The basic idea of Parler is an awful lot like Twitter. But instead of tweets, users post Parleys. Instead of retweets, there are echoes. And upon registering, the suggested accounts to follow include new outlets such as Breitbart, the Epoch Times, and the Daily Caller, as well as the political accounts for Rand Paul, Mark Levin, and Team Trump.

In June, right-wing users started flocking to this alt-Twitter, whose main selling point is that it vows to champion free speech. As mainstream platforms banned more far-right accounts, removed hate speech with newfound vigour, and attached warning labels to a few of President Donald Trumps tweets, Parler became, for many, an attractive solution to Twitters supposed ills.

Now, its the second most popular app in the App Store, and last week it was estimated to have reached more than 1.5 million daily users, snagging somehigh-profile newbies: Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Elise Stefanik, Representative Jim Jordan, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. What led to Parlers founding in August 2018 was, predictably, disillusionment with the likes of the Silicon Valley giants. Henderson, Nevadabased software engineers Jared Thomson and John Matze created the platform, according to Parlers website, [a]fter being exhausted with a lack of transparency in big tech, ideological suppresssion [sic] and privacy abuse.

Yet while the platform is being billed as the big free speech alternative to Twitter, it isnt exactly unique. Nor is it as uncensored as it claims to be. Parler is just the latest in a long line of rival social networks that have appeared (and, often, disappeared) in the past decade as alternatives to Big Tech. And, if the past is any indicator, its unlikely that Parler will become anything more than a fringe platform in the near future.

Some of the platforms to emerge as alternatives to the major social networks have taken a hard line on data privacy.Ello, for example, was founded in 2014 as an ad-free network that promised never to sell user data to advertisers. (After beingdubbed a Facebook killer,the site was overwhelmed with new users and crashed frequently; it could never scale up and instead became acommunity for digital artists.) MeWe, another Facebook rival, offers theindustrys first Privacy Bill of Rights. (It also takes alaissez-faire approach to content moderation.) And while its 8 million users are dwarfed by Facebooks2.6 billion, MeWe is one of the few successful alternative networks in that its continued to grow since its founding in 2016.

Also read: UnderstandingRight-Wing Resurgence in the US and India

Matze, Parlers CEO whocounts Ayn Rand and conservative economist Thomas Sowellamong his influences, fancies his platform a sort of free-speech utopia: Were a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship, Matzetold CNBC. If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. And while Parler says it is unbiasedMatze isoffering a $20,000 progressive bountyfor a popular liberal pundit to joinits evidently become an unofficial home to the far right, which has long claimed to be mistreated by mainstream platforms. When alt-right celebrities, such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, are banned from Twitter, Parler is their next step. (Loomer announced last week that she has become the first person whose Parler following572,000exceeds her pre-ban Twitter following.)

In this regard, Parler is most similar to Gab, the free speechdriven platform launched in 2017 thats known as ahaven for extremists. [F]ar angrier and uglier than Parler, Gab quickly became a breeding ground for anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism, where postscalling for terrorist attacks and violence against minoritiescirculate.

Gabs fate, however, represents one iteration of the circle of life for platforms of its ilk: After it was connected to an instance of terrorism in 2018, when the suspect in the Pittsburgh synagogue shootingposted about his intentions to actjust before he killed 11 people, Gab never quite recovered. Its server, GoDaddy, dropped it, and though it eventually found another home online, its popularity waned following the shooting and the period offline. In 2019, a software engineer for Gabs web hosting companysaidthat the platform probably had a few tens of thousands of users at mostrather than the 835,000 that Gab claimedthough the hosting company laterdenied that.

But Parler doesnt quite have Gabs teeth. (Andrew Torba, Gabs founder, hasreferred to Parleras a network for Z-list Maga celebrities.) While even Gab has limits to free speech, since its content policypurports to ban extremism, Parler is stricter. It goes far beyond what you might expect from a platform whose entire ethos is freedom of expression. Matze listed a few of the basic rules in a Parley on Tuesday:

As the top Twitter comment points out, Twitter allows four of the five things that Parler censors. Parlers thoroughcommunity guidelinesalso prohibit spam, terrorist activity, defamation, fighting words, and obscenity, among other kinds of speech. And Parlersuser agreementincludes clauses that may seem antithetical to its mission.

Also read: As the Far-Right Culture War Escalates in Germany, Concerns Grow

The platform may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason, it states. But perhaps most surprising is this:

17. You agree to defend and indemnify Parler, as well as any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to all attorneys fees) arising from or relating to your access to and use of the Services. Parler will have the right to conduct its own defence, at your expense, in any action or proceeding covered by this indemnity.

The indemnity provision means that if Parler faces a lawsuit for something you post, you pay. Basically, youre free to say whatever you wantas long as it falls within the community guidelines, and as long as youre willing to take the risk.

That Parler has beenreportedly banning usersen masse this week only further illuminates the faade of free speech on the platform; but regardless of the extent to which one can or cannot Parley whatever they want, the fact remains that the platform is becoming an important space for the American far right.

Its worth considering, then, what its members might do with it. Part of the concern over polarised platforms is that they can lead to radicalisation: In general, theyre seen as part of the pipeline to extremism. First, extremist movements find a foothold in mainstream platforms, where they present their norms in a slightly more palatable way, explained Jeremy Blackburn, a computer science professor at Binghamton University who researches fringe and extremist web communities. Then they gain ground in platforms like Parler that straddle the fringe and mainstream.

Once you remove any question of there being an echo chamber, theres just obvious consequences, Blackburn said.

While this may be cause for concern,Amarnath Amarasingam, an extremism researcher and professor at Queens University, is skeptical that Parler will really galvanise the right. I think part of what animates the rightand the left to some extentand particularly the far right, is the ability to argue with the other, Amarasingam said.

Interacting (and fighting) with the left reinforces the far rights identity, giving it meaning and purpose, he said, and from studying similar platforms like Gab, Amarasingam has found that talking to yourself in the dark corners of the internet is actually not that satisfying. And while he believes it might lead to the radicalization of certain individuals within the far right, the platform itself wont necessarily further the ideologies of extremist right-wing groups.

What Parler could do, Amarasingam believes, is serve as a kind of sounding board for the far right, a place for fringe movements to try out and refine different arguments. Essentially, it could be a factory of sorts, churning out ideas before theyre deployed into the mainstream. Maybe one day, at leastfor now, a good portion of the conversation of Parler is about how fantastic the platform is and how dumb the old tech giants are. Amarasingam acknowledged this.

[W]hat that indicates to me is that they actually are just using Parler to vent their anger of being suspended from what really matters, which has been more mainstream platform, he said. And so I think theyll very much try to get back into wherever the conversation is happening.

Also read: Why Regulating Social Media Will Not Solve Online Hate Speech

Theres also the matter of growth. Normally, these networks just dont get that big. Theyre considered fringe platforms for a reason, and theres rarely a solid business model behind them.

In Parlers case, the network was started with angel funding, and Matze hasnt devised a clear business plan since. Currently, histentative modelis to match conservative influencers with advertisers, and have Parler take a cut of the influencer fee. But given brandsrecent reluctance to advertise on Facebook, this plan seems far from foolproof. With only 30 employees, Parlers ability to handle more users will be tested.

It might growespecially if Trump does decide to join after allbut, as Amarasingam put it, if youre not in the mainstream, youre not in the mainstream.

Generally speaking, what I expect to see in these sites is they hit a certain threshold of users, just like any other social networking platform, said Blackburn. And then for these types of platforms that are explicitly attracting these certain types of users, probably one of them will do something stupid, then they get shut down or deplatformed, and the next one pops up.

Chloe Hadavasis a writer based in Washington.

This piece was originally published onFutureTense, a partnership betweenSlatemagazine, Arizona State University, and New America.

See the article here:

Whats the Deal With Parler and its Rising Popularity? - The Wire

Brave New Worldis something I remember vividly from reading in high school. It was paired withAnthemby Ayn Rand, and I was assigned to do projects on Rands book when I wanted nothing more than to explore the world that Aldous Huxley created within the pages of Brave New World. And now, yet again, were returning to that world in 2020 with Peacocks new show starring Alden Ehrenreich, Harry Lloyd, Jessica Brown Findlay, Kylie Bunbury, and more!

In talking with the cast in preparation for the July 15 release, many expressed excitement over bringing this world to life, and I have to agree. I was instantly infatuated with the story (despite knowing it from reading the novel) and wanted to follow these characters as they began to explore a life not completely dependent on the laws of New London or John the Savage escaping the world hed known.

You can see our interviews with Jessica Brown Findlay, Harry Lloyd, Nina Sosanya, Sen Mitsuji, Hannah John-Kamen, and Joseph Morgan below!

Throughout my interviews, I asked everyone why they thought we continue to go back to the world of Aldous Huxley time and time again. While each cast member had wonderful takes on why we kept going back, I think that Jessica Brown Findlay hit the nail on the head. The world is evolving constantly and thrust into this digital age, and it is important to look at the cautionary tale that is Brave New Worldand see how we need to adapt.

Theres so much, I guess, focused on technology in our world and there are advances that we immediately see in this world. But its sort ofI think the really interesting question is the technology of humans, our own wiring, and why it is we behave and think and desire and feel the way that we do. I guess, posing the question: How much can you unravel that? Through design and through a numbing and telling people theyre happy. And, you know, people are going to slip past that and question things and I think were always going to be fascinated in that because thats how we function.

Brave New Worldhits Peacock on the 15th, and it is truly a beautiful adaptation of one of my favorite novels. I cannot wait for more, and I hope that everyone enjoys it as much as I did!

(image: Steve Schofield/Peacock)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com

Read the original:

We Talked With the Cast of 'Brave New World'! - The Mary Sue

To the editor: As a small-business owner for the past 26 years, I do everything right: hire a diverse workforce, provide health insurance without a waiting period, offer new-business bonuses and pay my taxes on time. I self-financed my business and run it with no debt. (Jelly Belly and Yeezy got PPP loans. Which other California companies benefited? July 6)

I considered applying for a loan from the Paycheck Protection Program, as two of my six employees can only do their work physically in the office. However, the complex web of applications, the shifting rules and no actual guarantee of loan forgiveness for following those rules dissuaded me from trying.

The travesty that rich and public companies even applied for and received millions that were in spirit reserved for those in real need perfectly illustrates why the federal governments definition of small business must change to reflect reality.

Mine is a truly small business seven employees, including me. My profit margins are slim. My paltry attempts to save for the mirage of retirement are discouraging. There are no advantageous loopholes to lower my tax burden.

We always hear that small business is the backbone of America. Well, our discs are ruptured and our backs are broken.

Julie Taylor, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Which part of championing unbridled private-sector capitalism, disdain for the public sector and the supremacy of self-reliance do you think the Ayn Rand Institute found most convenient when applying for a PPP loan?

Ted Rosenblatt, Pacific Palisades

Read the original post:

What a real small business thinks of loan for Jelly Belly - Los Angeles Times

Were all socialists now, apparently. No, really it turns out even the most rugged of the free marketeers have been coaxed by the coronavirus to fall into the government safety net.

The national press has been filled with stories this week about how the well-connected, the billionaires, the white-shoe lobbying firms and the most anti-government think tanks all got relief money under Congress $2 trillion coronavirus rescue act.

The latter includes no-new-taxes activist Grover Norquist, who infamously wants to drown the government in the bathtub. Also the libertarian Ayn Rand Institute, and anti-debt crusader Citizens Against Government Waste. All these groups that pillory big government suddenly found common cause in lining up to get a piece of one of the biggest government spending programs of all time.

And Im actually OK with that. Its what it was for to provide a measure of relief to businesses in need, of any and all types. The Seattle Times got a Paycheck Protection Program loan, too and we definitely didnt head into 2020 thinking wed be the recipient of government aid.

But I wonder whether this awkward moment will spark any internal reflection about the lift-yourselves-by-your-bootstraps, no taxes ever mantra that dominates the conservative political world.

Take, say, Washington states own free-market think tanks. The Washington Policy Center, a Seattle-based conservative group, got between $350,000 to $1 million from the federal relief program (the loans, which can convert to forgivable grants, were reported in ranges in data released Monday).

Meanwhile, heres the philosophy the think tank uses to describe itself in its annual reports:

We dont receive government money. We dont ask for it and we wouldnt take it even if it were offered. WPC relies on the generous support of our donors people like you who understand that free-markets are superior to a government rigged economy, and liberty is the air that a free people must breathe.

Except for this one time, I guess. To keep on breathing those liberty vapors required being put on a government ventilator.

Or take the Freedom Foundation, a business-backed outfit out of Olympia. Its been rallying against government spending and taxes since the early 1990s. Recently its been on a jihad against unions. During the pandemic it has called for governors to halt all public-sector union dues payments, on the grounds the union organizations dont need the money and the workers do.

But unions specifically werent eligible for the paycheck protection program, so they were left to fend for themselves. Not so the Freedom Foundation, though it got between $350,000 to $1 million from the federal relief fund, records show.

