Guest: Experience, the oracle of truth | News, Sports, Jobs – Daily Herald

Often, Americans speak of the US Constitution as if it is the fountain from which political truth originates. Even those who fight stridently for constitutional orthodoxy sometimes forget that the US Constitution and the rest of Americas founding documents were just as much a climax of political thought as they were a beginning.

Federalism is one of the few political mechanisms that benefit everyone.

By federalism, I mean the political construct we call the American Republic, a constitutional union of sovereign states under a limited national government whose power and authority are divided into separate and co-equal branches. This complicated and unique form of government was not drawn up at a whim.

The Federalist Papers, essays that argued for the adoption of the US Constitution after the Revolutionary War,said it this way: Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. In plainer terms, we canquote Jonah Goldberg, The founders put on paper what history had ratified by experience.

It is easy to be naturally conservative of the founding vision, accept it under its own terms, recognize that it has worked, and desire to maintain its efficacy. It is more complicated and requires deeper learning and understanding to be consciously conservative of the founding vision and to comprehend the origins of that vision. But in this more difficult path lies a more effective way to maintain that founding vision.

First and foremost, we must recognize the founders crafted a government for humans as they are and not for humans as they wished them to be. Asanother quote from the Federalist Papersposits, If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

The founders recognized, most decidedly, that humanity was not composed of angels. They had learned through a study of history and through personal experience that if a system of government allows for abuse, the abuse will inevitably occur. From Caesar and the Roman Senate to King John and the Magna Carta, on to their own contemporary experience with the tyrannical abuses of King George, they knew and understood the corrupting rot of unrestrained power.

Secondly, it should be understood most of the founders were pious men, and even those who might escape this label were enlightened seekers of personal virtue. They believed virtue was the desired end of humanity, but they rejected the idea that virtue could be a construct.

They were inheritors of the spirit of theenlightenmentandrenaissanceeras, a spring of intellectual and rational thought that had only just escaped the darkened winter of feudal, papal dictatorial control that had strangled the progress of Western Civilization. Their experience and learning had prevailed upon them the belief that the individual, unfettered of corruptible autocratic rule, was the greatest wellspring of human progress.

Thirdly, we must take into consideration the failure that was the Articles of Confederation. Their distrust of national government being too strong, the founders first attempt at a free society lacked the invested authority and powers given to the national government to maintain the order necessary for the maintenance of individual liberty. The US Constitution was a document designed to protect freedom and liberty. But it was a tempered vision forged in the mistakes of an attempt at monarchist utopia.

With these three understandings before us, that power corrupts, that the individual is sacred, and that order is necessary for maintaining freedom, we have the fundamental blueprint from which the founders crafted the American Republic.

The US Constitution empowered the national government considerably beyond the impotence of the Articles of Confederation and yet checked that power by limiting its scope and authority, divided it into three branches at tension with one another, and further ensured a limiting factor of tension by securing the sovereignty of the states. To ensure the point was not missed, the first action of the new federal Congress was to ratify a bill enumerating the rights of the individual under the new framework of the federalist government.

Here is where we should recognize the common philosophical and political heritage of all Americans. Here is where we can see what is conclusive and sacred about the Constitution, federalism, and the miracle of the American Republic.

We disagree on much. We contest with each other on matters of ideological approach. We have fought hard and will continue to fight vehemently in factional contests for control of the wheels of government. But we must honor and treat sacred the understandings of human nature the founders built the government upon because those understandings have allowed the contests, the fights, and the great debates of our history to take place largely without the contest of arms and without the dissolution of the republic.

We should let states maintain their sovereignty, let the branches of federal government maintain their balance and counterpoise, let the difficult decisions be hashed out in Congress by the peoples representatives, and let the free market of ideas function fully and properly.

We should not turn our backs on the oracle of truth that those who came before so wisely supplicated for an understanding of how to proceed in their time. We must decide how best to proceed in our own time. We are faced with many complex issues whose answers do not necessarily lie plainly in an old book or document for us to happen upon. But as we proceed, let us not forget that we walk upon a foundation forged by lives, fortunes, and honor sanctified and sacrificed in the crucible of liberation.

What we decide to build today, we construct upon cornerstones wisely laid by those who perused the truths of human reality and considered a new and radical way to safeguard the sanctity of the individual against the constantly encroaching influence of power and greed. As we proceed with forging new ideas and unique solutions for our own time, let us similarly seek out the oracle of truth that is human experience. Let us always recognize the conclusive and sacred nature of what was wrought before our time when that oracle was appealed to in good faith.

Justin Stapley is a student at Utah Valley University studying political theory and constitutionalism. He works part time as a research assistant at UVUs Center for Constitutional Studies.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Follow this link:

Guest: Experience, the oracle of truth | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Herald

Punjab Assembly passes resolution against Centres BSF order, calls it insult, violation of the spirit of fe – The Statesman

Terming the Centres decision to extend the extended the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in Punjab as an insult to the state police and gross violation of the spirit of federalism, the Punjab Assembly on Thursday adopted a resolution seeking the withdrawal of the Centres notification extending the BSF jurisdiction.

The House unanimously passed the resolution rejecting the Centres order in the absence of the only two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members of the state Assembly.

The Union government had last month amended the BSF Act to authorise the border guarding force to undertake search, seizure and arrest within a 50 kilometer ( km) stretch, up from the existing 15 km, from the international border in Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

The resolution was moved by Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa. It said, Punjab is a land of martyrs and the brave. Punjabis have made exemplary sacrifices in our Countrys freedom struggle and later on in the wars of 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 Punjabis have received the highest number of Gallantry Awards in the Country. Punjab Police is a unique patriotic force which has contributed immensely in maintaining the unity and integrity of the country, it said.

The resolution said as per the Constitution of India, maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the state government and for this purpose, the government of Punjab is fully competent.

The decision of extending the jurisdiction of BSF from 15 km to 50 km by the Union government is an expression of distrust towards the state police and the people of Punjab. This is their insult too. The Union government should have consulted the state government before taking such a major decision. The law and order situation in Punjab is totally under control. and there is no need to extend the jurisdiction of BSF, it said.

The resolution said this is a gross violation of the spirit of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of India. Extending the jurisdiction of BSF is also symbolic of petty politics. All the political parties of Punjab have unanimously condemned this decision of the Union government and have demanded the Union government should withdraw notification,.

Randhawa termed the Centres notification on extending BSFs jurisdiction an? attack on the federal structure. He also said that the House members should meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the issue.

Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia told the House that the Congress-led government in the state should pass a decision that the Punjab Police would not co-operate with the BSF beyond 15 km.

Continue reading here:

Punjab Assembly passes resolution against Centres BSF order, calls it insult, violation of the spirit of fe - The Statesman

John Adams and France, and the Rise of Federalism – The Great Courses Daily News

ByAllen C. Guelzo, Ph. D.,Gettysburg CollegeTo consider what other measures he should take, John Adams called for a special session of Congress in March 1797. (Image: John Trumbull/Public domain)Conflict with France

By 1796, the Reign of Terror in France had collapsed, and a five-person Directory now ruled the French Republic. The Directory regarded the Jay Treaty as a stab in the back of a fellow republic.They responded by declaring open season on American shipping, promising in a decree of July 2, 1796, that they would treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them.

During the controversy over the British Orders in Council, Congress had authorized the construction of six large frigates for the United States Navy, only to suspend construction once the Jay Treaty was signed.

Now, in March 1797, Congress lurched ahead and authorized the completion of the first three of the frigatesthe United States, Constellation, andConstitution; and on March 25, Adams called for a special session of Congress to consider what other measures he should take. My entrance into office is marked by a misunderstanding with France, he wrote to his son, John Quincy Adams, which I shall endeavor to reconcile, provided that no violation of faith, no stain upon honor, is exacted.

This is a transcript from the video seriesAmericas Founding Fathers.Watch it now, on Wondrium.

In pursuit of reconciliation, Adams nominated a three-person commission. Together they were to negotiate with the French Republic for a removal of prejudices, a correction of errors, a dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all differences, and a restoration of harmony and affection.

But from the beginning, nothing went well for this mission. The Directory, with studied rudeness, kept the commissioners cooling their heels for weeks before granting them an interview with the Directorys sleazy foreign minister, the turncoat aristocrat, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord.

But Talleyrand had been receiving reports from the French consul in New York that France need be in no hurry to sign an agreement of its own with the United States. Mr. Adams, the French consul had been told, is vain, suspicious, and stubborn, but his presidency will only last five years; he is only president by three votes, and the system of the United States will change with him.

If the commissioners continued to press for an agreement, Talleyrand concluded that they ought to be willing to pay for itan immediate gratification of $240,000 to Talleyrand himself and a subsidy of $10 million to the Directory, in the form of a loan.

Learn more about John Jays Treaty.

The commissioners were dumbfounded by Talleyrands demand. The diplomatic back-and-forth dragged on into the spring of 1798 when finally Marshall and Pinckney gave up and broke off the negotiations; Gerry alone would remain in Paris to keep an American ear to the ground.

In Philadelphia, President Adams received his first dispatches from Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry on March 4, 1798. The next day he sent a notice to Congress that they had been received and were being decoded from their diplomatic cipher. Despite mounting public demands for their publication, Adams wanted to be sure the commissioners were safely away from Paris before finally, on April 3, sending the dispatches to Congress.

Three days later, the texts were released to the newspapers, who reacted in anti-French fury.

Learn more about Timothy Dwights view on Christianity.

Adams had become the hero of the hour, and France the mortal enemy. Robert Treat Paine even composed a song, celebrating Adams and Liberty.

No actual declaration of war was issued, but naval combata Quasi-Warbroke out wherever French and American warships crossed paths. Nearly 80 French vessels were gobbled up by the American ships. In February 1799, the frigate Constellation, under the command of Commodore Thomas Truxton, fought and captured the French frigate Insurgente, and beat another, the Vengeance, into a helpless hulk.

Such a shock on the republican mind, admitted Jefferson, as has never been seen since our independence. Everywhere, Jeffersonian Republicans hid their heads, while federalism flourished as patriotism.

France thought of the Jay treaty as a betrayal by a fellow republic. So they decided to be hostile towards American vessels, either confiscating them, capturing them, or searching them.

The French government thought if they waited long enough for John Adams to leave office, they could deal with a different government in the U.S., which would be more to their liking.

After newspapers went into an anti-French fury and John Adams was recognized as a hero, federalism flourished in the U.S. A quasi-war also broke out between the two countries, although neither party had issued a declaration of war.

Read more here:

John Adams and France, and the Rise of Federalism - The Great Courses Daily News

Reconciliation Bill Makes the Case for Federalism | Opinion | villanovan.com – Villanovan

Looking to cement his legacy as a transformational president, President Joe Biden has poured most of his legislative priorities into one omnibus spending bill known as the Build Back Better plan. Initially proposed with a whopping $3.5 trillion price tag, progressive Democrats have had to compromise with the more moderate faction of their caucus, whittling the bill down to a meager $1.75 trillion framework.

Democrats hold a three seat majority in the House, and with Independent Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine caucusing with the Democrats, the Senate is essentially split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie. Since it is eligible to be passed in the Senate under reconciliation, Republicans cannot block a vote with the filibuster, enabling Senate Democrats to pass the measure with a simple majority and no Republican support.While Democrats work to craft a passable bill, considerable negotiating effort has been spent attempting to bridge the gap between progressive and moderate members of the Democratic Caucus. Such negotiations highlight the virtue of an overlooked yet fundamental principle of American government: federalism. In a country of more than 330 million people, it is nearly impossible to arrive at policy considerations that are acceptable to a broad swath of Americans, and it often feels impossible to create consensus between the national representatives of the American people. Such struggles are a feature of the American system, not a bug. House Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) summed up House progressives attitudes towards the Build Back Better plan when asked about the state of negotiations: there is too much at stake for working families and our communities to settle for something that can be later misunderstood, amended or abandoned altogether.

