Bill Straub: Rand Paul objects to Trump’s Gestapo but then wants Dr. Fauci to be more optimistic – User-generated content

In The Sound of Music, that wholesome hash of low-brow entertainment produced on both stage and screen, a waddle of nuns is heard crooning the tune, How do you solve a problem like Maria?:

In Kentucky, the song might be improved if Oscar Hammersteins lyrics could be edited to ask, How do you solve a problem like Rand Paul?

The Republican senator from Bowling Green often comes across as the political version of the Scarlett Pimpernel they seek him here, they seek him there. Theres never any telling which version, good or bad, is going to appear.

Assessing the Commonwealths junior senator nine years into his job is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He obviously has proved to be an embarrassment a dangerous one at that when it comes to the federal governments handling of COVID-19. If he were to have his way, its almost sure the plague upon us would prove even worse.

The NKyTribunes Washington columnist Bill Straub served 11 years as the Frankfort Bureau chief for The Kentucky Post. He also is the former White House/political correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service. A member of the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame, he currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, and writes frequently about the federal government and politics. Email him at williamgstraub@gmail.com

At the same time, Paul has displayed a willingness to rush in where angels fear to tread. While most of his Republican colleagues are playing Marcel Marceau when it comes to President Donald J. Trump, aka President Extremely Stable Genius, aka President Great and Unmatched Wisdom, he will occasionally offer an expression of something beyond annoyance.

Most recently Paul weighed in on Trumps decision to deploy brown shirts, Pinochet-style secret police, to Portland, OR, to stymie protesters who have taken to the streets over George Floyd, an African-American killed at the hands of police in Minneapolis, an event that understandably lit a match under the Black Lives Matter movement.

Trumps Gestapo, heavily armed and wearing camouflage outfits to apparently convince one and all that theyre real men, have displayed a propensity for randomly picking individuals up off the street, shoving them into unmarked vans and then holding them in custody for no apparent reason prior to release, all supposedly to protect federal property in the great state of Oregon.

The American Stasi, identified only by the word Police somewhere on their uniforms with no further details, has also seen fit to tear gas a group of mothers, arms linked, voluntarily standing between the secret police and protesters, whose numbers have mounted since the Gestapo was dispatched.

In other words, under Trump, the United States of America is showing signs of devolving into East Germany. And now hes talking about sending his minions into other American cities, like Chicago and Philadelphia. Most Republicans are twiddling their thumbs or changing the subject. Paul, to his credit, is not.

Writing in Reason magazine, the Bible of the Libertarian movement, Paul said, While I respect the determination to preserve law and order, sending in federal forces to quell civil unrest in Portland further distorts the boundaries, results in more aggression (including pepper-spraying and repeatedly striking a Navy veteran whose injured hand will need surgery), and has led to reports we should never hear in a free country: federal officials, dressed in camouflage, snatching protesters away in unmarked vehicles.

Sending the feds into Chicago wont make the situation there any better, either.

In a free society, Paul added, citizens should be able to easily distinguish between civilian law enforcement tasked with keeping the peace in our communities and the armed forces tasked with protecting our country from foreign adversaries.

Trying to find other Republican lawmakers who find Trumps secret police appalling is like trying to find a cold Budweiser in the middle of the Sahara. Do you think Senate Republican Leader Mitch Root-n-Branch McConnell, of Louisville, is going to cross Americas Mussolini on this issue? Oh come now. With re-election staring him in the puss, Mitch will stay mum until he figures out which side is politically advantageous and then act, picking the popular side.

It should be said that is something that Paul rarely does. Some of his decisions are, well, curious, and thats a very kind way to put it. At his worst, and its been on view on occasion, hell make your skin crawl as if youve been doused with hydrochloric acid.

Right now the celebrated libertarian is trying to deep six the next legislative effort to supply additional relief for those suffering from the economic impact of Covid-19.

The measure is still under development and there are plenty of reasons to believe its not going to provide the sort of help the nation needs. McConnell and other Republicans dont like the $600 per week bonus provided to unemployed workers and theyre seeking protections against lawsuits for businesses where workers contract the coronavirus while in the job. But the package will likely result in $1 trillion being circulated during hard times.

Paul wants none of it. He claims were losing the country and that adding trillions of dollars to the nations deficit is absurd, its obscene.

The majority of Republicans are now no different than socialist Democrats when it comes to debt, Paul said on Twitter. They simply dont care about debt and are preparing to add at least another trillion dollars in debt this month, combined with the trillions from earlier this summer.

Paul said it would be a mistake for the federal government to borrow money despite record low interest rates to stimulate the economy.

I dont think we should throw out good sense and believe in something the opposite of what we believe in because of this virus, Paul told Fox News. I think its a foolhardy notion to think you can just create money out of thin air, give it to people and that creates wealth.

The only way to survive and recover, Paul said, is to re-open the economy.

Paul, who hasnt covered himself in glory during the COVID-19 crisis, seems unable to come to grips with just how significant the problem is. Adding $5 trillion in debt during a relatively short period of time isnt particularly desirable. But more than 140,000 Americans have died as a result of the virus. The number of cases nationwide is rising a 30 percent increase over a 14-day period ending on July 21, with 65,274 new cases reported that same day.

Kentucky, in fact, is one of the states where incidence is climbing. As of Wednesday, 24,694 cases have been reported, resulting in 697 deaths. And 660 new cases were reported July 21.

Until a vaccine or some other way to fight the spread appears the only way to address the crisis is to shut things down. States like Florida and Georgia jumped the gun, leading to chaos and a rise in incidence that has overwhelmed the medical establishment. And only the federal government has the wherewithal to make sure those who are no longer getting a steady paycheck for reasons beyond their control make it through to the other side of this mess.

Re-opening things at this juncture will lead to more fatalities. The nation already is on the road to 200,000 deaths. Do you really want more?

To this point, Pauls major contribution to the coronavirus debate besides catching the disease and failing to quarantine himself as he waited for the test results has been to insult Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has spent the last few months warning about the spread.

Paul told him to display more optimism.

More than 140,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19.

Hows that for optimism?

More here:

Bill Straub: Rand Paul objects to Trump's Gestapo but then wants Dr. Fauci to be more optimistic - User-generated content

Are the British conformist or libertarian? Our face mask response is telling – The Guardian

Later this week, the wearing of masks in shops and supermarkets will become mandatory in England. The question then will be how quickly the public accepts this new law whether face masks become a social norm could be of vital importance to public health.

The science behind the benefits of mask wearing is pretty solid. Masks principally protect others. You wear them because you dont want to pass on a nasty virus that you may not know you have. Pretty simple. Mathematical models suggest the more people that wear masks, the lower the transmission rate (effective R). And when we look abroad, the evidence supports this contention.

Mask wearing is, without the apparent necessity to enforce laws, almost ubiquitous in China, Japan, and south-east Asia. In a country once called the deferential nation, you might expect this policy would go down with relative ease. But a cursory glance at newspaper articles shows English commentators bristling at the suggestion of mandatory mask wearing. According to the Conservative MP Desmond Swayne, face masks are a monstrous imposition that threaten our fundamental liberties; the New York Times, meanwhile, reports that people in England would rather be sick than embarrassed.

For masks to be effective, people need to conform to wearing them. More than 80 years ago the behavioural psychologist Floyd Allport described what he called the J-curve hypothesis of conforming behaviour. He suggested that when a rule came into effect, almost everyone conformed, but a recalcitrant few resisted the rules with all their might, even to the point of breaking the law. They were usually a very small minority.

Allport looked at how motorists behaviour changed as they approached a crossroads and whether a stop sign was present or absent. Where a stop sign was absent, 17% of drivers stopped, 71% slowed down, and 12% kept going without slowing down. Put in a stop sign, however, and 75% of drivers stopped, 22% slowed a lot, 2% slowed a little, and just 1% didnt change their speed at all.

