In places where it’s legal, how many people are ending their lives … – EconoTimes

In places where it's legal, how many people are ending their lives using euthanasia?

The Victorian Parliament will consider a bill to legalise euthanasia in the second half of 2017. That follows the South Australian Parliaments decision to knock back a voluntary euthanasia bill late last year, and the issue has also cropped up in the run-up to the March 11 Western Australian election.

With the issue back in the headlines, federal Labors justice spokesperson, Clare O'Neil, told Q&A that in countries where the practice is legal, very, very small numbers of people use the laws.

Whether or not you agree with O'Neils statement depends largely on your interpretation of the subjective term very, very small, but there is a growing body of data available on how many people are using euthanasia or assisted dying laws in places such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada and some US states.

Assisted dying, assisted suicide and euthanasia

Many people use the terms assisted dying, assisted suicide and euthanasia interchangeably. But, technically, these phrases can have different meanings.

Assisted dying (sometimes also assisted death) is where the patient himself or herself ultimately takes the medication. Euthanasia, by contrast, is usually where the doctor administers the medication to the patient.

Assisted suicide includes people who are not terminally ill, but who are being helped to commit suicide, whereas assisted dying refers to people who are already dying. Some reports do not, however, distinguish between assisted dying and assisted suicide, and I will not distinguish them here.

In some jurisdictions, the word euthanasia is used to refer to both assisted dying/suicide (where the patient himself or herself takes the medication) and to euthanasia (where the doctor administers the medication to the patient). So euthanasia can sometimes be used as a broad term to cover a range of actions.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide rates around the world

According to a peer-reviewed paper published last year in the respected journal JAMA:

Between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are legal. The frequency of these deaths increased after legalization Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalized, remain relatively rare, and primarily involve patients with cancer. Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices.

The authors of that paper said that 35,598 people died in Oregon in 2015. Of these deaths, 132, or 0.39%, were reported as physician-assisted suicides. The same paper said that in Washington in 2015 there were 166 reported cases of physician-assisted suicide (equating to 0.32% of all deaths in Washington in that year).

Interestingly, the same paper noted that US data show that:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide) The dominant motives are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy lifes activities.

The authors said that in officially reported Belgian cases, pain was the reason for euthanasia in about half of cases. Loss of dignity is mentioned as a reason for 61% of cases in the Netherlands and 52% in Belgium.

A 2016 Victorian parliamentary report has quoted from the UK Commission on Assisted Dying, which in turn referenced the work of John Griffiths, Heleen Weyers and Maurice Adams in their book Euthanasia and Law in Europe. The commission said:

There are no official data in Switzerland on the numbers of assisted suicides that take place each year, as the rate of assisted suicide is not collected centrally. Griffiths et al observe that there are approximately 62,000 deaths in Switzerland each year and academic studies suggest that between 0.3% and 0.4% of these are assisted suicides. This figure increases to 0.5% of all deaths if suicide tourism is included (assisted suicides that involve nonSwiss nationals).

Around 3.7% of deaths in the Netherlands in 2015 were due to euthanasia. The Netherlands regional euthanasia review committees reported that there were 5,516 deaths due to euthanasia in 2015. That is out of a total of around 147,000 - 148,000 deaths in the Netherlands that year.

This figure represents an increase of 4% of deaths due to euthanasia compared to 2014.

A 2012 paper published in The Lancet reported on the results of nationwide surveys on euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2010. The researchers said:

In 2002, the euthanasia act came into effect in the Netherlands, which was followed by a slight decrease in the euthanasia frequency In 2010, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 2.8% were the result of euthanasia. This rate is higher than the 1.7% in 2005, but comparable with those in 2001 and 1995.

Another Netherlands-based study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine reported in 2015 that:

Certainly, not all requests are granted; studies conducted between 1990 and 2011 report rates of granting requests between 32% and 45%.

A 2015 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine about euthanasia rates in the Flanders region of Belgium (the northern half of the country) noted:

The rate of euthanasia increased significantly between 2007 and 2013, from 1.9% to 4.6% of deaths.

Filling in the bigger picture

It can be hard to put these rates in context, but what is clear is that euthanasia is by no means a leading cause of death in countries where it is legal. For example, Statistics Belgium said that for the year 2012, cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of death (28.8%), and cancer was the second most common cause of death (26%).

And in the Netherlands where 5,516 of deaths were due to euthanasia in 2015 more than 12,000 Dutch people died from the effects of dementia in 2014, approximately 10,000 Dutch people died from lung cancer and nearly 9,000 died from a heart attack. In 2013, 30% (about 42,000) of Dutch deaths were from cancer and 27% (about 38,000) of Dutch deaths were from cardiovascular disease.

Andrew McGee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Human Life Could Be Extended Indefinitely, Study Suggests

Goosebumps, tears and tenderness: what it means to be moved

Are over-the-counter painkillers a waste of money?

Does an anomaly in the Earth's magnetic field portend a coming pole reversal?

Immunotherapy: Training the body to fight cancer

Do vegetarians live longer? Probably, but not because they're vegetarian

Could a contraceptive app be as good as the pill?

Some scientific explanations for alien abduction that aren't so out of this world

Society actually does want policies that benefit future generations

Six cosmic catastrophes that could wipe out life on Earth

Big Pharma Starts Using Cannabis For Making Drugs In Earnest

Do you need to worry if your baby has a flat head?

Read more here:

In places where it's legal, how many people are ending their lives ... - EconoTimes

DJ’s assisted suicide fuels Italy’s euthanasia debate – MercatorNet

DJ's assisted suicide fuels Italy's euthanasia debate
MercatorNet
It is an event which deserves compassion and should never be exploited for any reason, neither for advancing pro-euthanasia ideas, nor even for countering them. After his accident Fabo, a well-known DJ, was blind and unable to move. Returning from ...

Link:

DJ's assisted suicide fuels Italy's euthanasia debate - MercatorNet

Euthanasia Advocate Changes Her Mind After Watching the Euthanasia Deception Documentary – LifeNews.com

I am so pleased to share the latest great news.

I recently met Shane at an training event that we organized in Washington DC. Shane attended the event to share with us his gratitude concerning his grandmother, who had been a member of the Hemlock society, a group that is now known as Compassion and Choices, but has now changed her mind.

Shane and his grandmother watched the Euthanasia Deception documentary together. While watching the documentary, Shanes grandmother flipped 180 degrees and changed her mind about euthanasia. Shane is so grateful that his grandmother saw the Euthanasia Deception documentary since she had been an active supporter of euthanasia and assisted suicide most of her life.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Watch the interview with Shane Johnson:

Order the Euthanasia Deception documentary today for $30 for 1 copy or $100 for 4 copies (+ tax)(further bulk orders are available) from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition by calling: 1-877-439-3348 or by email: info@epcc.ca or at: http://www.vulnerablefilm.com.