I do not doubt that communities in Representative Jayapals district care deeply about the elements of Build Back Better. After all, they ostensibly elected her to represent their interests. Fortunately, the American system already consists of governing bodies that legislate issues of concern to particular communities, namely the states. Members of communities elect legislators who are intimately aware of their concerns and who rule not in Washington, but in their own backyards. Negotiations do not take place between legislators representing vastly different economies nearly unrecognizable to one another but between those representing neighboring counties. This is not to suggest that all states are homogenous, but there is certainly more homogeneity within states than between them. State legislators are empowered to institute programs desired by the citizens within their jurisdictions. If citizens do not like the laws and programs of their state, they can move to another state that has not instituted such laws or programs.

The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document that requires major decisions to take place at the most local level possible. It grants specific powers and jurisdictions to the federal government, leaving other powers to states and municipalities. Under the American system, if the community members from Representative Jayapals district want 12 weeks of paid family leave, they can elect state legislators and a governor who would institute such a plan, drawing taxes from and bestowing benefits upon those who support the proposal. If citizens living in Senator Manchins state of West Virginia do not want the same plans that Representative Jayapals constituents do, they are under no obligation to institute such plans.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney was criticized for opposing health care regulation at the federal level that he supported at the state level while governor of Massachusetts. Far from contradictory, Romneys position demonstrated an understanding of the beauty of the American federalist system. States do what the federal government cannot and should not do. Rather than ram life-altering legislation through a 50/50 senate, Democrat senators should return to their states and encourage their constituents to contact their city counselors, state legislators and governors. If citizens of Vermont want government subsidies for hearing, dental and vision care, there is no reason that they should demand Alabama citizens follow in their footsteps. Vermonts government is perfectly competent enough to institute such subsidies at the state level.

Federalism allows for the needs of individuals and communities to be met by the legislators beholden to those individuals and communities. Instead of trying to negotiate a broad spending package acceptable to both New York and Nebraska, the federal government should allow each respective state to legislate themselves as it sees fit. Everyday life experience demonstrates that consensus is more easily arrived at among small groups than among large conglomerates. States and localities are better equipped to meet the needs of their citizens than 538 egotistic politicians in Washington, D.C. who represent economically and culturally diverse constituencies. If Biden wants to leave a positive legacy, he should praise the constitutional system rather than spend four years trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Read more:

Reconciliation Bill Makes the Case for Federalism | Opinion | villanovan.com - Villanovan

Why Ethiopia Should Trust the West – Foreign Policy

The war in Tigray between Ethiopias government and Tigrayan rebels, which has unleashed untold suffering and brutality since it began a year ago, is now threatening to turn into a war of all against all, on a larger scale, because leaders on both sides have decided to double down in pursuing war in the name of ending it. This will likely bring about an irreversible state collapse, which would also have regionwide consequences. It appears that Ethiopia is reaching a stage where it cannot save itself.

If Ethiopia cannot save itself, someone else will have to. Ideally, it would be saved by East Africans, as West African nations attempted during the war in Liberia in the 1990s. But that seems unlikely right now.

The African Union (AU) has triedso far unsuccessfullyto mediate. In theory, the AU can threaten to suspend Ethiopias membership if there is no effort to resolve the conflict, but it is headquartered in Addis Ababa and is unlikely to upset its host. This leaves the international community. Historically, however, the international community has been reluctant to intervene in Africa before a crisis turned into a catastrophe, as was the case in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Darfur conflict in Sudan.

The war in Tigray between Ethiopias government and Tigrayan rebels, which has unleashed untold suffering and brutality since it began a year ago, is now threatening to turn into a war of all against all, on a larger scale, because leaders on both sides have decided to double down in pursuing war in the name of ending it. This will likely bring about an irreversible state collapse, which would also have regionwide consequences. It appears that Ethiopia is reaching a stage where it cannot save itself.

If Ethiopia cannot save itself, someone else will have to. Ideally, it would be saved by East Africans, as West African nations attempted during the war in Liberia in the 1990s. But that seems unlikely right now.

The African Union (AU) has triedso far unsuccessfullyto mediate. In theory, the AU can threaten to suspend Ethiopias membership if there is no effort to resolve the conflict, but it is headquartered in Addis Ababa and is unlikely to upset its host. This leaves the international community. Historically, however, the international community has been reluctant to intervene in Africa before a crisis turned into a catastrophe, as was the case in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Darfur conflict in Sudan.

The fact remains that only the West has the willingness and capacity to rescue the Ethiopian state from devouring its own citizensand eventually itself.

That said, the West cannot rescue Ethiopia without the cooperation of Ethiopias rulerswho at the moment are becoming increasingly angry at Western powers, particularly the United States. A new form of anti-Americanism seems to be rising in Ethiopiaone that uses state sovereignty as a shield. The government of Ethiopia wants its sovereignty to be respected; the United States wants Ethiopias government to stop killing its own people.

The source of anti-Americanism in Ethiopia is not ideological and is, therefore, a short-term phenomenon. It is connected with what the United States is perceived to be doing rather than what the United States is. At such a perilous moment, it is important for ordinary Ethiopians to understand why they should trust the West.

Likewise, to increase the chances of success in its peacemaking efforts, the West needs to appreciate both why Ethiopias rulers seem reluctant to compromise and the zero-sum and strongly emotional terms in which the issue has been framed. It is equally important for Ethiopians to understand why the West is concerned about averting the prospect of state collapse in Ethiopia.

The underlying frame of reference of the conflict in Tigray is the contrasting visions of two groupsthe Amhara and Tigrayan elitesabout the future direction of Ethiopia. The Tigrayan elites want to keep ethnic federalism, an administrative structure introduced by Meles Zenawi, who from 1991 to 2012 was the last Tigrayan ruler of Ethiopia (the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front remained the dominant party in government until 2018). The formula has enabled virtually all major ethnic groups, large and small, including the Amhara (27 percent of Ethiopias population), the Oromo (34 percent), and the Tigrayans (6 percent), to enjoy a measure of self-rule and cultural autonomy.

But the Tigrayan elites 27-year rule was widely regarded as repressive, and the rulers were driven out of power in 2018, largely by the Oromo youth known as Qeerroo. Subsequently, Abiy Ahmedan Oromoassumed power.

Amhara elites now want ethnic federalism to be abolished, because, to them, it undermines Ethiopias unity. But many Tigrayans, Oromos, and others view the governments apparent distaste for ethnic federalism with suspicion, as an attempt to restore or consolidate Amharizationthe cultural homogenization of Ethiopia in the image of the Amharaand, with it, the Amhara privilege that Meless idea of ethnic federalism presumably disrupted in the 1990s.

The Amhara elites have seemingly never forgiven Meles for this. But the Tigrayan elites (as well as Oromo nationalists) are adamant that they want more regional autonomy and representation at the center, not less. It is particularly ironic, therefore, that an Oromo prime minister, Abiy, should lead the Amhara side in the battle against the Tigrayan elites. At any rate, a segment of the Oromo, with their outspoken defenders behind bars, seems to have long given up on him.

Surely, there are no easy solutions to the civil war in Ethiopia. But the effort must perhaps begin from the recognition by Ethiopiansall Ethiopiansthat it is time for a paradigm shift. The interests of one ethnic group, regardless of its size, and Ethiopias interests are not always the same. Indeed, they can sometimes be antithetical. The revival and continuity of Ethiopia as a functioning state may hinge on the acceptance of these simple facts.

And Ethiopias Western friends can help the country as it tries to heal itself. Admittedly, the relationship between the West and Ethiopias government is now at a low point. The attitude of a segment of Ethiopias urban population toward the West is also negative. This was largely the reaction, in my view often unjustified, to the Wests position on the conflict in Tigray. Still, Ethiopians must ask themselves: Is anti-Americanism in Ethiopias interest?

Since the war broke out in Tigray, there have been debates about the West among at least three groups of Ethiopians. The first views the Wests motive in engaging with Ethiopia as neocolonial or conspiratorial. Decidedly anti-Western in their orientation and loud and vocal in their support of the Abiy government, most of the members of this group prefer to call themselves Ethiopians (although the vast majority of them are actually Amhara) and are heavily influenced by their own perceived ethnic self-interest.

The second group believes that the main goal of the West is to support Ethiopia to overcome the challenges it is currently facing. This is mainly composed of members of such groups as the Somali, and they liken the relationship between the West and Ethiopia to one between a benefactor and beneficiary.

According to the third group, the bilateral relationship is transactional, from which both sides benefit, albeit unequally. This group recognizes that the Wests policy is often driven by its values as well as realpolitik. Multiethnic in composition, this group is ready to live with any type of political arrangement in Ethiopia, ethnic federalism or a unitary structureso long as it is what the majority wants. It does not buy into the idea of a Western conspiracy against Ethiopia.

Another question Ethiopians should ask themselves and answer as a matter of urgency pertains to how to gauge whether the West is a genuine friend and supporter of Ethiopia.

The West is a friend of Ethiopia when its policies help to empower Ethiopians as a whole, not a particular ethnic group. At a minimum this means, under present circumstances, that the following three conditions must be met: the West is responsive to Ethiopias humanitarian needs in case of natural or human-caused emergency, the West shows the determination to hold accountable those who have violated internationally recognized human rights, and the West invests its resources in facilitating the resolution of conflicts. It is fair to assume that Ethiopians will eventually (preferably sooner rather than later) realize that the West is their ally, despite restrictions in the free flow of information.

The fact that the West is a friend of Ethiopia by the above objective measures should please Ethiopians. That Ethiopia is receiving so much sustained attention from the West should make Ethiopians feel flattered, not insulted, and understand that the West wants Ethiopia to succeed and become an exemplar for the rest of Africa.

If Abiy wants to keep Ethiopia, a multiethnic country of more than 100 million people, together, he will be better off embracing Western efforts rather than shunning them. Ethiopia cannot simply afford to alienate the wider Western world, particularly at this time. Ethiopias leaders can take the initiative to end the bloodshed and warmly welcome Western mediators, thereby also forging the foundation for a relationship of partnership in development and trade in the future. Doing so, ultimately, is in the interest of Ethiopias government, and, above all, it is in the interest of Ethiopians as a whole.

Ethiopia still has a chance of healing. But it doesnt have a lot of time to avert a bloody breakdown and Balkanization, followed by regionwide catastrophe.

Continued here:

Why Ethiopia Should Trust the West - Foreign Policy

The Turing Test Is Bad For Business – News Nation USA

Fears of Artificial intelligence fill the news: job losses, inequality, discrimination, misinformation, or even a superintelligence dominating the world. The one group everyone assumes will benefit is business, but the data seems to disagree. Amid all the hype, US businesses have been slow in adopting the most advanced AI technologies, and there is little evidence that such technologies are contributing significantly to productivity growth or job creation.

This disappointing performance is not merely due to the relative immaturity of AI technology. It also comes from a fundamental mismatch between the needs of business and the way AI is currently being conceived by many in the technology sectora mismatch that has its origins in Alan Turings pathbreaking 1950 imitation game paper and the so-called Turing test he proposed therein.

The Turing test defines machine intelligence by imagining a computer program that can so successfully imitate a human in an open-ended text conversation that it isnt possible to tell whether one is conversing with a machine or a person.

At best, this was only one way of articulating machine intelligence. Turing himself, and other technology pioneers such as Douglas Engelbart and Norbert Wiener, understood that computers would be most useful to business and society when they augmented and complemented human capabilities, not when they competed directly with us. Search engines, spreadsheets, and databases are good examples of such complementary forms of information technology. While their impact on business has been immense, they are not usually referred to as AI, and in recent years the success story that they embody has been submerged by a yearning for something more intelligent. This yearning is poorly defined, however, and with surprisingly little attempt to develop an alternative vision, it has increasingly come to mean surpassing human performance in tasks such as vision and speech, and in parlor games such as chess and Go. This framing has become dominant both in public discussion and in terms of the capital investment surrounding AI.

