Libertarian Party reminds people they have 15 candidates running for president – week.com

Posted on by

East Peoria (WEEK) -- The Libertarian Party wants you to know they have 15 candidates running for president this year.

Ahead of next week's primary, the party is having a debate at the East Peoria Embassy Suites Friday night at 8 PM.

Local organizer Steve Suess says the party is focused on a few fronts, including anti-intervention policy, tax reform, civil liberties, and minimizing government involvement.

He's asking voters to give his party a chance.

"People won't give money to a Libertarian candidate or won't vote for a Libertarian candidate because they can't win but at the same time we're not gonna break that cycle of not winning if people don't vote and donate and volunteer for campaigns I would encourage people to do research and make the decision they feel most comfortable about in the ballot box," shares Suess.

Despite many cancellations from coronavirus concerns, Suess says they still plan to go on with the event.

See the original post:

Libertarian Party reminds people they have 15 candidates running for president - week.com

Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics – Reason

Posted on by

It's almost never a good idea to use a public health crisis to score points against your political opponentsand if you're going to do it, you really ought to try to describe the situation accurately.

Actually, that second part applies even when there's no public health crisis.

It has, however, become fashionable for certain elements of the Very Online Left to use the ongoing coronavirus outbreak as evidence that libertarians either don't actually exist or that we quickly abandon our principles in the face of a pandemic. This recent outbreak of libertarian bashingwhich makes only slightly more sense than the claims made by some on the right that libertarians are secretly running everything in Washington, D.C. and plotting to get your kids addicted to pornseems to have started with a pithy tweet from Atlantic writer Derek Thompson on March 3. But it's become a ubiquitous online "take" since Sunday afternoon, when Bloomberg opinion writer Noah Smith logged on.

The take may have achieved its final format least let's hope sowith The Atlantic's publication on Tuesday of an 800-word piece from staff writer Peter Nicholas carrying the headline (sigh) "There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic."

Lazy? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes.

Nicholas' article opens with a scene from CPACthat's the Conservative Political Action Conference, by the wayand proceeds to detail all the ways in which the Trump administration has botched the federal response to the new coronavirus, called COVID-19. You know, the same Trump administration that is just full to the brim with libertarians. The same administration that is raising barriers to free trade, making it more difficult for people to move to America, giving bail-outs to politically favored industries, considering more bailouts to more politically favored industries, trying to regulate free speech online, suing newspapers in an attempt to curb the First Amendment, and launching missiles into foreign countries without congressional authorization. That administration? That's the libertarian one?

Nicholas tries to get away with this nonsense by setting up a false equivalency. Trump is campaigning against socialism, you see, and libertarians also dislike socialismso therefore the Trump administration must be libertarian. Right? Therefore, when Trump starts talking like a socialist himselfby promising coronavirus bailouts and the repurposing of disaster recovery funds to cover people who come down with COVID-19it is proof positive that the libertarian world has abandoned its commitment to smaller government. Voila!

Perhaps The Atlantic's editorial staff has self-quarantined from its dutieshow else to explain how an otherwise thoughtful publication could allow a headline that confuses libertarianism with anything that the Trump administration is doing? For that matter, maybe Smith and Thompson believe that an army of strawmen are an effective defense against COVID-19. I hope it works out for them.

As a libertarian in a pandemic, let me first assure you that we do in fact still exist.

And, in fact, it is the free marketand, to a lesser extent, its defenderswho will help you survive the new coronavirus. All those groceries you're stocking up on in advance of the expected collapse of civilization? They didn't end up on grocery store shelves because government officials ordered it to happen or because someone was feeling particularly generous today. That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn't show up because Trump tweeted it into existence or because the surgeon general is driving a delivery truck around the country.

Bottled water? Face masks? They're available because someone is turning a profit by making and selling them. The first latex gloves were invented in the 1880s but the disposable variety that are so useful right now have "only been available since 1964, as innovated by the private company Ansell, founded by Eric Ansell in Melbourne, Australia. Thank you international trade," notes Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research.

Sure, one consequence of the success of private enterprise in reshaping the world is an interconnected planet that allows for something like COVID-19 to spread more rapidly than would have been possible in the past. But modern technology has also allowed doctors, private enterprises, and (yes) governments to respond more quickly than ever before.

It also means that you'll have access to nearly every piece of film, television, and music ever recorded by human beings if you have to self-quarantine for a week or two. It means that humans have the ability to live far healthier lives than they did in 1918, when a global flu pandemic killed 50 million people. The people who live through the current coronavirus outbreak because of stronger immune systems made possible by steady diets won't show up on any list of statistics after the coronavirus has passed, but capitalism is at least partially to thank for their survival.

In short, if you had to pick any time in human history to live through a global pandemic, you'd be incredibly foolish not to pick the current time. And the reason you'd pick this moment in history probably has less to do with who is running the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the World Health Organization, and more to do with the technological and medical advances made possible by free enterprise.

"What is the mighty contribution of government these days?" asks Tucker. "To order quarantines but not to tell you whether you can step outside, how you will get groceries, how long it will last, who you can invite in, and when it will all end. Don't try to call the authorities. They have better and bigger things to worry about than your sorry plight that is causing you sleepless nights and endless worry. Thank goodness for digital technology that allows you to communicate with friends and family."

Yeah, there are libertarians in a pandemic. We're the ones willing to acknowledge how much more all of this would suck if the market didn't exist.

Follow this link:

Yes, There Are Libertarians in Pandemics - Reason

Tired: There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic. Wired: There Are Only Libertarians in a Pandemic. – Reason

Posted on by

Man, it seems like only a few days ago that the smart set was writing off small-government types (again!) in articles with such snarky headlines as "There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic."

By now it might be more correct to believe there are only libertarians in a pandemic, including officials who are suddenly willing and able to waive all sorts of ostensibly important rules and procedures in the name of helping people out.

How else to explain the decision by the much-loathed and irrelevant-to-safety Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to allow family-sized jugs of hand sanitizer onto planes? The TSA isn't going full Milton Friedmanit's reminding visitors to its website "that all other liquids, gels and aerosols brought to a checkpoint continue to be allowed at the limit of 3.4 ounces or 100 milliliters carried in a one quart-size bag." But it's a start.

Something similar is going on in Massachusetts, a state well-known for high levels of regulation, including of the medical sector. Expecting a crush in medical care needs due the coronavirus, Gov. Charlie Baker has seen the light and agreed to streamline the Bay State's recognition of "nurses and other medical professionals" who are registered in other parts of the United States, something that 34 states do on a regular basis.

As Walter Olson of the Cato Institute observes,

That's agood idea, which should help get medical professionals to where they are most needed, and it is one of many good ideas that should be kept on as policy after the pandemic emergency passes. After Superstorm Sandy in 2012, by contrast, when stormravaged oceanside homeowners badly needed skilled labor to restore their premises to usable condition, local laws in places like Long Island forbade them to bring in skilled electricians even from other counties of New York, let along other states.

And over at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bureaucrats have suddenly decided to approve overnight a coronavirus test that its former chief, Scott Gottlieb, has described as a "fairly routine technology."

The Roche test is 10 times faster than the process currently being used, but the FDA didn't approve it until this past Fridayand then only for this particular emergency. But even with that delay and that limited application, this is a welcome shift.

As Reason's Ronald Bailey has noted, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "stymied private and academic development of diagnostic tests that might have provided an early warning and a head start on controlling the epidemic that is now spreading across the country."

You can probably see where I'm going with this: If the policies and decisions above are worth tossing out in an emergency, maybe they ought to be sidelined during normal times too.

Situations like the 9/11 attacks and the coronavirus outbreak often open the door to naked power grabs whose terrible consequences that stick around long after the events that inspired them (looking at you, TSA!). Governments rarely return power once they've amassed it. But if you listen carefully, you can hear them telling us what stuff they realize can be safely tossed. When the infection rates come down and the theaters and schools and everything else get back to normal, it may be tempting just to go back to the way we were. Resist the temptation: A lot of the rules we put up with every day are worth reevaluating, and not only during an emergency.

More:

Tired: There Are No Libertarians in a Pandemic. Wired: There Are Only Libertarians in a Pandemic. - Reason

There Are No Libertarians in an Epidemic – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Speaking to reporters at the White House yesterday, Trump said he wants to shore up businesses and aid people whose finances have been hit. Were going to be working with a lot of companies so they dont get penalized for something thats not their fault, he said. Worried about the slumping travel industry, the White House is now considering tax deferrals for airlines and cruise lines. The administration has been weighing whether to use funds from a disaster program to pay for treatment of uninsured people who have become infected, The Wall Street Journal reported. And Alex Azar, the secretary of health and human services, said the administration might dust off a Korean Warera law called the Defense Production Act to ensure rapid manufacturing of medical supplies in the private sector.

Thats not free-market capitalism, says Jean Cohen, a political-theory professor at Columbia University, referring to the measures the White House has contemplated as the virus spreads. You can choose the term: Its regulated capitalism, or its the interventionist state, or its democratic socialism. If you want to serve the public good instead of private profit making, you need government to come in and make sure thats done.

Whatever the term, the Trump administrations handling of the outbreak amounts to government activism in the face of a national crisis. Its nothing new and, as may well prove the case this time around, its often necessary. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously called on American industry to outproduce the Axis powers during World War II, retooling whole sectors to meet ambitious manufacturing goals for tanks and planes. George W. Bush, a Republican, sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into a bailout program meant to keep the banking industry afloat after the 2008 financial crisis. I decided that the only way to preserve the free market in the long run was to intervene in the short run, Bush wrote in his 2010 book, Decision Points.