I am also pleased to announce that a bilingual version (french subtitles) is now available for ordering.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has distributed almost 2800 copies of the Euthanasia Deception documentary on DVD and there have also been many downloads on Vimeo.

Link to more information about the Euthanasia Deception documentary.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

See original here:

Euthanasia Advocate Changes Her Mind After Watching the Euthanasia Deception Documentary - LifeNews.com

Finnish parliament debates legalising euthanasia – Expatica Netherlands

2nd March 2017, 0 comments

Finland's parliament on Thursday debated a citizens' initiative to make euthanasia legal, a widely supported cause in the Nordic country.

"A law on euthanasia is needed to add an alternative at life's end for those who cannot get sufficient relief to their unbearable agonies even from the finest of palliative treatment," the initiative read.

In Finland, citizens can require parliament to debate an issue by gathering a minimum of 50,000 signatures.

Thursday's debate was just the first step in the parliamentary process. A special committee will draft a more detailed memorandum for lawmakers to consider at a later, undisclosed date.

It is not yet known how much support the idea has in parliament.

But a poll conducted by public broadcaster YLE in 2015 suggests that nearly 60 percent of the current lawmakers are favourable to the possibility of an assisted death for a terminally ill patient.

And several polls in recent years have shown Finns to be largely supportive of the idea.

A survey conducted in December by pollster Taloustutkimus for YLE showed that 73 percent were in favour, 14 percent were opposed and 13 percent remained uncertain.

The Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries in the world to legalise euthanasia in 2002.

During Thursday's debate, opposing MPs called for better palliative treatment of dying patients instead of euthanasia.

"What kind of agony would be considered sufficient to trigger a (doctor's) decision to allow euthanasia? Statistics from the Netherlands prove that the most important reason for requesting euthanasia has not been pain but rather loneliness and fear of ending up dependent on help from others," MP Paivi Rasanen of the Christian Democrats said.

The citizens' initiative was undertaken by two retired politicians, former finance minister Iiro Viinanen and former MP Esko Seppanen, who both suffer from Parkinson's disease.

"I would have wished that my son, who died from cancer after atrocious pain, would have had this opportunity. He could have had a dignified and painless death," Seppanen told news agency STT when the initiative was published in November.

2017 AFP

Originally posted here:

Finnish parliament debates legalising euthanasia - Expatica Netherlands

Mane Attraction hosts Beauty to the RESCUE to fight animal euthanasia – 12news.com

Gina Coy , KPNX 6:30 PM. MST March 02, 2017

Dog at a salon. (Photo: ThinkStock)

PHOENIX - You and your family can enjoy some pampering this Sunday and help raise money for RESCUE(Reducing Euthanasia at Shelters through Commitment and Underlying Education).

Mane Attraction Salon is teaming up with RESCUE for its17th Annual Beauty to the RESCUE event this Sunday. This local nonprofit animal rescue organization helps find loving homes for euthanasia-listed dogs and cats at county shelters.

We have a special place in our hearts for the pets RESCUE helps, says Beat Ong, who owns and operates Mane Attraction with husband and stylist Kendall Ong. Healthy animals are being euthanized because they arent adopted and placed in loving homes. The real beneficiaries of this event will be the huggable animals that are adopted at this outstanding and important event.

The event will feature DJ Blake Ascension, chair massages, professional psychic readings for both you and your pet. Boutique vendor booths that offer everything from baked goods to artisan jewelry -- all to support these furry friends in need.

Minimum Donation Information Haircuts - $30 Blow Dry Style - $20 Deep Conditioning Masque - $10

Location Mane Attraction Salon 3156 E. Camelback Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85016

Date & Time Sunday, March 5, 2017 10 a.m. 2 p.m.

( 2017 KPNX)

Follow this link:

Mane Attraction hosts Beauty to the RESCUE to fight animal euthanasia - 12news.com

Legislature should ensure juries know their options – St. George Daily Spectrum

Mary Burkett, Washington County Republican Party 7:04 a.m. MT March 3, 2017

Mary Burkett(Photo: Jud Burkett / The Spectrum & Daily News)Buy Photo

Police are given discretion as to which cases they will pursue. They make choices about the severity and intent of a crime.

Prosecutors have discretion about which cases they will take to trial, whether to plea bargain and which offenses are most worth going to trial.

Juries, according to the law, have discretion. In many cases, jurors do not know it.

HB332 (Criminal Procedure Revisions) is before the Utah State Legislature and addresses ensuring that judges instruct juries about their discretion. Take a few minutes to read the summary (le.utah.gov), the first few and last paragraphs of the bill. It is designed to ensure that juries are fully informed of their options when deciding a verdict, including jury nullification.

Most of us dont know that jury nullification is a valid option. Simply put, someone can break a law and show in court that the law is unjust. The jury can then return a not guilty verdict. This is where juries have discretion.

Womens March, media fuel divisive movement

Its a remarkable idea. As the Libertas Institute explains, Juries serve as one component of a much larger justice system a final checkpoint to help ensure, as far as possible, that innocent individuals are not wrongfully convicted or that well-intentioned laws do not create an injustice by being unfairly applied to a particular person or circumstance.

However, there are judges and lawyers who do not like the idea of jury nullification so they withhold this vital information from the jury. Its much easier to control an ignorant jury. HB332 will stop this withholding of information.

There are high-profile cases in which juries have likely gone rogue.

The O.J. Simpson jury may very well have practiced nullification by finding the defendant not guilty even though they thought he had committed two murders but because the investigating detectives were seen as racists, they were justified to find him not guilty.

Other legal experts have called the George Zimmerman verdict in the Trayvon Martin case a classic example of jury nullification.

In 2009, Doug Darrell was charged with cultivating marijuana for distribution in New Hampshire. He said that the marijuana was being grown for personal use and religious purposes. His attorney actually had to ask the judge to tell the jury they had the right to nullify and they did.

Circumstances surrounding most jury nullification cases include unjust laws, unjust sentencing guidelines, victimless crimes and particulars of a single case, including mitigating factors.

Jury nullification is neither a Democrat or Republican issue, although many Libertarians have taken it up as a cause.

The bigger point is simple. And very important. When there are injustices, juries, a group of regular Americans pulled from voter rolls, can right wrongs. Its one of the many ways that the Founders showed their faith in their fellow citizens.