We have a vision of a day when opportunity, responsible self-governance, and free markets flourish in America because its citizens understand and defend the principles from which freedom is derived, the Freedom Foundation says on its website. We accept no government support.

Maybe just this one eensy-weensy time.

The laissez-faire capitalist Ayn Rand Institute, in California, went still further, rationalizing that going on the dole this one time would somehow strike a moral blow against big government.

It would be a terrible injustice for pro-capitalists to step aside and leave the funds to those indifferent or actively hostile to capitalism, it explained in a statement, titled To Take, or Not to Take.

Look, Im a capitalist too, but what a crock all that is. As I said up top: Its fine for any qualified business or association to get the relief money. Yes, even Kanye West, whose Yeezy clothing and footwear line got between $2 million and $5 million. Even the paid anti-government scolds. The programs point was to disperse the money as rapidly and widely as possible, to keep the economy somewhat functioning during this pandemic. It did that to more than 16,000 businesses in Washington state alone.

But To Take, or Not to Take that is not the question. The coronavirus has shown, if nothing else, that we all sometimes need a little boost. We have just been treated to a national case study in how we all depend on strong governmental social and health safety nets and not only when theres a pandemic.

This is not about taking at all, or shouldnt be. Its about giving back paying for basic good government and then, sometimes, when you need it, receiving help.

So can we at least dispense now with the breath of liberty canards? The drowning the government in the bathtub nonsense? The whole no-tax bluster?

Because now we know: Even groups that put freedom right in their name have apparently concluded theyre A-OK with some big-government, debt-financed, taxpayer-backed collectivism after all.

Read this article:

Local anti-tax groups find even they need big government aid sometimes - Seattle Times

Staff Report Published 6:37 p.m. CT July 8, 2020

If you are a small business owner and have not yet applied for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan yet...According to Business Insider, you may be out of luck and too late to receive funding. The US government recently added a second round of $310 billion to PPP loan program. The goal is to fund small businesses that have been economically impacted due to the coronavirus pandemic. Bankers, lawyers, and consultants told Business Insider that the volume of pre-approved loans will soak up the second round of funding.If you don't receive emergency government funding, it's suggested for small businesses to seek funding through tax relief, private companies, local governments, and organizations offering small business grants. Wochit

Mississippi businesses that applied for and received a loan as part of a national effort to save small companies during the coronavirus pandemic is now public information.

The U.S. government has released a list of businesses that have received emergency pandemic loans of $150,000 or more.

Designed to cover expenses such as payroll and rent, the loans do not have to be paid back if at least 60 percent of the money is spent keeping or rehiring workers. Otherwise, it carries a 1 percent interest rate and must be repaid within two years.

Search through Mississippi businesses that benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program with our database by searching below. Narrow the list by typing in a business or city name.

Across the country, more than 660,000 businesses received $150,000 or up to the $10 million maximum from the small-business lending program.

Known-names across the U.S. include:

The Ayn Rand Institute received a loan and defended it on Twitter.

Restaurant chains like P.F. Changs, Legal Sea Foods and Silver Diner either received PPP loans or had investors connected to the company that did.

Internationally, South Korean airline Korean Air received a PPP loan.

Wall Street investment groups, including Semper Capital Management LP and Domini Impact Investments LLC, which manage billions of dollars, also received PPP loans according to Reuters.

Politically, according to the Washington Post, companies with connections to a handful of federal lawmakers, like Foremost Maritime, which is a shipping business controlled by the family of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, have received PPP loans.

John Farrell, a Republican donor and real estate developer also received a PPP loan.

Several law firms, including ones with ties to President Trump (Kasowitz, Benson & Torres) and former vice president Al Gore and film producer Harvey Weinstein (Boies Schiller Flexner) also received PPP loans.

The Roman Catholic dioceses in California, New York, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky also received loans.

Grace Pateras and Joe Harrington contributed to this story.

Read or Share this story: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2020/07/08/ms-ppp-loan-recipients-database-coronavirus-pandemic-search-full-list-businesses-covid-19/5402287002/

Read more from the original source:

Mississippi PPP loan recipients: See the full searchable list of who received them - Clarion Ledger

The Hill's Steve Clemons interviews American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. Read excerpts from the interview below.

Clemons: I know you want to get kids back to school, get education going again, but tell us the right way to do it, and what do you think is the wrong way to do it?

Weingarten: First off, we have to think about what kids have lost in the last few months. And that is why, despite the surge in cases, despite the fact that there's not a vaccine, teachers and our union have been working on a plan to reopen schools since the beginning of April. This is it. We believe that we have to reopen in a far better way than the haphazard way that schools were closed and the economy was paused. We know that's important for kids. We know that's important for parents. We know that teachers want it. In fact, we just did a poll that showed that about three-quarters of teachers, if we had the safety conditions that were possible to reopen, would want to reopen in-person learning. But this is the key, Steve. Safety, S A F E T Y. We spent a lot of time thinking about safety of bars. We spent a lot of time thinking about safety of office buildings. We spent a lot of time thinking about safety for astronauts, for our veterans, for our armed forces. We need to spend as much time thinking about safety of our kids and of our educators. And there are obvious things that have to happen. And that starts with the physical distancing and the masks, cleaning a school and ventilation, making sure we make provisions for those that are at-risk and making sure we are attentive to the emotional and the instructional needs of children. This is not magical thinking. These are things that the scientists and the physicians have said we need to do, and ultimately they cost money and they require rethinking and reimagining what school looks like, in Florida as early as August and in the Northeast and the Midwest as early as September. And what we're concerned about is that now the Trump administration has woken up to the fact that none of these things are in place. They have really angry parents, all across the nation, and they have only themselves to blame because they have refused to negotiate a new package to create the funding that is needed, and they have refused to put any guidance out whatsoever, but the CDC guidance that we press for to actually have what is a safe reopening.

Clemons: Even with the spike of COVID-19 cases, schools are being ordered to open next month in Florida. Is this a train wreck that we're seeing in real life with real consequences?

Weingarten: Yes, it's a train wreck, and it is par for the course of the Trump administration because [Education Secretary] Betsy DeVosElizabeth (Betsy) Dee DeVosDeVos urges school districts to 'think creatively' about reopening amid coronavirus Jill Biden promises if Biden's elected 'no more Betsy DeVos' The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Trump takes on CDC over schools MORE sat on her hands. She hasn't put one bit of guidance out. We wrote a letter to [HHS Secretary Alex] Azar and DeVos, letters back in March. But we've been at this since the beginning of February, and sorry if I sound so angry, but I am. We've been at this since the beginning of February saying, "What's going on with COVID? We know that there's something here that's more significant than just a flu," and we've heard crickets from both of them. So now because parents, you know, are up in arms and they rightfully should be. And now, because all Trump cares about is his jobs numbers. And he knows that if parents can't send their kids to school, they can't reopen the economy more broadly. Now he's doing full-cap tweets, saying schools must reopen. But either they are completely ignorant about what it takes to reopen schools, or they are completely callous and craven in their attempts to do so. What is happening in Florida right now is terrible. If you understand one second of the science, you know you cannot reopen schools five days a week ... for every single kid that we want to teach, and we want to embrace. That essentially, the safety standards require basically 50 percent capacity, the cleaning standards require that you clean schools all the time. So where is the money for the extra cleaning, even if you did a staggered approach, which is what New York and other places are contemplating right now, where's the money for the cleaning? Where's the money for the PPE? Where's the money for the services? Where's the money for the nurses and for the therapists and you have crickets in Florida, you just essentially have this magical thinking. Opening schools is not the magical kingdom. Opening schools requires real thought for teachers and parents and kids. And this is what's gonna happen if there's not real thought to it. You're gonna see a huge number of parents and kids and teachers basically say it's not safe for us.

Clemons: Youve worked with a lot of Republicans, Sen. Lamar AlexanderAndrew (Lamar) Lamar AlexanderRepublicans considering an outdoor stadium for Florida convention: report Sixth GOP senator unlikely to attend Republican convention Coronavirus Report: The Hill's Steve Clemons interviews Randi Weingarten MORE and others. Do they hear you? Do they worry about what it's gonna take by way of money and funding to get the right health guardrails back in the schools.

Weingarten: Well, I think you know Senator Alexander does. Before [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell went on break, Senator Alexander said, It's gonna take money to reopen schools. I had a great conversation with him where he, you know, he completely understands this. He has been a governor. He's been a college president, you know, he understands the nitty-gritty of what it takes, but what is so perplexing to me is why McConnell would have gone on break without dealing with the legitimate needs of states and schools, particularly to do what they want to do. I mean, everybody should be in the same place about the needs of kids not being addressed by remote education. I think the only person who believed remote education was good was Betsy DeVos because, you know, she's either held stock in K12 inc., which is a virtual remote place, or because she wants to keep on disabling or defunding public education. But other than that, I havent heard anybody on either side of the aisle that thought what happened in the last three months was good. They thought that teachers were heroic, and they are, for engaging kids, you know, and changing their teaching practices in the course of 24 hours to go from in-school to remote. But we know that kids are missing out in terms of the engagement in social isolation. I agree with the pediatricians on that, but ultimately we need to keep the schools safe. And particularly in a place like Florida, where the increase of cases is completely defying the president's own guidelines about how to reopen. So it's clear, I mean to me, this is lunacy. And I have studied this and this is my job to try to figure this out. But take a parent, who's not a scientist, take a teacher who's not a scientist, whos just getting all these mixed messages. What are they supposed to think about? What the president is doing, what [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis is doing is just creating high anxiety. What we've learned from Europe, and from their very effective ways of reducing the virus, is you need to have a consistent public health message over and over again. You need people to communicate and collaborate around it and you need to fund it, and that is why their schools have started to be open. And that is why our schools, even for the summer, for summer voluntary summer school, couldn't get open. And that's why you're seeing more and more consternation about what's gonna happen in the fall.

Clemons: On top of the coronavirus situation, we have Black Lives Matter protests, the killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and others. In this moment, how do we become less reactive and more proactive? Can we use this opportunity of reinvesting in something like education in schools to fix some of the problems in the social contract? Is that discussion going on anywhere?

Weingarten: Well, it's going on in the Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump commutes Roger Stone's sentence Hillicon Valley: Facebook considers political ad ban | Senators raise concerns over civil rights audit | Amazon reverses on telling workers to delete TikTok House Democrat warns about 'inaccurate' polls: Trump voters 'fundamentally undercounted' MORE campaign. ... I was honored to serve as part of the Joint Bernie, Joe Platform Committee on K-12 and higher education, and it went on plenty there. You're gonna see a lot of that in his platform for America. I think you have a huge ideological divide right now, and you could see it frankly. So the answer is this makes schools more important. It makes investing in schools more important. Part of what is driving us, and I know my own members, you know, when you ask them the question about should we open up schools and what's the best reason? And they'll say, reopening the economy is last. For them, it's meeting the needs of kids is first. And they understand, just like so many of us do, that we are in the middle of three crises: Were in the middle of a pandemic that made the economic inequality worse, and we're in the middle of a racial reckoning that should have happened generations ago. All of these things make what happens in schools even more important, and it makes dealing with the well being needs of kids even more critical. Everything, every social issue hits the schoolhouse door, so I hear Biden talk about it all the time. I hear frankly, Democrats and some Republicans talk about it, but what you're seeing is that Trump is making it worse. And frankly, you saw this in terms of even PPP, and the reports about PPP. PPP was a program out of CARES 2 that was attempting to make sure that small businesses and other businesses in this economic pause could keep hiring, could keep their staff intact and could keep their businesses alive. And who were the first groups to rush to get? Groups that don't believe in government like the Ayn Rand Institute and Grover Norquist, Kanye WestKanye Omari WestTrump on Kanye West's presidential run: 'He is always going to be for us' Kanye West says he had coronavirus Coronavirus Report: The Hill's Steve Clemons interviews Randi Weingarten MORE and who is still squabbling to try to get money, who is still struggling to try to get money so that we can reasonably reopen schools. Kids and teachers. So what does that say about our economy and our country right now? That the hand outs were there for those actually didn't need it, and for those who dont believe in it ,and then put the hand ups that we really need for kids and for states who have been continuing to do the essential services as the president abdicated any responsibility for COVID, who got the responsibility? States like New York, like New Jersey, they've been shelling out lots of money to get things done. Think about the New York City subways every single night they're being clean to ensure safety for the passengers. All of this costs money, and yet they've been shelling it out. They haven't gotten the recovery packages they needed. And yet even the people who don't believe in government like Grover Norquist got the package he needed. ... I think everybody needed something in terms of this, forced pause of the economy. But don't put the people who need it most last. And what the Biden people are talking about is how you reimagine society like what happened in the New Deal.

Clemons: So weve just got a couple of minutes. But I wanted to come in at that point real quick. Secretary DeVos, I know has been pushing that private schools have access to funding and support right now. Has she been as equally supportive of public schools?

