to health care and nutritious foods, and environmental hazards like pollution. Covid-19 has also exacerbated existing racial health disparities, and densely populated areas make social distancing difficult.

Connecticuts zoning laws maintain the status quo economic and racial segregation. The word segregation might conjure images of separate lines and Whites only signs. Some might even think, That doesnt happen anymore. But the harsh and horrifying reality is that it absolutely does. Segregation today looks like restricting peoples choice of where to live. Municipalities use zoning codes to prevent certain people from living in their neighborhood while welcoming others. Although the signs arent posted, the message remains: Whites only.

Testimonies In support of H.B. 5429 included Conencticuts Commission on Human Rights, the Partnership for Strong Communities, and AARP and amplified the bills advancement of equity, the economy, and the environment. Building more affordable housing near public transit would help boost local economies with more residents frequenting local businesses and utilizing services. Expanding ridership would also lead to a better return on the states 3.5 billion dollar investment in public transportation. In addition to economic advantages, less reliance on personal vehicles would also reduce Connecticuts carbon footprint to help address climate change and pollution.

Some of the opposing testimonies included first selectpersons from the richest and whitest towns that have at least one transit station like Fairfield, Greenwich, Westport, Wilton, and Darien. They contended that H.B. 5429 was yet another attempt by the state, or Hartford, to control local governments, even though Connecticuts current zoning regulations allow every municipality to make their own rules about zoning.

Testimonies against the proposed bill talked of freedom. But the question in response to these folks, and the many who say share that same value, is a necessary one:When you aim to restrict the freedom of others, can you truly value it?

Morgan Finn is a Graduate MSW Student at the University of Connecticut, School of Social Work.

Read more here:

The freedom to divide: zoning and segregation in Connecticut - The Connecticut Mirror

George Michael Freedom Uncut has received a moving new trailer ahead of the films global release on June 22.

Narrated and co-directed by Michael, the documentary provides a behind-the-scenes look at the singer. In the trailer, Michael can be heard talking about his feelings on early fame, I cant really explain how overwhelming that kind of hysteria can be. I remember thinking I really dont know if Ill ever do this again. Watch the trailer below.

The doc provides a look at his private and public persona as cameras followed him around during the turbulent period after Faith leading up to, during and after the making of his Listen Without Prejudice: Vol 1 album in 1990. The legendary singer who died on Dec. 25, 2016 at the age of just 53 can also be heard talking about his legacy. He says, I want to leave songs, I believe I can leave songs that will mean something to other generations.

Weaving the story together are archival footage and interviews with many of his collaborators. Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Ricky Gervais, Nile Rogers, Mark Ronson, Tracey Emin, Liam Gallagher, Mary J. Blige, Jean-Paul Gaultier, James Corden, Tony Bennett, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Christy Turlington, Linda Evangelista and Tatjana Patitz all appear.

George Michael was an inspiring artist whose story deserves to be shared on the big screen globally. Tom Mackay, President, Premium Content, Sony Music Entertainment said in a statement. In honor of Georges birthday this June, we are thrilled to be working with David Austin and our partners at Trafalgar Releasing to bring fans unprecedented access to his extraordinary life both on and off stage.

Michaels last single, This Is How (We Want You To Get High), a previously unreleased song by George Michael, was released in 2019 to tie in with the film, Last Christmas, a movie inspired by the work of the late singer-songwriter.

Georges third studio album Older will be re-released on vinyl later this year on July 8 as part of a box set.

Originally posted here:

Watch George Michael Freedom Uncut Trailer, Where the Late Singer Talks About the Pressures of Fame - Variety

Imagine, for a moment, if a public school teacher said a Muslim prayer in front of their classroom. Or if a coach hailed Satan following a game and some students joined in. Or if a drama teacher expressed their atheist views prior to the spring musical.

Those are not the scenarios facing the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that originated out of Bremerton. But they demonstrate the complexity of religious freedom cases and the tenuous balance between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

On Monday, justices heard arguments in a case involving Joseph Kennedy, a Christian and a former football coach at Bremerton High School. As the Associated Press explains:

For years, the coach would kneel at the center of the field following games and lead students in prayer. The school district eventually learned what he was doing and asked him to stop. . . . It told him then that he needed to stop praying with students or engaging in overtly religious activity while still on duty as a coach. After Kennedy continued to pray on the field, he was placed on paid leave. His contract expired and he didnt reapply to coach the following year, the school says.

Judgment about the constitutionality of Kennedys actions will be up to the court; we would not be so presumptuous as to know all the details of the case. If Kennedy delivered a fire-and-brimstone monologue praising Jesus and suggesting that nonbelievers are going to Hell, that is far different from giving thanks for the safety of players.

Nor would we suggest that kneeling at midfield following a game is unusual; it happens after every National Football League contest, with players from both teams joining hands.

But questions about religious freedom can be touchy, and they speak to the very meaning of the U.S. Constitution. That Constitution, in the first words of the First Amendment, says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

A post-game prayer at midfield is not the same as Congress establishing a state religion. But Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Establishment Clause amounted to a wall of separation between the church and state, and courts have upheld that interpretation.

As an essay from The First Amendment Encyclopedia states: Jefferson had earlier witnessed the turmoil of the American colonists as they struggled to combine governance with religious expression. Some colonies experimented with religious freedom while others strongly supported an established church.

Contrary to popular belief, the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, explicitly says, As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . The U.S. Senate unanimously ratified the treaty the following year.

All of that is a long way from a 21st century football field in Bremerton. But it reflects debates that have existed since the founding of this nation.

Whether or not a coach is attempting to establish a state religion is not really the question. The questions are whether that coach, as a public employee, is an agent of that state; and whether a coach who has power over an athletes playing time and their practice schedules can unduly influence a student.

The issues are complex. A ruling is expected before the courts summer recess; it is unlikely to end debates about religious freedom.

Read more:

In Our View: Religious freedom at core of Constitution - The Columbian

SAVE GIRLS ON FYER INC (SGOF), one of Black Girl Freedom Funds grantees, focuses on the liberation ... [+] of Black and Brown girls ages 11-17 in Waterbury, CT.

Although more conscientious efforts towards funding for women continue to increase, the statistics are still staggering, especially for Black women. Moreover, looking at the micro-level of financing for women, young Black girls, femmes and gender-expansive youth receive even a smaller amount of monetary support. In 2020, Ms. Foundation for Women released a landmark report sharing the statistics on philanthropic giving for women and girls of color. Black women and girls receive only 0.5% of $66.9 billion from foundations, totaling just $5.48 per woman and girl of color in the United States. As more donors and organizations become aware of the lack of resources available to underserved recipients, more programs, initiatives and grants are created to combat the dire misappropriated funds.