Its an optimistic view of the future, so contrary to the view liberals hold toward their fellow Americans. Where liberals treat their fellow Americans like victims, constantly trying to allow the government to interfere with their lives, with the intent of fixing things citizens are better served to fix themselves, our Founders and today, conservatives, have high hopes and expectations for the American people. We have faith in our fellow citizens, as demonstrated by the idea of jury nullification.

A few of the great resources online to learn more include Fully Informed Jury Association, Cop Block, Truth in Justice and the Libertas Institute.

Mary Burkett is a member of the Washington County Republican Party.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2017/03/03/legislature-should-ensure-juries-know-their-options/98681444/

Read the rest here:

Legislature should ensure juries know their options - St. George Daily Spectrum

How to End the War on Cops and Restore our Liberties at the Same Time – Being Libertarian

The first thing everyone has to come to grips with is that the police have way more power to intervene in our individual lives then they were ever meant to have. If you cant understand or even try to open your mind to the fact that this is the reality of the world we live in, then you are a true statist. Read and educate yourself my poor American friends

The first official municipal police force was created in the 1830s in response to the industrial revolution between 1820 and 1840. The more we advanced industrially the more people came looking for work, thus, the natural increase in crime, and why policing became a government entity. Prior to this time period, we had watchmen, who were volunteers in the community who looked after everyone and their property during the night. The original role of policing, however, was not at all a pre-crime preventative measure, which is the nonsense we deal with today, but rather a watch-guard-just-in-case measure. Its no different than anyone hiring private security to stand guard for them or their property nowadays. And yes, there is a difference.

Today, cops patrol all day and all night looking for anything and everything they can to give them a legal reason to stop and frisk you, stop and pull you out of your vehicle, etc. They have gone from protecting when requested to to interfering with everyones personal movements and lives in hopes of preventing something. That is called pre-crime, and is immoral as hell. I dont recall anywhere in the 4th Amendment that says the government can stop you for any reason they deem necessary, or set up and stop you at a checkpoint for whatever reason without a warrant based on probable cause.

Having come from law enforcement myself, I can tell you that its not at all what the general public thinks it is. For the most part, its a bunch of power hungry thugs willing to violate any and every right you have in the name of justice. The police, at least in many jurisdictions, dont give a damn about you personally, nor your individual rights. They will violate the hell out of them. Theyre just there to do their job, even if that means violating the constitution, your civil liberties, etc., all in the misguided notion of public safety when you werent a danger nor were you going to be a danger to anyone. The days of Protect and Serve, are long gone. All we have now is Harass and Violate, at least in many jurisdictions, if not most.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington D.C., has done a study on this that can be read here. The study is mostly based on statistics from the DOJ, and Bureau of Justice statistics. Heres what they have found: law enforcement officers are almost three times as likely to sexually assault you than the average everyday person. Also, when you remove victimless crimes and only focus on crimes against persons or property, then guess what? Cops are just as likely to commit those types of crimes as anyone else, despite your occupation. To quote Frederic Bastiat, If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The point is, and the real deal is, personally and professionally, cops are no better than the rest of us. End. Of. Story. Myself having worked in law enforcement, and also working on the civilian side of life, and having my God given civil rights violated on NUMEROUS occasions in my civilian career by police even when I had committed no crime, nor had done anything wrong at allYeah, I see it for what it is. Current law enforcement is nothing but a militarized enforcement arm of the state. To be clear, current law enforcement is the military occupying force by the state, within our local communities. I see it clearer than most anyone else for what it actually is. My perspective having worked on both ends of the spectrum is unique.

Not only are we equal as humans in our faults, but try dialing 911 and see if the police get there in time to prevent anything. Im certainly not going to bet on that, because the facts show in only 5% or less of cases when you called 911 the police are able to arrive and stop whatever crime was being committed, or capture the criminal involved. This means 95% of the time or less, you are on your own. This is just ONE of the reasons why you have the right to own guns.

My conservative, pro 2nd Amendment friends ROAR at having the right to protect themselves via the 2nd Amendment and that they have it to protect themselves from criminals because a cop is too heavy to carry around, yet the very second you say you dont need cops as much as people think, theyll throw you under the bus. Are you hypocritical much, my conservative friends? I think so. You cannot say I have the 2nd Amendment to protect myself and also if we need to overthrow the government, yet at the same exact time, worship that very government (the police), you are talking about taking down should it come to government tyranny.

The way to end the War on Cops, while simultaneously allowing us to exercise our individual God-given liberties, is simple. Police need to stay at their station house or at another assigned static location until they are called for assistance, period. You are not needed for nanny state nonsense. Stay put until you are called and allow us our liberties to move about and go about our day without looking over our shoulder and worrying about getting a citation for some nonsense when there is no victim whatsoever. You cannot protect anyone and everyone. Its literally impossible. Nationally there are roughly 1 million of you, and that includes corrections officers in comparison to over 300 million of us. Does that mean we want or need more cops? No, absolutely not or we would have a full on police state even more than we already have infringing on our rights every single day. Go out and spread yourself out throughout the community, but park and wait. Dont patrol, dont profile people, dont do anything, but park, and wait. That is truly the most efficient way of policing. Do you realize how much taxpayer dollars go to just fuel your vehicles why you ride around looking for citizens to turn into criminals? When you get a 911 call, then go. Ill support you on that all day long so long as theres an actual victim, simply because your presence and intervention was requested. Until then, stay put, and sit in your patrol car. Leave everyone alone unless your presence is requested. Its simple.

Featured image: Daily Wire (AP Photo / Nick Ut)

* Shane Foster has worked his entire career in military law enforcement, corrections, and as a private investigator. He has a unique perspective into how law enforcement operates from within its ranks, our judicial system, as well as our privacy laws and how every day our individual freedoms and liberties are gradually taken away from us and our individual rights abused on a regular basis.

Like Loading...

Visit link:

How to End the War on Cops and Restore our Liberties at the Same Time - Being Libertarian

Preserving stories from Mt. Carmel – South Philly Review

In response to the recent desecration at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Philadelphia of more than 500 headstones, the National Museum of American Jewish History is embarking on a collecting project to preserve the stories of the people who are buried there.

To the Editor:

In response to the recent desecration at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Philadelphia of more than 500 headstones, the National Museum of American Jewish History is embarking on a collecting project to preserve the stories of the people who are buried there. The Museum is asking those who have friends or loved ones interred at Mount Carmel Cemetery to share a picture of their loved one (and/or the headstone, if available) and a personal story of up to 150 words by posting it on MtCarmelStories.tumblr.com or by e-mailing curatorial@nmajh.org.

