At Statue of Liberty, Words That Resonate Even if They’re Unfamiliar – New York Times

Their exchange occurred at a White House briefing to detail Mr. Trumps support for changes in the way immigrants are admitted to the United States, giving advantages to English-speaking applicants with high-paying job offers. The measure could result in a 50 percent reduction in legal immigration in its 10th year.

Rodney Goodall, 62, a member of the Australian Army Reserve, from Queensland, Australia, was visiting the statue with his family. He had watched a clip of Mr. Acosta and Mr. Millers argument at one point Mr. Acosta asked, Are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia? but had never read Lazaruss poem before.

Now, reading it, Mr. Goodall said the poem and the statue were one and the same.

Dennis Mulligan, who has been a ranger for 20 years with the National Park Service, which operates the statue, said The New Colossus plaque had been in several locations. According to Mr. Mulligan, there are no photographs of its original location as part of the statues pedestal, but it is believed to have been in one of the balcony areas of the colonnade.

Since 1986, the plaque has been part of a display in the museum within the pedestal. Mr. Mulligan said he urged visitors to interpret Lazaruss poetry and the statues significance as they wished.

I would say ultimately the statue is the story of people, he said, and there are many things that have attached itself to what she represents.

As for Lazaruss sonnet, he said: Its a piece of poetry. Its a work of art. They see what they want to see. Thats what art is.

Kara Kiratikosolrak first visited Liberty Island as a 2-year-old traveling from her native Thailand. In an old photograph, she said, she is holding her fathers hand as he clutches her baby sister.

Kara, now 14 and a new immigrant to the United States, had returned to the statue with her sister and an aunt, on vacation from her new home in Solon, Ohio.

She said she had heard people in her town talking about Mr. Trumps immigration policy, but didnt know much about it herself. I just know Im going to school here and I love it, she said.

As for Lazaruss poem, she said, This is my first time reading this.

Luz Villegas, 59, was leaning against a guardrail in Battery Park on Thursday, looking out at New York Harbor and Liberty Island. Ms. Villegas, an immigrant from Venezuela, said that when she moved to New York City in 1993, her first stop was the statue. She said she had returned frequently, visiting the previous Saturday, in fact.

Though Ms. Villegas had not heard about the exchange between Mr. Miller and Mr. Acosta, she said Lazaruss poem was her favorite part of visiting Liberty Island. If visitors see the statue without it, she said, we miss something important.

She suggested reading the poem before going up to the crown, and again when one gets back down. I wish people really took the time to digest what they read, she said.

A version of this article appears in print on August 5, 2017, on Page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: At Statue of Liberty, Words That Resonate Even if They Are Unfamiliar.

Continued here:

At Statue of Liberty, Words That Resonate Even if They're Unfamiliar - New York Times

Bedford County School Board updated on Liberty High gym … – Roanoke Times

BEDFORD Construction for Liberty High Schools new gym began in mid-June and is set to be completed by next summer.

Bedford County School Board members heard an update on the construction of the new gym and baseball field Friday at their last meeting before school starts Aug. 14.

School board members asked Eddie Brown, project manager of M.B. Kahn Construction, for a cost estimate on installing restrooms at the new baseball field, said Mac Duis, chief operations officer for the school district.

A concession stand at the field already is built but doesnt include restrooms, Duis said.

The board has been trying to decide if its feasible to add bathrooms and how much it would cost, Duis said.

Two parents spoke during public comments Wednesday in favor of restrooms and a concession stand at the baseball field.

Allen Porterfield, whose son plays baseball at Liberty High School, said he spoke to the school board because he wants them to do something they promised from the start [to provide] as good or better as the other two high schools in the district, which both have restrooms at their baseball fields.

Martin Leamy, the school board member representing District 7, which includes Liberty High School, said he is in favor of adding restrooms during field construction instead of waiting to add them later.

All theyre asking for is equal facilities across the high school zones, Leamy said. Its the right thing to do. Now is the time to do it. If the project is delayed, if its not done now, it will be more expensive later.

Brown is set to provide estimates on how much restrooms could cost at the next school board meeting, set for Sept. 14.

Since the gym is being built over the former baseball field, Liberty High School and Bedford Middle School baseball players will hold their home games at Liberty Lake Park for the upcoming season.

The new middle school and Liberty High School projects overall were awarded less than $35.9 million, according to Duis.

The new Liberty Middle School is slated to open August 2018. The middle school will be connected to the high school by a roadway and sidewalk, Duis said.

View original post here:

Bedford County School Board updated on Liberty High gym ... - Roanoke Times

Will third time be the charm for Liberty Place developers? – Fredericksburg.com

Developers of a $25 million, mixed-use project in downtown Fredericksburg have gone back to the drawing board for the third time.

Faced with a weaker-than-expected demand for condos coupled with strong demand for commercial property, siblings Tom and Cathy Wack have eliminated the residential portion of Liberty Place and substituted a 4-level, above-ground parking garage for the previously proposed underground parking component of the project.

Were responding to the market, Tom Wack said.

The new design calls for the parking garage to face Amelia Street and be connected to the upper floors of a three-story, 86,000-square-foot commercial building that would face William Street. A 15-foot-wide private driveway between the two buildings would serve as a loading area connecting Winchester and Douglas streets.

Together, the two buildings will mostly fill the block between the former Free LanceStar building and the Amelia Square townhouses and Sedona Taphouse. Its now the site of the vacant William Street Executive Building.

Wack said that he hopes to have enough preleases for office, retail and restaurant space in the commercial building over the next three or four months to qualify for loans. Hed like to begin construction this fall and have Liberty Place completed by late 2018.

Downtowns gotten pretty hot, and I think that the fact that we will have parking next to the commercial building will make our project much more in demand, he said. You wont have to hunt for space on the street.

City Council will vote on a new memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the Wacks and the Economic Development Authority that would lead to an agreement for the developers to offer free public parking in the garage. The EDA meeting is at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 715 Princess Anne St. The EDA will also take up the MOU at its Aug. 14 meeting.

The memorandum would give the City much-needed parking spaces in that area of downtown, and the developers would get an economic incentive in the form of 100 percent of the incremental real estate tax revenue from Liberty Place. The Tax Increment Financing, or TIF, is estimated at $240,000 a year and would be good for 20 years with two, 10-year options to extend it under the same terms.

Weve been trying to build a garage in that area for some time, but have never been able to get the property, said Bill Freehling, director ot the Fredericksburg Department of Economic Development and Tourism. We think its a fair contribution from the city.

By way of comparison, the City would have to shell out $7.7 million if it owned and operated a parking garage on the Liberty Place lot, according to the MOU. Thats assuming it was able to get a 20-year, taxable general obligation bond.

The proposed brick parking garage is modeled after the Calvert Street Garage in Annapolis, and would feature a landscaped buffer between the building and the Amelia Street sidewalk. Wack described it as just a nice design thats not an obvious attempt to recreate something historic. He and his sister are still tweaking the design for the commercial building, which he said will be a blend of traditional and contemporary elements.

The garage would be several feet shorter than the Amelia Square townhouses, and have its entrance and exit on Winchester Street. Inside would be approximately 303 parking spaces, 30 more than in the Wacks last proposal.

Walker Consulting, the citys parking consultant, found that the garage will provide more parking than will be necessary to meet demands generated by Liberty Place, especially on nights and weekends.

Liberty Places commercial building would have 58,700 square feet of office space along with 18,000 square feet for retail and 9,200 square feet for restaurants. The amount of office space is roughly double the amount proposed in previous plans, and would tie in with City Councils goal of making downtown an employment center.

It will be one of the nicest office spaces downtown, Freehling said. We think it gives us a great new product to help sell the city.

Tenants would have exclusive access to 40 parking spaces in the garage at all times, and another 160 spaces between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays. The Wacks will make the remaining 103 spaces, all of which will be on the lower levels, open to the public for free at all times, and an additional 160 spaces available for free on weeknights and weekends.

Freehling said that was important because it would encourage those who work in nearby businesses, such as restaurant employees, to park there instead of on the street.

The Liberty Place Condominium Association would be responsible for the garages operational costs, and it would remain in private ownership and be taxable. Under the previous agreement, the City would have paid $1.96 million upfront to own 119 parking spaces in Liberty Places underground garage, and returned 45 percent of the incremental tax revenue from the project to the Wacks for 10 years.

The estimated value of that TIF was approximately $200,000 annuallyor $2 million over 10 years. In addition, the City would have been required to pay for half of the parking access and revenue control system, an estimated $75,000, as well as $75,000 a year toward maintenance and capital reserves.

The overall cost to the City under the new proposal would be $4.8 million over 20 years compared to $5.5 million in 10 years in the previous plan, according to the MOU. According to city officials, Liberty Place is expected to generate $600,000 in annual commercial tax revenue for the City.

The Wacks and City Council have worked together since 2014 to reach an agreement on Liberty Place. They signed their first MOU that year, and a revised version in 2015. The latest MOU lays out a road map for unwinding some of the agreements from the last one, and entering into a new performance agreement. Steps that need to be taken include terminating the last MOU, terminating an air rights lease, and allowing a special-use permit to expire because the 44 condominiums have been eliminated.

The developers also will have to finalize their site plan and prepare building elevations for the project and submit them for review and develop an easement for public parking in the garage.

Continued here:

Will third time be the charm for Liberty Place developers? - Fredericksburg.com

Do Too Many Libertarians Celebrate a False ‘Perfection of the Market’? [Podcast] – Reason (blog)

Viking, AmazonNo recent book has caused a bigger splash in libertarian circles than Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains. The Duke historian avers that Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan, who helped created what's known as public choice economics, had racist, segregationist intentions in his life's work of analyzing what he called "politics without romance"; that the Koch brothersCharles and Davidare not-so-secretly controlling politics in the U.S. and are devoted to disenfranchising Americans, especially racial and ethnic minorities; and that libertarians are deeply indebted to the pro-slavery philosophy of John C. Calhoun and that we wish "back to the political economy and oligarchic governance of midcentury Virginia, minus the segregation."

None of this is true, but that doesn't mean MacLean should go unchallengedor that libertarians don't need to explain themselves better if we want to gain more influence in contemporary debates over politics, culture, and ideas.

In the latest Reason Podcast, Nick Gillespie talks with Michael Munger of Duke's political science department, who has written a caustic, fair, and even generous review of MacLean's book for the Independent Institute. Even as he categorizes Democracy in Chains as a "work of speculative historical fiction" that was "in many cases illuminating," he concludes that her book is wrong in almost every meaningful way, from gauging Buchanan's influence on libertarianism to her inconsistent views toward majoritarian rule as an absolute good to her attempts to smear Buchanan as a backward-looking racial conservative.