To achieve good compliance to a rule, Allport suggested, the purpose of it must be understood and the specifics must be crystal clear. The governments prevarications over masks with politicians regularly appearing without masks, and Michael Gove seemingly contradicting the mandatory policy later set out by Boris Johnson may have made this new rule anything but clear.

According to social psychologists, behavioural norms have two dimensions: first, how much a behaviour is exhibited, and second, how much the group approves of that behaviour. Getting people to wear masks requires social approval. The challenge for the government will be increasing social approval of mask wearing and doing it quickly. The medical historians Dorothy and Roy Porter once wrote that the subtle art of the administratively possible was at the heart of enforcing public health policies that threaten individual freedoms. Where this falls short, or where a policy is a matter of urgency, authorities may resort to using the threat of sanctions to quickly shift people towards perceiving something as a social norm which is why police in England will fine people for non-compliance.

We have a complex relationship with rules and public health in Britain. In the 19th century, when vaccination for smallpox was made compulsory, dissenters writing in 1854 declared that such a measure, unspeakably degrades the freeborn citizen, not only depriving him of liberty of choice in a personal matter, but even denying him the possession of reason. Those laws, which George Bernard Shaw later described as nothing short of attempted murder, were eventually repealed early in the 20th century for a number of reasons, including a belief that they were ineffective, that the side effects were worse than the diseases, and they were an assault on liberty. In much of the rest of the world, mandatory vaccination laws remain in place. Britain was, at least then, less deferential than Walter Bagehot might have anticipated.

Britains response to the introduction of mandatory seatbelts was rather more obedient. Those opposing the law argued, among other things, that it would be unenforceable. Proponents countered that the British were a law-abiding people and the measure would be virtually self-enforcing. And this proved to be the case when it was introduced in 1988. The compliance rate remains around 95%.

Americans, by contrast, responded more slowly. After seatbelt laws were introduced in the US at around the same time as the UK, initially only around 50% of Americans complied with them. Nowadays, compliance is around 90%. This same attitude in the US can be seen with the adoption of masks, where disputes have escalated even leading to a fatal shooting.

So, is Britain a land of feisty liberty-seeking individualism, or a deferential state? Perhaps it is neither. Notions of risk, public health, and adherence to norms, whether mandated through law or not, are playing out differently across the globe. Moving from east Asia, across Europe to the US, we can witness a gradient of mask use. In past times we might have viewed this as a gradient of the tradition of individualism, of non-conformity with social norms, of resistance to state authority. In Britain today we might instead see this as an expression of confusion, of a lack of concern for others, of limited social solidarity.

My sense, for what its worth, is that mask wearing will become more prevalent in England, more acceptable, less embarrassing, and will impact on the epidemiology in ways that are difficult to measure. Outliers will persist because full enforcement is too challenging, but they may be too few to matter. But another norm will persist for some time: our collective confusion about government interventions that should have been far clearer from the outset.

Richard Coker is emeritus professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

See the rest here:

Are the British conformist or libertarian? Our face mask response is telling - The Guardian

Md. on the Hook for $27K in Legal Fees to Conservative Group – Josh Kurtz

The State of Maryland is on the hook for $27,000 in legal fees to a national conservative organization that sued the state three years ago over voter registration rolls.

Its part of a settlement the state reached with the group Judicial Watch after a federal court earlier this year ordered the state to make all voter registration data available to the conservative organization.

Judicial Watch sued Maryland to obtain voter list data in 2017 after alleging that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who were eligible to register. It was part of the conservative groups nationwide campaign to clean up voter rolls.

In August 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen L. Hollander ordered the State Board of Elections to produce the Montgomery County voter data, concluding that Maryland election law is an obstacle to the intent of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Following the court ruling, state elections officials initially provided Judicial Watch with a list of registered voters but one that did not include their dates of birth. On April 17, the court ordered the state to produce the registration list with every voters date of birth.

Maryland politicians fought us tooth and nail to keep Judicial Watch from uncovering the full truth about their dirty election rolls, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in April following the federal court ruling. This latest court victory will allow Judicial Watch to ensure Maryland and Montgomery County are removing voters who have moved or died long ago.

The Maryland Board of Public Works is set to vote Wednesday to confirm the $27,000 settlement payment to Judicial Watch.

At the same meeting, the BPW is scheduled to vote on a proposed $35,600 payment to reimburse attorneys for the Maryland Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Maryland for ballot access litigation against the state.

The third parties sued the state in May to reduce the signature requirement to appear on the November ballot. They argued that the states stay-at-home order and social distancing guidelines since the outbreak of COVID-19 made it impossible for them to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The Greens and Libertarians reached a settlement with the state a month ago cutting in half the petition signature requirement for gaining ballot access for the November general election.

As part of the settlement, the Green Party and its law firm are in line for a $25,000 payment from the state, while the Libertarians and the Center for Competitive Democracy, a national ballot access organizational, will split $10,600.

In a related development, Amber Ivey, an unaffiliated candidate for Congress in the 7th District, announced Monday that she had reached an agreement with state elections officials that would cut her signature requirement for ballot access in half. Initially, the State Board of Elections had said the state ballot access settlement with the Green and Libertarian parties would not apply to independent candidates, but Ivey sued.

I believe that every person has the right to ballot access, she said in a statement. COVID-19 restrictions have made it especially hard for candidates to collect signatures, which interferes with their constitutional right to seek to be on the ballot.

[emailprotected]

More here:

Md. on the Hook for $27K in Legal Fees to Conservative Group - Josh Kurtz

Theres no right to infect – Sarasota Herald-Tribune

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy.

A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones.

Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided with property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's own good but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house without an invitation. Rights extend only so far.

Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scope. That would mean there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. Then the only legitimate government would be no government at all. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazia is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

Go here to read the rest:

Theres no right to infect - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Tune in Tonight for July 21 – Waco Tribune-Herald

Spanish-language TV star Walter Mercado is the subject of Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado, now streaming on Netflix.

Words like superstar dont really capture the figure at the center of Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado, a documentary now streaming on Netflix.

Mercado and his fame are a perfect example of the fluid nature of celebrity in a multicultural universe. For Spanish-speaking television fans of a certain age, Mercado was a giant of the industry, a fixture watched every day for his florid costumes, grand gestures and colorful recitations of the days horoscope. Other American viewers may have never heard of him. Or if they had, dismissed him as a quirk of Spanish-language television, a baroque curiosity, like the recurring Bumblebee Man character on The Simpsons.

As the title implies, Mercado dispensed a philosophy of universal love. And he was much beloved. Fans here include Lin-Manuel Miranda, of Hamilton fame, who describes how Mercado demanded affection and commanded devotion from his extended family.

An aspiring actor from Ponce, Puerto Rico, Mercado was asked one day to read the horoscopes for TV viewers and performed with such authority and apparent fervor that audiences demanded it become his steady gig. He would go on to conquer markets all through Central and South America, transfixing audiences with his ambiguous sexuality, his pantheistic philosophy and many, many costume changes.

We meet Mercados manager, Bill Bakula. Through his business acumen, Mercado appeared in many new countries, and even appeared on these shores on Sally Jessy Raphael and Howard Sterns radio show. But then, around the turn of the century, Bakula would entice Mercado into signing a contract giving Bakula virtual control over his image and likeness, gaining hold over Mercados very identity. Clearly the villain of the piece, Bakula has no problem appearing here and seems to regret nothing.

Original post:

Tune in Tonight for July 21 - Waco Tribune-Herald

Tune in Tonight: A TV stars message of love: Mucho Mucho Amor on Netflix – The Ledger

Words like "superstar" don't really capture the figure at the center of "Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado," a documentary now streaming on Netflix.

Mercado and his fame are a perfect example of the fluid nature of celebrity in a multicultural universe. For Spanish-speaking television fans of a certain age, Mercado was a giant of the industry, a fixture watched every day for his florid costumes, grand gestures and colorful recitations of the day's horoscope. Other American viewers may have never heard of him. Or if they had, dismissed him as a quirk of Spanish-language television, a baroque curiosity, like the recurring Bumblebee Man character on "The Simpsons."