The project is also open to those whose families were affected by the desecration that occurred at St. Louiss Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery last week.

We would like those who did this to understand that these are not victimless crimes. The individuals buried at Mount Carmel were human beings with names, stories, and families. They contributed to the world while they were here and continue to do so through the loved ones they left behind. We honor their memories, said Ivy Barsky, the Museums CEO, and Gwen Goodman, Director.

NationalMuseum of American Jewish History

Read this article:

Preserving stories from Mt. Carmel - South Philly Review

Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals are going to miss her. – Washington Post

By Jennifer Burns By Jennifer Burns March 3 at 8:28 AM

Jennifer Burns is an Associate Professor of History at Stanford University and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Ayn Rand is dead. Its been 35 years since hundreds of mourners filed by her coffin (fittingly accompanied by a dollar-sign-shaped flower arrangement), but it has been only four months since she truly died as a force in American politics. Yes, there was aflurryofarticles identifyingRand lovers in the Trump administration, including Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo; yes, Ivanka Trumptweetedaninaccurate Rand quotein mid-February. But the effort to fix a recognizable right-wing ideology on President Trump only obscures the more significant long-term trends that the election of 2016 laid bare.However much Trump seems like the Rand hero par excellence a wealthy man with a fiery belief in, well, himself his victory signals the exhaustion of the Republican Partys romance with Rand.

In electing Trump, the Republican base rejected laissez-faire economics in favor of economic nationalism. Full-fledged objectivism, the philosophy Rand invented, is an atheistic creed that calls for pure capitalism and a bare-bones government with no social spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare. Itsnever appeared on the national political scene without significant dilution. But there was plenty of diluted Rand on offer throughout the primary season: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz all espoused traditional Republican nostrums about reducing the role of government to unleash American prosperity.

Yetnone of this could match Trumps full-throated roar to build a wallor his protectionist plans for American trade. In the general election,Trumpsought outnew voters and independents using arguments traditionally associated with Democrats: deploying the power of the state to protect workers and guarantee their livelihoods, even at the cost of trade agreements and long-standing international alliances. Trumps economic promises electrifiedruralworking-class voters the same way Bernie Sanders excited urban socialists.Where Rands influence has stood for years on the right for a hands-off approach to the economy,Trumps America first platformcontradicts this premise by assuming that government policies can and should deliberately shape economic growth, up to and includingpunishing specific corporations. Likewise, his promise to craft trade policy in support of the American worker is the exact opposite of Rands proclamation that the essence of capitalisms foreign policy is free trade.

And theres little hope that Trumps closest confidants will reverse his decidedly anti-Randian course. Theconservative Republicanswhocame to powerwith Trumpin an almost accidental processmay findthey have to exchange certain ideals to stay close to him. True, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence have been able to breathe new life into Republican economic and social orthodoxies. For instance, in a nod to Pences religious conservatism, Trump shows signs ofreversing his earlier friendlinessto gay rights. And his opposition to Obamacare dovetails with Ryans long-held ambitions to shrink federal spending. Even so, there is little evidence that either Pence or Ryan would have survived a Republican primary battle against Trump or fared well in a national election; their fortunes are dependent on Trumps. And the president won by showing that the Republican base and swing voters have moved on from the traditional conservatism of Reagan and Rand.

What is rising on the right is not Randian fear of government but something far darker. It used to be that bright young things likeStephen Miller, Trumps controversial White House aide, came up on Rand. In the 1960s, she inspired a rump movement of young conservatives determined to subvert the GOP establishment, drawing in future bigwigs such as Alan Greenspan. Her admirers were powerfully attracted to the insurgent presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, whom Rand publicly supported. They swooned when she talked about the ethics of capitalism, delegitimizing programs like Medicare and Medicaid as immoral. They thrilled to her attack on the draft and other conservative pieties. At national conferences, they asked each other, Who is John Galt? (a reference to her novel Atlas Shrugged) and waved the black flag of anarchism, modified with a gold dollar sign.

Over time, most conservatives who stayed in politics outgrew these juvenile provocations or disavowed them. For example, Ryan moved swiftly toreplace Rand with Thomas Aquinaswhen he was nominated in 2012 for vice president, claiming that the Catholic thinker was his primary inspiration (although it was copies of Atlas Shrugged, not Summa Theologiae, that he handed out to staffers). But former Randites retained her fiery hatred of government and planted it within the mainstream GOP. And it was Rand who had kindled their passions in the first place, making her the starting point for a generation of conservatives.

Now Rand is on the shelf, gathering dust with F.A. Hayek, Edmund Burke and otheronce-prominentconservative luminaries. Its no longer possible to provoke the elders by going on about John Galt. Indeed, many of the elders have by now used Randian references to name theiryachts,investment companiesandfoundations.

Instead, young insurgent conservatives talk about race realism,argue that manipulated crime statisticsmask growing social disorderand cast feminism as aplot against men. Instead of reading Rand, they take the red pill, indulging in an emergent internet counter-culture that reveals the principles of liberalism rights, equality, tolerance to be dangerous myths. BeyondBreitbart.com, ideological energy on the right now courses through tiny blogs and websites of the Dark Enlightenment, the latter-day equivalent of RandsObjectivist Newsletterand the many libertarian zines she inspired.

Once upon a time, professors tut-tutted when Rand spoke to overflow crowds on college campuses, where she lambasted left and right alike and claimed, improbably, that big business wasAmericas persecuted minority. She delighted in skewering liberal audience members and occasionally turned her scorn on questioners. But this was soft stuff compared with the insults handed out by Milo Yiannopoulosand the uproar that has greeted his appearances.Rand may have accused liberals of having a lust for power, but she never would have called Holocaust humor a harmless search for lulz, as Yiannopoulos gleefully does.

Indeed, the new ideas on the right have moved away from classical liberalism altogether. American conservatives have always had a mixed reaction to the Western philosophical tradition that emphasizes the sanctity of the individual. Religious conservatives, in particular, often struggle with Rand because her extreme embrace of individualism leaves little room for God, country, duty or faith. But Trump represents a victory for a form of conservatism that is openly illiberal and willing to junk entirely the traditional rhetoric of individualism and free markets for nationalism inflected with racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

Mixed in with Rands vituperative attacks on government was a defense of the individuals rights in the face of a powerful state. This single-minded focus could yield surprising alignments, such as Rands opposition to drug laws and her support of legal abortion. And although liberals have always loved to hate her, over the next four years, they may come to miss herdefense of individual autonomy and liberty. Ayn Rand is dead.Long live Ayn Rand!

