Why A War On Drugs In Lawrence Isn’t The Answer And Could Create More Problems – WBUR

wbur COMMENTARY Mayor Dan Rivera's defense of an aggressive police officer, writes Alex Ramirez, is deeply troubling. Pictured: In this file photo, Luis Rivera, of Haverhill, is arrested by Lawrence Police Officers Carmen Purpora, front, and Eli Bernabe, in a supermarket parking lot in Lawrence on March 14, 2006. Rivera was charged in connection with shoplifting, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to sell. (Steven Senne/AP)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

After college, in 2012, I moved back home to Lawrence, and nearly every dayI noticed unfamiliarcars, usually with New Hampshire plates, parked brieflyon the street outside my familys gray triple-decker.

I had grown up in that neighborhood, in that city, and I knew the occupants wereprobably buying drugs. My small street saw a lot of action it was a popular spot to abandon stolen cars. Unmarked police cars camped outside our home for drug busts a block or two away. Once, there was a murder in the neighborhood. During the manhunt, my dad and I were painting our garage. A man the suspect emerged from some nearby trees. Seconds later, a cop popped out of aminivan that had been driving down the street and aimed his gun at the man. My dad and I weredown-range from the cop's barrel. Dad told me to hide in the garage, but the man surrendered within moments.

So I had a gut-feeling about the (usually) white drivers and passengers fromNew Hampshire who parked outside our house,their car engines still running. That feeling was oftenconfirmed when I saw another vehicle pull up beside one of the cars, or a person walk over, and exchangesomething through the window.

My parents and even my grandmother, then in her late 80s, often confronted these strangers. Theyd ask who they were waiting for, call their bluff and tell them to leave. Sometimes theyd try to shout the customers away, bellowing from the porch or a window.My grandma a tough old Lithuanian whose parents were part of the early wave of European immigrants to Lawrence would grab her cane, shout and try to scare them off.

My grandma -- a tough old Lithuanian whose parents were part of the early wave of European immigrants to Lawrence -- would grab her cane, shout and try to scare them off.

These werent the wisest decisions. But my family felt they had to defend the block themselves. Sometimes they'd call the policewith descriptions of the cars outside our homeor ask for an occasional patrol down the street. Their requests went ignored.

Then, a few weeks ago, the Lawrence Police Department and the issue of outsiders buying drugs in the cityexploded. A video showed a Lawrence police officer dragging a young white man out of his carand forcing him to the ground. Locals have criticized the officers conduct, but Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera defended his actions in a now-deleted Facebook post.

The video is not pretty but, not inappropriate, he wrote. He said he understood why the cop got heated with the driver, and maintained that the vehicle had circled the neighborhood, clearly looking for drugs. It is necessary to let the outsiders know, they are not welcome, he added, ending on the all-caps rally cry that LAWRENCE WILL NOT BE YOUR DRUG MALL ANY MORE.

The text of the postcan still be found in a DigBoston column by Maya Shaffer, who also notes past incidents of LPDs questionable conduct. The driver, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, denied that he was searching for drugs.

Lawrence has problems with drug-related crimes, but a localized war on drugs wont solve that. Rather than scare white drug addicts away, it will send more young men of color into the prison system.

The content of Rivera's post isnt out of character. His campaign against Lawrences "drug mall" goes back to his early days in office. And his support for the police department was echoed in his initial opposition to Lawrences Trust Act, which prohibitedpolice from enforcing federal immigration law, fearingit would make itharderfor police to do their jobs. (The mayor now supports Lawrences "sanctuary city" status, and is suing Trumpto fightfederal funding penalties.)

However, the rhetoric about outsiders and his defense of the officers behavior is worrisome. Lawrence has problems with drug-related crimes, but a local war on drugs wont solve that. Rather than scare white drug addicts away, it will send more young men of color into the prison system.

Its hard to trust the idea of imbuing police with more reach, power and authority in a Latino-majority city. While there isnt much data nor media coverage on police brutality against Latinos, most information suggests its alreadya problem. In 2016, police killed 183 Latinos, 3.23 per million compared to 2.9 per million for whites. (In raw numbers, police kill more white people than anyone each year.) The numbers were higher in 2015 195 Latinos killed by police, or 3.45 per million. Given that some Latinos may identify as white or black, the toll could be even higher.Latinos who make up 17 percent of the population account for 23 percent of all traffic searches and nearly 30 percent of arrests.

Lawrence has always been a tough city. But being tough cant solve everything, including crime.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Alejandro Ramirez Cognoscenti contributor Alejandro Ramirez is a freelance writer and the online editor of Spare Change News. He has an MFA in creative nonfiction.

More

Read more here:

Why A War On Drugs In Lawrence Isn't The Answer And Could Create More Problems - WBUR

The Future Of Online Gambling Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions – Forbes


Forbes
The Future Of Online Gambling Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Forbes
Luminescent signboards flashed across the streets and alleyways as colossal skyscrapers soared upwards to speak with the heavens. The jingle of coins and the rumbling of roulette wheels approached the ear from all directions. Inside, you could hear the ...

and more »

More:

The Future Of Online Gambling Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions - Forbes

For gambling advocates, Raiders’ relocation offers opportunity – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Concerns about Sin Citys temptations have kept the NFL out of Las Vegas for years, but the relocation of the Oakland Raiders represents a shift in approach that some gaming industry experts say could beckon a new era in sports gambling.

A 1992 federal law banned sports betting in all states except Nevada. In recent years, however, gaming advocates and some states have argued in federal court that the law should be revised to allow legal sports betting elsewhere. The impending arrival of an NFL franchise in Las Vegas gives gaming advocates a chance to use the city as an incubator an opportunity to test whether a professional football team can operate in proximity to sports books.

The multimillion-dollar question: Will the Raiders relocation validate or alleviate concerns about match fixing, game throwing and other forms of cheating?

The question is whether the presence of a franchise in a place where gambling has been legal makes it more likely there will be match fixing, said Jennifer Rodgers, a Columbia University law professor who teaches a class on corruption in sports and serves as the executive director of the universitys Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity. That, I think, has been the NFLs reason for staying away they didnt want to be associated with that, and they didnt want to open their players up for contamination.

Regulation as risk reduction

Rodgers said sports betting concerns lessen, rather than increase, when gambling is regulated.

Match fixing is really a problem when its tied to illegal black market gambling, Rodgers said. They have regular sports betting highly regulated and highly scrutinized. Those casinos have very sophisticated fraud and gambling detection tools.

The chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board said the states decadeslong history of regulating gambling would ease the NFLs transition into the Las Vegas Valley. The reason is simple: The systems already are in place.

With respect to the NFL, I think our interests collectively are the same, Chairman A.G. Burnett said. We want to ensure integrity with the sport. We want to ensure that theres no black eye on the state or the gaming industry in any way.

Burnett said sports book operators know their gaming license is on the line, and theyre all equally good in ascertaining when somethings amiss.

When sports betting is legal, Burnett said, regulators can monitor the line, spot problems and respond accordingly. The Gaming Control Boards enforcement division works regularly with the FBI, the Justice Department, and other state, local and federal law enforcement agencies to stop any suspicious activity.

A cultural destigmatization of gambling in recent years already has resulted in some changes in Nevada. For example, the Gaming Control Board signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Olympic Committee a few years ago that allows them to share information, and Burnett said he envisioned a similar relationship with professional sports leagues. He said the enforcement division has been engaged in general discussions with the NFL as it prepares for the move.