As the title implies, Mercado dispensed a philosophy of universal love. And he was much beloved. Fans here include Lin-Manuel Miranda, of "Hamilton" fame, who describes how Mercado demanded affection and commanded devotion from his extended family.

An aspiring actor from Ponce, Puerto Rico, Mercado was asked one day to read the horoscopes for TV viewers and performed with such authority and apparent fervor that audiences demanded it become his steady gig. He would go on to conquer markets all through Central and South America, transfixing audiences with his ambiguous sexuality, his pantheistic philosophy and many, many costume changes.

We meet Mercado's manager, Bill Bakula. Through his business acumen, Mercado appeared in many new countries, and even appeared on these shores on "Sally Jessy Raphael" and Howard Stern's radio show. But then, around the turn of the century, Bakula would entice Mercado into signing a contract giving Bakula virtual control over his image and likeness, gaining hold over Mercado's very identity. Clearly the villain of the piece, Bakula has no problem appearing here and seems to regret nothing.

In addition to profiling a much-beloved future, "Mucho" explores how Mercado endured as the butt of jokes and how his image clashed with a dominant macho culture and how his blend of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity thrived in a largely Catholic region.

After a two-decade hiatus, due to his bad business deal, Mercado would emerge for a major recognition of his impact on Latin culture and television itself. He would also be embraced by young gay viewers who saw him as a pioneer, proud to be himself in an indifferent, even hostile, world.

"You have to be nice to people, you have to give the best of yourself every moment of your life, and you have to believe in yourself," were his guiding principles. Mercado died last November, shortly after a major museum tribute in his hometown.

There's much to love about "Mucho Mucho Amor." Like a good melodrama (or telenovela), it even provides someone (Bakula) to boo.

"Frontline" (10 p.m., PBS, TV-MA, check local listings) examines the impact of COVID-19 on America's food supplies, and how farmworkers, many of them undocumented, were considered "essential" even as they were most vulnerable to both deportation and infection.

TV-themed DVDs available today include the UMC network's "Behind Her Faith," with episodes starring Essence Atkins, Niecy Nash and other actresses.

TONIGHT'S OTHER HIGHLIGHTS

Simon Cowell and crew reflect on the season so far on "America's Got Talent" (8 p.m., NBC, TV-PG).

Game meats (boar, elk and venison) dictate the menus on "Hell's Kitchen" (8 p.m., Fox, r, TV-14).

An abusive boss may have been murdered by a victim on "FBI" (9 p.m., CBS, r, TV-14).

"Bryan Callen: Complicated Apes" (9 p.m., CW, r, TV-14) offers stand-up observations.

A cult leader puts out a hit on his own family on "FBI: Most Wanted" (10 p.m., CBS, r, TV-14).

The duels continue on "World of Dance" (10 p.m., NBC, TV-PG).

John Quinones hosts "What Would You Do?" (10 p.m., ABC).

CULT CHOICE

The 2015 documentary "Notfilm" (8 p.m., TCM) looks back at efforts to create playwright Samuel Beckett's only film, featuring Buster Keaton in one of his very last filmed roles as well as interviews with Grove Press founder and publishing legend Barney Rosset.

SERIES NOTES

A body puts an airstrip under scrutiny on "NCIS" (8 p.m., CBS, r, TV-PG) ... On two helpings of "Modern Family" (ABC, r, TV-PG): Claire's interview (8 p.m.), Mitch's crisis (8:30 p.m.) ... Henry's difficult decision on "DC's Stargirl" (8 p.m., CW, TV-PG).

Bright undergoes scrutiny on "Prodigal Son" (9 p.m., Fox, r, TV-14) ... Jack's tech side on "black-ish" (9 p.m., ABC, r, TV-PG) ... Stereotypes on "mixed-ish" (9:30 p.m., ABC, r, TV-PG).

LATE NIGHT

Jimmy Fallon welcomes Andy Samberg, Jose Andres and Perfume Genius on "The Tonight Show" (11:35 p.m., NBC) ... Chris Evans, Action Bronson, Elle King and Nikki Glaspie drop by "Late Night With Seth Meyers" (12:35 a.m., NBC).

Link:

Tune in Tonight: A TV stars message of love: Mucho Mucho Amor on Netflix - The Ledger

There Are All Kinds Of Hindus In India: Here Is An Idea Of Who A Hindu Is – Swarajya

I have had passionate discussions with Jain and Sikh friends about intra-Dharmic boundaries with respect to Hinduism, the term.

Ideally, the term should be junked (I say that as a Hindu) and at least for intra-Dharmic purposes, we should all be just Sikh, Jain, Shaivite, Vaishnavite, Brahmo, Buddhist, Charvak etc (and hopefully no castes, but that is another long discussion). But we are where we are.

Now, the term Hindu started as geographical and non-religious, then with invaders who could not be assimilated it became a negative/residual term implying all non-Muslims and non-Christians of India.

But then, and this is the third stage, in the nineteenth century some Sikhs, Brahmos and Buddhists started to see themselves differently and now some Jains, Lingayats etc.

In the twentieth century, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Dr B R Ambedkar (and many others) started to say caste Hindus or what would be called Savarnas. They were accurate, even though in the end Jinnah and Ambedkar had very different ideas about Indian unity.

Ironically in second stage, when Hindu just meant non-Christian and non-Muslim Indians, that word Hindu (which later got ism added to it) became a revolutionary and deeply political term as, despite caste, it presaged kafir/heathen unity for the first time in India and perhaps for the first time in the world in relation to both the proselytising monotheisms.

So far, the pagans and gentiles and mushrik (polytheists) were being defined by others, while these spiritually fluid populations never thought it fit to define theological hard boundaries.

Now when I asked one of my Sikh friends how am I not him and how is he not me, he said Sikhism does not have caste (Sikh society very much does), does not have idol worship (except the beautiful and revered Guru Granth Sahib), and of late because some even say Sikhism is monotheistic or even Indo Abrahamic.

As if Hindus cannot be monotheistic, or monistic, or pantheistic and so on but I get ahead of myself.

Why did the Hindu-Sikh split happen in the late nineteenth century? Partially because the otherwise wonderful Arya Samaj defined Hinduism as back to the vedas, and almost everything else as corruption including idol worship.

It was a difficult time for Indian civilisation, and it was at least a positive if flawed definition of Hinduism but given this Sikh separation made full sense to be fair.

Now in reality, most Hindus do not live by, or even normatively buy the Arya Samaji definition. Most Hindus worship deities or murtis, most still do not read the vedas with any understanding even if in translation (of course many exceptions exist).

Many Hindus from Kerala and some from elsewhere even eat beef, though it is perhaps a recent phenomenon, and I dare anyone to call them not Hindu.

What I am getting at is that, while going by what people call themselves is a perfectly fine way to look at the world, we also have to look at some logical differentiation points. If you do the latter and not the former how do you define Hindus in India? But I get ahead of myself again.

Let us consider the case of Jainism, another beautiful Dharmic panth and my personal favourite provided there was not the reality of war in the world (I am not saying Jain thinkers have not thought of that dichotomy, there is much more nuance just expressing my appreciation).

Some of my Jain friends have told me atheism/agnosticism and strict vegetarianism, for example, are some clear differentiations with respect to the Hindu masses.

Similarly, Brahmos have told me they are not Hindus and so have Buddhists. I have read articles that when pushed on cattle sacrifice some tribals have said they are not Hindu and had it not been for the work of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and their schools even the rest of the North East and much of central India would have been lost to Abrahamicism.

However, what is very clear is that there are all kinds of Hindus in India, even if ratios vary. Vegetarian and meat eating, casteist and anti-caste, idol worshipping and not worshipping anything (even a book symbol), believer and atheist, shramik and charvak, vedic and nastik, monotheist and polytheist, and so on.

