WINCHESTER Both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly have passed legislation that would prohibit conversion therapy for people under age 18.

The House of Delegates on Monday voted 66-27 in support of HB 386, which would ban any health-care provider or person who performs counseling as licensed by the Department of Health Professions from engaging in conversion therapy with a minor. Doing so would constitute unprofessional conduct and would be grounds for disciplinary action. All House Democrats, including 10th District Del. Wendy Gooditis of Clarke County, and 11 Republicans voted in favor of the bills passage. Twenty-seven Republicans, including 29th District Del Chris Collins, R-Frederick County, and 33rd District Del. Dave LaRock, R-Hamilton, voted against the bill.

On Jan. 21, the Senate voted 21-18 in support of similar legislation, SB 245. Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Upperville, who represents the 27th District, was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bills passage.

Each chamber must now consider the others legislation.

Conversion therapy is defined in HB 386 as any practice or treatment that seeks to change an individuals sexual orientation or gender identity.

To date, 19 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws banning conversion therapy for minors.

I have known people whose parents had forced them into conversion therapy, Gooditis said in a text. Not only did it have no effect whatsoever on their sexuality or identity, but the effects it did have were to drive them from their families and create huge, long-term mental distress. Some of the methods used which they described to me were appalling forms of physical and emotional abuse, and we must not permit these to be inflicted on people in the name of trying to force them to be something their families want them to be.

In a message to The Star, Vogel wrote: I do not support adolescent conversion therapy. Medical science does not support the benefits of such a practice and instead the evidence shows the severe harm [that] can be done to a child.

But LaRock countered in an email that HB 386 would rob parents and their teens of the right to make the best treatment decisions for the childs unwanted sexual desires or their choice of sexual identity, limiting the freedom of Virginias youth and their parents to select therapists that work for them. This bill also violates the special nature of the client-therapist relationship, threatens religious liberty, and quite possible free speech rights. Scientific studies have shown that sexual orientation can, and does, change, especially in youth. Public policy should be based on sound, evidence-based science, not ideologically-driven political correctness.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) the nations largest LGBTQ civil rights organization has called conversion therapy dangerous, especially among minors. HRC says conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness and suicide.

The American Psychiatric Association also strongly opposes conversion or reparative therapy. The APA says it does not believe that same-sex orientation should or needs to be changed, and efforts to do so represent a significant risk of harm by subjecting individuals to forms of treatment which have not been scientifically validated and by undermining self-esteem when sexual orientation fails to change. No credible evidence exists that any mental health intervention can reliably and safely change sexual orientation; nor, from a mental health perspective does sexual orientation need to be changed.

Collins could not be reached for comment.

Continued here:

Virginia poised to make 'conversion therapy' illegal for minors - The Winchester Star

Henry Louis Gates Jr. is one of a handful of academics who have crossed over into something approaching true celebrity. Which is apparently what happens when youve written and edited dozens of books of popular history; had a guiding hand in 18 major documentaries on black history, the most recent of which was Who Killed Malcom X?; and spent six seasons uncovering the genealogical mysteries of famous people as host of PBSs Finding Your Roots. Gatess desire to reach beyond the ivory tower in addition to writing landmark works of literary criticism like The Signifying Monkey, hes the director of Harvards Hutchins Center for African and African-American Research was motivated by some very personal feelings. My brother asked me once, says Gates, 69, recalling a time when he and his work were less well known, When are you going to write a book that Daddy and Mama can read?

Theres no arguing that popular storytelling and factual scholarship can be combined in useful ways. What Im curious about is your opinion on the limits, if there are any, of that combination. Its an excellent question. It took a long time for black scholars and filmmakers to feel comfortable representing black historical figures in three dimensions. Take Harriet Tubman. Students think Harriet Tubman was basically leading a train of slaves out of Grand Central Station. But I think the number she saved was closer to 70 which was a lot, by the way. Or: The myth that our ancestors were kidnapped by your ancestors, David, is just untrue. The fantasy is that my 10th-great-grandmother and -grandfather were out on a picnic and some white people jumped out of the bushes and they ended up on a plantation in Virginia. Thats not how it happened. But one of the things that Ive dedicated my career to is showing that black people are just as complex, positively and negatively, as anybody else. For years, the mythos that undergirded black history was that the slaves were the victims of European dominance. But really it was the Europeans who were selling guns to African kings, who engaged in wars against other Africans in order to defeat them and then sell the victims to Europeans. I remember once I was asked to consult on a project about Martin Luther King. I said, You cant do hagiography anymore. King was complicated. He had affairs and doubts. He was a flawed person but also a great man, and showing him in his full complexity would make for a better film than pretending he was a walking saint. But the historian who was involved in this project said: Too many racists. Theyre not ready for that.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. addressing a class at Harvard in 1996. John Blanding/The Boston Globe, via Getty Images

Was conciliatory thinking along the lines of racists arent ready for that in your head in 2009 when you were dealing with the incident with the Cambridge police? Oh, yeah. President Obama made an innocent comment that the arrest was stupid, which it was. Then all of a sudden all these racists are beating up on him. My whole attitude was channeled through the desire to protect our first black president. But there was another motivation. I thought that it would be hubristic and dishonest if I compared what happened to me to what happens to black people in the inner city. I thought, If I didnt have the protections of class and status

The outcome wouldve been very different. Right. When the policeman, Sgt. Crowley, and I met, I said, Why did you arrest me? He said, I was afraid that I wasnt going to be able to go home to my wife, because I was convinced that your partner was upstairs and he was going to come down and blow me away. He told me he had gotten a call: Two black guys are breaking into this house. One of them answers the door me when he rang the bell, and Im stepping over suitcases, because Id just come back from a trip. Unbeknown to me, one pattern of thievery is bringing empty suitcases to a house. So the officer saw a black face, he saw the suitcases: Thats part of a profile. I was what Barbara Johnson calls an already-read text. He couldnt hear me, couldnt see me. Well, that might be related to police excesses and abuses, but its a far end of the scale, and I was able to reverse what happened to me, unlike an Eric Garner. So my whole reaction to my arrest was determined by two things: The attacks on President Obama and my own determination not to claim too much for my own victimization.

