50 Years Later, Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty Still Provokes Unsettling Conclusions – FlaglerLive.com

The USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli gunships and jets on June 8, 1967 off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula.

By Samuel Cox

June 8 marked the 50th anniversary of one of the most bitterly contentious events in U.S. Navy history, and the controversy continues largely unabated to this day. It involves the mistaken attack by four Israeli jet fighters and three motor torpedo boats on the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) which was conducting an intelligence collection mission in international waters off the north coast of the Sinai Peninsula in the midst of the Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. Thirty-four U.S. personnel (31 Navy, two Marine Corps and one National Security Agency civilian) were killed and 171 were wounded, out of of 293 aboard, as a result of multiple strafing runs by jet aircraft, surface fire from the torpedo boats and one hit by a 19 torpedo.

The crew of the Liberty performed their duty with exceptional valor during that attack and in saving their ship from severe damage that could easily have resulted in her loss. Libertys Commanding Officer, Commander William McGonagle, was a awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions directing response to the attack and saving his ship, refusing to leave his position on the bridge for many hours despite wounds incurred in the first strafing attack. Libertys Executive Officer, LCDR Philip Armstrong, was awarded a posthumous Navy Cross. He was killed by strafing while leading a party attempting to jettison burning fuel containers over the side. The ships Intelligence Officer, LT Steve Toth, was also killed by strafing while attempting to positively identify the attacking aircraft. Toth, along with 10 others, were awarded Silver Stars (two posthumously.) Bronze Stars were awarded to 21 other crew members for bravery under fire in rescuing wounded crewmen during strafing attacks and for subsequent actions in fighting fires and flooding and tending to the many wounded. The Liberty was subsequently awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.

The central question that has caused the raging debate is whether the Israeli attack was premeditated or deliberately conducted against a ship known by them to be American, or whether it was a tragic accident resulting from negligent mistakes or the fog of war. To this date, no evidence has ever surface that the Israelis deliberately attacked what they knew to be an American ship, although numerous books and TV documentaries have attempted to make this case. There is certainly evidence that some Israelis began to doubt that the ship was Egyptian during the course of the air attack, and that failures in command and control contributed to the subsequent torpedo attack. In my view, looking at the evidence available, the initial Navy board of inquiry, led by Rear Admiral (RADM) Isaac Kidd, Jr., was correct in its judgment that the attack was a tragic accident. However, that board was focused on whether actions of the Libertys crew were in any way responsible for the event, which has led others to question the thoroughness of RADM Kidds investigation, but the investigation has actually stood the test of time.

Nevertheless, beginning almost immediately after the attack and continuing over the years, numerous government and even very senior navy officials have gone on public record with some version of in no way could this possibly have been an accident, and no way could the Israelis have been that incompetent. Such opinions, however, have either been based on hearsay, or originated in opinions uttered in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and before any investigations were complete. Such expressed opinions by senior government and navy officials have lent gravitas to all manner of conspiracy and cover-up theories ranging from the somewhat plausible to ridiculously outlandish. To this day, various groups with both anti-Israel and pro-Israel agendas continue to challenge the official records in both the U.S. and Israel with alternative hypotheses.

It should be noted that members of the USS Liberty Survivors Association [one of whom lives in Palm Coast], who were on the receiving end of a devastating mass-casualty attack, remain adamant in their belief that it was a deliberate attack against a ship the Israelis knew to be American. This belief is not universally held among the survivors, but remains predominant. It was a horrific and traumatic attack, so hard feelings by the crew against the Israelis would appear completely understandable. There continues to be strong feelings among the crew that RADM Kidds investigation was a rush-to-judgment, that it too readily accepted the Israeli explanation (and apology) and that the U.S. government deliberately whitewashed the event for political reasons. There is no question that both governments sought to play down the incident. For example, on the advice of his staff, President Johnson declined to personally present the Medal of Honor to Commander McGonagle, and a low-key presentation was conducted at the Washington Navy Yard rather than the White House, an action viewed by some of the crew as disrespectful of the sacrifice of the commanding officer and crew.

There were, however, numerous blunders by both the United States Navy and the Israeli Air Force and Navy that resulted in the attack.

Samuel J. Cox, RADM, USN (Retired), is the curator and director of Naval History and Heritage Command. Below is his more complete history of the attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967.

Attack on the USS Liberty

The USS Libertys mission was to collect intelligence on activity along the north coast of the Sinai Peninsula. Although the Liberty was a U.S. Navy ship with a mostly U.S. Navy crew, its mission was in support of National Security Agency and Joint Chiefs of Staff tasking, i.e., a national mission not a navy mission, which at the time resulted in a convoluted chain-of-command. The Six-Day War broke out between the time she was ordered to proceed to the Eastern Mediterranean in response to rising tensions and the time she arrived on station 13-17 NM off the northern Sinai Coast on 7 June. Liberty had Arab and Russian linguists embarked (including USMC and NSA civilians), but no Hebrew linguists. Her designated patrol area was out of VHF/UHF collection range of Israel proper, but she could monitor and collect (but not understand in real time) Israeli military activity in the Sinai which had commenced with the Israeli pre-emptive strikes on 5 June. At the time of the attack, she had been transiting westerly for six hours. Liberty was armed only with four 50 caliber machine guns intended to repel boarders. At the time, the fact that the Liberty was an intelligence collection ship was classified. She was officially designated as a general purpose auxiliary technical research ship (AGTR) and she carried GTR-5 freshly painted on each side at bow and stern.

The USS Liberty after the attack. (US Navy)

In the very early morning of 8 June, an Israeli Air Force propeller driven aircraft (a Nord 2501) flew a standard dawn maritime reconnaissance mission on behalf of the Israeli Navy (which had no organic air capability.) The aircraft located the Liberty at 0558, which was correctly identified as the USS Liberty by an Israeli naval intelligence officer when the aircraft landed. The Liberty was then plotted as a neutral on the situation board at Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa. By late morning, the contact had gone stale and in accordance with standard operating procedure was removed from the plot. However, the fact that a U.S. ship was out there did not survive an 1100 watch turnover (following an investigation and pre-trial hearing the responsible watch officer was not referred to trial.) Other Israeli aircraft flew in the vicinity to-and-from combat air patrol (CAP) and ground-attack missions in the Sinai throughout the morning; these flights did not report on the Liberty (since it was not their mission) but were observed from the Liberty and have since come to be erroneously reported as additional Israeli pre-attack surveillance.

In the early afternoon of 8 June, Israeli Army forces in the vicinity of al Arish reported that they were being shelled from the sea. An unidentified grey ship (the Liberty) could be observed on the horizon and was presumed to be the source. At that time, Liberty was operating about 14 NM off the coast, and at least one massive explosion and other smoke near al Arish were observed from the Liberty at 1300 as the Liberty commenced a general quarters drill (which concluded at 1345.) At the time, the Egyptian army had been driven well out of artillery range, and the Egyptian air force had been destroyed on the ground in the initial Israeli preemptive strikes on 5 June. Whether the explosions were the result of sabotage, or some other activity, remains unknown, but certainly was not due to any action by the Liberty.

In response to the report of shelling from the sea, the Israeli Navy was ordered to dispatch ships to intercept. Two destroyers were promptly recalled, but three MTBs (MTB Division 914) under the command of Lieutenant Commander Moshe Oren, were ordered to continue. At that time, Liberty was heading westerly in the general direction of Port Said, held by the Egyptians, at a slow speed under 15 KTS. As the MTBs made initial radar contact with the Liberty (at fairly long range, 22 NM, due to atmospheric ducting) the Combat Information Center (CIC) officer on the command MTB erroneously calculated the Libertys speed as 30 KTS. By Israeli SOP, an unidentified ship transiting at greater than 20 KTS was presumed to be a warship and could be attacked. It also meant that the MTBs would be unable to make the intercept before the contact reached Port Said, which forced LCDR Oren to call for air support. Given the testy and competitive relationship at the time between the Israeli Navy and Air Force, it is very unlikely LCDR Oren would have called for air support unless he believed there was no alternative. In fact, the Israeli Air Force and Navy had only narrowly averted a potentially catastrophic friendly fire engagement the previous night.

Two Israeli Mirage IIICJ fighters returning from a CAP (air-to-air) mission over the Sinai were ordered to locate, identify, and if the contact was a warship, to attack the contact. In their initial stand-off reconnaissance the two fighters identified the Liberty as a warship (painted grey, and not Israeli, and the fighters identified the three MTBs to ensure deconfliction.) The fighters also identified the Liberty as a destroyer (which it definitely was not) because that was what they expected to see, since the only ships the Egyptians had that could have been responsible for shelling Al Arish were destroyers (or missile patrol boats, which even Air Force pilots could tell the contact certainly was not.) At a safe distance and altitude, the fighters did not discern the 5 ft by 8 ft American flag nor the GTR-5 on the bow and stern, and requested clearance to engage. After double-checking with the Navy that the contact was a warship, which Navy headquarters verified (based on the erroneous calculated speed), the Air Force controller cleared the fighters to engage.

At 1358, the two Mirages commenced a bow-to-stern firing pass from out of the sun. CDR McGonagle had already ordered the machine guns (which were already manned as a precaution) to Condition One because he didnt like the look of the jets actions and immediately called general quarters. Flying at a speed of a half mile every three seconds, each Mirage opened fire with a 3 second burst of 30mm cannon fire, aimed at the forward superstructure, with devastating result, before looping around for another pass. Neither jet noted any return fire. Although not noted in the ships log, but noted in the board of inquiry testimony, one Sailor (GMG3 Alexander Thompson, Jr.) did open fire, and was killed on the second pass trying to do the same. The first pass ignited a fire in two 55gal drums holding fuel for the motor whaleboat, and set the whaleboat on fire as well. The first pass either shot away the American flag, or the halyards burned; either way the flag was gone by the second and third passes. In the Israeli gun camera footage, the flag is not visible on any pass, and on the second and third pass, the heavy smoke from the gasoline fire is rising straight up, indicating that at least at the point of the first pass the flag would not have been flying straight out, and even if it was, making out a flag from a high speed jet from a bow-on aspect would have been exceedingly difficult. The pilot would have been concentrating on hitting the target and then not crashing into the ship or the water in the three or so seconds after firing. Some accounts claim that the Mirages fired rockets, however since their primary mission was air-to-air, that would have been very unlikely; the hundreds of impacts from high velocity 30mm canons were more than adequate to cause major damage throughout the ship. The first air attack concluded by 1404.

A few minutes after the Mirage attack concluded, two Super Mystere B-2 fighters, diverted from a ground attack mission in the Sinai, commenced a stern-to-bow pass at 1407, dropping two napalm canisters each; three missed and one ignited a fire in the bridge area. The aircraft then looped around for a strafing pass from the beam, again inflicting severe damage with 30mm canon fire. However, on the second pass, the lead pilot noticed unusual markings, and the Israeli air control officer in Tel Aviv was already becoming seriously concerned by the lack of any reported return fire. On the third pass, the lead pilot reported that the target had CTR-5 on the bow. The Israeli air control officer immediately ordered a halt to the attack, and ordered a third flight tasked against the ship, two Mystere IV fighters armed with 500 LB iron bombs, to resume their original ground attack mission in the Sinai. The air attacks were over by 1410. Nine U.S. crewmen, including the XO and the Intelligence Officer had been killed or would die of their wounds.

Although Egyptian ships had been known to use subterfuge in ship markings, they used Arabic script for names and numbers, not the Latin alphabet. The Israeli air controllers concern that they might have hit a U.S. ship was quickly replaced by concern they had hit a Soviet intelligence collection ship (AGI.) The Israeli fighter had misidentified the GTR-5 as CTR-5, an easy mistake. Soviet AGIs would normally have CCB-## (Cyrillic for SSV-##.) This resulted in a flurry of reports up the Israeli chain of command.

At 1424, the Liberty sighted the three MTBs approaching at high speed. At 1417, LCDR Oren had requested authorization to employ torpedoes, which was granted by the Deputy Commander of the Israeli Navy, under the mistaken presumption that the contact was an Egyptian destroyer (since that was the only thing that could have shelled Al Arish and be making 30KTS.) The three Israeli MTBs caught up to the heavily damaged Liberty about 1430, which was billowing heavy black smoke, and obviously not making 30 KTS, nor was it a destroyer to anyone with rudimentary recognition skills.

The MTBs held short about a mile from the Liberty while LCDR Oren, and the skippers of the other two MTBs identified the Liberty as the Egyptian transport vessel El Quseir. One junior officer under instruction expressed doubt about the identification. The El Quseir was somewhat superficially similar in silhouette to the Liberty, although less than two-thirds the size. However, the rationale for why a 1929-vintage horse and passenger transport, armed only with two antiquated 3-pounder guns, would have been anywhere near that location defies easy explanation, nor could the El Quesir possibly have been responsible for shelling Al Arish. The Israeli MTBs did not see the much larger 813 ft holiday American flag that had been hoisted after the air attacks. Due to the fire, the flag was on a halyard on the opposite side from the MTBs and mostly likely obscured by the heavy smoke. The Israelis were also looking into the sun, and the GTR-5 on the bow and stern would have been harder to see in shadow.