Munger, who ran for governor of North Carolina as a Libertarian in 2008 and maintains a vital Twitter account at @mungowitz, also discusses how that experience changed his understanding of politics, why he's a "directionalist" advocating incremental policy changes rather a "destinationist" insisting on immediate implementation of utopian programs, and how the movement's heavy emphasis on economics has retarded libertarianism's wider appeal.

"Many libertarians celebrate something like the perfection of the market," he says. "And so we end up playing defense. When someone says, 'Look at these problems with the market,' we say, 'No, no. Actually, the problem is state intervention, the problem is regulation. If we get rid of those things, then perfection will be restored.' The argument that I see for libertarianism is not the perfection of markets, it's the imperfections of the state, the institutions of the state."

It's a wide-ranging conversation that touches on growing up in a working-class, segregated milieu and possible futures for the libertarian movement.

Munger's home page is here.

Read Reason's coverage of Democracy in Chains here.

Audio post production by Ian Keyser.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

This is a rush transcriptcheck all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: Hi, I'm Nick Gillespie. This is the Reason Podcast. Please subscribe to us at iTunes and rate and review us while you're there. Today I'm talking with Mike Munger, a political scientist at Duke, about the new book Democracy in Chains by a Duke historian, Nancy MacLean.

In her controversial work, MacLean argues, among other things, that Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan, who helped create what is known as public choice economics, had racist segregationist intentions in his life's work of analyzing what he called "politics without romance", that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, are not so secretly controlling politics in the US and are devoted to disenfranchising Americans, especially racial and ethnic minorities, and that libertarians, as a group, are deeply indebted to the pro-slavery philosophy of John C. Calhoun, and that we wish "to go back to the political economy and oligarchic governance of mid-century Virginia, minus the segregation".

We're going to talk about all that and more, including Mike Munger's journey from economist to political scientist then his past history of selling drugs. Michael Munger, thanks for joining us.

Michael Munger: It's a pleasure to be on the podcast.

Gillespie: You wrote a comprehensive and archly critical review of MacLean for the Oakland-based Independent Institute, it's up on the Independent Institute's website, in which you characterized Democracy in Chains as "a work of speculative fiction". Elaborate on that for a bit. What is speculative about it or what is speculative fiction about her account of James Buchanan?

Munger: Well, there's a history of history being speculative interpolation of here's what might have happened given the few points we're able to observe. It's as if a strobe light at irregular intervals illuminates something, and all you get is a snapshot. It's hard to say what people were thinking, what they were saying, but given these intermittent snapshots, you then interpolate a story. Sometimes those stories are pretty interesting, particularly if we don't know much about what otherwise was going on.

The difficulty that Professor MacLean has, I think ... And I think she's surprised. Frankly, I think she is surprised that so many people knew so much about James Buchanan and about public choice, more on that in a minute. What she did was admirable. She went to the very disorganized, at the time, archives at the Buchanan House at George Mason University, and she spent a long time going through these documents and got these snapshots.

To her credit, she did go to the archives. To her discredit, she was pretty selective about the snapshots that were revealed that she decided to use to interpolate between. There's plenty of exculpatory evidence that she ignored, put aside, misquoted, but she came up with a really interesting story. I found myself, when I'm reading the book, Democracy in Chains, thinking, "If this were true, it'd be really interesting." I can see why many people who don't know the history of Jim Buchanan in public choice and libertarianism, on reading it, would say, "That's a terrific story," because it is a terrific story, it's just not true.

Gillespie: I mean the large story that she is seeking to tell is that James Buchanan and other libertarian leaning oftentimes, pro-free ... I mean, I guess, always pro-free market, classical liberal ideologues, or scholars and ideologues and what not, want to put limits on what majorities can do to people, and they often talk about that pretty openly. She reads that as a conspiracy of disenfranchisement.

Munger: Right, because she doesn't know anyone who believes that. The fact that that's actually just standard in not just public choice, but political science since Aristotle, she finds that astonishing. It's something that...

Gillespie: Well, is she being honest there? Because I mean you've mentioned Aristotle, well, I'll mention Magna Carta, where even the King of England, at a certain point in time, had to admit that his powers were limited and that Englishmen had rights that could not be abrogated by even a king much less any kind of majority. I mean is she just being willfully opaque or thick there, or does she, in these moments ... And I guess I'm asking you to speculate on her motives, but does she really believe that?

Munger: Well, in my review, I invoke what I call the principle of charity, and that is that until you really have good evidence to the contrary, you should accept at face value the arguments that people make. She seems to say that we should respect the will of majorities, full stop. I'm willing to accept that as what she believes.

I had an interesting interview with a reporter from The Chronicle of Higher Education, who said, "Can you explain what's wrong with this book?" I sent him four pages with examples handwritten so that he could see. He said, "No, that's too complicated. I don't understand that," so I simplified it. He said, "No, it's too complicated. I don't understand that." Then, finally, I said what I just said, "She appears to believe there should be no limits on majorities," and he said, "Oh, no. That's too simple. Nobody could believe that."

Gillespie: Well, I mean the opening of the book, in many ways, the taking off point is the Brown versus Board of Education Supreme Court ruling in 1954, which itself was an act by the Supreme Court invalidating a majority position that local school districts could segregate students based on race, not based on majority rules. It seems very confusing from the beginning.

Munger: Yeah, not just the Supreme Court, but federal troops sent in directly and explicitly to thwart the will of majorities.

Gillespie: Yeah, but she, at the same time, is saying that any limits on the majority's ability to do as it wants with 50% minus one vote of the population is somehow cataclysmic and calls to mind ...

Munger: Well, but to your question, no, I don't think she actually believes that. She's a political progressive. When you dig down, when you drill down on the progressive position, they're not that sure that actual majorities know what they want, and so they need the assistance of experts and technocrats. On some things, that probably is a sensible position, that we could debate whether the Food and Drug Administration, in all of its particulars, is useful, but you've got to at least understand a reasonable person could believe that there are some things that we can't really leave up to the particulars of voting, rather it's what the people would want if they were well-informed. That's what progressives think they're trying to implement.

Gillespie: I mean what is the goal of progressivism in this? Is it on a certain argument it's to say that there's no limit on the government's ability to tax people or regulate people or redistribute wealth and resources? Because obviously she doesn't believe if a majority ... I mean she's not a true procedural due process person, where as long as a majority, a simple majority, votes on something, that's the law.

Munger: Well, what she is worried about is any limitation on the ability of the state to act on the rightly understood will of the people. Anything that the First Amendment or ... It's fairly common among progressives to say anyone who defends freedom of speech is racist, anyone who defends freedom of property is a plutocrat who is defending ... That's a caricature of their position, but what they're saying is any limit on what the government can do when it's trying to do the right thing, we don't want that. They believe they know. They actually believe that they know the right thing.

I have to admit that I have enjoyed going around to my colleagues who, throughout the Obama administration, were pretty happy with what I saw were excessive uses of executive invocation of power. They would say, "As long as my guy's in charge, I don't really mind," but their guy's not in charge anymore. They'll admit, "I just never expected Trump to be in charge."

Gillespie: Right. Well, if we take for granted that progressives tend to be majoritarians, in fact, when their people are not in power, I should point out, they're less likely to be interested in a simple majoritarianism, right?

Munger: Yeah, yeah. Well, but that's why they have to come up with stories for why there's some conspiracy, there's someone who's suppressing the vote, there's someone who's spending money behind the scenes because if actually left up to the people, as Hillary Clinton said, she'd be ahead by 50%.

Gillespie: Right. One of the charges that MacLean makes in the book is that ... And she goes back and forth between implying that libertarians are somewhat racist by design, other times it's by default, or that they're not sufficiently interested in the outcomes of particular policies such as school choice, essentially both in a form that was practiced in mid-century Virginia, in the 1950s, as a result of federal orders to integrate their schools. Virginia and a couple of other states talked about vouchers.

That's actually where Milton Friedman got the idea for school vouchers. He talks about it openly in the 1955 essay where he first talked about school vouchers. That libertarians are insufficiently concerned about certain policies' effects on racial and ethnic minorities. Do you think there's truth to that charge?

Munger: There is some truth to it in the sense that libertarians tend to take property rights as given and to the extent that the distribution of power and wealth reflects past injustice. In the case of the south where I grew up, it's not debatable. The distribution of power and wealth does, in fact, reflect past injustice, and saying we're going to start from where we are. It's one of the things Jim Buchanan often said; as a political matter, we're going to start from where we are. The reason is that to do anything else endows not the state, but politicians with so much power that we expect it to be misused.

That's the public choice part of this is that many progressives imagine a thing called the state that's well-informed and benevolent, naturally has the objectives that they attribute to it, but if instead you think politicians are likely to use that power for their own purposes, and it's actually unlikely that we'll achieve the outcomes even that progressives think that we'll get. You might concede, suppose that that were actually achievable, we could at least debate whether it would be a good thing. That's not how the state is going to use the power that the libertarian of public choice person would say. As a result, we have to start from where we are. It's not perfect, but we have to start from where we are.

Gillespie: Let's talk about Buchanan and the response to Brown versus Board of Education by people like Milton Friedman James Buchanan, who, despite having various connections, are very distinct thinkers. On a certain level, they advocated for school choice in the 1950s. School choice in that iteration would have allowed essentially a voucher program, let's say, where a local government, a state government, a federal government gives parents of students a certain amount of money to spend however they wish on education. That would have allowed conceivably for parents to choose segregated schools for their children while also allowing a lot of poor parents as well as racial and ethnic minorities freedom to leave racially-segregated schools.

How should libertarians talk about that? I mean nowadays school choice is primarily driven by explicit concern for and results that are good for poor students in general and ethnic and racial minorities. I guess I'm groping here for the question of should libertarians replace such a prioritization of property rights or of autonomy, individual autonomy, with questions about racial and ethnic disparities? I mean is that something that should come from a libertarian perspective?

Munger: Well, the reason that this is a hard question to ask is that it's a difficult issue for libertarians to take on in the first place. I found this when I was running for governor in 2008. My platform when I was running for governor for education was means-tested vouchers because wealthy people often have some kinds of choices. Now what we should worry about is making sure that those.

Gillespie: Just to point out, you ran for governor of North Carolina as a libertarian.

Munger: As a libertarian.

Gillespie: What percentage of the vote did you end up polling?

Munger: I got 2.8%, 125,000 votes, but I found that libertarians themselves were the hardest ones to convince about a voucher program because they just thought the state shouldn't be involved in education at all, but it already is involved in education; the question is how can we improve it?