As I have often said, if Christianity and Islam would have deeper footprints in China, you would have a larger religion than Hinduism there called Hanism it didnt happen as in the nineteenth century despite a weak state they brutally suppressed almost all Abrahamic imperialistic ideas.

So, if today, one is to give a positive definition of Hinduism that fits, unlike the Arya Samajis one (but they did a lot of good work overall) then it is: A Hindu is a Dharmic who is related to Indian culture or Bharatiya Sanskriti. And who is a Dharmic? Who believes in reciprocity in spiritualism.

That is my definition of who is a Dharmic, and the Indian subset thereof about who a Hindu is. I am sure there maybe faults with these as well, but I will wait for better ones. There are many nuances about reciprocity or mutual respect versus just tolerance but let us move on for now.

So if one goes by this definition of Hinduism, many of the non-Hindu Dharmic claimants, which and who I totally respect (and we are anyway discussing rashtra not rajya) do not stand scrutiny as per this above definition since they are very much part of Indian culture, even often leading figures thereof.

Are these self definitions nonetheless genuinely felt? Absolutely yes, in most cases. Is there some regulatory arbitrage, aka claiming separatism, because of our pseudo secular state that has minorityism enshrined in it with respect to education and place of worship regulations? That too, sadly.

Now the statist-regulatory arbitrage goes back beyond the Nehruvian (Ottoman millet style in the social sphere) state to the colonial one and its various theories of who could fight and who could not. That in term determined who could be employed in the army one of the few stable jobs available in a brutally poor country, and this classification further widened intra-Dharmic religious boundaries.

Note the word Dharma itself is acceptable to Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism though it may not be currently to Zoroastrianism, Shintoism or even neo-paganisms in the West, at least at first brush.

I will finish with one example: as I have often said Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Lion of Punjab, saw himself no differently from any Hindu Ranjit Singh in Oudh say in terms of his spiritual (and not just civilisational) identity.

He after all gave gold to mandirs in Kashi (Banaras) and bequeathed the Kohinoor to Jagannath, a tribal Hindu deity in far off Odisha. Giving gold/diamonds to Hindus so far from his kingdom had limited use at best in terms of politics for power consolidation in Punjab. There were mandirs nearby to patronise which he also did.

So just because some terms are today contested, it does not mean the status quo is final. In any case, we have to get beyond semantics and reach the essence of things whereby we can bring spiritual brotherhood to the whole world while still maintaining cultural and national diversity.

This article first appeared on Medium, and was republished here with permission.

Follow this link:

There Are All Kinds Of Hindus In India: Here Is An Idea Of Who A Hindu Is - Swarajya

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits | Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits – Patheos

Image by Hans Linde via Pixabay, Public Domain Image.

As Pagans, we can merely observe the eight High Days and then move on with our lives. As Devoted Pagans, we can develop a practice that we undertake daily that helps us to build better relationships with the entities, spirits, and allies in our lives.

This is the fifth in a series of Building a Devotional Practice with presentations. The first three dealt with the Land, the Sea, and the Sky. In this offering, we continue our discussion of building devotional practices with the Kindreds. The first of our Kindreds discussions was about building a practice with the Ancestors. This presentation will deal with the Nature Spirits.

I divide the Nature Spirits in to three groups. The first is the spirits of nature that represents creatures that we recognize in this middle world: creatures of the realms, land, sea, and sky. This would include mammals, inspects, fish, birds, etc. These entities have names that everyone understands.

These creatures have correspondences that most people are aware of. Sharks are aggressive, foxes are wily, doves are peaceful, and cats are inscrutable. Some of these animals may be allies of ours. If they are allies, they may exhibit the kind of attributes we come to expect. By the same token, they may also exhibit qualities that are particular to our relationship with them.

The second group of Nature Spirits are the spirits of place. These are not creatures, but elements in nature that have special or perhaps magical qualities that one would NOT necessarily associate with them. For example, some rivers in the ancient world were revered as sacred, like the Danube or the Seine. One may also discover places in nature that feel differently that others, that feel sacred, or holy, or even alive and sentient.

Think about some of the rivers that you are familiar with: do they feel magical or are they just rivers? Think of other bodies of water that have caused a feel of awe or presence in you: these are the spirits in nature that I am talking about, all contained in the category of Nature Spirits. This kind of feel may include glades or canyons or long stretches of sky. If it feels holy or sentient or special, I would trust your intuition.

The final group of nature spirits are imaginary creatures. These are gnomes or sylphs or dryads or yeti, creatures that you have a connection to but are not generally acknowledged as existing in the real world. In the work that you do, these creatures may call to you and if they do, I would respond to them. Just because a unicorn may not exist in the real world, they may very well exist in your magical or vital world

What can the Nature Spirits bring to our lives and our practice? I believe that the one thing that the Nature Spirits can help us with is to give us an understanding of the cycles in the world and in our lives. The Nature Spirits, like us, live within the solar and lunar cycles that affect this world, our planet. While we as humans and many of these creatures live longer that a single solar cycle, we all take part in the cycles of renewal: birth and rebirth, emergence from our slumber, growth, flourish, harvest, decline, death and decay.

Some of the cycles do not mean actual events: death and decay may just refer to times where our lives slow down to reflect the natural world around us. Emergence may describe the seed emerging from the earth, but it may also refer to a time in our lives when we break through the situations we have found ourselves in for some time. For spirits of place, they teach us of the specialness of those places and what those locations mean in our lives. For imaginary creatures, they have lessons to teach us as well. After all, an imaginary creature can be a liminal entity as well.

How do we build a relationship with the Nature Spirits? In addition, where do we build a relationship with them? I think the best place for any kind of devotional is at an altar or shrine. For the Nature Spirits, this altar is best found in nature.

One must be careful to not be too literal. If one wishes to build an altar to wolves, one does not have to build one in a wolves den. The idea is to build an altar or shrine to the wolves not among the wolves. While many of us would consider that nature is outside, it is not exclusively outside.

For altars in nature, I think that it is best to build incidental altars, or altars that are not permanent. These are called incidental because they are often made with items found on hand, at or around the location where they are built.

I often look for three things in an incidental altar: a tree, especially one that has an indentation in it which can act as a well, and a fire analog. What exactly is a fire analog? This is something that represents a fire without being an open flame. My favourite choice of items for this is a red stone, like red jasper. Red jasper is red, like the sun, like the fire. Given a tree, an indentation as the well, and a red jasper, the hallows are all present.

For the pantheists in the crowd, everywhere and anywhere is the altar or sacred place.

What if the recognition you wish to bestow doesnt require the presence of hallows? You may have a tree, a field of flowers, a stump, a rabbit warren, or any of several things which you feel are holy or sacred. I would recommend making offerings to that item and make an offering that is of value to that location. Yet what offerings should one make?

Water is the perfect offering in nature. If any of the objects of your devotion are living creatures, they will appreciate and benefit from water. Should the object of the devotion is water or lives in water, I would recommend an offering that is left at the side of a waterway or body of water. If the entity to which you wish to leave an offering is imaginary, use the imagination to find a perfect offering. In fact, ask the entity what offering it would prefer.

How does one do this? Sit, stand, or lay next to the place where you choose to make an offering. Listen to the world around you. Be still and listen. Close your eyes. After some time, you will feel a rhythm around you, the sounds of the place. Open yourself up as your immerse yourself into the sound and see what impressions come your way. Some may be subtle; some may be very direct and clear. Trust your intuition; trust yourself.

You may find that a good offering is a poem or a prayer. It may be a song or a drawing. It may be something drawn in the dirt. Open your senses so that you can receive impressions from the world around you. Listen and learn. As you spend more time in your sacred place, with your sacred allies, you will come to a greater understanding of them. They will better understand you.

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits helps us to understand and cherish those who share this middle realm with us. These spirits share the cycles of the year and the dance of the seasons with us, yet sometimes, our cycles may be much longer than the usual annual cycles in our world.