The Liberty as airmen would have seen it on that clear day.

In the Israelis minds, the identification issue was rendered moot, when the Liberty opened fire as they began to close. Commander McGonagle give the order to fire, but immediately countermanded it after he saw what he interpreted as a possible Israeli flag on an MTB. However, with all communications destroyed, except for shouting down from the bridge, a forward gunner got off one 50 caliber round before hearing the cease-fire order. An amidships machine gun (to which there was no easy access from the bridge due to the fire) may also have opened fire, or much more likely, ammunition cooked off due to the fire at a most unfortunate time.

Believing they were being fired upon, (and unaware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Israeli Navy had countermanded the torpedo launch authorization as soon as he was briefed) the MTBs opened up with a sustained barrage of 40mm, 20mm and 50 cal fire, which killed Libertys helmsman (who had taken over from the helmsman wounded in the air attack) and commenced a high speed attack run, firing five of the six torpedoes on the MTBs (each was armed with two torpedoes.) LCDR Oren did not even wait to set up a doctrinally correct multi-axis shot, and four of the five torpedoes missed, one ahead and three astern.

One torpedo hit the intelligence space on the Liberty, virtually wiping out the entire intelligence detachment in the space at the time. The torpedo opened a 39 FT by 40 FT hole below the waterline, and the ship quickly took on a 9-10 degree list. Fortunately much of the blast was dissipated by a mainframe that likely prevented the ship from breaking in two and sinking immediately.

Twenty-two Sailors, two Marines and one NSA civilian were killed as a result of the torpedo boat attack. Among other things, life rafts that had been thrown over the side were shredded by the volume of fire from the Israeli boats. The apparent precision of the Israelis in destroying the intelligence compartment served as fuel for the deliberate attack on a known U.S. ship theory, a high degree of accuracy that doesnt explain why the other four torpedoes completely missed (as had every torpedo the Israelis had previously test launched.)

After the torpedo attack, the MTBs came close enough to read the name on the stern (which even then was initially reported as Cyrillic (i.e., Russian.) Released U.S. and Israeli transcripts of Israeli communications, show a high degree of confusion within the Israeli Air Force and Navy over whether the ship was Egyptian, Soviet and U.S. The MTBs realized their mistake at about 1500 when the recovered a life raft marked U.S. Navy, and Israeli Headquarters became convinced at 1512 following a close pass by an Israeli helicopter that was the first to report that the Liberty was flying a flag and that it was definitely American. (The MTBs had previously reported seeing a red flag, which added to the possible Soviet confusion.)

The Israelis admitted and formally apologized for the attack, and eventually paid several million dollars in restitution to the families of those killed, but balked at paying for the ship because they believed that the U.S. had erred in sending the Liberty into a combat zone without prior notification (a compromise was eventually reached.) Nevertheless, the apology and restitution were viewed as inadequate by much of the Libertys crew. I will not go in to the myriad of conjectural theories as to why Israel would have chosen to deliberately and knowingly attack a ship of the only nation in the world that was standing by them at that point. The most prevalent theory is that the Israelis attacked the Liberty to prevent the U.S. from finding out they were about to attack the Syrian Golan Heights. However, the Israeli Chief of Defense had already notified the U.S. Ambassador and the U.S. Special Representative of their intent to do so some eight hours before the attack. None of the other theories stand up to rigorous scrutiny either.

Because of the then-classified nature of the Libertys intelligence collection mission, the initial Department of Defense press release deliberately contained false information (a definite dont do that lesson learned,) that the press and others quickly determined to be false, adversely affecting the U.S. governments credibility in the matter. In addition, the results of the board of inquiry and much official documentation remained classified for many years. As a result, the cover up/conspiracy/the Israelis did it with malice aforethought school-of-thought had an over ten-year head-start in disseminating their versions of events, which continues to impact virtually every story done on the Liberty to this day.

Of note, two days before the Liberty attack, U.S. Air Force jets, in broad clear daylight mistakenly shot up the Soviet merchant ship Turkestan in a North Vietnamese port, flying a Soviet flag, and killing a wounding a number of Soviet sailors. The Soviets refused to accept our admission that it was an accident.

One thing about the Liberty Attack that has never been contested was the heroism of the Libertys crew in saving their ship and many shipmates. As the Board of Inquiry determined, they were actually as well-drilled and prepared as possible, and they were well-led by Commander McGonagle. As I mentioned in my previous H-gram about the courageous actions of U.S. Navy Sailors in the debacle of the fall of the Philippines and Dutch East Indies during WWII, Sailors on even the most unglamorous non-combat naval vessel can find themselves with no notice called upon to conduct the most heroic of acts under the most horrific of circumstances. The Sailors on the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) more than lived up to the highest standards of valor exhibited by any combat ship in U.S. Naval History, and deserve our nations gratitude for their exemplary service in harms way.

There have been many books and articles written on the Liberty Attack and I have read most of them. There have also been a number of TV documentaries, and I have seen some of them. Almost all the books and documentaries have major historical inaccuracies, and many have an agenda. A recent book, published by U.S. Naval Institute in 2013, The Liberty Incident Revealed (a follow-on to an earlier book) by Jay Cristol, is the most thoroughly researched with verifiable sourcing and certainly the most objective account that I have seen.

See more here:

50 Years Later, Israel's Attack on the USS Liberty Still Provokes Unsettling Conclusions - FlaglerLive.com

With liberty and justice for some – Toledo Blade

Share

Share

Email

Print

The 14th Amendment declares that no state shall create a law that abridges the natural rights of life, liberty, and property of a United States citizen, whether naturalized or state-born. Too often, both now and in history, we have seen this amendment ignored and pushed to the side, though it resurfaces occasionally, often times during very controversial cases.

Hanson

Enlarge

July 28, 1968, the 14th Amendment was finally adopted as part of the Constitution. The first real landmark case involving the 14th Amendment was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, in which aseparate but equal ethos was adopted, an ideology tested nearly 60 years later, in 1954, during the Brown v. Board of Education case. This case was the turning point of segregation, the Supreme Court deciding that separate facilities were implicitly unequal and beginning the desegregation process. In 2015, the 14th Amendment again was employed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which the topic in question was country-wide legalization of homosexual marriage, which, as of June 26, 2015, is legal in all 50 states. Simple application of the 14th Amendment in each of these three cases caused for a very controversial topic to be resolved, creating life-altering results, however most of them being for the good of the whole. Despite the simplicity of the solution, many of us tend to overlook it, pushing it aside and causing more dispute than necessary and intertwining personal opinions with professional decisions.

Exactly one month ago, on January 27th, President Trump issued the immigration ban for all persons from all major Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, showing preference to non-Muslim foreigners. Two Iraqi men, who work for the U.S. military, were detained at John F. Kennedy airport a mere few hours after this order was set in motion, despite having all proper documentation and permission to enter. Trumps ban violates multiple constitutional rights, but most of all, it diminishes a Muslim persons ability to become a legal citizen almost entirely, not even giving them an opportunity to claim that it violates the 14th Amendment as they are unable to be naturalized. Women are also subject to some exclusion which again could be solved by simple application of the 14th Amendment. Ohio is one of 18 states to have passed the 20 Weeks Law, stating that a woman cannot abort a fetus more than 20 weeks post-conception, making no exceptions to rape or incest victims, nor to women with fetuses with irreversible birth defects who may not even survive outside the womb. This particular law prohibits women from making a choice that may benefit their health, abridging their natural rights to liberty and giving an unborn fetus more freedom than a live, fully cognizant woman. This is a prime example of intertwining opinion with profession.

The complexity and simplicity of the 14th Amendment has proven quite dynamic throughout history. Many ancestors have benefited from its insightful wording, and even today we continuously witness the effects of its application.

Read the rest here:

With liberty and justice for some - Toledo Blade

Incompatibilism – Wikipedia

Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that persons have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will where philosophers must choose one or the other. This view is pursued in at least three ways: libertarians deny that the universe is deterministic, the hard determinists deny that any free will exists, and pessimistic incompatibilists (hard indeterminists) deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists.

Incompatiblism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free will dichotomy.

Metaphysical libertarianism argues that free will is real and that determinism is false. Such dualism risks an infinite regress however;[1] if any such mind is real, an objection can still be raised using the standard argument against free will[clarification needed] that it is shaped by a higher power (a necessity or chance).[clarification needed] Libertarian Robert Kane (among others) presented an alternative model:

Robert Kane (editor of the Oxford Handbook of Free Will) is a leading incompatibilist philosopher in favour of free will. Kane seeks to hold persons morally responsible for decisions that involved indeterminism in their process. Critics maintain that Kane fails to overcome the greatest challenge to such an endeavor: "the argument from luck".[2] Namely, if a critical moral choice is a matter of luck (indeterminate quantum fluctuations), then on what grounds can we hold a person responsible for their final action? Moreover, even if we imagine that a person can make an act of will ahead of time, to make the moral action more probable in the upcoming critical moment, this act of 'willing' was itself a matter of luck.

Libertarianism in the philosophy of mind is unrelated to the like-named political philosophy. It suggests that we actually do have free will, that it is incompatible with determinism, and that therefore the future is not determined. For example, at this moment, one could either continue reading this article if one wanted, or cease. Under this assertion, being that one could do either, the fact of how the history of the world will continue to unfold is not currently determined one way or the other.

One famous proponent of this view was Lucretius, who asserted that the free will arises out of the random, chaotic movements of atoms, called "clinamen". One major objection to this view is that science has gradually shown that more and more of the physical world obeys completely deterministic laws, and seems to suggest that our minds are just as much part of the physical world as anything else. If these assumptions are correct, incompatibilist libertarianism can only be maintained as the claim that free will is a supernatural phenomenon, which does not obey the laws of nature (as, for instance, maintained by some religious traditions).

However, many libertarian view points now rely upon an indeterministic view of the physical universe, under the assumption that the idea of a deterministic, "clockwork" universe has become outdated since the advent of quantum mechanics.[citation needed] By assuming an indeterministic universe libertarian philosophical constructs can be proposed under the assumption of physicalism.

There are libertarian view points based upon indeterminism and physicalism, which is closely related to naturalism.[3] A major problem for naturalistic libertarianism is to explain how indeterminism can be compatible with rationality and with appropriate connections between an individual's beliefs, desires, general character and actions. A variety of naturalistic libertarianism is promoted by Robert Kane,[4][5] who emphasizes that if our character is formed indeterministically (in "self-forming actions"), then our actions can still flow from our character, and yet still be incompatibilistically free.

Alternatively, libertarian view points based upon indeterminism have been proposed without the assumption of naturalism. At the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[6]quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, but still Lewis stated the logical possibility that, if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic, this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality (noting that, under a physicalist point of view, the non-physical entity must be independent of the self-identity or mental processing of the sentient being). Lewis mentions this only in passing, making clear that his thesis does not depend on it in any way.

Others may use some form of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism to suggest that although the mind is in fact part of the physical world, it involves a different level of description of the same facts, so that although there are deterministic laws under the physical description, there are no such laws under the mental description, and thus our actions are free and not determined.[7]

Those who reject free will and accept determinism are variously known as "hard determinists", hard incompatibilists, free will skeptics, illusionists, or impossibilists. They believe that there is no 'free will' and that any sense of the contrary is an illusion.[8] Of course, hard determinists do not deny that one has desires, but say that these desires are causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. According to this philosophy, no wholly random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. Determinists sometimes assert that it is stubborn to resist scientifically motivated determinism on purely intuitive grounds about one's own sense of freedom. They reason that the history of the development of science suggests that determinism is the logical method in which reality works.

William James said that philosophers (and scientists) have an "antipathy to chance."[9] Absolute chance, a possible implication of quantum mechanics and the indeterminacy principle, implies a lack of causality.[citation needed] This possibility often disturbs those who assume there must be a causal and lawful explanation for all events.

Since many believe that free will is necessary for moral responsibility, this may imply disastrous consequences for their theory of ethics.

As something of a solution to this predicament, it has been suggested that, for the sake of preserving moral responsibility and the concept of ethics, one might embrace the so-called "illusion" of free will. This, despite thinking that free will does not exist according to determinism. Critics argue that this move renders morality merely another "illusion", or else that this move is simply hypocritical.