I think one of the arguments for vouchers is that if you look at parents, the parents who ... And you already said this, but I want to emphasize it. The people who really favor voucher programs tend to be those who otherwise see themselves as having few choices they're happy with. A lot of them are poor African American inner city parents who really care about their children, but have no means of sending them to a better school.

To be fair, there's a famous letter from Milton Friedman to Warren Nutter in the mid-'50s. Warren Nutter was one Buchanan's partners at University of Virginia. In it, Friedman points out that vouchers may be a way around the problem of segregated schools. The reason is that, yes, schools are going to be segregated, there's not really a way around that, but this means that African American parents will have more resources to send their children to better schools. If they're still segregated, at least they're better schools. It's a way of giving more resources to parents.

Gillespie: Do you think somebody like Milton Friedman ... He's an interesting case because he stressed, for instance, about the war on drugs, that it had a disproportionate effect on racial minorities, and he did that with other programs as well. Was he hopelessly or willfully naive about the meanness of American society, I think, where he would ... And a lot of libertarians say this, and there's some truth to it, but there's also some accommodationist thinking going on, where as long as your dollars are green, racial attitudes will ... And you empower people with more money, say, in an education market that people will integrate or get along more easily. Is that just ridiculously idealistic?

Munger: Well, for Friedman, in particular, he himself had been subject to discrimination, very explicit, open discrimination. I think for Friedman, in particular, he was quite aware of the problem and was concerned in a way that many people are not. Libertarians generally often just say, "What we need is a race-blind society." Since it's unlikely that we have that, having institutions that otherwise seem fair may not be a very good solution, but Friedman himself advocated for policies that he thought would at least make discrimination more expensive or would allow people to work around discrimination.

The answer to your question is complicated. I do think that libertarians have, at a minimum, a public relations problem because of the tin ear that we have in talking about this, but I also think that there's a substantive problem in the way that you say that it might be that having some sort of ... Well, what I favor, and this is something that Jim Buchanan favored, is to avoid the waste that's involved in denying something like equality of opportunity to almost everyone.

Buchanan was very concerned about unearned privilege. He actually favored a confiscatory estate tax, inheritance tax because he thought that was honoring the privilege, making sure that people, regardless of where they start out, are able to achieve is not just in their interest, but in all of our interests. They're more productive, the society produces more, people are better consumers and better citizens. Equality of opportunity is something we should advocate for more explicitly.

Gillespie: Part of that is that libertarians often try to pass as anarchists, it seems to me. They simultaneously will say, "Well, I'm a libertarian," which is one thing, and it's easily defined or quickly to defined as somebody who believes in a strictly limited government. Almost always from any given starting point, libertarians are going to argue to reduce the size, scope, and spending of government, but a lot of us play-act as anarchists, saying there should be no state, so that the answer to everything, if it's gay marriage, it's like, "Well," or marriage equality, it's the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If it's about public school or about school policy, the state shouldn't be involved in schooling at all and education.

Was Buchanan and Friedman ... Or most of the libertarian, major libertarian figures of academics, certainly an economist like Friedrich Hayek, like Friedman, like Ludwig von Mises, like Buchanan, they are not anarchists at all. They take the state as a given, and then it's a question of do you move it in a more libertarian direction or a less libertarian direction. Is that accurate?

Munger: I think it varies a bit. Mises is a hero to anarchists. I think it's complicated, but Murray Rothbard took Mises and, I think, in some ways, overinterpreted, but the Mises-Rothbard approach is much closer to being anarchist. Their claim is that anything that the state does, it will either do wrong or it's just inherently evil; whereas equality of opportunity is a more complicated question.

One problem with equality of opportunity is that it's much easier to take opportunities away from the wealthy than it is to give them to the poor. It's just a knee-jerk argument against redistribution is that all we're going to do is cut the top off the distribution. The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty.

But a lot libertarians, I think, would not even admit that poverty is a problem on which the government should ask should act. What should happen instead is all we need to do is get rid of taxes and regulations and the market will respond by creating equality of opportunity. There is a point to that in the sense that the best welfare program is a good job.

Gillespie: Right. Well, to cut to the chase, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there were multiple Civil Rights Act in the years, decade leading up to 1964, but that's a flash point because it's often seen as a ... Barry Goldwater who later in his life espoused a lot of libertarian-sounding platitudes and ideas and policies. In 1964, when he was running against Lyndon Johnson, was definitely ... I mean he was the favored candidate of National Review conservatives and of libertarians. If you talk to older libertarians, a lot of them talk about being actualized into politics through the Goldwater campaign in '64. He also courted segregationists; although he had a long history of actually integrating things like a family department store in Phoenix as well as the Arizona National Guard and the schools in the Phoenix area and what not.

But the civil rights acts in the mid-'60s are often castigated by libertarians for redefining places like hotels, theaters, businesses that were open to the general public as public accommodations, meaning that the state, local, and federal law could force business owners to integrate or to serve all customers regardless of race, color, creed, gender. Do you think the stock orthodox libertarian reading that that went too far? That's actually what Goldwater said when he had voted for everything before that, voted against it. Are libertarians wrong to interpret the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or rather the creation of public accommodations? Are they wrong to say that that is taking government action too far to remedy racism or prejudice?

Munger: That's an interesting question because what Goldwater would have said, and I think many people would rightly defend him for having said, is that the merits don't matter, this is a states rights question. The state needs to be able to govern itself in terms of the way that it decides on voting rights, and individuals need to be able to govern themselves in terms of the uses of their own property. Do you persist in that view when it turns out that the states are systematically misusing that ability to create an apartheid society?

I grew up under Jim Crow laws. I grew up in the '50s and '60s in rural Central Florida, and school busing was taking the black kids who live near my nice white kids school and taking them 15 miles away to a rat-infested, horrible place because that was the black kids school. The beginning of forced busing ended busing. It meant that the black kids could now walk to the nice white kids school.

The state systematically misused this. If individuals systematically misuse their property, at what point does the state say, "All right. That's not really your property. We're going to intervene." I think those are really different questions, but they get conflicted severely by the state.

Gillespie: Right. Also, if I can add, I mean that's one of the things that's interesting is that federal law's often seen as just coming out of nothing as opposed to addressing local and state laws or customs that have the force of law, so that ... Simply to focus on federal action misses the point that there's other levels of government doing things that are directly opposite of what the feds were talking about.

Munger: Yes, you cannot defend the right for states to do what they want when what they want is just manifestly evil and which violates the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. There were clear violations of the US constitution that the federal law was finally trying to change. Both the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act in 1965 addressed really legitimate problems that the states were misusing the power that they had been given. Now you can lament that the federal government took that power back. It's in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Okay, the states deserved it because there's no such thing as states, what there is is politicians. Politicians cannot really be trusted. Saying that these are states rights, what it meant was that majorities, and we're back to MacLean now, majorities in these states got to act on evil racist impulses, and those majorities had to be controlled by the federal government. I don't think any other outcome was possible. Certainly no other outcome would have been better than the actual military intervention, which is what we saw: the 101st Airborne with tanks occupying some southern cities and enforcing what should have been the Civil War end of slavery amendments from the 1870s.

Gillespie: Well, you mentioned, bringing it back to MacLean, you also brought the conversation back to Buchanan and his idea of politics without romance by saying there aren't states, there's politicians who use power in ways that are specific and more individual. Just as I think libertarians oftentimes invoke the market as if it's some kind of Leviathan made up of all the different decisions, but it's a walking, strutting humanoid figure, we do that with the state, too.

If you could discuss a bit about Buchanan's characterization of public choice economics. Is that part of what gets under MacLean and other progressive skin? Because he actually is saying that we're not talking about a value free or a progressive values state, what we're talking about are individuals who amass power and then use it.

In a crude way, what public choice economics is about is looking at people in the public sector, elected officials, non-government organizations, in ways that they're similar to actors in the private sector. They want to increase their market share, they want to increase their revenue, but instead of profits, they get more tax dollars or more attention and more resources. That is very punishing to progressives or people who believe in good government. Is that part of what you think is irking her and other people who react negatively to libertarians?

Munger: Sure. It's exactly what is irking them. I think the odd thing is Professor MacLean's indictment of Buchanan as being the embodiment of this, because for him ... And I tried to talk about this in my review. It's a little complicated so let me just hit the high spots. The three things that public choice tries to do is methodological individualism. You have to start with individuals partly for reasons of autonomy, but also that's the reason people get to vote.

The second thing is what they call behavioral symmetry, but it's what you said, that politicians after all are not so different from the rest of us. Maybe they're public-spirited, but they also have their own objectives. We can't assume that they're either all-knowing or benevolent, which is often an assumption we make about the state.

The third thing, though, that Buchanan talks about, and this is different from a lot of public choice theory, is that we should think of politics as exchange, that is political institutions are a means of getting groups of people to cooperate in settings where markets might not work. We need some sort of way of choosing as groups. Here, Buchanan really was worried about the problem with political authority. The problem with political authority in philosophy is when can I be coerced? When can the state use this power, which is the definition of what the state is, which is violence, when can the state use violence against me?

The answer that Buchanan wanted was consent, when I have actually consented; not tacit consent, not something that we've made up, not hocus-pocus, actual consent. That's a hard problem, but he did believe that there was such a thing as political authority, but it took something like consensus. We're not all going to agree, but we all have to consent to be coerced. If we are, then we can do it. Under what circumstances can the 101st Airborne be brought into an otherwise sovereign state and force those citizens to do something that they don't want? It's a real problem because they did not consent to be coerced that way.

If you think that the constitution, with the Tenth Amendment reserved certain rights to the states, now maybe they're being misused, but there's a contract called the constitution that says this is what we can do. What we need to do perhaps is change the contract. He was probably too worried about constitutions, but you need to understand that Buchanan's main concern is political authority operating through an agreement called the constitution.

Gillespie: To my mind, and again, I guess, when did Buchanan's ... I guess it's considered one of his greatest works, The Calculus of Consent, which he wrote with Gordon Tullock. That was around 1960, 1962, something like that?

Munger: '62, yes.

Gillespie: There was a flowering of libertarian intellectuals, including people like Buchanan and Thomas Szasz with The Myth of Mental Illness, which came out around the same time, and even Hayek with The Constitution of Liberty, that we're all very much explicitly interested in how do you regulate power and how do you disperse power and then reserve coercion for particular moments. It parallels almost perfectly people like Michel Foucault, the French social theorist, who was also obsessed and focused on issues of power.