Weingarten: No, in fact, what happened is Secretary DeVos, look private schools and parochial schools get a lot of public money through transportation and other types of things. The issue in terms of Secretary DeVos, is where her attention is. She's done nothing, zip, nothing for kids in public schools. But she rushes in to help any kid who goes to religious school. All we're asking for is give some attention to kids in public schools and what she's done is shes taken the money that goes to low-income kids in public schools to give it without accountability to a parochial school or a private school.

Clemons: Your network of teachers around the country, were already doing interesting things online with each other, like sharing their lessons online, which you had created. I'd love to hear, just as we close any stories of those cool, innovative things that teachers are doing to try to connect with their students while they're not able to meet in person-to-person classes.

Weingarten: The teachers probably now know more about remote education than anyone in Silicon Valley because teachers have had to do the kind of Oh my God moment and deal with remote education for the last three months. And I have spent several hours talking to teachers who have been through this and they've learned a lot. So there's a couple of things that I just want to throw out. Number one we started this idea, and all of this as on Share My Lesson, and all of that is for free. We make it free for anyone. You don't have to be a union member to get access to this sharing site. But you know, we tried to end up summing up the year with capstone projects, and we came up with several that were geared developmentally to early grades, to middle grades and high school years as ways that teachers could work with students to cap their years and those are all on Share My Lesson. But the second thing is teachers just found amazing ways, they would like find an old blackboard that they had in a garage and use it for their lessons. They found all sorts of different things to wear to make their kids laugh. In a proper physical distance, would sit on the kids lawn and engaged with one-to-one story telling. Teachers were telling me, particularly in the older grades, how they did what they call what we call now asynchronous learning, which is, they tape a lecture that a student could listen to any time during the day so that they could deal with the family balance and then, you know, reinforce it in group learning. The virtual choirs that you see, the virtual choruses that you see have taken hours and hours and hours to do. But any of them would just have a handkerchief when you're watching them. It's been amazing to watch the love coming through Zoom in terms of the engagement that teachers have done with their students.

Original post:

Coronavirus Report: The Hill's Steve Clemons interviews Randi Weingarten | TheHill - The Hill

TOPLINE

Organizations that vigorously oppose government spending took Paycheck Protection Program loans, including some that have criticized the CARES Act, which created the PPP program, according to data released by the Small Business Administration.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 07: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, (2nd L) ... [+] speaks as (L-R) U.S. Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin listen during a news conference on tax reform November 7, 2017 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Senate Republicans held a news conference to discuss "the need for tax reform and the impact it will have on American families, small businesses and the economy." (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, which says it educates taxpayers on the true cost of government and the realities of costly government programs, received between $150,000 and $300,000 in loans.

In a statement, Americans for Tax Reform claimed it never opposed the PPP program and defended the foundations decision to take government loans, which it said allowed the foundation to maintain its employees without laying anyone off after it was badly hurt by the government shutdown.

But ATR founder Grover Norquist has criticized the unemployment insurance provision of the CARES Act, which he said delays recovery, and signed a letter urging lawmakers not to approve a second stimulus bill.

The Ayn Rand Institute, named for conservative philosopher Ayn Rand, received a loan of between $350,000 and $1 million, which it called partial restitution for government-inflicted losses."

It would be a terrible injustice for pro-capitalists to step aside and leave the funds to those indifferent or actively hostile to capitalism, Ayn Rand Institute board member Harry Binswanger argued in May, stating that the organization would take any relief money offered us.

Citizens Against Government Waste, one of the countrys most prominent anti-government spending organizations and a frequent critic of the CARES Act, took between $150,000 and $350,000 in loans as well.

The PPP program has been accused of discrimination against black-owned small businesses and criticized for giving loans to politically connected companies and organizations, including some connected to members of Congress, President Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner and even Trump himself. Several large chains, some backed by private equity, have also received loans from the program.

4,880,943. Thats how many loans were approved by the PPP program, according to the Small Business Administration.

Chinese electric vehicle startups Byton, Nio and Karma Automotive, the U.S. research and development center of Chinese state-owned carmaker Changan Automobile, German audio equipment maker Sennheiser, Kanye Wests apparel brand Yeezy and the Burning Man festival all received PPP loans, Forbes Siladitya Ray reported.

Forbes Media was approved to receive between $5 and $10 million in PPP funds, according to SBA data.

Read the original here:

Vocal Opponents Of Federal Spending Took PPP Loans, Including Ayn Rand Institute, Grover Norquist Group - Forbes

A Citizen Times photographer gets a COVID-19 test from her car. Asheville Citizen Times

North Carolina businesses that applied for and received a loan as part of a national effort to save small companies during the coronavirus pandemic is now public information.

The U.S. government has released a list of businesses that have received emergency pandemic loans of $150,000 or more.

Designed to cover expenses such as payroll and rent, the loans do not have to be paid back if at least 60 percent of the money is spent keeping or rehiring workers. Otherwise, it carries a 1 percent interest rate and must be repaid within two years.

Search through North Carolina businesses that benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program with our database by searching below. Narrow the list by typing in a business or city name.

(Note: Not seeing the search bar above? Click here.)

Results show the range of the loan received, jobs retained, date approved, and other details released by the Treasury Department and Small Business Administration Monday, July 6.

Across the country, more than 660,000 businesses received $150,000 or up to the $10 million maximum from the small-business lending program.

Known-names across the U.S. include:

The Ayn Rand Institute received a loan and defended it on Twitter.

Restaurant chains like P.F. Changs, Legal Sea Foods and Silver Diner either received PPP loans or had investors connected to the company that did.

Internationally, South Korean airline Korean Air received a PPP loan.

Wall Street investment groups, including Semper Capital Management LP and Domini Impact Investments LLC, which manage billions of dollars, also received PPP loans according to Reuters.

Politically, according to the Washington Post, companies with connections to a handful of federal lawmakers, like Foremost Maritime, which is a shipping business controlled by the family of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, have received PPP loans.

John Farrell, a Republican donor and real estate developer also received a PPP loan.

Several law firms, including ones with ties to President Trump (Kasowitz, Benson & Torres) and former vice president Al Gore and film producer Harvey Weinstein (Boies Schiller Flexner) also received PPP loans.

The Roman Catholic dioceses in California, New York, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky also received loans.

Grace Pateras and Joe Harrington contributed to this story.

Daniella Medina is a digital producer for the USA TODAY Network. Follow her on Twitter @danimedinanews.

Read or Share this story: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2020/07/10/north-carolina-ppp-loan-recipients-database-coronavirus-pandemic-search-full-list-business-covid-19/5405292002/

Continue reading here:

North Carolina PPP loan recipients: See the full searchable list of who received them - Citizen Times

anchor

Gary Cooper as Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, 1949. (Public Domain)

The Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit(??) devoted to applying Rands ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, has recently acceptedI assume grudginglygovernment assistance to the tune of a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan between $350K and $1 million, according to The Wall Street Journals Pat Fitzgerald. Lit Hub

This news comes from a Twitter post fromThe Wall Street Journal's Pat Fitzgerald (@PatFitzgerald23). In the world of architecture, Ayn Rand is perhaps best known for writingThe Fountainhead, a novel that follows Howard Roark, a talented architect who refuses to fit into the status quo of the architectural expression of his time. It is well accepted that Roark's character was inspired by architect Frank Lloyd Wright and the descriptions of many of Roark's designs throughout the book could be argued to have a similar nature to Wright's.

Read more:

The Ayn Rand Institute received PPP loan between $350k and $1 million - Archinect

Owner Lisa Freeman says she learned that her 'Round the Corner Ice Cream LLC was listed as being approved for the funds after journalists, including a reporter from The Detroit Free Press, reached out for confirmation following the release of the database.

"I answered the phone and I thought this was some kind of a joke," Freeman told the Freep.

A representative from the SBA told the paper that the number listed is the amount of funds approved, and not necessarily the amount dispersed. But Freeman says she did not request or even receive the $2 million.

"This is a grave error," she added. She says she asked for and received $20,000 for her ice cream store and less than $100,000 for a spice and tea store chain she also owns.

The small, seasonal ice cream shop only employees 10 people. But the company was listed among corporations that received more than $150,000, including Zehnder's, Buddy's Pizza, and National Coney Island, which all employ 250 people or more.

The apparent error in the PPP loans is just one of many that have surfaced so far, raising concerns that the federal government doled out the money haphazardly. Publicly traded corporations like Shake Shack drew backlash for taking PPP money intended for small businesses.

Somewhat amusingly, the anti-welfare Ayn Rand Institute also requested and received PPP funds.

So many restaurants, so little time. Sign up for our weekly food newsletter delivered every Friday morning for the latest Detroit dining news.

More here:

Saugatuck ice cream shop denies it received or even asked for millions of federal coronavirus relief funds - Detroit Metro Times

This is a roundup of coronavirus news and announcements from New York State and Hudson Valley and Catskills counties published on Monday, July 6.

NEW YORK STATE397,649 cases confirmed (518 new)4,288,131 tests performed (54,328 new)Positive test rate: 1.0%24,913 deaths (9 new)817 hospitalizations170 ICU admissionsNew York State coronavirus pageNew York State official pressroomHotline: (888) 364-3065

Rentals and real estate sales are booming in the Hudson Valley and Catskills, along with the rest of rural New York. The Times Herald-Record ran a Sunday feature on the local red-hot market, which is a snapshot of a region divided: on the one hand, local excitement about at least one part of the economy doing well, and on the other, a real apprehension about an influx of tourists and relocators from more infected parts of the country. Airbnb found a 40 percent rise in searches for properties in the Hudson Valley, Catskills, and Adirondacks over the Fourth of July weekend this year, the paper reports.

Coronavirus affects the lungs. In a brutal phrase used to describe what COVID-19 does to the body, doctors sometimes say that patients are drowning on land: in advanced cases of the disease, the lungs flood with inflammatory cells, cutting off the patients access to oxygen. It seems obvious to assume from the way the disease progresses, and the way other coronaviruses work in the body, that the novel coronavirus is first and foremost a respiratory infectionand thats what scientists thought at first. But as more research emerges, some medical scientists think that COVID-19 is a vascular infection, a disease that may enter through the respiratory tract but that spreads in and attacks blood vessels. The good news, if research lends more weight to that theory, is that drugs like statins that are used to treat vascular disease may have some benefit against coronavirus too. ABC News in Australia reported last week on a recent paper in the journal Cell Metabolism that found that statins were associated with a slightly lower mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, though the paper also suggested worryingly that statin use might also make patients more susceptible to infection.

The New York State Department of Health says a controversial state nursing home policy isnt to blame for the deaths of more than 6,000 nursing home residents in the state, according to a report released by the agency on Monday. The March 25 policy prevented nursing homes from denying admission to COVID-19-positive patients on the basis of infection, and was in place until May 10, when the state reversed course. In a press conference about the report, state health commissioner Howard Zucker told reporters that the peak in COVID-19 nursing home deaths in New York came a week before the peak of nursing home admissions, and coincided with a peak of COVID-19 deaths among nursing home staff. State health officials concluded that nursing home outbreaks were mostly sparked by infected staffers in mid-March, before the order went into place.

On Twitter, The City reporter Josefa Velasquez pointed out that its difficult for reporters to fact-check the DOHs claims because of how the state has reported nursing home data: Fatality data for specific nursing homes wasnt released until April 15, making comparisons with earlier data difficult, and nursing home residents who die in hospitals arent counted by the state as part of nursing home fatalities, making it impossible to calculate how many nursing home residents have died in the pandemic. Unless we know the exact methodology, this report is just the state Dept. of Health validating itself, Velasquez wrote. The state legislature plans to hold hearings to investigate the issue, although a date has not yet been set.

The travel quarantine order that New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut jointly implemented could soon expand to 21 states covering more than half of the US population, according to a USA Today Network New York analysis. The order applies to travelers coming from a state with at least 10 daily positive COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents or at least a 10 percent positive test rate, each measure calculated on a rolling seven-day average. Three states not currently on the listDelaware, Kansas, and Oklahomameet at least one of those criteria, and Wisconsin and New Mexico are close. There are already 16 states on the quarantine list.

The Trump administration has released a list of businesses that got more than $150,000 in PPP loans, and its got some head-scratchers, including, perplexingly, the Ayn Rand Institute, which was approved for a loan of between $350,000 and $1 million. The loans to companies on the biggest-borrowers list made up just 13 percent of businesses getting funds, but accounted for almost three-quarters of the money loaned, CNBC reports.

On Sunday, The New York Times published a story billed as The Fullest Look Yet At The Racial Inequality Of Coronavirus, based on data they had to sue the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to obtain. Black and Latino Americans have been three times as likely as whites to contract COVID-19, the paper reports, and nearly twice as likely to die of the virus. Racial disparities persist in both rural and urban areas. And because older Americans are more likely to be white than younger ones, the disparities are even starker when making comparisons within an age group: for instance, Latinos between 40 and 59 have been five times more likely to be infected than whites of the same age. The Times notes that the data do not include recent cases, and is missing a lot of information: There are many cases for which racial and ethnic information was never collected.