Dr. Monique Morris, president and CEO of Grantmakers for Girls of Color (G4GC) and cofounder of the #1Billion4BlackGirls campaign, and her team have built out the Black Girl Freedom Fund (BGFF), an initiative of G4GC that invests in Black girls. The Fund just announced its second round of grants totaling over $4 million to 68 organizations throughout the U.S. whose work promotes and expands the leadership and organizing power of Black girls, femmes and gender-expansive youth. They were chosen by six Black girls and gender-expansive youth from BGFFs Grantmaking Council, ages 14 to 22-years-old. Some of the organizations areas of expertise include STEAM education, career opportunities, sports and financial and economic literacy.

The Fund is part of the #1Billion4BlackGirls campaign, which aims to invest $1 billion in Black girls by 2030. It uplifts these underrepresented communities by mobilizing investments in their innovation, health, safety, education, artistic visions, research and joy.

One billion [dollars] was inspired by the data that came out of the Ms. Foundation report, Morris explains. We started to think about what girls of color in general, and Black girls specifically, give to conversations about equity and justice to this country; that was not just a woeful underinvestment, it was an insulting disregard. So we wanted to challenge ourselves to do better. We wanted to challenge philanthropy to do better. We wanted to make a statement that we know it is possible to generate a billion dollars that is specifically focused on the well-being of Black girls and femmes over ten years. ... to think about how we cultivate the ways in which Black girls and femmes are already showing up in their communities ... because they are worthy of investment in and of themselves.

Dr. Monique Morris, president and CEO of Grantmakers for Girls of Color and cofounder of the ... [+] #1Billion4BlackGirls campaign.

From the time Morris was in high school, she was involved in educational justice and advocacy programs. She then focused her efforts on the research side of social justice campaigns and practices. Interested in the intersection of race, gender and justice, she noticed gaps in the research, which prompted her to ask more questions. Her curiosity led her to research the juvenile justice systems, which brought her into contact with many young people across the gender spectrum who were detained and incarcerated for their response to the conditions in their lives. Morris was interested in identifying the goal of seeking a remedy to these conditions.

Through her experience, Morris authored five books and co-wrote and produced a documentary, PUSHOUT: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools, based on two of her books. Additionally, she founded the National Black Womens Justice Institute, a nonprofit that engages in research, training and technical assistance to address the criminalization of Black women and girls across the country.

During this time, the NoVo Foundation launched G4GC and successfully convened 100 funders from the U.S. Immersed in the philanthropic community, the Foundation invited Morris to address the first convening of G4GC as an organizing body. In 2020, Morris became its first executive director. A year later, her title changed to president and CEO. Two years ago, G4GC became its own institution separating from NoVo Foundation.

Its important to center the voices of those impacted by the inquiry, Morris states. We started to build out our funds. As I started to move into philanthropy, I had a deep question about how philanthropy was moving resources. How resources were being defined and how we could be more expansive in our definitions to ensure that we are reaching those who have been historically marginalized by conversations about investment and equity.

Over $500 thousand was released to six organizations during the Funds first round of disbursement. Additionally, over $20 million was raised in investments in the campaigns first year. The campaign is a mobilization effort within philanthropy, not just through G4GC and BGFF, but in partnership with other organizations and foundations. As the Fund expands, it is also building an infrastructure to help Black girls have a better relationship with money and understand how to utilize it in a business allocation.

Urban Word, a Black Girl Freedom Fund grantee, uses the transformative power of the written and ... [+] spoken word to offer young people in NYC opportunities to cultivate their voices.

As Morris and her team continue to develop and expand the campaign and Fund, they focus on how investing in Black girls, femmes and gender-expansive youth will transform society:

Cidra M. Sebastien, manager of the BGFF, adds, Its not about what Black girls need to do. Its about what we need to do to show that we believe it. There needs to be funding behind it. There needs to be a policy behind it. There needs to be intentional action thats coming from a place of honoring Black girls and gender-expansive youth. ... When we invest in Black girls and gender-expansive youth, were actually making an investment in our collective futures.

View post:

Black Girl Freedom Fund Invests Over $4 Million In 68 Organizations, Part Of #1Billion4BlackGirls Campaign - Forbes

The Biden administration recently announced a rule change expanding Obamacare subsidies, moving over a million Americans from employer-provided coverage to exchanges. The mainstream media dutifully reported millions would pay lower premiums, without noting health care costs would often simply be transferred from employers to taxpayersshowing, in miniature, the effect of progressives' Medicare for All plan. Conservatives criticized these and other subsidy expansions in Biden's American Rescue Plan for increasing dependency on government assistance.

Liberals and conservatives frequently talk past each other when debating health care reform, since the former prioritize coverage while the latter prioritize freedom. Liberals blame Republicans for the failures of the current health care system, especially its rapidly escalating costs, mistaking the status quo for a true market-based system.

Conservatives must articulate what a consumer-centered health care system actually entails. Looking at health care options in terms of the freedom they give consumers can clarify the choices politicians have to make on the issue, and help inform incremental reforms that move the nation's dysfunctional health system towards that ideal.

The freest option along the current health care spectrum involves individual consumers purchasing health care services, backed by catastrophic insurance, high-deductible plans, high-risk pools or health savings accounts to help them afford expensive care. Consumers need price and quality transparency tools, and protection from surprise billing, to help them navigate a complicated marketplace. Donald Trump and Joe Biden both supported price transparency regulations, but providers have been slow to comply. Trump enacted the No Surprises Act, but Biden's regulations have been challenged in court.

Consumers would benefit from changes in the tax code and more flexible health savings accounts to help them pay for services, and increased access to direct primary care and other arrangements to contract with providers. Employers can follow the lead of California's state pension system and provide reimbursements tied to reference pricing, sharing savings with employees who choose lower-cost providers and services.

Empowering consumers results in more competition, lower prices and higher quality, but giving patients more choices and control is worthwhile regardless of the expected financial benefits. Conservatives want to remove government and insurance bureaucrats from the doctor-patient relationship. They want to return insurance to its intended purpose of pooling large risks over large populations and long timeframes, rather than serving as prepaid coverage with a short-term payout. That means disempowering middlemen who profit from an opaque and inflationary health care marketplace, and disrupting the oligopolistic market that favors a limited number of large payers and hospital systems in local markets.

The second freest option includes association health, Farm Bureau, limited-benefit and short-term limited duration plans. These are the few remaining elements of the individual and small group insurance market left untouched by Obamacare's sweeping regulations. Trump expanded access to these plans, and states have enacted legislation exempting them from Obamacare regulations, but Trump's rules are being challenged in court and could be removed by Biden. Conservatives want consumers to be able to choose for themselves what coverage levels they need, which often vary over a person's lifetime and circumstances, and to benefit from resulting lower premiums.

The third freest option involves traditional employer-provided coverage, where human resources departments limit the plan providers and benefit designs employees can select. Conservatives want employees to have more control over the tax-advantaged employer subsidy spent on their behalf, for example by expanding health reimbursement arrangements, while recognizing some employees prefer the simplicity of allowing employers to negotiate plan designs and provider networks.