It has always struck me that there is so much common ground between a Foucauldian reading of power and a libertarian reading of power that was coming out 15 years after World War II and both a Nazi totalitarianism that was vanquished as well as Soviet and communist totalitarianism that was still rising. It boggles my mind that people can't seem to acknowledge that, that left-wing scholars don't want to admit that libertarianism speaks to issues of power and libertarians, if you invoke somebody like Foucault or certainly almost any French thinkers, that they go apoplectic.

It seems to me that Buchanan ultimately is engaged in one of the great questions that arose in the 20th Century of total institutions, total governments in big and small ways, big businesses, giant corporations, schooling that was designed to create citizens rather than educate people and create independent thinkers. Is there something to that? In your political science work, who are the thinkers that you think Buchanan could be most profitably engaged in a dialogue with that we don't necessarily think of off the top of our heads?

Munger: There is much to what you just said. I think that it's easy for us to lose track because ... Your conclusion is right. Those conversations didn't happen, and it seems now we've split off, but during the '60s, if you look at the work of Murray Rothbard reaching out to the left, they actually thought that exactly that synthesis was not just possible, but it was the direction that libertarianism should take.

It didn't work out very well because libertarians tended to be skeptical of state power. The left has this contradiction, a complicated contradiction, between saying, "We want the people to have power. We want to be able to protect the power of people." In fact, Foucault, at the end of his life, became very interested in problems of concentration of power in the state, not just in the market, and said some pretty libertarian things.

Gillespie: He had, in some of his last University of Paris lectures, told the students to read with special care the works of Mises and Hayek. He ultimately rejected a classical liberal way of reining in power, but definitely was interested in that. I guess Hayek and Jurgen Habermas overlapped at various institutions in the '60s as well, which is fascinating to think about.

Munger: There was some contact. I think it's partly that the left turned in the direction of endorsing the state, and libertarians ... One of our problems is we tend to value purity. That sort of conversation, a lot of people just wanted to kick Murray Rothbard out of the club because we all know that the state is evil and the most important thing is property rights. Anything that in any way vitiates or questions property rights is a mistake.

Buchanan is an economist. He's worried about trade-offs and he's worried about agreements. The reason is that in a voluntary exchange, we both know that we're better off. The argument for markets is you want the state to create and foster reductions in transactions cost that multiply the number of voluntary transactions, because the state doesn't know what we want, it doesn't know what we need. We do know, but if we're able to engage in more and more voluntary transactions, we get more wealth, more prosperity, more individual responsibility, and the world is a better place.

What Buchanan's question was can we scale up from that instead of having bilateral exchanges where I pay you to do something and we're both better off as a result? Can groups of us cooperated problems, like David Hume said, where we have to drain a swamp, there's a mosquito-laden swamp? It's very difficult for us to get together to do this. We have the free riding problem. Is there some institution that will allow us to have something that looks like a tax, but it's actually voluntary because all of us agreed that we're going to pay, just like I go to the grocery store, I voluntarily pay for something. Not all payments are involuntary, not all taxes have to be involuntary. That's the direction that Buchanan took. I actually think that libertarians just dropped the ball. We stopped thinking in those terms.

The oddest thing about MacLean's discovery, and you were saying earlier on that MacLean is indicting libertarians, I suppose that's true, but she really literally thinks there's this one person, James Buchanan, and his work is the skeleton key that allows us to unlock the entire program. In fact, Jim Buchanan has not been that much of an influence in economics. In some ways, public choice theory has become dominant in political science to a much greater extent, but that's because the study of constitutions in the ways that rules, limit majorities is just orthodox.

Buchanan's contributions to increase the number of analytical tools in the toolkit for analyzing majorities, he won, but it's off for MacLean to assign herself the straw man position and give Buchanan the orthodox position. I actually think that the argument in the book is just confused.

Gillespie: Well, we were on the same agenda in an Australian libertarian conference earlier this year, and one of the things you said there which I want to bring up now because it seems like a good time, you complained to a group of [AMSAC 37:02] libertarians that libertarians are too indebted to economists and that we think too much in economic terms, in economistic terms. You yourself, although you've always worked as a political scientist, as an academic, you were trained in economics. What is the problem there? Can you run through your case against being too indebted to economic thinking?

Munger: Many libertarians celebrate something like the perfection of the market, and so we end up playing defense. When someone says, "Look at these problems with the market," we say, "No, no. Actually, the problem is state intervention, the problem is regulation. If we get rid of those things, then perfection will be restored." The argument that I see for libertarianism is not the perfection of markets, it's the imperfections of the state, the institutions of the state.

I've had some debates with my Duke colleague, Dan Ariely, about this. Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist, and he writes about how irrational consumers are. He has a point. Consumers can be manipulated in all sorts of ways. My answer is every flaw in consumers is worse in voters. Every flaw in consumers is worse in voters.

All the things that Dan Ariely points to, the fact that free stuff is too important, that advertising about general principles or things that look cool can make us want something. In markets, at least, when I buy something and it doesn't work, I can buy something else. The problem is there's not any real feedback when it comes to voting. I don't get punished for voting in a way that makes me feel good about myself because I don't really affect the outcome anyway.

I think the thing that we, as libertarians, need to spend more time thinking about is looking at actual policies and saying, "What's a viable alternative to what the state is doing?" not, "If the state does nothing, everything will be perfect," because very few people are persuaded by that. Something will happen. A magic thing called the market will grow up.

Now I understand that. As an economist, I understand that. We talked earlier about the Food and Drug Administration. What would happen if there were no Food and Drug Administration? Well, what would happen is that things like Consumer Reports or other private certification agencies would license drugs, and brand name would become more important.

Would it be better? I don't know. It would work, though. It's not true that in the absence of state action, there would just be chaos, the Wild West would govern the drug market. But to say all we need to do is get rid of the Food and Drug Administration and markets will take care of it is not very persuasive. You would need to specify an actual alternative that utilizes the incentives that people can recognize.

The short answer to your question is libertarians tend to say, "Markets are great if the state would stop interfering. Everything would be perfect because markets are terrific." No one believes that. As a libertarian candidate, I found out no one believes that.

Gillespie: What were your most successful ways of reaching out to new voters or to new audiences, I guess both as running for governor, but also in your academic work and also your work as a public intellectual? What would you recommend are good ways to enlarge the circle of libertarian believers or people who are libertarian or people who are libertarian-curious?

Munger: Well, I have found that conceding that the concerns of the people I'm talking to are valid and we just disagree about the best means of achieving that is a big step, because what libertarians tend to want to do, their answer to almost everything is we should do nothing. There's a problem with property, "Yeah, but if we do anything, it'll make it worse, so we should do nothing," or there's a problem with healthcare, "Yeah, what we need to do is nothing because as soon as we do nothing, things will get better. Saying, "That's actually a real problem, and I see what you're talking about. Here's what I think there were some difficulties with your approach and here's how my approach might work better," that means you have to know something about actual policies rather than just always saying no.

See the original post:

Do Too Many Libertarians Celebrate a False 'Perfection of the Market'? [Podcast] - Reason (blog)

8 Tips for New and Aspiring Libertarian Writers The Chief’s Thoughts – Being Libertarian

Getting into writing can be quite daunting for people, but it is easier than ever before to be a writer. The internet has placed virtually all the information of consequence known to anyone at our fingertips. So it is vitally important for all those libertarian writers who feel so inclined, to be active.

With this article I hope to get some hesitant aspiring libertarian writers, or writers who have already started but are still unsure about some things, to put pen to paper.

This is simply a collection of those things which have helped me throughout my writing career and which I have told people when they asked me for advice. I am not a journalist or a literary scholar, so everything you will read here comes from my personal experience in writing. I have also had the privilege of being the editor in chief of two publications: The Rational Standard, South Africas only libertarian publication, and, of course, Being Libertarian. But dont see these tips as the only set of valid tips, as many different things work for many different people.

This list is also not comprehensive. These tips are merely some of my thoughts, and if pressed, I might be able to share many others.

This is the most important tip I hope aspiring libertarian writers take to heart.

While research and fact-checking are by default important for any type of writer, overthinking your endeavor can at best lead to significant delay, and at worst to abandonment. If you are unable to verify something dont worry, writing op-eds is not academic writing. Tell your readers that you were unable to verify it, but explain why you believe it to be true regardless. Make an argument; dont get hung up on the numbers, especially if you are writing from the perspective of Austrian economics. Dont, however, be dishonest or try to hide the fact that you couldnt find empirical evidence from your readers.

Also try to set limits on the scope of your article. I will address brevity below, but here it is important that you not consider your article to be the final word on a given topic. You do not need to explain everything you say at length. Assume your readers have a hunger to do some reading on the topic elsewhere!

The most important thing you should do, however, is to just start writing. Put your ideas on paper, and see what happens.

Remember, you are not writing an academic paper where you are investigating something. You already have a message you want to get across.

Start your article by writing down your core thought usually your conclusion and build it around that. For example, if you think minimum wage laws would hurt unskilled workers, start your article by writing exactly that. Your lead-up and introduction will come later, but you need to ensure the core message you want to convey appears in the text of the article in a similar way it came to your mind; usually brief and in understandable language.

We are ordinarily taught that conclusions need to be at the end of the text, but when writing articles, its important to get your message across in the very first paragraph, to ensure even those people who dont read the entire text have at least seen the most important information. This is known as the lede or lead of the article, and is essentially like a preface in a book.

The next paragraph, whether it has a heading or not, will usually be your introduction.

Many other editors will disagree with me on this point, but I must re-emphasise, again, that you are not writing an academic paper which requires extensive justification for your assertions. In ordinary articles, this is not necessary, depending on your audience. If you are writing to a libertarian audience, you usually do not need to explain at length why the State is a violent institution, for example.

The best length of an article has been said to be 500 to 800 words. Any longer than this might cause ordinary readers to bookmark your article to read later something which doesnt always happen. Longer articles, however, certainly have their place, and this will usually depend on what you intend your article to be a summary, a comprehensive analysis, a manifesto and whether or not you are commenting on something timely or timeless.

Many writers are very concerned about the responses they get to their articles. This is good, as this is how a market ordinarily functions. However, just like a company should be free to determine for itself how to do things, should a writer not submit himself entirely to the whims of his readers.

Be conscious of what your readers think about your work, but dont let that get in the way of continuing to do what youre doing. After all, you have an idea youre trying to sell, and just because others are not willing to buy it doesnt mean you have to stop. Otherwise, libertarians would be in big trouble!

Dont be afraid of preaching your message to the converted.

Libertarians often need to have our core principles put to us in different ways, or simply reminded of our core principles in the first place, which sometimes get lost in the academization of libertarianism. By reading others interpretations or conveyances of our principles, we can also learn how to more effective market our ideas.