Cases are ballooning across a growing swath of the US, and the lack of any clear federal response is making this a dangerous moment for the country. So what should we do now? The Guardian asked six global public health experts how they thought the nation should tackle the threat now, having missed key early opportunities to keep the virus from spreading. A common theme among the answers was the need for a coherent federal message from Trump, top federal advisors, and the CDC, but also a sense of despair over the slim odds of that happening. Columbia University disaster preparedness expert Irwin Redlener spoke directly to state governors: There is no clear exit strategy from this, sad to say. If I were speaking to governors, my advice would be to stop any efforts to reopen immediately. Just stop, he said. The White House is living in a dreamland that everything is under control but you dont have to follow that lead. Instead, give more power to the mayors, especially of the larger cities, to encourage mask-wearing and social distancing.

Announced by New York State on Monday and over the weekend:

LOWER HUDSON VALLEYCounty coronavirus pages: Rockland, Westchester, Putnam

The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Chappaqua linked to the Horace Greeley High School drive-in graduation has risen to 27, Westchester County Executive George Latimer confirmed in his press briefing Monday. Four municipalities have cases from the cluster: Chappaqua (21), Mount Kisco (3), Bedford (2), and Pleasantville (1).

Westchester County is cutting back on the number of public COVID-19 briefings given by Latimer and other town and county officials, moving from daily briefings Monday through Thursday to a Monday once-a-week briefing.

Should wearing masks be mandatory? The Town of New Castle is debating the question, and might become the first municipality in New York to act. The Examiner News reports that the town board will hold a public hearing on a proposed law that will require masks on public and private property, as well in places of business in most situations, with fines between $250 and $500 for failure to comply.

As of Monday evening, Putnam Countys COVID-19 dashboard had not been updated in more than a week. The countys last update was published on the county website on Monday, June 29, and included data through Thursday, June 25. According to data from New York State, 12 people have tested positive in Putnam County in the last week.

MID-HUDSON VALLEYCounty coronavirus pages: Orange, Dutchess, Ulster, Columbia

Cases continued to rise in Ulster County over the weekend. Data on the countys coronavirus dashboard show 169 confirmed active cases as of Sunday, July 5, up from 119 on July 1. Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan told the Daily Freeman on Monday that in addition to several clusters found in the county last week, a new cluster emerged over the weekend, traced to a youth softball team that traveled to Pennsylvania for a tournament in violation of state guidelines. Ryan also said hes concerned that a Saturday rally in uptown Kingston to protest coronavirus-related restrictions could lead to even more cases. Some 200 people attended the Occupy Peace rally, most of whom were not wearing masks.

CATSKILLSCounty coronavirus pages: Sullivan, Delaware, Greene, Schoharie

People are over-loving favorite waterfall spots like Fawns Leap in Hunter, and local officials are worried about the increasing impact of trash, crowding, and public use of the great outdoors as a toilet. Overuse of the Catskills most spectacular swimming holes is nothing new, but the pandemic is exacerbating the situation, the Daily Mail reports. There is going to have to be a study done and if they elect not to provide additional parking and monitoring, theyll have to close it, said Greene County coroner Hassan Basagic, who has become something of a local celebrity for daring the 75-foot plunge into Fawns Leap into his mid-70s.

A federal judge on Monday denied a request to allow Orthodox Jewish sleepaway camps to open in the Catskills in contravention of the states ban. Although the State of New York has made progress in limiting the transmission of the virus in recent weeks, the recent resurgence of positive COVID-19 cases in several states raises concerns and is a painful reminder that the fight is far from over, Chief Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York wrote in a 43-page ruling.

Sullivan County officials are relieved that case counts in the county have gone down, the Sullivan County Democrat reports. The county currently has 14 active cases, up slightly from last week, but a far cry from its numbers in March and April, which reached a peak of 516 active cases. Sullivan County Public Health Director Nancy McGraw has told The River that the county had outbreaks early on in several local food processing facilities, but that public health outreach efforts helped to halt them. McGraw hopes that local and state efforts will continue to pay off for Sullivan County: Weve never dealt with a pandemic like this before. So in the beginning we had no idea what we were facing, and how severe it could be. Now that were seeing our interventions have been successful we want to continue on that trend, she told the Democrat.

Schoharie County Public Health reported that one county resident tested positive for COVID-19 over the weekend, the countys first new positive case since June 23. The county currently has just one active case.

OF INTEREST?The River has a guide on where, how, and when to get tested for the coronavirus in the Hudson Valley and Catskills. To read more of our coronavirus coverage, visit our coronavirus page.

The River is collaborating with WGXC to announce these updates over the air. To listen, tune in to 90.7 FM at midnight, 5am, 7am, or 9am, or visit the audio archive online.

La Voz, una revista de cultura y noticias del Valle de Hudson en espaol, est traduciendo estos resmenes y co-publicandolos en su pgina web. Leyendo aqui. Tambin puede escuchar actualizaciones diarias por audio en el show La Voz con Mariel Fiori en Radio Kingston.

Read more here:

Coronavirus Roundup: A Red-Hot Real Estate Market in Upstate New York - The River Newsroom

Ayn Rand (19051982) was an American novelist and philosopher, and the creator of Objectivism, which she called a philosophy for living on earth.

Rands most widely read novels are The Fountainhead, a story about an independent and uncompromising architect; and Atlas Shrugged, a story about the role of the mind in human life and about what happens to the world when the thinkers and producers mysteriously disappear. Her most popular nonfiction books are The Virtue of Selfishness, a series of essays about the foundations and principles of the morality of self-interest; and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, a series of essays about what capitalism is and why it is the only moral social system.

Rand was born in Russia, where she attended grade school and university; studied history, philosophy, and screenwriting; and witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution and the birth of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1925, she left the burgeoning communist state, telling Soviet authorities she was going for a brief visit with relatives in America, and never returned.

She soon made her way to Hollywood, where she worked as a screenwriter, married actor Frank OConnor, and wrote her first novel, We The Living. She then moved to New York City, where she wrote Anthem (a novelette), The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, numerous articles and essays, and several nonfiction books in which she defined and elaborated the principles of Objectivism.

Rands staunch advocacy of reason (as against faith and whim), self-interest (as against self-sacrifice), individualism and individual rights (as against collectivism and group rights), and capitalism (as against all forms of statism) make her both the most controversial and most important philosopher of the 20th century.

Describing Objectivism, Rand wrote: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

For a good biography of Rand, see Jeffery Brittings Ayn Rand or Scott McConnells 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand. For a brief presentation of the principles of Objectivism, see What is Objectivism? For the application of these principles to cultural and political issues of the day, subscribe to The Objective Standard, the preeminent source for commentary from an Objectivist perspective.

Read more:

Who Is Ayn Rand? - The Objective Standard

Many articles have been written about whats wrong with Ayn Rands philosophy. But, to my knowledge, none of them presents her ideas accurately. So I thought it would be helpful to write one that does.

Heres whats wrong with Rands ideas:

Rand held that existence exists, that reality is real, that there is a world out there, and that we are conscious of it. She held that everything in existence is something specific; everything has a nature; a thing is what it is. (A snake is a snake. A woman is a woman. A pillar of salt is a pillar of salt.) She held that a thing can act only in accordance with its nature. (A snake can slither; it cannot speak. A woman can speak; she cant become a pillar of salt.) And Rand held that there is only one reality: the one we perceive, the one we experience, the one in which we live.1

Where to start with all of the problems in just that one paragraph?

To begin with, the idea that existence exists excludes the idea that existence doesnt exist. It denies the subjectivist, pragmatist, postmodernist view that reality is an illusion, a mental construct, a social convention. Obviously, people who insist that reality is not real are not going to buy in to a philosophy that says it is real.

So thats one huge problem with Rands philosophy.

Now consider her view that only one reality exists. This excludes the notion that a second reality exists; it excludes the idea of a supernatural realm, the realm of God. Likewise, her view that everything has a specific nature, that a thing is what it is, excludes the possibility that some things are not what they are. For instance, it excludes the possibility that a dead person can be alive (life after death), the possibility that wine can be blood or that bread can be flesh (transubstantiation), and the possibility that the Earth came into existence hundreds of thousands of years after the first Homo sapiens roamed it. Similarly, the idea that things can act only in accordance with their nature excludes the possibility of miraclesso: no Immaculate Conception, no virgin birth (of Jesus), no living inside a whale for three days, no walking on water, no faith healing, and so on.

Needless to say, people who insist on the existence of God, life after death, creationism, and miracles will not buy in to a philosophy that leaves no room for such things.

The problems with Rands philosophy are mounting rapidlyand weve just begun.

Another major problem is Rands view that man acquires knowledge by means of reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. According to Rand, insofar as a person observes reality via his senses; integrates his observations into concepts, generalizations, and principles; checks his thinking for contradictions; and checks his conclusions for consistency with his ever-expanding network of observation-based integrationshe can acquire knowledge. Indeed, according to Rand human beings have acquired massive amounts of knowledge, which is why science has advanced so far and man has accomplished so much.2

Well, that view will not go over well with skeptics, pragmatists, and postmodernists who argue that man cannot acquire knowledgeat least not knowledge of reality. Because mans sensory apparatuses process all incoming data before it reaches consciousness, these skeptics argue, man is conscious not of an external reality or a world out there, but rather of internal modifications or distortions.

No human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all, writes Sam Harris. The sights and sounds and pulsings that you experience are consequences of processed datadata that has been structured, edited, or amplified by the nervous system. Thus, The world that you see and hear is nothing more than a modification of your consciousness.3

This fashionable view is rooted in the ideas of Immanuel Kant, who wrote: What objects may be in themselves, and apart from all this receptivity of our sensibility [i.e., perception], remains completely unknown to us. Once we understand this, Kant says, we realise that not only are the drops of rain mere appearances, but that even their round shape, nay even the space in which they fall, are nothing in themselves, but merely modifications within consciousness. In principle, Kant says, the actual objectthe object as it really isremains unknown to us.4

Indeed, says Kant, it is an error even to regard external objects as things-in-themselves, which exist independently of us and of our sensibility, and which are therefore outside us. The truth, he says, is that external objects are mere appearances or species of [internal] representations, and the things we perceive are something only through these representations. Apart from them they are nothing.5

When philosophers or intellectuals claim that we cannot know reality because our sensory apparatuses distort the data before it reaches consciousness, they may sound profound or impressive (at least to each other). But, then, along comes Ayn Rand, who points out that such claims amount to the view that man is blind, because he has eyesdeaf, because he has earsdeluded, because he has a mindand the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.6

As you might imagine, such straightforward clarifications, which abound in Rands works, can make skeptics feel as ignorant as they claim to be. So thats another problem with Rands philosophy.

Further, Rand holds that reason is mans only means of gaining knowledge.7 This excludes the possibility that revelation, faith, feelings, or extrasensory perception (ESP) is a means of knowledge. On her view, to embrace ideas not supported by evidence is to err. Thus Rand sees all forms of mysticismall claims to a non-sensory, non-rational means of knowledgeas baseless, arbitrary, illegitimate.

That, of course, will not fly with religionists, subjectivists, psychics, or others who claim to acquire knowledge through non-sensory, non-rational means.

And then there are the myriad problems posed by Rands conception of free will.

Rand holds that people do indeed possess free willand that it resides in a fundamental choice: to think or not to think, to focus ones mind or not to do so, to go by facts or to go by feelings.8 The problems with this idea manifest on several levels.

For starters, if people have free will, then not only are their choices their responsibility, so too are the consequences of their choices. If a person characteristically chooses to think, and if his thinking guides him to build a business and make a lot of money, then the business and the money are his achievements. Likewise, if a person characteristically chooses not to think, and if his non-thinking renders him poor and miserable, then his poverty and misery are his fault.

Well, egalitarians, socialists, communists, and the like are not going to accept that for a minute. People who want to organize society in a way that ignores or denies personal responsibility will not accept a philosophy that upholds the very principle that gives rise to and necessitates personal responsibility.

Nor will Rands conception of free will jibe with Jews, Christians, or Muslims who take their religion seriously. If people truly choose to think or not to think, then the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient God goes out the window. Think about it: If people are free to think or not to think, then whatever powers an alleged God is said to possess, he cant know in advance which alternative people are going to choose. If God existed and knew in advance how people were going to choose, then their choices would be preordainedthus they wouldnt be genuine choices. Likewise, if people are free to think or not to think, then God cant make them choose to think. Nor can he make them choose not to think. You see the problem.

In short, Rands view of free will leaves no room for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. This will not sit well with anyone who insists that such a God exists.

And thats still just the tip of Rands free-will iceberg. Her view of volition leads to a whole host of additional problems. Consider a few more.

If people choose to think or not to think, then they choose all of their actions that are governed by that fundamental choice as well. For instance, on Rands view, a person can choose to be honest or dishonest. He can refuse to pretend that facts are other than they areor he can choose to engage in such pretense.9 Importantly, Rands views on honesty and dishonesty are not merely about telling the truth versus lying. Rand holds that if a person knows something to be true but pretends that he doesnt know it, then even if he doesnt lie about iteven if he maintains the pretense only in his own mindhe is being dishonest. For instance, on Rands view, if a person knows that a friend has acted unjustly but pretends that he doesnt know it, hes being dishonest. And if a person knows that he owes someone an apology but doesnt extend it, hes being dishonest. In such cases, although the person has not lied, he nevertheless is pretending that facts are other than they are.