We see the tree, most often, as the symbol of the Nature Spirits. It spans the worlds, with roots that sink deep into the earth, past the Ancestors to the dark waters below, and branches which reach up to the heavens, into the Sky, to touch the Shining Ones. Between the world of the Ancestors below and the realm of the sky and the Shining Ones above, we, in the middle realm, give offerings and thanks.

Read more here:

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits | Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits - Patheos

We’ve Reached Peak Libertarianism And It’s Literally Killing Us – The National Memo

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

We have now reached peak Libertarianism, and this bizarre experiment that has been promoted by the billionaire class for over 40 years is literally killing us.

Back in the years before Reagan, a real estate lobbying group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) came up with the idea of creating a political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money. The party would give them ideological and political cover, and they developed an elaborate theology around it.

It was called the Libertarian Party, and their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, that that would benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army and a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform was to privatize the Post Office, shut down all public schools, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, end food stamps and all other forms of "welfare," deregulate all corporate oversight, and sell off much of the federal government's land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Since then, Libertarian billionaires and right-wing media have been working hard to get Americans to agree with Ronald Reagan's statement from his first inaugural address that, "[G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

And Trump is getting us there now.

Every federal agency of any consequence is now run by a lobbyist or former industry insider.

The Labor Department is trying to destroy organized labor; the Interior Department is selling off our public lands; the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting deadly pesticides and allowing more and more pollution; the Federal Communications Commission is dancing to the tune of giant telecom companies; the Education Department is actively working to shut down and privatize our public school systems; the US Department of Agriculture is shutting down food inspections; the Defense Department is run by a former weapons lobbyist; even the IRS and Social Security agencies have been gutted, with tens of thousands of their employees offered early retirement or laid off so that very, very wealthy people are no longer being audited and the wait time for a Social Security disability claim is now over two years.

The guy Trump put in charge of the Postal Service is actively destroying the post office, and the bonus for Trump might be that this will throw a huge monkey wrench in any effort to vote by mail in November.

Trump has removed the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and fossil fuel lobbyists now control America's response to global warming.

Our nation's response to the coronavirus has been turned over to private testing and drug companies, and the Trump administration refuses to implement any official government policy, with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar saying that it's all up to "individual responsibility."

The result is more than 140,000 dead Americans and 3 million infected, with many fearing for their lives.

While the Libertarian ideas and policies promoted by that real estate lobbying group that invented the Libertarian Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich, it's killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put America back together after the Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiest middle class in the history of the world at the time.

Now, 40 years of libertarian Reaganomics have gutted the middle class, made a handful of oligarchs wealthier than anybody in the history of the world, and brought an entire generation of hustlers and grifters into public office via the GOP.

When America was still coasting on FDR's success in rebuilding our government and institutions, nobody took very seriously the crackpot efforts to tear it all down.

Now that they've had 40 years to make their project work, we're hitting peak Libertarianism and it's tearing our country apart, pitting Americans against each other, and literally killing hundreds of people every day.

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the "greed is good" ideology of Libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 40 years of libertarian Reaganism has done to this country.

Pass it on.

Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and the author of The Hidden History of American Oligarchy and more than 30 other books in print. His most recent project is a science podcast called The Science Revolution. He is a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute.

See the rest here:

We've Reached Peak Libertarianism And It's Literally Killing Us - The National Memo

Why Boris Johnson is having to sacrifice his libertarian values in the battle against coronavirus – Telegraph.co.uk

After Emmanuel Macron announced that masks must soon be worn in all enclosed spaces in France, speculation is mounting that Britain will inevitably follow suit.

But will lifelong libertarian Mr Johnson forced by the global pandemic to become uncharacteristically authoritarian really insist on such a draconian measure?While it is tempting to presume that the answer to that question will depend on the science, in reality to coin the Clintonesque catchphrase it's about the economy, stupid.

Although there is some emerging scientific evidenceto suggest that face coverings not only help stop transmission but also protect the wearer, the decision is being driven by fiscal, rather than health concerns.

As Matt Hancock admitted in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Government wants to "make shoppers feel even more confident about returning to the High Street".

Quoting Mike Cherry, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Health Secretary said: "Small businesses know that mandatory face coverings have a role to play in the nation's recovery, both physically and financially."

See original here:

Why Boris Johnson is having to sacrifice his libertarian values in the battle against coronavirus - Telegraph.co.uk

Tesla Model 3 giveaway used to encourage voting in Georgian election – Teslarati

The Libertarian Party in the Eurasian country of Georgia is planning to give out Tesla Model 3 vehicle to encourage voters to participate in the 2020 Parliamentary Elections.

The Party, known as Girchi, stated that it would give out several Tesla Model 3 vehicles. The number of cars depends on how many votes the Girchi party receives, which will consequently provide the group with funding that will coincide with the number of votes. The more votes the Party gets, the more funding the Party will receive.

Girchi has launched a nationwide raffle to encourage all registered voters across every Party or political affiliation to vote.

According to Girchis website, the Partys supporters state that the idea has two purposes: to increase voter turnout on election day, and to stage a protest against the public funding of political parties.

Girchi sees voter turnout as the key to defeating the current ruling party, which is called the Georgian Dream.

Zurab Girchi Japaridze, one of the leaders of the Libertarian sector, says that once the party is elected into the new Parliament, it will introduce a new bill that will abolish laws that sanction any public funding for political parties.

We believe that each politician and political party shall be financed only by their respective supporters and voters, Japaridze said. Upon election into the new Parliament, Girchi will launch a bill to this effect and until it is adopted, the Party will keep purchasing Tesla cars with the public funding allocated for Girchi annually and will award them to the random voters with a raffle-ticket who prove that they have voted on 31 October 2020.

Japaridze also added that the Tesla giveaway should appeal to the youth in the country, which could encourage younger people to become more involved in the political sector.

We are trying to appeal specifically to the youth so that more young people become interested in the politics and take active part in shaping it for the betterment of their own future, he said.

The mass appeal of Teslas electric vehicles and the companys sustainable mission has spread all across the world. The inclusion of the Model 3 in the race for Georgias Parliament shows the companys products are so appealing that they may entice people to participate in the election that their country is holding later this year.

The overall appeal of Teslas electric cars is becoming a worldwide sensation. It is unknown how many people will walk away from the election with a Tesla vehicle. Still, every car that goes into the hands of a voter is another step toward the ultimate goal of worldwide sustainability.

Go here to read the rest:

Tesla Model 3 giveaway used to encourage voting in Georgian election - Teslarati

Five residents in the running for three seats on Williams City Council – Grand Canyon News

The Williams-Grand Canyon News gave the five Williams City Council candidates an opportunity to introduce themselves and explain their positions on important issues facing Williams.

Each candidate was given the same questions. Individual Q & A's can be found by clicking on each candidate's name.

Michael Cowen, candidate for council.

Frank McNelly, candidate for council.

Dawn Trapp, candidate for council.

Michael Vasquez, candidate for council.

Craig Fritsinger, candidate for council.

The primary election takes place Aug. 4. Early voting for the primary election started July 8.

The Coconino County Elections office mailed out over 44,600 early ballots to voters on the permanent early voting list (PEVL) and those who have requested a single election early ballot for the primary election.

Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen urges all Coconino County registered voters to request an early ballot be mailed to them, or to vote early in person at one of the early voting locations.

Early voting is the safest method for our voters, poll workers and election staff members during this COVID 19 pandemic, Hansen said.

Hansen said early voters can decide how they want to return their voted early ballot: by mail; dropping it off in a ballot drop box or at an early voting location or dropping it off at any polling location in the county on Election Day.

Recently, there has been a lot of misinformation about fraud associated with early voting. This is just not true, Hansen said. We have numerous safeguards and procedures in place that would catch anyone trying to cast fraudulent early ballots.

Ballots can be turned in at Williams City Hall, 113 S. 1 Street in Williams, Monday - Friday from 7:30 am 5 p.m.

The Aug. 4 primary election is a partisan primary, meaning voters on the PEVL who are registered with a recognized political party are being mailed an early ballot for the political party indicated on their voter registration form. Recognized political parties in Arizona for the 2020 elections are Democratic, Republican and Libertarian.