Economists and other social scientists emphasize that intelligence arises not only, or even primarily, in individual humans, but most of all in collectives such as firms, markets, educational systems, and cultures. Technology can play two key roles in supporting collective forms of intelligence. First, as emphasized in Douglas Engelbarts pioneering research in the 1960s and the subsequent emergence of the field of human-computer interaction, technology can enhance the ability of individual humans to participate in collectives, by providing them with information, insights, and interactive tools. Second, technology can create new kinds of collectives. This latter possibility offers the greatest transformative potential. It provides an alternative framing for AI, one with major implications for economic productivity and human welfare.

Businesses succeed at scale when they successfully divide labor internally and bring diverse skill sets into teams that work together to create new products and services. Markets succeed when they bring together diverse sets of participants, facilitating specialization in order to enhance overall productivity and social welfare. This is exactly what Adam Smith understood more than two and a half centuries ago. Translating his message into the current debate, technology should focus on the complementarity game, not the imitation game.

We already have many examples of machines enhancing productivity by performing tasks that are complementary to those performed by humans. These include the massive calculations that underpin the functioning of everything from modern financial markets to logistics, the transmission of high-fidelity images across long distances in the blink of an eye, and the sorting through reams of information to pull out relevant items.

What is new in the current era is that computers can now do more than simply execute lines of code written by a human programmer. Computers are able to learn from data and they can now interact, infer, and intervene in real-world problems, side by side with humans. Instead of viewing this breakthrough as an opportunity to turn machines into silicon versions of human beings, we should focus on how computers can use data and machine learning to create new kinds of markets, new services, and new ways of connecting humans to each other in economically rewarding ways.

An early example of such economics-aware machine learning is provided by recommendation systems, an innovative form of data analysis that came to prominence in the 1990s in consumer-facing companies such as Amazon (You may also like) and Netflix (Top picks for you). Recommendation systems have since become ubiquitous, and have had a significant impact on productivity. They create value by exploiting the collective wisdom of the crowd to connect individuals to products.

Emerging examples of this new paradigm include the use of machine learning to forge direct connections between musicians and listeners, writers and readers, and game creators and players. Early innovators in this space include Airbnb, Uber, YouTube, and Shopify, and the phrase creator economy is being used as the trend gathers steam. A key aspect of such collectives is that they are, in fact, marketseconomic value is associated with the links among the participants. Research is needed on how to blend machine learning, economics, and sociology so that these markets are healthy and yield sustainable income for the participants.

Democratic institutions can also be supported and strengthened by this innovative use of machine learning. The digital ministry in Taiwan has harnessed statistical analysis and online participation to scale up the kind of deliberative conversations that lead to effective team decisionmaking in the best managed companies.

More here:

The Turing Test Is Bad For Business - News Nation USA

Inside the Impact on Marvel of Brian Tyree Henry’s Openly Gay Character in ‘Eternals’ – Black Girl Nerds

Over the years, Marvel movies havent always shed a lot of light on LGBTQ characters the way the original comic books seem to do. Its about time Marvel started providing more LGBTQ representation, and it seems we will definitely be seeing a lot of that for the first time in Eternals with Brian Tyree Henrys openly gay character.

Valkyrie is another queer character who identifies as bisexual, but Marvel movies wont focus on that until Thor: Love and Thunder is released. According to Marvel writer Al Ewing via Bleeding Cool, Loki is another Marvel character whos bisexual and gender fluid. Its something the writer plans to touch on with Loki shifting between genders on occasion.

The list goes on because its also been revealed both the Kronan warrior Korg is another gay Marvel character. And, its pretty obvious that Black Panthers Okoye is attracted to women based on her original comic book series from 2016. Now that we know LGBTQ representation has its place in the Marvel universe, heres what you should know about Brian Tyree Henrys Eternals character.

The truth about Phastos, Brian Tyree Henrys Eternals character, is that hes not one of the first characters from the original team. Jack Kirby wrote and released the earliest issues of Eternals in 1976. If youre checking through those, youll most definitely not find Phastos. He doesnt get introduced to the rest of the superhuman team until the third generation.

The first time Phastos appears is in the 1985 issue created by Sal Buscema and Peter B. Gillis. Even though Phastos wasnt part of the original team, hes still very much part of the Eternals with the rest of his superhero squad. When you take into account the fact that the Eternals are a race of near-immortal beings created by the Celestials deep into history, he definitely counts as being one of them.

The fact that Phastos will be the first openly gay character in the MCU is huge news, but what makes it even more exciting is the fact that hell have a husband and family in the film. The man playing Phastos husband in the movie will be Haaz Sleiman, an openly gay actor who you might recognize from the Apple+ TV series Little America. Back in 2007, he also starred in a movie called The Visitor.

Sleiman confirmed via Cinema Blend that there will be a moving kiss shared between his character and Phastos sometime in the film, which is a very big deal. Plenty of TV shows and movies dance around the topic of LGBTQ representation by including queer couples but failing to allow those couples to share any intimacy on screen. In Eternals, Marvel filmmakers are obviously going to avoid making that same mistake.

At this point, Brian Tyree Henry must be fully aware that the role hes playing in Eternals is a big deal in 2021. The Hollywood industry is making huge strides to show respect to the LGBTQ community, and Henry taking on this role is helping us move in the right direction as a society.

He discussed what it feels like playing Phastos to Murphys Multiverse, saying, The thing that really attracted me to this part was that I just think about all the images of Black men out there and how we are portrayed. And what I love the most about Phastos is that one, hes an ancestor. All of us are ancestors technically, so Phastos predates everything and had to probably go through all these things that could actually make someone lose faith in humanity very quickly. While Phastos has many reasons to lose faith, he is somehow able to hold onto it, use his superpowers, and push forward.

When it comes to keeping up with his super-strong counterparts, Phastos is not one to mess with. His powers include super-strength, flight, expert knowledge in technology, and energy manipulation.

He brings a lot to the table, and he is someone the rest of his team can depend on when battling against their enemies. Another epic detail about Phastos is the fact that hes a skilled weapons maker. Hes able to come up with some of the most intelligent gear for himself and his team.

Seeing Brian Tyree Henry take on the role of Phastos in Eternals is going to be huge for his acting career, but this isnt his first rodeo. Henry has already starred in a fair share of awesome roles in the past.

Some of the other places youll recognize him from include Atlanta, Childs Play, Godzilla vs. Kong, The Outside Story, Superintelligence, Widows, and Dont Let Go. He also had parts in If Beale Street Could Talk, White Boy Rick, Joker, and several more.

View original post here:

Inside the Impact on Marvel of Brian Tyree Henry's Openly Gay Character in 'Eternals' - Black Girl Nerds

The funny formula: Why machine-generated humor is the holy grail of A.I. – Digital Trends

In The Outrageous Okona, the fourth episode of the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Enterprises resident android Data attempts to learn the one skill it has previously been unable to master: Humor. Visiting the ships Holodeck, Data takes lessons from a holographic comedian to try and understand the business of making funny.

While the worlds of Star Trek and the real world can be far apart at times, this plotline rings true for machine intelligence here on Earth. Put simply, getting an A.I. to understand humor and then to generate its own jokes turns out to be extraordinarily tough.

How tough? Forget Go, Jeopardy!, chess, and any number of other impressive demos: According to some experts, building an artificial intelligence on the level of a top comedian may be the true measure of machine intelligence.

And, while were not there yet, its safe to say that we may be getting a whole lot closer.

Joe Toplyn is someone who doesnt shy away from challenges. Toplyn, an engineer by training (with a large career gap in terms of actually practicing it), carved out a successful career for himself as a TV writer. A four-time Emmy winner, hes been a head writer for the likes of David Letterman and Jay Leno. Several years ago, Toplyn became interested in the question of whether or not there is an algorithm (i.e., a process or set of rules that can be followed) that would help write genuinely funny jokes.

People think its magic, he told Digital Trends. Some comedy writers or comedians, I think, try to portray what they do as performing magic. Well, it is like magic in the sense that a magic trick is constructed and designed, and theres a way that it works that fools you into thinking that the magician has supernatural powers. But theres really a logic to it.

This belief in a steely logic to joke-telling honed while Toplyn was trying to teach his magic to aspiring, would-be comedians ultimately led him to try building an A.I. able to generate off-the-cuff quips that fit into regular conversations. Called Witscript, the results add up to an innovative A.I. system that creates improvised jokes. A chatbot that uses Witscript to ad-lib jokes could, Toplyn said, help create likable artificial companions to help solve the huge problem of human loneliness. Think of it like PARO the robot seal with punch lines.

Its context-relevant, Toplyn said of Witscript, which was recently presented at the 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2021). This sets it apart from other joke-generating systems that generate self-contained jokes that arent easy to integrate into a conversation. When youre talking with a witty friend, chances are that their jokes will be integrated into a conversation in response to something youve said. Its much less likely that your friend will just start telling a stand-alone joke like, A man walks into a bar with a duck on his head

This spontaneous quality comes from the joke-writing algorithms Toplyn himself developed.

Basically, the way the basic joke-writing algorithm works is this: It starts by selecting a topic for the joke, which could be a sentence that somebody says to you or the topic of a news story, he said. The next step is to select what I call two topic handles, the words or phrases in the topic that are the most responsible for capturing the audiences attention. The third step is to generate associations of the two topic handles. Associations are what the audience is likely to think of when they think about a particular subject. The fourth step is to create a punch line, which links an association of one of the two topic handles to an association of the other in a surprising way. The last step is to generate an angle between the topic and the punch line: A sentence or phrase that connects the topic to the punch line in a natural-sounding way.

If all these handles and angles sound like hard work, the proof is ultimately in the pudding. Using 13 input topics, Witscript generated a series of jokes, which Toplyn then pitted against his own efforts. For a review board, he outsourced the judging to Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, who graded each freshly minted joke on a scale of one (not a joke) to four (a very good joke). One of Witscripts best efforts garnered a 2.87 rating (Thats pretty close to being a joke, Toplyn said) to his own 2.80 as student beat master. The Witscript joke? Riffing on a line about the 25th anniversary of the Blue Man Group performance art company, it quipped: Welcome to the Bluebilee.

While perhaps not quite yet ready to displace Dave Chappelle, Toplyn believes that Witscript proves that humor can, to a degree, be automated. Even if theres still a long way to go.As machines get better at executing those algorithms, the jokes they generate will get better, he said.

However, he also struck a note of caution. To generate [truly] sophisticated jokes the way an expert human comedy writer can, machines will need the common-sense knowledge and common-sense reasoning ability of a typical human.

This, as it turns out, may be the crux of the matter. Humor might seem frivolous, but for those who work in the fields of language, comedy, and artificial intelligence, its anything but.

We use humor in a lot of different ways, Kim Binsted, a professor in the Information and Computer Sciences Department at the University of Hawaii, told Digital Trends. We use it to establish social rapport. We use it to define in-groups and out-groups. We use it to introduce ideas that we might not be willing to express seriously. Obviously, theres nonlinguistic humor, but [linguistic humor] falls into a category of language use that is really powerful. It isnt just a stand-up on stage who uses it to get a few laughs. Its something that we use all the time [within our society.]

It is an enormous signifier of advanced intelligence because, in order to be truly funny, an A.I. needs to understand a whole lot about the world.

When it comes to computational humor, Binsted is a pioneer. In the 1990s, she created one of (possibly the) first A.I. designed to generate jokes. Developed with Professor Graeme Ritchie, Binsteds JAPE (Joke Analysis and Production Engine) was a joke-generating bot that could create question-and-answer puns. An example might be: Q) What do you call a strange market? A) A bizarre bazaar.

It was great because it meant I could pick all the low-hanging fruit before anyone else, she said modestly. Which is pretty much what I did with puns.

Since then, Binsted has developed various other computational humor bots including one able to dream up variations on Yo mama jokes. While Binsteds work has since evolved to look at long-duration human space exploration, she still views joke-telling A.I. as a sort of holy grail for machine intelligence.

Its not one of these things like chess, where when A.I. was starting out, people said, Well, if a computer can ever really play chess, then we will know its fully intelligent, she opined. Obviously, thats not the case. But I do think humor is one of those things where fluent humor using a computer is going to have to be genuinely intelligent in other ways as well.