The Determinist will add that, even if denying free will does mean morality is incoherent, such an unfortunate result has no effect on the truth. Note, however, that hard determinists often have some sort of 'moral system' that relies explicitly on determinism. A Determinist's moral system simply bears in mind that every person's actions in a given situation are, in theory, predicted by the interplay of environment and upbringing. For instance, the Determinist may still punish undesirable behaviours for reasons of behaviour modification or deterrence.

Hard incompatibilism, like hard determinism, is a type of skepticism about free will. 'Hard incompatibilism' is a term coined by Derk Pereboom to designate the view that both determinism and the sort of indeterminism that has a significant chance of being true are incompatible with our having free will.[10] Like the hard determinist, the hard incompatibilist holds that if determinism were true, our having free will would be ruled out. But Pereboom argues in addition that if our decisions were indeterministic events, free will would also be precluded. In his view, free will is the control in action required for the desert aspect of moral responsibility -- for our deserving to be blamed or punished for immoral actions, and to be praised or rewarded for morally exemplary actions. He contends that if our decisions were indeterministic events, their occurrence would not be in the control of the agent in the way required for such attributions of desert.[11] The possibility for free will that remains is libertarian agent causation, according to which agents as substances (thus not merely as having a role in events) can cause actions without being causally determined to do so. Pereboom argues that for empirical reasons it is unlikely that we are agent causes of this sort, and that as a result, it's likely that we lack free will.[12]

In recent years researchers in the field of experimental philosophy have been working on determining whether ordinary people, who aren't experts in this field, naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions about determinism and moral responsibility.[13] Some experimental work has even conducted cross-cultural studies.[14] The debate about whether people naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions has not come out overwhelmingly in favor of one view or the other. Still, there has been some evidence that people can naturally hold both views. For instance, when people are presented with abstract cases which ask if a person could be morally responsible for an immoral act when they could not have done otherwise, people tend to say no, or give incompatibilist answers, but when presented with a specific immoral act that a specific person committed, people tend to say that that person is morally responsible for their actions, even if they were determined (that is, people also give compatibilist answers).[15]

Read the rest here:

Incompatibilism - Wikipedia

Libertarian Party Blasts Government Case Against Bitcoin Trader – CoinDesk

The US Libertarian Party sharply criticizedthe sentencing of a bitcoin trader on an unlawful money transmission charge this week.

In a statement, Nicholas Sarwark, who serves as chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, blasted the government's case against Randall Lord, who, along with his son Michael, was sentenced to a prison term late last month following an investigation into their alleged exchange activities.

As CoinDesk reported on 30th May, Randall and Michael Lord were sentenced to prison terms of 46 and 106 months, respectively. Both were charged with running an unlawful money transmission, while Michael Lord was also charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics.

Sawark said the Libertarian Party "vigorously condemns" the case against Randall Lord, who previously ran as a Libertarian for a House of Representatives seat in Louisiana during elections in 2012 and 2014.

He argued:

"Trading bitcoins is perfectly legal. Major retailers such as Microsoft, Expedia, Dell, Overstock, and Whole Foods accept bitcoins. Prosecutors targeted Lord for not being registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury, and for not being licensed to operate as a money service business in his home state of Louisiana."

Sawark, in his statement, later took aim at the broader political system.

"The problem is overspending by federal politicians, their manipulation and regulation of currencies, and grandstanding prosecutors who get rewarded for convicting people rather than for achieving justice," he said.

He called for the sentencing to be overturned, asking supporters to add your voice to ours in demanding freedom for Randall Lord.

Lord's sentencing was a recent example of a trend of cases against bitcoin traders in the US. Similar cases have been pursued against traders in Michigan, New York and Arizona, among other states.

Image via Shutterstock

Read this article:

Libertarian Party Blasts Government Case Against Bitcoin Trader - CoinDesk

Diogenes, the Libertarian – The Libertarian Republic – The Libertarian Republic

By now most of us have read the articles and laughed, and some of us have watched the videos and guffawed. A drunken strumpet having a bad hair day gets booted from a comedy club, then arrested, and then lays into the cops in slurring, vitriolic invective. She [it was a woman] attempts to parlay her status as a television reporter into some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card it doesnt work. Another comedian at the club records her performance art on his phone and posts it to the internet. The following day she claims, though her family attorney, to have been drugged. She was fired from her television reporting job anyway.

It was a classic object lesson in the negative aspects of self-important, anti-social tantrum. She was charged with disorderly conduct, criminal mischief [whatever that is], and resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is the pile-on feel-good charge offered up when cops dont really have anything substantive. We never see murderers or armed robbers charged with murder or armed robbery and resisting arrest. Whenever resisting arrest is announced, its fairly prima facie that the major issue is that the cops ego was bruised, the poor dears.

The essential sequence of events is this: * Drunken strumpet heckles performer * Performer cant handle heckler * Club employees escort drunken strumpet from venue to public sidewalk where cops were waiting * Cops confront drunken strumpet about her actions inside venue * Drunken strumpet lambastes cops for being, well, cops * Cops cuff drunken strumpet * Drunken strumpet continues to berate cops * Cops eventually haul her away

What happened next, though, is Grade-A statist apologism and rationalization. People the nation over cheered and huzzahed. Many manly he-men volunteered assorted fisticuffs to punctuate their disapproval of her actions. It would be one thing and completely understandable, if still distasteful were these statist apologists the standard democrats and republicans who celebrate hyper-reactive government involvement in nearly every aspect of human interaction. But they werent.

They claimed to be libertarians, which makes it inexcusable.

The worst part about it, none of those professing to possess libertarian sensibilities could understand why their hairy chest-pounding was putrid statism.

The first and most common excuse offered up is that the woman at the center of the nothingness assaulted someone by spitting. First there was nothing in any of the written accounts that asserts she definitively spit on anyone. Second were supposed to be libertarians here. Spitting is, under the worst of circumstances, little more than a second graders preferred method of making the girls in class run screeching, next to eating bugs and turning eyelids inside out. Big-girl panties, guys; pull em up.

To be fair, there were multiple accounts stating that the cop-denouncing woman and I will quote from one of those accounts appeared to attempt to spit, but the target of her expectoration changed from version to version, rendering the accusation suspect at best and contrived at worst. I have no doubt, though, from what I remember about my, and observed in others, bouts of pronounced drunkenness that more than a few people in her vicinity were hit with spittle from the volume and relentlessness of her tirading. But spray is not the same thing as hocking a loogie.

Yet it was over this assault-by-saliva claim that most of the ahem libertarians offered to deconstruct the orthodontics her parents had paid for. Self-defense, more than one suggested.

Sorry, no. Self-defense, under law, permits only those actions which are necessary to prevent another similar assault, while using the minimum force available. Someone spitting at you is not justifiably met with a punch to the teeth any more than it is justifiably met with a folding chair across the shoulders or a gunshot to the torso. Minimum necessary force to prevent being spat upon a second time by a woman handcuffed by police consists of moving out of loogie-range, and not a lot else.

Self-defense against projectile saliva under libertarians holy Non-Aggression Principle, however, would be a different matter. Does the NAP justify disproportionate response? Dunno. A quick straw poll of libertarians on US self-defense against terrorists knocking down some really tall buildings in 2001 and the 16-year war waged since then might prove illuminating.

The relevant question is: what would the NAP allow as self-defense against the appearance of an attempt to perform juvenile micro-aggression? Would it allow more than the appearance of an attempt at self-defense?

The follow-on statist argument made by non-libertarian libertarians is, Yabbut spitting is assault, and attempting to spit is attempted assault. Both are crimes!

The State defines many things as crimes, including not buckling up, not buying health insurance, and smoking herbage. The State does these things because it can and because not enough people call them on it. Courts certainly arent about to do their duty and nullify laws made in excess of the governments defined power to make law. Not without a revolution waiting in the wings. Were supposed to be libertarians here; we understand that just because The State calls it a crime doesnt mean squat to libertarian political philosophy.

Assault-by-saliva is one of those crimes. It is childish and repulsive; nothing more.

Other excuses made for the arrest of this drunken strumpet over her outburst are that she was drunk in public, which is a crime. Again, just because The State calls it a crime

She was a possible danger to herself. But were still libertarians; The State is not defined to be our Mommy.

The government has an obligation to provide public safety. Apart from providing public safety being impossible without locking everyone up because theyre suspicious, it is only actually attempted by a police-state. A free country housing free citizens requires that the government only pester those who have actually committed crimes falling within the legitimate authority of that government to define crime, and then only when there is enough evidence to support pestering them over it. This drunken strumpet had done nothing that reached that lofty elevation; at most the police should have shooed her to a cab, or taken her home themselves.

She was asked to leave the comedy club; she was therefore trespassing. No, crime cannot retroactive, and trespassing is no different. She was escorted out of the comedy club to the sidewalk. where she stayed. partly because she was almost immediately handcuffed, but still. Among the crimes that she had not committed was especially trespassing.

Its real simple, here: were libertarians. We do not advise or condone the involvement of The State merely because of a squabble between self-interested private parties. In this case, the self-interests were a drunken strumpet who couldnt hold her liquor and a comedy club whose comedian couldnt handle a heckler. Liberty requires the freedom to squabble and the freedom to handle those squabbles privately, without The State.

If you want police in the vicinity just to make sure nothing gets out of hand fine. Hey, there mightve been a few barrel-chested libertarians wanting to take the opportunity to slug a drunken strumpet appearing to attempt to hock a loogie. But unless things do get out of hand, the cops are there, just like everyone else, to eat popcorn and watch the squabble.

Nor does being libertarian and reducing the involvement of The State to observer status mean that we condone anti-social behavior and immature outbursts. Even if those outbursts are First Amendment-protected and when directed at the cops largely accurate and deserved. It means we take videos on our smart phones and post them on the internet to serve as an object lesson in knowing ones upper limit on alcohol.

Non-state social sanction is, in the long run, a far better deterrent to these tantrums than heavy-handed police-statism if only because it deters a state becoming a police-state. Again: were libertarians; were supposed to live and breathe this philosophy. So live it and breathe it; own your philosophy. I shouldnt have to keep reminding everyone what they claim to stand for.

Link:

Diogenes, the Libertarian - The Libertarian Republic - The Libertarian Republic

Five Ways to Get Friends to Hate Minimum Wage Laws – Being Libertarian

When it comes to making libertarianism more marketable to people, Ive always tried to advocate realistic ideas. I looked at the issue of Medicare and Social Security and changed my tune from saying Abolish it! to Lets make it better and cheaper. I changed my tune on welfare and Medicaid from Oh hell no! to a more human stance of Hey, lets make it so everyone gets some coverage and food while still saving money. I also looked at a lot of issues from a budgetary standpoint, as well as the current tax code to realize how we can do things such as recovering existing student loans, better handle public schools, properly conduct defense, and more while having a small and efficient government which can be operated on a lean tax code and budget. I have worked to become the libertarian trying to equate policy into real policy which everyone from Ted Cruz to Bernie Sanders can vote for. That said: The minimum wage is fucking stupid.

When it comes to the minimum wage, I see it as the ultimate talk of government giving people fantasyland candy. Its just this magic thing to certain voters be it Democrats, independents and even Republicans where someone such as Bernie Sanders becomes this working man hero advocating such a God-awful idea as a $15 minimum wage. They actually gain votes spreading this lie that they could randomly in one signing of a pen to paper make someones wage double and have no consequences on that. It is a lie and its an issue where in no form, theres any real compromise which is going to be economically very viable.

From that, lets look at five ways you can change your friends minds and not come off like a complete prick.

Before we start, lets look at the top three ways people should absolutely not approach being against the minimum wage.

3. Why not $100 an hour?

This one is the most common way conservatives and libertarians currently do it and its not really getting them anywhere. The reason its so commonly used is its a truth. Why is $15 good, but why not $50 an hour? Why are you so greedy to stop at $15? It makes perfect sense and is a perfectly valid point.

Problem? From experience, its just an easy attack to walk off. Most people in the left will look at that and say I drink water to live, but too much and Im drowning. Its just something which makes them think an extreme was met over a real discussion and enters realms of over simplicity. For that reason, it doesnt work.

2. America Isnt Competitive With $15 An Hour!

This was a Donald Trump reason in one of the Republican debates. The problem, however, is it just doesnt make much sense. Go to a factory in America which is making hats, food products, or electronics, and everyone is making over $15 an hour. Go to a big plant such as Ford, GM, Apples American plants, or hundreds of others, and find workforces in factories making $20-50 an hour. Its just an argument that doesnt make much sense and only helps the left make the case that $15 is okay.

1. People need to work harder.

Do not go tell some barista at Starbucks making $10 an hour working 16 hour days that they just arent working hard enough. They probably are just a leftist loser, but just dont do it!

Okay, now on to the five ways to make people hate the minimum wage.