Read: The strongest evidence yet that America is botching coronavirus testing

In Trumps case, he may try to have it both ways: using socialism as a convenient campaign slogan, while battling the coronavirus with extraordinary measures comparable to what other modern presidents have done to beat back a crisis. Critics have panned his methods so far. As infections spread, hes kept up his golf outings and fundraising schedule, while downplaying a virus that could have reached his outstretched hand: At CPAC, he greeted Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who was in contact with the infected participant.

Trumpworld would like the 2020 general election to be a referendum on socialism; the Democrats want it to be a referendum on Trump. We will have it out, Kudlow said at CPAC. President Trump is more than prepared to show the world why what he called the American model of free enterprise will whip socialism every time.

Trump, though, is no doctrinaire economic conservative. His political brand is rooted in personality and celebrity, and hes bent on capturing a second term. If he decides that the quickest path to quashing the coronavirus is activist, interventionist government, free-market doctrine is unlikely to get in his way. If theres some dissonance in his reelection message and his practices, hell live with it.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Follow this link:

There Are No Libertarians in an Epidemic - The Atlantic

Seeking change and acceptance: Sex worker and political candidate riles things up in Orleans and beyond – The Daily News Online

Posted on by

ALBION To describe Chase Tkach is a daunting task, much like the one she faced when running as a third-party candidate for a seat on Orleans County Legislature last fall.

Shes a grade-school dropout. A third-year college student. A mother. A rebel. A politician. Founder and Head of the Orleans Libertarian Party.

Oh, and she happens to make her living in the always-thriving sex industry, both as a for-hire dominatrix and a porn star.

She also happens to be a friendly, articulate young woman with a passion for politics and change and who wont back down when challenged.

To say Chase Tkach is shaking things up in the rural, vastly conservative Orleans County is an understatement.

Shes quite a character, said Tony DOrazio, vice chairman of the State Libertarian Party. Were a party full of characters. We have people who are very professional and then we have people like Chase. She is very much not a farmer but she has been able to go in and get things done.

The main thing, for Libertarians, is that Tkach was able to establish a presence in Orleans.

We tried to get that going for years and she came in and got it done, DOrazio said.

Tkach is just 24 and has been living in Orleans County for six years.

She was born in Brockport and moved to Florida at the age of 2.

She dropped out of school in Orlando after seventh grade, got her GED and moved back to New York when she became pregnant at 18.

I have family here I havent seen in years and I wanted to reconnect with them, she said. And I didnt want to raise my child in Florida. I was in Miami and it was really bad. I didnt want my child growing up in that atmosphere.

Tkach lived in Medina, renting an apartment, and at age 20 bought a house in Carlton.

Politics came easy as her family was always talking politics.

At first, I was a registered Republican because thats what I thought my family was, Tkach said. I never heard of Libertarian. I called my dad one day and said its funny that you say youre a Republican but half of your values are not Republican values. He said Im not a Republican. Im whats called a Libertarian. I had no idea!

I started getting really into it and said this is the best thing ever. This is completely me.

She began searching for other like-minded people and found them in Monroe County, which has the largest number of members of any Libertarian chapter in the state.

She met with DOrazio and told me she wanted to form a chapter in Orleans.

First, she got elected to the state committee and two years later, in September, officially formed the Orleans chapter, of which she is chairperson.

In the meantime, she ran for an at-large seat on the county Legislature, challenging incumbent Republican Don Allport.

It started with me going to a legislature meeting and my opponent was talking about how marijuana was dangerous and should be kept illegal, she said. I said youre wrong for keeping it from people who need it. So I want to take his spot because he shouldnt be there.

With that, Tkach throws her head back and laughs, which she does often.

She is personable, intelligent and easy to talk to, something that helped her grab more than 700 votes in a losing effort against Allport. That was the most third-party votes of any candidate last year or any other year for that matter.

The Libertarian message self responsibility, personal freedom and minimum government resonates with people, especially in rural counties.

Orleans, oddly enough, had the highest number of people, percentage wise, in the state who voted for Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe in 2018.

Still, Tkach, heavily tattooed and pierced, did create quite a stir when she ran against Allport.

I did, she laughs. I do that a lot. Thats how I get my way in. Hey! I look this way. Come talk to me and then Im like Im educated. Lets talk about politics.

The status quo, the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties, didnt want anything to do with me.

It didnt bother Tkach one bit.

Ive never looked at people in higher positions than me, I never put them above me, she said. It never worried or bothered me. Im like, I feel like I know more than you and Im going to go ahead and do this and take my shot and keep going until I win. If Im that confident in what I know, I dont feel like they can stop me.

Tkach certainly exudes confidence. It helps that she could not care less about what people think of her lifestyle.

I dont hide anything from anybody. Ive always been that way. Im not scared of what people think about me. The more that I see people being themselves, it makes me more comfortable being myself. I feel like I want to do that for other people who are struggling to be open about who they are.

She freely talks about her work as a porn actress (using the name Molly Smash) and dominatrix, something that obviously takes people aback.

She met with the sheriff and District Attorney Joseph Cardone as a kind of pre-emptive strike.

I informed them that this is what I do, she said. I have contracts and Im doing this legally. Everything I do is consensual and I told them I dont want to worry out but just let you know that this is what Im doing. I want to be normalized, not stigmatized. Sometimes when youre open and honest about it, that goes a long way. They were both very understanding people.

She also is open and honest and forceful in beliefs that all drugs should be legalized and, just as important, that sex work should be legalized. She is a protector of rights, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment. That, too, resonates with people in rural counties.

If I had it my way, you would be able to buy guns out of a vending machine, she said, half joking. I want to decriminalize all drugs, not just marijuana. Let the police focus on murder and rape and leave it alone. Theres only so much I can do to convince them, but there is proof and evidence that decriminalization works. Same thing for sex workers. Its a victimless crime. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.

Criminalizing drugs and sex work makes it more dangerous, she said.

She does her homework and speaks as if she knows what shes talking about. Because, she does.

Ive met her a few times and we agree on a lot of issues, such as the Second Amendment and we disagree om some issues, which is fine, said Orleans County Sheriff Christopher Bourke, who also was on the campaign trail last year. Shes very intelligent and a kind person.

Tkach did make some friends while campaigning, one being Fred Miller, who serves as the minority leader for the Legislature.

I had a long conversation with her once and found her quite interesting and refreshing, Miller said. The biggest thing is, with young people especially, people make judgements, especially in the political field. I think its refreshing for any young person to be interested in politics. I wish more young people would get involved. Its difficult for them. Ive learned that in my time with the legislature that so much happens during the day and people dont have the time.

I give her credit. Many people sit back and criticize and dont have the guts to do something about it. She does, and thats refreshing.

Tkach wont be going away, she promises. She is in her third year as a political science major at Brockport College. She plans on seeking a position on the planning board in Carlton, where she lives with her boyfriend and two children, 2 and 5, and is spending this year campaigning for Duane Whitmer, the Libertarian candidate for the 27th Congressional District.

She also plans on running again for the county at-large seat in two years.

More than anything, I want to change the culture of this place, she said. This place is dying. Its run to the ground. Taxes are too high. Im a homeowner and taxes are outrageous. There are simple things we can do. Let people beautify their homes without worrying their taxes will go up. We need to get more people to move here.

Ive met a lot of friends around here, redneck friends and urban friends and were all here for the same reason: We value privacy. Keep the government out of our lives. We value your privacy and we dont always have to agree on the same thing. We can drastically disagree. But we dont need the government forcing my values onto yours. Thats what makes Libertarians so unique, is that there are so many opinions. We dont want everybody looking the same, talking the same or thinking the same.

Her goal? Ditch the two-party system.

Its not fair, she said. Get out of this two-party duopoly and move on from that. Its 2020! We dont have time for this anymore.

Your time is coming. Eventually, you are going to get tired of this and Im still going to be running. I want to do this because I want to see a change in my life, my familys and everyone around here. Im serious about what Im doing and Im sticking to it.

The fork ratings are based primarily on food quality and preparation, with service and atmosphere factored into the final decision. Reviews are based on one unsolicited, unannounced visit to the restaurant.

Read the original post:

Seeking change and acceptance: Sex worker and political candidate riles things up in Orleans and beyond - The Daily News Online

Tech think tank chief to step down after Trump death tweet – POLITICO

Posted on by

Szka and TechFreedom, which receives funding from at least one tech giant, Google, have been relentless allies of Silicon Valley, particularly as it has faced calls for increased regulation in Washington in recent years. The group has opposed efforts to create more stringent rules for privacy and online speech, among other issues.

But Szka has also been a frequent critic of the president, delivering at times scathing rebukes of his actions on social media.

The planned shake-up comes just four days after Szka prompted a firestorm of criticism online by suggesting that the president succumbing to the virus would be fitting.

Serious question: could there possibly [sic] any greater poetic justice in the universe than for Trump to die of the #CPACvirus? Szka tweeted late Monday.

Recent reports that an attendee at the Conservative Political Action Conference was later diagnosed with Covid-19 sparked fears that the president may have been exposed to the virus. Reps. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) had contact with the president as well before entering self-quarantine due to possible exposure.

The Szka tweet immediately drew condemnations online, racking up hundreds of negative replies within minutes and some calls for his resignation. Szka later deleted the tweet, and has since issued an apology.

Earlier this week, I sent a thoughtless tweet making an inappropriate comment about the President that I deeply regret, he tweeted Thursday. I was wrong to tweet it and deleted it. Again, I apologize.