Voters on the PEVL who are registered as Independent, with no party affiliation, or an unrecognized political party, were sent a notice at the end of May informing them that they should return the notice indicating which political party ballot they want to receive. If this notice was not returned, the Elections Office cannot mail the voter an early ballot until they tell the Elections Office what party ballot they want to receive. Independent and unaffiliated voters who are on the PEVL and did not return their notice may call the Elections Office to request the specific party ballot, or do so online at http://www.coconino.az.gov/elections, select Early Ballot Request.

The Libertarian Party has a closed primary, which means only early voters registered as Libertarian will be mailed a Libertarian ballot. Independent and unaffiliated voters may not request a Libertarian ballot.

All registered voters, not on the PEVL, may request an early ballot for the primary by calling the Elections Office; sending a written request to Coconino County Elections Office, 110 E. Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001; or submitting an on-line request at http://www.coconino.az.gov/elections and clicking on Early Ballot Request.

The deadline to request an early ballot be mailed is July 24.

Early Voting is also available in person at several locations throughout the county.

To see the list of early voting locations and their office hours go to http://www.coconino.az.gov/elections, select Early Voting Locations.

More information is available from the Elections Office at (928) 679-7860 or toll-free at 800-793-6181.

Read the original post:

Five residents in the running for three seats on Williams City Council - Grand Canyon News

Kmele Foster on Why He Opposes Cancel Culture and the Anti-Capitalist Side of Black Lives Matter – Reason

Every week brings more people being censured, fired, or pushed to resign for some alleged instance of racism or sexism. Last week Harper'spublished a controversial letter signed by more than 150 people, including Salman Rusdie, J.K. Rowling, and Noam Chomsky, that warned "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted."

One of the signatories of that letter was Kmele Foster, the co-founder of Freethink, a media company that showcases social and technological innovations; a co-host of the Fifth Column podcast; and an outspoken libertarian critic of Black Lives Matter, cancel culture, and political orthodoxy.

In this wide-ranging interview, Foster explains why he signed the Harper's letter, why he thinks that racism is not the primary factor for most African Americans' success or failure, and why libertarians need to be pushing individualism now more than ever.

Produced by Ian Keyser. Intro by John Osterhoudt.

Photo Credit: Kmele Foster, Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons; James Bennet, Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom; Curator, Drew Altizer/Sipa USA/Newscom; Bari Weiss, Alberto E. Tamargo/Sipa USA/Newscom; Foster and Stossel, Gage Skidmore

Continued here:

Kmele Foster on Why He Opposes Cancel Culture and the Anti-Capitalist Side of Black Lives Matter - Reason

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Is Suing Atlanta’s Mayor Over the City’s Mask Mandate. Good. – Reason

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has filed a lawsuit against Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and members of Atlanta's City Council. The suit aims to prevent the city from enforcing mask requirements or rolling back the state's reopening phases.

The lawsuit comes just a day after the Republican governor issued an executive order suspending local governments' face covering requirements, a policy some 15 localities had adopted. The governor's own COVID-19 executive orders have recommended, but do not require, masks to be worn.

"This lawsuit is on behalf of the Atlanta business owners and their hardworking employees who are struggling to survive during these difficult times," tweeted Kemp. "These men and women are doing their very best to put food on the table for their families while local elected officials shutter businesses and undermine economic growth."

"3,104 Georgians have died and I and my family are amongst the [106,000] who have tested positive for COVID-19," Bottoms shot back. (The Democratic mayor announced last week that she had tested positive for the coronavirus.) "A better use of tax payer money would be to expand testing and contact tracing."

In addition to targeting the mask mandate, Kemp's lawsuit accuses Bottoms of telling the Atlanta Police Department not to enforce the state's ban on gatherings of more than 50 people.

The governor's attempts to curtail a locality's authority sparked a wave of national criticism from liberalsas well as from Congress' only Libertarian congressman, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan.

Kemp's emergency COVID-19 orders include a prohibition on local governments issuing rules that are inconsistent with the ones coming from state authorities. His latest July 15 executive order also explicitly suspends any face mandates "to the extent they are more restrictive" than the governor's order.

Bottoms' most recent mask mandateAtlanta law sunsets emergency orders every 72 hours, requiring them to be reissuedacknowledges this suspension. But the order argues that only a prohibition on wearing masks should be considered "more restrictive." The city's requirement to wear a mask, Bottoms' order asserts, isn't in fact a restriction on mask-wearing and therefore doesn't conflict with the governor's order.

This logic is a little wacky. A requirement to wear a mask in public entails a prohibition on not wearing a mask. That prohibition is clearly more restrictive than Kemp's voluntary guidance. As a matter of law, Kemp has the better argument.

That said, Kemp is clearly playing politics as well. The fact that he is suing to stop Atlanta's mandate, but not those of the other 14 Georgia cities with similar requirements, suggests this lawsuit is more about a political rivalry between the state's Republican governor and the Democratic mayor of its largest city than anything else.

At the same time, Bottoms appears happy to exacerbate this conflict by renewing her city's mask mandate in the face of an explicit state prohibition of these policies, and by using some really tortured reasoning to justify her action.

Other mayors are muddying things further by trying to make the issue about the wisdom of wearing a mask, not whether local governments have the power to require them. See, for instance, this tweet from Savannah Mayor Van Johnson:

Of course, masks would still be available. The question is whether people will be forced to wear them.

What is a libertarian to make of all this?

There is a conceivable libertarian argument for masking requirements, on the grounds that they do more to prevent the wearer from infecting other people than from being infected themselves. Under this view, an unmasked person could be considered a walking nuisance whose behavior is the legitimate subject of regulation. But whether or not you accept this argument,these mask mandates apply to people regardless of whether they are infected and, thus, regardless of whether they pose a risk to others.

Other libertarians, such as Amash, might think that state governments should leave it to localities to come up with their own response to COVID-19. The severity of the pandemic can vary wildly within states, meaning a policy that's necessary for one city is inappropriate in another. Kemp's efforts to combat the pandemic, while being much less restrictive than other governors', have been among the most centralized.

Still, there's nothing inherently unlibertarian about state governments preempting unjust or unwise local laws. Few libertarians object to state prohibitions on local income taxes or rent control ordinances, for instance.

People should also be mindful of the fact that mask mandates come with serious punishments attached. Savannah's mask requirement comes with a $500 fine (although Johnson did tell the Associated Press that violators would be offered a free face covering first). Atlanta's laws make it a misdemeanor to violate the mayor's emergency orders, meaning someone could potentially be hit with a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail for not wearing a mask in public.

We, as a country, just witnessed two months of protests predicated on the idea that police are often unnecessarily punitive and violent when enforcing the law. That would include the Atlanta Police Department, whose officers have recently been involved in a number of high-profile, highly controversial uses of force. This very same police department that would be expected to enforce the city's masking requirement.

Meanwhile, private partiesincluding such major retailers as Walmart, Target, Starbucks, and CVSare requiring customers to wear masks. This will help keep shoppers safe without the threat of fines and jail time.

Kemp's lawsuit is obviously politically motivated. But the governor seems to have both liberty and the law on his side.

More:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Is Suing Atlanta's Mayor Over the City's Mask Mandate. Good. - Reason

Citizens, Business Owners Gather to Protest Guyton Mask Mandate – All On Georgia

Citizens and business owners gathered in the City of Guyton Saturday to protest the mayor and councils recent approval of an ordinance in conflict with Governor Kemps Executive Order requiring the use of face covering in all indoor and outdoor public spaces.

The ordinance even leaves room for enforcement in a home if people other than those who are members of the household are present and not wearing face coverings.

The City of Guyton in South Georgias Effingham County approved an emergency ordinance related to COVID-19 Thursday evening just one day after Governor Brian Kemp barred local governments once again from taking action more or less restrictive than any state order on the coronavirus pandemic response and the same day Kemp announced he would sue the City of Atlanta over their mask mandate.