Excerpt from:

Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals are going to miss her. - Washington Post

Superman v Objectivism: Forget Lex Luthor and Brainiac; Could Ayn Rand Be Superman’s Biggest Enemy? – Bright Lights Film Journal (blog)

Henry Cavill in Batman v Superman

Much of the reason for the continued popularity of Christopher Reeves portrayal was the commitment he gave to the character irrespective of whether he was saving Lois from falling to her death or rescuing a kitten for a little girl. For Rand the little girl is a moocher, Lane only worth rescuing if Superman sees in her his self-interest (as in, if he wont get laid, she can hit the pavement). Applying an Objectivist view point to Superman results in the muddled character Batman v Superman presents.

* * *

In 2016, Zack Snyders Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice staggered its way to over $800 million at the global box office. For many films this would have been a considerable success, but for one with such high expectations that cost in excess of $250 million to produce and market, and was supposed to be the tent pole off which Warner Bros would hang its DC extended universe it was a disappointment (especially when rival superhero bout Captain America: Civil War powered past the billion mark). Alongside the perceived failings of Suicide Squad, changes occurred at the top of Warners, with Geoff Johns becoming the new creative lead tasked with adding more levity to the DC universe. But I would argue that Batman v Supermans shortcomings, and those of its 2013 prequel Man of Steel, have more to do with the philosophical beliefs of their director, Zack Snyder, than simply with tone.

Among the many negative reviews (the film currently has a score of 27% on Rotten Tomatoes) and fan reactions, a noted theme developed: that the film, and the filmmakers, were clearly more interested in Batman than Superman (hence his first billing) and that Batman v Superman failed to capture the essence of the Superman character and mythology built up since his debut in Action Comics #1 in 1938. Much of the negative reaction focused on the generally glum tone taken with a character who had previously been seen (particularly in the Christopher Reeve incarnation) as the embodiment of light and hope. Similar issues had been taken with Man of Steel, especially in the sequence where Superman, as Clark Kent, allowed his adopted father to die in a tornado. How could the filmmakers so misunderstand such an American icon?

In March 2016, while finishing work on Batman v Superman, Snyder stated in a profile in The Hollywood Reporter that:

I have been working on The Fountainhead. Ive always felt like The Fountainhead was such a thesis on the creative process and what it is to create something. Warner Bros. owns [Ayn Rands] script and Ive just been working on that a little bit.

Zack Snyder, 2013. Photo by Eva Rinaldi, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

This quote reveals Snyders interest in Rand and Objectivism and points to a key reason why his version of Superman fails to live up to the characters nearly 80 years of history. Indeed, Rands ideas have become increasingly popular since the 1980s and, if the Atlas Society is to be believed, well liked in Hollywood. And this makes sense, as on the surface Rand advocates a self-made hero, one who uses his talents for his own gain. For Rand, this rational selfishness is the key to improving society, and on the surface Superman might appear to be a reasonable simulacrum of the Randian Hero; strong muscular types, who are handsome, well-built, and possess an iron will. But if we delve into Supermans conception, we can see that he really stands as Objectivisms antithesis.

Supermans Left-Wing Origins

Created in the 1930s by two young Jewish high school students, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Superman went through several iterations before they settled on the version that would catch fire with the public and start a superhero boom. These early stories may come as a surprise for those with only a casual knowledge of the Man of Steels history: he tackled gangsters, slum landlords, and profiteers rather than mad scientists or alien threats (as detailed by Les Daniels, 1998). Siegel and Shuster had taken their Superman ideal and put him to work as an often violent hero, not averse to killing the odd wife beater. As sales grew, the publisher asked Siegel to cut out the guns and knives and cut back on social crusading (Larry Tye, 2012), but the essence of Superman was set. Drawing inspiration from film star Douglas Fairbanks Sr. (in his portrayals of Robin Hood and Zorro), Siegel and Shuster deigned that Superman would use his powers for the good of all, while his alter ego, journalist Clark Kent (an embodiment of the reality of the creators lives), struggled to get the story or the girl. As wish fulfilment Superman is revealing rather than using his unlimited powers for self-gain, Siegel and Schuster wrote Superman as selfless, one who instinctively uses his powers for others. Its something that 1978s Superman (Richard Donner) was imbued with, developed in the characters Kansas upbringing (a sort of gee whiz nostalgia for 1950s morals) and the screenplays treatment of the character as a Christ figure.

In a message left for him to discover, Supermans Kryptonian father Kal-El (Marlon Brando) intones,

They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you my only son.

Biblical allusions aside (and there are many more in the film), the essence of Superman was captured; someone who does good, because it is good to do so. Rands conception of a hero, and indeed of good, is rather different.

Rands Hero

Ayn Rands passport photo, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

In Atlas Shrugged, the philosopher character Ragnar Danneskjld pronounces: Robin Hood He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, Im the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

Rands philosophy is based on the conception that being selfish is a moral good, and that the sole aim of life is to pursue happiness through productive achievement (quoted by Joseph Breslin). In this conception, a folk hero like Robin Hood is punishing those who produce, to feed moochers and looters. The looters are the government types who take from the productive to give to the unproductive moochers, and all are keeping great men back.

Paperback cover

So what of societys poor and disadvantaged? Well, its their fault, and you owe them nothing, according to Rand. In Atlas Shrugged, the hero John Galt outlines this clearly, Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. In Rands conception the poor and the needy are parasites, living off the talent and industry of others. As she explained: The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone (www.aynrand.org). No wonder Superman looks so glum rescuing flood victims in Batman v Superman theyre just moochers who should have worked harder to provide a better shelter for themselves.

The Randian hero is one who concentrates on himself, pursues his goals for their own worth without thought or sense of society. In Rands view, happiness is achieved through selfishness, through taking care of the individuals needs and not caving in to moralities that suggest that self-sacrifice and sharing can lead to happiness. In this conception of the universe Superman cannot be happy in his rescuing of the innocent, only in his time with Lois in which he displays and pursues his own desires. Happiness comes partly by treating others as individuals, trading value for value (www.aynrand.org) thus relations with others are predicated on trade, on exchange. What have the helpless and needy got to give Superman? If Clark Kent had been adopted by Rand instead of Ma and Pa Kent, what would have stopped him from becoming a tyrannical overlord?

Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve in Superman 1978

Much of the reason for the continued popularity of Christopher Reeves portrayal was the commitment he gave to the character irrespective of whether he was saving Lois from falling to her death or rescuing a kitten for a little girl. For Rand the little girl is a moocher, Lane only worth rescuing if Superman sees in her his self-interest (as in, if he wont get laid, she can hit the pavement). Applying an Objectivist view point to Superman results in the muddled character Batman v Superman presents.