The fourth freest option involves exchange, Medicaid managed care and Medicare Advantage plans; differentiation and competition between these plans are limited by government regulations. Obama falsely promised the Affordable Care Act would allow Americans to keep their health plans and doctors. The exchange plans allow limited private plan competition, but the government strictly controls and standardizes benefit design, cost sharing, premium inputs and profit margins. Under this model, health plans act like regulated utilities, with reduced incentives and opportunities to innovate and meet customer needs. "You can have any color you want, as long as it is black" may be funny when describing Model Ts, but leaves patients at the mercy of government bureaucrats.

Medicare plans have more flexibility than Medicaid plans, and both offer incentives for providers and patients to follow best practices, lower costs and improve outcomes. Private plans, such as those available through Medicare, have more freedom to adopt innovative disease management models; use efficiency savings to add new benefits; deploy new technology; reduce fraud, abuse and overutilization; and encourage patients to utilize higher quality providers. Yet even these plans are tightly controlled and standardized by government regulators when it comes to cost sharing, benefit design, provider networks, premiums, and profits.

The least free option is government-run Medicaid and Medicare plans, where government agencies set prices and make coverage decisions; this serves as the foundation for Medicare for All. Conservatives must address affordability concerns as they pursue freedom, lest frustrated voters be tempted by a single payer system's superficial savings. Providers counted 130,000 pages of rules and regulations in Medicare, and a Clinton health official noted the inherent complexity of setting 10,000 prices in 3,000 counties. Setting prices too high or too low distorts the market and interferes with patient access to high-quality care. Coverage decisions based on Quality Adjusted Life Year considerations or average utilization result in rationed care and overutilization. A top-down, one-size-fits-all administered pricing approach disempowers patients in favor of government bureaucrats and results in wasted resources and worse outcomes.

This health care freedom framework helps inform policy tradeoffsfor example, preferring Obama Democrats buttressing exchanges as a defense against a more radical Sanders government-run plan; designing employer coverage to include portability, reference pricing and more options; reforming Medicare and Medicaid to include private plans and ultimately premium support and premium assistance. Conservatives can win the health care debate, but they must first know where they are going.

Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) was the governor of Louisiana from 2008-2016 and a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read the original here:

Championing Consumer Freedom in Health Care | Opinion - Newsweek

While the ultimate responsibility for the two men's deaths lies with Ed Buck, our culture of license bears some of the blame.

Ed Buck interrupts California Republican Party gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's campaign event on September 22, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

On April 14, Ed Buck was sentenced to 30 years in prison for crimes that resulted in the overdose deaths of two black men in his West Hollywood apartment. The case has garnered national media attention for a host of interrelated reasons involving social class, race, politics, and sexual identity. Buck, an openly gay man and self-styled animal-rights and AIDS-awareness activist, had donated large sums of money to Los Angeles and national Democratic causes. The men who died in his apartment and many surviving victims were gay, often destitute, and almost exclusively ethnic minorities, paid to participate in party-and-play sessions. The slang term, well established in the gay community, is code for consuming drugs while engaging in sexual activity.

L.A. Times headlines surrounding the Buck trial have predictably sought to tie the deaths of the two men in Bucks apartment (Gemmel Moore in 2017 and Timothy Dean in 2019) to the Black Lives Matter movement. Ed Bucks Black Victims Fought to be believed reads one headline;It took two years to arrest Democratic donor Ed Buck despite shocking allegations, red flags. Why? read another. Despite the fact that the district attorney who declined to prosecute Buck at the time of the first death was a black female Democrat endorsed by a host of LGBT organizations, the L.A. Times and other outlets suggested that the victims and perpetrators race played a role in the initial failure to file charges.

There undoubtedly is some truth to these claims. But, to borrow the parlance of Los Angeles nonprofit groups about whom I have written in these pages, media claims regarding race, class, and the shortcomings of the criminal-justice system overlook some of the structural or root causes of Bucks predations on black men. What are they? The truth is that Los Angeles itself, along with progressive cultural norms, were Bucks silent accomplice.

While the ultimate responsibility for these mens deaths lies squarely in Bucks hands, Los Angeles politics and public policy bear some of the blame. As Soledad Ursua has documented meticulously for City Journal, Los Angeles is a sanctuary by design both for homelessness and drug use. Both have been decriminalized in the city with disastrous consequences, luring tens of thousands from out of state, including some of Bucks victims, to the City of Angels. In 2016, Proposition 47 turned virtually all categories of drug possession for personal use into a misdemeanor offense; that same year, Proposition HHH prioritized the so-called housing first strategy, treating homelessness not as a law-and-order issue but rather a housing- and rent- affordability crisis. These perverse incentives have made Los Angeles a hub of domestic migration for the homeless and addicted.

In addition to the (semi)transient status of many of Bucks victims, the gay subculture of party and play, through which Buck enticed or cajoled his victims to participate, has become such a fixture of West Hollywoods cultural life that the city has even dedicated town-hall meetings to the subject of chemsex. While the deaths of Bucks victims were and are singular tragedies attributable to Bucks particular acts, the circumstances in which the men died have become, sadly, a near-quotidian occurrence in West Hollywoods gay social scene.

The liberal establishments moral confusion and outright incoherence surrounding the party and play culture to which Moore and Dean fell victim is nowhere better exemplified than in an L.A. Times article on the subject. A self-identified drag queen and chemsex addict in recovery describes his rehabilitation in the following terms: When I got sober, I had to learn how to have sex again because I was used to this seedy, dangerous, risky sex. You can go to the orgies, honey. You can go to the bathhouse. You can do this stuff sober. In other words: Group sex is okay as long as you are not abusing drugs in the process.

Homosexuality, extramarital sex, promiscuity, orgies, and the like are nothing new in human history. What is newthe advent of the last half-century or sois the loosening of societal norms around sex and sexuality, and the inexorable shift from tolerance to celebration of practices that would have been considered abhorrent not long ago. As the Times piece makes clear, Los Angeless and Americas liberal establishment has gone from condoning gay relationships to condoning orgies, at least as long as they are conducted safely by consenting adults.

Another part of the Ed Buck tragedy that will go largely unnoticed and unexamined is the false premise of freedom upon which our contemporary culture is based, namely, the notion that sexual liberation is a good in its own right and an end in itself. The #MeToo movement showed us, in a way not entirely dissimilar to the Ed Buck trial, that the line between coercion and consent in the post-sexual-revolution society is often murky at best, at all times muddled by the age-old forces of status, power, and wealth. Yet we insist, particularly in major cities on the culturally liberal coasts, that any taboos surrounding sex are unwarranted prejudices. Something here doesnt add up.

As Rusty Reno demonstrates in his 2016 book Resurrecting the Idea of a Christian Society, the cult of personal liberation (that is, individual freedom untethered from any moral-ethical framework) is in reality a war on the weak. Reno writes: Educated, well-to-do Baby Boomers are disciplined in their hedonism, careful that their pecadillos dont impede their scramble for success. For the most part, the rich have developed a relatively safe and moderate approach to drugs, and for the few who havent, well, theres professional help.