This is why joke-telling is such an interesting challenge for machines. Its not because making an A.I. crack wise is as useful to humanity as, say, using machine intelligence to solve cancer. But it is an enormous signifier of advanced intelligence because, in order to be truly funny, an A.I. needs to understand a whole lot about the world.

Humor depends on many different human skills, such as world knowledge, linguistic abilities, reasoning, [and more], Thomas Winters, a computer science Ph.D. student researching artificial intelligence and computational humor, told Digital Trends. Even if a machine has access to that kind of information and skills, it still has to have insight into the difficulty of the joke itself. In order for something to be funny, a joke also has to be not too easy and not too hard for a human to understand. A machine generating jokes should not use too obscure knowledge, nor too obvious knowledge with predictable punch lines. This is why computational humor is usually seen as an A.I.-complete problem. [It means] we need to have A.I that has functionally similar components as a human brain to solve computational humor, due to its dependency on all these skills of the human brain.

Think of it like a Turing Test with a laugh track. Coming soon to a superintelligence near you. Hopefully.

Read more:

The funny formula: Why machine-generated humor is the holy grail of A.I. - Digital Trends

She helped her husband start a far-right militia group. Now the Oath Keeper’s wife says she has regrets – Los Angeles Times

EUREKA, MONT.

Looking back at the Capitol riot, Tasha Adams ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks: What if I had not supported him?

Him is her estranged husband, Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group whose members stand accused by federal authorities of having played a crucial role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. During nearly 23 years of marriage, Adams says she devoted herself to Rhodes aspirations. She worked as an exotic dancer to help put him through college, assisted in writing his papers and encouraged him to successfully apply to Yale Law School. When he was looking for direction in life a cause Adams helped him start the Oath Keepers.

Over the next few years, Adams became disillusioned by the far-right organization and her marriage. The Oath Keepers, she says, increasingly promoted conspiracy theories while engaging in extremist activities and rhetoric that demonstrated racial and ethnic biases. Meanwhile, her husband became emotionally and physically abusive, she says. In 2018, hoping to put Rhodes and the organization behind her, she left him and filed for divorce.

With congressional committees and federal investigators examining the threat posed by domestic extremists and their contribution to the insurrection, Adams has been conducting an exploration of her own life and culpability in the forming of the Oath Keepers. Her journey provides behind-the-scenes insights into how a Las Vegas car valet transformed into the leader of an organization that sought to overturn a presidential election.

Column One

A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.

If I hadnt helped him start it, I mean, there would probably still have been an insurrection, Adams, 49, says in an interview in this old logging town, not far from where she lives. But what would it have looked like? That is what Im trying to figure out.

Adams has not been shy about sharing her experiences tweeting critically about Rhodes and his organization, while launching an online crowdsourcing campaign to fund her divorce. Last month, she spoke at length with investigators for the special House committee examining the Capitol riot.

Eureka, the town not far from where Tasha Adams lives, is known as an old logging town.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

Dissecting what transpired in any relationship can be a fraught endeavor. This story is based on Adams recollections, as well as reviews of court records and interviews with two of her adult children, Dakota Vonn Adams and Sedona Rhodes, who confirmed their mothers account. More than a dozen current and former officers and board members of the Oath Keepers did not respond to requests for comment.

Rhodes did not respond to repeated phone calls and text messages. The 56-year-old has not been charged in the insurrection. He has said the Oath Keepers were in town to provide security for advisors to then-President Trump and supporters and did not intend to enter the building.

Adams, who speaks in rapid-fire sentences that frequently end in quips, starts each day by firing up a laptop on her kitchen countertop, scanning for news about the Oath Keepers.

She has read how 18 Oath Keepers have been indicted on conspiracy charges for forcing their way into the Capitol, and she has studied prosecutors damning portrait of Rhodes. They allege in court papers that Rhodes urged Oath Keepers to come to Washington to fight for Trump.

He was on the Capitol grounds during the insurrection, prosecutors say, and provided live updates to his members storming the building. Theres no indication that he entered the Capitol during the riot. Rhodes described the rioters as patriots and later compared the insurrection to the Boston Tea Party, prosecutors say.

Adams met Rhodes when she was an 18-year-old dance instructor at an Arthur Murray studio in Las Vegas, and he was a 25-year-old student.

She was the daughter of strict white Mormon parents who ran a window manufacturing business. Rhodes was an intense and worldly former Army paratrooper who maintained his military physique and parked cars for a living. He told her of growing up in a multi-ethnic Christian family, spending summers picking fruit alongside relatives. Rhodes has described himself as a quarter Mexican and part Native American, invoking that heritage at times to deflect against allegations that the Oath Keepers are sympathetic to racists.

Adams says she was drawn to Rhodes life experience because it was so different from mine.

An archival photograph of Tasha Adams during her honeymoon with Stewart Rhodes rests on a table.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

They had been dating four months when Rhodes accidentally dropped a .22-caliber handgun and shot himself in the face, blinding himself in the left eye. She says she felt obligated to assist him.

I was suddenly taking care of a man with a hole in his head, Adams says.

With Adams contemplating becoming a professional ballroom dancer, the couple struggled to make rent; she says Rhodes began to press her to find a more lucrative trade.

Every day, Adams recalls, he was like, You should be a stripper and make more money. She took up exotic dancing, earning $100 a night.

They married in 1994, and she worked at a high-end strip club until she had their first child, Dakota. Each night, Adams says, she helped Rhodes with his assignments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and nurtured his dreams of becoming a lawyer.

I wanted a house with a treehouse for Dakota. I thought, man, I struck the jackpot, she says, describing her emotion upon Rhodes acceptance by Yale. Im married to a future Yale Law School graduate!

But Rhodes turned down high-paying internships his first year and took a nonpaying summer gig at a conservative think tank. He was more interested in causes than money, says Adams, adding, I knew then I was never going to get the treehouse. She says Rhodes charted a similar course after graduating in 2004, working mostly in smaller practices or as a freelance writer of legal briefs.

Rhodes had always been interested in politics, Adams says, and they both subscribed to libertarianism, a philosophy that promotes free markets and limited government. They fervently supported one of its staunchest adherents, then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

While volunteering for Pauls 2008 presidential campaign, Rhodes and Adams met veterans and former police officers who were drawn to the candidates libertarian views. Thats when Rhodes decided to form the Oath Keepers, a group focused on recruiting veterans, military personnel and police officers and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they consider illegal.

Adams says she liked the idea and believed in the groups focus. Its goals aligned with her libertarian views of limited government, and she saw it as a good way for her husband to tap his charisma to earn a living. She says she envisioned Oath Keepers as a a cigar club of like-minded libertarians.

I thought it was something he could do well, she says. What a great name, right? I thought, wow, we are going to sell a lot of T-shirts and motorcycle jackets.

By the time Rhodes launched the Oath Keepers in March 2009 two months after President Obama took office Adams says she realized the group was not going to be a cigar club, nor a libertarian version of the ACLU.

In a blog post that month, Rhodes wrote that his groups principal mission was to prevent the destruction of American liberty by preventing a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship from coming to power. Our Motto is Not on our watch!

Adams says she accepted Rhodes vision for the Oath Keepers because he seemed to mostly be pushing the boundaries of free speech and advocating for limited government.

For its first couple of years, the Oath Keepers operated on a tight budget. Adams says she handled its mailing lists and ran its website, keeping it updated with links to events, missives from Rhodes and links to news stories about the group.

According to pages captured by the Internet Archive, much of the site was dedicated to testimonials from members, many current and former military personnel, who expressed enthusiasm about joining the organization and its mission. I find no higher calling than to join forces with the Oath Keepers, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow Americans in our own defense, wrote a member who identified himself as an Air Force officer in June 2009.

In November 2009, a person who identified himself as an Army veteran posted: Its time to stand up for liberty and truth above all else. To Reclaim the Republic for the people, by the people, of the people from the hands of tyranny. The poster added he was particularly concerned about puppet politicians, the Central Banking gangsters, the U.N. ...

With the rise of the tea party movement, the organization grew rapidly. At its height in 2015, the Oath Keepers had about 35,000 members, Adams says. Anti-hate groups have pegged its top membership at no more than 5,000.

Adams says she stepped away from the group in 2010 or 2011 and focused on raising her children. She and Rhodes would eventually have six. In her spare time, Adams blogged a bit, describing herself as a homeschooling, breastfeeding, homebirthing, libertarian, freedom fighting, gun-toting really cool mom.

On the blog, she described her husband as being cute and sexy and extolled his rise from being a down-on-his-luck car valet to leader of the Oath Keepers.

Adams cringes when she reads such posts. I was creating the world I wanted it to be, she says, not the one it was.

At the Oath Keepers height, in 2015, Adams says, the organization had about 35,000 members.

(Tailry Irvine / For The Times)

In 2013, Rhodes announced that the Oath Keepers would create teams, prepared with military-style training, to respond to the implosion of society. Until that point, such training had been prohibited, Adams says, because Rhodes didnt want his group to be considered a militia.

There is a stigma attached to militias, she says. And he wanted to avoid that.

Suddenly, she says, Oath Keepers were running around playing army.

The Oath Keepers in 2014 and 2015 assisted ranchers and miners in Nevada and Oregon in armed disputes with federal authorities. Rhodes also deployed Oath Keepers in 2014 to Ferguson, Mo., to patrol and protect businesses during protests unleashed by the shooting of a Black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, by a white police officer.

Rhodes was criticized by anti-hate groups for that action, and he was chastised by a local Oath Keepers leader for engaging in a racial double standard by failing to assist Black residents accusing law enforcement of abuses. Adams says she raised similar concerns with Rhodes, particularly after the Oath Keepers had defended white ranchers and miners.

Members of the Oath Keepers have generally avoided the kind of inflammatory rhetoric utilized by white supremacists. The groups bylaws prohibit anyone from joining who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color.

But experts say such circumspection belies how the Oath Keepers actions, and statements by members, have assisted in the spread of racist language and hate.

Members of Oath Keepers think of themselves as rejecting racism, yet they and allied groups have served as de facto security for neo-Confederate and alt-right groups, Sam Jackson, a professor at the University at Albany-SUNY wrote in his eponymous book about the Oath Keepers. In other words, like most of the contemporary patriot/militia movement, the [Oath Keepers] is not organized around a perceived racial identity, but neither is it as free of racism and bigotry as it likes to claim.

Jackson noted that Rhodes has wielded his Mexican heritage to push back on claims that he or the Oath Keepers are in league with racists, even as his group has disseminated videos that display bigotry toward undocumented migrants and Mexicans. Rhodes has compared Latino and Black Lives Matter activists to jihadist terrorists and well funded Marxist and racist agitators. He has said that illegal immigration was an invasion and described as dirtbags the mostly Black NFL players who protested racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.

Adams says she once believed that anti-hate groups were exaggerating the dangers the Oath Keepers posed because Rhodes convinced her the criticism was unfounded and a ploy to raise money.

After Ferguson and the armed standoffs, however, Adams says her views changed. While Rhodes and leaders did not tolerate discriminatory language I never heard him say anything like the N-word, she says, and he would get rid of anyone who did the estranged wife believes her husband and other Oath Keepers nevertheless exhibited racial and ethnic biases in several, frequently subtle ways. She cited their refusal to back Black residents protesting police abuse in Ferguson, their harsh rhetoric about immigrants and their vision for America. They described America as if they were looking out at a crowd at a baseball game, she says, and seeing a sea of white faces with rosy cheeks.

She adds that the Anti-Defamation League is correct in describing the Oath Keepers as a large right-wing anti-government extremist group. And the Southern Poverty Law Center is accurate, she says, in claiming the Oath Keepers is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy Americans liberties.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, speaks during a rally outside the White House in 2017.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

Among the conspiracy theories that Rhodes advocated on the Oath Keepers website and in frequent appearances on conservative TV and radio shows: A U.S. military exercise in 2015 might be a prelude to a coup, baseless claims about voter fraud in the 2016 election and a deep state takeover of the U.S. government. Later, after the 2020 election, he fully embraced and promoted unfounded conspiracies that the election had been stolen and supported Trumps efforts to stay in office.

Adams says she tried to temper Rhodes conspiratorial rhetoric because it didnt serve any purpose except make him look crazy.