Another common concern libertarian writers often have is that they have already written an article on a given topic, or that one of their colleagues wrote one, and thus they feel they shouldnt do so again or as well.

Repackage your previous article. Write it in a different way. Look at the topic from another angle. Or dont; write it from the same angle, but in response to a different event. But never think that it is not necessary to write something just because it has already been written about, by you or someone else. Libertarian ideas are not winning or widely known, so it is fair to say that most people probably have not read about that topic you think has been exhausted.

I left this one for last, as it tends to upset quite a number of new and even experienced writers.

It takes years for columnists to get paid a significant amount or any amount of money for writing. You should not set out to write because you want to get paid there is an oversupply of people who want to give their opinions for money. As an up and coming libertarian writer, you should always humble yourself, as you are part of an era where sharing your ideas with virtually everyone else in the world is easier than it has ever been. Imagine: Your ideas can reach further than the dictates of kings and dictators just a few hundred years ago.

We are all capitalists, and that means we believe that one shouldnt expect time and effort from someone else with some kind of reciprocity. However, being capitalists, we also accept the principle of value subjectivity and reject the labor theory of value. This means, principally, that other people must value being able to see your opinion more than they value the amount the paywall charges. But it also means that you have to value your time and effort more than you value writing for the libertarian cause and spreading our ideas. And this, for an up and coming writer, is not recommended. You should want to write because you have something meaningful to say and you want to share it with others.

Too many writers have argued that non-monetary payment does not qualify as payment. To up and coming libertarian writers, the payment offered by a platform is often the platform itself, with a potentially massive audience just waiting to be exposed to your brand and ideas. It is, unfortunately, quite one-dimensional to perceive payment in currency as the only valid type of payment. If your problem is putting food on the table, writing opinion articles might not be the best way to ensure that happens.

Keep at it consistently and develop yourself, and the money will come eventually.

* Disclosure: At the time of writing I was ill with a cold and sinusitis. Please excuse me if some of my writing here seems more abrupt than usual.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

Read more:

8 Tips for New and Aspiring Libertarian Writers The Chief's Thoughts - Being Libertarian

Tourists return to Outer Banks islands, as communities measure economic damage – USA TODAY

Two North Carolina counties on Thursday lifted evacuation orders as of noon on Friday, allowing tens of thousands of people back to the Outer Banks a week after a power outage forced the emergency measures at the height of the summer vacation season. USA TODAY

The beach in Avon, N.C., on Hatteras Island is nearly empty, on Aug. 3, 2017.(Photo: Steve Earley/The Virginian-Pilot via AP)

When aconstruction crew accidentally cut throughpower transmission cablesin North Carolina last week, the lights on Ocracoke and Hatteras islands sputtered off. So did most of a $2-million-a-day economy.

It couldnt have been at a worse time, Dare County Manager Bobby Outten said. For many of the businesses down there, they went from thriving during peak season to closed for a week.

Vacationers returnedto the two Outer Banks islands Friday after crews restored power a week after the blackout sparked a mandatory evacuation. Things could have been even worse for business:The outage was expected to last for as long as three weeks at one point.

I would expect the island to be back in full swing by the end of the weekend, Hyde County Spokesman Donnie Shumate said. Thankfully we got the evacuation order lifted a little earlier than expected.

More: Tourists evacuate Ocracoke, Hatteras as businesses take 'devastating' hit amid power outag

Now, Dare and Hyde County are taking stock of the economic damage.

Dare County officials will meetwith business and rental owners next week to calculate how much Hatteras lost, Outten said. The island usually rakes in about 17.5% of the countys $1 billion economy during the summer.

Hyde County officials kicked off Friday with a community meeting for business owners and rental offices on Ocracoke. About 100 showed up, Shumate said.

Hyde Countyis workingdirectly with PCL Construction, the company that accidentally severed the power while working on a new bridge, to reimburse businesses and the county for their losses,Shumate said. He addedhe hopes the community can steer away fromaclass-action lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit, which alleges PCL was negligent when it damaged the lines, seeks compensation for more than 5,000 people.

Business owners, hourly employees and rental property owners are relieved that the island will be up and running, Joseph Sauder, a partner at McCune, Wright, Arevalo, which is representing the case, told USA TODAY. However, one completely lost week in a short seasonal business is significant.

In a statement, PCL apologized for "the inconvenience caused by the outage. The company added: We are working to provide assistance to those affected."

Dare County officials will also explorenegotiationswith PCL, Outten said.Were going to gather info and work with our people. he added. If PCL is going to resolve the damage, our people will come out better.

Meanwhile, officials on the islands are just excited to see visitors return. Shumate and Outten said they both expect to see the usual peak season crowds on Ocracoke and Hatteras by the end of the weekend.

All of our businesses will be up and will look like nothing ever happened, Outten said.

Follow Bohatch on Twitter: @emilybohatch

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vzFw9F

The rest is here:

Tourists return to Outer Banks islands, as communities measure economic damage - USA TODAY

North Carolina islands expect busy Saturday after outage – Seattle Times

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) Rental houses and condos were expected to fill up Saturday on two North Carolina islands where a bridge construction accident cut power for a week and threatened seasonal businesses bottom lines.

The first day of the weekend is a typical starting point for weeklong rentals, and stores and restaurants were expecting brisk business. Both islands reopened to tourists Friday.

We want everyone to know that we are open for business, said Tommy Hutcherson, the owner of the Ocracoke Variety Store.

The business, which is the islands only grocery store, had its own generator to keep the doors open but saw few customers during the past week.

Were in the height of our summer season. Were just happy to see people back, Hutcherson said.

Maryland resident Colleen Sax planned to start her eight-hour drive to Hatteras Island on Saturday morning for a vacation with her husband, two adult daughters and extended family. Shes relieved after nervously monitoring updates on the situation. An initial estimate that the problem would take weeks to fix was whittled each day until officials announced visitors could return Friday.

That changed quickly. Then it was Friday. I was like: Wow!' she said.

The kitchen staff at the Back Porch Restaurant on Ocracoke Island was busy chopping vegetables and doing other prep work ahead of a Saturday reopening. Owner Daphne Bennink said generator power allowed them to save some high-priced meat and seafood, but they had to order all new fresh produce.

She said her staff also did a deep clean of the kitchen and tried to stay ready because of the uncertain timeframe for reopening.

While were used to having an evacuation, theres almost always a weather event that sort of gives us a tangible, visible timeline, she said. But because of the uncertainty about the outage, she said: Weve been perched, sort of ready.

Power was cut to the two islands early on the morning of July 27 when workers building a new bridge drove a steel casing into underground transmission lines. An estimated 50,000 tourists were ordered to leave during a make-or-break period for seasonal businesses, many of which close during the cold-weather months.

Dare County officials estimate that Hatteras Island businesses easily lost $2 million overall for each day of the outage, county spokeswoman Dorothy Hester said. She said the rough estimate is based on last years tourism figures and could change.

Meanwhile, about 100 people attended a meeting Friday for business owners to begin tallying losses on Ocracoke, which is in Hyde County. County spokesman Donnie Shumate said one restaurant owner calculated that the power outage was likely to cost the business about 11 percent of its yearly revenue. Shumate said the county attorney will be leading negotiations to recoup business losses from the company that caused the accident, PCL Construction.

The company already faces at least four lawsuits by local business owners. Separately, those who had vacations cut short or canceled are working with property owners and travel insurance underwriters to try to recoup losses.

PCL Construction spokeswoman Stephanie McCay said in an email that the company has started a claims process to offer assistance to those affected by the outage.

Visitors with upcoming vacations spent the past week closely watching updates from Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative.

Jessie-Lee Nichols, of Annapolis, Maryland, said she stayed glued to social media, following utility and county officials.

I was getting notifications and reading all of the transmission updates three and four times a day, she said.

Six adults and two children from her family are scheduled for a vacation on Ocracoke Island the second week of August. She said the adults, who paid for the vacation as a Christmas present to one another, were ecstatic to find out Thursday that power had been restored.

I posted to Facebook that the vacation was back on and tagged everyone we were going with, she said. I definitely texted my mom and my sister, and they were like: Fantastic! and Yay!'

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Garske in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Follow Drew at http://www.twitter.com/jonldrew

Link:

North Carolina islands expect busy Saturday after outage - Seattle Times

Animals marooned on Everglades tree islands are dying … – Palm Beach Post (blog)

High water levels in the Everglades have stranded animals on levees and tree islands, triggering emergency measures by water managers to drain flooded areas.

This week, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers changed its water storage rules to temporarily allow for more water to be stored in water conservation areas through the fall and into the dry season.

Related: Flood gates can now open into sparrow territory.

This is the second time this summer that the corps was forced to make emergency changes to account for the high water levels caused by heavy rainfall in early June and in recent weeks.

Heavy rain since the beginning of June have caused the water levels in the conservation areas to rise to historic levels for this time of year, the corps said in a statement.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Alligator Ron Bergeron sent a graphic letter to the corps this week describing the conditions of animals marooned on the tree islands, levees and spoil islands.

Check The Palm Beach Post radar map.

He said huddled on higher ground, their preferred food sources are limited and they must eat less nutritious food, which increases stress.

Over time, fat reserves become exhausted and malnutrition and death will occur, Bergeron said. Extended duration high water conditions also have detrimental long-term effects on the essential foraging and nesting habitats of federally-listed species such as wood storks and snail kites.

A view of tree islands free of Old World Climbing Fern in the northern boundaries of the Everglades in Palm Beach County. (Thomas Cordy / The Palm Beach Post)

Like Loading...

Previous

Tropical system likely next week as chance of formation increases to 80percent

Next

Active hurricane season forecast holds, 61 percent chance of Floridalandfall

Here is the original post:

Animals marooned on Everglades tree islands are dying ... - Palm Beach Post (blog)

Scientists Remove Disease-Causing Mutations from Human Embryos – Mental Floss

Researchers have successfully edited the genes of viable human embryos to repair mutations that cause a dangerous heart condition. The team published their controversial research in the journal Nature.

The versatile gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9 is no stranger to headlines. Scientists have already used it to breed tiny pigs, detect disease, and even embed GIFs in bacteria. As our understanding of the process grows more advanced and sophisticated, many researchers have wondered how it could be applied to human beings.

For the new study, an international team of researchers fertilized healthy human eggs with sperm from men with a disease called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition that can lead to sudden death in young people. The mutation responsible for the disease affects a gene called MYBPC3. Its a dominant mutation, which means that an embryo only needs one bad copy of the gene to develop the disease.

Or, considered another way, this means that scientists could theoretically remove the disease by fixing that one bad copy.