Well, people who choose occasionally to pretend that they dont know what they do knowand who want to continue in this fashionwill not embrace a philosophy that says they are able to stop deluding themselves and morally corrupt if they dont. (Of course, they might pretend to embrace it, but thats another matter.)

Likewise, on Rands view, a person can choose to think for himself, or he can turn to others and expect them to think for him. In other words, he can engage in independent thinking or in what Rand termed second-handedness.10 (An example of independent thinking would be someone reading a philosophers works and deciding for himself whether they make sense. An example of second-handedness would be someone turning to others to see what they say he should think about the philosophers ideas.) Rands insistence that people should face reality and think for themselves as a matter of unwavering principle is a problembecause many people are afraid to think for themselves. Many people prefer to avoid that effort, to shirk that responsibility, and to passively accept the ideas of their group, their leader, their tribe. Such people will not embrace a philosophy that upholds independent thinking as a fundamental virtue.

This brings us to the mother lode of problems with Ayn Rands philosophyand to the point of the whole thing.

Rands aforementioned principles calling for people to uphold reason, to be honest, and to think for themselves are part and parcel of the moral code she called rational egoism or rational self-interest. This moral code holds that the objective standard of moral value is mans lifeby which Rand means the requirements of human life given the kind of being that humans are. On her view, because humans are rational beingsbeings whose basic means of survival is the use of reasonthat which sustains and furthers the life of a rational being is good (or moral), and that which harms or destroys the life of a rational being is bad (or evil).11

Further, because Rand sees human beings as individualseach with his own body, his own mind, his own lifeshe holds that each individuals own life is properly his own ultimate value. She holds that each individual should choose and pursue his own life-serving values, and that he should never surrender a greater value for the sake of a lesser valuehe should never commit a sacrifice. As she puts it:

Manevery manis an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.12

Well, such a moral code clearly will not fly with people who want to maintain the traditional notion that people have a moral duty to sacrifice themselves or their values for the sake of others (i.e., altruism). Nor will it fly with people who feel that they have a moral right to sacrifice other people as they see fit (predation).

Not only does Rand regard both self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others as immoral; she also regards the use of any form or degree of initiatory physical force against human beings as properly illegal. In her words, the essential characteristics of a civilized society are that men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit; and that no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.13

Needless to say, Rands staunch advocacy of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit and her moral opposition to the use of force as a means of obtaining values from people will not fly with people or governments that want to use force to obtain values from people. Criminals who want to steal peoples belongings, commit fraud, rape people, or violate rights in other ways will not embrace a moral code that forbids them to do so. Likewise, governments that want to force people to serve the common good or the community or the master race or some other master will not recognize or uphold a morality that forbids them to initiate physical force against people. And pull-peddling businessmen who want government to forcibly control, regulate, or cripple their competitors will not recognize or uphold a moral code that forbids such coercion either.

This problemRands moral opposition to the use of physical force against human beingslies at the very base of her political theory, where it serves as a bridge between her moral code and her political views. This is where Rands theory of rights comes into the picture. As she put it:

Rights are a moral conceptthe concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individuals actions to the principles guiding his relationship with othersthe concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social contextthe link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.14

Rand sees individual rights as the governing principle of a civilized society because she sees rights as deriving from mans nature and as requirements of his life in a social context. She elaborates:

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a mans right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated actionwhich means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)15

According to Rand, the only proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning physical force from social relationshipsand by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.16

Clearly, no one who wants government to do more than that will embrace Rands philosophy. No one who wants government to forcibly redistribute wealth, or to forbid certain kinds of speech, or to forbid certain kinds of consensual adult sex, or to restrict freedom in any other way will embrace a philosophy that demands principled recognition and absolute protection of individual rights.

A final problem worth mentioning about Rand and her philosophy is that she wrote in plain, intelligible English and defined her terms clearly as a matter of course, so that anyone who wants to understand her ideas can do so with relative ease. Toward this end, in addition to presenting her ideas in various nonfiction works, she dramatized them in spellbinding fictionsuch as her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shruggedthus enabling people to see her ideas in practice. Well, this will not go over well with modern philosophers or academics who insist that philosophy must be written in academese, technical jargon, or impenetrable fog. Nor will it pass muster with anyone who feels that dramatizing or concretizing ideas in fiction somehow disqualifies them.

We could go on. Rands philosophy involves many additional problems. But the foregoing is a concise indication of the trouble it causes.

So, next time the subject of whats wrong with Ayn Rands ideas comes up, be sure to share this brief sketch of the kinds of problems involved. Its better for people to learn whats wrong with Rands actual ideas than to waste time contemplating takedowns of straw men.

Here is the original post:

What's Wrong With Ayn Rand's Philosophy? - The Objective ...

Maybe a Parler logo on your screen next?Denis Charlet/Getty Images This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

The basic idea of Parler is an awful lot like Twitter. But instead of tweets, users post Parleys; instead of retweets, there are echoes. And upon registering, the suggested accounts to follow include Breitbart, the Epoch Times, and the Daily Caller, as well as Rand Paul, Mark Levin, and Team Trump.

In June, right-wing users started flocking to this alt-Twitter, whose main selling point is that it vows to champion free speech. As mainstream platforms banned more far-right accounts, removed hate speech with newfound vigor, and attached warning labels to a few of President Donald Trumps tweets, Parler became, for many, an attractive solution to Twitters supposed ills. Now, its the second most popular app in the App Store, and last week it was estimated to have reached more than 1.5 million daily users, snagging somehigh-profile newbies: Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Elise Stefanik, Rep. Jim Jordan, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. What led to Parlers founding in August 2018 was, predictably, disillusionment with the likes of the Silicon Valley giants. Henderson, Nevadabased software engineers Jared Thomson and John Matze created the platform, according to Parlers website, [a]fter being exhausted with a lack of transparency in big tech, ideological suppresssion [sic] and privacy abuse.

Yet while the platform is being billed as the big free speech alternative to Twitter, it isnt exactly unique. Nor is it as uncensored as it claims to be. Parler is just the latest in a long line of rival social networks that have appeared (and, often, disappeared) in the past decade as alternatives to Big Tech. And, if the past is any indicator, its unlikely that Parler will become anything more than a fringe platform in the near future.

Some of the platforms to emerge as alternatives to the major social networks have taken a hard line on data privacy. Ello, for example, was founded in 2014 as an ad-free network that promised never to sell user data to advertisers. (After being dubbed a Facebook killer, the site was overwhelmed with new users and crashed frequently; it could never scale up and instead became a community for digital artists.) MeWe, another Facebook rival, offers the industrys first Privacy Bill of Rights. (It also takes a laissez-faire approach to content moderation.) And while its 8 million users are dwarfed by Facebooks 2.6 billion, MeWe is one of the few successful alternative networks in that its continued to grow since its founding in 2016.

Matze, Parlers CEO who counts Ayn Rand and conservative economist Thomas Sowell among his influences, fancies his platform a sort of free-speech utopia: Were a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship, Matze told CNBC. If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. And while Parler says it is unbiasedMatze is offering a $20,000 progressive bounty for a popular liberal pundit to joinits evidently become an unofficial home to the far right, which has long claimed to be mistreated by mainstream platforms. When alt-right celebrities, such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, are banned from Twitter, Parler is their next step. (Loomer announced last week that she has become the first person whose Parler following572,000exceeds her pre-ban Twitter following.)

In this regard, Parler is most similar to Gab, the free speechdriven platform launched in 2017 thats known as a haven for extremists. [F]ar angrier and uglier than Parler, Gab quickly became a breeding ground for anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism, where posts calling for terrorist attacks and violence against minorities circulate. Gabs fate, however, represents one iteration of the circle of life for platforms of its ilk: After it was connected to an instance of terrorism in 2018, when the suspect in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting posted about his intentions to act just before he killed 11 people, Gab never quite recovered. Its server, GoDaddy, dropped it, and though it eventually found another home online, its popularity waned following the shooting and the period offline. In 2019, a software engineer for Gabs web hosting company said that the platform probably had a few tens of thousands of users at mostrather than the 835,000 that Gab claimedthough the hosting company later denied that.

But Parler doesnt quite have Gabs teeth. (Andrew Torba, Gabs founder, has referred to Parler as a network for Z-list Maga celebrities.) While even Gab has limits to free speech, since its content policy purports to ban extremism, Parler is stricter. It goes far beyond what you might expect from a platform whose entire ethos is freedom of expression. Matze listed a few of the basic rules in a Parley on Tuesday:

As the top Twitter comment points out, Twitter allows four of the five things that Parler censors. Parlers thorough community guidelines also prohibit spam, terrorist activity, defamation, fighting words, and obscenity, among other kinds of speech. And Parlers user agreement includes clauses that may seem antithetical to its mission. The platform may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason, it states. But perhaps most surprising is this:

17. You agree to defend and indemnify Parler, as well as any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to all attorneys fees) arising from or relating to your access to and use of the Services. Parler will have the right to conduct its own defense, at your expense, in any action or proceeding covered by this indemnity.

The indemnity provision means that if Parler faces a lawsuit for something you post, you pay. Basically, youre free to say whatever you wantas long as it falls within the community guidelines, and as long as youre willing to take the risk.

That Parler has been reportedly banning users en masse this week only further illuminates the faade of free speech on the platform; but regardless of the extent to which one can or cannot Parley whatever they want, the fact remains that the platform is becoming an important space for the American far right. Its worth considering, then, what its members might do with it. Part of the concern over polarized platforms is that they can lead to radicalization: In general, theyre seen as part of the pipeline to extremism. First, extremist movements find a foothold in mainstream platforms, where they present their norms in a slightly more palatable way, explained Jeremy Blackburn, a computer science professor at Binghamton University who researches fringe and extremist web communities. Then they gain ground in platforms like Parler that straddle the fringe and mainstream. Once you remove any question of there being an echo chamber, theres just obvious consequences, Blackburn said.

While this may be cause for concern, Amarnath Amarasingam, an extremism researcher and professor at Queens University, is skeptical that Parler will really galvanize the right. I think part of what animates the rightand the left to some extentand particularly the far right, is the ability to argue with the other, Amarasingam said. Interacting (and fighting) with the left reinforces the far rights identity, giving it meaning and purpose, he said, and from studying similar platforms like Gab, Amarasingam has found that talking to yourself in the dark corners of the internet is actually not that satisfying. And while he believes it might lead to the radicalization of certain individuals within the far right, the platform itself wont necessarily further the ideologies of extremist right-wing groups.

What Parler could do, Amarasingam believes, is serve as a kind of sounding board for the far right, a place for fringe movements to try out and refine different arguments. Essentially, it could be a factory of sorts, churning out ideas before theyre deployed into the mainstream. Maybe one day, at leastfor now, a good portion of the conversation of Parler is about how fantastic the platform is and how dumb the old tech giants are. Amarasingam acknowledged this. [W]hat that indicates to me is that they actually are just using Parler to vent their anger of being suspended from what really matters, which has been more mainstream platform, he said. And so I think theyll very much try to get back into wherever the conversation is happening.

Theres also the matter of growth. Normally, these networks just dont get that big. Theyre considered fringe platforms for a reason, and theres rarely a solid business model behind them. In Parlers case, the network was started with angel funding, and Matze hasnt devised a clear business plan since. Currently, his tentative model is to match conservative influencers with advertisers, and have Parler take a cut of the influencer fee. But given brands recent reluctance to advertise on Facebook, this plan seems far from foolproof. With only 30 employees, Parlers ability to handle more users will be tested. It might growespecially if Trump does decide to join after allbut, as Amarasingam put it, if youre not in the mainstream, youre not in the mainstream.

Generally speaking, what I expect to see in these sites is they hit a certain threshold of users, just like any other social networking platform, said Blackburn. And then for these types of platforms that are explicitly attracting these certain types of users, probably one of them will do something stupid, then they get shut down or deplatformed, and the next one pops up.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Original post:

What's the deal with Twitter competitor Parler? - Slate

Holly Rehder stands for a photo on the back porch of her home overlooking the Thebes bridge on the Mississippi River.

Aaron Eisenhower ~ B Magazine

There are a number of important political races in our area this year, a few, because of term limits, pitting talented individuals against each other in districts without an incumbent. The following interview is with State Rep. Holly Rehder (R-Sikeston), who is running for Senate District 27. The district encompasses all of the counties of Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Madison, Mississippi, Perry and Scott. Rehder answered questions from B Magazine and provided a three-sentence self-introduction. To read interviews with other candidates profiled in B Magazine, click here.

Rehder: I first got involved in government because as a business owner, I saw how often the government hurt small businesses and workers; I wanted to see people with skin in the game represent the people. As a mother, wife and grandmother, I wanted to preserve freedom for future generations and to make a better life for those in my life. As a representative, I am proud of my work in fighting bloated government, in protecting our 2nd-Amendment rights and in speaking up for the unborn.