5. Cost of Living

This is just a basic one, but it relies on being more of a counter instead of a method of convincing people. The way it works is that a lot of pro-$15 minimum wage people say that Other countries have $15 minimum wages! The simplest counter is just pointing out that $15 in Australia or Denmark isnt $15 in Oklahoma. Americas cost of living is about 25-40% less than countries like Australia; making $15 there is more in tune with making $9-11 here. And thats just averaging the cost of living in America as a whole. If we factor in a state such as South Carolina, Oklahoma, or Louisiana, the cost of living there results in them having about the same minimum wage as Australia or Denmark.

Also, $15 in America would mean that, in about half of the states, the cost of living gets people what would be about $23 in Australia, which is quite insane.

4. Age

This one is sort of a compromise and not one Im a big fan of, but it is a decent one. Point out how other countries such as Australia and certain European nations have lower minimum wages for younger workers and it seems to help low skilled workers. After they agree, its a good gotcha and moves someone supporting the minimum wage to admitting Okay, the minimum wage can actually hurt some workers.

3. Make Things Cheaper

This approach is basically a method of just moving on from the minimum wage debate and getting people to focus on other issues. When someone says I want a $15 minimum wage!, it is sometimes a better counter to just change the topic by addressing the problem and creating a new solution. A very clean and nice way to counter a higher minimum wage would be to say I have researched the minimum wage and think raising the minimum wage is just too much of a risk; when I look at data, I see that it could cost the market jobs. Instead, I think we should focus on making reforms to lower the cost of energy, housing, food, healthcare, and education..

This just falls into a bit of a distraction method, but could just work to create a happier environment where they might still be pro-minimum wage, but wont be so whiny about it.

2. Helping the Underprivileged

Every time the minimum wage has been hiked in American history, theres been a hike in black unemployment. According to economist Antony Davies, raising the minimum wage just 20% would double unemployment for those without a high school degree.

A study on the $15 minimum wage found that the idea would result in a loss of five million low income jobs and that only 10% of people getting wage increases were from low income backgrounds.

These points help to show that the minimum wage is a tool which hurts the poor instead of helping it.

1. Reality

I dont really love always using economic examples, because Ive just noticed people dont normally get it. So this is an example I use and Id hope others can use it.

Lets look at a business founded by a colonel, that serves something they try to pass off as chicken: KFC.

The average KFC pays $9 an hour. Currently KFC runs a labor cost of 25% for the business. The average profit margin on a KFC is about 10% for the business. The average checkout average per person at KFC is $10. This means if prices went from $9 to $15 by force on the minimum wage labor cost on a KFC is now about 40% for the business. So, if KFC randomly became a nonprofit, theyd still run a loss on the $15 minimum wage hike. KFC is now left with really no situation where they dont just lay people off, cut other costs which likely cost jobs, cut profits which hurts jobs due to profit loss, or just raise prices hurting the consumers.

Conclusion

The simplest case to make is this: the minimum wage sucks, but keep it simple. Dont be angry, sound fixated on hating the poor, and acting rude to the left. This is a pretty easy issue to counter at the end of the day, and it should be an easy fix for a liberal.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

View original post here:

Five Ways to Get Friends to Hate Minimum Wage Laws - Being Libertarian

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (II) – Nolan Chart LLC

Paleolibertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and progressive lawyer and internet troll Matt Bruenig, would appear to have little in common; yet they both have the same idea of what a libertarian world would look like.

In this two-part article (Part I is here), I argue that(1) the very idea of libertarianism that Bruenig claimslibertarians should be following (2) is not only compatible with, but looks like it would result in,Hoppes theorized libertarian society of the future; furthermore, while (3) Hoppes account of that societysuffers from serious flaws and errors, (4) Bruenigs account of that future society, being almost identical to Hoppes, has the same flaws and errors.

Hoppes vision of what a libertarian world of proprietary communities would look like seemsriddled with false assumptions. Let us examine a few:

(1) the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social discrimination and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments.[1]

No; there is no reason discrimination would increase sharply or drastically. Some property owners might discriminate on this or that grounds, but there is no reason to think that everyone would: no reason to think that any original community would stop people of different races, religions, or sexual orientations, from living together in it. Nor is there any reason for a community to prohibit life style experiments, from same-sex marriage to rock n roll or hip-hop to marijuana use. Proprietary communities would be established for one reason only to protect the residents property rights, and with it the division of labor not for any of this other stuff.

(2) towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars,bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassersthose who do not fulfill these requirements.[1]

Yes, they could; but no, they probably would not. Why would any town or village in 21st-century America do, or even care about, what towns and villages did in 19th-century Europe? In todays America, Moslems, Hindus, Jews (both Sephardic and Ashkenazi), and Catholics (both Hispanic andHibernian) live and own property in existing small towns and villages all over the country. Whyin the world would they agree to a community covenant whereby they immediately had their realproperty seized and were expelled?

If Hoppe wanted to live in a community with such rules, he would be free to join with other grumpy old white men, leave, and found his own community somewhere; but he would have no power in any existing community to impose such rules on others.

(3) They [these confused libertarians] fantasized of a society where every one would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of generalprosperity.[1]

Why not? The only necessary criterion, for allowing someone to live in a libertarian proprietary community, would be whether or not his behavior was nonaggressive (in the standard libertarian sense). Communities might also require residents to be productive to support themselves by labor and exchange but even this would not be a necessity: communities could well have consensual welfare arrangements to take care of the old, the sick, the orphaned, et al. There is no reason for anyone to care about other citizens lifestyle, career, or even character, beyond the requirements of standard libertariannonaggression.

(4) every neighborhood would be described, and its risk assessed, in terms of a multitude of crime indicators, such as the composition of the inhabitants sexes, age groups, races,nationalities, ethnicities, religions, languages, professions, and incomes. [] insurers would be interested in excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values.. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice.[1]

No. First, there is no reason nationwide or even statewide insurance companies would exist without the state. Second, even if they did, there is no reason to think they would want to replace their present-day actuarial methods with the ones Hoppe imagines. Third, even if somedid that, there is no reason to think community residents would want to deal with them. Theriskiest group is young people 16-24, who consistently have the highest violent crime rates; buthow many communities would agree to expel everyone in that age group?

(5) There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism will have to bephysically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.[1]

No. The idea of expelling not just communists and parasites, but gays, hedonists, environmentalists, and even advocates of democracy is as silly as that of expelling all of the Hispanics and Irish. Would Hoppe be in favor of expelling someone who said things like the following?

For the sake of domestic peace, liberalism aims at democratic government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution. On the contrary it is the very means of preventing revolutions and civil wars. It provides a peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority.[11]

If so, Hoppe would be in favor of expelling Ludwig von Mises.

How does Hoppe reach such strange and erroneous conclusions? Only by imagining that what he would do, if free of government coercion, to be the same as what everyone would do if freed from government coercion. How he manages to conflate those two different things seems to rest on onemore error that he makes:

(6) In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on ones own tenant-property.[1]

No, again. While communities with only one proprietor could conceivably exist, why would they? The first proprietary communities would be already existing communities with prior private property ownership, and they would be established specifically to defend that property. Why would their first act be to give up all their real property, along with their privacy and all otherownership rights, to someone else, even someone so eminent as a professor of economics from Nevada?

Rousseau believed that a social contract requires the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights,to the whole community.[12] Hoppe thinks they should be alienated to some sort of feudal lord instead. But there is no reason for the members of a proprietarycommunity to alienate any of their rights. Since, as Hoppe notes, the very purpose of the covenant [is]preserving and protecting private property, one would expect them to hang onto not only theirown real property, but as many rights to it as they could.

Since Bruenigs account of the libertarian future follows that of Hoppe, one would expect it to reflect all of Hoppes faults and errors. And indeed one would be correct.

One point needs emphasis. Bruenig considers Hoppe one of my favorite thinkers,[13] not because he has learned anything from Hoppe, but solely because of confirmation bias; because Hoppes views of libertarianism match Bruenigs own, already set views:

Whats interesting about Hoppe to me is that he sees exactly the things every critic of libertarianism sees. He sees that, in fact, totally unfettered private control over the resources of the world would be a brutal existence (if an existence at all) for the vast majorty ofpeople. Instead of denying these things are true (as many try to), he says they are absolutelytrue, and that constructing this private tyranny is precisely the point of libertarianism.[1]

So, while sometimes Bruenig hides his opinions of libertarianism behind phrases like according to Hoppe, those instances can be dismissed as mere semantic games. Bruenig is not merely describing Hoppes opinions, but also claiming that those opinions are fact and truth (or, in other words, Bruenigs opinions).

With that out of the way, one can turn to evaluating Bruenigs opinion of the libertarian future:

(1) a libertarian world is one in which we all basically live in these private gated communities that are generally managed by big landowners and their insurance companies (the insurance company is also the private police, by the way). The whole world will get chopped into what amount to gated communities, and insurance companies will decide who can live in them and who cant by looking at things like race, gender, class, age, and so on.[1]

No. While gated communities would probably exist in a libertarian world (and almost certainly would exist in Bruenigs Grab World), there is no reason to think the whole world will be chopped into them and that everyone would live in them. Neither is there any reason, or much likelihood,that insurance companies would be the ones to decide who lives in them. There is none at all tothink those companieswould become the police. Insurance companies are based on a profitable business model. An insurance company could see further opportunities for profit by getting into the police business; but so could any other company or entrepreneur.

Not only are most of Bruenigs assumptions here unlikely; two of them that we all will live in his gated communities, and that simultaneously his insurance companies will be deciding that a huge number of people cant live in them are also contradictory.

(2) [Insurance companies] biggest function will be to discriminate against people, and keep people of color, poor people, religious minorities, and so on from the good and civilized people.[1]

As noted, it is impossible both that everyone will live in Bruenigs gated communities and that many if not most people will be kept from living in them. To be charitable, Bruenig might be interpreted to mean (even though he doesnt say) that there will be separate gated communities catering to people of one color, one economic group, one religious minority, and so on. Theremight, but that would depend both on the strength of peoples prejudices, and on how much they value their prejudices over other things. One would expect both to be low in most communities, simply due to the fact that people with strong prejudices could go off and live in communities of their own.

(3) you cant be gay, polyamorous, a bum, or Jewish in this libertarian utopia.[1]

Why not? A person building and selling homes in a community would likely sell none to bums (if by that Bruenig means people with no money to buy them), but why would they refuse to sell them to the rest of Bruenigs list? How would they even know a persons religion or sexual partners without extensive and expensive background checks; and why would they take on that expense just to limit their customers? As noted, people who did care about those things could ghettoize into non-gay or non-Jewish communities, but that would simply lower anti-gay and anti-Jewish prejudice in thecommunities they left.

Besides, as Walter Block points out, suppose that the town or village passed a law prohibiting the entry of a bum, a Jew, or a Christian into the town, but that one of the local property owners wanted to invite such a person into his house or store. Then, for the town council to forbid this access would be a violation of private property rights.[15] Similarly, if a builderwanted to sell to a gay or a Jew, for a community government to forbid that would actuallyviolate property rights. Remember that the purpose of these communities would be defend property rights, not to violate them.

(4) in a world of a true lock down on private property, with no regulation on how such property might be used, there would be unbelievable amounts of social coercion to prevent people fromliving the lives theyd like.[1]

This claim of Bruenigs looks positively bizarre. In standard libertarian theory, private property in homes is important precisely because it allows people to live the lives theyd like on their own property. But not in Bruenigs version; as he sees it, the government in the future libertarian world will not and cannot tolerate people chattering about democratic governance and other evil things[1] in their own homes, any more than it will tolerate their having sex with whom they like in their own homes. And that is by no means all that a government will forbid; government intolerance would extend to vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality.[1]

It is bad enough that Bruenig sees this sort of government regulation of private property as no regulation, and worse that he calls it libertarian. But it gets even worse when one considers how such regulations could possibly be enforced. How could a community government knowwhether property owners are entertaining forbidden guests, taking forbidden drugs, having forbidden sex, practicing forbidden religions, listening to forbidden music, reading forbidden books, or saying forbidden things in their homes? Only by having the power to enter and search their homes at any time, and the power to monitor all their conversations.

Not only would Bruenigs libertarianism dispense with freedom of speech and religion, but also the security of person or property against unwarranted searches, surveillance, and seizures

(5) But thats not all. What happens if Bruenig-style libertarian governments find a property owner doing any of those forbidden things? Why, then They will violently exile such people.[1] And again: If you make statements against Hoppes politics, are a nature lover, or are gay [oranything else on Bruenigs lists] you will be expelled from society. [1; stress inoriginal].

Not only do Bruenigs libertarian governments have the power to regulate what people do on their own property; not only do they have the power to search and surveil property owners without the owners consent; they also have the power to throw property owners out of their own homes and expropriate the homes.