Reno goes on, with my emphasis, to elucidate the nature of our regnant cultural chaos:

No social crisis of our time is more profound than this disregardto the point of disdainfor the moral needs of the vulnerable. Official ideologies of diversity, inclusion, and nonjudgementalism are not oriented towards the marginal. They serve the high achievers, the meritocrats, the comfortable people who have the social and financial capital to navigate this moral deregulation and protect themselves from its dangerous consequences.

I cannot think of a better way to describe Ed Bucks predatory overtures to gay men, many of whom were struggling with addiction, extreme poverty, or both, than a war on the weak, a part of a larger war waged by our ruling elite under the false flag of freedom. The upper class sees post-1960s cultural deregulation both as its birthright and the carrot it gives the underclass instead of the stick; in exchange for their submission to a meritocracy that is at once libertarian and socio-economically Darwinian, the working classes are allowed the modern-day version of bread and circuses: unrestrained sex and drugs.

The question now becomes whether our nations shrinking population of Christians can fully assume their role as a creative minority in an increasingly post-Christian West. Our only hope is that this minority, like a suddenly heeded prophet, can alert us to the specious form of freedom that sunders our countrys social fabric.

Kurt Hoferis a native Californian with a Ph.D. in Spanish Literature. He teaches high school history in a Los Angeles-area independent school.His writing may also be found at theEuropean Conservative, where he is a contributing editor.

Read the rest here:

Ed Buck and False 'Freedom' - The American Conservative

NORTH FREEDOM (WKOW) On a remote plot of land just southwest of Baraboo, archaeologists, divers and researchers are slowly uncovering a piece of history that, until recently, was lost in time. The "Freedom Mine," an iron mine abandoned in 1911 after flooding, was recently rediscovered on land belonging to a couple who had been using the plot as a private campsite.

Now, researchers are diving deep into the flooded mineshaft that for more than 100 years, was almost perfectly preserved.

In the process, they're putting together the pieces of the mine's story, trying to find out why it was abandoned in the first place. The images produced in the process are stunning and also shed light on the Baraboo Range's iron mining history.

Researchers from across the country have come to explore the mine, including famous underwater photographer Evan Kovacs, who's worked on famous shipwrecks like the Titanic.

"This site is absolutely beautiful, pristine, and I've never had a chance to dive anything quite like it," Kovacs said.

Thursday on 27 News at 10, how Kovacs and other researchers are using cutting edge technology to embark on a dangerous mission that will ultimately help preserve the past.

Here is the original post:

Thursday at 10: Preserving the past of the 'Freedom Mine' - WKOW

Caltech's fundamental mission is to create knowledge for the ages, through research and by passing along insights from generation to generation. We create knowledge by bringing together people of diverse perspectives, of different backgrounds, of distinct sensibilities, and let them hone their conceptions of the world by expressing their views freely and, in colloquy, shaping each other's ideas.

We come to Caltech to learn and to grow. This process requires us to be open to changing our minds through the exchange of ideas and the questioning of our assumptions. There are times when this can be difficult, even uncomfortable, but we recognize that the answer to a poor or objectionable argument is to confront it with a better argument rather than to silence the speaker. We strive to fashion a robust, civic space, welcoming to individuals from all backgrounds, committed to rigorous inquiry, devoted to understanding the natural world and improving the human world. It is what universities at their best have represented for a thousand years. It is how the Institute can flourish and inspire.

Freedom of individual expression bears as well on the issue of formal institutional pronouncements. Caltech aims to create an environment where all members of our community are empowered to speak out about issues that matter to them, and we support their freedom and ability to do so. We want all members of our community to feel free to take stances that may be unpopular, but reflect who they are and what they believe, without an official Institute opinion quenching that ability. Hence, we confine official Caltech statements to issues that bear directly on our core missions of research and education. At the same time, we respond as an Institute to worldly challenges through tangible intercessions that advance our values and support at-risk members of our community.

Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Caltech President

See the original post here:

Freedom of Expression - Caltech

ai weiweis 10 key rules

Manifesto is a campaign on WePresent which invites activists and creatives to spread their message through 10 rules to live by. As a result, a series of life advice, framed as a poster, is presented to the readers. Accompanied with colors, patterns, or signs; sometimes with a humoristic or simple cynic touch; hand-drawn or entirely digitally made, each artwork is unveiled in its very own style.

For the latest series, the digital arts platform of WeTransfer has called Chinese Contemporary Artist Ai Weiwei, to share his key rules of life. Alternating with turquoise and red color, the resulting sheet is an assemblage of geometrical frames that provide special reminders. Find out what I means and find your own identity. Who I am, should be consistent with what I do. How I behave, and how I act. Persist, no matter what other people say.all images by WePresent

Ai Weiwei (see more here) is not only known as an architect of Chinese modernism but also for his political activism around human rights, censorship, and corruption. His mindset made him a target of the Chinese authorities and in 2011 he was arrested and imprisoned for 81 days without charge.

Ten years later, one of the nations most vocal political critics shares ten essential messages for freedom and peace of mind. Harmonize your external appearance with your innermost thoughts. What we present to the outside world should be congruent with the quality of our inner world. We see a lot of discordance between what a person appears to be and what a person really is nowadays. But the harmony between the two is actually how an individual becomes an individual.

Since A manifesto by series has launched, musician Willie Nelson, Patrisse Cullors (co-founder of Black Lives Matter), and Nadya Tolokonnikova (founder of Pussy Riot) among others, have contributed with their simple, sarcastic, and cynical messages, encouraging people all over the world.

project info:

name:A manifesto by

artist:Ai Weiwei

christina petridou I designboom

apr 27, 2022

Follow this link:

10-rule manifesto by ai weiwei for empowerment and freedom of mind - Designboom

Arlington, Texas The Texas Rangers Baseball Foundation and American Airlines are now accepting nominations for the Faces of Freedom military campaign. Throughout the season the Texas Rangers will honor active or retired military members during Rangers home games.

Nominated honorees will receive game tickets, exclusive Globe Life Field experiences, a trip to Washington D.C. courtesy of the Rangers Foundation and American Airlines, and more.

American Airlines is tremendously proud to partner with the Texas Rangers and provide air travel for this great program. We consider it a privilege to utilize our resources as the worlds largest airline to honor those who have served our nation in military uniform, said Randy Stillinger, Manager of Military and Veterans Initiatives for American Airlines. Stillinger, who still serves part-time in the U.S. Army Reserve, said that American has a long history of supporting veterans, those who currently serve in the military, and their families, and were excited to support the home team through Faces of Freedom.

Each recognized military hero will receive:

To nominate a hero for the Faces of Freedom program, visit texasrangers.com/facesoffreedom and share why they deserve to be recognized.