Eighteen hours after fertilizing the eggs, the researchers went back in and used CRISPR-Cas9 to snip out mutated MYBPC3 genes in some of the embryos and replace them with healthy copies. Three days later, they checked back in to see how their subjectswhich were, at this point, still microscopic balls of cellshad fared.

The treatment seemed successful. Compared to subjects in the control group, a significant number of edited embryos appeared mutation- and disease-free. The researchers also found no evidence that their intervention had led to any unwanted new mutations, although it is possible that the mutations were there and overlooked.

Our ability to edit human genes is improving by the day. But, many ethicists argue, just because we can do it doesnt mean that we should. The United States currently prohibits germline editing of human embryos by government-funded researchers. But theres no law against such experimentation in privately funded projects like this one.

The same day the new study was published, an international committee of genetics experts issued a consensus statement advising against editing any embryo intended for implantation (pregnancy and birth).

"While germline genome editing could theoretically be used to prevent a child being born with a genetic disease, its potential use also raises a multitude of scientific, ethical, and policy questions, Derek T. Scholes of the American Society of Human Genetics said in a statement. These questions cannot all be answered by scientists alone, but also need to be debated by society."

Ethicists and sociologists are concerned by the slippery slope of trying to build a better human. Many people with chronic illness and disability live happy, complete lives and report that theyre limited more by discrimination than by any medical issues.

Disability studies expert Lennard Davis of the University of Illinois says we cant separate scientific decisions from our societys history of violence against, and oppression of, disabled and sick people.

A lot of this terrific science and technology has to take into account that the assumption of what life is like for people who are different is based on prejudice against disability, he told Nature in 2016.

Rosemary Garland-Thomson is co-director of the Disability Studies Initiative at Emory University. Speaking to Nature, she said we are at a cultural and ethical precipice: At our peril, we are right now trying to decide what ways of being in the world ought to be eliminated.

Link:

Scientists Remove Disease-Causing Mutations from Human Embryos - Mental Floss

Scientists find genetic ‘trail’ to mysterious Biblical civilization – New York Post

DNA research is shining new light on the Biblical Canaanite civilization, which existed thousands of years ago in the Middle East.

The ancient civilization, which created the first alphabet and is mentioned frequently in the Bible, has long fascinated historians. LiveScience reports that, because the Canaanites kept their records on papyrus, rather than clay, relatively little is known about them.

Now, however, scientists have found a genetic trail back to the Canaanites ancient world.

By sequencing the genomes of five Canaanites that lived 4,000 years ago with genomes from 99 people living in modern day Lebanon, researchers identified a strong genetic link to the mysterious civilization.

The results surprised the scientists, whose work was supported by UK biomedical research charity The Wellcome Trust.

In light of the enormously complex history of this region in the last few millennia, it was quite surprising that over 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of present-day Lebanese was derived from the Canaanites, said Chris Tyler-Smith, senior group leader at The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, in a statement.

In addition to the ancient Canaanite DNA, the analysis of genomes from the modern day Lebanese people also showed a small proportion of Eurasian ancestry that may have come from conquests by Assyrians, Persians or Macedonians, according to the experts.

The researchers also discovered that the ancient Canaanites were a mixture of local people, who settled in farming villages during the Neolithic period, and eastern migrants who arrived about 5,000 years ago. Using ancient DNA we show for the first time who were (genetically) the ancient Canaanites, how they were related to other ancient populations and what was their fate, explained Marc Haber, a genetic data expert at The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, in an email to Fox News. Our work shows the power of genetics in filling gaps in human history when the historical records are absent or scarce.

Haber added that the results complement Biblical accounts of the Canaanites. While the Israelites are commanded to utterly destroy the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 20:16-18, Judges 1 describes the survival of a number of Canaanite communities.

Canaanites once lived in what we now recognize as Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The remains of the five ancient Canaanites studied as part of the DNA research were recovered in the modern-day Lebanese city of Sidon.

The research was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics on July 27.

See the rest here:

Scientists find genetic 'trail' to mysterious Biblical civilization - New York Post

Impact of gene editing breakthrough will be muted – Irish Times

Medical genetic disorders affect about one person in 25. Genetic engineering and DNA sequencing invented in the 1970s led to a revolution in genetics. Photograph: AP

The work on the repair of a gene in human eggs, reported in the journal Nature, is an important scientific achievement. It made use of Crispr (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology to make a single specific change in the three billion units of the human genome. The work is indeed a stunning application of Crispr, with some elegant and surprising results and the publicity is good for my science but it is not likely to change the way reproductive medical genetics is practised and it raises no new ethical problems.

The claims made for the work, amplified by the media, will raise expectations in families carrying genes with severe medical effects and has already excited the critics who fear that geneticists are busy undermining our society. So let us first look at what has been achieved in the science, and then tease out some of the implications.

Medical genetic disorders cause a great deal of suffering and affect about one person in 25. Genetic engineering and DNA sequencing invented in the 1970s led to a revolution in genetics. Mutant genes causing many genetic disorders have been identified. Advances in human embryology led to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in 1978, leading to the birth of more than five million children and untold happiness in their families. The question arose whether IVF could be useful in dealing with medical genetic cases.

By the early 1990s geneticists could detect mutant genes in single cells taken from IVF embryos without harming the embryos. This led to the gradual introduction of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Today parents who are concerned that they may conceive a child with a significant genetic disorder can produce embryos by IVF, these may be tested for the genetic defect and one or more unaffected embryos can then be implanted.

PGD requires a specific probe for each genetic mutation. Some mutations are common, such as F508 in cystic fibrosis, but for many families the mutations have to be analysed and specific probes prepared and tested. As many people know, IVF is itself complex PGD adds another level of complexity, meaning that the number of successful clinical cases dealt with worldwide to date is still only a few thousand. PGD is in its infancy.

So what will be the clinical impact of the new method on PGD? In their experiments, biologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov and his fellow researchers treated 58 embryos in which about 50 per cent carried the normal and half the mutant gene. After treatment they found that 42 (or 72 per cent) carried two normal genes. The mutant gene had been repaired in an estimated 13 out of 29 embryos. Crucially, not all embryos were repaired, nor was it possible to say that Crispr did not cause other unintended, off-target damage to other genes. The embryos were not implanted.

The authors suggest that repair by Crispr will increase the efficiency of PGD. In fact it will have almost no practical effect on PGD services, for two reasons. First, not all of the defective genes are repaired, so after Crispr the embryos still have to be screened by standard PGD to avoid implanting mutant genes. Second, repairing is much more complicated than the current method, which is already complicated. Two Swedish commentators who work in the field note dryly: Embryo genetic testing [PGD] during IVF remains the standard way to prevent the transmission of inherited diseases in human embryos.

In contrast to its use in reproductive medical genetics, use of Crispr in repairing genes in body tissues is a really promising approach to treating genetic disorders after birth, but that is another story.

What do we really need to do in developing PGD? The technical priority is to make IVF itself more efficient. Then we need to refine the current methods of PGD and apply them routinely to a much wider range of genetic mutations. The social priority is to provide PGD on national health services to all couples faced with a high chance of conceiving a child with a major genetic disorder.

Now what about the ethics? Since PGD, which is a medical procedure, is well accepted in international medicine there is nothing new on that front. If in the past, like the Catholic Church, you opposed IVF (and PGD), or the wishes of parents to avoid having children with genetic disorders, this work will not change opinions, and should not increase your concerns.

It is possible that the Crispr techniques of changing genes will be used for non-medical purposes in reproduction, for example to alter genetic qualities which have nothing to do with health. In the UK, such use is regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and might be made illegal (as for example is the non-medical use of PGD for sex selection). But it may be more difficult to make all applications illegal for example, parents might wish to have a child with blue instead of brown eyes, and if so is foolishness something we should make illegal?

One thing is clear. It is long past time that we put into effect the recommendations of the Irish Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction of 2005 dealing with these issues, which are not new, and are well known to the Government. IVF is not regulated in Ireland, nor is PGD, making it difficult for pioneers in the field such as Dr John Waterstone of Cork Fertility to provide a service that is badly needed in Ireland.

Continue reading here:

Impact of gene editing breakthrough will be muted - Irish Times

Insiders, hackers causing bulk of 2017 healthcare data breaches – Healthcare IT News

Ransomware and hacking incidents plagued2016, and this year is no different, with the latest Protenus Breach Barometer midyear report finding that 2017 is on pace to exceed last years rate of one breach per day.

So far this year, the healthcare sector has reported 233 breach incidents to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state attorney generals and media. More than 3.16 million patient records have been breached.

[Join Your Peers at HIMSS Healthcare Security Forum! Register Today]

Compiled in collaboration with Dissent from DataBreaches, the report analyzed 193 of the incidents for which it had data. Breaches have remained steady in the last six months outside of June, which saw a spike with 52 incidents. And March saw the most patients affected, with 1,360,961 records breached.

The healthcare sector will only stop being so vulnerable when the advances in data collection, sharing and analytics are matched with similar advances in our understanding of how to protect patient data, said Protenus Cofounder and President Robert Lord.

Healthcare has invested tens of billions of dollars in deploying systems to leverage data to improve patient outcomes - and appropriately so, he continued. But we still have massive problems with the abuse of that data and those systems.

So what are the biggest threats plaguing healthcare in 2017? Insiders and hackers.

Hacking accounted for 75 breaches this year, with 1,684,904 patient records impacted. Malware and ransomware were specifically mentioned in 29 of these incidents, but the report found there were many additional incidents where malware was reported as hacking or an IT incident.

Officials expect more organizations to report ransomware attacks this year, as HHS updated its ransomware reporting requirements in Aug. 2016. The update places the burden of proof on the provider to demonstrate data remained inaccessible or werent exfiltrated.

Insiders are also remaining a constant challenge for healthcare, accounting for 96 incidents or 41 percent of data breaches this year so far. More than 1.17 million patient records were breached by insider error or wrongdoing.

Wrongdoing is rife to cause significant damage, as its rarely detected immediately. For example, Anthem reported this week an employee of its Medicare insurance coordination services vendor was stealing and misusing Medicaid member data from as early as July 2016. The breach wasnt found until April.

Another issue plaguing the healthcare sector is that other types of external attacks have been underreported or unreported. Thousands of databases in all sectors have been wiped or the data were exfiltrated. The report found that only few of these were reported to HHS.

The FBI has also reported that these ransacking incidents or targeted databases arent being reported.

Healthcare executives, at a fundamental level, should stop thinking about security and privacy as a cost center and more as a strategic pillar of their organization, said Lord. We've continued to see increased awareness and incremental improvements, but not the needed dramatic leap forward.