See more here:

Tech think tank chief to step down after Trump death tweet - POLITICO

Petition to ban sanctuary cities approved on Winnacunnet school ballot – Seacoastonline.com

Posted on by

SEABROOK - A citizens petition opposing "sanctuary cities" passed by more than 1,200 votes across four towns Tuesday, though the article created a rift between its author and the Libertarian Party.

School officials were perplexed when Libertarian state Rep. Max Abramson of Seabrook put the non-binding petition on the Winnacunnet Cooperative School District ballot for Tuesday's Town Meeting. The article asked voters to agree that no school district nor town official shall establish Sanctuary Cities policies that prevent immigration laws from being enforced.

Abramson said he put the article on the school ballot to get the question in front of voters in multiple towns rather than one. It passed in Hampton, North Hampton, Seabrook and Hampton Falls by a cumulative vote of 3,519 to 2,306. It passed 1,716 to 1,187 in Hampton, 454 to 295 in Hampton Falls, 588 to 443 in North Hampton and 761 to 381 in Seabrook.

"It shows overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities and finally allowed the public to have their say on it," said Abramson, who added before the vote that immigration affects voters "more than probably any other single one policy issue."

Abramson previously cosponsored legislation banning sanctuary cities statewide. The bill was killed last year, but he said he plans to file or support similar legislation in the future.

The petition drew praise from conservatives like Hampton Selectman Regina Barnes, who recently announced her run for state Senate as a Republican this year. It also drew criticism from members of the Libertarian Party, whose platform embraces open borders. Abramson switched to being Libertarian after being elected as a Republican in 2018, and he announced last year he was running for the Libertarian presidential nomination.

Brian Shields, chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, said party members felt convinced Abramson's beliefs did not align enough with the party platform. The recent petition regarding sanctuary cities, he said, was viewed as further confirmation.

"Max Abramson deserves to be censured by the state party for his continued opposition to the platform and principles of the Libertarian Party," read a letter to the editor from Darryl Perry, former chair of the Libertarian Party in New Hampshire (LPNH). Shields said Perry also directly requested LPNH take such action, and they were considering it when Abramson decided to withdraw from the party.

"My reason is simple: the abusiveness and bullying that I've seen from some activists, trolls and Antifa thugs who now claim to speak for all Libertarians has reached a point where we cannot recruit and keep people in the LP," Abramson wrote in a post on Facebook about his departure.

"He claims we were too mean," Shields said. Abramson's censure, he said, could have entailed the party separating itself from Abramson's actions, as well as calling for the removal of his membership or candidacy.

Shields said Abramson's petition violated the "freedom of movement," a core belief for the Libertarian Party, and supported statewide prohibitions on local action - enacting sanctuary city policies. He said that also went against the party's beliefs.

"He left the party while we were in the middle of a vote for it," Shields said. "If he had stayed, we most likely would have censured him."

Shields said Abramson is currently listed as a Democrat on the New Hampshire secretary of state's online voter lookup page, though Abramson said that was only the case because he wanted to vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the New Hampshire Primary.

The New Hampshire General Court website still listed Abramson as Libertarian this week, but Abramson said he currently has no party affiliation. He had been running a campaign for the Libertarian presidential nomination, and he said he is now encouraging people to vote for him as an independent.

"I'm a man without a party," Abramson said, "but still just vote with my district as a legislator."

Read more from the original source:

Petition to ban sanctuary cities approved on Winnacunnet school ballot - Seacoastonline.com

When Should Lay Voters Defer to the Views of Scientists? – Reason

Posted on by

In the midst of the current crisis over the coronavirus pandemic, we often face decisions about the extent to which weas ordinary citizens and voters with little or no scientific expertiseshould defer to the views of scientists. Back in 2015, I wrote an in-depth post assessing this question (see here for non-paywall version), based in part on my academic work on political ignorance. I reprint it here in is entirely in the hopes it might be useful to at least some readers in these difficult times.

The post contains a number of nuances and qualifications. But the bottom line is that we should indeed defer to scientists on technical issues within their expertise, especially if there seems to be a cross-ideological consensus among the relevant experts. That most definitely applies to the epidemiological aspects of coronavirus (rate of spread, death rate, how it's more dangerous than the common flu, etc.).

On the other hand, there are issues of policy and morality that cannot be resolved by scientific/technical expertise alone and/or that require the expertise of economists and other social scientists as much or more than "hard scientists." Those issues likely include a number of the policy questions surrounding how best to respond to the pandemic. "Hard" science is an essential component of those decisions, but not the only component.

I would add that these precepts are especially difficult to followbut also especially importantwhen the expert scientific consensus goes against our ideological priors. In the 2015 post, I noted one such example where I try to practice what I preach (global warming). Coronavirus is another. It would be ideologically convenient for me, as a libertarian, if this pandemic were no more dangerous than the flu. That conclusion would significantly weaken the case for using massive government intervention to address the crisis. But I nonetheless believe it unwarranted to challenge the broad expert consensus that says coronavirus is indeed much more dangerous than either the flu or various other recent epidemics.

What follows is the 2015 post reprinted in full:

A recent Pew Research Center study shows that scientists and the general public disagree on a wide range of science-related public policy issues. For example, the survey finds that 87 percent of scientists, but only 37 percent of the general public believe that it is safe to eat genetically modified foods; 68 percent of scientists believe it is safe to eat food treated with pesticides, compared to only 28 percent of the public. Relative to the public, scientists are much more supportive of nuclear power and the use of animals in scientific research, and much less supportive of offshore drilling. Also, some 87 percent of scientists believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity, a view shared by only 50 percent of the public.

I. The Case for Deferring to Scientists.

This raises the question of whether voters should defer to majority scientific opinion on these issues. Given my research on political ignorance, it is tempting for me to conclude that the answer is almost always "yes." The majority of the public is often ignorant about basic facts about government and politics, and their scientific knowledge is also far from impressive. You don't have to believe that scientists are always right about scientific issues to conclude that they are on average more likely to be right than generally ignorant voters are. To the extent that this is true, an electorate that defers to majority scientific opinion on these issues would make fewer mistakes than one that does not, even though neither would be completely error free.

The above reasoning has some merit. But it is important to avoid conflating two different kinds of "scientific" issues. Some of the questions addressed in the Pew survey are almost purely technical questions. For example, the issue of whether GMO foods or foods treated with pesticides are safe, or the issue of whether human activity is the main cause of climate change. On these sorts of technical matters, scientists are indeed likely to know much more than most ordinary people, and there is a good case for deferring to them. But some seemingly scientific policy issues actually include major nontechnical components on which scientists are not likely to have specialized knowledge.

II. The Limits of Scientific Expertise.

Some of the questions raised in the Pew study are actually mixed questions of scientific facts and moral values. For example, the issue of whether animals should be used in scientific research partly depends on the scientific benefits of using thema question on which scientists have special expertise. But it also depends on the moral status of the animals in question, and whether it is ethically permissible to inflict certain types of harm on them. On that latter issue, scientists have no special knowledge. If there is a group of experts that does, it is likely to be moral philosophers and political theorists; and these groups areon average more sympathetic to animal rights arguments than the general public is.

Other issues on the survey raise questions of political economy rather than pure science. For example, many more scientists (82 percent) than ordinary people (59 percent) believe that growing population will be a "major" problem in the future. Whether it will be or not depends largely on whether the possible costs of population growth (e.g.environmental externalities) will outweigh the benefits, such as increased innovation and a greater division of labor. On these latter questions, economists are likely to be more expert than natural scientists are, and economists tend to be much more skeptical of Malthusian arguments than either natural scientists or the general population. They like to point out that Malthusian predictions have proven wrong for some two hundred years, which does not prove that they will always be wrong, but does suggest reason for imposing a high burden of proof on them.

Even on issues when scientists really are expert, there is occasionally a case for discounting their views based on ideological bias, or narrow self-interest. For example, if we find that scientists are in favor of increased government subsidies for science, their position could be based purely on disinterested expertise; but it could also be special interest pleading.

But it would be a mistake to dismiss all or most expert opinion on such grounds. Many of the issues on which experts and the public diverge have little direct connection to the self-interest of the former. Large lay-expert disagreements persist even in studies that control for self-interest and ideology, as Bryan Caplan did in his work comparing the views of economists and lay people on economic issues, and we have in our joint work comparing the views of laypeople and political scientists on political influence (coauthored with Eric Crampton and Wayne Grove).

In the case of the Pew survey, it is striking that scientists endorse what are usually considered "right wing" positions on nuclear power, GMO foods, and pesticides, even though scientists are generally much more left-wing in their political views than the average voter is. The scientists could be wrong about these issues. But if so it's not because of ideological bias.

Cynics will argue that I'm only advocating deferring to scientists when they happen to agree with my own libertarian views. Not so. There is indeed congruence between my views and those of the scientists on GMOs and pesticides. On the other hand, it would be very convenient for me and other libertarians if global warming were not a serious problem or were not caused by human activity. One of the standard libertarian arguments against government intervention is that the problem people want the government to solve doesn't really exist in the first place. Nonetheless, I am sufficiently impressed by the majority view of scientists on this question that I think libertarians should avoid the temptation to ignore or dismiss it. Recognizing that the scientists are likely right about the nature of the problem does not mean that they are also right about possible solutions (which will often depend on considerations of ethics and political economy on which scientists are not very expert). But it is still an important issue on which scientists are likely to know much more than laypeople. Unless and until the scientific consensus shifts, libertarians who are not themselves scientific experts should defer to the majority scientific view on the extent and causes of global warming.