Superman in Batman v Superman

The failings of Snyders Superman can be summed up in a conversation the character has with his Earth mother Martha Kent during Batman v Superman. In the exchange, Martha explains to Superman, You dont owe this world a thing. You never did. This is the world that nourishes him (literally, as the yellow sun generates his power) and provided loving parents, but this sequence suggests he doesnt have to pay heed to that. In Man of Steel, the death of Jonathan Kent, during a tornado, illustrates this viewpoint. Rather than reveal his powers to the world, Clark lets him die, and the film suggests Jonathan is all right with that. Personal priorities triumph over anothers need.

A key element of Batman v Superman is the re-creation of the popular Death of Superman storyline from the 1990s comics, but the differences between the film and the original are instructive. By removing the battle with Doomsday to outside Metropolis and making Doomsday a creation of Kryptonian DNA and technology, Snyder removes the social good of Supermans sacrifice in the fight, but also the connection to the extended family generated over decades in the comic book. Rather than a sacrifice for the lives of others, his death becomes a moment of sacrifice for himself, a personal atonement rather than an act of social good. In the comic, his death is viewed by close friends, other heroes, and strangers. In the film, there is Lois Lane (his lover), Batman (who 10 minutes earlier was trying to kill him), and Wonder Woman (a stranger). The contrived pieta illustrates just how far Snyder misunderstands Superman by redrawing him along Rands selfish lines. This selfish self-sacrifice misses the essence of drama that exists in a character who can do almost everything. It is in the choice (of how, when, and who) to help that Supermans character fascinates. This dramatic axis is underpinned by the character of Clark Kent, his humanity motivating Supermans choices. There is no self-interested reason for Superman to retain the Clark Kent persona after he is revealed to the world (is it any wonder, then, that Clark Kent is such a small part of Batman v Superman and is killed off)? Superman is tethered to the world by his/Clarks extended family, something Snyder was happy to partially dispense with in the killing of Supermans Pal Jimmy Olsen, something the director described as fun (www.independent.co.uk).

Batman v Superman

Ben Affleck in Batman v Superman

Despite the overall negative tone of the critical reaction to Batman v Superman, some praise was given for Ben Afflecks Batman. How can a film that misunderstands one hero get the other right? The secret may be in comic author Frank Millers liking for Rand (Miller authored The Dark Knight Returns on which Batman v Superman is partially based). The Atlas Societys website quotes Miller,

I was drawn again and again to the ideas presented by Ayn Rand in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged. Eschewing the easy and much-used totalitarian menace made popular by George Orwell, Rand focused instead on issues of competence and incompetence, courage and cowardice, and took the fate of humanity out of the hands of a convenient Big Brother and placed it in the hands of individuals with individual strengths and individual choices made for good or evil. I gratefully and humbly acknowledge the creative debt.

Batman works well as a Randian hero the rich individual, working out his personal neuroses by beating up the moochers and looters (interestingly he has no moochers in his own house dependents Alfred, Robin, et al. have to work for their keep). In Millers The Dark Knight Returns, a retired, older Bruce Wayne returns to being Batman not because he wants to help the city, rather because his personal obsession is inescapable. For Miller, Superman becomes a government stooge, his patriotism and commitment to good tethering him to the looting politicians.

Superman shrugged: Batman v Superman

By basing much of Batman v Superman on Millers work, and with a fan of Rand at the helm, Superman gets a raw deal. Gone is the nobility of helping those who cant help themselves. What is left is an image of Superman, but one that is hollow and missing its essence. This year a Justice League movie is being released (also directed by Snyder), with a Man of Steel sequel planned. Only ditching Rands quasi-philosophy can get Superman back on track and revive the character.

Works Cited

Bidinotto, Robert James. Celebrity Rand Fans. The Atlas Society. https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4598-celebrity-rand-fans

Breslin, Joseph. Ayn Rand: The Good, Bad & Obscene or Why Objectivism Is Flawed. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/ayn-rand-good-bad-obscene-or-why-objectivism-flawe/

Daniels, Les. Superman: The Complete History The Life and Times of the Man of Steel. Chronicle Books, 1998.

Miller, Frank. The Dark Knight Returns. DC Comics, 2006.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. Penguin Classics, 2007.

Shepherd, Jack. Batman v Superman Director Zack Snyder Explains Why He Killed Off Jimmy Olsen. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/batman-v-superman-zack-snyder-explains-why-he-killed-off-jimmy-olsen-a6954956.html

Siegel, Tatiana. Batman v. Superman: Married Creative Duo on That R-Rated DVD, Plans for DC Superhero Universe. The Hollywood Reporter. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-v-superman-married-creative-874799

Tye, Larry. Superman: The High-Flying History of Americas Most Enduring Hero. Random House New York, 2012.

Introduction to Objectivism. https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/overview

Selfishness. https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/selfishness

http://www.boxofficemojo.com

Go here to read the rest:

Superman v Objectivism: Forget Lex Luthor and Brainiac; Could Ayn Rand Be Superman's Biggest Enemy? - Bright Lights Film Journal (blog)

ALFA BOOK STORE NEWS FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 7 THRU MARCH 11 – Alpine Sun

Event Date:

Tuesday, March 7, 2017 (All day) - Saturday, March 11, 2017 (All day)

ALFA BOOK STORE NEWS FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 7 THRU MARCH 11 Coming Events: The Members Only Half Price Sale will be held Friday, March 10 and Saturday, March 11. Paperback books will be 50cents and hardback books will be $1. New books: James Patterson now offers a series of books you can devour in a few hours called the Book Shots Series. One of those is currently on the new book shelf. Kill or Be Killed includes four thrillers: The Trial, Heist, The Womans War and Little Black Dress. The shelves with military books has recently had an infusion of new books including U.S. Army, A Complete History, Conduct Unbecoming, American Guerrilla, Seal Target Geronimo, and Seal Team Six to name a few. On the young readers shelves the series of P.C. Casts books Marked, Betrayed, Chosen and Hunted can be found. The classic shelves house The Odyssey, Uncle Toms Cabin, The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, Atlas Shrugged and many more well know classics. Visit the Book Store located in the library. You will find a wide variety of books and you could also find some of our in-store specials some as low as 20cents. The store is open Tuesday from 10:30am to 7:30 pm and Wednesday thru Saturday from 10:30 to 4:30. All profits go to help the new library buy books and provide programs for the community.