To Lord, the leap will be driven by CISOs and Chief Privacy Officers, dramatically increasing investment in these areas to match other industries and leveraging the use of advanced analytics to detect inappropriate uses of patient data.

A culture of trust, comprised of dual pillars of privacy and security, must come from the highest levels of the organization.

Twitter:@JessieFDavis Email the writer: jessica.davis@himssmedia.com

Like Healthcare IT News on Facebook and LinkedIn

Original post:

Insiders, hackers causing bulk of 2017 healthcare data breaches - Healthcare IT News

Republicans attack Democrats on government-run healthcare after Obamacare repeal failure – Washington Examiner

Republicans haven't stopped targeting Democrats on healthcare even after their failure to repeal Obamacare.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP campaign arm, is running digital ads in eight states hitting Democrats for supporting the creation of what is called a single-payer healthcare system. Democrats have been adopting support for such a government-run system in the U.S. with increasing frequency, a position to the left of Obamacare and closer to the socialized medicine seen in other countries.

House Republicans believe the position could hurt Democratic candidates in 2018, despite their party's failure to replace former President Barack Obama's healthcare law after years of promising, not to mention infighting, over what to do next to address America's ailing medical system.

Republican insiders concede the oddity of running on healthcare given their paralysis on the issue. But they say internal polling has revealed Democrats are vulnerable on single-payer in targeted districts.

"We like the contrast between our bill and single-payer. The ads write themselves, pulling all these Democratic candidates in their huge primaries left and makes them unelectable in a general," a Republican operative said, referring to GOP legislation to partially repeal Obamacare that passed the House but stalled in the Senate.

The operative, who has viewed the polling but declined to disclose its findings, said surveys in July showed that in competitive House districts, "when both the GOP healthcare proposal and single-payer proposal were described to respondents, respondents disapproved of single-payer in stronger numbers."

The NRCC is investing six figures to run the digital ad "Control" in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia. The attack features House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the perils of putting healthcare under government control. The spot includes news clips of Charlie Gard, a since-deceased baby born with severe birth defects, whose parents fought with the British government over whether the country's government health service would allow the child access to potentially life-saving treatment.

"Big government has destroyed the American healthcare system as we know it. But it gets worse," the spot's voiceover says. "A new plan brought to you by the same Democrats who gave us Obamacare."

"Tell Nancy Pelosi and California Democrats we can't afford single-payer healthcare," the voiceover says, upon the ad's conclusion. Democrats say the spot is laughable given the Republicans recent healthcare stumbles. However, they're quick to point out that not all Democratic candidates will embrace single-payer healthcare. Some will and some won't, depending on the district they're running in.

"Republicans have lost all credibility on healthcare with this repeal disaster," said Tyler Law, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party's House campaign organization. "To think they can keep talking about healthcare and have that be a winning issue heading into the midterms, they're sorely mistaken."

Democrats need to win a net of 24 seats to win back the House majority.

The American Health Care Act cleared the House in late spring, but the GOP's' Obamacare repeal effort is on the fritz indefinitely after legislation pushed by Senate Republicans fell one vote short of passage in late July. That comes as President Trump's job approval numbers have hit record lows.

The effort unfolded over seven months, during which the Affordable Care Act's low approval numbers improved to the point where the law is now more popular than unpopular for the first time since it was enacted in 2010. Plus, the public has given a resounding thumbs down to the Republican alternatives.

That could give Democrats the advantage on healthcare, after losing big to the GOP in three of the last four elections partly because of public dissatisfaction with Obamacare.

But Republicans are staying on offense, arguing that the Democrats' leftward lurch on the issue to embrace a government-run system opens a new line of attack for the GOP. Republicans hope they can force the issue to be one that Democrats fight over in party primaries next year.

"European-style single-payer healthcare is the new litmus test in the Democratic Party," NRCC spokesman Matt Gorman said in a statement. "Every day from today until Election Day, Democrats will be forced to answer whether they support this disastrous plan..."

View original post here:

Republicans attack Democrats on government-run healthcare after Obamacare repeal failure - Washington Examiner

Put consumers first by stabilizing, not sabotaging, health care law – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Tom Brenner New York Times Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the Senates third-ranking Republican, spoke out this week about continuing to provide cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), that is, financial assistance to consumers struggling with high health insurance deductibles and other expenses.

A powerful South Dakota Republican senator merits credit for throwing his support behind a key effort to stabilize the Affordable Care Act after the failed but disruptive congressional push to repeal it.

Early this week, South Dakotas John Thune, the Senates third-ranking Republican, spoke out publicly in favor of funding a critical component of former President Barack Obamas health care law: its financial assistance to consumers struggling with high health insurance deductibles and other expenses. While Thune didnt sound overly enthusiastic, his pragmatic call to fund this consumer-friendly aid known as cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs clearly warns the Trump administration against taking action to undermine the insurance marketplace.

Its a particularly timely message one that Minnesotas three influential GOP House members should echo as Republican efforts to replace the ACA stall indefinitely. The inaction has stoked the ire of President Donald Trump, who campaigned on swiftly repealing Obamacare. There are understandable concerns that Trump appointees could pursue measures to sabotage the law to placate the angry Oval Office occupant.

Read the original:

Put consumers first by stabilizing, not sabotaging, health care law - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Nash UNC Health Care board names interim CEO – Rocky Mount Telegram

A temporary replacement has been appointed for the top executive job at Nash UNC Health Care.

Dr. Ian B. Buchanan will serve as interim CEO for the hospital, stepping in for Larry Chewning, who was asked to leave by the hospitals Board of Commissioners in July and allowed to announce his retirement.

Our team is looking forward to working with Dr. Buchanan and our partners at UNC Health Care to continue improving the care and service we provide to the people of Nash County and the region, said hospital board Chairman Jim Lilley.

A national search is underway to find a replacement for Chewning, who will officially begin his retirement in September. He has served as CEO for the past decade. Chewning became an employee of UNC Health Care System after spearheading the partnership with UNC Health Care in 2014.

As part of the agreement, UNC provides Nash with a CEO, Alan Wolf, spokesman for UNC Health Care Systems, previously told the Telegram.

Chewning presided over a period of great expansion at the hospital with several new treatment centers built. In recent months, however, the hospital has lost money and received poor patient safety ratings.

The search process is being led by a CEO Search Committee composed of members of the local hospital board, said Jeff Hedgepeth, the hospital's director of public relations and marketing.

Buchanan will continue to serve as chief research officer for the UNC Health Care System and as senior vice president of operations at UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill. He also serves the state as a member of the N.C. Advisory Committee on Cancer Coordination and Control.

Buchanan has worked with the Nash hospital leadership team in recent years on several initiatives related to UNC Cancer Care at Nash.

In addition to the Cancer Care programs, I am excited to begin working more closely with the larger team at Nash and in getting to know both our patients and the community, Buchanan said.

Buchanan is a graduate of the UNC School of Medicine and earned a masters degree from the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. He joined UNC Health Care in 2006, working in the Performance Improvement Department at UNC Medical Center, where he was responsible for the Core Measures reporting initiative.

Since then, Buchanan has served as the associate vice president for Oncology Services, as vice president for Cancer and Childrens Services, and as vice chairman for Clinical Integration within the UNC Department of Pediatrics.

Chewning is only the third CEO of the hospital since it opened nearly 50 years ago. He replaced Rick Toomey, who replaced long-time CEO Bryant Aldridge.

More here:

Nash UNC Health Care board names interim CEO - Rocky Mount Telegram

Glimmers of hope amid president’s health-care callousness – The Seattle Times

Trumps let Obamacare implode is a cruel, nihilistic policy that does nothing to solve the real problems in health care.

PRESIDENT Donald Trumps let Obamacare implode strategy should come with a flashing red warning: If you break it, you own it.

Of course, it is not a political strategy. Its a talking point aimed at the hardest base of the GOP. As a policy, it is a prescription for escalating health-care costs and devastation to already fragile rural economies as a legion of newly uninsured people, many of them in Trump-voting counties, demand care from hospitals that cannot afford a spike in charity care.

The U.S. Senates failure to repeal Obamacare last week does not end the debate about the Affordable Care Act. Nor should it. The ACA has obvious flaws acknowledged by its own supporters. Fixing them, with a bipartisan and deliberative approach, would be a priority if the Republican caucus had more sensible minds like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They joined Sen. John McCain to rebuke the repeal strategy.

A glimmer of hope comes from U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who said he will work with Washingtons Sen. Patty Murray on a bipartisan, if temporary, solution. The ranking member of the committee, Murray welcomed the overture, which includes hearings and a proposal to extend payments to insurers through 2018.

Trump, nonetheless, acts like a cruel nihilist in threatening the foundations of the Affordable Care Act. Through executive power, he could stop payment on the estimated $7 billion in cost-sharing subsidies for low- and moderate-income buyers of health insurance. That could effectively make health insurance unaffordable for up to 10 million people.

He has other levers, including monkeying around with the Medicaid expansion, which helped drop Washington states uninsured rate to 7 percent, with the steepest drops in counties in this state that Trump won. He should stop threatening to harm his base, and his base should demand rational governance.

In the absence of constructive action from the White House, Washington states health-care leadership must buckle down for a bumpy ride. Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler said he is most concerned that rural counties will be left with no insurer for individual plans, a scenario barely avoided this year. Several counties have only one provider.

Kreidler is working on several contingency options, including expanded use of a high-risk insurance pool that could step in for unusually high-cost illnesses and for individuals. He is also exploring opening a public option if counties were left with no private insurer, using the insurance pool for state employees.

This intriguing idea deserves a full vetting, because Kreidler sees the current trajectory on health insurance on the individual market ending with a crash. Washington has seen that before, nearly two decades ago, and it was chaos.

Trumps disinterest in solving the big problems of health care including cost and access is remarkable because it is so callous. Instead of merely working to score political points off the Obama legacy, Trump and the GOP-led Congress need to work with Democrats and fix, not toss, the Affordable Care Act.

See the rest here:

Glimmers of hope amid president's health-care callousness - The Seattle Times

Madhuri Hegde, PhD is Elected to the Board of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine – Markets Insider

BETHESDA, Md., Aug. 4, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --Madhuri Hegde, PhD, FACMG of PerkinElmer, Inc. in Waltham, MA has been elected to the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine Board of Directors, the supporting educational foundation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The ACMG Foundation is a national nonprofit foundation dedicated to facilitating the integration of genetics and genomics into medical practice. The board members are active participants in serving as advocates for the Foundation and for advancing its policies and programs. Dr. Hegde has been elected to a 2-year renewable term starting immediately.