The Gaming Control Board has experience regulating sports betting on local teams, with UNLVs campus so close to the sports books. Meanwhile, the NBA Summer League has been in Las Vegas for more than a decade, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has in recent years become an outspoken advocate for legal sports betting.

The first test of how the system works with a professional, major league franchise will come when the NHL expands to Las Vegas in October.

Shift to sports betting

If the Raiders and the gaming industry together can execute a smooth transition to Las Vegas, some industry professionals say that could represent the first step toward legal sports betting in other states.

People from all corners are recognizing sports betting is a big popular pastime, Burnett said.

While NFL owners last week embraced a move to Las Vegas, the league has, as recently as 2012, fought other states that launched challenges against the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the 1992 law known as PASPA.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld PASPA in response to a legal challenge filed by New Jersey. State officials had sought to legalize sports betting amid declining gaming revenue in Atlantic City.

One of New Jerseys staunchest legal opponents in its push to operate sports books at its casinos was the NFL, among other major sports leagues. But the leagues embrace of a move to Las Vegas could change the national landscape on that issue.

What I think it will do for sports gambling is highlight that a professional sports organization can operate in a regulated sports wagering environment, just like many sports do in the United Kingdom, said Jennifer Roberts, associate director of the International Center for Gaming Regulation at UNLVs Boyd School of Law.

The time could be ripe for a shift, as the NFL has been inching toward the sorts of activity it eschewed for decades.

I think the fact that you have so much gambling in other places makes the stigma less, said David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at UNLV. Most NFL cities have a casino within driving distance.

Schwartz also said the leagues embrace of fantasy sports undercuts its opposition to sports betting.

They say that theyre still opposed to it, but a lot of teams have sponsorship deals with daily fantasy sports sites, he said.

Contact Jenny Wilson at jenwilson@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Follow @jennydwilson on Twitter.

Continued here:

For gambling advocates, Raiders' relocation offers opportunity - Las Vegas Review-Journal

What happens in Vegas … NFL gambling policy tested by arm-wrestling event – USA TODAY

Take a look at the proposed design for the Las Vegas Raiders' new home which looks like it'll be one of the best in the NFL. USA TODAY Sports

Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker James Harrison is in Las Vegas this weekend for an arm-wrestling event.(Photo: Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sport)

Nearly three dozen NFL players are in Las Vegas this weekend for a competition that classically captures the macho spirit of football: Arm wrestling.

Dubbed the inaugural Pro Football Arm Wrestling Championship with heavyweight and light heavyweight crowns in play its a made-for-TV deal, to air on CBS over two weekends later this spring.

But arm wrestlers beware. Roger Goodell and Co, lurk for a strong-arm takedown.

That the event is being staged at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino has captured the attention of the suits at NFL headquarters on Park Avenue. The NFLs gambling policy, of course, prohibits players from appearing at casinos as part of promotional events.

According to the NFL, players participating in this specific event without pre-approval are in violation of the gambling policy and subject to discipline.

MORE NFL:

Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger: 'I am looking forward to my 14th season'

NFL mock draft 5.0: With pro days complete, how does board stack up now?

Had we been asked in advance if this was acceptable, we would have indicated that it was in direct violation of the gambling policy, Joe Lockhart, the NFLs executive vice president for communications and public affairs, told USA TODAY Sports. No one sought pre-approval.

Uh-oh.

With discipline perhaps coming in the form of a fine, the stage may be set for another skirmish between flamboyant Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison and his friends in New York.

Harrison, a vocal critic of Goodellwho has had a series of differences with the NFL over a range of issues, is coaching one of the teams in the event. His counterpart is Marshawn Lynch, the free-spirited running back who received permission from the Seattle Seahawks this week to visit the Oakland Raiders as he contemplates coming out of retirement.

Other notable participants: Miami Dolphins receiver Kenny Stills, San Francisco 49ers linebacker NaVorro Bowman, Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey, Raiders punter Marquette King and defensive end Mario Edwards, and New England Patriots safety Patrick Chung.

And what event at a casino would be complete without the presence of a guy nicknamed, Lucky, as in Dallas Cowboys receiver Lucky Whitehead.

This is great exposure for all involved, said Alan Brickman, co-owner of the California-based company, Encinal Entertainment, that is putting on the show.

In addition to funneling half of the $100,000 in first-place prize money to charity, with the Give Back Foundation charged to support foundations in the players names, Brickman sells the TV package as a chance to get to know the players behind the scenes.

Interestingly, Brickman disputes the contention that pre-approval wasnt sought from the NFL. He told USA TODAY Sports that, beginning in January, he engaged with two different departments within the league and tried to strike a deal to include the NFL as a partner with the event.

Obviously, the NFL didnt sign up. Yet Brickman maintains that during communication with the league, guidelines were suggested that included showing no images during the broadcast of any gambling-related activities or any alcohol. He said the power was turned off on gambling machines in the vicinity of the events being taped.

With a team coming here, Im sure theyre branding it as a family destination, Brickman said from Las Vegas on Friday night.

In the big picture, the arm wrestling event is a fresh test of the mettle of the NFLs gambling policy.

Remember, two years ago the league essentially shut down a fantasy football convention that was connected to then-Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, warning players of fines and/or suspensions if they participated in the event in Las Vegas that wasnt even to be actually held at a casino although it was to be staged at a venue owned by a casino, Sands.

It would have been consistent with the Romo case for the NFL to try to squash the arm wrestling, too. But apparently, there was some communication breakdown as league officials insist that they were unaware of the event until the middle of this week.

In any event, as it stands now, even with the Oakland Raiders formally approved last month for a move to Las Vegas in 2020, the NFL is hardly relaxing a gambling policy that prohibits association with casinos or other gambling establishments.

We did not change any of our gambling policies in the context of the Raiders relocation, Goodell said in late March, as the NFL owners meetings wrapped up in Phoenix. It wasnt necessary and the Raiders didnt ask us to do that. We dont see changing our current policies.

The NFL has a long history of opposing gambling, particularly sports books, which is why any association with casinos is frowned upon. Yet theres seemingly a much grayer area in play now, with the Raiders headed to Las Vegas.

A few years ago, the NFL would have never dreamed of putting franchise in the gambling capital of the USA. But times change, and the Raiders move is fueled by the type of cash that always gets the NFLs attention $750 million in public funds to build a stadium.

As the Raiders situation progressed, several NFL owners told me that they were not concerned about gambling influences in Las Vegas, given how technology and the spread of casinos has many teams in proximity to such establishments. The league, after all, stages games in London, which has casinos.

Las Vegas, though, is gambling on steroids, so to speak. Moving into a market where gambling is the major industry could force the NFL to constantly re-establish its resolve against such a backdrop.

As Goodell acknowledged, That is a major risk for us. We have to make sure that we continue to stay focused on making sure that everyone has full confidence that what you see on the field is not influenced by any outside factors. That is our No. 1 concern. That goes to what I consider the integrity of the game. We will not relent on that.

It might be a stretch to associate an event such as the arm wrestling competition as a threat to the integrity of NFL games, but this is about optics.

Yet with the NFL planting a flag in Las Vegas, there will surely be more events like the arm wrestling championships at casinos and related properties, looking to connect with the NFL.

For example, shortly after the Raiders move was approved, a Nevada brothel owner revealed a plan to open a Raiders-themed brothel. That prompted a question to Goodell about whether special policies will be needed for the Raiders in Las Vegas. He seemed to have an open mind. Sort of.