Then when you actually had the beer summit, did President Obama say anything helpful, or was that whole thing pro forma? Oh, thats interesting. I was at Marthas Vineyard, and I had been getting instructions from the White House, through Glenn Hutchins. They told me not to wear a bespoke suit. We dont want it to be about class. All of the sudden I was the upper-class black person against the working class. I go, Im the victim! They go, No, dont wear one of those suits. I go: These are the only suits I have. Im not going out to Sears and Roebuck and buying a suit. Then they go, Do not fly down in a private plane. Glenn Hutchins owns a private plane. Glenns a billionaire. Hes one of my best friends. The only way we could get to Washington was on Glenns plane, because there was fog. Anyway, we got to the White House, and we and Sgt. Crowleys family all got to the library at the same time. I walked over to Sgt. Crowley. He had his kids there, and I said to them: Hi, Im Professor Gates. Hope you come to Harvard one day. Maybe youll take one of my classes. Then I said to him, Can I have a word with you? He and I went off and did the beer summit ourselves. I said, Look, I dont know about you, man, but I just want this to go away. He goes, This is a nightmare. I said to him: The president has come under attack. Racisms coming out of the floor. Im sure youre a decent person. I forgive you. Lets move on. He goes, That would be the best thing that could happen. I said, Maybe we could find a way to lecture about it. He laughed and said, Anything I can do to get off the beat. I realized he was funny. I think that gay people have a sense of whos homophobic. I think that Jewish people have a sense of whos anti-Semitic. I definitely think black people I could walk out there and tell you, That [expletive] is a racist.

The White House beer summit, held in the Rose Garden in 2009: from left, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Sgt. James Crowley and President Barack Obama. Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

And youre saying you didnt get that vibe from Sgt. Crowley? I didnt get that vibe from him. When we were called into the Oval Office, I said to the president, Mr. President, we had a great conversation in the library. He said, Oh, it sounds like its all settled. The actual beer summit was us doing small talk. And the reason Joe Biden was there is that the Cambridge police had insisted that because there were going to be two black guys at the table, they wanted two white guys at the table! They had sent somebody involved in the Cambridge police structure to be there. As we were walking out to the Rose Garden, somehow that guy got pushed to the side, and Joe Biden jumped in the line. Thats what nobody ever figured out: Why is Biden at the table? He was there to be the second white guy.

As far as you can tell, how much is Bidens appeal to black voters solely about his association with Obama? Biden, wisely, has wrapped his arms so tightly around Barack Obama that theyre inextricably intertwined, at least in his speeches. Hes polling so positively among black people because of the Obama residue. But that could change overnight. I havent endorsed any candidate, because I have too many friends. Elizabeth Warren was my colleague. I did Bernie Sanderss family tree. In 2018, I got an award in Delaware, along with Joe Biden and Ron Chernow. I spent a whole evening with Biden, and I liked him. All of this is to say that I have been sort of watching the field. But, I mean, Im going to vote for whatever Democrat emerges. I want to say this right, because I havent said this to anybody: Among all the candidates, the person who I believe could stand toe-to-toe, strongest and longest with Donald Trump is Mike Bloomberg.

Why? Who do you think his constituency is? I know Mike Bloomberg socially. Every summer I go to a dinner on Marthas Vineyard with Mike Bloomberg. Ive argued with him about policies that I didnt like. He is enormously intelligent and capable. When he was mayor, I watched him. He could wear it lightly. Its not like Jimmy Carter with the weight of the world on him. I think that hes tough, and I think he could take on the bully Donald Trump. Very few people can stand up to a bully. Mikes got some bully in him. I think hes good.

Stop and frisk isnt too much of a problem for him? He faces two problems that he has to overcome. He has already apologized for stop and frisk, but he has to put it behind him, and also the Central Park Five. What the city and the legal structure did to those five boys was shameful. The mayor has to put that behind him. If hes successful doing that, I think black people want him, because he is smart, sensitive, strong. I think he cares about health care. He understands the economic system. This is not an endorsement. But I would support him if he got the nomination.

Something I see your guests do on Finding Your Roots is framing their narratives as triumphant ones, and Id say a similar form of exceptionalism shapes how a lot of Americans think of the countrys past. In what way does our propensity for that kind of thinking inhibit our ability to fully reckon with subjects like racism and slavery that dont easily fit into a narrative of exceptionalism? Because that tension is obviously at the root of the conflict over, for example, the removal of Confederate monuments. I feel as if you and I are sitting here, were having coffee, and we hear this noise, and these zombies come out of the floor, and the zombie is white supremacy. We thought these [expletive] were dead. Im trying to use the popularity of Finding Your Roots to get these political messages in there without being a scold. I am trying to deconstruct notions of racial purity. There is no racial purity. We are all diverse. Showing diversity is important to me politically, and insofar as we can achieve that, our series has an educational value for the larger country, particularly at a time when were at Redemption redux.

Gates with Soledad OBrien on the set of Finding Your Roots. PBS/Ark Media, via Everett Collection

We understand the Redemption era now as a white response to the gains black people made during Reconstruction. Is it too simplistic to say that the energy driving the current moment is also a reaction to black progress and Obamas becoming president? Ive spent a lot of time thinking about your question, and I dont know the answer. If were sitting around in a bar with a bunch of black people, they could say, Barack and Michelle drove all the white people totally out of their minds. I think thats partly true. The other thing, though, is that between Martin Luther Kings death and now, the black middle class has doubled and the black upper-middle class has quadrupled. But simultaneously, if you look at the wages of white workers the chance of your kids doing better than you if you were in the white working class, thats over. So you might look at a black family in the White House, all these black people who joined the upper-middle class, and theres a kind of collective What the [expletive]?

Which youre saying resulted in resentment? Its the curve of rising expectations. When its interrupted, people go nuts. After World War II, G.I.s got mortgages so they could live in the suburbs and buy a house, buy a car, then a TV. Their kids could go to college. Their grandchildren could be doctors. That was the promise of America. That promise is over. That drives people crazy, and then they target, they objectify, they need a scapegoat. So its not just Michelle and Barack. They are part of the larger phenomenon. To go from them to Trump is a seismic revolution that is the result of a collapse of expectation.