To sum up: In Hoppes account of the libertarian world (and also Bruenigs, as he calls Hoppes the true account), individuals would have few if any rights, including few if any property rights. How did the two of them come to reach such bizarre conclusions? Why do they think that an ideology based on individual rights would turn around and practise the exact opposite? There seem to be two reasons, both based on confusion.

The first confusion seems to lie in Bruenigs use of the term the libertarian utopia to describe Hoppes preferred community organization. Both Hoppe and Bruenig assume that, in their postulated libertarian world, all the communities will be the same: that members will have the same beliefs, tastes, and preferences, and those norms will be what every community government enforces. Perhaps it is understandable that Hoppe conflates his own preferred norms with those of every libertarian, indeed of every property owner. It is less understandable that Bruenig does the same thing, considering that those do not seem to be his preferred norms; his motive appears to be only to caricature libertarian ideas. In any case, this looks like simple confusion.

Robert Nozick (whom Bruenig claims to have read) points out that, in a libertarian society individual communities can have any character compatible with the operation of the framework.[15, 325] Byframwork he means the background law governing relations between communities, protectingpeoples right to leave communities, and the like. As Nozick sees it, the framework isequivalent to the minimal state.[15, 333] In contrast, within that framework, individual communities will not correspond to any one form of organization or set of rules: There will notbe one kind of community existing and one kind of life led in utopia. Utopia will consist ofutopias, of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds oflives under different institutions.[15, 311-312]

The second confusion seems to lie in their account of private property. While both describe thesituation in these communities as being based on private property, both assume a state ofaffairs in which private property does not exist. In Hoppean communities, all property is owned by its ruler(whom Hoppe actually calls the proprietor). He may assign property to individuals, and even tell them that hiscommunity covenant is for the protection of their privateproperty, but this is merely a bait-and-switch. In fact they remain mere tenants, and theirhomes and land merely tenant-property.[1] Real ownership is always held by the ruler.

In this case, Bruenigs confusion (given his ideological prefrence for state property) is themore understandable; he appears to sincerely believe that all property is given (or should begiven) by the government, and is (or should be) owned only by permission of the government. Hoppe , on the other hand, seems motivated only by narcissism; since he wants property owners to dowhat and only what he would do, he imagines himself the sole proprietor. But whatever the reason, the idea of a government that lets people alone to live the way they would like to live is incomprehensible to both of them. Both seem unable to imagine that rational people might have different preferences from them.

As strange as their beliefs are, a free society could still accommodate both of them: it would leave Hoppe free to set up his racist community and Bruenig to set up his socialist community. However, it would also leave others free to reject their two communties, and limit their communities success to their ability to persuade others rather than forcing them. Which explains why both, in their own way, reject theidea of a free society.

[1] Matt Bruenig, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire, Demos, September 11, 2013.http://www.demos.org/blog/9/11/13/hans-hermann-hoppe-libertarian-extraordinaire

[11] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1949, 150. Print.

[12] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (translated by Jonathan Bennett), Early ModernTexts, December, 2010. Web, Jan. 12, 2017.http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf

[13] Matt Bruenig, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Theoretical Historian, Demos, December 31,2014. http://www.demos.org/blog/12/31/14/hans-hermann-hoppe-libertarian-theoretical-historian

[14] Walter Block, Plumbline Libertarianism: A critique of Hoppe, Reason Papers 29, 161.https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdf

[15] Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Follow this link:

When Worlds Collude: Hoppe, Bruenig, and their shared vision of the libertarian future (II) - Nolan Chart LLC

Democrats Commit Suicide by Testimony The Lowdown On Liberty – Being Libertarian (satire)

On Thursday, ex-FBI Director James Comey took to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress about the ongoing Trump-Russia scandal.

Over 19 million people tuned in as mainstream news outlets such as CNN and NBC streamed it live. It was anticipated to be the moment of confirmation for the lefts allegations that have been swirling around Trump the past six months. On the right, though, it was supposed to be the vindication the Republicans have long been waiting for. Which side ended up being the winner, you ask? Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, after all was said and done, both sides came away still clinging to their preconceived biases, regardless of what was said in the testimony. Although tiresome to those of us impartial on the matter, it did provide several notable insights, both good and bad.

Thursdays charade helped solidify the notion from libertarians that the right and left are one in the same. As if watching both parties trip over themselves as they quietly teeter-tottered with their love-hate relationship for Comey during the past few months wasnt enough. Try as they might to deny this sobering reality, though, Comeys testimony provided more than enough evidence.

Unfortunately, the bad comes as the realization that the past is repeating itself. We were forced to endure Republicans mindlessly yammering about Obamas birth certificate and Muslim background for eight years while the left venerated itself as the party of truth, incessantly pointing out the total lack of any shred of evidence. Yet, as of Thursday, we now see the exact same grandstanding from the right as Comeys testimony showed the Russia allegations contain precisely the same amount of evidence as the Obama birther stories. Simultaneously, Democrats are needlessly clinging to a story so baseless and idiotic, its on its way to make the birther movement look mundane. Meanwhile, anyone not caught up in the denigration could have honestly concluded this to be the end of the story, but as history and politics have shown us, no matter how inane an accusation turns out to be, it can be kept alive with repetitive propaganda. We should expect this case to be no different.

With Republicans and Democrats drowning themselves out in a sea of lunacy, however, we can focus on the positive takeaway of the event, which is that, sooner or later, regardless of what either party does, people will wake up to the fact that they are opposite sides of the same, incompetent coin. Both parties cant help but prop up fools time and again, and then shoot themselves in the foot as they attempt to save face for their inadequacies. Whether that be an eloquent speaker whose omnibus healthcare plan sunk faster than the Titanic, or a real-estate mogul who is showing an ability to single-handedly ruin international relations through itchy Twitter-fingers.

For those of us with the ability to objectively deduce the truth in these matters, we see that fact with each new revelation. Obama, as it turns out, was not a foreign-born Muslim bent on selling out Americas interests. Rather, he was simply a dishonest, bungling stooge, who continued the trend of a failing foreign policy, a broken healthcare system, and carelessly added to our overwhelming debt. Likewise, Trump is not a Manchurian candidate for Putin. Rather, he is simply an ill-mannered, inexperienced narcissist, who will further antagonize our broken foreign policy, fail to fix our healthcare system, and continue turning a blind-eye towards our insurmountable debt.

In the end, as much as either side tries to hide it, each time an event like this occurs it further reveals the frail, inefficient characters behind the curtain, fumbling to keep the sham in Oz I mean D.C. alive. And although the testimony failed to materialize as the perceived second coming, as neither the rapture nor salvation for either party, it did prove to be a tiny glimmer of hope for those of us looking for evidence as to why a change independent of the two-party system is not only indispensable, but inevitable, which makes us the real winners in this calamity.

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

More here:

Democrats Commit Suicide by Testimony The Lowdown On Liberty - Being Libertarian (satire)

List of islands of Michigan – Wikipedia

The following is a list of islands of Michigan. Michigan has the second longest coastline of any state after Alaska. Being bordered by four of the five Great LakesErie, Huron, Michigan, and SuperiorMichigan also has 64,980 inland lakes and ponds, as well as innumerable rivers, that may contain their own islands included in this list. The majority of the islands are within the Great Lakes. Other islands can also be found within other waterways of the Great Lake system, including Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River, Detroit River, and St. Marys River.

The largest of all the islands is Isle Royale in Lake Superior, which, in addition to its waters and other surrounding islands, is organized as Isle Royale National Park. Isle Royale itself is 206 square miles (530km2). The most populated island is Grosse Ile with approximately 10,000 residents, located in the Detroit River about 10 miles (16 kilometres) south of Detroit. The majority of Michigan's islands are uninhabited and very small. Some of these otherwise unusable islands have been used for the large number of Michigan's lighthouses to aid in shipping throughout the Great Lakes, while others have been set aside as nature reserves. Many islands in Michigan have the same name, even some that are in the same municipality and body of water, such as Gull, Long, or Round islands.

Lake Huron is the second largest of the Great Lakes (after Lake Superior) with a surface area of 23,010 square miles (59,600km2). Michigan is the only U.S. state to border Lake Huron, while the portion of the lake on the other side of the international border belongs to the Canadian province of Ontario. The vast majority of Michigan's islands in Lake Huron are centered around Drummond Island in the northernmost portion of the state's lake territory. Drummond Island is the largest of Michigan's islands in Lake Huron and is the second largest Michigan island after Lake Superior's Isle Royale. Another large group of islands is the Les Cheneaux Islands archipelago, which itself contains dozens of small islands. Many of the lake's islands are very small and uninhabited.

As the most popular tourist destination in the state, Mackinac Island is the most well known of Lake Huron's islands. Drummond Island is the most populous of Michigan's islands in Lake Huron, with a population of 992 at the 2000 census. While Mackinac Island had a population of only 553, there are thousands more seasonal workers and tourists during the summer months.

Follow this link:

List of islands of Michigan - Wikipedia

Arizona Wildcats get second chance to recruit islands, Polynesian … – Arizona Daily Star

Apaiata Tuihalamaka took the field before a UA football game in 2009 and, together with teammate Lolomana Mikaele, began dancing.

The two Wildcats stomped, thumped their chests and chanted.

This haka dance was a celebration of their Polynesian heritage, a dance that has lived on in different forms in the succeeding seven seasons, even surviving a coaching switch from Mike Stoops to Rich Rodriguez.

The Wildcats connection to the islands and, more specifically, Polynesian players goes back much longer.

Dick Tomeys football teams always had a handful of dynamic islanders on their rosters, the byproduct of the coachs connections to Hawaii.

Tuihalamaka came to Arizona a four-star linebacker recruit under Stoops, and signed with the Wildcats alongside his cousin Vuna, also a four-star linebacker. They were a part of a 2007 recruiting class that included the No. 1 prospect in Hawaii, Kaniela Tuipolutu, and three other Polynesian recruits.

The Tuihalamakas love for all things Arizona paid two years later when Sione, Apaiatas younger brother, signed with the UA.

I wanted to go somewhere I felt comfortable, Sione said after signing. Family was big.

Next seasons haka wont be quite the celebration it used to be. The Wildcats are expected to start just one Polynesian player, offensive lineman Michael Eletise. The program has struggled to recruit the island since 2011, when Stoops was fired and defensive line coach Joe Salavea a native of American Samoa who now recruits the islands for Oregon was allowed to leave.

That may be changing. The Wildcats hosted the first-ever Polynesian College Showcase over the weekend. Players of Polynesian descent traveled from as far away as Hawaii and New Jersey to work out in front of college coaches. Rodriguez hosted a camp that included coaches from Fresno State, Fordham, Illinois and BYU.

BYU currently lists 36 Polynesian players on its roster; Arizona has four.

Recruiting the islands comes with a challenge notably, distance.

That never bothered Tomey, who spent nearly 10 years coaching at Hawaii before he was hired by Arizona in 1987. Tomeys teams at Hawaii and the UA included 120 Polynesian players, according to Sports Illustrated.

Quarterback George Malauulu was one of the players who helped establish the Polynesian culture when he was recruited to Arizona in the early 1990s. He played 36 games in Tomeys option offense between 1989-92.

Slowly but surely, (Polynesian players) started coming in, he said. Just knowing we had a stake in the Desert Swarm era and made it a special time.

In 1997, Malauulu a native of Carson, California, who is of Polynesian descent helped establish the AIGA Foundation. The nonprofit group helps players with Polynesian ethnic backgrounds land scholarships. The foundation has helped players like Marcus Mariota, Juju Smith-Schuster and Anu Solomon get noticed.

Malauulus relationship with the UAs current staff was distant. He and Rodriguez had met in passing but had never worked together.

If he were to look at me, hed probably say whos this guy? Malauulu said. Im just Joe Nobody.

Malauulu did know graduate assistant Davy Gnodle, however; the two worked with Rodriguez to establish the camp. Gnodle is the only UA staffer with Polynesian ties. He hails from California but has relatives in Samoa and American Samoa.

Arizona had an easier time recruiting the islands under Tomey. Former UA assistants Duane Akina, Larry Mac Duff, Dave Fagg and Sam Papalii all coached at Hawaii, and developed relationships with high school coaches on the islands and in Polynesian-heavy communities in California. Those connections helped the Wildcats land players like Brandon Manumaleuna, Pulu Poumele, Van Tuinei, Steven Grace and Manuia Savea.

Stoops employed coaches Mike Tuiasosopo, Robert Anae and Salavea. They helped the Wildcats land, among others, Aiulua Fanene from American Samoa and Sani Fuimaono from Hawaii. Willie Tuitama, Taimi Tutogi and the tackling Tuihalamakas, all from California, committed to the Cats. So did Keola Antolin, who grew up in Las Vegas.

The Wildcats made inroads in Hawaii, too. Stoops said in 2011 that the UA had a great chance to own that part of the country.