View post:

ALFA BOOK STORE NEWS FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 7 THRU MARCH 11 - Alpine Sun

Career Corner: The Golden Rule – Journal Record (subscription)

Angela Copeland

Have you ever gotten an email from someone who you just want to ignore? Perhaps its from a vendor you work with who wants to tell you about a new product he or she is selling. The email provides no immediate value for you. Theres nothing you can do about it right now, and frankly, youre busy. Youre so far up to your eyeballs in reports that you can barely breathe. Weve all been there. I can definitely relate. The easiest thing to do is often to ignore the email.

Now, think back to how you landed your last job, or maybe the one before. Chances are good that you found it not by applying online, but through a professional contact. Theres a good chance that you previously worked with that person, either directly or indirectly.

Its extremely common to be recruited by an outside company you do business with either your customer, or your supplier. After working with you, a company has a chance to see you up close. They know just how professional you are, and how devoted you are to your craft.

But, this will only happen if you treat those around you with a certain level of respect. Taking a moment to let people know youve received their email can mean the world, even if youre not able to fulfill their request. Im not suggesting that you say yes to everyone. And, Im certainly not suggesting you respond to things that are clearly spam. You dont have time for that.

But, do take the time to value those around you even on the days when theyre asking for something rather than offering something. For example, if someone is asking for a meeting that you would normally be open to, but are just too busy to take, send an email letting him or her know youve received the message and would like to meet, but are swamped for the next few weeks. Most everyone understands the concept of being busy at work. Or, if a person is asking for your help with something that you really cant do right now due to existing commitments, be honest and upfront.

The most difficult scenario is when you dont respond at all. When you ignore an email, it doesnt just tell the person that youre busy. It tells them that theyre not important. It says that youll respond only if youre getting something out of the deal. And, it says that you may not be as professional as he or she thought.

When youve been with one company for a number of years, this can begin to seem normal. You want to be efficient and use your time in the best way. But, sometimes something unexpected can happen. Your company may lay off an entire division. If youve focused all of your attention on internal folks, while not nurturing outside relationships, you may struggle more to find something new.

It goes back to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Angela Copeland is CEO and founder of Copeland Coaching and can be reached at CopelandCoaching.com or on Twitter at @CopelandCoach.

Read more here:

Career Corner: The Golden Rule - Journal Record (subscription)

Golden Rule of Chaplaincy: Thy Shoes Matter – Boston.com

Think of a chaplain, and the quirky character of Father Mulcahy from the beloved TV show M*A*S*H might come to mind. But while chaplain Alyssa Adreani of Newton Wellesley Hospital likes to laugh at this image, as a female multi-faith cleric, shes far from the typical male stereotype. As Adreani, 41, likes to point out, she isnt just hanging out in the hospital chapel and doesnt wear a collar or a cross. Instead, as she makes the rounds from the NICU, oncology, ICU, orthopedics, and medical/surgical units, she follows her own Golden Rule of chaplaincy, which is: Wear comfortable shoes. The Globe spoke with Adreani about how hospital chaplains are considered part of the treatment team, even improving health outcomes.

Early on in my training, I would get questions like, Are you a priest? A nun? I would get flustered but then realized that people are curious. Then they would say, You dont look like a chaplain, to which I would reply, What does a chaplain look like? I did learn the hard way not to wear a black suit to work; I once wore one and the patient saw me and turned white, as if I was preparing for their death bed.

To become a board certified chaplain requires a rigorous preparation process that includes 1,600 hours of clinical training and ministry. One of my first days of my internship, I walked into a patient room, and she was crying, and said, Why is God punishing me? I got thrown into the deep end right away on that one.

Lifes most significant events regularly occur in the hospital. I do deal mostly with death, illness or decline, but I also visit the maternity units as well. It is an incredible blessing to see both ends of the spectrum. Chaplains really do see birth, death, and everything in between. Im really lucky to work at a hospital where spiritual care is valued. That said, people may misunderstand what a chaplain does or does not do. For example, patients may worry that a chaplain will judge them or try to convert them thats definitely not what we are about. We also, unfortunately, cant perform miracles.

I cant assume anything when I walk into a room and see a person for the first time. People surprise me everyday the way in which people experience and practice their faith and spirituality is amazing. Everyone has a story it is my privilege to listen to it. A lot of patients or families find it helpful to talk to a neutral party. They may just need to vent, to think out loud, to process something. They may want to hold a hand and pray or they may just want someone to sit with them to bear witness to the life that is passing. Some of my most memorable experiences have been really tough watching a young mom die; blessing a deceased toddler; holding a stillborn infant. These are excruciatingly difficult and a constant reminder of lifes fragility. There are definitely hard days, days when I am horrified by how unfair and unpredictable life can be.

Being a chaplain has given me a deep thirst for life I dont want to let it pass me by. I want to do everything I can run up mountains, travel, go skydiving, learn a new language. Im a runner, and being a chaplain hasnt made me run faster, but its made me appreciate running more. When I run, I pray for my patients, the staff, and others. I think about those who cant run. I run a little further for them.

Catch up with The Boston Globe for free.

Get The Globe's free newsletter, Today's Headlines, every morning.

Thanks for signing up!

Continued here:

Golden Rule of Chaplaincy: Thy Shoes Matter - Boston.com

This Is the Future That Liberals Want Is the Joke That Liberals Need – The New Yorker

The photograph that started the gleefully stupid This is the future that liberals want meme.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BOUBAH360 / INSTAGRAM

In 1999, John Rocker, a beefy young relief pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, explained toSports Illustratedwhy hednever want to play baseball in New York. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like youre [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids, he said. Its depressing. Thetabloids raged, local politicians condemned the remarks, and Major League Baseball suspended him for the first few months of the coming season. Rockers comments spurred New Yorkers to do a rare thing: praise the subway, in this case, the 7 train, with its especially diverse ridership, holding it up as an emblem of city pride.

This week, the New York subway featured in a similar skirmish in the culture wars, when a Twitter userre-posted a photographof a drag queen sitting on the train next to a woman in a niqab, with the caption, This is the future that liberals want. As with Rockers comments, the framing of a subway tableau as some kind of debased and terrifying dystopia was met with widespread derision. Part of the response was urgent and earnestanother assertion of cosmopolitan values during a time of ascendant reactionary politics. Twitter users pointed out that the sight of two very different-looking people riding the train was neither remarkable nor futuristicsuch things happen every day, right now. BuzzFeed tracked down Gilda Wabbit, the drag queen in the photo,who said, I wont speak for all liberals, but my goal is for everyone . . . to be able to exist as they choose without judgment or fear.