See the rest here:

Texas Rangers Baseball Foundation accepting nominations for "Faces of Freedom" Military Program - MLB.com

"I don't think it's the job of one country to preach to another," Boris Johnson said

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Friday said no country should "preach" to another, and "nobody can say that India is not a democracy." The visiting PM, who spoke at the Times Network India Economic Conclave, was asked about the recent debate on the issue of "freedoms of non-governmental organisations, academics and other groups in India" in the House of Lords.

The British MPs had also called on Johnson to take up the issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to New Delhi.

"I don't think it is the job of parliamentarians...they say all sorts of things. You should see what they say about me in our Parliament," Johnson said.

"I don't think it's the job of one country to preach to another. India is an incredible country. (It has) 1.35 billion people, the biggest democracy. Nobody can say India is not a democracy. It's an extraordinary place. And above all, it is ever more important in a world where the growth of the future is going to be in the Indo-Pacific," he said.

The UK is "tilting" towards the Indo-Pacific and "India's role is guardian of democratic values and in that area, it is even more important," the British prime minister further said.

Asked whether the UK condemns Chinese incursions along India's borders, the British PM said his country has always condemned breaches of territorial integrity.

"That's why I condemn so strongly what happened in Ukraine. We need to learn the lesson on how autocracies behave," he said.

Referring to Aukus, a security alliance of Australia, the US and UK, and the way the UK has to work together with friends and partners in the Indo-Pacific, he added that "it is not an exclusionary thing" and "we want to work ever more intensively with India." There has been progress on the UK-India free trade deal, he said, adding that the bar on British apples has been lifted.

"I would like to see a free trade deal done by Diwali. There are some traditional areas where India maintains tariffs," he said.

Johnson also said that his government has a much more proactive policy "on welcoming talent to the UK from India." There are around 99,000 Indian students in the UK, he said, adding that the numbers have risen after going down for a brief period.

On liberalisation of visa regime, Johnson said the UK is short of people in some sectors like the IT which are required for the growth of the economy.

Earlier in the day, Johnson held talks with Prime Minister Modi in Delhi.

Waiting for response to load...

See the original post here:

"No Country Should Preach To Another": UK PM On 'Freedom In India' Debate - NDTV

Stuff

Christchurch City Council says about 12 people left at Christchurchs red zone occupation have been asked to move on twice. (File photo)

Occupants of Christchurchs red zone freedom village have been asked twice to move by the city council.

About 12 people remained at the campsite, between Brooker Ave, Dunair Dr and New Brighton Rd.

Christchurch City Council head of parks Andrew Rutledge said they were asked to leave on Friday last week, and again on Wednesday after they claimed they hadnt seen the first direction of notice to leave.

We confirmed that we would not be engaging in broader discussions with the group regarding their claims of legitimately occupying the site.

READ MORE:* Mid-Canterbury home left uninhabitable by kitchen fire* Christchurch house gutted in suspicious late-night fire* Warning over overloaded or faulty multi-boxes after fire spread from shed to house

Council staff, supported by police, would continue to meet with the group to expedite a peaceful resolution to the situation, Rutledge said.

Council had received 31 complaints about the occupation as of Thursday..

On Wednesday, a second car was gutted in a suspicious blaze near the occupation.

Firefighters were called to Stour Drive, in the Burwood part of the former residential red zone, shortly after 9pm.

George Heard/Stuff

Emergency services were called to a second suspicious car fire on Stour Dr (file photo).

Fire and Emergency shift manager Jill Higgison said the fire was well-involved when crews arrived.

It was being considered suspicious, and had been referred to police.

On April 9, firefighters were called to the same stretch of road after a suspicious car fire.

Crews arrived to find a car well involved in fire, which had spread to a nearby tree.

Both were within 100 metres of the campsite, which first appeared earlier this month.

STACY SQUIRES/Stuff

A car believed to have been torched on Stour Dr on April 9. (File photo)

Some at the site are understood to have earlier been at the anti-mandate camp in central Christchurchs Cranmer Square.

The occupation has attracted the ire of both locals and iwi, who have accused them of antisocial and aggressive behaviour towards residents, and of making a clear attack on the authority of Ngi Thuriri', which holds mana whenua status over the land.

The Christchurch City Council declared it in breach of its bylaws, and about half of the group left after being asked by staff.

Go here to see the original:

Red zone 'freedom village' asked to leave twice by council - Stuff

The Delta surge in Covid-19 seems to be receding. Thats good news, and not just because fewer people are dying. Fear of infection was one reason the economic recovery hit an air pocket in the third quarter. Resuming normal life will be a huge relief.

But the U.S. right is, in effect, trying to keep the pandemic going. We talk a lot about misinformation on social media, some of which surprise! appears to be the product of Russian disinformation. However, the role of the right-wing establishment has surely been far more important. Fox News serves up anti-vaccine messages almost every day. Republican governors have tried to ban vaccine mandates not just by local governments and school districts but by private businesses. Multiple Republican attorneys general have filed suit to stop federal vaccine mandates.

The expressed rationale for all this activity is that its about protecting freedom. In reality, while there are several reasons for vaccine resistance, politics is a significant driver of the agitation. A successful vaccination campaign could mean a successful Biden administration, and the right is determined to prevent that, no matter how many avoidable deaths result from vaccine sabotage. Its noteworthy that Fox has a very strict vaccination policy for its own employees.

Still, the case against vaccine mandates, however disingenuous, needs to be answered on the merits. Yet I at least have rarely seen the case against a right to refuse vaccination fully explained, even though you could hardly come up with a better example than Covid-19 vaccination if you wanted to design a hypothetical situation in which arguments for freedom of choice dont apply. And I think its worth spelling out exactly why.

First, personal choice is fine as long as your personal choices dont hurt other people. I may deplore the quality of your housekeeping, but its your own business; on the other hand, freedom doesnt include the right to dump garbage in the street.

And going unvaccinated during a pandemic does hurt other people which is why schools, in particular, have required vaccination against many diseases for generations. The unvaccinated are much more likely to contract the coronavirus, and hence potentially infect others, than those whove had their shots; theres also some evidence that even when vaccinated individuals become infected, theyre less likely to infect others than the unvaccinated.

Incidentally, the fact that breakthrough infections happen that some people get the virus despite being vaccinated actually strengthens the case for mandates, because it means that even those whove gotten their shots face some danger from those who refuse to follow suit.

And the harm done to others by rejecting vaccines goes beyond an increased risk of disease. The unvaccinated are far more likely than the vaccinated to require hospitalization, which means that they place stress on the health care system. They also impose financial costs on the general public, because given the prevalence of insurance both public and private, their hospital bills end up being largely covered by the rest of us.

Vaccination, then, should be considered a public duty, not a personal choice. But there would be a strong argument for public promotion of vaccines even if we were to somehow ignore the harm the unvaccinated impose on others and look only at the personal choice aspect. For this isnt an area in which individuals can be relied on to choose well.