By 2016, Adams says, Rhodes had become an ardent supporter of Trump, putting aside early doubts: Stewart thought Trump was too pro-government and pro-spending. Adams added that her estranged husbands attraction to the former president is obvious in hindsight: They are very similar in that they both push conspiracy theories. Its like watching a demagogue be attracted to a demagogue.

It was not possible to independently verify Adams descriptions of her role in the Oath Keepers. Jackson, the author and professor, says she did not come up in his research of the group. I would be surprised if they were coequals, the professor says, referring to Adams and her husband. He declined to speculate further on Adams role in the organization, saying he did not delve into Oath Keepers private lives because they could be difficult to untangle.

Living in remote areas of Montana, Adams says she had no friends, and her life revolved around keeping her husband happy and raising and schooling her children.

Those who know Adams say they rarely saw her outside the presence of Rhodes. Marcy Kuntz, Adams midwife for three births starting in 2006, recalls that Adams didnt speak much about herself, except to apologize for failing to pay bills on time. She was always accompanied on appointments by her husband.

Kuntz delivered the babies at Adams homes, which were generally located deep in the Montana woods. The house was busy, with all the kids, Kuntz says, and I got the sense that her and her childrens world was in that house. They didnt get out much.

She seemed like a very private person, adds Kuntz, who has spoken to Adams a few times in the years since she separated from Rhodes. You could tell she supported what Stewart did as his wife, as a wife supports a husband. ...

In retrospect, it is clear he was very controlling. She kept it all to herself for so long.

Adams and two of her adult children say that by 2015 a year after her sixth child was born they were becoming increasingly disenchanted with Rhodes as a husband and father. He was gone for long stretches, leaving her to raise their children in an isolated part of Montana, said Adams, Dakota and Sedona.

When Rhodes was home, he belittled and berated his wife and kids, kept tabs on their whereabouts and engaged in physical abuse, according to Adams and the two children, as well as allegations included in court records filed by Adams.

In a 2018 application for a restraining order, Adams alleged Rhodes grabbed their then 13-year-old daughter by the throat. Whenever he is unhappy with my behavior (say I want to leave the house he doesnt like me to leave), he will draw his handgun (which he always wears), rack the slide, wave it around, and then point it at his own head, she wrote in the application, which was denied by a judge. It is not clear why the judge declined to grant the order.

According to Dakota and Sedona, their father didnt just promote conspiracy theories he brought them home. One night the power and phones went out, Dakota says, and his father became convinced the FBI had cut the lines, presaging a raid.

Tasha Adams, seen in the reflection of a window, ponders her time as an Oath Keepers wife and asks herself what would have happened if she had not supported her husband.

(Tailyr Irvine / For The Times)

It took us 45 minutes to pack the vehicles, says Dakota, 24. If the FBI was really coming, would they have given us that much time? We drove off and about an hour later, he was like, I guess they arent coming. So we turned around and went home to bed.

Sedona, 22, says her father once ordered the children to dig a tunnel so the family might escape if authorities raided the house. It had a plywood roof, and he had the little kids go through it to get used to it, Sedona says.

Adams and her children say it took years of enduring such behavior for her to see the truth.

Your reality gets warped. He controlled our reality, says Dakota, who succeeded on Nov. 8 in legally changing his name from Dakota Stewart Rhodes because he disdains his father.

His mother was also concerned that Rhodes could use his legal expertise and connections to keep the children. She says she put those fears aside in 2018 and filed for divorce. Rhodes moved out of the house, and appears to live out of state. The divorce case, which was filed under seal, remains unresolved, in part, because Adams says she is in debt to her lawyers.

Earning a living selling used clothes on the internet, Adams has been pecking away at a memoir and says she has been thinking about getting a college degree in extremist studies. Her goal, she says, is to teach about the dangers posed by extremist groups and their leaders.

Among the questions she thinks she can answer for students: How has Rhodes managed to avoid arrest while other Oath Keepers were indicted in the riot on conspiracy charges? In dissecting her life as an Oath Keepers wife and following coverage of the federal prosecutions, Adams says she has a theory: He is very good at getting others to take the risks.

See original here:

She helped her husband start a far-right militia group. Now the Oath Keeper's wife says she has regrets - Los Angeles Times

Whos Afraid of Higher Education? – New York Magazine

The school promises forbidden courses to students. Photo: PBS/YouTube

In 1971, the televangelist Jerry Falwell embarked on an ambitious new venture. With the help of Elmer Towns, a Christian academic, he founded a new institution of higher education: Liberty University. Falwell had grand dreams for his new school, as his official biography on Libertys website makes clear: Not only would it function as an ideological factory for churning out new conservative activists, it would do so on a grand scale. Falwell wanted the school to grow to 50,000 students, a goal the school says it has now achieved. Liberty wasnt Falwells first educational experiment, either. Hed previously founded a K-12 school as a segregation academy. Before wokeness entered the right-wings lexicon, desegregation was the enemy of the hour.

Decades later, the right remains fixated on education, agitating over the alleged prevalence of critical race theory in public schools and the hysterical excesses of college liberals. Race and gender are still animating concerns. Enter Bari Weiss, a self-styled tribune of the people, with an announcement that parallels Falwells earlier foray into higher education: She, too, is starting a university with some help from her friends. The unaccredited University of Austin is dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth, proclaims a post on Weisss Substack. Nearly a quarter of American academics in the social sciences or humanities endorse ousting a colleague for having a wrong opinion about hot-button issues such as immigration or gender differences, wrote the universitys new president, Pano Kanelos, citing the controversial academic Eric Kaufmann.

Kanelos is half-right. There is a free-speech crisis in higher education, but it exists on campuses like Libertys, where students and faculty have long complained of censorship from zealous administrators. My alma mater, a Christian university much like Liberty, actively restricted the content we could publish in our student newspaper; a trustee once complained that I had used the phrase reproductive rights in an article. Years later the school confiscated copies of an independent student publication. Nevertheless, Kanelos ignores these examples to single out Yale and Stanford and Harvard. In these top schools, he queried, and in so many others, can we actually claim that the pursuit of truth once the central purpose of a university remains the highest virtue? Kanelos implies the existence of a past where the university was once free of donor pressure or administrative cowardice or, more to the point, pesky student activism. But this history only exists in his imagination. Universities have always been fraught places, where the free exchange of ideas often results in intellectual turbulence.

Its precisely that intellectual turbulence that Kanelos, Weiss, and their comrades seek to escape, much as Jerry Falwell did in the 1970s. Falwell was no outlier. The right has long dreamed of alternatives to traditional higher education. The televangelist Pat Robertson founded Regent University for similar reasons. Michael Farris, the founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, founded Patrick Henry College in 2000 to shelter homeschool graduates and funnel them into Republican politics. Hillsdale College has assumed a sharply right-wing political identity over time, and rejects federal funding as a matter of principle. (A Hillsdale professor sits on the University of Austins board of advisers.) These schools exist as laboratories for right-wing thought; they are committed not to free expression but to indoctrination. The University of Austin will be no different.

Consider the parties involved. As a student at Columbia University, Weiss developed a censorious reputation of her own.A campus organization Weiss co-founded did demand that the administration change the departments curriculum and make it easier to file complaints against professors, measures that would have affected certain scholars responsibilities and duties, as well as their future job prospects, the writers Mari Cohen and Joshua Leifer observed in Jewish Currents. Weiss and her fellow activists targeted Arab professors for speech they deemed hostile to Israel, efforts shes since downplayed to better portray herself as a campaigner for free expression. A University of Austin founding faculty fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has called Islam a nihilstic cult of death and has claimed that violence is inherent to the religion, which bodes ill for any Muslim who might wish to attend the new university. The new universitys positions on sex and gender arent hard to guess, either. Another fellow, the anti-trans academic Kathleen Stock, voluntarily resigned her position at the University of Sussex, claiming that student protests curtailed her own academic freedom. Put another way, Stock found free expression a bit too lively to tolerate.

Others linked to the university stand accused of crossing professional lines with female students. One, Joshua Katz, received a year-long suspension from Princeton University over an inappropriate relationship with an undergraduate woman. Another, Joe Lonsdale, has been accused of raping a woman he mentored, an allegation he vehemently denies. Lonsdales nonprofit, Cicero Research, is fiscally sponsoring the new institution.

So what rights will a University of Austin student actually possess? They cant count on a right to free expression, that much is clear. The presence of Lonsdale and Katz raises further questions about the universitys position on due process for survivors of sexual misconduct. Students wont even benefit from an intellectually diverse faculty. Survey the schools website, and you wont find a single leftist scholar. Nor should we expect to find one. Lonsdales nonprofit, Cicero, says its committed to free-market based solutions to public policy issues. And as a private institution, the University of Austin will retain the broad freedom to censor students and faculty as it sees fit as does Liberty and my alma mater. What weve got, then, is a Bible college for libertarians. Those disturbed by progress will find shelter on campus. Pledging freedom from wokeness, the University of Austin actually seeks freedom from free exchange. There is a soupon of social liberalism, which extends no further than equality for LGB people and not to trans people and which is too inadequate to greatly distinguish the school from other conservative institutions. In this university, Falwell would see kindred minds. Theres nothing new here.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Visit link:

Whos Afraid of Higher Education? - New York Magazine

If libertarians built the roads, maybe they wouldnt be racist – Washington Examiner

Libertarians face many trite and tired arguments against their ideology, but none is more famous than the ever-present Who would build the roads? attack.

But while libertarians are forced to spend a good bit of time talking about roads, the rest of the country is typically less focused on our nations infrastructure that is until this week when Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg made comments that ignited a firestorm over the topic.

In remarks made about the trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, Buttigieg alluded to the racist design of Americas highways and his plans to use the funds to address the problems theyve caused.

I dont think we have anything to lose by confronting that simple reality, he said. And I think we have everything to gain by acknowledging it and then dealing with it, which is why the Reconnecting Communities, that billion dollars, is something we want to get to work right away putting to work.

In response, conservative pundits went to work defending the government which they often do when accusations of systemic racism come up. Its an odd stance given the fact that the Right claims to believe the government is inherently corrupt, vile, and perverse. But racist? Not a chance, how dare you allege such a thing.

If we step back from the culture war for a moment, though, it is easy to come up with a number of examples of systemic racism that most on the Right would not argue. Gun laws were implemented to ensure black people did not have access to firearms after the Civil War. Government schools, which are assigned based on zip codes that are affected by the policies of redlining, consistently produce racially disparate outcomes. And occupational licenses have commonly been put in place to block certain people from entering careers.

While the policies that built our nations roads may be less familiar to many, there are countless historical examples that back up Buttigiegs claims.

Our highways were mostly built throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Ambitious engineers sought means to link downtown business districts with the suburbs, and to do so, they often had to cut through existing neighborhoods, meaning a great deal of disruption to those residents and a good amount of eminent domain seizures. Wealthier neighborhoods, which tended to be white, had the political might to fight off these projects while the poorer neighborhoods, which were often mostly black, did not.

To build Interstate 10 in New Orleans, engineers cleared a large portion of land along the oak-lined commercial thoroughfare of North Claiborne Avenue. The black residents fought this plan unsuccessfully at the time, and dozens of homes and businesses in the community were destroyed while the nearby French Quarter was left untouched.

Its a pattern one can find replicated dozens of times throughout virtually every city. According toThe Pew Charitable Trusts , In Miami, Interstate 95 flattened swaths of a Black neighborhood called Overtown, forcing some 10,000 people to leave their homes. In Nashville, Tennessee, the I-40 expressway demolished 620 houses, 27 apartment buildings and six Black churches.

The impacts on the black community were severe. Not only were they not compensated for their properties at market rates eminent domain seizures rarely are but the roads ruined black-owned businesses, caused home values to fall, increased pollution, attracted homeless camps and crime under overpasses, and cut communities off from one another.

This is what people mean by systemic racism. And whether it was done intentionally by government actors to cut black communities off from white neighborhoods as segregation became illegal, or if it was merely done because these communities lacked the political power to fight back, the results are the same.