We have policies in place now and obviously well continue to evaluate those policies, he said. If we think something specific needs to be done in Las Vegas, or any changes to our policy, we obviously retain the right to do that. We will continue to look at that.

In other words, what happens in Vegas doesnt necessarily stay in Vegas. It resonates on Park Avenue, too.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

More:

What happens in Vegas ... NFL gambling policy tested by arm-wrestling event - USA TODAY

UFC 210 odds, gambling guide – MMA Fighting

Welcome MMA bettors, speculators, and gambling lurkers! Were back at it again for another week of comprehensive gambling analysis from your friends at MMAFighting.com. This weekends fight card breaks a long drought of UFC cards and its headlined by one of the best title fights possible, so it should be a good weekend.

For those of you who are new here or those who have forgotten, this aims to be an exhaustive preview of the fights, the odds, and my own personal breakdown of where you can find betting value. The number after the odds on each fighter is the probability of victory that those odds imply (so Cormier at +100 means he should win the fight 50 percent of the time). If you think he wins more often than the odds say, you should bet it because there's value in the line.

All stats come from FightMetric and all the odds are from Best Fight Odds. Net Value means how much money you would have made if you bet $100 on that fighter in every one of his/her fights that odds could be found for. Doubly as always, I'm trying to provide the most thorough guide I can for those who want to legally bet or who just enjoy following along. If you are a person who chooses to gamble, only do so legally, responsibly, and at your own risk.

Now with all that out of the way, lets go.

Breakdown

UFC light heavyweight champion Daniel Cormier puts his belt on the line against Anthony Johnson in a rematch of their championship crowning battle two years ago.

Cormier is one of the best wrestlers to have ever stepped foot in the Octagon, being a two-time Olympian for the United States and medal favorite at the 2008 games before being derailed by a failed weight cut. And that wrestling pedigree defines everything he does in the Octagon.

On the feet, Cormier is a relentless pressure fighter, working forward behind body and leg kicks and power punching combinations. Once he gets inside, Cormier is a handful. In the clinch, he fires off quick, snapping uppercuts and hooks, controlling and dirty boxing with the best of them. From here, he also can get his hands locked on an opponent, and once that happens, someone is probably going for a ride. On top, he likes to use a loose but controlling ride that lets him rain down punches and eat clock while grinding opponents down.

Johnson is the most feared power puncher in MMA, but he isn't just raw power; Johnson has a good amount of depth to his game. Though primarily an orthodox fighter, Rumble can switch stances and fires off a good jab from either side as well as using thudding leg kicks to great effect. Rumble excels with range and timing, making him an exceptional counterpuncher. Hes also a quick starter, rarely requiring any time to adjust to his opponents and making him a problem for fighters trying to adjust to his blend of speed, power, and athleticism.

Johnson is also an excellent wrestler, having powerful takedowns of his own and being extremely difficult to takedown. His takedown defense is enhanced by his control of range and the fear of God he puts in fighters when he hits them; after all, its hard to wrestle effectively when you wont get closer than 10 feet to someone.

Johnsons biggest problems all seem to be mental. When opponents dictate the terms of engagement against him, Johnson has been known to break, and if you can get him down, he isn't the best at getting back up or at staving off submissions. Hes also prone to over-aggression, a trait which cost him against Cormier, who he hurt in their first fight but ended up allowing Cormier to tie him up when he rushed in.

This is the best match that can be made at 205 pounds that doesnt include Jon Jones, and as such, its incredibly close. For Cormier, he needs to just recreate their first fight and he will walk away the winner. For Rumble, he just needs to recreate the first few minutes of their last fight and temper his aggression.

For me, this pick comes down to the simple fact that Father Time is undefeated. Cormier is a little older, a little slower, hes always been kind of hittable, and now hes been dropped a lot recently. That age and wear, coupled with Johnsons improvements, make me think this that this time Rumble gets it done. Johnson dropped him in their first fight and this time he finishes the job early, knocking out Cormier in the first round. That being said, considering how close this fight is and the simple fact that Cormier is massively advantaged if it goes longer than 10 minutes, I would suggest a bet on Cormier if he gets any higher in value.

Breakdown

In a somewhat perplexing fight, former UFC middleweight champion Chris Weidman who has lost two in a row is taking on surging contender Gegard Mousasi in a fight that will set back the loser while simultaneously not functionally helping the winner towards a title shot in the backlogged middleweight division.

Weidman is an All-American wrestler with a game built around pressure. In fact, he is one of the few elite fighters whose game is essentially limited to one direction of offense. If Weidman is going forward, he is most likely winning; if hes not, hes most likely losing.

As far as technique, Weidman is a meat-and-potatoes boxer who comes forward relentlessly behind jab-led combinations and kicks to the body and legs. There isn't much variety beyond that and he's shown no real ability to counter. He also isnt a great defensive fighter and his tendency to retreat in straight lines is concerning. The straw that stirs Weidmans drink is his wrestling game. Once he gets a tie-up, more often than not the opponent goes to ground, and once on top, Weidman is a devastating combination of passing, submissions, and ground-and-pound.

Mousasi is one of the most well-rounded fighters in MMA. On the feet, Mousasi is one of the best defensive fighters in the sport and he can fight moving backwards or forwards. Lately, he has preferred a pressuring style where he works behind a zippy jab and thudding leg kicks. He is fairly active and very accurate, especially with his left hook. Things get no easier for opponents on the ground as Mousasi is an outstanding grappler with smooth passing and punching from on top.

Though Mousasi is incredibly talented, the knock on him has always been a laissez-faire attitude in the cage, content to score but lacking urgency. In the last year though, Mousasi has been getting after folks, so perhaps that has changed along with his newfound trash-talking persona. Then there is also the issue of his defensive wrestling which has cost him before, most notably against Jacare Souza.

This is a coin-flip fight. Mousasi is the more talented fighter with more tools but Weidman's offense attacks Mousasis weaknesses fairly well. That being said, the new era Mousasi who pressures forward means Weidman will likely be on the back foot all night long, and if that happens, Mousasi chews him up. If Weidman can get the takedown, he should get the win, but I think Mousasis jab, pressure, and footwork will carry the day here. The pick is Mousasi by decision and I like a bet on him at -110 or under, but beyond that, maybe lay off.

Breakdown

Thiago Alves takes on Patrick Cote in a fun welterweight matchup with relatively low stakes. Neither guy is approaching a title shot nor will either be cut with a loss. However, a win could put either guy on the cusp of a top-15 matchup.

Historically, Alves has made his hay by being a sharp, technical kickboxer with bulletproof takedown defense and big power. He works crisp combinations on the feet and he has some of the best leg kicks in MMA. I say historically though because at this point in time, that may not be him anymore. In his last fight, Alves was taken down almost at will by a lightweight Jim Miller who Alves had a fair bit of weight on, so its entirely possible Alves athleticism has faded to the point that he cant do the things hes known for anymore.

At 37, Cote is also fairly shopworn, but despite his clearly faded athleticism, Cote has been putting together wins behind veteran savvy. Generally known as an iron-chinned kickboxer with explosive power (traits which mostly hold up as true), Cote since dropping to welterweight has implemented his wrestling game much more frequently. This is backed up by being a surprisingly adept BJJ black belt with good control and pressure on top.

The biggest questions for me are: how much does Alves have left and did he look so bad against Miller because of the botched weight cut or because hes shot? I tend to think its the former rather than the latter, and so Im going with Alves here. Both men are past their primes, but Alves is the more technical striker with the higher work rate and I think his low kicks should be a very effective weapon against Cote. The pick is Alves in a very fun scrap, and at worst, this should be a pick em fight, so I like a bet on Alves at plus money.