Medicine, in case you havent noticed, is a complex and difficult subject. As a result, its an area where its a bad idea to leave people entirely to their own devices. The clamor for unproven treatments like taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin reminds us why we require that physicians be licensed and drugs be approved, rather than leaving it up to the public to decide whos qualified and which medication is safe and effective.

So you have to wonder why anyone would consider it a good idea when Floridas surgeon general urged people to downplay medical advice on vaccines and rely on their intuition and sensibilities.

Finally, the most contentious area in this whole argument involves vaccine and mask requirements for schools. And in this area, opponents of mandates arent making decisions for themselves theyre making decisions for their children, who have rights of their own and arent simply their parents property.

Now, U.S. law and tradition give parents a great deal of leeway, especially when religious beliefs are involved, but not absolute power over their childrens lives. Adults cant choose to deny their children basic education; they cant turn down lifesaving medical treatment. Thats why we have longstanding vaccine mandates for many childhood diseases. And the same logic applies to Covid-19.

Again, I dont know how many people really believe that vaccine requirements are an attack on freedom. But in any case, its important to understand that freedom is no reason to block a potential medical miracle.

Go here to see the original:

Opinion | No, Vaccine Mandates Arent an Attack on Freedom - The New York Times

The Academic Freedom Alliance has released its public letter on the situation at the University of Florida. The administration of the University of Florida has attempted to block three political science professors from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit against the state over the recently enacted voting law, as discussed by co-blogger Eugene Volokh here. This is an egregious violation of academic freedom and the First Amendment. If accepted in this case, it would have broad ramifications for how state universities operated across a host of other cases.

From the letter:

I write on behalf of the Academic Freedom Alliance to express our firm view that this decision is a serious violation of the academic freedom principles to which the University of Florida is committed. The university is mistaken in thinking that this decision is consistent with the principles of free speech and academic freedom and has construed the potential conflicts of interest in this case in a manner that is incompatible with maintaining academic freedom in the future. It has long been a central feature of academic freedom in the United States that when university professors "speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline." Whatever interest a state university might have in preventing members of its faculty from acting as political partisans when operating within their duties as state employees, that interest cannot be understood to extend to restricting the speech activities in which professors might engage when operating outside their university duties and acting as private citizens.

You can read the full letter here.

See the rest here:

Academic Freedom Alliance Letter on the University of Florida Situation - Reason

The great singer-songwriter Paul Simon once expressed the complexity of urban living when he sang that the floor of one apartment was the ceiling of the one below. Specifically, the first verse of his song declares:

Theres been some hard feelings hereAbout some words that were saidBeen some hard feelings hereAnd what is moreTheres been a bloody purple noseAnd some bloody purple clothesThat were messing up the lobby floorIts just apartment house rulesSo all you partment house foolsRemember: one mans ceilingIs another mans floorOne mans ceilingIs another mans floor

Most of the year, I live in an apartment in Morningside Heights in New York City. I have neighbors above me, below me and next to me. We are mindful of each others space and privacy. But we share a collective water system, electrical system, heating system, elevator and building staff. When COVID-19 hit, we stopped sharing elevators and allowed them to pass until an elevator came to us empty. Today, we once again share the elevator, but we all wear masks. Unlike in Paul Simons song, weve not had any bloody clothes in the lobby or other signs of overt conflict. Each day, we must balance the freedom we exercise behind closed doors with our mutual dependency on resources we share.

If I lived on a quarter-acre or more of land in a private home, my attitude about shared responsibility might be different, but I live in a place where I need to pay attention to the volume of my music because I might wake up a baby sleeping in an adjoining apartment. What does all this have to do with vaccination? I believe nearly all of us should be vaccinated to protect our neighbors and our community.

I understand that some people have medical reasons to remain unvaccinated and they should follow medical advice. I also know that breakthrough infections are possible, but health, like life itself, is always a matter of probability. Vaccinated people are less likely to become infected with COVID-19 and less likely to transmit it. When I became eligible to be vaccinated last February, I rushed to get my shot. Yes, I wanted personal protection from COVID-19, but I was more concerned that I could become infected because I was teaching in a classroom and could spread the virus to my spouse, children, granddaughter, friends, and neighbors. I was a little scared about the side effects, but the benefits far outweighed the costs.

All over America, but especially in the more suburban and rural parts of the country, many people are resisting vaccination. When institutions like the one I work for and others started requiring vaccination, people started protesting that mandated vaccination infringed on their freedom. They are correct it does limit freedom. Just as we are x-rayed at the airport and videotaped at Walmart, our freedom is infringed upon wherever we go. You are not free to drive 100 miles an hour on the highway or make a left turn on a red light. You are not free to scream fire in a crowded theatre. In my home city, you are not free to carry a firearm without a difficult-to-obtain permit. In some states, you are free to carry weapons wherever you go, but in a place as crowded as New York, we prefer to let our police protect us with their weapons.

The degree of freedom we have varies by place and politics, but it is never absolute because even in Texas, people have a responsibility to each other. In Texas, the political leadership prefers that people take personal responsibility for their actions and argues that the responsibility to protect our neighbors from COVID-19 should not be required by government. Anti-mandate governors are correct that voluntarily taking personal responsibility is better than compulsion by authority. If a sense of responsibility for the community is not internalized by an individuals value system, government intervention will not be particularly effective. Unfortunately, not enough individuals took responsibility for preventing the spread of the virus and mandates were needed.

There are times when the needs of the community must take precedence over the needs and even rights of the individual. In emergencies, different rules must apply. I suspect the Governor of Texas does not see COVID-19 as a national emergency. Had he lived in New York in February and March of 2020, he might see the world differently. The sounds from my window day and night back then were punctuated by sirens taking sick people to hospitals where too many of them died. During wars and national emergencies, people are drafted into service and freedom is curtailed to ensure survival. People in New York City do not want to return to the New York of early 2020. If vaccination and masks are required, bring them on.

The exercise of government authority to require vaccination should be viewed as an infringement of personal freedom in the interest of collective security. Here in New York City, our municipal government has mandated vaccination of all its employees but has been more than a little clumsy in implementing the requirement. While the city government could have done a better job implementing the vaccination requirement, the policy remains sound. It comes back to our collective responsibility in a densely settled city. I am especially disappointed when I see police, health care workers and firefighters resisting vaccination since their fundamental job is to protect the public. These folks put themselves in harms way with great frequency, so why dont they see vaccination as simply another tool they possess to protect the public? Vaccine resistance among public health and safety officials is a sad indicator of the breakdown of our sense of community. COVID-19 will not be the last global pandemic we will face; we will either combat these threats as a world community or suffer the pain and loss caused by the constant spread of disease.