We should not seek to tear down existing roads as Buttigieg has flirted with, but we should seek to learn from our history and use this as yet another example of the failures of government power and central planning.

One thing is certain: If libertarians built the roads, theyd have a lot better chance of not being racist.

Hannah Cox (@hannahdcox ) is a libertarian-conservative activist and a contributor to the Washington Examiners Beltway Confidential blog.

Read more from the original source:

If libertarians built the roads, maybe they wouldnt be racist - Washington Examiner

The post-Reagan GOP is still a work in progress – The Week Magazine

Thirty-two years ago the Berlin Wall fell, a Cold War victory viewed as one of the crowning achievements of the movement conservatism associated with Ronald Reagan. An important development in its own right, this anniversary of the wall's fall is an opportunity to take stock of conservatives who want to replace the "dead consensus" of Reaganism with something else.

We've seen social conservatism take on a bigger role in the political coalition at the expense of individualists (often described as libertarians, no matter how big the government continues to get under the GOP's watch), winning a recent election in blue Virginia by campaigning on parental control of local public schools. Conservatives have begun thinking through some of the contradictions between Reagan's vision of a secure Main Street and untrammeled Wall Street, especially as big corporations side against them in the culture wars.

The most ambitious Republicans are seeking the approval of these new strains of the right. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has fought both public and private COVID-19 restrictions that rankle the base. Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) made pilgrimages to the National Conservatism Conference, a gathering of the right's new nationalists.

And yet with former President Donald Trump back on the golf course, much of this still feels like a work in progress. The conservatives for the common good have sounded libertarian, even libertine, about the pandemic except for the fact that they're willing to regulate masking and vaccination policies by private companies, too. There are arguments for why the "free market" doesn't simply mean businesses get to do whatever they want. But the overarching philosophy here, to the extent there is one, is that members of my political coalition get to do whatever they want in defiance of the wrong people trying to tell them what to do.

Perhaps the new conservatism's answer is that this is how the left has always done things, and a movement too committed to abstract principles to take on its own side in an argument will always lose. But, for the moment, old-fashioned "tear down the wall" conservatives have more to show for their efforts than the newfangled "build the wall" crowd.

The rest is here:

The post-Reagan GOP is still a work in progress - The Week Magazine

The Rise of the Mises Caucus – Bacon’s Rebellion

Ludwig von Mises

by Bruce Majors

Virginia had electionsthis week that garnered no media coverage: internal elections for offices in the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia.

Voters and the media pay little attention to Libertarian and other smaller party candidates except when they poll well enough to look like spoilers. That happened in the 2013 gubernatorial election when Robert Sarvis won 5% of the vote, tilting the election, many Republicans believed, from their candidate Ken Cuccinelli to Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and in the 2016 presidential presidential campaign when Gary Johnson at one point polled in the double digits.

Libertarians played no such spoiler role in 2021, yet in off-year elections some 150 of them were elected to local offices across the country, mainly in smaller rural and suburban jurisdictions doubling the number of elected Libertarians. (None were in Virginia.) Perhaps more significantly, Libertarians have been redefining themselves. In the past, the party had a left-leaning streak that stressed such ideas as legalizing all drugs, opening the borders to immigration, and eliminating taxes. Over the past year, though, the Libertarian Party has experienced an internal revolution led by a group called the Mises Caucus.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian Jew, fled the Nazis and became a professor of economics at New York University. There he founded a school of free market economics dubbed Austrian economics, along with his Nobel Laureate student Friedrich Hayek, author of the oft-cited book, The Road to Serfdom. (Austrian economics is a specialty of the economics department at Northern Virginias George Mason University.) The ideas of Mises, Hayek, and the Austrian economists have seeped out of the libertarian movement and infiltrated mainstream thinking among conservative Republicans and even some decentralists on the Left.

One of Mises chief concerns were how governments manipulated interest rates and money supplies by creating money and credit and government debt, which he argued causes business cycles. He also explained how government has imperfect knowledge about supply, demand, and opportunities in the economy, information captured by changing prices, and, so, cannot effectively plan an economy.

Hayek wrote more widely on social, political and philosophical topics, and argued that as government planning and intervention creates economic failure, leading to the rise of dishonest, grifting, and brutal politicians who will look for scapegoats to blame for their failed policies.These ideas may be abstract to most people, but they explain what Americans are seeing in the wreckage of the Biden economy.

To outsiders the Mises people might look Trumpian, or at least like a right-populist movement, compared to the left-libertarians. Most Mises libertarians would reject this characterization, pointing to, among other things, their radically pro-free trade advocacy. But they do tend to emphasize private property and free market economics as the core of their politics. Many entered the libertarian movement by working on campaigns for former Congressman Ron Paul, a gold bug and promoter of Austrian economics, who was actually the Libertarian Partys presidential candidate in 1988. However one might describe the Mises Caucus, it shares with many conservative groups de-platforming attacks from Facebook and other tech titans for wrong thought posts about COVID and other policies.

The Libertarian Party has had a decades-long internal struggle between coastal elite campaign consultants and think tank executives, often working in jobs funded by Charles and David Koch, and other libertarians who do not work professionally in politics and the media. The latter have long decried the former as variously Beltway libertarians (the Kochtopus, Craniacs, after former CATO Institute executive Ed Crane) or as liberaltarians because of their alleged need to ingratiate themselves with the Democratic media establishment. In the 1980s these outsider libertarians were led by Murray Rothbard, another Austrian economics professor who was a student of Ludwig von Mises. The professional libertarians sometimes belittle the competenceand messaging of their rivals.

On Saturday 50-odd Libertarian delegates elected new officers in an online convention, and a Mises or right-populist trend was discernible. It looked as if, as in many states, the Mises Caucus had conducted a recruitment drive, persuading Ron Paul fans and others who were not previously in the Libertarian Party to join and become delegates at state and local conventions. (One long-time local Libertarian activist and former LP candidate for Virginia state delegate summed it up: Im not anti-Mises, but I am concerned about a bunch of what are essentially random people populating the entire board.)

Like the Virginia general election, where the GOP routed Democrats, several offices were taken for the first time by candidates who were women or African American.

Jake Berube, a lantern-jawed advertising sales man for conservative media sites like Human Events and the Washington Examiner, was elected chairman over incumbent Adam Theo, a government contractor who had just run as one of several independents for Arlington county council. Theo had identified himself in his race as a progressive libertarian, emphasizing issues like eliminating qualified immunity for law enforcement.

Josie Gallagher, a tax consultant for small businesses and a Ron Paul fan was elected vice chair for Arlington and Alexandria, over Alex Pilkington, a paralegal at the (in)famous Democrat-affiliated law firm Covington and Burling and a former CATO Institute intern who said open immigration would be a primary area of focus.

C.J. Cunningham, another Ron Paul fan, was elected vice chair for Fairfax and Falls Church. Dan Ford, a veteran and the only African American running, was elected vice chair for Loudoun County. William Ogle, a physicist who made his Mises affiliation explicit in his campaign speech, was elected treasurer over Theo associate Katie Wilson. James Waddell was elected secretary and Henry Baraket, an immigrant from the Middle East who said he had fled tyranny and appreciated liberty, was elected as the boards at-large member. As the aforementioned long-term activist summed it up: I dont know anything at all about these guys. Literally never heard their names before today.

Just as Virginias off-year election predicts the 2022 midterms, another long-term activist participating in the convention says it predicts what will happen at the Libertarians statewide convention later this year: Obviously the notable thing is a clean sweep by the Mises Caucus folks. It speaks to the general trend of rapid increase in the size of the Mises Caucus and many small l libertarians joining the Libertarian Party. Based on today, Id anticipate overwhelming support for the Mises Caucus at the statewide convention in a few months. The Virginia Libertarian Party holds its convention in February in Glen Allen.

So, a new caucus is pulling new members into Virginias third largest party, which has shown itself able to affect Virginia elections. But are they just doing this to take over another state party, and its delegation, so they can decide who the Libertarians run as a Presidential candidate in 2024? Or will they use their new recruits to actually run in local and state offices in Virginia?

Northern Virginia resident Bruce Majors has written for The Hill, the Los Angeles Times, Reason, and other publications. He writes a Substack column,The Insurrection.

Read the original:

The Rise of the Mises Caucus - Bacon's Rebellion

Guest Opinion: Calling out the Idaho Freedom Foundation – Idaho County Free Press

For political conservatives, countering big governments alluring but empty promises are challenging. The task is tenfold harder when libertarians pretend to speak for conservatives.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) was founded, in part, with a bequest from activist Ralph Smeed. A mentor of my old boss, Senator Steve Symms, I spent many hours escorting Ralph around Washington, D.C. He rejected the label conservative, proudly claiming to be a libertarian.

A mutual acquaintance recently mentioned Smeed when talking about the IFF, noting If Ralph could see what it is today, hed be appalled.

Who could predict that Smeeds legacy would today be aiding President Bidens Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to keep parents away from public schools?

Garland has threatened parents passionate about their kids education. Using a letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) as a fig leaf, he directed the FBI to investigate a disturbing spike in irate school board patrons.

Keep in mind, Garland heads the same Justice Department refusing to investigate the free speech of Antifa protestors marching down burned and vandalized city streets.

Professor Maud Maron, of Cardozo Law School, an advisor to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, criticized Garlands move, noting that actual violence should be condemned without reservation, but the incidents cited by the NSBA are not criminal and they definitely do not warrant federal intervention.

Garlands motive is obvious. His own son-in-law sells social-emotional learning assessments that use a racial lens to pigeon-hole students, an approach opposed by many parents. He doesnt want parents challenging school boards and wishes they would stop advocating to improve their public schools. He is joined in that cause by IFF President Wayne Hoffman.

Hoffman has been pushing to get parents to quit public schools altogether. He presumably doesnt know or doesnt care that many rural Idahoans have no alternative. And he may be funded by purveyors of private schooling and home-school curricula, although the IFF is notoriously quiet about who pays their bills.

Hoffman recently attacked public schools for teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT). He conveniently neglected to mention that this turn toward Marxism surfaced early in elite private schools.

Even worse, Hoffman bungled the definition of CRT, a mistake that led Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin to a fruitless survey of statewide curricula. Critical Theory is more about tactics than content. Its insidious outlook on the world is imbedded deep in educational philosophy, influencing how some teachers think, but rarely showing up as a topic in a K-12 classroom.

And getting the theory wrong has had devastating consequences. One teacher in Idahos Magic Valley offers an inspiring syllabus using the Minidoka Internment National Monument as an object lesson. Students learn how widespread fear can lead a government to heavy-handed tyranny despite a constitution that guarantees individual rights. Could any topic be timelier?

After Hoffman scolded legislators for not doing enough to ban CRT, that teacher was warned to downplay the Minidoka lesson a direct result of Hoffmans focus on what history is taught, not how the history either illuminates or obscures constitutional principles.

Making IFF even more problematic is its political grassroots drawing from anti-government voices, including some uncomfortably allied with civil rights objectors. A vocal faction of IFF activists recently affiliated with an organization opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

To have any credibility, those of us who oppose CRT need to stand as unequivocal defenders of civil rights. IFF cannot do that.

The democrat running for governor of Virginia has said, You dont want parents coming in on every different school jurisdiction saying, This is what should be taught here. The IFF delivers that same message.

Parents educational choice is a long-desired conservative goal. Libertarians prefer private education. When IFF undermines public schools while parents have limited private alternatives, that sound you hear is principled libertarian Ralph Smeed rolling over in his grave.

Trent Clark, of Soda Springs, is the acting chairman of United Families Idaho and has served in the leadership of Idaho business, politics, workforce and humanities education.

Read more here:

Guest Opinion: Calling out the Idaho Freedom Foundation - Idaho County Free Press

Kmele Foster Is Right: Banning Critical Race Theory Isn’t Going To Stop It – The Federalist

On the latest The Fifth Column episode, cohost Kmele Foster reiterates his argument, previously expressed in a coauthored New York Times op-ed, that banning critical race theory in schools is bad. While discussing to what extent public opposition to this form of racism fueled Republican success in last weeks elections, Foster again claimed there is zero evidence that this particular strategy [of banning CRT in schools] is working.