You mentioned college: I went back and read Loose Canons, and theres a line in there in which you say that college students are too old to form but not too old to challenge. How does a line like that resonate today, when challenging students can seem like such a fraught proposition? Political correctness is heinous if it comes from a person on the left or the right or a person of color or a white person. Lets take a hot-button issue. I wrote the introduction to the 50th-anniversary edition of Albert Murrays The Omni-Americans, and there was this paragraph I wrote last summer that I saw when I was cleaning out my Word files on my iPad. In it I said, Only people not familiar with this history of slavery or Ta-Nehisi Coatess recent work would wonder if there was an economic disadvantage to African Americans subsequent to the Civil War because of slavery and then because of the rollbacks of Reconstruction. I said, However, reasonable people could disagree about reparations. But, I continued, there are few people today who have the courage to stand up within the community and say, I genuinely think reparations is a mistake. Now Im not saying thats my position. But Im saying you will find nobody black standing up and criticizing reparations its very rare because theyre afraid that students are going to boycott them or that theyll be called an Uncle Tom. Thats not right. We fall apart, particularly in the academy, when we succumb to or perpetuate that kind of intellectual bullying.

What is your position on reparations? I do believe that its impossible for any rational person not to understand the cost of 400 years of slavery and then another century of Jim Crow. We have to find ways to compensate for that cost. Affirmative action, to me, is a form of reparations. So is health care Obamacare or a variant. And theres reform of public education. One of the most radical things we could do to reform public-school education would be to equalize the amount of money spent per student in every school. That is never going to happen, but that would constitute a radical shift. Those are my three big principles of reparations, and two of the three affect poor people in general. But Im a scholar of African and African-American history. There were palpable costs to antiblack racism that have had profound effects on the state of black America. These effects are cumulative, and somebody has to do something about it.

In terms of your own writing, youre a long way from the guy who made his name with a dense academic book like The Signifying Monkey. Something like Stony the Road is written in much simpler language with much less jargon. How do you make sense of that evolution? The Signifying Monkey is my tenure book. I was just trying to get tenure. I was trying to be a bridge between the black tradition and poststructuralism and deconstruction. Then I got tenure, and as far as the evolution of my own prose, once you get tenure, you could write films, you could do anything. A crucial point came when I gave a lecture at Howard University. A friend of mine invited me down to deliver my essay called Binary Oppositions in Chapter 1 of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. I thought I was introducing structuralism. When I was done, I expected a standing ovation. The first question I got was: Yeah, brother. All we want to know is, was Booker T. Washington an Uncle Tom or not? That had a profound effect on me. I have an ego. I want the audience to be with me. Thats what you see in my evolution.

David Marchese is a staff writer and the Talk columnist for the magazine.

This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.

See the original post:

Henry Louis Gates Jr. on What Really Happened at Obama's 'Beer Summit' - The New York Times

BBC audiences were recently introduced to their first black Doctor Who. In the episode which aired in the UK on January 26, Jo Martin previously best known for roles in Holby City and Blue Story played an ostensibly ordinary human who was, towards the end of the episode, revealed as a previously unknown (possibly past, future or parallel) incarnation of televisions most famous Time Lord.

A few weeks earlier the latest version of the shows recurring super-villain, The Master, had for the first time been portrayed by a person of colour, a role played with manic zeal by Sacha Dhawan in a performance dubbed by The Guardian as the Hot Camp Master.

Both events provoked strong responses on social media, from enthusiastic plaudits through to rants from fans ranging from the sincerely woke to the reactionary and even racist. The latter response might be considered out of character for the followers of a show whose liberal hero has for more than half a century renounced violence and struggled for peace, social justice and environmental sustainability.

This is a series whose very first episode had a female producer, Verity Lambert, and a British Asian director, Waris Hussein phenomena virtually unheard of back in 1963. (The latter was also played by Dhawan in the BBCs 2013 docudrama An Adventure in Space and Time.)

Its a programme which, in 1972, argued passionately (albeit symbolically) in favour of membership of the European Economic Community (or in its own terms the Galactic Federation), and a year later railed against the impacts of industrial pollution.

In recent years, it has foregrounded LGBT+ protagonists, issued dire warnings against climate change and even made reference to the fabrication of evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

Yet since 2017, when Jodie Whittaker was cast as the first female Doctor Who, arguments have raged between those strange misogynists depicted by the Huffington Posts Graeme Demianyk as man babies and, in contrast, the likes of The Guardians Zoe Williams, who heralded Whittakers Doctor as representing the revolutionary feminist we need right now.

If, like mine, your social media bubble overwhelmingly favoured the Remain campaign and still cant get its head around the fact that the majority of people didnt, then your friends and followers may well have applauded Martins appearance. But you might then be surprised if you were to venture into some Doctor Who fan forums. Youd see quite a backlash against what some perceive as the politically correct direction their favourite show has taken. This show and all it used to offer has been destroyed by politically correct writing and casting, opined one fan. Another responded: Its not woke, unless your idea of woke is it has a black woman in it. Its the blandest form of mainstream liberalism but some internet talking heads treat it as if it was 50 minutes of Jodie Whittaker reciting the Communist Manifesto.

The outrage of the anti-PC brigade has simultaneously fuelled and been fuelled by coverage in the mainstream media. Echoing a populist press narrative that the series has become, in the words of the Daily Mail, a tiresome ordeal of political correctness since Whittaker assumed the role, The Sun reported this week that viewers baulked at the programmes unbearable political correctness as another female Doctor was revealed.

Also writing in The Sun, Jeremy Clarkson observed that angry fans say its littered with ham-fisted attempts to ram Lefty dogma down our throats.

This backlash has sparked an equal and opposite reaction one which, like the fan who described the series current ideological stance as the blandest form of mainstream liberalism is not simply aligned with that stance, but which is concerned that its stance is not radical or robust enough. Writing in the New Statesman, assistant editor Jonn Elledge has argued that the casting of the first female Doctor has been undermined by the fact that that she has been given no material as meaty as that written for the supporting male characters.