But Stoops was fired that season. The UA replaced him with Rodriguez, who had never coached in the West before and didnt have any coaching connections to the Polynesian community. Rodriguez kept Anae on staff, but he left after one season for a job at BYU.

Salavea went to Washington State, leaving earlier this off-season for Oregon. He promptly flipped defensive lineman Austin Faoliu from UA to the Ducks, and secured a commitment from linebacker Isaac Slade-Matautia, a former UA target.

I was hoping Joe would come back to Bear Down red and blue, but Oregon stole him, Malauulu said. I was like, Come on, Joe!

Arizonas current roster has just four players of Polynesian descent redshirt freshmen Eletise and Kahi Neves, junior college transfer Sione Taufamahema and true freshman Anthony Pandy. None has played a collegiate snap. Freddie Tagaloa finished his UA career without making a large impact on the offensive line. Derrick Turituri and Anthony Fotu were kicked off the team. Solomon transferred to Baylor, and Makani Kema-Kaleiwahea transferred home to Hawaii.

After Coach Tomey, the philosophy of recruiting took it in that direction, Malauulu said. But everyone has their own mindset of what theyre going to do and how theyre going to go about doing this.

Arizonas camp bodes well for the Wildcats, and this is where Malauulus foundation comes in helps those players aching for exposure.

Stephen Barber Jr. of Honolulus Punahou High School holds offers from just Hawaii and Navy despite being the top-rated quarterback in Hawaii. Barber spent Thursday at a camp in San Diego, then promptly made the trek to Tucson for Arizonas camp.

He called it a lot of fun.

Especially coming up here and just seeing how I stack up against the mainland competition, getting some exposure that I dont really get on the island, he said.

Arizona looked how (college) looks in movies, Barber added.

Denaylan Fuimaono is a three-star safety from Carson, California, who holds offers from Washington State, Utah State and Navy, among others. Arizona has shown interest, too.

Fuimaono is aware of the history of Polynesian standouts at all of those schools, including Arizona. When camp ended Saturday, the UA had offered scholarships to quarterback DJ Uiagaleilei of Bellflower, California, and wide receiver Puka Nacu from Orem, Utah.

Thats something big, thats something Polynesians care about, Fuimaono said. We cant forget about that, where we came from and our roots. Thats something we carry around with us we have to.

Contact:zrosenblatt@tucson.com or 573-4145. On Twitter: @ZackBlatt

Continue reading here:

Arizona Wildcats get second chance to recruit islands, Polynesian ... - Arizona Daily Star

The ups and downs of life on the islands after a rain-soaked spring – CBC.ca

A rain-soaked springfuelledflooding across the city's waterfront and low-lying areas. Long after the storms passed, high lake levels still threatenhomes and businesses on the Toronto islands. Andmany of the city's summer staples likewarm days on the beach, kids' camps and long weekend celebrations are going to be a little different this year.

In early May, a multi-day storm swooped in over the GTA. It's estimated between 70 and 90 mm of rain fell in less than 48 hours.

(Lauren Pelley/CBC)

The rain threatened to shut down major arteries into the downtown core andflood basements across the waterfront and surrounding neighbourhoods.

(Ali Chiasson/CBC)

The potential for flooding is not new for residents of the Toronto islands.Many were hoping the high water levels were only a temporary inconvenience. Jimmy Jones told CBC Toronto he'd seen worse flooding in his decades on the islands.

(CBC)

But as it poured, it became clear things could get worse for island residents. An intense sandbagging effort began.

(Chris Glover/CBC)

Ferry service to the islands was restricted to locals, city crews and emergency personnel. Ships were kept on standby in case the particularly vulnerable Ward's Island would need to be evacuated overnight. It's home to about 700 residents.

(Lauren Pelley/CBC)

Even when the storm ended, the lake loomed large. Island residents were told that despite the blue skies, Lake Ontario could still rise another 25 centimetres before it reached its peak. More than 15,000 sandbags went down in strategic zones.

(Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

Large parts of the islands were alreadya wetland, however.

(Courtesy of the City of Toronto)

Carp found a new hole to call home on a baseball diamond.

(Courtesy of Dominic Matte)

People tried to enjoy usual islands delights. But it was, uh, difficult.

(Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

Businessesthat rely on summer tourism, like the Island Cafe on Ward's Island, are wondering if there's any hope. Owner Peter Freeman told CBC Toronto that business fell of a cliff. The Rectory Cafe just down the road has already decided to close in the fall.

(Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

Weddings, kids' camps and special events are summer staples on the islands. Not so much this year.

Permits were originally suspended until the end of June. That deadline was quickly amended to the end of July. Three hundred permits, affecting 90 groups and 350 would-be summer campers, have all been put on hold until water levels recede.

(Courtesy of Anna Prodanou)

After a delayed opening, all 11 of the city's beaches are open to the public. However, most don't have lifeguards and haven't been tended by city crews yet.E.coli may also be a lingering problem in some swimming zones.

(Gary Morton/CBC)

(Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

It may not be ideal, but Torontoniansare still trying to have fun. Pamela Fox said her walks along Cherry Beach have been "messy," but the dogs didn't seem to mind.

(Adrian Cheung/CBC)

Read more here:

The ups and downs of life on the islands after a rain-soaked spring - CBC.ca

After 30 years, retiring Jupiter lifeguard says he’s leaving ‘paradise’ – Palm Beach Post

JUPITER

After 30 years working Jupiter beach, lifeguard Rob Rogerson retired June 9 and is moving to the Virgin Islands to operate a charter sailboat.

Im leaving paradise for paradise, said the 56-year-old who grew up in Palm Beach Gardens.

Rogerson plans on buying a 25-foot sailboat. Over the years, he has vacationed in the islands and gotten to know the owners of the boat.

Whenever I visited the island, I would always rent that boat. Now, Im buying it. Its a dream come true, said Rogerson, a Jupiter resident.

Rogerson started as a lifeguard when he was 26. His title now is ocean lifeguard rescue boat operator and emergency medical technician.

Training other lifeguards and reaching out to the public have been Rogersons best assets, said Eric Call, executive director of Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation.

(Rob) loves teaching, educating and communicating with the public. Hes been an excellent lifeguard. He always stayed in great shape. Hes a dedicated employee. Hell be sorely missed, said Call.

The plan is to rent out the boat, which fits about six people. Hell take visitors out to nearby islands for day trips.

Well go out snorkeling, watch the sunsets, said, Rogerson, who plans on leaving in August.

In the meantime, Rogerson plans on stand-up paddling 50 miles on June 17 from Bimini to Florida toraise money for cystic fibrosis.

Hell take with him happy memories of Jupiter, he said.

No matter how many times I come in the Jupiter Inlet and Im guided by the lighthouse, it makes my heart jump when I see those home waters. It tells me that Im home, said Rogerson.

More:

After 30 years, retiring Jupiter lifeguard says he's leaving 'paradise' - Palm Beach Post

National Geographic Emerging Explorer Keolu Fox Uncovers the Hidden Treasures of Human Adaptation – National Geographic

Keolu Fox. TED2016 Fellows. Photo: Bret Hartman / TED

This post is part of an ongoing series of interviews with the 2017 class of National Geographic Emerging Explorers.

GeneticistKeolu Foxis one of 14 National Geographic Emerging Explorers for 2017. This group is beinghonored for the way its members explore new frontiers and find innovative ways to remedy some of the greatest challenges facing our planet. The 2017 class of Emerging Explorers will be honored at the National Geographic Explorers Festival in Washington, D.C. in June.

Keolugrew up in Hawaii, immersed in thestrong cultural traditions and worldview of his native Hawaiian mother. His father grew up all over Israel and North Africa, and is of general European heritage, and had what Keolu describes as an untraditional education. He passed on that world-wide perspective and exposed the family to a lot of broad ideas early on. Those ideastook an interesting shape as Keolu studied archaeology and genome sciences, and began to formulate a new way of looking at human genetics.

Indigenous people, he realized, hold incredible stories of human adaptation to every environment and social situation on Earth. By empowering them to be more involved in genetic research and analysis, hes hoping to start a new chapter in our understanding of all the richness encoded in human DNA. And ultimately to put it to use for the better health and livelihood of everyone.

What is it that you hope to learn from studying the genomics of native people?

Its not specifically about native people in America or Yakut people in Siberia. While these are all fascinating populations of people, the thing that makes them fascinating for meis natural selection. Theres a treasure trove of information in theirDNAthat could benefit all of humanityand its the responsibility of scientific investigators to ensure that exploration of indigenous peoples genomes benefits that community as well, financially or otherwise.

We should be askingwhat makes people, human beings, extraordinary? What makes these people special? Why are these people adapted to high elevations? There are people from Greenland that have had this specific diet of marine mammals,high fat as well as omega 3. Why are we not seeing cardiovascular disease inthat population?

Why do the Sami people of Finland have protective genetic variation against heart disease? Whatever happens in terms of natural selection that results in that population having this protection could yield treatment for all humanity.

Meanwhile the rest of the field is functioning in a world where 95 percentof clinical trials are in white people. When youre looking at the percentages of genomes that have been sequenced, theyre not sequencing whatI would call the most interesting populations. Its just not happening. But there are real limitations for why its not happening.

Part of it is due to the communities we work with, and when you get a feeling for that you understand why that is.

So does it help that you have recent indigenous heritage of your own?

You are your culture, and you are your experiences. Soif youre trying to gain the trust of communities and you know the music theyre listening to, you can move the right way, you look the right way that certainly helps. You cant look like a scientist, right? You have to belike a human being. You cantbe your classic, traditional western lab-coat-wearing, glasses-wearingscientist. This is a different animal.

So there are very few people that have that skillset. It doesnt mean Im the best scientist in genomics, certainly not. And it doesnt mean Im the most authentic native but I happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Is there a way that this shift can happen more broadly?

You have elite educational institutions that are educating indigenous people and you can pass the torch that way. Thats what enables capacity building. Because then we go into our communities and we think about things in novel ways. We dont think about science the same way because were culturally different. The way we approach science is different.

Science is a cultural thing. As much as we like to imagine it as objective,its like a musical idea. The same central note patterns will take on entirely new colors and dimensions when being exploredby a different culture. Maybe that perspective is becoming more common.

I think weve known that for a long time. This indoctrination-by-academy way of approaching sciencehas been effective, but what is it really yielding? Its certainly not yielding innovation that is powerful for indigenous people. it doesnt enable us to recombine indigenous and western knowledge in novel approaches, solutions, treatments, etc.

As an example, the biggest thing that doctors should do is make people feel comfortable. Why do you need to look at the top of a chart to know your patients name?

So to me, thats a huge problem that science needs to overcome. But you are looking at the next generation of people that are going to occupy those spaces. We have met all the qualifications.

Is it difficult to move comfortably in both the western scienceand indigenous worlds?

One thing thats important here is how connected we are with social media and all that. Did you follow what happened in Hawaii with the whole construction of this giant telescopeon Mauna Kea? It was so interesting. For me, obviously Im a laboratory scientist, but if its at the cost of our community, and its at the cost of our aina [land],then I dont think that we should make decisions like that. Its a conservation sort of question. These are negotiations,and Im not an astrophysicist,but I have to step up on behalf of my community and get flown into this stuff.

The only thing I know how to do is speak from my heart. Keep it real.

When you think of yourself at work, what do you picture?

Its variable. One project will involve shipping resources, negotiating, engaging communities thatI havent met before. Making sure that were being respectful of indigenous peoples values and their culture. And then theres the hardcore science aspect of actually collecting information, making sure people understand what we do.The field stuff is always kind of unpredictable, but probably the most fun thing,I would say.

And then I work on other things where its just beingat work,conducting experimentsand thats just moving clear fluids around and like bro, thats not that exciting.It is exciting when you get results and theres this sort of a-ha moment were youre searching for something and you confirm your hypothesis. Thats a very western approach.Its very cool. And then you have the sort of computational aspect. The loads of frustrating time spent writing code that works. and then you have these miracle moments when it does work. HopefullyI can hire people to do that for me in the future. There are students coming up.

And what is that lab work actually like?

I have a bunch of projects that Im either collaborator on or Im the primary. One of them is leprosy based. Another were using genome editing to actually take variation thats been discovered in diverse populations and sort of copy and replace that into cell lines and then observe its function.

Lets say we find a genetic variant, and we think its involved in influencingsomething importantand its only found in Papua New Guinea or something. Well you can take that and do knock-in variations in human or mouse cells.

Ultimately we want to sequence interesting peopleoutliersbecause they have interesting genomes. And they will allow us to discover interesting things that have a bearing on the way that we understand biology.

How are new technologies helping you with this mission?

Mobile genome sequencing.A lot of times in indigenous communities what we have is what people sometimes call helicopter genomics or vampire genomics. Scientists come, get their data, go back to the lab, make discoveries, make tenure track, get in that new tax bracket, get the new BMW, put their kid in private school, and the cycle continues.