In practice, these bills create a great deal of uncertainty about how curriculum should be constructed and what constitutes a kid being made to feel uncomfortable or being told they should feel shame on account of their race, he claimed.

He cited a school board meeting in which teachers questioned whether they should now teach the other side of the Holocaust. That is a direct result of these idiotic bans of critical race theory, Foster claimed. Later he also noted that Texas lawmakers are asking state institutions to report whether they are using public resources to buy and promote anti-American and racist books, claiming thats a prelude to book bans.

For one thing, even if Texas lawmakers do take action after they gather this information, they will not be banning books. They may refuse to expend public resources on certain books, but that is not banning them. Actual book bans, actual censorship, would mean what happens with successful full-bore cancel operations from the left: The person with the book is unable to publicly publish or distribute it, even on his own time and dime.

Its a bit like what Twitter and Facebook do to presidents and members of Congress, which libertarians and classical liberals (like Foster claims to be) are always telling us is totally fine because Facebook and Twitter are private companies and they should not be forced to publish and distribute speech they dont agree with.

Well, fine, then, lets spread this libertarian goose sauce around equally. If Twitter shouldnt be forced to platform Donald Trump and Republican Rep. Jim Banks, the good taxpayers of Texas also shouldnt be forced to pay for, distribute, and platform speech they dont agree with through the government institutions they are supposed to democratically control.

Thats not a book or a speech ban, at least according to the reasoning of libertarians like Foster. If any government declines to fund their activities, such speakers and authors would still be free to speak and publish as they wish. They would not be free, however, to force other people to subsidize their speech. (This also gets into how government and monopolies today control public squares and what should be private life by subsidizing and legally preferencing only one politically favored side, a very big aspect of all this that must be saved for additional discussions.)

To Fosters point about college-educated teachers alleged difficulty in understanding pretty obvious laws, it seems likely to me that any nincompoops asking about teaching both sides of the Holocaust are trolling. Its clear what they are legally supposed to teach and not, they just dont want to comply with the law, so theyre getting pedantic, like a middle schooler or a Jesuit. [Update: It turns out Fosters characterization of this story was based on fake news, and I was right: this was a biased curriculum director falsely characterizing the Texas law to local teachers.]

Its only hard for teachers to figure out what they are now allowed to teach if they dont want to understand the message. Just dont be a racist, and youre good. The problem is, some teachers seem to believe they deserve public sinecures to preach the gospel of anti-white hatred. Thats why they just cant accept the laws obvious intent and meaning and move on.

This blends into a point Foster also made in the podcast that I think is dead-on accurate.

Maybe, as opposed to taking a side in an idiotic culture war, if you try to circumvent the whole thing and focus on things that actually matter, like developing pedagogy thats better, like establishing curriculum that works in a more serious way, he said. Im sorry, if you think that the culture war is going to be over because someone passed a ban in Virginia, go look at Texas. Theyre still having problems.

Setting aside the absurd reductionism I know of nobody who thinks CRT, yet alone all the culture wars, will be instantly solved by a state ban Foster is right that CRT bans are not enough. One proof is in those very teachers who are resisting the will of the voters who fund their salaries and supply children to their classrooms.

Critical race theorys hold on the U.S. education and corporate systems is the poisonous fruit of a poisoned tree. To root it out will require a lot more than state and local bans. It requires of the right exactly what the far-left is doing: Systemic thinking.

That means not taking an isolated, whack-a-mole approach that lawmakers might prefer so they can just pass some patch on the problem and send voters home with a pat on the head. It means making a comprehensive, holistic assessment of how so much of American local, regional, state, and even national leaders participate in and even condone open, government-supported racism.

Why are there any teachers, let alone entire unions, teachers colleges, entire teacher training systems, curriculum factories, testing companies, the whole education cabal supporting open racism and anti-American hatred? How is it that such important drivers of American society not only condone but energize hatred against their own predecessors and way of life? How is it not obvious to so many so-called leaders of American society that this ideology they put hundreds of millions of dollars behind is contemptible and incompatible with truth, justice, and the American way?

The very existence and widespread use of CRT is an indictment on the entire system. As such, it requires not merely a one-off response like a ban. It demands a comprehensive evaluation of the entire education system and a total reorientation of its priorities and methods. The neo-racists are right about one thing: Racism in America appears to be pretty systemic. What theyre wrong about is what kind of racism, as well as the right way to address it.

Earlier this year, commentator Richard Hanania made the point, on which I built several related arguments, that critical race ideology has been furthered by U.S. laws and institutions since the 1960s. It hasnt been imposed on America from space aliens, and it hasnt grown entirely organically, its been fostered by years of legal and policy accretions.

So thats another area in which Foster is wrong. Attempts to ban critical race theory from classrooms, Foster also said on the podcast, Dont make any differentiation between what youre doing in kindergarten and twelfth grade, that is f-cking censorship and that is not how you go about changing the culture. The book banners never win, -sshole, full stop.

On the contrary: Taking control of public and private speech, and tilting the many interlocking education monopolies in favor of leftist ideology, has absolutely been a winning strategy for hard-left ideologues. If speech banning didnt work so very, very well, theyd let Trump back on Twitter and conservatives on CNN.

You 100 percent do change culture by changing laws. Thats exactly how we got critical race theory everywhere, as Hanania pointed out this summer: Wokeness is law, he pointed out, going on to detail multiple ways in which government policies force schools and employers into racism in the guise of combatting racism.

If it is law, it can be changed. And it should be, because racism is evil. So, yes, ban teachers from preaching racism on the taxpayers dime. But dont stop there, because government-sponsored racism doesnt stop there, either. Not even close.

Photo U.S. Army photo by Bob McElroy

More here:

Kmele Foster Is Right: Banning Critical Race Theory Isn't Going To Stop It - The Federalist

Cindy Axne will run for reelection in Congress, closing the door on Iowa gubernatorial bid – Des Moines Register

U.S. Rep. Cindy Axnewill seek reelection in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, she announced Friday, officially closing the door on a possible run for governor in 2022.

Axne, a West Des Moines Democrat, previously ruled out running for the U.S. Senate,but shehad left open the possibility of running for governor.

She announced the news during a Friday morning taping of Iowa Press on Iowa PBS.

"Folks, I'm going to be running for the United States Congress here in Iowa's 3rd District," she said.

The news comes just days after Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks said she would compete in the 1st District rather than stay in a newly redrawn 3rd District.

The pair of announcementshelpsolidify the field of candidates that will competein the 3rd District, which includes Des Moines and is expected to be among the most hotly contested races in the country.

More: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run for reelection in new 1st Congressional District

Already, outside organizations like the National Republican Congressional Committee have been targeting Axne with attack ads as they try to unseat vulnerable Democrats.

Axne is one of only a handful of congressional Democrats in the country to win in a district Trump carried in 2020, though she won by a narrow margin. Axne beat Republican challenger David Young by just 1.4 percentage points, 49% to 47.6%. Libertarian candidate Bryan Holder earned about 3.4% of the votea share that some Republicans said undercut Young's effort.

This election cycle, Axne will compete in a new set of counties reorganized under the3rd District as a result of the state's redistricting process.

More: Iowa lawmakers accept second redistricting plan, setting up next decade of politics

Overall, the partisan makeup ofthe new district remainslargely unchanged, with Democrats continuing to account forabout 36% of registered voters and Republicans making up about 34%.

But some geographic shifts could make Axne's reelection campaign more difficult.

Polk and Dallas Counties, the two largest population centers, still anchor the 3rd District. But it loses several counties along the state's western border that Axne had focused on during her previous two terms while addressing severe flooding there, helping her to makeinroads with voters. Instead, the district gains several other rural counties that tend to favor Republicans that Axne has not campaigned in before.

Axne said her job is tomeet those new voters "and tell all those folks that I'm there for them and I've got their back."

"Its about taking my voice out to the people that I would be representing, hearing from them, listening to their concerns and talking with them about how Ive already been putting policy in place to benefit their lives and address those concerns," Axne said. "But also the policy that Im currently working on thats helping them."

Those issues include securing more money for biofuels, lowering prescription drug prices, improving mental health care for veterans and addressing the nation's supply chain problems.

Many of those subjects, Axne said, can be addressed through President Joe Biden's agenda, including a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that Biden plans to sign Monday and a $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" bill that would include money for child care, lower prescription drug prices and pay for education and climate change initiatives.

"I believe that once we get the infrastructure bill signed into law, the Build Back Better Act signed into law, next year folks are seeing expansion of those child care centers, theyre seeing more money in their pocket because of the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit," Axne said."I think about the folks here who are on insulin. Were going to cap it at $35 a month."

No Democrats have announced a challenge to Axne, but a handful of Republicans are competing in a primary election as the party seeks to unseat her.

Among them are state Sen. Zach Nunn of Bondurant, who currently leads the Republican field in fundraising. Nunn raised $281,905 in total receipts during the fundraising quarter that ended in October, giving him $213,779 in cash on hand.

Political newcomer Nicole Hassoof Johnston raised $170,863 and finishedthe quarter with $134,670 in the bank.

More: Why Iowa Democrat Cindy Axne voted for $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan

Retired State Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, a Council Bluffs resident, previously announced she would run in Iowas 3rd Congressional District. But as a result of redistricting, her home county of Pottawattamie now sits in the 4th District, which is more heavily conservative and represented by incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra.

Hanusa told the Des Moines Register she had been waiting on Miller-Meeks' decision before deciding what to do with her own campaign. Had Miller-Meeks chosen to compete in the 3rd District, Hanusa said she would not have challenged her.

"Obviously deference went to Mariannettes decision," Hanusa said. "So now that thats been made, I will look at the situation and consider everything.For right now, the campaigns still on."

Since launching her campaign in April, Hanusa has raised $103,619, including $65,826 in the third quarter. She has$44,718in the bank.

More: A year out, Iowa candidates raise money for 2022 elections; Finkenauer, Hinson rake in most

Gary Leffler, a Republican activist from West Des Moines, has filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, but he has not yet filed financial reports.

Axne goes into the race with about $1.6 million in cash on hand afterraising $757,831 during the third quarter.

Despite outraising her opponents,she knows she's facing an onslaught of ads from national Republican groups.

"I am the number one targeted race by the National Republican Campaign Committee," she said. "They want to take me out so that they can have the House."

In a sign of how competitive the race will be, state and national Republicans quickly issued statements criticizing Axne following her reelection announcement.

"Axne has spent the past two years hiding from Iowans and cozying up to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden," Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann said."Axne represents a continuation of Biden and Pelosi's disastrous agenda and Iowa Republicans are committed to fighting back to stop it."

Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at bpfann@dmreg.com or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on Twitter at @sgrubermiller.

View post:

Cindy Axne will run for reelection in Congress, closing the door on Iowa gubernatorial bid - Des Moines Register

The Infrastructure Bill Makes Building Back More Expensive – Reason

In this week's Reason Roundtable, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather to berate one of the most expensive legislative packages in U.S. history and discuss some significant takeaways from last Tuesday's elections.

Discussed in the show:

1:52: That $2.1 trillion (yes, trillion) infrastructure bill that just passed.

20:35: Lessons from last week's elections.

29:05: Weekly Listener Question: I'm an attorney. All of my colleagues and I are fully vaccinated, yet we wear masks in the office. We are all required to be vaccinated. I hate it. Your response would be to find another job. I think Peter just had the audacity to suggest that switching employers is similar to going to a different restaurant because you don't like the spaghetti at the Olive Garden. For me, libertarianism is more than just a paradigm for government. It's a life philosophy. I am weary of the idea that anything goes, even if it's bad, as long as it only happens in the private sector. I am writing this email using a ridiculous pseudonym because I would not want my employer to know that I read and listen to Reason. They could fire me if they associate me with anything that looks un-woke; is this OK with you? Sure, I could quit my job. But any other job will have the same requirements. That doesn't really represent choice. Out here in the real world, you do not get to choose your job so easily. I do not have the option of being a professional libertarian. So I jab and mask, so I can keep making enough money to help my parents, no matter what I believe or what I wish to do with my body. This is OK with you?