Despite having repeatedly argued for the importance of that casting decision in books and articles, both here and elsewhere, Ive since expressed concern at the series simultaneous weakening of the character.

Jack Hudson has recently argued in The Guardian that, beneath its guise of progressive politics, the show has in fact grown profoundly conservative in ways which may at once alienate both its progressive and its reactionary fans.

In December Lenny Henry (in the run-up to his recent appearance in the series) was quoted as suggesting that BBC bosses would rather cast a dog than a black actor in the title role. In this context, Martins casting as the first black, female Doctor seems particularly significant.

Yet Martins Doctor is not (as yet) the series lead. Progressive voices in fandom have sometimes suggested that, when Whittaker eventually leaves the series, her successor will most likely (and most appropriately) be a woman of colour. There may now be those who fear that Martins tangential Doctor (whoever and whenever in the Time Lords timeline she may turn out to be) has ticked both those boxes and that the production team may next time once more fall back on casting a white, male lead.

These arguments will doubtless continue to rage, along with much bigger ones. The polarisation of political perspectives among the British public since the Brexit referendum of course remains a matter of ongoing national concern. The current disagreements amongst Doctor Who fans once a group which unambiguously embodied the liberal consensus may appeal to the mainstream media precisely because they mirror those larger societal divisions, and may prove of greater significance as indicative of those broader ideological shifts and splits.

Here is the original post:

Doctor Who: fan reaction to first black Time Lord exposes Britain's deep divisions on race and gender - The Conversation UK

SOLVAY, N.Y. -- Three days after the Solvay mayor berated a village attorney in front of a roomful of people, the villages law firm quit.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon has been Solvays legal counsel for 23 years. Friday, the firm sent Solvay a letter saying they were ending the relationship.

I am ethically precluded from discussing any of the reasons that led to this, said attorney Kevin Gilligan. But after 23 years were not going to be their attorneys.

Solvay Mayor Derek Baichi has been critical of the villages lawyers for months, complaining in vague terms about several investigations the board launched into its own members and the police chief. Hes threatened to get rid of the firm and tried at least once to withhold their payments.

He also tried to reappoint the firm to a full-year term earlier this year, but was blocked by the rest of the board.

At a meeting last Tuesday, Baichi told Nadine Bell, a partner at Costello, Cooney & Fearon, that she needed to earn their money. He was asking Bell to disapprove of a proposed resolution that would have forced Baichi to reimburse the village for an investigation into the police chief.

Nadine, you gotta give the right answers, dont give me this political correctness garbage," he shouted. "Do your job.

The resolution was eventually dropped, after which Baichi said he was given misinformation.

Baichi has also lambasted Kevin Gilligan, a Costello lawyer who has worked for the village since 1997.

In December, Baichi tried to block a resolution to pay the villages legal bills for the month. He told Gilligan he would pay the bills if Gilligan disclosed information about an investigation into another board member.

Ill make you a deal. I want you to read the email you sent to this board within the last 24 hours about one of those investigations, Baichi said. If you read the email Ill vote yes.

I wont read the email. Its a confidential attorney-client communication, Gilligan replied. It would be a violation of my legal ethics.

Baichi eventually relented and said that he would agree to pay the law firm for services theyd already provided, but noted he was unhappy with a pair of investigations that were ongoing.

Alright you know what Ill do? Ill vote yes, only because its Christmas and Kevin youve been a pretty decent lawyer these past two years," he said. "Ill vote yes because I dont want to ruin Christmas.

Baichi tried to reappoint Costello, Cooney & Fearon earlier this year -- an effort that was blocked by the majority of the board. The majority of the board instead recommended issuing a request for proposals to seek bids from other firms.

The board agreed to keep Costello, Cooney, Fearon on a month-to-month basis until the RFP was completed. That RFP is ongoing and one law firm has applied.

Solvays board has been beset by internal investigations for much of the last seven months. Those investigations (one into a pair of board members and another into the police chief) have been a source of constant friction and open hostility between the mayor and his opponents on the board. Theyve also been shrouded in secrecy. Baichi has said repeatedly he cant discuss the details because the village lawyers have advised him against it.

Costello, Cooney, Fearon has represented Solvay since 1997. Gilligan said he was first appointed by Mayor Anthony Modafferi 23 years ago. Since then, he said, hes made a lot of friends working with Solvay.

Well miss working with the village after 23 years, he said. I met a lot of the people and love them very much.

Gilligan sent the village a letter last week alerting officials that the law firms services would end on Feb. 14.

He also commended Bell for operating on a totally ethical basis" at last weeks contentious meeting.

The Solvay board will hold a special meeting Tuesday night to discuss the future of the villages legal representation.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said Baichi tried to appoint another law firm earlier this year. He tried to reappoint CCF, but the board voted against him and instead opted to issue a request for proposals for firms.

Originally posted here:

Solvays mayor threatened to fire the villages lawyers. Instead, they quit - syracuse.com

The central banks of Britain, Japan, the euro zone, Sweden and Switzerland have grouped up to assess potential use cases for digital currencies. Talk of such currencies gained momentum after Facebook announced plans last year to introduce a cryptocurrency called libra, CNBC. In the light of such developments, it is evident that those who view crypto as an engine of freedom are losing control of the narrative.

Also read: Why User Experience Is Cryptos True Killer App

The narrative is an important concept because those who command the narrative are most likely to determine the outcome. Once closely associated with political correctness, the term has gone mainstream in recent years. The narrative is the story of somethingan issue, an ideabut it is more than merely relating the facts of a matter. In postmodern philosophy, from which political correctness draws heavily, the narrative creates reality; it creates the facts. The dominant story becomes the culture and the truth of a society. In other words, the narrative defines reality, not vice versa. This is one reason why the left is so preoccupied with the control of words and ideas; words and ideas control reality itself.