Freedom of thought and expression is fundamental to our democracy. Many believe that should extend to freedom to control the substances that are placed in our bodies. In a world with less than a billion people, without global trade and global travel, that might once have been possible. Today, with eight billion people and the constant risk of exposure to viruses that our bodies are not able to fight off, that freedom has become a luxury we cannot afford. Todays world is more like my apartment building than a suburban home with a lawn and a driveway.

I fear that we are living through a time where we are forgetting about the need to respect each other. I have friends and colleagues who are refusing vaccination and others who refuse to wear masks. Even though I believe their response to this pandemic is selfish, I listen carefully to their arguments and respect their beliefs. I worry that some of their arguments are based on disinformation spread via social media, but some are due to the scientific uncertainty we have all experienced as experts learned more about COVID-19. The polarization of our politics might have been overcome by a collective effort to understand and then combat this virus, but the lack of respect for each other and our institutions led to this fragmented response. Instead of summoning a sense of national purpose, Donald Trump resisted public health measures to energize his base of support during a campaign year. The response was so badly mishandled that even the promise of a more measured approach helped elect his opponent. Joe Biden has struggled to establish a collective response but is thwarted by governors, other elected officials, and pundits who continue to politicize the pandemic.

Mistrust seems to be contagious. Among Democrats in Congress, it is delaying the enactment of about $3 trillion of spending on infrastructure, environmental and social programs. Republicans are united in their opposition to these policies, even the programs they might wish to support. Symbolic position-taking and appeals to a narrow base of support have replaced nearly every effort to build consensus. Our global economy is complex, interconnected, and vulnerable. COVID, climate change, toxic substances, fire, drought, floods, cyber-attacks, terrorism, and corruption threaten our prosperity, security, and way of life.

The vaccine that some Americans are unwilling to use is beyond the reach of over a billion of our planets people, many of whom desperately want it. We need to exercise our freedoms with a sense of responsibility, mindful of our obligations to our neighbors, our nation, and the world. The alternative that stands starkly before us is division, conflict, chaos, and the demise of our democracy.

Read the original here:

Vaccination, Freedom and Responsibility - Coronavirus Coverage - State of the Planet

FULL STORY: Taylor becomes rushing sensation to propel Freedom past Liberty

Freedom 28, Liberty 13 Rapid Recap

Freedom High Schools football team took what it wanted in the second half.

What it wanted was a rivalry victory and city championship.

The Patriots, ranked No. 2 by lehighvalleylive.com, scored 21 unanswered points and defeated Liberty 28-13 on Saturday afternoon at Bethlehem Area School District Stadium.

Turning point: Freedom trailed 13-7 at halftime, but only needed six plays to go 59 yards for a score on the opening possession of the third quarter. Quarterback Brian Taylor avoided a sack and tossed a 24-yard TD to Ethan Neidig. Kicker Zeyad Ragabs PAT put the Patriots ahead 14-13 with 9:24 on the clock.

Liberty punted on the ensuing possession and Freedom marched right back down the field, going 64 yards in nine plays. Taylor capped the series with a 7-yard rushing TD to go ahead 21-13.

Top performers: Taylor completed 9 of 17 passes for 109 yards and a score. He also rushed for 87 yards and three scores on 14 carries.

Deante Crawford had 154 yards on 33 carries for Freedom.

Liberty tailback Kyndred Wright had 14 carries for 85 yards and a touchdown. Karim Brice returned a punt 75 yards for a Hurricanes touchdown.

What it means: Freedom, which won the city title by virtue of its wins over Liberty and Bethlehem Catholic, finished the regular season with an 8-2 record. The Patriots will host Easton as the third seed in the District 11 Class 6A tournament.

Liberty, which won its season opener, closed the fall with a 1-9 mark.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to lehighvalleylive.com.

Kyle Craig may be reached at kcraig@lehighvalleylive.com.

Visit link:

Freedom football rules 2nd half to beat Liberty, claim city title - lehighvalleylive.com

Last month, the Fraser Institute put out its annual Economic Freedom of the World report. As usual, it showed that economic freedom is positively correlated with many good things and negatively correlated with many bad ones.

Defenders of capitalism love the Fraser Institute. Libertarian philosopher Jason Brennan, for example, has made heavy use of the rankings in the context of criticizing the arguments of Marxist philosopher GA Cohen. Brennan argues that given all the positive things that come with greater economic freedom, the debate about whether capitalism is superior to socialism has a clear victor: the pro-capitalist side. The only remaining question is whether socialism would be better in a hypothetical world where humans were less selfish and lazy.

Economist Peter Leeson has deployed the Fraser Institutes reports to mount an even more strident defense of capitalism. Many commentators, Leeson writes, think that capitalism deserves two cheers for yielding many good outcomes while also thinking that excessive or uncontrolled capitalism can be bad. Leeson says this is wrong because the Fraser Institutes numbers show that capitalism deserves three cheers.

Although many relationships in the social sciences are unclear, capitalisms relationship to development isnt one of them. Unless one is ashamed of unprecedented increases in income, rising life expectancy, greater education, and more political freedom, theres no reason to be a milquetoast defender of capitalism.

Even a quick glance at the Fraser Institutes report reveals that the numbers that emerge from their methodology are flatly irrelevant to anything in dispute between social democrats, socialists, and defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.

These are bold claims. And if you just look at the Fraser Institutes many graphs and assume that the x-axis really is about something called economic freedom (or, in Leesons language, countries becoming more capitalist and less socialist), the data does seem to prove that people live longer and are more prosperous, more educated, and more politically free in more capitalist countries. How, then, could anyone be a socialist? How could anyone even be a social democrat, aspiring to curb excessive or uncontrolled capitalism through expansive social programs and a regulatory state? The more capitalist a society is, the better the outcomes.

Theres just one problem with all of this. The premise is nonsense. Even a quick glance at the Fraser Institutes report reveals that the numbers that emerge from their methodology are flatly irrelevant to anything in dispute between social democrats, socialists, and defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.

First, though, its worth pausing to talk about definitions. Many socialists think that a fully socialist society would be one where workers controlled the means of production. Since theres never been a society where even a significant portion of the economy was put under workers control, the degree to which a society is socialist in this sense is hard to measure. Other socialists, though, have thought that state ownership of the bulk of the economy would be sufficient. That can be measured. There have been societies like the USSR where pretty much the entire economy was state-owned, countries like the United States with little state ownership, and countries like Norway (where almost a third of the workforce works in the public sector and the state holds shares in many companies) that are somewhere in between.

Similarly, we can make a distinction between socialism after capitalism (i.e., socialism in the strict sense) and socialism within capitalism (i.e., the policies that socialists around the world have fought for to make life better for working-class people within basically capitalist structures). This, too, can be measured. We can compare societies based on how much the state intervenes to make it easier for workers to organize labor unions, or the difference between health care systems like the one in the United States (where only a minority of the population qualifies for public health insurance), Canada (where theres universal public health insurance but the hospitals themselves are mostly private), and in countries like Britain, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (where most or all of the hospitals are publicly owned and the doctors and nurses are public employees).