Rehder: I was 13 when I started working as a landscaper for my mother's boyfriend at the time. He had a lot of yards each week to take care of, so I talked him into hiring me. I was excited to earn money and very much appreciated the opportunity to work.

Rehder: I was 15 and pregnant, sleeping at a friend's place and needing a job so I could get on my feet. I was tremendously thankful to find a job as a nanny for two small children. However, when I was interviewed, I felt I had to lie about my age to get the job. I was pregnant, so I'm sure they never even considered I may be as young as I was. I was desperate for work to support myself and my child that was on the way. I told them I was 18. I got the job, and after two weeks grappling with the guilt I had over what I had done, I called up the mother and told her I had lied about my age to get the job, and I apologized profusely for it. The family decided that I was doing a good job and graciously kept me on as their nanny.

From that moment, I knew regardless of the outcome, I had to be myself in all things. Honest, hardworking, and at that point 15, pregnant and a high school dropout. Be me and trust God to provide the rest. And he always has.

Rehder: My college education was anything but standard. First, I had to work to get my GED. Once I had earned that, I was so excited to start college. I went to Southeast Missouri State University starting with a Pell Grant to help cover costs. I worked part-time to pay for the rest. However, after starting out as a full-time, non-traditional student, I found that I could not support my family and go to college full-time. I dropped out of college and went back to work full-time. In the meantime, I would take college classes as I could, nights, weekends, etc., paying out of pocket as I went.

It took me 17 years of this process to finally get my college degree. I earned my Bachelor's in mass communications and a double minor in political science and communications for legal professionals from SEMO. It certainly wasn't easy, but I knew how important it is to have your education, so I worked to earn it.

Join the B Magazine newsletter

The weekly newsletter focused on the business of Southeast Missouri.

Rehder: Well, like I mentioned above, I worked full-time to support my family while I also tried to earn a college degree. I started at Galaxy Cablevision, working in the mail room and earning $4.25 an hour. I worked hard and was very thankful for my job.

As different jobs opened up at the company, I would apply for them. Some I would get, some I would not. In any job, I resolved to be the first one there and the last one to leave. I wanted to prove that I was an employee who could be trusted with what she was given, stay out of other people's business and be the best worker in the building.

After years at the company, I had worked my way up to director of government affairs, working on cable franchises throughout 13 states. In that position, the Missouri Cable Association asked me to represent the cable industry's interests in Jefferson City because I knew the cable industry inside and out, and I was good at my job. I served on the board of directors for the association and worked as an advocate and discovered that oftentimes the government would presume how to run businesses better than the businessowners themselves; not just in our industry, but for industries around the state. It was this frustration with how the government tried to bloat itself that planted the idea in my head to get involved in politics.

After 14 years, I left Galaxy Cablevision and went to work for the Cable Association full time helping to fight and protect the industry, as well as our own personal business that we had started in 2004, Integrity Communications. Ray and I learned fast that it isn't easy running our own small business, especially when there's so much government red tape.

After three years with the Cable Association, I went to work for then-Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, where I learned firsthand how to take care of constituents and how to fight for our region. I learned from Jo Ann what it takes to represent people. I decided to run for representative in 2012 to finally be more of a voice for small businesses dealing with the government. To be a voice for people who grew up like me and have found that our many government social programs often hinder people from ever rising to their potential -- even though they are started as a means to help upward mobility.

I've been working since then to help the people and protect their rights and businesses.

Rehder: One book that has been very influential has been Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." I certainly don't agree with Rand's philosophy on everything, but in her novel, she just seemed to capture the destructive mindset of those in government who try and control everything. The novel shows what happens when the mantra of "social good" is used as a cover to grow government to exorbitant size and how corporate welfare ends up corrupting society. The book shows that when the government aligns itself with big corporations, it leads to racketeering and corruption that holds society back and degrades the work people do. It spoke to me as a business owner why it is important to not be beholden to the government.

Rehder: I am a very Type-A personality. I am a hands-on, go-getter type that puts everything I have into the job and do it with honesty and integrity. With that being said, one thing I have learned is that you cannot micromanage and expect your business to thrive; one huge aspect of leadership is being able to delegate. I believe in hiring the right people for the job, people who will do the job with honesty, integrity and determination. I love allowing people to do their jobs and to do them well, to give them a goal and to allow them to come up with the way to accomplish that goal, in their own style. We all learn from each other.

Rehder: Above all, a public servant must be available to the people. Be responsive to constituents, take the calls, help them in any way you can. Turn over every stone for them. As a representative, I am often the liaison to the people, helping them cut through government red tape. I take that very seriously. As a legislator, I think we need a smaller, more efficient government. We cannot waste the people's money on ridiculous schemes and then demand more from the people. A public servant should help make the government more accountable and transparent to the people.

Rehder: I would say my colleagues would consider my persistence and determination my biggest strength. I never give up, I don't back down, and I don't quit. I stand on principle and will fight for what I believe is right. On the flip side, I would say my colleagues would also consider that to be my biggest weakness! I will frustrate colleagues when I continue to stand on principle when they want me to compromise. Sometimes compromise works and is the right solution. But when it's not the right solution, it's just not.

Rehder: When I was 16, my husband and I moved us to Mississippi for a job at a chicken plant. Our only option was to move into a crowded house in Mississippi; my daughter, Raychel, was almost a year old. It was just us and a few others only a few years older than me. The house had no heat, and we had little money to feed us until my husband's first check.

The other people living in the house were not working -- their choice -- but I knew I couldn't allow their needs to take from the little we had for Raychel. I walked to the store daily and got four cans of vienna sausages for $1 and rationed those out to me and Raychel, and we relied on a $15 space heater in our room to keep us from freezing.

I learned that I have to stand my ground, regardless of who it upsets. I had a child counting on me to get it right. I needed to do the responsible thing and take care of her, my child who fully relied on me, even though that meant it made others angry. I knew they had the power to change their situation but weren't. We were trying to change ours. I was only 16 and weighed about 100 pounds, but I found out I could be a bear if I needed to be, and at that point, my daughter needed me to be. I stand for what is right.

Rehder: We need to have a Department of Revenue that is responsive to business owners and works with them, not against them. We need less bureaucratic red tape and to make it easier for people to run their businesses. Businesses shouldn't have to hire attorneys just to argue to the government that they paid their taxes and the mistake is on the Department's end. I've seen this over and over. The money wasted on bureaucratic concerns is money that does not go back into the business or to employees. We need to continue to cut restrictions and regulations and to unleash the power of Missouri businesses.

As a business owner, I've also seen the devastating affect the opioid epidemic has had on our workers, on our families. We need to continue finding solutions to help those entrapped in this crisis get out and get back to a healthy, happy lifestyle.

Rehder: I want to serve as Senator right now because we are constantly fighting against a government that wants to explode. We need people with backbone ready to push back against government expansion and corporate welfare.

President Trump ran to stand up against an entrenched political establishment that got too comfortable in their positions. I'm running to challenge Jefferson City to be accountable to the people and respect their rights. I got tired of waiting for someone to serve with a backbone, someone to stay in the fight and be responsive to the people -- then I realized it was me I was waiting on.

Those are my qualities -- a fighter for the people. Someone you can't break. I want to protect our rights which are at stake, including our cherished 2nd-Amendment rights. I will stand up for the Constitutional rights of the people, be a loud voice, and I want to serve as senator to protect our liberty.

Rehder: Find the field you want to work in and get a job. Any job. It could be low pay or a non-paid internship, just work it. You are building real-world experience and relationships with people who will help you later on. Your education matters, so don't give up. An impressive resume and credentials help, but relationships are key. If an employer knows you, knows your character and trusts you, they will speak for you and help you. Be the person who says, "Teach me, and I'll be the hardest worker you got," and that will open doors for you like nothing else can. Work hard, be happy in your task, give the glory to God, and he will open doors for you.

Read the rest here:

B Magazine: Holly Rehder interview with B Magazine (7/3/20) - Southeast Missourian

Fail to condemn evil

This is a message for all the "good" cops that are supposed to be out there: The blue wall must be breached!

You cannot consider yourself a "good" cop when you do not react to what you see around you. You cannot consider yourself a "good" cop when you hear things and do not react to them. You cannot consider yourself a "good" cop when you do not speak up.

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

You are responsible for allowing the "bad apples" to remain behind the blue wall. You are not a "good" cop unless you take action against the "bad" cops.

FRED FISHER

Conway

On personal liberties

Unlike many of those who write to your publication complaining of Arkansas' lack of mask-wearing, I for one applaud our state government for educating us about how wearing a mask in public is an effective way to slow down the transmission of the covid-19 virus. What's more, the CDC tells us that the mask benefits those around the wearer even more than the person wearing the mask. Kudos as well for the stance taken by our state government in not making or enforcing any requirements that people wear masks in public places, and moreover discouraging cities from making and enforcing their own rules.

Individuals should absolutely be able to exercise their fundamental right to choose whether they want to wear a mask or not. It is our right as citizens to choose whether we want to take a chance on infecting ourselves (and in this case, others).

Once the state goes down the slippery slope of making and enforcing public health requirements like mask-wearing in public, what's next? Why, the next thing you know they'll be imposing penalties on us if we choose to run red lights, take opiates when we feel like it, or decide not to wear clothes when we go shopping at Home Depot.

Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave at the very thought of such intrusions on our personal liberty.

CONNIE MESKIMEN

Hot Springs

Persuasive argument

My assignment for a building project was to take long boards and make them into short ones of a specified length. I had the miter saw located in a good spot close to the building site, but then a lady who was with the Safety Department told me that I needed to set up somewhere else because some heavy machinery was coming through. Facetiously I said to her: "But I was here first." Her reply was: "I'll write that on your tombstone."

Persuasive argument. I moved forthwith.

It is puzzling to me why people resent being required to do something which may very well save their lives. Wearing a mask when in close proximity to others may not be 100 percent effective, but then, what is?

There is a way for those who are determined to go unmasked in public to protect themselves and others while out there. Just don't breathe.

LEE WADDELL

Clinton

Give D.C.'s land back

If the city of Washington, D.C., is no longer needed in its entirety, then the unneeded portion along with its population should be returned to its original parent state of Maryland. Maryland, with Virginia, ceded approximately 100 square miles of land to the federal government for use as a federal capital city, not to reserve as some future new state (Virginia's land was returned in 1846).

The D.C. land area, about 70 square miles, is sufficient to support the status of a county in a fully functioning state such as Virginia, but is not of sufficient size to allow the development of a state. It does not have adequate space or natural resources to develop into a self-supporting state capable of providing all the functions needed by its citizens (roads, sewers, health, police, etc.). It can only grow vertically and become more and more crowded without the jobs to support itself. It will eventually devolve into a slum area that will become a welfare drag upon the rest of the nation and harbor a discontented population.

The D.C. citizens' complaints of not having representation in the federal government and not having enough independence in their local city government could be fully satisfied by re-ceding the area to Maryland, the state from whence it came. They would have all the rights, privileges, and capabilities of any citizen anywhere in the USA. Why should we make such a small area into a state when the same thing can be accomplished by converting the area into a county in an existing well-established state?

JAMES PROCTOR

North Little Rock

Seems appropriate ...

As the mob goes about the country indiscriminately pulling down statues (Ulysses S. Grant--seriously?) and vilifying anyone who had the misfortune of living in centuries past, perhaps they should in their place erect a statue of Madame Defarge.

STEPHEN HOFFMAN

Little Rock

If the military does it

There has been much conversation about voting by mail, both positive and negative comments.

Just a few items to add to the conversation: 1. There are absentee ballots for stated reasons; 2. 150,000 mail-in votes in 1864 election due to the Civil War; 3. every war saw mail-in votes: World Wars I and II, as well as the Korean and Vietnam conflicts; 4. all military personnel stationed overseas will vote by mail.

I would bet most members of Congress, as well as the very rich, vote by mail.

An important aside: Your vote can't be hacked.

EDITH SEAMAN

Lakeview

See the original post:

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Fail to condemn evil | On personal liberties | Give D.C.'s land back - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

With the fourth of July approaching, many Americans will have to contemplate whether or not the holiday is an empty affair. After the last thirteen weeks of Covid-19 lockdowns, business shutdowns, and police brutality, the lack of liberty and freedoms in the U.S. has never been more apparent. With ideas like bitcoin and concepts that bolster secession, the day is coming when money is completely removed from the state, just as the state was separated from the church centuries ago.

Roughly six days prior to the empty holiday, as I read the letters of Independence pronouncement adopted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 4, 1776, I say to myself Americans are not free. The majority in the United States have surrendered their freedoms and civil liberties to the collective mob. Many individualists are quite certain that most Americans dont believe in those declarations of independence, and the 27 grievances against tyranny written hundreds of years ago.

One reason that validates this opinion as truth, is because the U.S. government has transgressed upon the citizenry. They have quite literally violated every one of the 27 grievances. Yet the majority of U.S. citizens are too comfortable and too lost in the sea of distraction to even notice.