Most people use the narrative in a more casual way to mean a story that takes a specific approach or tone. Left-wing and right-wing narratives war with each other on issues, for example. Nevertheless, the term retains some of its original meaning. Giving context and interpretation to an issue does define what people view as true about it. In turn, the general publics perception does influence the events or facts that follow, especially in the absence of a competing narrative. This is why states censor: they want to eliminate competing truths.

This process applies to crypto, including the blockchain. The narrative of freedom can define the outcome. When it becomes effective at doing so, censorship is likely; at the moment, there is no need. Again, those to whom crypto is an engine of freedom are losing control of the narrative. Few things are as important to the future of crypto than to reclaim Bitcoins original vision of financial freedom from what is becoming the dominant context and interpretation: statism.

Happily, freedom enjoys a distinct advantage. The mechanics of crypto favor it strongly. Cryptos decentralization gives economic power to the average person who transfers wealth around the globe at will, requiring only the protection of solid encryption. And, yet, the state could win; some believe it already has.

Crypto needs a powerful competing narrative of freedom. It needs to remember its roots. Much more than financial freedom is at stake: every other freedom rests upon the ability of people to control their own wealth. Every time some aspect of free-market crypto is explored, such a narrative expands and users move closer to independence.

The first step in establishing a narrative of freedom is to reject the claim that crypto is simply another investment or money-making tool. Certainly, this is one function of crypto. And for some people, it may be the only function. But this is a comment upon their psychology or motives, not upon the inherent nature of crypto which exists as a thing apart. The claim is also dangerous; it opens the door to state control because the vast majority of financial institutions are now under its authority in one form or another and using them tends to legitimize their existence. This is a story that needs to change.

By far, the best freedom narrative for crypto is the truth because it withstands scrutiny and has the practical advantage of being backed by reality. The best approach to this narrative is to state the basics of crypto, simply and clearly. And then aggressively build upon them.

Crypto is usually discussed in economic, political, or technical terms. But Aristotle claimed that all things are philosophical. That is, the foundation of everything, including technology, is philosophical because philosophy asks the most fundamental questions about a thing.

Philosophy is not arcane or elite. Classical Greek philosophy used to serve the same function that psychology does today; it taught the principles of how to live a better life. Philosophy can be broken into three broad categories: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Metaphysics deals with the first principles or nature of reality and the relationship between what exists, including abstractions. Epistemology is the theory of human knowledge, especially its acquisition, validation, and scope. Ethics is the branch of knowledge that addresses the moral principles governing behavior. Three questions capture the relationship between these categories. What exists? How do I know it? So what?

The Philosophy of Crypto is a book-length project but a brief glimpse of it can be garnered by loosely applying the three categories of philosophy to crypto.

Metaphysics. Metaphysics arises every time someone accuses crypto of not being real because it is based on nothing. This is a metaphysical attack as much as an economic or political one.

These days, the accusation is not generally hurled at the blockchain which has been widely adopted by businesses and states. The blockchains elegant efficiency means that it will continue to spread into every corner of life. And useful things automatically acquire the status of real.

The second half of cryptothe coinsis a different matter. Crypto without physical backing, such as gold or a basket of fiat currencies, is often called unreal. Clearly, this claim is untrue. At its root, crypto is an algorithma string of computer commands that produce a result. In this case, the result is a coin that is accepted as a medium of exchange. Whether or not people credit it as valid money, crypto is definitely real. As with fiat, its value is based upon peoples acceptance of it. Unlike fiat, the acceptance does not have to be coerced.

In his essay Bitcoin Equals Freedom, Ross Ulbricht pointed to another value upon which the something of crypto is basedfreedom from financial authorities, especially from central banks.

It is like magic that Bitcoin could somehow come from nothing, and without prior value or authoritative decree, become money. But Bitcoin did not appear in a vacuum. It was a solution to a problem cryptographers had been struggling with for many years: How to create digital money with no central authority that couldnt be forged and could be trusted.

Epistemology. What does truth mean in crypto, and how do human beings know it? The truth of crypto and the blockchain is that they work. The better they function, the truer they become. Human beings know when crypto and the blockchain are true because they work. Every time the blockchain delivers and preserves information, it is akin to a proof of principle.

Ethics. The so what? of crypto is contained within its structure. Which is to say, the ethics of crypto is an extension of its reality (metaphysics) and how its truth works (epistemology). Crypto is inherently decentralized and entirely voluntary. More than this, the blockchain cannot be centralized and controlled by a single hand or authority, and no one can be forced to use it. Free-market crypto is controlled by individual users who agree to exchange and co-operate to mutual advantage. It is a pure expression of non-violence. This is its ethical basis.

The only way to introduce violence is through crime, such as hacking a wallet. Overwhelmingly, the crime introduced is state control; even then, however, the state cannot impose its will on the blockchain, only on the people who use it. These people need to understand the narrative of freedom.

Ulbrichts article concludes, The promise of freedom and the allure of destiny energized the early community. Bitcoin was consciously, yet spontaneously taken up as money while no one was watching, and our world will never be the same.

Bitcoin was created to fulfill a promise of freedom and the allure of destiny. It was forged by cryptographers who did not know it would become a popular currency and investment. Its worth as money should never be denigrated, but those who view crypto only as money are missing the point. The narrative of freedom must do a better job of explaining.

Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see whats happening in the industry.

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder of the Voluntaryist magazine and modern movement in 1982, and has authored over a dozen books, scripted dozens of documentaries, worked several years for FOX News and written hundreds of articles in periodicals ranging from scholarly journals to Penthouse. She has been a vocal defender of WikiLeaks and its head Julian Assange.

Go here to see the original:

Wendy McElroy: The Narrative and Philosophy of Cryptocurrency - Bitcoin News

NEW YORK, United States Dolce & Gabbana is back.

The Italian luxury label is once again a fixture of the red carpet and the subject of gauzy magazine profiles. In the last few weeks, Greta Gerwig, Blake Lively, Lupita Nyongo and even the Duchess of Cambridge have worn the brand during public appearances. And on Tuesday, first lady Melania Trump, a longtime supporter, sported a dark Dolce & Gabbana suit to President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.