In sum, it makes good sense to defer to the views of experts on areas that are actually within their expertise. But not on questions that may seem related, but actually are distinct. Telling the difference isn't always easy. Here, as elsewhere, being a responsible, well-informed voter turns out to be a lot harder than we might think.

Finally, I should note that I recognize that many people believe that voters have an absolute right to make decisions based on ignorance, regardless of whether deference to scientists or some other strategy could enable them to make better-informed choices. I disagree with that view of the ethics of voting for reasons outlined here and here.

Read more:

When Should Lay Voters Defer to the Views of Scientists? - Reason

Ben Shapiro: What coronavirus should teach us – Grand Forks Herald

Posted on by

As the markets have plummeted over global fears surrounding the fallout from the new coronavirus, political pundits have taken up the call: Find some meaning in the coronavirus outbreak and response. And where there is a demand for speculative opinion, there's never a shortage of supply. Thus we've seen the coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan, China, be blamed on President Donald Trump. We've seen government-managed response, which has varied widely in terms of success by country, touted as a final rebuttal of libertarian precepts. We've seen the coronavirus' economic impact cited as a rationale for breaking global supply chains and pursuing industrial autarky instead.

None of these takeaways are particularly compelling. The Trump administration's response has been about as strong as prior federal attempts to deal with public epidemics, ranging from SARS to swine flu. While Trump himself hasn't exactly projected a sense of calming administrative competence, those around him, ranging from Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, are fully capable of performing as needed. Libertarianism does not suggest that collective action ought to be out of bounds in the case of public emergencies with serious externalities -- few libertarians oppose police departments or proper environmental regulations, for example -- and the record of government competence has been, at best, rather mixed. The solution to vulnerable supply chains running through authoritarian countries is, first, for Western countries to consider security threats when formulating trade policy, and second, for companies to harden their supply chains by diversifying those chains even further.

So, what are the real lessons to be learned from the coronavirus?

First, we should favor governments that are transparent in their distribution of information. China has been celebrated for its extraordinary crackdown on public life, which has brought transmissions down dramatically. But if it were not for China's propagandistic efforts to quash news about the coronavirus in the first place, the epidemic probably would not have become a pandemic.

Second, we must stop humoring anti-scientific rumormongering about issues like vaccines. The curbing of the coronavirus will be reliant on the development of a vaccine, and Americans should understand that vaccines work, and that misinformation about vaccinations should generally be rejected.

Third, we should remember that crises exacerbate underlying issues; they rarely create them. Economic volatility in the aftermath of the coronavirus has merely exposed the underlying weaknesses of the Chinese and European economies; those systemic problems won't be solved through Band-Aid solutions. The public health issues with homelessness will likely be exposed dramatically in the United States; they won't go away when the coronavirus ends. The coronavirus should underscore the necessity for action in the absence of crisis.

Finally, we should remember that charity and local community support matter. Large-scale government response will never be as efficient or as personal as local response. Care for our neighbors. Care for our families. Implement personal behavior that lowers risk. And then wait for more information. Perhaps that's the best lesson from all of this: Jumping to conclusions based on lack of information is a serious mistake.

Ben Shapiro is a nationally syndicated columnist whose work regularly appears in the Herald.

As a public service, we've opened this article to everyone regardless of subscription status.

See more here:

Ben Shapiro: What coronavirus should teach us - Grand Forks Herald

Candidates who filed for office in Nevada – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Posted on by

Here is a list of all the candidates for federal, state and local office who filed for office by Fridays deadline. (Incumbents are denoted with an asterisk.)

Congressional District 1 (Las Vegas)

Kamau Bakari, Independent American Party

Joyce Bentley, Republican

Josh Elliott, Republican

Eddie MrLasVegas Hamilton, Republican

Citlaly Larios-Elias, Republican

Joseph Maridon, no political party

Allen Rheinhart, Democrat

Robert Van Strawder Jr., Libertarian

Anthony Thomas, Jr., Democrat

Dina Titus, Democrat*

Congressional District 2 (Reno, Northern Nevada)

Patricia Ackerman, Democrat

Mark Amodei, Republican*

Joel Paul Beck, Republican

Ed Cohen, Democrat

Richard Dunn III, no political party

Janine Hansen, Independent American Party

Reynaldo Hernandez, Democrat

Clint Koble, Democrat

Ian Luetkehans, Democrat

Steve Pragmatic Schiffman, Democrat

Rick Shepherd, Democrat

Congressional District 3 (Las Vegas, Henderson)

Ed S. Bridges II, Independent American Party

Steve Brown, Libertarian

Gary Crispin, no political party

Susie Lee, Democrat*

Brian Nadell, Republican

Corwin Cory Newberry, Republican

Mindy Robinson, Republican

Dan Big Dan Rodimer, Republican

Dan Schwartz, Republican

Dennis Sullivan, Democrat

Tiffany Ann Watson, Democrat

Victor R. Willert, Republican

Congressional District 4 (North Las Vegas, Nye, Lincoln, White Pine counties)

Rosalie Bingham, Republican

Leo Blundo, Republican

George Brucato, Democrat

Christopher Kendall Colley, Democrat

Steffanie Gabrielle DAyr, Democrat

Jennifer Eason, Democrat

Jonathan Royce Esteban, Libertarian

Steven Horsford, Democrat*

Gregory Kempton, Democrat

Jim Marchant, Republican

Charles Navarro, Republican

Sam Peters, Republican

Randi Reed, Republican

Barry Rubinson, Independent American Party

Lisa Song Sutton, Republican

Rebecca Wood, Republican

Senate District 1 (North Las Vegas)

Patricia Pat Spearman, Democrat*

Senate District 3 (Las Vegas)

Chris Brooks, Democrat*

Senate District 4 (North Las Vegas, Las Vegas)

Esper M. Hickman, Republican

Dina Neal, Democrat

Senate District 5 (Henderson)

Carrie Buck, Republican

Tim Hagan, Libertarian

Joshua Heers, Republican

Kristee Watson, Democrat

Senate District 6 (Las Vegas)

April Becker, Republican

Nicole Jeanette Cannizzaro, Democrat*

Senate District 7 (Las Vegas)

Richard Carrillo, Democrat

Roberta Lange, Democrat

Ellen Spiegel, Democrat

Senate District 11 (Las Vegas)

Joshua Dowden, Republican

Dallas Harris, Democrat*

Edgar Galindo Miron Galindo, Republican

Senate District 15 (Reno)

Catana L. Barnes, no political party

Heidi Seevers Gansert, Republican*

Wendy Jauregui-Jackins, Democrat

Kristie A. Strejc, Democrat

Senate District 18 (Las Vegas)

Liz Becker, Democrat

Ronald Ron Bilodeau, Democrat

Scott T. Hammond, Republican*

Senate District 19 (Elko, Eureka, White Pine, Nye, Lincoln and rural Clark counties)

Pete Goicoechea, Republican*

Tiffany Seeback, Independent American Party

Assembly District 1 (North Las Vegas)

Daniele Monroe-Moreno, Democrat*

Assembly District 2 (Las Vegas)

Heidi Kasama, Republican

Garrett LeDuff, no political party

Eva Littman, Democrat

Taylor McArthur, Republican

Christian Morehead, Republican

Radhika RPK Kunnel, Democrat

Erik Sexton, Republican

Jennie Sherwood, Democrat

View original post here:

Candidates who filed for office in Nevada - Las Vegas Review-Journal

The conservative movement is a public health hazard – The Week

Posted on by

It is by now beyond any question that President Trump has bungled the response to the novel coronavirus pandemic about as badly as one could possibly imagine. Senegal, a country with a per-capita GDP of about $3,500, is conducting mass tests for the virus and getting results within 4 hours, while the tiny handful of Americans who can even access tests have to wait days or even weeks. On Friday, a single Chinese oligarch announced he was donating to America on the order of 30 times more test kits than there had been tests conducted across the entire United States since the start of the outbreak up to that point.

It has been clear since 1980 that under Republican rule, the federal government decays. But under Trump, it has gotten full-blown administrative gangrene. Compared to what is needed to combat the crisis, Trump has done basically nothing. Meanwhile, he and his allies in conservative media have pushed an avalanche of misinformation that will only accelerate the spread of the disease. This is what the conservative movement has become: a gigantic public health hazard for America and the world.

There are two main ways in which conservatives have dissolved the bones of American government. The first is ideological. For decades, Republicans have been pushing a libertarian economic vision that can be summarized as "Government Bad." By this view, the government is a largely-pointless hindrance to private enterprise, and basically all regulations and social welfare programs should be done away with. (Prisons and the military can stay, of course.)

But there are many, many things, like public health emergencies, in which private businesses simply cannot handle things on their own. Nothing but the federal government can carry out the rapid and extensive actions needed to coordinate a response to a galloping nationwide viral pandemic, and the federal government is by far best able to finance one. As The New Republic's Alex Pareene writes, the right-wing extremists in the Trump administration have reacted with a sort of slack-jawed disbelief at the private sector completely failing to rise to the coronavirus challenge.

Second and more importantly, there is the conservative propaganda machine. The American right-wing media is without question the most unhinged, hysterical, irresponsible, and conspiracy-addled major press complex in the world. The right-wing media in the U.K. and Australia come close (probably because of shared language and ownership), but nobody beats Fox News in their combination of wide reach and utterly shameless propaganda.

On the one hand, Fox News, The Federalist, Rush Limbaugh, and so on are akin to the state media in a communist dictatorship. The movement is never wrong, Republican politicians are always right, and their political enemies are loathsome traitors who hate freedom, puppies, and apple pie. News that reflects badly on Trump is either made up or the product of a dastardly foreign or left-wing conspiracy. Aging white people across the country have turned their brains to pudding watching Sean Hannity yell insane racist nonsense at them night after night.