41:53: The unveiling of the OSHA/vaccine mandate specifics.

51:58: Media recommendations for the week.

This week's links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian KeyserAssistant production by Regan TaylorMusic: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

Read more:

The Infrastructure Bill Makes Building Back More Expensive - Reason

Josh Hawley is dead right about men and marriage – Washington Examiner

Of all the speeches at this months National Conservatism Conference, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawleys call for men to abandon video games and pornography for work and family has drawn the most attention.

The Washington Post, NPR, and Axios all followed up with stories questioning Hawleys premise: that through policy choices and cultural messages, the Left has devalued men and weakened the nation.

The Washington Posts coverage by Christine Emba was the most encouraging as Emba readily admitted that increasing numbers of men are disconnected from their work, families and children. And that mens labor force participation has fallen from 80 percent in 1970 to 68 percent in 2021. And that more men are deciding to opt out of higher education. And even that pornography is a problem.

Embas only real beef with Hawley appears to be that he should be pressed to offer solutions.

But Hawley did!

We must rebuild an economy in this country in which men can thrive. And that means rebuilding those manufacturing and production sectors that so much of the chattering class has written off as relics of the past, Hawley said before offering a policy solution. We can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies critical for our national security be made in the United States.

Hawley then moved to tax policy, noting, We must make the family the center of political life. There is no higher calling, and no greater duty, than raising a family. And we should encourage all men to pursue it.

I believe the time has come for explicit rewards in our tax code for marriage. Forget the marriage penalty. There should be a marriage bonus. And we should allow the parents of young children to keep more of their own money as well, Hawley said.

Now, one can argue about the feasibility of Hawleys domestic manufacturing requirement or attack his marriage bonus as social engineering, which many of our libertarian friends like to do, but these are real policy solutions being offered to solve the defining problem of our time: the disintegration of the American family.

If anything, we need more politicians like Hawley willing to lead on the issue.

Original post:

Josh Hawley is dead right about men and marriage - Washington Examiner

The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio – Legal Reader

Marco Rubio may not perceive the lack of historical awareness (and ironic comedy) in his speech to a conservative conference last week, but you might.

Last week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida. According to the National Conservatism website, the gathering is dedicated to reviving the nationalism that binds us, so that we can flourish together. We see the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race, they say, with a nod to the specter of CRT.

Since the conference brings together the best the modern American conservative movement has to offer and defines the future conservatives want, I thought it most profitable to really dig into Rubios speech. As the lightly edited transcript on his site says, The thing I really like about this conference is about thinking, listening, learning and ultimately defining what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. When people in power offer this kind of insight, its best to listen up.

To get at the heart of what Marco Rubio is offering to us, Im going to delve into (and quote heavily from) the more-polished, cleaned-up version that The American Conservative printed as a Rubio op-ed, titled We Need Corporate Patriotism To Defeat American Marxism.

There was a time when, to paraphrase Charles Wilson, what was good for big American companies was good for America. But today, led by a generation of leaders who feel no obligation to our nation, corporate America is the instrument of anti-American ideologies. This is a bold opening for Marco Rubio, who has taken a great deal of money in contributions from individuals and PACs associated with the likes of Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America. However, it is clear that the sort of nationless rich and companies that would hide their money overseas really dont feel an obligation to our nation. Go on, Marco, tell us more.

The collapse of corporate patriotism opened the door for these companies to fall for anti-American ideologies The companies that control the vast majority of Americas economic resources and curate the information we see and hear on a daily basis now say that America is a racist or sexist country. A country based upon stealing land by displacing or outright killing the original residents, built by enslaved people brought in chains because they were perceived as stupid and servile and because their darker skin would make them stand out, and which, even now, still reverberates with cries of build the wall! by people who cheered separating brown children from their parents, is racist? I wonder how anyone could get that impression.

These oligarchs believe the very existence of America is fatally flawed, and they are devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to advance corporate propaganda that reflects these beliefs. They aim to remake our society, our culture, and our country. They aim to redefine what constitutes a good life in America. Is Marco Rubio objecting to companies being able to spend money as a form of speech? Im sure hell get to work right away to help pass a law overturning Citizens United, then. As far as what constitutes a good life in America, I have some suggestions. How about not poisoning Americans via decaying lead plumbing? Or earning a wage that lets you raise your kids above the poverty level? Or mitigating sea level rise in Florida? Rubio had the chance to support a package like this, but voted it down and called it socialist.

For over a century these have been the tactics used by Marxists to take over countless nations and societies. Marxists use corporate oligarchs to promote the struggle of the working class to seize the means of production? For real? If we do not fight back, we will lose America. No, Marco dear, youre losing America by feeding the oligarchs. I didnt start paying attention yesterday, you know. This is not hyperbole. In fact, is it very familiar to the Americans I was raised by and those I still live among, who witnessed Marxist revolutions take over their homelands. Is Marco Rubio asserting that corporations have taken over Cuba?

But the battle against cultural Marxism will not be won by relying on an outdated Wall Street Journal Conservatism that does not fully address the challenges faced by working Americans in our 21st century economy. No, the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican party has no interest in addressing the problems of working Americans, except to hold them further underwater. That is why big businesses have funded both major American parties for so long.

Defining conservatism as just cutting regulations and taxes works well for the nationless companies headquartered in America. However, those companies have no incentive to reinvest in Americas families, communities, or future. If Rubio is firing a shot over the bow of Corporate America here, well know in the coming months as his voting record begins to evidence his support for more regulations and higher taxes on these nationless companies, in order to invest in American families, communities, and future. If he doesnt, this is so much hot air. Keep an eye on him.

It is time we push companies to meet their obligations to America. The GOP has long been a coalition party that brought together free market libertarians and social conservatives in order to enact policies that please both. In practice, this results in a worldview that grants corporations rights as if they were flesh-and-blood people, but without the moral obligations that real people feel. Is Rubio leaving behind the free market ideology that now defines his party? What would Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say?

What does that look like? Since these nationless companies got many of their corporate privileges from the policies of the United States government, we should use those policies to reward and incentivize corporate decisions that promote a strong and prosperous America. This is edging very close to the planned economy that conservatives have long derided as failed Communism, but OK.

First, that means getting wokeness out of the boardroom. At a minimum, we should require that the leadership of large companies be subject to strict scrutiny and legal liability when they abuse their corporate privilege by pushing wasteful, anti-American nonsense. Its interesting that Marco Rubio suddenly wants to police corporations this closely. If companies are getting woke (that is, supporting human rights, alleviating poverty, caring about the environment, and other similar goals), its because theyve decided that these actions are profitable and serve the interests of the shareholders. Henry Ford, capitalist icon, knew that his workers needed to be able to afford his products. Maybe Ford was too woke for Rubios taste.

For example, we can use the current shareholder primacy argument against these companies. Right now, the burden is on the shareholder to prove these woke, anti-American stanceslike boycotting a state for governing its own election lawsare bad for shareholders. Instead, we should place the burden on the company to prove it is acting in the best interest of shareholders. If companies like Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, and Delta Airlines are bowing to public pressure and leaving Georgia, perhaps keeping their customer base is more in line with shareholder interests than is supporting voter disenfranchisement. If their politically active customers (and Georgias voters) are Americans, its hard to consider these positions to be anti-American.

Second, that means a stock market that holds companies accountable for pro-American goals hahahahahaha gasp pardon me rather than left-wing social engineering or globalist profiteering. We should require that companies disclose to investors and be held to account for their investment in Americafacilities, workforce training, number of Americans hiredas opposed to off-shoring jobs overseas, or showing how diverse their workplaces are. Oh, Marco Rubio, your memory is so short that youre failing to remember how proud your fellow conservatives were of St. Ronald Reagans stance regarding globalization. Free and open markets, not a komissar in every boardroom. In 2018, the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump and which Marco Rubio himself voted for, which incentivized offshoring of American jobs. It passed the Senate with only Republican support. Whos woke now?

[W]e should have requirements that companies boards of directors be free of any conflicts of interest with foreign adversaries such as China. Suddenly conflicts of interest bother Marco Rubio.

When regular workers save for retirement, they shouldnt have to give over the control of their investments to investment funds that will command the company to act against those workers own interests 401(k) retirement accounts exploded during the Reagan administration. Reagan ran on the idea of privatized retirement savings (like IRAs), and changed the law to expand adoption of the 401(k). As a result, employers started offering them as a benefit, instead of actual pensions, while the resulting increase in stock market investment made the investor class even richer. Conservatives have long favored dismantling, even privatizing, Social Security, forcing those who want to save for retirement to turn to investment funds instead of employers and the Government. Rubios commentary here is comedy gold.

For example, the retirement fund for Americas service members, the TSP, should be banned from investing in Chinese military companies, or using service members savings to push American companies off-shore to China. That is something Congress can fix right now and on which there is bipartisan agreement OK, do it, Mr. Rubio. See if your fellow conservatives will bite.

One solution would be to mandate that these institutional shareholders merely send in the votes of the ultimate beneficiaries of these funds, rather than vote on their behalf. There would be a lot less craziness in Americas corporations if the people voting their shares were firefighters and teachers rather than their union bosses or Wall Street. I wonder if he would soon find just how many woke firefighters and teachers we have.

The ultimate way to stop the current Marxist cultural revolution among our corporate elite is to replace them with a new generation of business leaders who consider themselves Americans, not citizens of the world. I simply cant get over just how badly Marco Rubio wants to stop Marxism via state control of corporations.

That is how we defeat this toxic cultural Marxism and rebuild an economy where Americas largest companies were accountable for what matters to America: new factories built in America, good jobs for American families, and investments in American neighborhoods and communities. It sounds like Marco wants what actual Socialists have pushed for while his conservative pals have been shoveling jobs out the door and failing to invest in our communities or our future, to better enrich the already-rich. Welcome to the dark side, Comrade, heres your commemorative hammer-and-sickle lapel pin.

It is not too late to get it right, but we have no time to waste in restoring what has made this nation great for so many generations. What made this nation great is mostly the practices and policies that Marco Rubio and his party have opposed since at least the time of Nixon, if not the Gilded Age. Ill be interested to see if his voting starts to match his rhetoric, or if this pretty patriotic speech is simply opening the door to something much uglier. If this is the best, most intellectually serious discourse that the conservative movement has to offer, though, we should all be a little worried over whats become of the American political scene.

Related: If MLB is a State Actor, Who Else is Too?

Original post:

The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio - Legal Reader

UFOs Topic of Nov. 9 fall 2021 Philosophy and Religion Forum Presentation – Southern Miss Now

Wed, 10/27/2021 - 09:50am | By: David Tisdale

The final presentation for the fall 2021 Philosophy & Religion Forum series at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) is set for Tuesday, Nov. 9 at 6:30 p.m. online via Zoom featuring Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, who will present UFOs and UAPs: Military and Civilian Testimonies of UFO Events."

Dr. Pasulkas research focuses on religions and technology, including supernatural belief and connections to digital technologies and environments. She is the author of American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology (Oxford University Press). Her other projects include two edited volumes: Believing in Bits: New Media and the Supernatural, co-edited with Simone Natalie (Oxford University Press) and Post Humanism: The Future of Homo Sapiens, co-edited with Michael Bess (Palgrave MacMillian Reference).

Fall Philosophy & Religion Forum talks are hosted on Zoom, and preregistration is required. All program times are CST. The meetings are available at the following link:

*Topic: Philosophy & Religion Forum

*Zoom Meeting Link

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87320470024?pwd=WmJZUGo4eEhHNWd1cjJLeEN5ZG9nUT09

*Meeting ID: 873 2047 0024

*Passcode: Forum

The Philosophy & Religion Forum is presented by the USM Philosophy program, which is housed in the USM College of Arts and Sciences School of Humanities. For more information, contact Dr. Amy Slagle ata.slagleFREEMississippi.

Read the original:

UFOs Topic of Nov. 9 fall 2021 Philosophy and Religion Forum Presentation - Southern Miss Now