Dolce & Gabbanas many critics advocated to get the brand off the backs of A-listers in 2018, following a roughly six-month run where designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana managed to insult the Japanese fashion industry, Selena Gomez and the people of China in rapid succession.

The labels hourglass-making, richly ornate looks were largely absent from awards shows for about a year. Their sudden return marks a new chapter in one of fashions most enduring mysteries: why, no matter what Dolce & Gabbanas controversial founders say or do, does the brand always come roaring back, seemingly none the worse for wear?

This time around, some industry insiders credit Lucio Di Rosa, who joined the brand at the start of 2020 as head of worldwide celebrities and VIP relations, a position he held at Versace for 15 years and Armani before that.

Lucio is a beloved figure within the fashion industry, said fashion writer Evan Ross Katz. He has really strong connections with stylists and celebrities. Katz, a writer for Garage, Paper and other titles, has been following the brands moves for some time. He recently posted footage of celebrity stylist Karla Welch denouncing the brand at a panel for BoF West in 2018, pointing out that Welch had styled her own clients in the label last month.

Welch did not respond to a request for comment.

Kate Middleton wearing Dolce & Gabbana last month | Source: Getty Images

Others argue that Dolce & Gabbana never really went away. Revenue for the fiscal year ending in March 2019 was up 5 percent to 1.38 billion ($1.54 billion). That was despite being frozen out of China, the worlds second-biggest luxury market, for months after a November 2018 campaign video depicting a Chinese model struggling to eat Italian food with chopsticks sparked a boycott.

Those resilient sales are a sign that Dolce & Gabbanas antagonism toward critics and disdain for political correctness remains a viable strategy, even as other brands compete with marketing strategies, diversity committees and other efforts to stress to consumers they have a stance on political and social issues.

The brand did not respond to a request for comment.

If theres a lesson to be learned, its that consumer outrage and hashtags may temporarily hurt a brands image on social media, but those can still be counteracted by advertising spending and personal relationships with celebrities and editors.

At the end of the day fashion brands know that for everyone who is offended by the things they are designing or the things they may be doing there are hundreds of consumers ready to shell out their dollars, said Kimberly Jenkins, assistant professor of Fashion Studies at Ryerson University

Below, BoF provides a timeline of the brands controversies and resurgence.

Prelude

January 2007 The Advertising Standards Authority, the British advertising regulatory board, banned a Dolce & Gabbana campaigndepicting models brandishing knives and suffering from knife wounds after it draws over 160 complaints from the public.

September 2012 Dolce & Gabbana sent earrings with colonial-style imagery of black women down the catwalk at its Spring/Summer 2013 catwalk show.

There's no denying they're offensive, reported The Guardian.

March 2015 Dolce and Gabbana said in an interview with Italian magazine Panorama that they are against the idea of gay parents.

We oppose gay adoptions the only family is the traditional one, said Dolce. I am not convinced by those I call children of chemicals, synthetic children. Gabbana appeared to second these comments, stating that family is not a fad.

Protesters outside a Dolce & Gabbana store | Source: Getty Images

The comments sparked public uproar, with singer Elton John calling for a boycott. However, many key fashion figures stayed silent at the time. Anna Wintour, Cindi Leive, Roberta Myers, Ariel Foxman and Joanna Coles all declined interview requests by The New York Times. It was "a tacit acknowledgement of the power a major advertiser wields in the publishing world," The Times' Jacob Bernstein wrote at the time. Dolce apologised for his comments months later in an interview with American Vogue.

March 2016 The brand sells $2,395 pompom-embellished "slave sandals" online. The name sparked backlash online with social media users, while Teen Vogue, Fashionista and other outlets reported the controversy. BoFs own Imran Amed told The New York Times, Given this is not the first time theyve got into trouble, you would have thought they would have been a little more careful.

June 2017 On Instagram, the designers enthusiastically voiced their support of Melania Trump, a frequent wearer of their clothes. Dolce and Gabbana poked fun at the controversy, launching their own #BoycottDolceGabbana slogan T-shirts, which retailed for $245.

April 2018 Gabbana discussed the duos succession plans for the brand. I dont want a Japanese designer to design for Dolce & Gabbana, he told Reuters.

Downfall

June 2018 Gabbana commented on an Instagram post of singer Selena Gomez: proprio brutta!!! a phrase that roughly translates to Shes so ugly.

On stage at a BoF conference in Los Angeles, celebrity stylist Karla Welch said, I reacted poorly to it. I had Dolce on the rack for a fitting and said, 'No, those can go away.' Thats just mean. Fellow stylist Jason Bolden added, Not since the beginning of time have you seen Dolce on my rack. Those silhouettes are amazing and they get everyone. But my girls are like, 'What? Its a done deal.'

November 2018 Dolce & Gabbana posted an advertising campaign to its Weibo account featuring a Chinese model trying to eat Italian food using chopsticks.

The video was taken down within 24 hours following an outcry led by fashion watchdog Diet Prada. Soon after, screenshots of racist direct messages sent by Gabbana to an online critic went viral. Both the brand and Gabbana claimed their accounts were hacked.

Chinese consumers shared videos of them cutting and burning their Dolce & Gabbana clothes. The label cancelled a catwalk presentation in Shanghai after Chinese celebrities including Zhang Ziyi, Li Bingbing, Chen Kun, Wang Xiaoming and Donnie Yen said they wouldn't attend. Models including Lucky Blue Smith and Estelle Chen also pulled out of the show.

Tmall, JD.com and other Chinese retailers removed Dolce & Gabbana products from their sites. Sephora's Chinese stores, as well as Lane Crawford, also pulled products.

The designers subsequently post an apology video to social media.

January 2019 Kim Kardashian posted an Instagram story featuring Dolce & Gabbana product and tagging the brand. She swiftly deleted the post after it drew criticism from fans.

January - February 2019 Dolce & Gabbana gowns and suits were absent from the red carpet at the Golden Globes, the Oscars and other events.