But on the other, a dominant faction of Republican politicians, including President Trump, are themselves melt-brained propaganda addicts. This is not how dictatorships usually work. In communist China, the top political leadership sets the party line coming out of the agitprop press, rather than the other way around. Leaders are influenced by party ideology, of course, but they still have wide latitude to change course like when the initial line that the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan was in hand turned out to be drastically mistaken, the Chinese Communist Party turned on a dime and started mass quarantines and lockdowns.

Trump, by contrast, has been loyally watching and live-tweeting Fox News while the epidemic spreads like wildfire, and doing almost nothing to stop it. The line coming from that network and the rest of conservative media is largely that the coronavirus is either fake, a foreign bioweapon, or a Democratic Party/mainstream media conspiracy to undermine the GOP. Rush Limbaugh said the virus was just the "common cold" that was being "weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump." Hannity suggested it might be entirely a fraud. (To be fair, Tucker Carlson and Michael Savage have tried to raise the alarm, but they are outliers.)

In another alarming public address Friday, Trump insisted he and his cronies were doing an "incredible job," despite the ongoing failure to test remotely adequately or pass anything to deal with the developing economic crisis. (He did however boast that America has many large companies.)

The remarkable thing about the denial-and-downplay strategy is that conservative Americans, being disproportionately elderly, are also disproportionately at risk from novel coronavirus. Limbaugh himself is 69 years old and has lung cancer. It could be that, given how utterly incompetent Trump is, furious spinning is the only strategy available.

But there is another important part of the story: conservative media is run by horrible monsters who constantly grift their own viewers and listeners. Whipping up foaming hysteria about liberals is a great opportunity to trick elderly retirees out of a piece of their retirement savings, it turns out. Even as the coronavirus scythe blade descends towards thousands of nursing and retirement homes where Fox News is on every minute of the day, these disgusting scum are using it to hawk garbage investment guides and quack snake oil cures.

First, the conservative movement dissolved the brains of its membership, then those people ended up in charge and dissolved the American government. Now that destruction is going to create quite possibly the worst outbreak of coronavirus in the entire world. Perhaps if the conservative movement suffers thousands of casualties among its own ranks it will finally try some introspection. But I would bet they'll just blame Barack Obama instead.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

The rest is here:

The conservative movement is a public health hazard - The Week

This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

Senators are skipping a planned one-week recess to try to finish two legislative items: A surveillance bill and passage of the House coronavirus legislation.

The Senate had been expected to be out of town this week, instead senators are set to return on Monday afternoon. The House is out after a middle-of-the-night vote early Saturday on the coronavirus package negotiated between House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Teetering economy sparks talk of second stimulus package MORE (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Teetering economy sparks talk of second stimulus package Fauci says coronavirus response may look like 'overreaction' but could prevent worst-case scenario MORE.

The bill includes provisions that bolster unemployment insurance and guarantee that all Americans can get free diagnostic testing for the coronavirus. It also creates a national paid sick leave program through this year requiring employers with fewer than 500 workers as well as government employers would have to provide two weeks of paid sick leave.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills MORE (R-Ky.) predicted that a bipartisan majority of the chamber would want to move swiftly to pass a second coronavirus package, after Congress passed an initial $8.3 billion earlier this month.

Senators will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House. But I believe the vast majority of Senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses, he said in a statement shortly after the House vote.

Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerWatchdog raises concerns over Trump energy regulator Fear factor: Press and politicians should help pause the panic Democratic Senators introduce bill to provide free coronavirus testing MORE (D-N.Y.) quickly urged for the Senate to take up the House bill as passed.

First, Leader McConnell with the crisis we have, as the death today in New York shows, Leader McConnell should never have skipped town should never have let the Senate recess. We should have passed this bill late last night just as the House did. Fortunately, we are coming back Monday and Leader McConnell and our friends on the Republican side should pass the bill as is. It has broad support, got the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House, Schumer said during a press conference in New York.

But the bill is facing several snags that could slow its path to President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Juan Williams: Trump must be held to account over coronavirus MOREs desk.

First, the House is expected to have to clear technical changes to the coronavirus package. That is expected to take place this week by unanimous consent.

Secondly, the Senate is currently debating a surveillance bill, which is expected to get an initial procedural vote on Monday night. McConnell would need the consent of every senator to move from that bill to the coronavirus package, or to skip over other procedural hurdles and clear the House-passed coronavirus quickly.

Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Bill to protect children online ensnared in encryption fight Hillicon Valley: Facebook, Twitter dismantle Russian interference campaign targeting African Americans | YouTube to allow ads on coronavirus videos | Trump signs law banning federal funds for Huawei equipment MORE (R-Mo.) urged his colleagues to let the coronavirus package pass on Monday, which would take cooperation from all 100 senators.

FISA needs to be carefully reviewed. That takes time. That can wait. The emergency response to #coronavirus should be the first order of business in the Senate tomorrow. There is no reason for this to take days & days, he tweeted.

But there are already calls from some senators to make changes to the House passed bill, or scrap it altogether.

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills GOP senator announces intention to subpoena firm tied to Burisma MORE (R-Wis.) signaled his opposition to the House bill over concerns that that the paid sick leave provision would harm small businesses.

I hope the Senate will approach this with a level head and pass a bill that does more good than harm or, if it wont, pass nothing at all. The president and states already have adequate authority and funding to address the current situation, he said in a statement.

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills Coronavirus spending will come amid huge deficits MORE (R-Fla.) added in a tweet that he was hoping to include additional small business protections into the House-passed bill. Any changes by the Senate would bounce the bill back to the House, which is out of town for the week.

The potential hold ups for the legislation comes as the spread of the coronavirus is upending day-to-day life on Capitol Hill.

A second Capitol Hill staffer, this time in the Rep. David SchweikertDavid SchweikertCarper staffer tests positive in Delaware The Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns MOREs office, was confirmed to have tested positive for the coronavirus. The news sparked another round of congressional office closures, with several lawmakers already announcing that their staffs are working remotely.

This week will also mark the first full work week after new restrictions were placed on access to the Capitol. In addition to the temporary shuttering of tours, access to the Capitol or the congressional office buildings is now limited to members, staff, press and visitors on official business, with a cap on group size.

The extra measures on Capitol Hill comes as Washington, D.C. also placed new restrictions over the weekend and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new guidance including recommending canceling any events with more than 50 people for the next eight weeks.

This recommendation does not apply to the day to day operation of organizations such as schools, institutes of higher learning or businesses, the guidance adds.

Capitol Hill staff have tried to ramp up efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, including encouraging offices to practice social distancing and an uptick in hand sanitizer machines.

But lawmakers are still keeping close quarters with both staff, reporters and each other, underscoring the heightened risk in the Capitol. Of particular concern is the advanced age of many lawmakers.

Sen. Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Coronavirus takes toll on Capitol Hill Senate votes to reverse DeVos student loan rule MORE (D-Ill.) urged the Senate to pass both of its outstanding legislative agenda items by unanimous consent an event that would only require two senatorsone to preside over the chamber and one to make the request.

Given the fact that we can and should pass the Coronavirus package, and any subsequent recommended bipartisan fixes to it, by UC immediately, your decision to call us back to Washington this week is unnecessary and puts many innocent people at risk, the No. 2 Senate Democrat said.

Demanding that those Senators not currently in self quarantine take unnecessary flights exposing themselves and others; requiring our staffs to return to the Capitol and then have all of us return to our families makes no sense in light of the Presidents emergency declaration, he continued.

Surveillance

First on deck for the Senates agenda is Houses legislation to reauthorize a handful of provisions under the USA Freedom Act and make some reforms to the surveillance court.

The Senates debate comes after privacy hawks were able to throw up procedural roadblocks to passing the bill quickly last week, forcing the authorities to lapse on Sunday night.

The bill, which passed the House with bipartisan support last week, extends two USA Freedom Act provisions related to roving wiretaps, allowing law enforcement to follow an individual across devices, and lone wolf terrorists -- people who might be inspired by, but not directly linked to, a terrorist organization.

The bill would end a controversial call records program but reforms and reauthorizes other parts of Section 215, which allows the government to request tangible things relevant to a national security investigation.

But opponents argue it does not go far enough to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, Court.

The court, which has been a target of both progressives and libertarian-minded Republicans for years, has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitzs finding of 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions in the warrant applications related to Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl The Hill's Morning Report Coronavirus tests a partisan Washington MORE (R-Utah) tried to get a 45-day extension of the USA Freedom provisions along with a guarantee of amendment votes on the House-passed bill but Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl Senate standoff means surveillance programs to lapse MORE (R-N.C.) blocked his request.

McConnell warned late last week that if opponents forced a lapse it would only be temporary, predicting the House bill will eventually pass the Senate.

Lee and Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl The Hill's Morning Report Coronavirus tests a partisan Washington MORE (R-Ky.) are trying to get Trump to oppose the House bill and veto it if it reaches his desk in its current form. Trump railed repeatedly against the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department arguing that they spied on his campaign.

Trump has largely stayed tight lipped about the House bill, except acknowledging that some have urged him to veto it.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers gear up for another week fighting the coronavirus, seek to curb fallout Trump touts coronavirus response bill: 'Good teamwork' MORE (R-Calif.) told reporters on Friday night that Trump told him he would support the bill. A top strategist for Paul quickly replied to the news on Twitter with thats funny. Thats not what I heard.