Dr. Hegde joined PerkinElmer in 2016 as Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, Global Genetics Laboratory Services. She also is an Adjunct Professor of Human Genetics in the Department of Human Genetics at Emory University. Previously, Dr. Hegde was Executive Director and Chief Scientific Officer at Emory Genetics Laboratory in Atlanta, GA and Professor of Human Genetics and Pediatrics at Emory University and Assistant Professor, Department of Human Genetics and Senior Director at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX.

Dr. Hegde has served on a number of Scientific Advisory Boards for patient advocacy groups including Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Congenital Muscular Dystrophy and Neuromuscular Disease Foundation. She was a Board member of the Association for Molecular Pathology and received the Outstanding Faculty Award from MD Anderson Cancer Center. She earned her PhD in Applied Biology from the University of Auckland in Auckland, New Zealand and completed her Postdoctoral Fellowship in Molecular Genetics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX. She also holds a Master of Science in Microbiology from the University of Mumbai in India. She has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has given more than 100 keynote and invited presentations at major national and internal conferences.

"We are delighted that Dr. Hegde has been elected to the ACMG Foundation Board of Directors. She has vast experience in genetic and genomic testing and is a longtime member of the College and supporter of both the College and the Foundation," said Bruce R. Korf, MD, PhD, FACMG, president of the ACMG Foundation.

The complete list of the ACMG Foundation board of directors is at http://www.acmgfoundation.org.

About the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine

The ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is a community of supporters and contributors who understand the importance of medical genetics and genomics in healthcare. Established in 1992, the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine supports the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' mission to "translate genes into health" by raising funds to help train the next generation of medical geneticists, to sponsor the development of practice guidelines, to promote information about medical genetics, and much more.

To learn more about the important mission and projects of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine and how you too can support the work of the Foundation, please visit http://www.acmgfoundation.org or contact us at rel="nofollow">acmgf@acmgfoundation.org or 301-718-2014.

Contact Kathy Beal, MBA ACMG Media Relations, rel="nofollow">kbeal@acmg.net

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/madhuri-hegde-phd-is-elected-to-the-board-of-the-acmg-foundation-for-genetic-and-genomic-medicine-300499860.html

SOURCE American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics

View original post here:

Madhuri Hegde, PhD is Elected to the Board of the ACMG Foundation for Genetic and Genomic Medicine - Markets Insider

Genome editing and the AMA Code of Medical Ethics – American Medical Association (blog)

An international team of researchers recently published, in the journal Nature, their study using genome editing to correct a heterozygous mutation in human preimplantation embryos using a technique called CRISPR-Cas9. This bench research, while far from bedside use, raises questions about the medical ethics of what could be considered genetic engineering. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics has guidance for physicians conducting research in this area.

In Opinion 7.3.6, Research in Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering, the Code explains:

Gene therapy involves the replacement or modification of a genetic variant to restore or enhance cellular function or the improve response to nongenetic therapies. Genetic engineering involves the use of recombinant DNA techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits. In medicine, the goal of gene therapy and genetic engineering is to alleviate human suffering and disease. As with all therapies, this goal should be pursued only within the ethical traditions of the profession, which gives primacy to the welfare of the patient.

In general, genetic manipulation should be reserved for therapeutic purposes. Efforts to enhance desirable characteristics or to improve complex human traits are contrary to the ethical tradition of medicine. Because of the potential for abuse, genetic manipulation of nondisease traits or the eugenic development of offspring may never be justifiable.

Moreover, genetic manipulation can carry risks to both the individuals into whom modified genetic material is introduced and to future generations. Somatic cell gene therapy targets nongerm cells and thus does not carry risk to future generations. Germ-line therapy, in which a genetic modification is introduced into the genome of human gametes or their precursors, is intended to result in the expression of the modified gene in the recipients offspring and subsequent generations. Germ-line therapy thus may be associated with increased risk and the possibility of unpredictable and irreversible results that adversely affect the welfare of subsequent generations.

Thus, in addition to fundamental ethical requirements for the appropriate conduct of research with human participants, research in gene therapy or genetic engineering must put in place additional safeguards to vigorously protect the safety and well-being of participants and future generations.

Physicians should not engage in research involving gene therapy or genetic engineering with human participants unless the following conditions are met:

(a) Participate only in those studies for which they have relevant expertise.

(b) Ensure that voluntary consent has been obtained from each participant or from the participants legally authorized representative if the participant lacks the capacity to consent, in keeping with ethics guidance. This requires that:

(i) prospective participants receive the information they need to make well-considered decisions, including informing them about the nature of the research and potential harms involved;

(ii) physicians make all reasonable efforts to ensure that participants understand the research is not intended to benefit them individually;

(iii) physicians also make clear that the individual may refuse to participate or may withdraw from the protocol at any time.

(c) Assure themselves that the research protocol is scientifically sound and meets ethical guidelines for research with human participants. Informed consent can never be invoked to justify an unethical study design.

(d) Demonstrate the same care and concern for the well-being of research participants that they would for patients to whom they provide clinical care in a therapeutic relationship. Physician researchers should advocate for access to experimental interventions that have proven effectiveness for patients.

(e) Be mindful of conflicts of interest and assure themselves that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the welfare of human participants.

(f) Adhere to rigorous scientific and ethical standards in conducting, supervising, and disseminating results of the research.

AMA Principles of Medical Ethics: I,II,III,V

At the 2016 AMA Interim Meeting, the AMA House of Delegates adopted policy on genome editing and its potential clinical use. In the policy, the AMA encourages continued research into the therapeutic use of genome editing and also urges continued development of consensus international principles, grounded in science and ethics, to determine permissible therapeutic applications of germline genome editing.

Chapter 7 of the Code, Opinions on Research & Innovation, also features guidance on other research-related subjects, including informed consent, conflicts of interest, use of placebo controls, and the use of DNA databanks.

The Code of Medical Ethics is updated periodically to address the changing conditions of medicine. The new edition, adopted in June 2016, is the culmination of an eight-year project to comprehensively review, update and reorganize guidance to ensure that the Code remains timely and easy to use for physicians in teaching and in practice.

See the article here:

Genome editing and the AMA Code of Medical Ethics - American Medical Association (blog)

Experts Call on US to Start Funding Scientists to Genetically Engineer Human Embryos – Gizmodo

Edited human embryos. Image: OHSYU

This week, news of a major scientific breakthrough brought a debate over genetically engineering humans front and center. For the first time ever, scientists genetically engineered a human embryo on American soil in order to remove a disease-causing mutation. It was the fourth time ever that such a feat has been published on, and with the most success to date. It may still be a long way off, but it seems likely that one day we will indeed have to grapple with the sticky, complicated philosophical mess of whether, and in which cases, genetically engineering a human being is morally permissible.

On the heels of this news, on Thursday a group of 11 genetics groups released policy recommendations for whats known as germline editingor altering the human genome in such a way that those changes could be passed down to future generations. The statement, from groups including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said that doctors should not yet entertain implanting an altered embryo in a human womb, a step which would be against the law in the United States. But they also argued that there is no reason not to use public money to fund basic research on human germline editing, contrary to a National Institutes of Health policy that has banned funding research involving editing human embryo DNA.

Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing, they wrote. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

Safety, ethical concerns and the impact germline editing might have on societal inequality, they wrote, would all have to be worked out before such technology is ready for the clinic.

Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artifact of class, geographic location, and culture, they wrote. In turn, reduced incidence and reduced sense of shared risk could affect the resources available to individuals and families dealing with genetic conditions.

If and when embryo editing is ready for primetime, the group concluded that there would need to be a good medical reason to use such technology, as well as a transparent public debate. Some have questioned the medical necessity of embryo editing, arguing that genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization could allow doctors to simply pick disease-free eggs to implant, achieving the same results via a method that is less morally-fraught.

In February, the National Academy of Sciences released a 261-page report that also gave a cautious green light to human gene-editing, endorsing the practice for purposes of curing disease and for basic research, but determining that uses such as creating designer babies are unethical. Other nations, like China and the UK, have forged ahead with human embryo editing for basic research, though there have been no published accounts of research past the first few days of early embryo development.

Given the way the culture, religion and regional custom impact attitudes toward genetically-engineering human life, its safe to say that this debate will not be an easy one to settle. As the policy recommendations point out, views on the matter vary drastically not just across the US, but around the world, and yet one nation making the decision to go ahead with implanting edited embryos will create a world in which that technology exists for everyone.

In the meantime, though, there are still more than a few kinks to work out in the science before were faced with these questions in the real world.

Read more:

Experts Call on US to Start Funding Scientists to Genetically Engineer Human Embryos - Gizmodo

Agilis Biotherapeutics, Gene Therapy Research Institution Enter Strategic Partnership – Drug Discovery & Development

Agilis Biotherapeutics, Inc. (Agilis), a biotechnology company advancing innovative DNA therapeutics for rare genetic diseases that affect the central nervous system (CNS), and Gene Therapy Research Institution Co, Ltd. (GTRI), a corporation with the mission of developing and delivering of the safest and most efficient gene therapies, announced that the companies have completed a manufacturing and collaboration partnership joint venture (JV) to advance adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapies. The JV was initiated earlier this year in connection with a grant from the Japanese Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry (METI) and Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) for the development of a state-of-the-art AAV manufacturing facility in Japan. GTRI was co-founded by Professor Shin-ichi Muramatsu, M.D., a leading pioneer in gene therapy who has performed basic science and clinical research in the field for over two decades.

The JV, headquartered in Japan, will initially focus on developing and manufacturing AAV gene therapy vectors using Sf9 baculovirus and HEK293 mammalian cell systems and operate a process development and production facility located in the Tokyo area designed to meet international manufacturing standards, including cGMP, GCTP and PIC/S GMP requirements. Agilis and GTRI will also collaborate to expedite the development, approval and commercialization of select gene therapies in specific CNS diseases. Terms of the joint venture were not disclosed.

We are pleased to collaborate with Agilis to leverage each organizations capabilities and know-how, advance the manufacturing state-of-the art for gene therapy, and develop novel gene therapies, commented Katsuhito Asai, Chief Executive Officer of GTRI and a Director of the joint venture. Our partnership will seek to capitalize on the strong recent progress in the field of gene therapy and expedite the development of innovative gene therapies for patients in need, with a major emphasis on the quality production of safe, effective therapeutics.

We are thrilled to partner with GTRI, said Mark Pykett, Agilis CEO and a Director of the joint venture. We believe that our partnership will enhance the efforts of both organizations, build important shared production capabilities, and accelerate development and commercialization of important gene therapies. We look forward to working with GTRI on a range of initiatives.

See the article here:

Agilis Biotherapeutics, Gene Therapy Research Institution Enter Strategic Partnership - Drug Discovery & Development