So for me its really important to de-black-box the technology to create transparency about whats going on. With mobile genome sequencing, you can actually bring the hardware to a community and with cloud computation you can actually perform your massively parallel sequence alignment and adaptation on-site, where you want, as long as you can acquire access to the internet (or sometimes you wont even need that to happen).

Its a game changer. It really is a game changer. And it think its going to have a profound bearing on the democratization of genome sequencing and genomic technologies.

Want to become a National Geographic Explorer? Learn how you can apply for a grant from the National Geographic Society.

Go here to read the rest:

National Geographic Emerging Explorer Keolu Fox Uncovers the Hidden Treasures of Human Adaptation - National Geographic

Conservatives say they’re losing health care bill fight – CNN

The discussions are still ongoing and a vote isn't likely for several weeks, but several details emerging from the consequential negotiations last week have the party's right flank on edge.

A month ago, there was a lot of optimism that the Senate process would go better for conservatives than the House process initially had. They were given a seat at the negotiating table, with leadership inviting both Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas to participate in the Senate's health care "working group." But with leaders seeking to assuage concerns from all sides of the GOP, conservatives are facing potential policy blows.

Republican leaders Tuesday indicated that they preferred not to repeal as many of the Obamacare-era regulations as the House bill did, including a key protection for people with pre-existing conditions that blocks insurers from charging people more for insurance based on their health history.

That could make it tougher for Republican Sens. Lee, Cruz and Kentucky's Rand Paul to vote for the bill after they've warned for months that Obamacare regulations have to go if premiums are going to come down.

Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said from what he can tell, senators are moving little more than "Obamacare with window dressing."

Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler said of the status of negotiations, "It's a very complex issue, but certainly the way conversations played out publicly this week, there's concern among a lot of conservatives. If you look at Senate conservatives, they are still very involved in the process. That needs to continue."

Also on the table: keeping some of the Obamacare-era taxes in place for at least awhile to reach the $133 billion savings goal that is required under Senate rules.

"That set off alarm bells here," Club for Growth President David McIntosh said Friday. "The Club for Growth would vigorously campaign against that as fake Obamacare repeal. ... If the Senate was trying to send out a trial balloon, consider it shot down."

McIntosh said his group put out calls to Senate offices making it clear they wouldn't support a bill that kept key Obamacare taxes in place. The Club for Growth is working on designing a campaign to promote the Senate's repeal bill right now, but McIntosh warned it will turn the campaign against the bill if they don't feel it's conservative enough.

Also under discussion is a proposed seven-year "glide path" that would phase out Medicaid expansion more slowly than the House bill would and would be a major win for moderates from expansion states.

One conservative GOP aide said they are feeling squeezed out of the process.

"It's is very frustrating because things are happening behind closed door and we are unable to provide input," the aide said. "(House Speaker) Paul Ryan tried that strategy and ended up with a conservative revolt on his hands, we hope next week Senate leadership will shed more light on the details and process."

Leadership can't ignore conservatives. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can only afford to lose two members and still pass a health care bill. But leadership aides argue that the process is far from a done deal and there are still a lot of details to negotiate. And some conservative members, including Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, vehemently push back on the idea they're losing steam.

"I'm not convinced it's an accurate characterization at this point," Toomey said.

Republican aides emphasize it's go time. Decisions are going to have to be made soon. Majority Whip John Cornyn told reporters last week that the Senate is likely to vote shortly after the July 4 recess. That would require lawmakers to hammer out the details and then in the next few days give something to the independent Congressional Budget Office to score before the vote.

Republican senators have said they want to wait for the CBO score before their legislation comes to the floor, unlike their House counterparts, who passed their bill last month.

On Tuesday, Republicans will huddle once again at their conference lunch to try and find consensus. Last week's meeting included a menu of options. This week's will give members a more fully fleshed out plan based on feedback. A GOP aide familiar with the negotiations characterized the meeting as likely a red light, green light, yellow light situation.

While outside groups are applying pressure, some conservative members within the GOP conference are slowly coming to terms with the fact that the Obamacare repeal bill may not be as robust as they had once hoped. In the end, they argue, it's about getting a repeal bill passed.

"There are parts we're going to keep no matter what. Twenty-six-year-olds stay on their families' policies, no cap on the amount of coverage you can have. Those are things we're already keeping," said Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina.

Pressed on whether he would be comfortable keeping some of the Obamacare taxes in place, Scott said, "I'm not sure that I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable being a part of 51 senators that improves the outcome of America's health insurance conversation, which requires us to act."

"I think there's gotta be some transition period," said Sen. David Perdue, a Republican from Georgia. "It's gonna take some time to transition out of here."

Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said his own vision for Obamacare repeal has shifted as the process has gone on.

"It is for everybody because we are dealing with the restrictions of reconciliation rules. All of us are dealing with those clear boundaries," Lankford said. "If you have reconciliation rules and you are dealing with 51 votes, how do you get this done?"

CNN's Ted Barrett and Manu Raju contributed to this report.

Continued here:

Conservatives say they're losing health care bill fight - CNN

Democrats seek more health care for California’s undocumented – LA Daily News

Californias Democratic legislators want to extend health benefits to undocumented young adults, the continuation of an effort that ushered children without legal status into the states publicly funded health care system last year.

It is unclear when the program would start or how much the state would spend if the proposal, which could cost up to $85 million a year, is approved by Gov. Jerry Brown. Lawmakers are working out details ahead of their June 15 deadline for passing a new budget.

The plan would provide full-scope coverage for 19-to-26-year-olds who qualify for Medi-Cal, the states name for Medicaid. Currently, the federally funded program covers only emergency visits and prenatal care for undocumented residents. Under the proposal, revenue from taxes on tobacco products would absorb expenses for all other coverage.

Democratic Sen. Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens has been one of the strongest voices for expanded care. In 2015, he pushed for coverage for all adults. That proposal was changed to admit only undocumented children; it took effect last year. This year, he said in a recent video message to supporters, We are going to make the final push to ensure we capture our young adults.

Supporters ultimate goal is to include all undocumented adults, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a health care consumer group backing the proposal.

We believe without coverage people are sicker, die younger and are one emergency away from financial ruin. It has consequences for their families and their communitiesboth health and financial consequences, he said.

The plan would mean that undocumented children currently in the program would not age out at 19, putting low-income undocumented immigrants on a par with those allowed to stay on their parents insurance under Obamacare until they are 26.

Republican Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa opposes an extension of benefits. One reason is financial. California doesnt have a balance sheet we can brag about, he said, citing the states debt load, among other reasons.

Secondly, he disapproves of illegal immigration. Moorlach migrated to the U.S. legally as a child with his family from the Netherlands.

Im kind of offended that we feel an obligation to pay for expenses for those who did not come through the front door, he said. I certainly have compassion and want to help people in need, but Im having difficulty, as a legal immigrant, because we are already in such bad fiscal shape.

Advocates argue that undocumented immigrants help propel Californias economy with their labor and the taxes they pay, and that they cost the state money when they dont work because of illness or when they end up in the emergency room.

Advertisement

Health care is a right, said Ronald Coleman, director of government affairs for the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy organization and supporter of the proposal. These are folks we are investing in through the California Dream Act and through other programs our state offers, and it makes sense to invest in our future, which our young adults will be.

Estimates vary for how many people this expansion of Medi-Cal would serve and what the costs would be. Each house of the Legislature has passed its own version of the proposal, with differing figures attached.

The Assembly allocated $54 million a year to cover an unspecified number of additional enrollees, with a July 2017 start date. The Senate proposed $63.1 million in the first year, beginning in 2018, and $85 million annually thereafter, also without specific population numbers.

Colemans center, which is working closely with lawmakers on the issue, estimates about 80,000 new people would be eligible, and the cost would be around $54 million a year. That assumes the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program continues, because it provides access to Medi-Cal. If DACA were eliminated, the figures would increase to about 100,000 eligible people and about $84 million in annual costs, Coleman said.

The governors proposed budget does not include the proposed expansion or any money for it.

Kevin, a 19-year-old Angeleno who asked that only his first name be used because he lives in California illegally, wants the proposal to succeed. He has been working for more than a year to distribute information about Medi-Cal childrens coverage to immigrant families.

He meets all but one of the requirements for DACA: He was not in the country before June 15, 2007. He arrived in the U.S. in 2011 at age 14 from Guatemala, on a visa that later expired. He graduated high school, has no criminal record and is now majoring in business administration at California State University, Los Angeles.

Theres this misunderstanding that young people are healthy, said Kevin, who suffers from eczema. He worries about the chronic condition flaring up. When it gets worse, it doesnt let me do anything with my hands.

He is enrolled in a county health insurance program for low-income residents, but he cant afford a dermatologist. He can barely pay for the prescription lotion he uses for the eczema and sometimes goes without it.

We are trying to have a better economic standard, and we are like the building blocks of this society, he said. Having health insurance will allow us to focus more on school and do our regular day-to-day activities. A healthier society works better for everyone.

If lawmakers can now agree on details, a consensus proposal will go to the full Legislature for approval. The deadline for that is June 12.

CALmatters.org is a non-profit journalism venture dedicated to exploring state policies and politics.

Excerpt from:

Democrats seek more health care for California's undocumented - LA Daily News

Letters: Health care isn’t that complicated – Press-Enterprise

The national debate about health care has revealed that the vast majority of Americans feel that care shouldnt be denied to any citizen. The devils in the details.

Folks on both sides of the health care issue celebrate their 65th birthday with the gift of Medicare coverage. Lacking a viable Senate plan, Obamacare needs (bipartisan) repair in the short term. But in the long run, gradually lowering the age of Medicare eligibility over the next generation is the simplest, least painful way to transition to the national health care that most Americans desire.

Maybe it really isnt that complicated.

Terry Boyles, Riverside

Having witnessed a housing explosion in price escalation in 1974, then again in 1988, then again in 2003 and now again in 2016 history has repeated itself, and the civic planners have once again missed an opportunity to get housing under control.

Unrelenting house appreciation is not a good thing. It was not in 74, 88, 03 or now.

And civic leaders control the new housing market and have again blown an opportunity to increase the tax base and housing stock while keeping affordable and entry-level homes available for average, working people.

There are solutions, but it is obvious that our civic planners, leaders and special interests do not care about the majority of Riverside residents. Not everyone can afford a $600,000 home.

Jerry Cook, Riverside

The Press-Enterprise writes about hopeful traffic improvements in Temecula with the new 215/79 project (June 7), but what about Corona? Wasnt traffic supposed to improve in Corona and surrounding cities and counties, i.e., Southern California? Its worse than ever.

The city of Corona approved new dense housing at Dos Lagos which has added hundreds of new cars to the on-ramps and 15 and 91 freeways. Dos Lagos looks like military housing surrounded by multi-dwelling units.

The city approved 1,500-plus new single-family dwellings at Cajalco and Bedford Canyon, which makes buying a loaf of bread and a quart of milk at Stater Bros. next to impossible. The city approved a multi-unit Terrasa development at Foothill parkway near the 15 and theyre grading over 10 acres to build practically on top of the 15 South. Thousands of apartments have been built at North Main. Corona has been destroyed.

At work I hear people complaining who commute from as close as Yorba Linda and Lake Elsinore. Since I live in south Corona and have to use Weirick, Im really stuck. Traffic feeds into the Weirick on-ramp from Temescal Canyon Drive and all those ant colonies and from commuters from San Diego County and Temecula, plus a stream from my area which rides north on Weirick to the on-ramp; then theres traffic coming down from The Retreat, and from northern Weirick. Drivers dive into gaps, doing U-turns and act like idiots because they have been turned into rats. There are accidents weekly.

Who is in charge in California? This is ridiculous and now we are at over 40 million people? God save us. Leadership sure wont. We are drowning in people. Soon well mimic the famous rat population experiment where as the population increased and resources were limited, rats turned on themselves, then grew apathetic and then just died in their corner.

Philip Palermo, Corona

Re: Is single-payer the health care answer? [Question of the week, June 6]:

I am a health insurance agent and firmly believe that every person should have access to health care. However, I also believe that the single-payer system is not the answer.

First of all, by eliminating employer-paid health insurance, single-payer shifts health care costs to the employee. It has been estimated that single-payer will increase your personal tax bill by almost $9,200 per person in the first year and will increase each year after that. In addition to hiking taxes it will destroy millions of jobs.

While single-payer plans offer citizens some kind of health care coverage, they dont guarantee access to medical care. Single-payer inevitably controls costs by rationing health care. I for one want to be in control of my health care decisions, not a bureaucrat in California.

This is a disastrous bill for Californians and could be the final nail in the coffin for the California economy and unfortunately for many Californians facing future medical crises.