Breakdown

An exceptional lightweight battle kicks off our main card. Former Bellator lightweight champion Will Brooks is looking to finally put forth the type of showing many expected of him when he made the move to the UFC, whereas Charles Oliveira is finally making his lightweight debut after missing 145 many, many times.

Brooks is a talented, well-rounded fighter. He throws in combinations and with good volume on the feet. He doesnt have a lot of power, but he can fight off the back foot or moving forward, leading or countering, and he works the body as well as the head. Hes also a very solid wrestler, both offensively, where he chains attacks well and consistently, and defensively, where he is elite at defending takedowns and then turning them into offense. Furthermore, Brooks does his best work in the clinch, mixing in wall-and-maul knees and elbows with trips and takedowns in an unpredictable blend of offense.

Oliveira is offensively dangerous but defensively disastrous. Hes an aggressive fighter, pushing the pace with powerful kicks and punches on the feet and trying to work his way into the clinch or a takedown. While hes not a great wrestler, he does so frequently, relying on volume to get the job done or at least to create a tie-up so he can implement the real crux of his game: his lethal submissions. Oliveira is a dynamite grappler from all positions, with his front headlock series being probably his best avenue.

This is a fun fight because the weaknesses of both men match-up so well against each other; Brooks is a slow starter but not a finisher, and Oliveira is too aggressive and doesnt respond well to being pushed back. Brooks isnt really likely to put the type of offense on Oliveira that usually makes him crumble, but Brooks is also a very solid grappler and likely good enough to survive any exchanges with Oliveira while outworking him. The pick is Brooks by decision, but considering how uninspired Brooks has looked so far in the UFC, I would pass on betting him straight. If you can get Brooks by decision at +145 though, that is possibly worth a bet.

Cynthia Calvillo (-260/72%) vs. Pearl Gonzalez (+220/31%)

The UFC clearly sees something in Calvillo, putting her on a PPV main card despite only fighting professionally for a year and making her UFC debut just last month. Calvillos a willing boxer though still developing there and her offense is more built around being happy to throw instead of super technical. Where she excels though is as a submission grappler and sneaky wrestler. Working with Team Alpha Male, shes got explosive takedowns and shes lethal in transition.

To me, Gonzalez is like a lesser version of Calvillo. Shes a willing striker with an amateur boxing background, but she isnt incredible technically and she seems to prefer grappling exchanges to striking one. Her grappling game is a strange one though, with decent submissions and submission defense, but somewhat terrible positional awareness. Opponents have been able to get off good submission attempts on her before she is able to eventually escape and rest.

Gonzalez maybe has a slight edge on the feet, but her willingness to grapple should be her downfall. Allowing fighters to get three-fourths of the way to a triangle attempt before starting to defend is not a recipe for success against a transitional submission hunter like Calvillo. The pick is Calvillo by rear-naked choke in the second round, but considering the inexperience at play here, betting these odds is lunacy.

Mike De La Torre (+330/23%) vs. Myles Jury (-400/80%)

De La Torre is an action fighter, but one with serious flaws. Hes a pretty decent striker when he wants to be he can throw in combination and has legitimate power but hes too prone to brawling and hes not very durable. He is a very good defensive wrestler though, so he can mostly like keep it on the feet against Jury.

At his best, Jury is a seamless blend of offensive potency. He strikes efficiently and with power, he wrestles well above average, he blends the two together beautifully, and hes an excellent submission hunter. The biggest knock on Jury is his lack of activity, having fought only twice since 2015 and not at all last year.

The only real questions here are: where is Jurys head at and is featherweight the right division for him? We have only seen him at 145 once and he didnt look great (though Oliveira wasnt a featherweight that night). If hes back to the Jury that was fighting in 2014, this is a walkthrough for him. De La Torres blend of brawling and lack of durability is anathema at the highest levels and I expect Jury will exploit that, busting him up on the feet before locking in a choke to finish things off. The pick is Jury by submission, but please do not put money down on him at these odds.

Kamaru Usman (-330/77%) vs. Sean Strickland (+270/27%)

Usman is one of the best prospects in the division, if not the UFC in general. Hes a phenomenal athlete with a strong wrestling base that translates well to his actual fighting game. On the feet, he is technical but lacks the feel of a natural striker, but he butters his bread with an absolutely ridiculous commitment to his wrestling game.

Strickland is a big welterweight who relies on his rangy kickboxing game to get his wins. He has a sharp jab and good movement, and his right hand packs a wallop. He also fights with a good pace while maintaining a solid defense. Strong takedown defense and a coordinated offensive wrestling game backed up by excellent top control provides a strong secondary skillset for him.

This is one of the best fights on the card. While both guys can do a bit of either, this is basically a striker vs. grappler affair. Though Usman is competent on the feet, he still lacks something there and Strickland is good enough to take advantage of it. The question is, will he be able to keep things on the feet? A sharp jab and good footwork should help him in this goal, but Usmans dogged focus on wrestling and his ability to finish chained sequences should give him the slight edge here. The pick is Usman in a very close decision, but the odds here are way out of whack and I suggest a bet on Strickland for value.

Shane Burgos (-230/70%) vs. Charles Rosa (+190/34%)

Burgos is an enormous featherweight with an aggressive, counter-oriented striking game. Hes a strong wrestler both offensively and defensively and he throws good volume with good power on the feet.

Rosa is also fairly aggressive on the feet, but hes also a relentless wrestler and aggressive submission grappler. However, he is pretty poor defensively on the feet and hes not a great wrestler.

This looks like a fairly straight-forward fight: Burgos is the better wrestler and the better striker. Rosa will chase takedowns and fail, and Burgos will make him pay with his power. A big left hook should put Rosa away halfway through the bout, but the odds here are fairly good, so no bet unless you really want to parlay him with Gillespie.

Patrick Cummins (-110/52%) vs. Jan Blachowicz (-110/52%)

Cummins is an accomplished amateur wrestler (a two-time NCAA D-1 All-American who finished second in the nation in 2004 and a two-time National Team Member) who is still wooden and uncomfortable on the feet. His grappling is excellent when he can impose it though, but that is made more difficult by the fact that he does not take getting hit very well.

Blachowicz is a kickboxer with sharp technique, but he throws very little volume and he doesnt have big power. Blachowicz is also a poor defensive wrestler and he doesnt excel at getting back to his feet.

Cummins is so averse to getting hit that even Blachowiczs low strike count creates a real danger for him. Still, Blachowicz isnt known as a puncher and his takedown defense shouldnt hold up to well against the pedigree and relentlessness of Cummins. Cummins will take Blachowicz down a lot and beat him up on the ground in route to a late TKO. At the current odds, this is probably a pass. But if he gets to plus money, I like a bet on Cummins.

Gregor Gillespie (-230/70%) vs. Andrew Holbrook (+195/34%)

Gillespie is one of the very best prospects at 155 pounds. A former NCAA D-1 national champion and four-time All-American, Gillespies bread and butter is his wrestling and top control. Hes still developing on the feet, but hes a crisp technician, though he gets hit a fair bit.

Holbrooks game is defined by pressure and opportunity. He comes forward relentlessly and is quick to transition to a grappling game where he is adept at finding the back.

Holbrooks grittiness makes him a good test for the blue-chip prospect, but his lack of wrestling defense should be the difference here. Gillespie should be able to score takedowns early and often and ride out a decision on top, but the odds are good, so no bet.