The ordinance in Guyton is among the strictest in the state and mandates a number of more restrictive precautions, including face coverings in any building or outdoor space frequented by the public within the city limits. The ordinance requires businesses to mandate masks for patrons, regardless of business type.

Saturdays protest was organized Friday by the Libertarian Party of Savannah and advertised mostly on social media. In the event description, the party said:

Mayor Russ Deen (City of Guyton)

Meeting in Guyton to protest the tyranny of Mayor Russ Deen and the City Council. They passed a face mask ordinance last night despite HUGE opposition from nearly every single speaker who weighed in at the city council meeting, myself included.

As many know this city ordinance is in direct violation of Governor Kemps latest Executive Order, which explicitly states that cities and local municipalities can NOT mandate more or less than his Exec Order. He has filed lawsuit against Atlanta for overstepping their boundaries and infringing on civil rights of its citizens.

We want to show the Mayor and City Council that we DO NOT support mandatory masks in the city. By removing our choice they have forced our hand!!This ordinance will unjustly punish the small businesses in Guyton that do not comply!!

This is a peaceful demonstration and social distancing is encouraged.

Any support would be appreciated! Support the free citizens of Guyton and its Small Businesses rights to CHOICE!

A number of people gathered in the heat at the caboose in Guyton Saturday just after noon to express their dissatisfaction with the ordinance. The sign waver were greeted by horn honking and several thumbs up signs. In an hour-long period, only one driver honked to give a thumbs down with another negative gesture.

While officers drove by on several occasions, no one from the Guyton Police Department addressed any of the protesters some of whom were masked on Saturday. Guyton citizens, however, began posting on social media Sunday morning about their experiences being stopped by GPD and the officers who collected their information. AllOnGeorgia has drafted and sent an Open Records Request for information pertaining to this matter.

In addition to the face coverings, the ordinance moves the city backward from state re-opening measures, including:

Persons who violate the order would be subject to upwards of $1,000 in civil fines.

The ordinance remains in effect until August 12 unless otherwise extended by the Council and children under 10 are exempt entirely. Exceptions are also outline for persons who are eating, smoking, or drinking, in personal vehicles, in their residence, and in a handful of other circumstances.

You can read the ordinance below.

See more here:

Citizens, Business Owners Gather to Protest Guyton Mask Mandate - All On Georgia

Mixed mask messaging as Tories tussle with their libertarian principles – Telegraph.co.uk

Naturally, the confusion has sparked rumours of a Cabinet split although, according to one Cabinet minister, the prevarication has largely been down to Tories "wrestling with their own libertarian principles" rather than each other.

"If you're a Tory and believe in the old adage 'trust the people', then you do have to think carefully about these things," the minister said. "It's easy if youre a socialist. It's mother's milk to that lot they want as much state intervention as possible, but Conservatives do tend to see mandation as a last resort."

With the scientific evidence around the effectiveness of face masks still inconclusive, it seems the decision has been prompted by economic rather than health concerns. As one Department of Health source put it: "It's more of a public confidence thing."

The Cabinet minister agreed, saying: "Wearing a face covering is an act of altruism, really. It's about preventing the spread rather than stopping yourself from getting it. What we are trying to do is get the balance right between encouraging people to feel safer when they are out shopping, and not putting people off shopping altogether."

Ministers are said to be concerned that people are still behaving "over-cautiously" despite the recent lifting of restrictions.Car usage is only at around 70 per cent of its pre-coronavirus level despite public transport running well below capacity.

"You'd have thought it would be over 100 per cent if people aren't using trains and buses," the minister added. "What that tells us is that a lot of people are not only continuing to work at home, but also to stay at home."

It seems that, when the Government's messaging becomes muddled, there is no masking the original and most effective coronavirus slogan of them all.

Read more:

Mixed mask messaging as Tories tussle with their libertarian principles - Telegraph.co.uk

Commentary: Mask wearing: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others – Yahoo! Voices

I dont need a mask! declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bars policy. A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting peoples liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call faux libertarianism, a deformation of the classic liberal theory known as libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones. Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agents own good but rather appeals to peoples responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Story continues

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone elses house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether or not the woman who said she didnt need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scopes, that ones right to freedom of association, for example, means a right to get together with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, even if doing so endangers others. If liberty rights had unlimited scopes, then there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. That means that, if faux libertarianism were correct, then the only legitimate government would be no government at all, which is to say anarchy as opposed to civil society. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

Unlike libertarianism, which is a coherent outlook, faux libertarianism refutes itself by destroying any intelligible basis for rights to life, liberty, and property. I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic at various levels. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

ABOUT THE WRITER

David DeGrazia (ddd@gwu.edu) is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

2020 The Baltimore Sun

Visit The Baltimore Sun at http://www.baltimoresun.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Here is the original post:

Commentary: Mask wearing: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others - Yahoo! Voices

The nation in brief – Arkansas Online

Complaint filed over Goya endorsement

WASHINGTON -- A group has filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics over Ivanka Trump's social media endorsement of Goya Foods Inc., saying the photo violated government rules.

President Donald Trump's daughter, a senior White House adviser, posted a photo of herself holding a can of the company's black beans after some liberal groups called for a boycott of the company's products because Goya Chief Executive Officer Robert Unanue said last week that the country was "truly blessed" to have Trump as its leader.

Ivanka Trump's post was a violation of federal ethics regulations prohibiting employees from endorsing "any product, service or enterprise," the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argued in its complaint, which was released on Friday.

The group previously raised concern over White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, who endorsed Ivanka Trump's clothing line during remarks in the White House briefing room.

"This is not just about beans; it's another example of a disturbing pattern of this administration acting to benefit the businesses of the president's supporters," Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the ethics group, said.

The White House has said it's not worried about ethics concerns raised by the incident.

"This tweet was made in her personal capacity voicing her personal support," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement. "This complaint is another politically-motivated, baseless attack from an organization with a vendetta against all of the administration."

Rep. Amash won't run for reelection

LANSING, Mich. -- U.S. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a former Republican who backed the impeachment of President Donald Trump, is officially not running for reelection.

Amash had suspended his congressional campaign in February and later explored seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for president. Thursday was Michigan's deadline to run as an independent, though some were also holding out hope he might seek the Libertarians' nomination at a state convention Saturday.

"I love representing our community in Congress. I always will," Amash tweeted. "This is my choice, but I'm still going to miss it."

Amash, 40, initially became an independent a year ago after becoming disenchanted with partisan politics and being the lone House Republican to support an impeachment inquiry. He was one of the founding members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

He has represented Michigan's 3rd Congressional District in the western part of the state since 2011.

Data: Felony pot arrests down in state

LOS ANGELES -- The number of felony marijuana arrests in California continued to decline in 2019 in the age of legalization, but another trend remained unchanged: those arrests fell disproportionately on Hispanics and Blacks, state data showed.

The California Department of Justice, in an annual snapshot of crime rates in the nation's most populous state released earlier this month, said there were 1,181 felony cannabis arrests last year, down from 1,617 in 2018, the first year of broad legalization. That represents a 27% decline.

According to a breakdown of demographic data, Hispanics accounted for nearly 42% of those arrests, followed by Blacks, at 22%, with whites at 21%. Other groups accounted for the remainder.

The overall number of arrests declined last year, but "the harassment went up," Donnie Anderson, co-founder of the cannabis trade group California Minority Alliance, said in an email.

Ellen Komp, deputy director of the California arm of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, known as NORML, said Thursday that the figures point to the difficulty many Hispanics and Blacks have had entering the legal market, which comes with hefty investment costs, taxes and regulatory fees.

[CORONAVIRUS: Click here for our complete coverage arkansasonline.com/coronavirus]

Fund to aid struggling literary groups

NEW YORK -- Using a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, three major literary arts nonprofits have teamed to administer $3.5 million for organizations struggling during the coronavirus pandemic.