Comeback

March-August 2019 A few celebrities continued to wear Dolce & Gabbana for public appearances, including Katy Perry on American Idol in May. Meanwhile, fashion magazines continued to feature the brand on covers, worn by high profile celebrities including Ashley Graham for UK Harper's Bazaar and Kris, Kylie and Stormi Jenner for Vogue Arabia.

Kim Kardashian posted a series of pictures to Instagram one of which featured Dolce himself captioned, Thank you Domenico! I hope North was a good assistant. This time she did not delete the post.

August 2019 Company filings reveal the brandsuffered a sales decline in the Asia-Pacific market, according to Reuters. However, global revenue grew as US sales rose.

October 2019 Olivia Coleman appeared on the cover of American Vogue's October issue, wearing a Dolce & Gabbana cape and trousers. The shoot was photographed by Annie Leibovitz and styled by Tonne Goodman.

December 2019 More celebrities were seen wearing the brand, including Evan Rachel Wood, Kris Jenner and Corey Gamble, Jennifer Hudson, Dwayne Johnson, the Jonas Brothers and Jennifer Lopez.

January 2020 Lucio Di Rosa joined Dolce & Gabbana as head of VIP relations. An industry veteran, he previously spent 15 years at Versace in a similar role; prior to that he worked at Giorgio Armani.

January - February 2020 Dolce & Gabbana is spotted on numerous celebrities at the Golden Globes, Grammys and other high profile events, marking the brands return to the red carpet.

Among the A-listers wearing the label: Blake Lively, Lupita Nyongo, Matthew McConaughey, Gwen Stefani and Jennifer Garner. Even Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, stepped out in a custom Dolce & Gabbana tweed suit for a charity outing.

Stylist Karla Welch, who spoke out against the designers 18 months earlier, dressed her clients Big Little Town in Dolce & Gabbana for the Grammys, tagging the brand in an Instagram post of the band pre-ceremony. The post drew criticism. Welch subsequently untagged the brand and removed the ability for users to post comments.

Meanwhile, Dolce & Gabbana continued to land prime real estate in top-tier magazines. For Harpers Bazaars Big Fashion Issue cover, Kylie Jenner was dressed in a Dolce & Gabbana Alta Moda dress.

Related Articles:

Dolce & Gabbana Court Controversy. Are Their Sales Better for It?

Dolce & Gabbana: Cultural Stupidity Can Be Costly

Why Dolce & Gabbana Is Still Frozen Out of China

The rest is here:

How Dolce & Gabbana Clawed Its Way Back From Cancellation | Intelligence | BoF - The Business of Fashion

A new report has revealed that a prominent white nationalist author, activist and podcaster known as Paul Kersey has in fact worked for more than a decade at mainstream conservative institutions and media outlets under his real name.

According to an investigation by the not-for-profit media outlet Right Wing Watch (RWW), the man who has worked under the Kersey pseudonym is in fact Michael J Thompson.

The Guardian has uncovered additional material that supports reporting by RWW, and further indicates Thompsons role in moulding rightwing activists from a position near the heart of Americas most influential conservative institutions.

The RWW investigation, published on Monday, reveals the work of Paul Kersey, whom it calls a barely underground member of the white nationalist movement and a fixture on the roster of racist media outlets and campaign groups.

But it also shows that Thompson worked under his own name at institutions like the Leadership Institute, its media arm Campus Reform, and WND, formerly World Net Daily, a once-popular conspiracy-minded conservative outlet, as late as November 2018.

It also shows how his WND position allowed him to move in professional circles that included white nationalists, writers from Breitbart and the Daily Caller and prominent Donald Trump supporters including Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec.

RWW determined Thompsons identity partly through a forensic voice test on audio recordings and partly through emails and testimony provided by Katie McHugh, a former far-right insider and Breitbart writer.

Evidence from McHugh underpinned reporting by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that showed how Trumps close aide Stephen Miller attempted to insert white nationalist themes into Breitbarts coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

Using the Paul Kersey pseudonym in online columns for outlets like VDare and American Renaissance, Thompson has for years whipped up racist fears about black crime; promoted racial paranoia about a demographic Great Replacement of white Americans; and spread falsehoods about the genetic inferiority of non-whites.

According to RWW, he has run an influential far-right blog, Stuff Black People Dont Like, since 2009. The blog is focused on promoting false white nationalist ideas about race and crime.

He has also regularly appeared as a guest on white nationalist podcasts including Red Ice, The Political Cesspool and Richard Spencers AltRight Radio and is currently the co-host of a podcast produced by a prominent SPLC-designated hate group, American Renaissance.

But in 2010, RWW reports, he was named in a press release from the Leadership Institute as working in their campus services program. The Guardian was able to confirm this by accessing an archived staff page for Campus Reform, the Leadership Institutes online vehicle for the prosecution of on-campus culture wars.

The Leadership Institute is one of the longest-standing institutions in the US conservative movement, focused on training young activists. It claims to have trained 200,000 such young conservatives over 40 years, in skills including public speaking, campaigning and fundraising.

In a series of archived snapshots from the Campus Reform staff page from September 2009 to July 2010, Thompson was listed as campus services coordinator for the western region. This suggests he began his pseudonymous white nationalist blog while employed by the Leadership Institute and its media arm.

Campus Reforms website was established at the beginning of 2009, according to Domain Name System records. It has typically targeted so-called political correctness and professors it deems to be leftists.

Using internet archiving services, the Guardian was able to access the full text of previously unreported Campus Reform articles by Thompson. In the bylines for those articles, written in 2009 and 2010, he is described as a Campus Reform reporter.

In the articles that were archived and accessible, Thompson does not openly use the vocabulary of white nationalism but does explore themes such as race and immigration.

One May 2010 article criticizes Colorado State students for staging a walkout in protest against a hardline immigration law passed in Arizona in 2010 and highlights the involvement of some students with an immigrant rights group, La Raza.

Another bemoans the decision of a Washington state public college, Evergreen State, to fund a visit by the academic and civil rights activist Angela Davis, calling her a Marxist agitator.

Many more articles offer instructions, guidance and assistance to conservative student activists.

Thompson leads with complaints about political correctness; news of anti-abortion, pro-gun and media activism by conservative students; and exhortations to run for student government.