See the original post here:

This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns | TheHill - The Hill

The Sanders Campaign: Another Failure of Socialism? – The National Interest

Posted on by

The failures of socialism have been chronicled many places, fromSocialismby Ludwig von Mises in 1922 toSocialism: The Failed Idea That Never Diesby Kristian Niemietz just last year. Perhaps the most contemporary failure, outside the continuing tragedies of North Korea and Cuba, is the sad example of Hugo Chavezs 21st century socialism in Venezuela, which turned out to be all too similar to 20th century socialism.

But right now we may be witnessing yet another failure of socialism: the sudden collapse of the presidential campaign of selfproclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Just two weeks ago there wasfullscaleSanderspanic. Coming off his neardefeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Sanders seemed to be on aroll, building toward astronger effort in 2020. After the senators success in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, he jumped into the lead in national polls. The moderate Democratic candidates seemed on the ropes. Bernie was dubbed thefrontrunnerfor the Democratic nomination and was leading President Trump ingeneral election polls.

Sanders started to get more attention. Debates over democratic socialism heated up. Sanders went on national television to defend hispraise of Fidel Castro. Democratic party leaders despaired. And then the voters started paying attention. Sanders lost big in South Carolina, as expected. Not so expectedly, he lost 10 of 14 primaries on Super Tuesday. Then just last night his campaign suffered probably fatal blows, especially in Missouri and Michigan. In Missouri, astate where Clinton had barely edged past him in 2016, he lost to Joe Biden by 60 to 35 percent. And in Michigan, where his upset of Clinton in 2016 had propelled his campaign, voters preferred Biden by 53 to 36 percent.

It looks like voters, even Democratic primary voters, arent as enamored of socialism as we had feared. In Michigan he carried voters 18 to 29. But his claims that he could win the presidency by generating ahuge turnout of young voters have not panned out. Youth turnout has been lower throughout the primaries than it was in 2016. Sanders loses AfricanAmerican voters and older voters heavily. He did worse with the white working class than he did in 2016. He lost both collegeeducated whites and noncollege whites.

Weve worried alot about the rise of illiberal populism on both right and left, in the United States and around the world. Ideas we thought were dead protectionism, ethnic nationalism, antiSemitism, and socialism are back. But Im breathing alittle easier today. It seems that theres less enthusiasm for the socialist version of illiberalism than Ifeared.

These results suggest that much of the Sanders 2016 vote was an antiClinton vote. Hillary Clinton had thesecondhighest unfavorable ratingfor any presidential candidate polled by Gallup since 1956, second only to Donald Trump. Perhaps it should have been no surprise that an alternative candidate could come so close to denying her the nomination. But in every state up through Super Tuesday, Sanders got asmaller percentageof the vote in 2020 than he did in 2016, including his home state of Vermont.

To be sure, Joe Biden is nobodys idea of alibertarian oraclassical liberal. In rejecting socialism, Democratic voters arent embracing free markets. Bidenis abiggovernment progressivein the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and both his long record in public office and his current positions include agreat many things for libertarians to oppose. But hes no revolutionary socialist, and for many voters he seems to represent an opportunity to return to normalcy and stability.

Looking forward we may wonder whether Joe Biden will maintain favorability ratings better than those of Clinton. Right now hes well ahead of Trump inpolls about honesty, which was aweak point for Clinton. But the election is still eight months away.

This article by David Boaz first appeared at CATO.

Image:U.S. Democratic presidential candidate SenatorBernieSandersaddresses a news conference in Burlington, Vermont, U.S. March 11, 2020. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Go here to see the original:

The Sanders Campaign: Another Failure of Socialism? - The National Interest

The Walking Dead star says the coronavirus pandemic isnt the end of the world. We have to adapt and survive. – Business Insider

Posted on by

captionSamantha Morton played Alpha on The Walking Dead.sourceJace Downs/AMC

Samantha Mortons character, Alpha, has lived according to the motto, We are the end of the world, on AMCs apocalyptic zombie series, The Walking Dead.

Currently, that motto may hit a little too close to home as people practice social distancing amid the coronavirus pandemic.

But Morton is much more positive about the state of our world, despite her characters nihilism.

I dont feel were at the end of the world at all, Morton told Insider when asked about any parallel between her characters outlook on life and reality.

My feelings are the world is constantly changing and we have to adapt and change with it, she continued. If, as a society, we need to learn new habits and new behaviors to prosper whether its to do with the environment or to do with love or respecting other cultures we just have to adapt and survive. I dont think its the end of the world at all.

Mortons character was killed off TWD Sunday. In a nod to the comics, Negan infiltrated the Whisperers, gained their trust, and when the timing was right, took her out. Morton told Insider she knew exactly how she would be killed off since joining the series as the leader of the Whisperers on season nine.

Now, with Alpha out of the picture, its looking less like the Whisperers will be able to bring their end of the world agenda to life.

The Walking Dead airs Sundays at 9 p.m. on AMC. You can follow along with our Walking Dead coverage here.

Link:

The Walking Dead star says the coronavirus pandemic isnt the end of the world. We have to adapt and survive. - Business Insider

Democrats respond to Republican nihilism by narrowing their field down to two tradition-bound institutionalists – AlterNet

Posted on by

Disclaimer: AlterNet does not endorse candidates but I personally support Sen. Bernie Sanders. The opinions expressed here are my own.

Monday evening saw a brief outrage cycle on social media when a clip of Joe Biden ostensibly telling MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell that he would veto even a gradual approach to Medicare for All went viral.

Joe Biden just said he would veto Medicare-for-All because it would delay healthcare coverage.

His own healthcare plan leaves 10 million people uninsured.pic.twitter.com/mpW6Z58miB

jordan (@JordanUhl) March 10, 2020

joe biden just said even if the democrats pass a m4a proposal through the house and senate, he doesnt know if hed sign it into law citing cost

hasanabi (@hasanthehun) March 10, 2020

Others parsed Bidens answer and came up with a different interpretation.

Okay, youve seen that viral tweet about how Biden said hed veto Medicare for All. Thats clearly NOT what he said. He says what his opposition is based on, says he agrees with it in principle and goes out of his way not to say hed veto it. Watch and decide. pic.twitter.com/hcqnnsnIqy

Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 10, 2020

It is certainly not news that Joe Biden opposes Medicare for All, and, as many people pointed out, a Democratic Congress would never send a major piece of legislation to a Democratic president who would veto it. The White House coordinates with Congressional leaders throughout the legislative process.

But what made this kerfuffle especially pointless is that Democratic primary voters have narrowed a once-large field to two candidates who oppose killing the filibuster if Democrats hold the House and win control of the White House and Senate in November. Theres certainly ideological space between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Biden, but both are committed institutionalists with deeply flawed theories of how to overcome Republicans central belief that Democratic leadership is inherently illegitimate and the relentless obstruction that flows from that view.

Biden believes that he can work with moderate Democrats, which is probably true, but he also says Republicans fever will break if Donald Trump is dealt a decisive defeat. According to Biden, they will come to rue their refusal to take governing seriously and be willing to cut deals across the aisle. Hes gotten things done on a bipartisan basis in the past, and he promises that he can restore some measure of the comity that made our legislature more or less functional for much of his career.

Sanders promises that he will build a large, transpartisan movement of working people that will transcend partisanship and ideology, and bring so much pressure to bear on lawmakers that moderate Democrats and at least some Republicans will have no choice but to support his transformational agenda. (He also favors a backdoor mechanism for working around the filibuster: getting a Senate parliamentarian in place who would assent to passing complex legislation through the budget reconciliation process. This would be widely perceived as illegitimate and leave the filibuster in place for the next Republican majority to kill outright.)

Both of these theories share the same fundamental problems. We live in a heavily polarized society thats divided by culture as much as by politics, and the right has built a sprawling media network that keeps its consumers cocooned in an alternative set of facts. Geographic sorting and gerrymandering have resulted in a huge number of uncompetitive districts where Republicans rightly fear for their jobs if they wander even a small distance from conservative orthodoxy. They fear that demographic shifts will reduce them to a rump party of the South, and believe they have no other means of maintaining power other than by undermining American democracy. And rightly or wrongly, moderate Dems face deeply entrenched conventional wisdom that moving too far to the left will cost them their seat.

Most politicians first concern is being re-elected, and neither Bidens collegiality nor Sanderss mass movement is going to change that equation. Killing veto-pointsby getting rid of the filibuster and somehow addressing the Republican takeover of the federal judiciarymight.

According to NBC, the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America is putting pressure on the last two major Democratic candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, to call for eliminatingthe 60-vote thresholdto pass legislation in the Senate. Perhaps one or both candidates will reconsider their position. If not, there isnt much point in debating the merits of their health care plans or proposals to combat climate change or anything else that cant be accomplished through executive action.

then let us make a small request. AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Read the original:

Democrats respond to Republican nihilism by narrowing their field down to two tradition-bound institutionalists - AlterNet

Therapy? Greatest Hits (The Abbey Road Session) Back on their old stomping ground – The Irish Times

Posted on by

Album:Greatest Hits (The Abbey Road Session)

Artist:Therapy?

Label:Marshall Records

Genre:Rock

In todays musical climate, any band that has endured for 30 years without a split, hiatus or implosion of any kind is a cause for celebration. Northern Irish rock trio Therapy? wanted to mark their milestone anniversary in some way, but a standard Greatest Hits compilation just wasnt cutting it. Instead, the Andy Cairns-fronted trio decided to pack up 12 of their Top 40 UK hits, take them to Abbey Road and re-record them with producer Chris Sheldon, who oversaw most of their biggest successes, including 1994s Troublegum.