Josh Emmett (-220/69%) vs. Des Green (+180/36%)

Emmett is a well-rounded fighter who throws a high volume of strikes on the feet and uses his NAIA wrestling background extremely well. Cardio is another strong suit, as is the scrambling ability that Team Alpha Male fighters are known for.

Green is a long, rangy southpaw who can fight at range but doesnt shy away from a good old-fashioned scrap. Like Emmett, Green has an amateur wrestling background, but his is as a very quality NCAA D-1 product.

Greens wrestling background should nullify Emmetts grappling game and his four inches of reach and height advantages (along with being a southie) give him a leg up in the striking exchanges. The pick is Green in a competitive decision and I love a bet on him at these odds.

Katlyn Chookagian (-150/60%) vs. Irene Aldana (+130/43%)

Chookagian is a kickboxer who mixes her kicks and punches well and has excellent cardio. Shes small for the division though and shes not a great defensive wrestler.

Aldana is also a kickboxer, but she has more power and throws much more volume. As a result, Aldana is also very hittable but she has decent grappling to fall back upon.

Chookagians struggles have come against grapplers and Aldana is more than willing to get into a fire fight on the feet. When she did that against Leslie Smith, she got her ears boxed, and thats seems likely to happen again in this fight. Chookagians defense and kicks should make the difference, earning her a unanimous decision. That being said, this fight is close to a pick em and with the odds this long on Aldana, a small bet here has value.

Jenel Lausa (+375/21%) vs. Magomed Bibulatov (-450/82%)

Lausa is a former amateur boxer with crisp striking and good power in his hands. Bibulatov is the best prospect in the flyweight division. Hes a dynamic athlete with a karate background and he blends spinning kicks and explosive takedowns very well.

Lausas hands could make Bibulatov work a bit but the Chechen is one of the brightest stars at 125 pounds and he has more tools in the belt. Bibulatov takes Lausa down and locks up kimura in the middle part of the fight. The line here is too skewed for a newcomer though so pass on putting money down.

Suggested bets

Possible bets

That's all folks. For those of a more auditory inclination, I broke down fights with Nick Baldwin and Wes Riddle on Before The Battle, so here is that video.

Otherwise, enjoy the fights everyone, good luck to those who need it, and if you've got any questions, feel free to hit me up on Twitter @JedKMeshew.

(Editor's note: All of this advice is for entertainment purposes only.)

Here is the original post:

UFC 210 odds, gambling guide - MMA Fighting

Las Vegas gambler Walters’s win streak ends with insider-trading conviction – Las Vegas Review-Journal

NEW YORK Billy Walters just lost the biggest bet of his life and this time, its likely to cost him much more than cash.

Widely considered the nations most successful sports gambler, Walters was convicted Friday in the highest-profile and most colorful insider-trading trial in years. Testimony featured golfer Phil Mickelson and billionaire investor Carl Icahn, as well as a seamy world of gambling debts, stock tips delivered on burner phones and charity money used for prostitutes.

The verdict was delivered as Mickelson started second-round play at The Masters in Augusta, Georgia.

Walters built a fortune with wagers on football and basketball and bragged that he never had a losing year. But he faced the longest of odds in taking on the Justice Department, which wins almost 95 percent of its cases.

Now after a four-week trial the 70-year-old Las Vegas gambler faces a lengthy prison term. The maximum sentence on the most serious charge is 20 years. The jury found him guilty of all 10 counts of fraud and conspiracy after about five hours of deliberations.

I just lost the biggest bet of my life, Walters said outside Manhattan federal court minutes after the jury returned its verdict.

To say I was surprised would be the biggest understatement of my life, Walters said. Frankly, Im in total shock.

Unless hes successful on appeal, Walters will be forced to walk away from Las Vegas businesses that include golf courses, auto dealerships and car-rental agencies, with total revenue of $500 million in 2013, according to testimony from his companys controller. Walters, who didnt testify at the trial in Manhattan federal court, has said he owns seven homes and a $20 million jet.

The government convinced jurors in Manhattan federal court that Walters traded on tips from Tom C. Davis, the former chairman of Dean Foods Co., who testified that he fed Walters inside information that helped the gambler make more than $43 million over six years.

Prosecutors described an old-fashioned insider-trading scheme: Davis would tip Walters, Walters would trade on it, and Davis would either make a profit or avoid a loss. The prosecutors claimed Walters would make a call to Daviss disposable phone a so-called Bat Phone, which Davis claimed he eventually tossed into a creek behind his home and then make trades in Dean Foods stock soon afterward.

In her closing argument to the jury, prosecutor Brooke Cucinella called Davis the gamblers man on the inside and argued that Walters use of disposable phones was proof he was aware he was breaking the law.

Davis, Walterss friend, business partner and golfing pal of more than 20 years, was the governments star witness. He said he passed on information because Walters provided him with loans of almost $1 million that he needed to pay off gambling debts, cover failed investments and finance a bitter divorce. Davis, 68, pleaded guilty to a dozen separate crimes and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in a bid for leniency when hes sentenced.

Barry Berke, Walterss lawyer, depicted Davis as a desperate man willing to do anything to avoid prison, including lying to get his former friend convicted. Berke grilled Davis on his gambling habits and propensity to spend time with prostitutes, including the misappropriation of $150,000 from a charity for a battered womens shelter. Davis used the money to pay off a casino debt and for prostitutes, Berke said. And he went and partied in Sin City after making the deal with the government.

Isnt it true that on the day you signed your agreement with the government, you arranged to go on a gambling junket to Las Vegas? Berke asked Davis.

Davis responded that the trip was a birthday present for himself and he traveled with his wife and friends.

Counselor, Id been under a lot of pressure, and had a good time, Davis said.

Walters didnt need inside information to profit on the stock market, his lawyers suggested with the witnesses they called to testify.

Walters brokers said the gambler was an astute investor who did assiduous research before placing a bet on a company sometimes as much as $50 million in one shot. Alan Duncan, one of the brokers, said he considered Walters the Babe Ruth of Risk. Another, Rob Miller, said Walters got most of his trading ideas from Icahn.

Icahn wasnt accused of any wrongdoing.

Walters has beaten the odds before. Born in Kentucky, the son of a professional gambler and a teenage mother, Walters began shooting pool nine ball at age 4 and by 10, he had progressed to gambling. Decades ago, he was acquitted of state gambling charges after a trial and won dismissal of state indictments accusing him of conspiracy and money laundering, according to court papers filed in a 2014 lawsuit in Las Vegas.

The trial offered jurors a glimpse of a rarefied world where corporate executives mixed with professional athletes on some of the countrys top golf courses. Walters was friends with Icahn and Mickelson, as well as Davis.

Prosecutors said Walters shared one sure winner tip he got from Davis with Mickelson, allowing the golfer to make about $931,000 when Dean Foods announced a lucrative spin-off of a unit that caused the stock price to surge. Mickelson used the money to repay a gambling debt to Walters, transferring $1.95 million, according to records shown jurors.

Mickelson wasnt charged with wrongdoing although he agreed to repay the profit he made. He also wasnt called as a witness after making it clear to lawyers that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Berke told the judge.

View original post here:

Las Vegas gambler Walters's win streak ends with insider-trading conviction - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Phil Mickelson’s gambling pal convicted in insider trading scheme – New York Post


New York Post
Phil Mickelson's gambling pal convicted in insider trading scheme
New York Post
Famed Las Vegas sports gambler William Billy Walters was convicted on Friday of charges that he made more than $40 million through an insider trading scheme that prosecutors said involved a stock tip to star professional golfer Phil Mickelson ...