In each case, he appeals to students to reach out to Campus Reform for information, training and organizing assistance.

The Guardian has discovered evidence that Thompson was able to make connections between students and members of the conservative movement.

A February 2011 guest post on the Campus Reform website by a senior at Utah State University describes that students experiences as a sponsored attendee at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which remains the principal annual gathering of the conservative movement.

The author writes: Michael Thompson, my regional field coordinator worked diligently to put me in contact with individuals and organizations willing to help me with future activism efforts on my campus.

RWW reports that Thompson worked at WND from at least January 2012 to November 2018.

Thompson, American Renaissance leader Jared Taylor and Joseph Farah of WND did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read the original:

White nationalist has long worked at conservative outlets under real name - The Guardian

An Evening of Mad Comedy with Mad Magazine Senior Editor Joe Raiola is coming to the Cambria Center for the Arts Theatre on Feb. 13. The show starts at 7 p.m. and tickets are $20 and availableonline at My805Tix.com or at the box office.

In An Evening of MAD Comedy, Joe Raiola reflects on his life in humor and his 33 years as a member of the legendary The Usual Gang of Idiots. (BIG DEAL!)

Sharing wild stories of renegade publisher William Gaines and the unprecedented challenges MAD faced in the aftermaths of 9/11, the Danish cartoon controversy, and the rise of political correctness, Raiola offers a rare peek behind the scenes at Americas dumbest magazine.

As one of the creative innovators behind MADs rare longevity and influence, Raiola churned out a steady stream of pure silliness and pointed political satire at the expense of six Presidents from Reagan to Trump. During that time, he also specialized in making funny noises in the hallway, which was never a problem, as he recalls, since I worked at the only place in America where if you matured, you got fired.

An Evening of MAD Comedy concludes with an outrageous visual presentation tracing MADs colorful history as a revolutionary satiric force and spotlighting many of the magazines classic features and controversial material, followed by a lively Q+A segment.

Related

About the author: News Staff

News staff of the Paso Robles Daily News wrote and edited this story from local contributors and press releases. Scott Brennan is the publisher of this newspaper and founder of Access Publishing. Connect with him on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or follow his blog. He can be reached at scott@pasoroblesdailynews.com.

More here:

An 'Evening of Mad Comedy' coming to the CCAT - Paso Robles Daily News

The U.S. presidential election campaign officially gets underway on Monday, kicking off as it always does in Iowa, a small Midwestern state where the vast majority of the residents are white and their area of specialization is growing wheat.

Iowa is not America, but every four years the eyes of the nation turn upon it.

Likud supporters hold up Trump banners at a rally

Democratic party activists were to gather Monday in sports halls and community centers across the state for caucuses to discuss their options for presidential candidate. (The Republicans are sticking with the incumbent.)

This is a strange ritual, more akin to a youth movement debate than presidential primary. There are no polling stations and voting is done in stages, with activists trying to persuade one another how to vote.

The result is only important in one sense, seemingly giving momentum to the winning candidate and deflating their defeated rivals.

But this is only seemingly, for at the next stop, in the small state of New Hampshire, everything could change.

According to the polls, Democratic Iowa's favored candidate is Bernie Sanders, a 78-year-old Brooklyn native who looks, sounds and mainly screams like a 78-year-old Brooklyn native.

Bernie Sanders campaigning in Iowa

(Photo: AFP)

He was the first candidate for one of the two major American parties to declare that he was a socialist and has also strongly criticized Israel. This would be a Jewish president who would not rush to pray in Jerusalem.

In the past, a candidate like Sanders had no chance - he was too radical, too old, too in your face.

But the age of social networking has changed the rules of the game, not in the center but on the margins, where his base lives.

Bernie Sanders is a mirror image of Donald Trump. Both are populists, one on the extreme right and the other on the extreme left.

American voters, tired of the political correctness, corruption and manipulation from veteran politicians, are being drawn to whom they perceive as authentic.

And even when they are lying, Sanders and Trump's lies seem authentic.

Trump's support is holding, just like that of his Israeli friend Benjamin Netanyahu.

The revelations about him withholding aid to force the Ukrainian government to help him bring down his rival Joe Biden did not in any way affect his status in the polls.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump clasp hands as the U.S. peace plan is unveiled at the White House

(Photo: EPA)

The impeachment trial did not make his supporters cross party lines, much like the indictments against Netanyahu.

The Politico website appealed to Trump supporters among its readers with an interesting suggestion: Tell us why you support him.

Surprisingly, most respondents criticized Trump, but nevertheless decided to vote for him. They justified their decision by quoting the economic situation, the fight against illegal immigration, their antipathy towards his rivals.

In other words, not everyone who votes for Trump is a fan, just like not everyone in Israel who votes for Likud loves Netanyahu.

But after three years of Trump in America and after 10 years of Netanyahu in Israel, skeptical voters are still in no hurry to switch parties.

Some Israelis are sure that everything that happens in American politics is wonderful and want to recreate that at home. But they are wrong; America's elections are corrupt and controlled by big money.

The system is also flawed, and U.S. presidential elections effectively only take place in five or six swing states - which is better than in Israel, where the two biggest parties are deadlocked.

Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman

(Photo: Amit Shabi)

Netanyahu succeeded in creating a bloc of parties committed to him, whose voter base comprises almost half of the electorate. He failed, however, to create a party to the left of Likud that could pull in votes from his main rival Blue & White and bring him the coveted support of 61 MKs, something which he also failed to do in the two national elections of 2019.

The third election in 12 months, on March 2, will be different. After two futile rounds of voting, Yisrael Beytenu Avigdor Lieberman seems to have concluded that he can no longer sit on the sidelines.

He is now talking about an alternative government, which, if I understand correctly, would be a minority government of Blue & White, Labor and Yisrael Beytenu. The predominantly Arab Joint List is apparently not invited.

Ultimately, this coalition is short of four MKs to have the support of more than half of the Knesset. It's just not clear where they will get them from.

Read this article:

It's all about the base, no trouble - Ynetnews