Along with the Mellon foundation, the Academy of American Poets, the Community of Literary Magazines and Presses and the National Book Foundation announced Friday that they had formed the Literary Arts Emergency Fund. The nonprofits will distribute one-time grants ranging from $5,000 to $50,000, with the application process running from Friday through Aug. 7.

The fund's administrators noted a recent survey by the nonprofit Americans for the Arts that found 253 literary organizations had reported losses of more than $7.2 million because of the virus, often because of canceled events, such as writers unable to go into classrooms or attend festivals, as well as a drop in fellowships.

"Many of these organizations are small, wondering what's going top happen to them and what it feels like when there seems no help is coming," National Book Foundation Executive Director Lisa Lucas said

Go here to see the original:

The nation in brief - Arkansas Online

How the fight for third party candidates has reached Penn State – The Daily Collegian Online

With the 2020 presidential election nearing, voters may have only heard of Republican incumbent President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

However, there is another person in the race: Libertarian Party candidate Dr. Jo Jorgensen.

At Penn State, one student is trying to raise awareness about Jorgensens campaign.

Timothy Tierney, the founder of Penn State for Jo Jorgensen, said although his group isnt an official student registered organization yet, he hopes other students will join the cause.

Tierney (junior-finance)thinks voters should be knowledgeable about all candidates, regardless of their political preference. Thats partially why hes volunteering on a national level to get students involved with Jorgensens campaign.

I think that the best form of democracy is to inform the voter on every candidate possible, Tierney said.

Tierney has heard many voters say, for example, that theyre voting for Biden only because they dont want to vote for Trump, even if they dont necessarily agree with Bidens policies.

I want to make it so that everyone is voting for a candidate, not against someone else, Tierney said. I think the first way to do that is to try to educate the populace about [Jorgensen].

One of Jorgensens biggest policy proposals is to bring American soldiers home from the numerous countries in which theyre stationed, according to Tierney and Joel Getz, the Jorgensen campaigns Pennsylvania social media manager.

With college students in mind, Jorgensen wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education because higher education and its cost havent improved after 40 years of operation, according to Tierney.

RELATED

On the Fourth of July, Kanye West announced via Twitter that he would be running for preside

We want everyone to have access to the education that they want, and we want it to be at as low of a cost as possible, Tierney said.

He added that Jorgensen supports demilitarizing the police, something he said is prudent to the Penn State and State College communities.

Getz said the death of Osaze Osagie a 29-year-old Black State College resident with autism and schizophrenia who was fatally shot by a State College Police officer in March 2019 is just one example of why Jorgensen wants to reform Americas law enforcement system.

[Police officers] do face life and death situations, but maybe with different or more training, more of those [situations] could end with life and not death, Getz said.

Jorgensen also wants to make healthcare more affordable, combat poverty and remove quotas on the number of immigrants allowed into the country, according to her campaign website.

Today's students bring a fresh perspective to politics, Jorgensen said in an email from her campaigns media director. They remind us of the need to address the issues they're most concerned about, such as crushing student debt, the environment and jobs.

While her name wont appear on the ballot in all 50 states, Jorgensens campaign in Pennsylvania has hope.

Recently, the commonwealths Democratic leadership ruled that the Libertarian Party needs 5,000 physical signatures within a few weeks in order for Jorgensen to be included on its ballots.

However, Getz said that due to the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing guidelines, this has been difficult to achieve.

Getz said the campaign was hopeful that ballot requirements would be waived or reduced, or that Pennsylvania would allow for online petition signing, as some states have done.

However, Getz said the campaign was shot down during a virtual court hearing.

RELATED

Since Hamilton debuted on Broadway in 2015, the musical has grown an almost cult-like follow

The whole thing has been hypocritical at best and seemingly corrupt at worst, Getz said. If I hadnt lived here my whole life and I wasnt so interested in politics, it would probably make my head explode. Its kind of par for the course, even as infuriating as it is.

Sam Robb, the campaigns Pennsylvania coordinator, said the campaign is working with an army of volunteers to appear on the ballot.

This is a team effort. Just as our local Libertarian Party candidates are supporting Jo, our Jorgensen volunteers are working hard to support them in return, Robb said via email. It's not going to be easy, but we will not allow ourselves to be defeated.

In addition to the fight to get on the ballot, there is another battle at hand for the campaign.

Tierney hears many people say their vote wont count if they vote for a third-party candidate, and he believes this is because voters are stuck in a duopoly mindset.

Dr. Amy Sentementes, an assistant teaching professor of political science at Penn State, said this can largely be attributed to voters assumptions that a third-party candidate doesnt have a chance to win an election.

Therefore, she said, there is less of an incentive to vote for a candidate whose political views are similar to voters, and more of an incentive to vote for the candidate who actually has a chance to win.

We would have to change our electoral system in order to prevent this way of thinking, Sentementes said via email. Duverger's Law states that single-member electoral districts with plurality voting will produce a two-party system. We would have to adopt multimember districts and proportional representation in order to change this way of thinking.

Sentementes doesnt think well see a third-party candidate elected in this lifetime, but acknowledged that third parties can still influence Republican and Democratic candidates political agendas.

If the major parties anticipate prospective voters may vote third party or find the third party platform appealing, they could co-opt that platform without losing voters, Sentementes said.

Getz strongly believes that if elected, Jorgensen will work to serve all Americans.

She believes in all of your freedoms, all of the time, for everyone not when its convenient, not only when she agrees with them and not only when its politically advantageous, Getz said.

Tierney echoed Getzs sentiments.

Hopefully Penn State students will be convinced that Jo is the right person to lead this country in 2020, Tierney said.

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

See the original post:

How the fight for third party candidates has reached Penn State - The Daily Collegian Online

No, wearing a face mask isn’t a threat to your freedom – TheArticle

Since the governments announcement that facemasks will soon become compulsory in all shops and supermarkets there has been an astounding level of backlash. The two main schools of thought seem to stem from either a) its anti-libertarian to impose controls like this or b) its harder to communicate with a mask on. The former is fundamentally incorrect and the latter is wilfully nave.

Indeed, fellow contributor to this site Sean Walsh has managed to produce a beautifully well-written article on the value of face to face interaction and human understanding. I dont refute the sentiment of it at all, but to pretend this pandemic is nothing to fear and the freedom to make facial expressions matters more than peoples lives is wrong.

Yes, Covid-19 has caused a major state intervention into the daily lives of everyone in the UK, and yes, I understand why people dont like this. There are many, me included, who fundamentally dislike the idea of being told what we can and cannot do by the state. Its not unreasonable to believe that we should be able to exercise individual freedoms, but sometimes circumstances have to overtake dogma.

The contention that some people dont feel the need to protect themselves inside a shop, supermarket or train is not a libertarian argument its a selfish one.

The purpose of a mask is not just to protect yourself, but to ensure that the chances of everyone in an enclosed space getting infected is reduced. For those who are still convinced that this is a government assault on individual liberty, try comparing your liberties to those of everyone else.

While wearing a mask, you are completely capable of doing basic daily tasks, such as going inside a shop, getting on a train and generally getting on with your daily life. Now lets say that you have any of the conditions that make you significantly more vulnerable to Covid. The risk of walking into shops with people coughing, sneezing and generally breathing all over each other suddenly becomes a daily gamble with your health. By that libertarian refusal to adhere to basic government guidelines the opportunities for so many others are significantly curtailed. A decision by the minority who see no direct threat to themselves, exposes the vulnerable to whatever people breathe on them. They then face the question of whether to even go outside their home. This doesnt even cover those working in the shops who often cant afford not to work, no matter the risks.

The idea that wearing a scrap of cloth across the lower-half of the face that allows for a full range of speech and movement, doesnt prohibit anyone from doing anything or going anywhere, is a threat to their civil liberties is laughable. The idea that the fit and healthy are willing to endanger others on the tenuous grounds of libertarianism is deadly serious.

Go here to see the original:

No, wearing a face mask isn't a threat to your freedom - TheArticle