Indeed, most of these songs are culled from that landmark album, and while the likes of Screamager and Trigger Inside may not encapsulate the same angry young man nihilism of yesteryear, they still bristle with energy. Teethgrinders grungy riffs still thrill and Neil Cooper is more than capable of matching original drummer Fyfe Ewings skill behind the kit.

Other tracks, such as Opal Mantra and Stories, are somewhat forgettable, but Manic Street Preachers frontman James Dean Bradfields turn on the enjoyable Die Laughing works well. Their best-known song, Nowhere, still kicks the hardest, though ably demonstrating that Therapy? can rock as hard as they ever did, three decades in.

We suggest this article for you based on what others who have read this article have also read

Ok got it!

Don't show me these again

Continued here:

Therapy? Greatest Hits (The Abbey Road Session) Back on their old stomping ground - The Irish Times

OXZ were the first Japanese punk band to take on the patriarchy – i-D

Posted on by

Photos courtesy of Captured Tracks.

G.I.S.M, Gauze, The Stalin, Guitar Wolf; these are some of the bands responsible for exposing Japanese youth to punk music in the 80s. All of them had a familiar taste for chaos that closely aligned with hardcore punk in America hard, fast and heavy riffs formed the basis of their music. Nudity, nihilism and violence were often part of their live performance. You can see it for yourself in some of the grainy archival footage thats been uploaded to YouTube. But among those early pioneers of Japanese punk was another group, OXZ (pronounced Ox-Zed), whose legacy you might be less familiar with. Thats because they were a band of three women, who werent offered the same social capital as their male counterparts at the time.

Formed in Osaka in 1981 by Mika (vocals/bass), Hikko (guitar) and Emiko (drums), OXZ was one of the first bands to challenge the mechanics of Japanese punk and ensure it wasnt simply defined by machismo and the male gaze. Mika and Hikko went to the same high school, they met Emiko at a venue in Osaka, and soon realized they all had the same desire to play in a punk band. However, at the time it was almost unheard of for women and young girls to embrace the more aggressive style ascribed to punk. While they often played in high school cover bands, there were few allowances for women who wanted to write and perform their own original music, especially during the boomer-era. It simply wasn't acceptable to trade having a family and keeping a tidy home for the looks, lifestyle and ideals of punk rock.

In a booklet that accompanies Along Ago: 1981-1989, a new retrospective of the bands material thats being released this month by Captured Tracks, music historian Kato David Hopkins writes of the bands beginnings: there were very few women in the underground music scene at that point, and none of them dressed like punks or dyed their hair, or showed much interest in declaring complete independence from the usual rules. So in 1981 when Hikko, Mika, and Emiko first appeared together as OXZ, they were an intentional shock.

While they often played with many of the countrys leading hardcore bands, that tag is perhaps a little misleading when applied to OXZ. The trio had a more melodic, beat-driven and often shaggy sound that leaned more in the direction of bands that were big in Britain at the time X-Ray Spex, Sham 69 and The Raincoats provide clearer points of reference though they also incorporated elements of grindcore, no-wave, psychedelic rock and what would later become known as grunge. OXZ was not only one of the primordial Japanese punk bands, but they were also one of the first to transcend the genre.

Ahead of the reissue of OXZs first three EPs, a single, and several of the bands unreleased demos, we caught up with Mika, Hikko and Emiko to learn more about being in one of Japans first all-female punk bands.

Who are some of the bands that inspired you to play punk rock music?Mika: I was inspired by Siouxsie and the Banshees, Patti Smith, Johnny Rotten and by PIL. But when I began to play with OXZ, I thought we were the best.

Hikko: The Clash, Sex Pistols, The Damned and other Japanese underground bands around OXZ. I also like Mick Karn from [the band] Japan.

Emiko: For me it was Led Zeppelin. I love the drumming of John Bonham.

Can you describe how you came up with your own personal style?E: I would buy things at vintage shops and I would cut and sew them and make my own clothes. My parents had an avant-garde clothing shop, so I naturally made up my own personal style.

Who was the first punk that inspired you to dye your hair and change the way you looked? E: It was not from punk. I didnt like the discipline at school. It was forbidden to dye your hair, everybody had the same length hair and the same uniform, we had to have the same look. I grew up with parents who looked avant-garde, so I naturally started to change my hair color when I was fourteen.

How did people react in 1981 to seeing three women on stage playing punk rock? M: We were people of interest, so they looked at us with curious eyes.

E: They were either attracted to us or afraid of us.

Why were they afraid of you?E: Because my looks were very different from everybody else's. People were not coloring their hair or wearing innovative clothes.

Can you describe some of the places in Kansai where you used to perform? H: Eggplant, Studio Ahiru, Bares, Donzoko house, Kyodai Seibu Kodo were some of the places. It was different at each event, but there was often a lot of hardcore punk bands.

E: Hardcore punk style meant black leather jackets with pen drawings on the back, rivets, etc. The audience was wearing the same kind of clothes tight black jeans, chains, piercings. There were also many people in T-shirts and jeans.

What was the social climate like in Japan in the 80s. Were women expected to behave a certain way?E: The Japanese education system and the social climate had a lot of conservative values in the 80s. Some people would spit and shout dirty girl at me because of my look. In terms of womens behavior, you were expected to keep your mouth shut.

Where were you when people would spit and shout at you, and how did you respond to that? E: It happened in the streets when there was nobody around. I was just sad, without really having much of a reaction to it. But most of the time when people saw us in the subway or at supermarkets they were afraid of us.

Were there other women making punk music in Osaka in the early 80s?E: There were some girls playing the bass or the keyboard, but not in all-girl bands.

H: There was an all-girl band a few years after us, Sekiri, in the Kansai area.

What was it like playing in other parts of the country, were people as open to your music as they were in your hometown?E: Our music was a bit different to other punk bands, so it was strange music in our hometown, too. Many punk bands were playing eight beats with major chords, whereas OXZ was influenced by other kinds of music psychedelic, new wave, hard rock and the blues. We got the same reaction when we played in other parts of the country.

Shonen Knife is another well-known Osaka punk band from the early 80s. How were they different to OXZ?E: Shonen Knifes members were Mika and Hikkos school mates, but they were playing poppier songs, with cute looks. I much later realized OXZ's genre was more no-wave, the beginnings of grunge music.

Did you remain friends with Shonen Knife after you finished school?M: Shonen Knifes drummer, Atsuko, was a good friend of mine in high school, but we didnt play in the same band so we eventually got more and more distant. When I met her by chance at a venue last year we were happy to have some time to talk. I also ran into Naoko, Shonen Knifes guitarist, two years ago at an event in Japan and we talked a lot.

A big part of American and British punk culture in the 80s and 90s was creating hand drawn posters and fanzines. Were people doing a similar thing in Japan?H: I dont think there were many fanzines. There were some flyers from each venue with a written schedule, some stories, and Manga [comics]. We didnt have much money, so no computers or typewriters.

M: I remember everybody was making posters and flyers by hand, one by one. It was very interesting, each flyer had its own character.

How did you get around, did you have a tour van?E: We didnt have a tour van, we just used a standard car whenever we toured. I used to get around on my motorbike. There werent many girls that had permission to ride motorbikes.

Why did the band break up?E: Our music was getting more complicated, we were mixing with other genres of music, changing rhythms, etc. Hikko didnt want to keep going and Mika and I didnt want to keep OXZ going without her.

Read the original:

OXZ were the first Japanese punk band to take on the patriarchy - i-D

What is the purpose of belief in a world of innovation? – TechCrunch

Posted on by

We are reading the penultimate short story in Ted Chiangs collection Exhalation. Omphalos questions what it means to believe: in our world, in alternative worlds, and in ourselves. Given that beliefs are crucial to everything we do in innovation and science, I thought the theme deeply dovetailed with a lot of what TechCrunch readers care about. Im excited to talk about it more.

Tomorrow, I will post analysis on the final short story, Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom as well as some concluding thoughts now that we have cycled through all the short stories in this collection. What a journey!

Some further quick notes:

Most of the stories in Exhalation have been pieces of deep imagination, filled with worlds that, while tethered to our experience on Earth, remain quite distant to it. Omphalos feels quite different: it very much is our world, but refracted just slightly at every point.

Chiang signals this to the reader right from the beginning, noting that the narrator is traveling to Chicagou, a city that is obviously recognizable to us, but just slightly off from our expectations. And indeed, as the story progresses, we learn that everything in the sciences are just a bit different from what we presume. Scientific discoveries that have happened in our world have yet to happen in this story (the discovery of DNA, for instance), while exciting fields in our world today like astronomy are essentially complete, with no further innovation to come.

The storys central tension is between faith and science, but the tweaks that Chiang edits into this speculative world force us to observe our own world with new insight. The development of science as a human practice was highly contentious in our history, with Galileo and the fight over heliocentrism being one of many battlefields fought over the centuries.

In this story though, science isnt at war with religion, but in fact provides a path to deepening devotion to belief, undergirding the pursuit of purpose in a world of mystery. Our narrator, an archaeologist, describes why she does her work, and why the single miraculous creation of the human race is so important to belief.

I asked them to imagine what it would be like if we lived in a world where, no matter how deeply we dug, we kept finding traces of an earlier era of the world then I asked, wouldnt they feel lost, like a castaway adrift on an ocean of time? this is why I am a scientist: because I wish to discover your purpose for us, Lord.

Indeed, the Earth itself is the very creation of God, and therefore is studied with an intensity that we would find unusual, while astronomy and the exploration of the celestial world is relegated to the side.