More here:

Phil Mickelson's gambling pal convicted in insider trading scheme - New York Post

Dutch doctors oppose plans for ‘completed life’ euthanasia – BioEdge

Although Dutch government proposals for euthanasia for completed life that is, for elderly people who want to step off the treadmill gracefully have received a lot of publicity, they have not been legislated.

Now the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), the peak body for doctors in the Netherlands, has announced its opposition. Such a radical proposal is not desirable for practical reasons and for reasons of principle," says the KNMG.

Adding another law to govern the practice of euthanasia will lead to great complications, it contends. The current Act is meticulous, transparent, verifiable, safe for patients and physicians, and has broad support.

The governments proposal could harm the elderly. Vulnerability due to age, when people experience many medical and non-medical problems, can cause unbearable and hopeless suffering within the meaning of the legislation. It could end up stigmatising the elderly.

The KNMG points out that the term "completed life" has an attractive ring to it for the public.In practice, however, it will mainly be vulnerable people who experience loneliness and loss of meaning.These are complex and tragic problems for which no simple solutions.

See the article here:

Dutch doctors oppose plans for 'completed life' euthanasia - BioEdge

Fatal flaw in Ontario’s euthanasia bill – Toronto Sun


Toronto Sun
Fatal flaw in Ontario's euthanasia bill
Toronto Sun
Bill 84 is the Ontario government's proposed legislation designed to implement Ottawa's law on medically assisted dying. It ignores the conscience rights of doctors like myself, who oppose euthanasia on ethical grounds and, in its current form, will ...

and more »

Read the rest here:

Fatal flaw in Ontario's euthanasia bill - Toronto Sun

Euthanasia: How is it done, and what’s it like putting down something you’ve vowed to care for? – Stuff.co.nz

STACEY KIRK

Last updated15:45, April 5 2017

123rf.com

There are strong arguments and emotions on both sides of the euthanasia debate.

It's not uncommon for a distraught a pet owner, standing by Rover as he's put down in a veterinary clinic, to lament "I wish we could have done this to Grandma," MPs investigating euthanasia have been told.

Parliament's Health Select Committee is nearing the end of its inquiry into euthanasia, and its MPs requested for specific evidence to be given on the mechanics of the process by leading veterinarians and an anaesthetist.

While they hadsat through months of public submission hearings on the moral, legal and ethical points around euthanasia, little evidence had been given on the process itselfand what it felt like for the clinician performing it.

David Unwin/Fairfax NZ

MPs were told in committee today, that very few vets would opt to prolong an animals suffering, even though it's the thought of saving animals' lives that drew them to the profession.

Dean of Massey University's Veterinary School Jenny Weston said it was difficult to draw too many parallels between animals and humans, but few vets would prefer to prolong suffering rather than put an animal down.

READ MORE: *Euthanasia may be answer to incurable pain, says pain expert *Susan Austen in court on euthanasia drug charges *Charges laid over importing euthanasia drug *Both sides of the euthanasia debate *Explainer: euthanasiadebate

SUPPLIED

Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales' was denied by the court a right to die at the time of her choosing with help from a her doctor. But her husband Matt Vickers carried on her fight, and with the help of former MP Marion Street, delivered a petition to Parliament, which has resulted in the parliamentary inquiry.

"As a profession, we don't have a compulsory requirement for a debrief as there are in other professions - where you can go and unburden your soul about what might be troubling you.

"I think there would be almost no veterinarians, who when there is a sick animal that's in pain, and there is no treatment available, would have any concerns about it," she said.

Often, while it could be a harrowing procedure for the owners, it was one they were most thankful for.

ROSS GIBLIN/FAIRFAX NZ

Matt Vickers, husband of Lecretia Seales, still hopes Government will put forward a bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

"Bizarrely it's one of the most appreciated things by clients - is you get more cakes and boxes of chocolates from grateful clients after doing a good job of euthanasing a much loved animal than you do for repairing a terribly fractured leg," she said.

Questions over whether pets would need to beeuthanasedas frequentlyif quality palliative care existed, were incomparable to a subsidised public health system, she said.

However the process with pets often triggered emotional responses if owners had also watched a loved family member suffer in their last years.

"Certainly, there's a majority of times when youreuthanasingsomebody's pet and the ownerwill comment that 'I wish we could have done this to grandma' and there's certainly a strong view that we are kinder to animals."

Asked about the issue of consent, Weston explained to MPs fundamental differences between animals and humans, and their relationships, made it difficult to draw comparisons.

"I always look at animals I've viewed as property, even when they are companion animals and are very much like a child for a lot of people.

"So it is very different for the medical profession, I would imagine, they would only be asked to assist somebody to die by that person," she said.

The animal belonged to a person,and if thatowner consented that they want it to be put to sleep then the vet would do that.

"And as a person, if you can't own your own body and say what you wish to happen, then I would not want to consider at all that a person is the property of another person who would," Weston said.

HOW IT WORKS

In the way the euthanasia process was carried out, it was typically very peaceful and not dissimilar between animals and humans.

"It's a huge overdose of an anaesthetic, so generally the drug enters the bloodstream and the animal just stops breathing, the pupils dilate and the heart stops beating," said Weston, in the case of animals.

"It works on the brain to shut down the activity on the body. So the heart will keep on beating for a minute or two and the pupils dilate instantly, which is a sign of brain function.

"So as long as you've correctly found the vein then it's usually very peaceful. Sometimes if, in particularly old and very-close-to-death animals, the circulation is compromised and it doesn't act as quickly."

But in those cases, the animal would have totally lost consciousness even though there might be apparentgasping and the expansion of the chest in the moments before they died.

New Zealand Society of Anaesthetists President Dr David Kibblewhite outlined a similar intravenousmethod for the committee, by which barbiturates were administered in humans. They could also be delivered orally, which was more common.

He was only able to speak on the processes he was aware of overseas, because while death could sometimes be an outcome of increased pain medication in a terminal patient's final days,no doctor in New Zealand had actually carried out the euthanasia procedure.

But it was not complicated, and in fact occurred on an almost daily basis as part of open heart surgery.

In that instance a person would be given a sedative and a muscle relaxant, and would then be delivered the barbiturate that would "arrest" or stop the heart.

A heart cannot be beating, or drawing oxygen, while a surgeon is operating on it. It's restarted once the procedure is complete.

In a euthanasia procedure it wouldn't be restarted.

"It's not all that complicated really."

-Stuff

Read more:

Euthanasia: How is it done, and what's it like putting down something you've vowed to care for? - Stuff.co.nz

Seymour keeping up the fight for euthanasia – Newshub

But Mr Seymour says in Parliament, it's a different story.

"I think at least a third are definitely on for it. Maybe a fifth are hardcore opposed for personal or spiritual or whatever reasons. There's a mushy middle in there I think we would get. We would get it through the first reading."

He'd have Paula Bennett's vote, the Deputy Prime Minister telling The AM Show she's leaning in favour - but would like to analyse the details, to ensure no one would be "coerced" into it.

Labour deputy Jacinda Ardern, also on The AM Show, said she would vote for it.

"The select committee was a good way to try and get MPs from across the House to work up some ideas and ways forward."

Mr Seymour's Bill wouldn't be the first on euthanasia Parliament has debated. In 1995, then-National Party MP Michael Laws had his Death with Dignity Bill drawn. It failed 29-61. In 2003, a similar Bill submitted by a New Zealand First MP failed 58-59.