One thing I will be promoting on July 4, 2020, is real independence and the use of counter-economics, in order to separate finance from the state. The separation of money and state is the ideal solution for striking the root. The New Ideal author, Onkar Ghate, describes it very well in an April 2019 essay.

The essay explains how Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and James Madison all vowed to separate the church from state, as this was a fundamental right of sovereign individuals. However, the philosophy can easily be applied to finance too, as Ghate and many others have argued for economic freedom for many decades.

The arguments for intellectual freedom and economic freedom share the same root: the requirements of the rational mind to guide the individual, Ghates essay details.

Ghates explains how the well known novelist, Ayn Rand, took the individualist ideas from Jefferson, Madison, and Locke and extended it to all human actions like education, scientific research, the arts, and especially finance. Rand argued that governmental schools, governmental funding of scientific research, and governmental funding of the arts violate the individuals right to intellectual freedom, Ghates essay highlights. The author also adds:

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.

The founder of Shapeshift, Erik Voorhees, said in March 2015 at the Texas Bitcoin Conference, the reason he has bolstered the idea of bitcoin is because he wants to separate finance from the state.

It is that narrative of human development under which I believe that we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state, Voorhees explained on stage. The Shapeshift CEO added:

Money is absolutely as fundamental to our lives as religion, and for many people it is far more fundamental to their lives as religion. It affects how your life unfolds. The choices that you make about money dictate the ramifications of your life and those around you. And so, to have an institution like money so controlled by a central entity by a monopoly is absurd. It is immoral. We should get rid of it.

Similarly, the American populace has the right to separate themselves, and dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them. This is clearly stated on the Declaration of Independence parchment.

Essentially, the letters of Independence highlight that Americans, but more importantly all sovereign earthlings, should simply declare the separation. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, the transcription of the stone engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence stresses. All sovereign individuals have a right to separate their finances from the state, just as they have the right to separate religious beliefs from government affairs.

By leveraging precious metals, cryptocurrencies like bitcoin (BTC), bitcoin cash (BCH), dash (DASH), litecoin (LTC), monero (XMR) ethereum (ETH) and many others, while also practicing barter and trade techniques, it will help strengthen the counter-economy. The counter-economy, at some point, will grow so large that it eclipses the fraudulent and manipulated economy created by the oligarchs and status quo.

Without funding, the state will not be able to continue the endless wars. Without the participation of people using the oligarchs promissory notes, taxation will take place less and less. Even Edward Snowden, the famous U.S. whistleblower explained in an interview published by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2018, that bitcoin would help cushion financial liberties. Snowden also once said on Twitter that new technologies raise the possibility of unstoppable tax protests.

I like Bitcoin transactions in that they are impartial They cant really be stopped or reversed, without the explicit, voluntary participation by the people involved, Snowden said during the interview. Lets say Bank of America doesnt want to process a payment for someone like me. In the old financial system, theyve got an enormous amount of clout, as do their peers, and can make that happen. If a teenager in Venezuela wants to get paid in hard currency for a web development gig they did for someone in Paris, something prohibited by local currency controls, cryptocurrencies can make it possible. Snowden continued by adding:

Bitcoin may not yet really be private money, but it is the first free money.

On July 4, 2020, and just like every Independence Day Ive celebrated in the past decade, I will let people know that the freedom they honor every year is lacking. In fact, freedom, at least going by the American writings written in the 1700s, is barely existent. The only way to separate ourselves from the beast of government is to separate money from it immediately.

Essentially, the state wont have a choice and even right now, government fiat must compete with a $250 billion dollar free market filled with over 5,000 cryptocurrencies. During the 2015 Texas Bitcoin Conference, Vorhees further explained that people leveraging bitcoin will help bolster the need for change.

It seems crazy to say this, but perhaps we should permit competition in money, permit competition in financial structures, just as we permit competition in religion, Vorhees concluded. We allow multiple churches to exist. Why do we do that? And why dont we do that with money? I think its a hypocrisy that our children will someday look back on and realize, Wow, that was really obvious. And Bitcoin is what will bring that change about.

If Americans truly believe in the letters of independence, then they should separate themselves from the very government that transgresses against them. Right now, believers of the non-aggression axiom have lots of choices to make and many forms of human action can help fulfill decentralized goals.

There is no doubt, cryptocurrency and Satoshis vision was founded with the ideals of separation of state and money. Instead of focusing on red white and blue paper plates and patriotic t-shirts from Walmart, maybe Americans should invoke the revolutionary spirit they once held, and actually do something about this tyrannical beast who has devoured their freedoms.

If you are interested in learning about the many methods of crypto anarchy and the myriad of ways to opt-out and vacate the state Check out these essays below.

What do you think about separating money from state? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is 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 content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read disclaimer

Go here to read the rest:

Bolstering Separation of Money and State Following the 244th Independence Day - Bitcoin News

Replacing the insurance company middleman with the government middleman is not removing the middleman. It is removing free enterprise in favor of giving more power to government.

Here in a nutshell is the complete essence of socialism disguised as freedom. It was contained within an April 16 guest opinion by a candidate for public office.

"The truth is that single-payer Medicare for All is real freedom it eliminates the insurance middlemen, allowing you to see any doctors you want and the government to make direct payments to them."

But replacing the insurance company middleman with the government middleman is not removing the middleman. It is removing free enterprise in favor of giving more power to government for which the primary attribute is force. Government can simply force people to do what it commands which is why the colonies went into revolt in 1776. Free medical care is simply one of the latest strategies of Americas leftists. They would be wise to remember: "Theres No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".

George Washington said: "Government Is Not Reason, It Is Not Eloquence It Is Force." Government collects money through taxation which is collection backed by force. Force is the opposite of freedom.

Socialized medicine does not provide medical care by government. Government does not produce doctors. It seeks to establish control over them and their work. Canadians who have socialized medicine simply travel to America and pay when they want better medical care.

Medical care is a product. Most products have different levels. You can buy a small inexpensive car or a luxurious expensive model. Those are minimums and maximums. Its the same for medical care. Doctors are not foolish. They will not provide expensive care unless they get paid to do it. Medicare on the other hand is government-paid and government-rationed medical care and it has limits. If you are not happy with getting limited care you are free to pay for better care or pay for insurance. These are your three choices. Either rely on your neighbors to provide you with medical care, called Medicare; pay for insurance to provide it or pay for it yourself.

Medical care is a product and there are no free products. Someone pays for everything or it doesnt get done. Medical professionals know that in the case of "free" medical care some professionals use "Sit Care". Sit there until we decide to treat you or get disgusted and leave.

Ayn Rand asked in her essay "What is capitalism?": "Is man a sovereign individual who owns his own person, his mind, his life, his work and its product or is he the property of the tribe, the state, the society, the collective that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products?" Socialists believe each person must always act for the benefit of society.

The guest opinion writer/candidate has considered the "welfare" of patients with no thought or comment about the doctors who must provide the actual medical care. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter was not brought up. We should consider the attitude of pompous smugness of the people who assert their right to enslave doctors; to control their work and to force them to work only for the government. Perhaps we should let them discover the kind of doctors that their system would produce. Let them discover in their non-free operating rooms and hospital wards that its dangerous to place their lives in the hands of a doctor whose pay scale they have controlled. Its not safe if the doctor is the sort of person who resents it and even less safe if they are the sort who doesnt.

Bill O'Neill lives in Holland.

Continued here:

Guest Opinion: Socialism is about government control - Opinion - The Intelligencer

Who Was Ayn Rand?

Born in Russia in 1905, Ayn Rand moved to the United States in 1926 and tried to establish herself in Hollywood. Her first novel, We the Living (1936), championed her rejection of collectivist values in favor of individual self interest, a belief that became more explicit with her subsequent novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Following the immense success of the latter, Rand promoted her philosophy of Objectivism through courses, lectures and literature. She died in New York City on March 6, 1982.

Ayn Rand was born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905, in St. Petersburg, Russia. The oldest daughter of Jewish parents (and eventually an avowed atheist), she spent her early years in comfort thanks to her dad's success as a pharmacist, proving a brilliant student.

In 1917, her father's shop was suddenly seized by Bolshevik soldiers, forcing the family to resume life in poverty in the Crimea. The situation profoundly impacted young Alissa, who developed strong feelings toward government intrusion into individual livelihood. She returned to her city of birth to attend the University of Petrograd, graduating in 1924, and then enrolled at the State Institute for Cinema Arts to study screenwriting.

Granted a visa to visit relatives in Chicago, Alissa left for the United States in early 1926, never to look back. She took on her soon-to-be-famous pen name and, after a few months in Chicago, moved to Hollywood to become a screenwriter.

Following a chance encounter with Hollywood titan Cecil B. DeMille, Rand became an extra on the set of his 1927 film The King of Kings, where she met actor Frank O'Connor. They married in 1929, and she became an American citizen in 1931.

Rand landed a job as a clerk at RKO Pictures, eventually rising to head of the wardrobe department, and continued developing her craft as a writer. In 1932, she sold her screenplay Red Pawn, a Soviet romantic thriller, to Universal Studios. She soon completed a courtroom drama called Penthouse Legend, which featured the gimmick of audience members serving as the jury. In late 1934, Rand and her husband moved to New York City for its production, now renamed Night of January 16th.

Around this time, Rand also completed her first novel, We the Living. Published in 1936 after several rejections, We the Living championed the moral authority of the individual through its heroine's battles with a Soviet totalitarian state. Rand followed with the novella Anthem (1938), about a future collectivist dystopia in which "I" has been stamped out of the language.

In 1937, Rand began researching a new novel by working for New York architect Ely Jacques Kahn. The result, after years of writing and more rejections, was The Fountainhead. Underscoring Rands individualistic underpinnings, the books hero, architect Howard Roark, refuses to adhere to conventions, going so far as to blowing up one of his own creations. While not an immediate success, The Fountainhead eventually achieved strong sales, and at the end of the decade became a feature film, with Gary Cooper in the role of Roark.

Rand's ideas became even more explicit with the 1957 publication of Atlas Shrugged. A massive work of more than 1,000 pages, Atlas Shrugged portrays a future in which leading industrialists drop out of a collectivist society that exploits their talents, culminating with a notoriously lengthy speech by protagonist John Galt. The novel drew some harsh reviews, but became an immediate best seller.

Around 1950, Rand met with a college student named Nathan Blumenthal, who changed his name to Nathaniel Braden and became the author's designated heir. Along with his wife, Barbara, Braden formed a group that met at Rand's apartment to engage in intellectual discussions. The group, which included future Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, called itself the Collective, or the Class of '43 (the publication year of The Fountainhead).

Rand soon honed her philosophy of what she termed "Objectivism": a belief in a concrete reality, from which individuals can discern existing truths, and the ultimate moral value of the pursuit of self interest. The development of this system essentially ended her career as a novelist: In 1958, the Nathaniel Branden Institute formed to spread her message through lectures, courses and literature, and in 1962, the author and her top disciple launched The Objectivist Newsletter. Her books during this period, including For the New Intellectual (1961) and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966), were primarily comprised of previously published essays and other works.

Following a public split with Braden, the author published The Romantic Manifesto (1969), a series of essays on the cultural importance of art, and repackaged her newsletter as The Ayn Rand Letter. She continued traveling to give lectures, though she was slowed by an operation for lung cancer. In 1979, she published a collection of articles in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which included an essay from protg Leonard Peikoff.

Rand was working on a television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged when she died of heart failure at her home in New York City on March 6, 1982.

Although she weathered criticism for her perceived literary shortcomings and philosophical arguments, Rand undeniably left her mark on the Western culture she embraced. In 1985, Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute to continue her teachings. The following year, Braden's ex-wife, Barbara, published a tell-all memoir, The Passion of Ayn Rand, which later was made into a movie starring Helen Mirren.

Interest in Rand's works resurfaced alongside the rise of the Tea Party movement during President Barack Obama's administration, with leading political proponents like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz proclaiming their admiration for the author. In 2010, the Ayn Rand Institute announced that more than 500,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged had been sold the previous year.

In 2017,Tony-winning director Ivo van Hove reintroduced The Fountainhead to the American public with a production at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Having originated at Toneelgroep Amsterdam in the Netherlands, van Hove's version featured his performers speaking in Dutch, with their words projected onto a screen in English.

Link:

Ayn Rand - - Biography

The New Republic article about Rand, which we looked at in Part 1, stood out not primarily because of what it said about her, but in how it conveyed its message. The article put a tribal prejudice toward Rand above facts and logic. That same mindset is on display, even more starkly, in Amanda Marcottes Salon article, Right-wingers finally got their Ayn Rand hero as president and its this guy.

Let me stress, again, that my goal is not to change your mind about Rand and her ideas, nor primarily to correct the many errors and misrepresentations in these articles (though Ill point out some of them along the way). Instead, the point is to explain how the two articles are fundamentally uninterested in convincing any active-minded reader. Their aim, rather, is to affirm a preset narrative about Rand. These are worse than mere smears, because their tribal mindset represents the abandonment of rational persuasion as the goal of intellectual discussion.