Patricia Stiffler, Eastvale Past President, Orange County Association of Health Underwriters

Single-payer is one variant on universal health care systems. As someone who has experienced them in New Zealand and the United Kingdom as a patient and a taxpayer, I can definitely say they are better than private insurance-based systems from both perspectives.

California has a population 10 times that of New Zealand and can make single-payer work effectively. The advantages of single payer for patients are full coverage, better health and less stress; for big employers, less cost; for small employers, a fairer playing field; for everyone including providers, less paperwork.

A healthy California provides the peace of mind that we are less likely to get sick from a fellow workmate, student or neighbor when everyone has access to quality health care.

Nat Lerner, Hemet

I realize my thoughts are meaningless to our legislators. But I find it necessary to record my opinions, which are:

1. There is no plan in the bill as to where the revenue would come from, meaning we the citizens can plan on another huge tax increase.

2. The state recently hit the citizens with a tax increase of $52 billion (over 10 years). So why not add $400 billion for SB562, according to the Legislative Analyst?

3. Illegal immigrants should not receive citizens tax funds for their support.

4. The only way for businesses to meet the future demands is to raise their prices. Which is a hidden tax on the buyers.

5. Big winners are the union bosses who are supporting the passage of the bill not the workers.

6. Once the bureaucratic machine is in place, it will continue to grow with a life of its own.

Our state legislators have made it clear they only care about the unions and undocumented immigrants. Again where is all the revenue to come from? Us.

Don Darwin, Norco

Last week, U.S. Rep. Pete Aguilar joined 183 of his colleagues from both political parties in signing a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Tom Price. The letter asks HHS to close a loophole that allows health insurers to deny coverage to patients who get charitable help to pay their premiums.

Many patients who depend on dialysis to keep them alive also depend on charities for financial assistance. Some insurance companies are refusing to accept these premium payments, and others are saying patients who take charitable assistance to pay their premiums can be dropped. While dialysis patients have the option of Medicare, it only covers 80 percent and not all are eligible for Medi-Cal. California does not allow dialysis patients the option of a supplement or marketplace (ACA) insurance.

For anyone with a chronic disease, losing your insurance is a catastrophe. I am grateful to Rep. Aguilar and colleagues for taking action.

Lori Noyes, Upland

When our legislators want to repeal a law that makes it a crime to use false documents to conceal citizenship status, are they thinking of the citizens of California? Of course not. It is encouraging the commitment of one crime on top on another. Illegal entry into this country, obtaining illegal documents and possibly not even a slap on the hand.

All of this without transparency. We voted for Proposition 54, and as usual politicians do what they want.

Edith Reed, Hemet

As a veteran I was disappointed because there was very little mention of D-Day in the June 6 Press-Enterprise. There was one paragraph on Page 2, and two comic strips (Mallard Fillmore and Peanuts).

Its a shame that the Greatest Generation has become just a fading memory.

Wally Ingram, Hemet

More:

Letters: Health care isn't that complicated - Press-Enterprise

Health care and Yogi Berra’s fork – The Missoulian

Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it!" America has come to a "fork in the road." This serious matter is our healthcare system.

We can either choose to travel the road of a "single-payer system" (Medicare for all) or continue traveling the road of insurance and pharmaceuticals controlling our health care while supporting their financial bottom lines.

My take on where both Barack Obama and Donald Trump really come from is having a system where every person has the right to affordable health care. That is, it is a right, not a privilege, and is to be accepted as much a part of our American life as well-maintained roads, national security, outstanding educational opportunities and effective law enforcement. These are things we take for granted.

The Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare," was a step in this direction but doomed to problems because, for one reason, it maintained the financial burdens of profit goals by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

To get from where we are to a single-payer system is going to take many adjustments and changes all aiming at the ultimate goal.

It can be done, but is going to take picking up Yogi Berra's fork and making serious decisions.

Originally posted here:

Health care and Yogi Berra's fork - The Missoulian

Health care improvements thwarted by politics – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Too often, real policy improvements get drowned out by political talking points. That is the case right now as nearly all of the health care discussion in Montana is about one flawed health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the 2017 legislative session, we saw unprecedented bipartisan action to improve health care. Rep. Rob Cook (R-Conrad) carried an important bill to allow my team at the state auditors office to pursue a waiver from the federal government and create a reinsurance system that would have stabilized our insurance market and lowered costs. It passed the Montana House unanimously before politics got involved.

Rep. Amanda Curtis (D-Butte) sponsored a great bill to require transparency in health care prices and let patients share in the savings by finding procedures for lower costs from different hospitals. Sen. Ed Buttrey (R-Great Falls) carried another bill that would have empowered Montanans with the ability to know the cost of health care procedures.

Another bill, by Sen. Cary Smith (R-Billings), would have allowed Montanans to contract directly with their doctors for services. Rep. Nancy Balance (R-Hamilton) carried a bill to include Montana in a compact with other states to protect citizens control over health care decisions. Two more bills would have helped small businesses provide health insurance to their employees and allowed Montanans to shop out-of-state for affordable health insurance.

Tragically, Gov. Bullock vetoed all six bills that landed on his desk. These bills would have made health care more accessible and affordable, but Bullock chose to obstruct the Legislature and hurt Montanans struggling to make ends meet.

Gov. Bullocks refusal to allow Montana to improve its own system makes it all the more important that Congress repeal Obamacare, and do so responsibly. Ive told key congressional leaders that they need to fully fund cost-sharing reduction payments to stabilize the 2018 insurance market and that Obamacare repeal needs to lower costs, give states more flexibility, and give consumers more options to meet their individual health care needs.

Health insurance costs in the United States are on an unsustainable path. Ive heard from hundreds of Montanans who are paying thousands of dollars every year for their health insurance coverage, and thousands more for deductibles before their insurance provides any benefit. Ive spoken at length with Sen. Steve Daines about these issues, and hes working hard to address these problems. Even Sen. Jon Tester is now admitting that things are wrong with Obamacare and that we didnt make the modifications to fix the problem.

Im glad to see Sen. Tester admits that when he cast the deciding vote to pass Obamacare, the law that no one had read was critically flawed from the outset. Im also glad to see hes admitting that he and the rest of the national Democrats did nothing to address these problems and that reforms are way overdue. But Sen. Tester needs to do more than just speak, he needs to take action, especially after Gov. Bullock thwarted bipartisan health care improvements here in Montana. We can work together to solve these problems and make health care better for all Montanans, but for that to happen, the political obstruction must end.

Matt Rosendale, of Glendive, is the Montana state auditor, also known as commissioner of securities and insurance.

Read more here:

Health care improvements thwarted by politics - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Democratic obstructions to healthcare reform must end – The Hill (blog)

President Trump made a promise to the American people that he would repeal and replace ObamaCare. He fulfilled his end of the bargain,but Congress has yet to follow suit.

Republicans and Democrats can agree that ObamaCare has been a complete disaster since its 2010 inception, but it seems that congressional Democrats are more interested in rejecting anything that comes out of the White House rather than helping the American people. They know that premiums, taxes and costs have skyrocketed, but they would rather play politics that pass a solution.

Americans dont need politics as usual. They need a united Congress to support the president, the White House and a better plan for American families, businesses and seniors.

Families and individuals aren't the only ones suffering. Businesses are getting hit hard as well. A small business that employs around 20 or so people, the company and its employees are paying twice what they paid for health insurance less than two years ago, and on top of that, they are receiving less for it.

This is not limited to New York. Everywhere across our nation, people are facing the negative effects of ObamaCare. On top of the problems consumers face, health insurers participating in the ObamaCare exchanges havedeclinedby 24 percent since last year. The number has dropped from 287 insurers to 218, and it seems to be declining even more every single week. So not only is ObamaCare putting the states themselves in a difficult position, it is leaving the American people with little to no choice.

Within Congress, it seems that only Republicans are interested in moving forward with legislation to eliminate ObamaCare, while Democrats are refusing to participate. Yet even a former advisor to President Obama and one of the original ObamaCare architects, Ezekiel Emanuel,statedthis month that the law absolutely needs to be fixed. "Any corporation that would do a massive change like this would make constant adjustments," Emanuel noted. "Because of the paralysis in Congress, we haven't been able to make the adjustments."

Unfortunately, it's beginning to look likecongressional Democrats dont care about helping the American people as much as they care about fighting the White House.If President Trump said dogs barked and cats meowed, congressional Democrats could be counted on to say the opposite. If they want to persuade voters that they're motivated by anything other than anti-Trump vitriol, they would be well-advised to get on board with passing solutions to the mess wrought by ObamaCare.

JuanPablo Andrade is an advisor on President Trump'sHispanicAdvisory Council and National Diversity Coalition and a spokesman forAmerica First Policies, a pro-Trump nonprofit organization.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

View original post here:

Democratic obstructions to healthcare reform must end - The Hill (blog)

Scientist John Shine honoured for discovery that formed basis of … – The Guardian

Prof John Shine in 2015. Shine discovering a sequence of DNA now called the Shine-Dalgarno sequence which allows cells to produce proteins the basis for how all our cells operate. Photograph: Mal Fairclough/AAP

A man whose discovery was essential for the development of genetic engineering, and used that technology to create several therapies now helping many thousands of people, says receiving a Queens Birthday honour is a great recognition from the community of the value of scientific research.

John Shine started his career by discovering a sequence of DNA now called the Shine-Dalgarno sequence as part of his PhD in the mid 1970s.

That sequence, while a miniscule part of the human genome, allows cells to produce proteins the basis for how all our cells operate.

The discovery was essential for genetic engineering, spawned an entire biotech industry, and has now been used to produce therapies that have helped millions of people. In his own work, Shine used those techniques to clone of human insulin and growth hormone for the first time.

Other scientists honoured on Monday included astronomer Ken Freeman, who founded the field of galactic archaeology, and ethnobotanist Beth Gott.

Shine, who was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia today, told the Guardian he has been unusually lucky in his career to have been able to oversee discoveries he made in basic sciences, be translated into real therapies and become commercialised.

My PhD was really esoteric research, he said, referring to his discovery of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence . But then I went over to San Francisco when gene cloning was just beginning right place, right time.

Shine had discovered how to clone the human gene that produces insulin, but to make that useful, it needed to be inserted into another organism that could be farmed in this case, bacteria, which would be farmed in large vats.

But if you want to put [the gene] into bacteria to make human insulin, you needed to trick the bacteria into thinking the gene was one of its own, he said.

It turned out Shines earlier discovery of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence was essential for making that final leap. Although the genetic code is the same in animals and bacteria, the regulatory code was very different. Thats where the Shine-Dalgarno sequence comes in, Shine said.

He needed to find the bacterias version of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence, and put that on either side of the human insulin gene, inside the bacteria.

You needed to put the right Shine-Dalgarno sequence just in front in the right place in the insulin gene to make the bacteria produce human insulin.

The fact that both problems were so closely related was mostly an accident, Shine says.

But throughout the rest of his career, Shine continued to be involved in the translation of his discoveries in esoteric science, all the way through to commercialisation.

Since stepping down as the head of the Garvan Institute in 2011 one of Australias top medical research institutes Shine has been the chair of the biotech giant CSL, one of Australasias largest companies.

So Ive come full circle, Shine said. CSL ... in more recent years, were moving into genetic engineering and weve released several genetically modified proteins for haemophilia that are changing the lives of thousands of people around the world.

Ive been very lucky to be able to go through the basic research in my career, and now see a lot of these real health care products come to fruition and improve the lives of thousands of people. Its wonderful when you can have all the excitement of research but also the satisfaction of seeing something very good coming out of it.

It is not the first time Shine has been recognised publicly for his work. In 2010 he won the prime ministers prize for science something his brother Rick Shine won in 2016.

Apart from the obvious personal honour, its a demonstration that the community does appreciate the benefits that come from research, Shine said. The wellbeing of any society is intimately linked to good healthcare.

Another winner of the prime ministers science prize, astronomer Ken Freeman, was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for his founding contributions to the field of galactic archaeology and his teaching work at the Australian National Universitys Mount Stromlo Observatory.

Honours were also awarded to Royal Melbourne hospitals Peter Grahame Colman (AM), for his work in endocrinology and diabetes research; aeronautical engineer Graeme Bird (AO), the former department head at the University of Sydney and a NASA consultant for 40 years; and Peter Klinken (AC), the chief scientist of Western Australia.

Ethnobotanist Beth Gott was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her work studying native plants and their use by Indigenous people. Gott founded Monash Universitys Aboriginal education garden in 1986 and has assembled databases of native plants in south-eastern Australia.

A paper she wrote in 2005 for the Journal of Biogreography found Indigenous fire-farming was crucial to the growth of plant tubers in southeastern Australia, allowing them to make up half of the local peoples diet.

Read more:

Scientist John Shine honoured for discovery that formed basis of ... - The Guardian