Rankings comparing societies by the degree of state ownership would be relevant to arguments about whether societies are better off with capitalism or with at least some forms of socialism. Similarly, ranking societies in terms of their health care system or the degree of friendliness toward union organizing would be relevant to arguments about reforms socialists support within capitalism.

But all you need to do to confirm the Fraser Institute isnt doing anything like this is to glance at the handy interactive map on their website. Play with the map for about five seconds, and youll discover that Norway and Sweden are both far more economically free than Haiti.

You read that right. Norway and Sweden tie for 37th place. Haiti sits all the way down at 118th place. That means Haiti, according to the Fraser Institute, is less capitalist than Sweden or Norway.

Pop quiz: Does Haiti have a more expansive welfare state than Sweden or Norway? Does it have a more favorable environment for labor unions? Does it have a larger public sector?

These arent serious questions.

So whats going on here? The five categories the Fraser Institute uses to judge different countries are size of government, legal system and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation.

Four of those categories at least sound like they have something to do with contested issues between social democrats, socialists, and defenders of uncontrolled capitalism, although property rights would be more obviously relevant than the oddly mashed together category legal system and property rights. Hold that thought.

Meanwhile, whats this about sound money? Heres how the executive summary describes the category: Inflation erodes the value of rightfully earned wages and savings. Sound money is thus essential to defend property rights.

That thus is a little odd, since the underlying thought seems to be not so much that low inflation is essential to defending property rights as that its essential for property owners to get the benefits they would otherwise receive from those property rights. More importantly, though, the order of explanation here is the opposite of what we usually get in (misleading) right-wing arguments that the economic woes of Venezuela, for example, show that socialism produces bad outcomes. Usually, libertarians and conservatives say that socialist policies are bad because they lead to inflation. They dont define inflation itself as somehow intrinsically un-capitalist.

How about legal system and property rights? The description in the executive summary is too vague to make clear whats being measured, but the full report helpfully breaks this down into sub categories:

A. Judicial independenceB. Impartial courtsC. Protection of property rightsD. Military interference in rule of law and politicsE. Integrity of the legal systemF. Legal enforcement of contractsG. Regulatory costs of the sale of real propertyH. Reliability of police

Of these eight categories, C is the only one that sounds remotely relevant to the capitalism-versus-socialism debate. And even there, its only relevant if what property is being protected from is nationalization (or expropriation by the workers themselves, as in Argentinas recovered factories movement of the early 2000s). At a stretch, G might also be salient, although the regulatory costs socialists want to impose on businesses (like better workplace safety laws, a higher minimum wage, measures to make it harder to bust unions) rarely have much to do with the sale of businesses.

The other six are just flagrantly irrelevant. What socialists complaint about the police is that theyre too reliable (H)? What socialist doesnt want workers to be able to take their bosses to court for violating union contracts (F)? Have you met a socialist whose main complaint about US courts is that theyre too impartial (B) and independent of the government (A) or that the legal system has too much damn integrity (E)? (For a hint as to what the real complaints are, google Steven Donziger.) The high-water mark of absurdity, though, comes at D. Do socialists want the military to interfere more in legal and political systems? Ask Salvador Allende about that one.

One could argue that even if none of this has to do with whether societies are more capitalist or less capitalist, it at least has to do with whether those societies are living up to the ideals of many advocates of capitalism. Fair enough.

But thats like saying the Soviet Union scored poorly on many standards near and dear to the heart of many socialists. Theres a long tradition of socialists advocating for free speech rights, for example. Wed look pretty silly if we ranked countries by how socialist they were using the degree of free speech protection as one of the metrics, thus giving the Soviet Union a lower socialism score than the United States . . . and thus triumphantly concluding that the degree of socialism was positively correlated with free speech protections.

This is exactly what the Fraser Institute and libertarians who tout its findings are doing when they count societies as more economically free (or, in Brennan and Leesons hands, more capitalist) in part because theyre less corrupt and unstableand then use this to assert that economic freedom or capitalism itself leads to more democracy and better political outcomes. Are there worse outcomes in societies with high inflation, high judicial corruption, and frequent military coups? No kidding. This is supposed to have what exactly to do with long-standing debates about capitalism and socialism?

Does the history of the 20th century include plenty of fodder for intellectually honest criticisms of at least some forms of socialism? Of course. But the Fraser Institute is just cooking the books.

Excerpt from:

'Economic freedom' rankings are contrived, meaningless nonsense - The Real News Network

Colin Crossman:

Aspirational projects like the Declaration of Monetary Independence are designed to engender strong feelings thats part of their power. Much contemporary art was made about the American Independence movement, such as William Blakes America, A Prophecy, and Philip Freneau in both A Political Litany and American Liberty. Such works help communicate the overall message of the movement to a broader audience, and often do a better job conveying the emotionality of the movement than the base layer argument.

We can see much artistic output coming from the broad Bitcoin community, with a great output of audio and visual works. For me, when I was exposed to early versions of the Declaration of Monetary Independence project, I was moved to write a couple of haiku. Upon hearing that they were looking for more of such work to assist with the project, I decided that this would be my contribution to it.

A few notes about the below. Each haiku is intended to stand on its own, while also being a part of a larger story. One apparent departure from the norm, haiku generally evokes nature. Here, while I do evoke nature, I also include aspects of Bitcoins construction (SHA-256), and memes. To my mind, these are part of Bitcoins nature, and so in evoking these, I believe these remain true to the spirit of English language haiku.

Rick Poach:

A little over a month ago, on a whim, I started posting Bitcoin/Econ themed limericks to a Telegram board of Denver Bitcoiners. The limericks were to form: humorous and unserious snippets of verse. I didn't think much about them other than the fact that they were coming to mind in the first place.

For nearly twelve years, I have written what I label as political satire (sarcasm) in verse. However, after what, in my opinion, was a false flag insurrection, whatever inspiration to write that I might have had remaining had dried up. Any attempt that I made at writing felt like, and was, a half-hearted effort: the absurdities were so apparent, what more could my sarcasm do to reveal it?With the exception of a couple of half-hearted pieces, I had stopped writing for almost a year.

However, during that year, two interesting things happened to me. The first was that, in April, Colin Crossman introduced me to Bitcoin. I quickly went down the rabbit hole, as I almost immediately intuited that eventually, Bitcoin fixes, the absurdist forces which have seized power. The second was that, about a month ago, Mark Maraia read those throwaway limericks that I had posted, and asked me to write some verse in support of the Declaration of Monetary Independence.

The result of those two interesting things is the piece, Hum.

I would like to thank both Colin and Mark for their unknowing contribution to Hum. I would not have had the inspiration to write it without them.

If needed, here is a key to better understand Hum:

This is a guest post by Rick Poach And Colin Crossman. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

See the original post:

Bitcoin Community Projects Communicate The Message Of Freedom - Bitcoin Magazine