I admit, Lord, that Ive never had much regard for astronomy; it has always struck me as the dullest of the sciences. The life sciences are seemingly limitless; every year we discover new species of plants and animals and gain a deeper appreciation of your ingenuity in creating the Earth. By contrast, the night sky is just so finite. All five thousand eight hundred and seventy-two stars were cataloged in 1745, and not another has been found since then.

Chiang has pulled a bit of a legerdemain we are more interested in the possibilities beneath our feet, rather than what floats above us in the skies.

That setup delivers the storys main thrust: an astronomer has discovered that another planet elsewhere in the galaxy is actually the stationary point of the entire universe, which means that Earths orbit around the sun demonstrates not intelligent design or a message of purpose, but rather pure nihilism. It likely serves no purpose at all.

Chiang refracts our massive historical conflict over heliocentrism, and in so doing forces us to confront the true challenges of modern life. The astronomers discovery forces our seemingly devout narrator to question her own faith not in religion, but actually in science. For if conducing scientific experiments was about finding purpose in life, why should we continue doing them when we know they dont have a purpose at all?

The title of the story, Omphalos, comes from Greek mythology and symbolizes the navel of the world, or the place where the world is centered on. The astronomers discovery dissolves what we thought was the Omphalos Earth and prods us to search for a new point to center us and our lives.

Our narrators loss of faith causes her to stop praying and live in a cabin for a few months, but she ultimately comes to the conclusion that the openness of choice around these events is actually empowering for humans, forcing us to confront our own actions and realize we have agency over them.

If we had no evidence for the miracle of creation, we might think physical law was sufficient to explain every phenomenon in the cosmos, leading us to conclude that our own minds were nothing more than natural processes. But we know that there is more to what we observe than physical law can encompass; miracles happen, and human choices are surely among them.

Chiang isnt critiquing religion or believers, but rather those rationalists who believe deeply in the thesis that we are bags of atoms pre-destined to make the choices we already have made at conception. Its a relatively oblique critique, one only really brought into relief in the storys closing paragraphs.

Earlier in the story, our narrator asks God, Let me always be inquisitive, but never be suspicious. Thats ultimately a comment about cynicism and nihilism, that the purpose to everything is nothing and useless. Even in a secular world, there is meaning in every action and reaction, and physics doesnt determine how we approach our lives. With refractive lenses, we can see that we are each our own Omphalos, architecting the meaning of what we observe.

As you read the final short story in Exhalation, here are some questions to think about:

Original post:

What is the purpose of belief in a world of innovation? - TechCrunch

Brisbee: The world is terrifying right now and I need your help – The Athletic

Posted on by

Underneath all of the knock-knock jokes, references to the 1997 Giants and awful puns, theres a deep streak of nihilism inside of me. Its impossible for me to shake the feeling that the universe cares about us as much as it cares about a random moth from 4,000 years ago, and once you sink into that pit, theres no bottom. Nothing matters. There are good days and bad days, medications and self-medicating. Ive always suffered from anxiety and depression, even when things are normal.

When things arent normal, it can be just a touch overwhelming.

But throughout all of it, somehow, Ive also had a deeper streak of amusement and wonder to combat the nihilism. On any given day, its usually winning. Were here, all of us, right now, because two very specific fish had sex 375 million years ago. That allowed us to exist and be capable of giggling at the mere mention of Travis Ishikawa. Its beautiful. All of this is so...

Here is the original post:

Brisbee: The world is terrifying right now and I need your help - The Athletic

Rick And Morty: 5 Jokes That Are Destined To Be Timeless (& 5 That Won’t Age Well) – Screen Rant

Posted on by

Rick and Morty is the subversive, poop-jokes riddled creation of Justin Roiland that started out as aparody of Back to the Future and went on to become one of the smartest comedies on television. The show follows the adventures of Rick Sanchez, the smartest man in the multiverse, and his hapless grandson/sidekick Morty.

RELATED: 10 Schwiftiest Rick & Morty Funko Pop!s Ranked

Together the two travel the multiverse examining topics relating to everything from family and responsibility to nihilism to man's place in the world. Over three and a half seasons, the show has come up with some classic jokes that will be remembered through the ages, and some other stinkers that are best left forgotten.

Rick and Morty arrive on a planet going through a periodic purge where the inhabitants turn into serial killers. The two seek refuge with a cat person who is a writer. After inviting Morty to listen to a reading of his novel and asking for feedback, the writer immediately gets offended at Morty's mild criticism and tries to throw him and Rick out of his house.

Morty points out the unfairness of the writer's behavior while awakening his inner purger, killing his host. It is a ridiculous, dark meta-joke at the expense of storytellers who are too full of themselves to acknowledge criticism of any kind while churning out mediocre work.

The Devil himself makes an appearance on the show and is beaten at his own game by Rick. Summer, however, takes a liking to the Devil, helping him set up a new business and becoming company head. Naturally, the Devil betrays Summer and kicks her out of the company, leading to Summer and Rick building up their bodies to deliver a physical beatdown to the Devil in front of everyone.

RELATED:Rick And Morty: 10 Characters That Deserve Spin-off Shows

It is a bizarre sequence that leaves so many questions without a satisfying payoff. Why is the Devil hurt by physical force? When did Summer and Rick get the time to become so jacked? How was beating up Satan supposed to resolve the issue at hand?

Morty plays a game at a space arcade called "Game of Roy." In that virtual reality game, Morty gets to play the role of Roy, starting from his birth, to his school years, getting a job, getting married, getting treated for a deadly illness, living to a ripe old age, and dying from an accident, only to wake up and realize it had all been a dream-game.

Before Morty can process the false life he had just lived in its entirety, Rick takes over and plays as Roy, taking the character off the social grid and breaking every score that Morty had set.The wholesequence is simultaneously sad, alarming, and hilarious. It even manages to beat interdimensional cableby being earnest instead of simply zany.

Rick can be quite rude to Summer, but then he is rude to everyone. What was less acceptable was when he specifically declared that he did not go adventuring with women when Summer asked him to take her on an adventure.

At that moment, a misogynistic streak emerged in Rick's character that left a bad taste in many viewer's mouths.

This is the catchphrase that Rick utters to endear himself to the audience like a typical zany TV character. The phrase has been endlessly repeated by fans of the show and will always remain a part of Rick's legacy as a bit of hilarious gibberish. Except its not gibberish at all. In bird-person language, it translates to "I am in great pain, please help me."

RELATED: Wubba Lubba Dub Dub & 9 Other Rick and Morty-isms To Add To Your Vocabulary

Onthe surface, the joke works as a commentary on silly TV trends like giving a character a catchphrase; ona deeper level, it speaks to theprofound level of hurt and loneliness Rick feels. His proud nature rebels at the thought of actually asking for help,turning his cries for help into a joke for the audience and his loved ones. Wubba-Lubba-Dub-Dub is Rick and Morty at its morbidly funny best.

Rick and Morty has a large and passionate fan base. And anyone who knows anything about internet fandoms will know there is a large amount of fanfiction and fanart devoted to exploring intimate relations between members of the Smith family. Where things get potentially icky is that the show itself often leans into these possibilities with throwaway gags.

Like the time a dream version of Summer came on to her young brother and grandfather. Or when a version of Morty can be heard wishing aloud that incest porn had a more mainstream appeal. The general audiences for the show would have a big problem if they were to be made aware of just how much extremely graphic fanart and fanfiction those scenes have generated online.

The episode where Rick turns himself into a pickle is a genuine classic and a perfect representation ofRick's philosophy of life. Rick's worst fear is being emotionally vulnerable to those he sees as intellectually beneath him, which is everyone. In order to escape a meeting with a therapist who might actually force him to confront his feelings, Rick chooses to turn himself into a literal pickle.

RELATED: Rick And Morty: 10 Scenes That Call Rick's Genius Into Question

The rest of the episode is Rick using his genius intellect to survive the absolute helplessness of being trapped in a pickle body and to return to his regular form.

Rick and Morty is a clever show. But at its worst, the show can come across like itstalking down to the audience, and the episode where Rick and Morty have to battle a robot called Heistotron that wants to pull the perfect heist suffers from the worst of this tendency. The entire episode is one long complaint about how dumb heist movies are, and how anyone who enjoys them is an idiot.

What makes the episode particularly problematic is that, at one point, Rick is shown to be responsible for the destruction of an entire planet and all its citizens just to stop Morty from becoming a successful writer. While Rick has always been callous, that incident makes him truly evil, which does not square with what had been established about the character.

Two extra-dimensional beings attack Albert Einstein, mistaking him for Rick, to stop him from discovering the secret to time travel. The joke works on so many levels. The extra-dimensional beings are shaped like testicles, staying true to the gross humor the show revels in. Doc Brown from Back to the Future, who Rick started out as a parody of, was also based on Einstein.

The scene is also a parody of innumerable time travel movies that go to such complicated lengths to avert a disturbance in the flow of time, which in this case involves two testicle monsters beating thehell out of one of the greatest minds in history. Finally, what puts the cap on the perfectionthat is this scene is Einstein struggling back to his feet after the monsters leave and declaring he will mess with time. Because humans never learn.

Thisentire episode is a parody of the Terminatorfilms, with snakes instead of people. Problem is, the show is not nearly clever enough at making the parody stand out for any particular reason.

It also quickly becomes tiresome seeing the snakes hissing at each other while audiences guess where the story is leading. What should have been a throwaway gag became a stretched out and often uninteresting episode.

NEXT:10 Things You Never Noticed About Rick And Morty's House

Next10 Game Of Thrones Vs Lord Of The Rings Memes That Are Too Hilarious

See more here:

Rick And Morty: 5 Jokes That Are Destined To Be Timeless (& 5 That Won't Age Well) - Screen Rant