Former Labour MP Maryan Street's End of Life Choice Bill was withdrawn from the ballot before it was drawn. Mr Seymour praised her efforts, and said he won't be backing down.

"I'm gonna keep my Bill in there as long as I'm a Member of Parliament because you can't lose forever."

The advantage he thinks his Bill has over what's come before is that it is very tight - patients need, among other things, two doctors' sign-off, be over 18, have a terminal illness or degenerative condition, and jump through various bureaucratic hoops. All cases are also reported back to Parliament.

"You can't walk into a hospital and do this by accident," he says.

Newshub.

See the article here:

Seymour keeping up the fight for euthanasia - Newshub

Animals at risk of euthanasia after Sapulpa shelter runs out of room – KTUL

Animals at risk of euthanasia after Sapulpa shelter runs out of room (KTUL)

The Sapulpa Animal Shelter needs families to adopt its pets.

The shelter only has the capacity to hold eight animals. Right now, they're at 22 and counting. They've even started putting animals in the laundry room.

"We don't want to keep them here," Animal Control Officer Christa Kaler said. "Honestly, if Sapulpa didn't have a shelter, that would be wonderful, and I think many cities would agree."

Kaler says they have had to put multiple dogs in one kennel, which they don't like doing. If they can't get families to adopt or foster the animals, Kaler says they'll have to start euthanizing them.

But first, they'll reach out to rescues, veterinarians and other shelters.

"If we have to make that decision, we have done everything possible we can think of to get that animal out of here," Kaler said.

Sometimes, no one wants a dog because of its breed or age. In other cases, alternative shelters are too full, or the dog doesn't do well with other animals or people.

"Honestly, no shelter likes to euthanize, no rescue, no veterinarian," Kaler said. "These animals, they need a second chance."

The shelter is pleading for families to take in one of the dogs, even just for a few weeks, like Candace Leslie is doing.

"Sapulpa Furry Friends put out an ad saying they really needed fosters because the shelter is full, and they were going to have to start making decisions on what dogs were going to be able to stay or not," Leslie said. "I just decided to help out and watch this one until she goes to a rescue in two weeks."

Leslie is a first-time foster mom. She said her first two dogs were rescues.

"Instead of adopting a dog, I've decided to start fostering so that we can help dogs get in and out of the shelters and make room for others," Leslie said.

All of the animals are vaccinated and spayed or neutered before being adopted out. Adoptions are $60 for dogs and $50 for cats.

See the original post here:

Animals at risk of euthanasia after Sapulpa shelter runs out of room - KTUL

Supporters turn out in force ahead of Susan Austen’s euthanasia drug court appearance – Stuff.co.nz

Last updated09:15, April 7 2017

FAIRFAX NZ

Protesters outside Wellington District Court for Susan Austen's appearance.

Supporters of Susan Austen, who has been charged with importing a euthanasia drug, made their presence known outside the Wellington District Court.

Austen, 66, a Lower Hutt teacher, appeared in court on Friday morning charged with twice importing the controlled drug, pentobarbitone.

The supporters were carrying pro-euthanasia placards outside the court before heading in for the hearing. The placards were removed by security before they were allowed into the building.

The group waited in the court foyer for Austen's appearance.

READ MORE: * Susan Austen in court on euthanasia drug charges * Susan Dale Austen appears in court facing charges relating to importation of euthanasia drugs * Charges laid over importing euthanasia drug * Wellington woman Annemarie Treadwell's death trigger for Police euthanasia furore

A Wellington District Court registrar remanded her on bail for two weeks.

Despite police saying they were to lay another charge, no fresh charges were before the court on Friday.

The Independent Police Conduct Commission launched an investigation into complaints police used a vehicle checkpoint operation to identify people who had been to an Exit Wellington meeting in early October, 2016. Exit Wellington is a pro-voluntary euthanasia group.

-Stuff

Follow this link:

Supporters turn out in force ahead of Susan Austen's euthanasia drug court appearance - Stuff.co.nz

Jerome Animal Shelter eliminates euthanasia in February – KMVT

JEROME, Idaho (KMVT/KSVT) New numbers from Jerome Police Department show good news for the animal shelter.

In February, the Jerome shelter didn't have to euthanize any animals.

They told us this is due to hard work, luck and knowing the right people and rescues.

The shelter tries to adopt out or transfer animals for which it doesn't have room.

That keeps them from having to euthanize for space.

The euthanasia they're forced to do usually comes from abused animals that they don't anticipate recovering.

"It is really sad, said Heather Kimble, the shelter tech coordinator, because it's not the dog's fault. You get angry. You get sad. And all those emotions that you have to deal with. Fortunately we don't have to do that very often, but that's the reality of life."

If you're interested in helping, the shelter said you can adopt, don't shop for pets.

They also say if you can no longer care for an animal, you should drop them off at a shelter instead of leaving them in the street.

Read the original:

Jerome Animal Shelter eliminates euthanasia in February - KMVT

Casting announced for Nazi euthanasia play – The Stage

Casting has been announced for Stephen Unwins All Our Children at Jermyn Street Theatre in London.

The play, based on historical events, will star David Yelland as a Catholic bishop who starts a campaign against the Nazi programme of euthanasizing people with disabilities.

Edward Franklin, Rebecca Johnson, Lucy Speed and Colin Tierney complete the cast.

Unwin founded English Touring Theatre in 1993 and was artistic director of the Rose Theatre Kingston until 2014. This is his debut as a playwright.

He said All Our Children comes from a deep place. I am the father of a profoundly disabled young man, but also the son of a German-Jewish refugee and was brought up as Catholic. The challenges that the disabled face today are, thankfully, a long way from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but some of the philosophical and social questions that it raises are fiercely relevant today.

Design is by Simon Higlett, with lighting by Tim Mascall and sound by John Leonard.

It runs from April 26 to June 3, with press night on May 2.

Read the original:

Casting announced for Nazi euthanasia play - The Stage

Vehicle covered with anti-Muslim slurs in Rundle; police say hateful … – Calgary Herald

Published on: April 7, 2017 | Last Updated: April 7, 2017 6:02 PM MDT

Infiniti SUV was spray-painted with anti-Islam phrases early Thursday, April 6, 2017 in the 2200 block of 48th Street N.E. Calgary Police Service

Calgary police believe the owners of an SUV found covered in hatefuland anti-Muslim graffiti in Rundle Thursdaywere targeted based on their ethnicity.

Early Thursday morning, a grey Infiniti SUV parked in the 2200 block of 48th Street N.W. was sprayed with racist phrases mentioningIslam and people from the Middle East,police said in a release Friday.

The vehicle was also scratched with a key and the windows weresmashed.

Senior Const. Craig Collins, hate crimes coordinator with the Calgary Police Service, said it is believed the owners of the SUV a Syrian family who live atthe house where the vehicle was parked were the targets of the graffiti and investigators are treating the incident as a hate crime.

This isnt a victimless crime, thats not how the police service sees it, Collins said. Its a heinous crime which not only targets the individual, but sends a really impactful message into the community and it sends a message of fear.

Collins said graffiti targeting certain people based on ethnicity or religion has been occurring more regularly in Calgary.

We are seeing an increase and some of that is likely due to recent high-profile media incidents, Collins said. I think theres a misconception that its just graffiti and we need to put the message out its not a mindless act, its a personal attack on somebody.