Marcottes point is captured in the subtitle: Conservatives finally have a leader who lives by Ayn Rands selfish philosophy, and hes an embarrassing clown, the clown being Donald Trump. But whatever you might think of Rand or of Trump, this is a claim thats far from self-evident. It requires a real argument. Marcottes article offers no argument. Its written for an audience that already partly or fully shares Marcottes preconceptions.

What would it take to build a case that Trump is the incarnation of Rands moral ideals? For a start, and at minimum, youd need to grasp what Rands view actually is, why she holds it, and how her radical view relates to, and contrasts with, existing views in morality. Rand once summarized her system of ideas by saying that My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. Part of whats radical in Rands moral theory is that she argues for an individualist morality that is non-predatory.

Marcottes article offers no argument. Its written for an audience that already partly or fully shares Marcottes preconceptions.

Each individual, in her view, is responsible for achieving his own happiness by his own effort and the use of his own mind without sacrifices of anyone to anyone. That means a rational egoist neither surrenders his own values and goals to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. On Rands view, the egoist is someone guided by reason, pursuing creative achievement, building mutually beneficial relationships. It is nothing like the conventional view of a whim-driven brute who lies, cheats, and steals, walking over corpses to get his way.

From this brief indication of her view, it should be evident that what Rand means by selfishness is far different from what most people mean by that term. Regardless of whether one agrees with her conception, the fact is that Rand is saying something distinctive and new, and it takes work to understand it and think through what her morality does (and does not) look like in practice.

Marcotte, by contrast, evidently cannot imagine a moral ideal so dramatically at odds with conventional views. Apparently, the possibility of a non-predatory individualist is unreal to her, or else its pushed out of mind. Instead, Marcotte aims to patch together a narrative to affirm her prejudice against Rand. The goal is to portray Rand as a monster whose moral ideal, in practice, turns out to be a monster such as Trump.

To that end, Marcotte begins with a disturbing claim. Marcotte writes that Rand had a schoolgirl crush on a murderer, William Hickman, that she based a character on him in plans for an early story, and that she later reworked her idea of the individualistic, contemptuous hero into The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Marcottes smear operates in part by omitting important facts.

Since Rands mature views reject any form of predation, her youthful interest in Hickman is strange enough that if you are going to raise it, it demands thoughtful exploration. A multitude of questions spring to mind: What was the nature of Rands curiosity in him? Where did she articulate it? When was this? How does it relate to her mature, principled advocacy of individual rights as sacrosanct?

READ ALSO: Discussing Marc Andreessens Rallying Cry to Build

None of these questions interests Marcotte, who slants the episode to smear Rand. Marcottes smear operates in part by omitting important facts. Let me indicate just five.

First, its a gross distortion to call Rands reaction a schoolgirl crush, which you can see for yourself in Rands own notes on the subject. She made those notes in her personal journals, which can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, published long after her death. Across decades, Rand wrote voluminously in her journals to sketch ideas for characters, plays, stories, novels; to engage in thinking on paper for her own understanding; to distill lessons and conclusions from her experiences with people and events.

Second, she wrote these journal entries for an audience of exactly one herself. In her journals she was continually forming, revising, changing, clarifying her views. Nothing in them was ever meant for publication, so its ludicrous to treat her journals as definitive statements of her considered view.

Third, Marcotte hand-wavingly notes that fans are quick to argue that Rand didnt endorse the murder, but elides the fact that Rand herself, in her own journal notes, repudiates Hickmans abhorrent crime.

Fourth, a relevant fact for understanding Rands interest in Hickman is that she was a fiction writer, and she was sketching ideas for a story. She was curious about the character and psychology of individuals, about what ideas and attitudes motivated them, in part for the sake of depicting the motivation of fictional characters. This is an issue central to the craft of writing fiction, which Rand (at the time, aged 23) was striving to master.

Fifth, it is impossible to read Rands notes about Hickman and the story she was planning without observing the influence of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on the young Rand. That influence is manifest in the premise of the story and the lead character she envisioned for it (Rand uses concepts borrowed from Nietzsche and quotes him in her notes). Rand never got far in planning that story and decided to abandon it. Why? The project was too alien to her deepest premises, writes David Harriman, editor of Journals of Ayn Rand, who points out (along with other scholars) that Rand went on to discard Nietzsches philosophic ideas and explicitly repudiated them.

For Marcotte, such facts are pushed aside in the dash to affirm a preconception about Rand. The next step in that process is to link this fictional Rand to conservatism and President Trump.

Marcotte wheels out the trope that Rand is the backbone of modern conservativism. This metaphor obscures a complicated reality, which I mentioned in Part 1, about the nature of Rands influence on conservatives and right-leaning folks. Moreover, there are abundant counterexamples that negate this trope. The aim of Marcottes article, however, is not to convince, but to reinforce preconceptions, and her intended audience is already primed to feel loathing at the mention of conservatism. Thats the emotional context Marcottes article works to activate.

Marcottes unwarranted lumping together of Rand with conservatism reflects a definite purpose. Rands philosophy, Marcotte writes, serves as a pseudo-intellectual rationalization, beloved by assorted Republicans, for a reactionary movement that rose up to reject the feminist and anti-racist movements of the 20th century. One giveaway here is the word reactionary.

In this mindset, its unimaginable that someone could have a view different from ones own that is grounded in reasonable argument.

Even if you reject conservatism (as I do), Marcottes characterization of it betrays, not a reasoned opposition, but a tribal opposition. Were there conservatives who were racist and misogynistic? Yes, and there still are. But the sweeping claim in Marcottes article is that conservatives were reactionary: meaning, they stubbornly opposed progress. They could have had no legitimate basis for their concerns about, for example, the growth of government regulations, or the cost of burgeoning welfare programs, or the budget. Regardless of whether you share those concerns, some conservative intellectuals actually did voice reasoned objections to these developments. But for Marcotte and her intended audience, these outsiders, members of an opposing tribe, can be nothing but wrong and evil. In this mindset, its unimaginable that someone could have a view different from ones own that is grounded in reasonable argument.

In linking Rand with conservatism, Marcotte is uninterested in the fact which contradicts her narrative that Rand wrote at length about her philosophic opposition to the conservative movement (see, for instance, the essay Conservatism: An Obituary). Whats more, nowhere in Marcottes article will you learn that Rand was a fierce opponent of racism. Nor will you learn about Rands distinctive, profound opposition to the conventional notion that a womans place is in the home; or that a woman is somehow intellectually or morally inferior to a man. Among Rands fictional heroes are two women, Kira Argounova (in We the Living) and Dagny Taggart (in Atlas Shrugged), who shatter stereotyped roles for women. Long before it was imaginable in our culture, Dagny Taggart took it for granted that she could run a vast railroad network, and she did so superlatively; it was at most an afterthought for her that anyone might object. Kira Argounova, fascinated by buildings and bridges, wanted to be an engineer, and her will to achieve her goals in life was indomitable.

READ ALSO: Analyzing the Conspiracist Firestorm over Notre Dame

All of this, and more, Marcotte must brush aside in order to shoehorn Rands ideas into the same category as the reactionary right, the opposing political tribe that Marcotte and many of her readers hate. Doing so, in defiance of the facts, is part of Marcottes larger effort to present Donald Trump as the full, perfect embodiment of Rands moral theory of selfishness. Linking Trump and Rand serves to smear each with the taken-for-granted evil of the other.

Whats the argument for that link? There is none and, tellingly, no attempt to engage with obvious objections or counterarguments. What Marcotte conveys is a disdain for the sheer possibility that anyone could hold a different view on the subject. Regardless of your assessment of President Trump, the claim that hes the embodiment of Ayn Rands moral ideas should give pause to anyone with even an elementary grasp of her outlook.

What leaps off the pages of Atlas Shrugged is not that Rand glamorizes all businesspeople, but rather that she draws a bright moral dividing line. On one side are productive business leaders, who use their minds to create real value, exchanging it in trade for mutual advantage. It is such producers who are the business heroes she valorizes for their achievements.

On the other side of that moral line are the businessmen who rely on political pull to handicap their competitors, who extort protections and corporate welfare, and who lie, cheat, and exploit others in their grubbing for unearned wealth. Such villains, in todays world, embody the scourge of cronyism.

Marcottes disdain for argument, for evidence, indeed, for the intellect of her readers is blatant in what she takes as a credible source on Rands ideas.

Just on the basis of this sketch of one aspect of Rands view, Donald Trump is far from an obvious manifestation of her moral theory. The evidence, in my view, is that his actions and statements contradict the virtue of selfishness; that, for instance, Trumps business career has relied on pull peddling and that, as president, he feeds that cronyism dynamic. My colleague Ben Bayer has argued convincingly that Trump negates Rands view of selfishness; and others still have pointed out ways in which Trump is actually more like an Ayn Rand villain.

But my aim here is not to convince you of either of those points. Rather its to indicate that any claim that Trump embodies Rands concept of selfishness would need to build an argument for that, and take seriously counterpoints and obvious objections if your goal is to convince.

Thats precisely what Marcotte disdains. I say disdain, because any reputable magazine would expect its writers to Google the topic theyre pitching, to see if anyones written on it before. Try it yourself; you should find at least two articles on the subject by my colleague Onkar Ghate. One evaluates the Trump phenomenon generally; the other considers what Rand might have thought of Trump. You might also find my article on how Trumps foreign policy clashes with Rands philosophy. And again, we at ARI are hardly the only ones to voice our perspective on this issue. Marcotte, however, does not even gesture toward engaging with these contrasting views; doing so would imply that there could be a credible view different from her preconception.

READ ALSO: Is Western Civilization Losing Its Identity?

Marcottes disdain for argument, for evidence, indeed, for the intellect of her readers is blatant in what she takes as a credible source on Rands ideas. For a credible third-party source, where does Marcotte turn? To one of a number of the established, published scholars of Rands ideas? No. To an expert on the field of ethics, who has some awareness of how Rands ideas relate to the intellectual landscape? No.

Who, then? Marcotte turns to a guy with a blog. She cites someone who posted blog entries while reading his way through Atlas Shrugged. To pretend that this blog is a credible source is journalistic malpractice. If a journalist wrote about, say, Marxs Das Kapital, or Darwins Origin of Species to take two influential works that defied conventional thinking and presented a random blogger with no evident expertise as an authority on the subject, it would be laughable.

What Marcottes article exhibits even more blatantly than Sammons piece in the New Republic is a tribalist mindset.

The tribal mind is insular and keen to stay that way. Outsiders are viewed with suspicion, often hostility. The sheer possibility that outsiders might have different views and beliefs, and hold them for good reasons, is simply alien. Thats largely because the tribalist himself has fastened onto his beliefs and pieties, not through a thoughtful weighing of the evidence and by following the logic, but through conformity with the group. Theres just what his own tribe believes. All else has to be wrong. Its beyond the pale, worthy only of contempt and disdain.

Theres an underlying commonality between a Trump rally and the Marcotte and Sammon articles: they put a tribal narrative above facts and logic.

We can observe two important consequences of this tribalist mindset on display in Marcottes article about Rand. One is Marcottes disdain for facts and logic. A tribalist sees no need to convince others of his views: why take the effort of trying to communicate with outsiders, who by virtue of being outside the tribe must be wrong? Besides, if he himself didnt need evidence and logic to swallow his groups beliefs and pieties, why would anyone else?

Second, the tribalist does feel a strong need to affirm and reinforce for himself and fellow tribe members that their ways and beliefs are right, and that outsiders are wrong, if not evil, too.

A critical reading of Marcottes and Sammons articles makes clear that a major, if not the prime, aim is to rally certain readers. To activate them emotionally, not cognitively. For those readers, the common takeaway is that, despite Rands distinctive views, she can be lumped in with the hated right-wing/conservative tribe.

These articles offer the reassurance that, despite Rands enduring prominence and ongoing cultural influence, she is unworthy of serious attention. That the Objectivist movement is nosediving. That Rand, finally, is canceled.

What the Marcotte and Sammon articles do to Rand in print, Donald Trump does to his enemies in speeches at loyalist rallies. The approach is the same. The president can spellbind the audience with innuendo, pseudo-facts, and arbitrary assertions, precisely because they reinforce a conclusion many already came in with: Trump is right, his opponents in the enemy tribe are victimizing him.

No attempt is made to convince anyone in the stands. The conclusions, so congenial to the tribe, are already known. The facts or rather, innuendo, insinuation, hints and arbitrary allegations are conjured up, trimmed, shorn of context, bent, distorted to affirm the tribes common prejudices against its enemies. Theres an underlying commonality between a Trump rally and the Marcotte and Sammon articles: they put a tribal narrative above facts and logic.

There are fascinating questions to explore about the impact of Ayn Rands ideas and their cultural influence. Such questions, however, are shoved to the wayside in the Marcotte and Sammon articles. The driving impulse to cancel Rand in the eyes of their tribal audience hardly original to these articles is its own kind of cultural indicator.

SUPPORT ARI: If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Share this article:

Originally posted here:

When Tribal Journalists Try to 'Cancel' Ayn Rand (Part 2) - New Ideal