Police said there have been six investigations into hateful graffiti launched this year, including a recent case in Ranchlands Park.

When people are targeted with vandalism and hateful messages, it has a big impact on how safe they feel in the community, Collins said.

These are not minor offences. We take it very seriously and will pursue the people responsible to try to prevent other families from being victimized in the same way, simply because of their ethnicity or religion.

Police urge anyone with information related to this incident or anyone who finds hateful graffiti around the city to call the non-emergency line at 403-266-1234, or contact Crime Stoppers annonymously at 1-800-222-8477.

If you see something report it, Collins said. Make a difference.

mpotkins@postmedia.com

With files from Ryan Rumbolt

See the rest here:

Vehicle covered with anti-Muslim slurs in Rundle; police say hateful ... - Calgary Herald

LA councilman targets ‘knock-knock’ burglars with $50,000 reward – LA Daily News

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, LAPD Valley Bureau Commander Jorge Rodriguez, center, speaks during a press conference at L.A. City Hall about a $50,000 reward being offered for information leading to an arrest and conviction in residential burglaries, particularly knock-knock burglaries that have recently plagued the San Fernando Valley. Rodriguez is flanked by LAPD Lt. Tim Torsney of the Devonshire Division, left, and L.A. Councilman Mitch Englander, right. Photo by Elizabeth Chou, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG

Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander is hoping to provide extra incentive to pawnbrokers and others who may be able to help authorities bring down knock-knockburglary rings that target upscale homes in the San Fernando Valley and other parts of the city.

Englander on Wednesday introduced a motion, seconded by Councilman Bob Blumenfield, calling for a $50,000 reward to be offered for information to help authorities identify, arrest and convict people responsible for this series of knock-knock burglaries.

Such burglaries have been a growing epidemic throughout the San Fernando Valley and throughout the city of Los Angeles, Englander said during a news conference Wednesday, prior to making the motion.

The proposed reward is aimed at the public, particularly pawnshop owners and employees, who are the first people who are going to know, particularly when they get repeat offenders who are bringing in stolen merchandise, Englander said.

These burglaries are not victimless crimes, he said, adding that some of the stolen jewelry include family heirlooms that cannot be replaced.

RELATED STORY: LAPD arrests 3 suspects in Valley knock knock burglaries

While the motion was introduced amid a spate of knock-knock style burglaries, Englander noted the reward is actually being offered to anyone with a tip about any type of residential burglary, no matter the method, as it is sometimes difficult to know what method a burglar used.

The motion, which is expected to be voted on next week, needs City Council approval before the reward can be offered.

In February, the Los Angeles Police Department launched a San Fernando Valley Knock Knock Burglary Task Force to address the problem.

News of the task force came amid a rash of high profile break-ins, including at the Tarzana home of Los Angeles Lakers player Nick Young and the Sherman Oaks residence of Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig.

According to the LAPD, the suspects work in teams of three or four. One person knocks on the door of a home and if no one answers, they will signal to the others, who try to enter from a side or rear entrance of the home.

LAPD officials said Wednesday the alleged rings appear to be based mostly in South Los Angeles, with the burglars using more sophisticated methods than in the past.

Advertisement

The burglars have been operating in the Valley for some time, and they have really taken the game to the next level from the beginning of this year, Valley Bureau Commander Jorge Rodriguez said.

The burglars are monitoring when people typically leave their homes, as well as driving cars and wearing clothes that help them blend into the neighborhood, according to LAPD officials.

Among the hardest hit areas are Porter Ranch, Chatsworth and Granada Hills, Devonshire Division Lt. Tim Torsney said.

RELATED STORY: Woodland Hills neighborhood plagued by burglars is fighting back with tech

The Devonshire Division, which patrols those communities, has recorded a spike in burglaries that goes against the trend in most of the Valley. As of March 25, 336 burglaries were reported, up from 249 burglaries from the same time last year, for the area alone, according to figures released by the LAPD.

Out of the additional 87 burglaries this year, the majority appear to have been committed using knock-knock methods, Devonshire Division Capt. Kathleen Burns said.

LAPD figures also show burglaries in the Van Nuys Division are up 31 percent from last year.

Torsney noted police have made some inroads on knock-knock burglary crimes.

Within the last two months weve made significant arrests of multiple crews with no affiliation with one another, which has resulted in a significant decrease over the last two weeks in the area, Torsney said.

Even with the improvements, Englander said the job is not done.

The arrests are happening, but the crimes are not stopping, he said.

Link:

LA councilman targets 'knock-knock' burglars with $50,000 reward - LA Daily News

Robert King sobs as he’s spared jail for possessing thousands of images of child abuse – Somerset Live

Comments(0)

A judge spelled out the hideous depths of depravity and suffering contained in child pornography as he sentenced a 30 year old for possessing sick images.

Robert King sobbed as the judge described images of "very young children, crying in pain and scared" as they were being raped by adult men.

"That is what you've been viewing," Judge Robert Linford told King, of Courtlands, Langford Budville, near Wellington.

"That's what you made other people view when they examined your computer."

Taunton Crown Court heard that King initially denied having illegal material on his computer when police visited his home as a result of a tip-off.

He later admitted a charge of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography and possession of prohibited images of children.

He has been spared jail.

READ: Minehead paedophile doctor, 96, loses appeal against sentence on grounds of 'extreme old age'

Prosecutor William Hunter said: "Police seized three devices, a laptop and two computers and went on to find a number of images of child abuse,"

There were 49 category A images and nine movies, 261 category B images and 2,967 category C images and two movies.

They also found extreme pornographic images and pseudo-photographs of children.

"It was also clear from his search history that he had been carrying out online searches for such material," Mr Hunter said.

"Some of the children were estimated to be very young around three or four years old, and clearly distressed at what was happening to them."

MORE: Watch the amazing moment a walker finds missing man down hole in woodland

When arrested by police, King said he had been looking at the images out of curiosity.

Defending, Harry Ahuja said his client had no previous convictions and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

He said he had gone on to seek help from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which works with child sex offenders and encourages them to seek therapy before being arrested.

When Judge Robert Linford said he was not looking to send King to prison, the defendant burst into tears in the dock.

"You pleaded guilty as early as you could and you have sought help for your actions," the judge told him.

"You had a large amount of hideous images and you understand that these are not victimless crimes. For every photograph you look at of a child being raped, there is a child that has been raped.

"And those are photographs that some poor police office has to trawl through.

"When someone is apprehended for offending like this for the very first time, that is when they should be offered the opportunity to change. But make no mistake, if you come back to court for accessing this sort of filth again, you will go to prison for a very long time indeed."

MORE: Soldier sentenced to life for murdering mother of his son

King was sentenced to a three year community order and will have to undertake the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme, which is designed to explore and address the thoughts, feelings and beliefs underpinning internet sex offending. He was also made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

King was also ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work, 45 days of rehabilitation activity and pay costs of 400.

Original post:

Robert King sobs as he's spared jail for possessing thousands of images of child abuse - Somerset Live

How Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Donald Trump …

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Firmin DeBrabander | The Conversation

http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/wap/images/bs_logo_amp.png 177 22

Continue reading here:

How Ayn Rand's 'elitism' lives on in the Donald Trump ...

No sympathy: How Ayn Rand’s elitism lives on in the Trump … – Salon – Salon

President Donald Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says:

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements.

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabanderis a professor of philosophy at theMaryland Institute College of Art.

Read the original post:

No sympathy: How Ayn Rand's elitism lives on in the Trump ... - Salon - Salon