Mostly, though, liberals just laughed, and, for arare moment in the era of President Trump, they laughed at themselvesappropriating the offending tweet as a self-reflexive meme that mocked the original poster and liberal culture in equal measure. Users posted an array of photosPower Rangers, Care Bears, the animated eco-warriors of Captain Planet, the Young Pope, all manner of cute animals, Justin Trudeauas other visions of the long dreamed-of progressive future. As the meme spread, it devolved into near meaningless: people are now posting photos of just about anything with the phrase attached. It has become the first Thanks, Obama or Benghazi joke of the Trump eraan ironic repurposing of conservative outrage that is defused and made ridiculous.

The threats posed by Trumpism, of course, are seriousand one of Trumpisms central themes is an ever-narrowing conception of what it means to be an American, what it means to belong, who gets to be counted as us and who as other. To this end, the original tweet is exactly the kind of thing that deserves serious refutation. But one of the offshoots of the rise of Trump has been to rob many liberals of their sense of humor. To pay close attention to the news is to trap oneself in a daily cycle of outrage, self-righteousness, a pained recognition of the inelegance of that self-righteousness, and, finally, a feeling of futility. Part of what made the Womens March so powerful was its scenes of comedy, not simply the signs that mocked the President, but those that recognized the joyousness in the very of act of protest.

A classic strategy of the school bully is to make his enemies look, in comparison, like uptight weenies. Every time that Trump rages about fake news, people are compelled to respond with some form of, No, actually, reporting is real, and facts are important and essential to the functioning of democracy. Its a necessary response, but, on style points, the class clown always beats the teachers pet.

Sometimes, the nonsense campaign of Trump and his most fervent supporters must be recognized as such and ignored, or else, as in this case, mocked and hijacked in a new and better direction. This is the future that liberals want was a stupid thing to say, and the meme it spawned is stupid, toobut its a gleeful, exuberant kind of stupidity, and, in a small way, it has provided a moment of release. Constant vigilant outrage is not only exhausting, and eventually deflating, but its ill suited to liberal culture, which is suffused with a healthy dose of self-awareness, self-mockery, and even self-loathing. Theres a reason why conservatives control talk radio, with all its grim certitude, and liberals run comedy, which is characterized by, among others things, ambivalence. As Woody Allen, in Annie Hall, said, Dont you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like were left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes, and I live here. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is said to find nothing about himself funny at all. That, as much as anything else, is worth resisting.

Here is the original post:

This Is the Future That Liberals Want Is the Joke That Liberals Need - The New Yorker

This liberal painfully admits where Donald Trump is getting it right … – MarketWatch

I am a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts and would have voted for George McGovern for president in 1972 if I hadnt been 12 years old at the time. I have never voted for a Republican in my life and most certainly didn't start this past November. I have very little respect for Donald Trump as a businessman and even less for him as a politician. I remain positively mystified about how enough of my fellow Americans in the right combination of Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin could have voted for a man so temperamentally and intellectually ill-suited for the job of president of the United States.

But and it pains me to write this as wrongheaded as I think Trump has been about nearly everything he has done in his first five weeks in the Oval Office, there is one huge thing he has been right about: Wall Street.

He is absolutely correct to seek to change the onerous financial regulations that have reigned down on both the big Wall Street banks and the smaller, more local banks in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. And it is on this foundational, fundamental issue that my like-minded liberals are dead wrong.

Theyd like to impose more regulations on Wall Street. Big mistake. Theyd like to break up the big Wall Street banks, and had even introduced legislation is recent years to do just and that would even more wrong. They have argued that anyone who has ever worked on Wall Street should not be allowed to work in Washington mind-boggling pigheaded and downright discriminatory.

Liberals find every aspect of Trumps policy repugnant, and I get that. He is repugnant. But he is largely right about how to reform finance and Wall Street, whether most liberals care to admit that or not.

Weve got to have a fact-based understanding of what Wall Street is and what it does. Think of it and banks generally as the magnificent engine of capitalism, taking money from people who want to save it or to invest it bank depositors and allocating it at a competitive price to those who want it or need it to start, to grow, or to nurture businesses around the world, and that provide so many of us the jobs and the incomes we need and want to live better, more fulfilling lives. It is the envy of the world, and one that has made the United States the dominant economic power in the past century.

Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen developed the famous "jobs to be done" theory to explain consumer behavior. He talked to MarketWatch about how his jobs-to-be-done theory can also explain Donald Trump's rise to power.

You may think the banks are evil, but I bet you like your iPhone. You probably like your mortgage, your 401(k), your car, your widescreen TV and Facebook too. If you do, you like what Wall Street does, and you should want it to succeed.

But in the wake of the financial crisis, Washington politicians and regulators threw sand into the gears of the beautiful machine. It was an understandable populist reaction to the real pain and suffering that Wall Street, in large part, had caused the American people by packaging up shoddy mortgages and then selling them off around the world as AAA-rated investments, even though many bankers knew that they werent. That was wrong.

That bad behavior should have been prosecuted by Eric Holders Justice Department, but it wasnt, not in a way that gave a measure of satisfaction to the American people that bad behavior wouldn't go unpunished. We needed accountability for the wrongdoing that bankers and traders perpetrated but instead we got market-crushing bureaucracy designed to turn banks into utilities.

But, of course, banks are not utilities, and shouldnt be treated or regulated as ones. Supplying capital to those who want it is not the same as supplying electricity. Banks need to take risks hopefully prudent ones in order to nurture the next Apple, Google, Microsoft or General Electric when they come along. Reducing overly burdensome regulations on banks will get them lending again to the next batch of American companies that have the potential to change the world. Rewarding bankers, traders and executives to take smart risks, while punishing them when they mess up, will also help our economy grow quickly.

Trump is right that there should be an intelligent, well-considered reform of the onerous provisions of the rules and regulations imposed on banks in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The Dodd-Frank law, passed in 2010 to re-regulate banks, runs to more than 800 pages and is nearly opaque. More than additional 20,000 pages of rules and regulations have followed in its wake. Most people are clueless about what this mountain of paper requires banks to do. Some of it that which requires higher capital requirements for big banks, less leverage, that derivatives to be traded on exchanges, even the much-maligned Consumer Protection Financial Bureau is worthwhile and should be retained. But much of the law, and its various still-unfulfilled mandates, should be tossed out.

Investors in the equity markets seem to be heartened euphoric even about the overhaul of financial regulation that Trump has promised. Since his unexpected election victory, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has soared, and is now past 21,000, after being stuck around 17,500 for the last years of the Obama administration. More than $2.5 trillion of paper wealth has been created for people invested in the U.S. stock markets.

Whether the upward movement in stocks can be sustained remains to be seen, of course, but at least in this one isolated but highly important aspect reducing regulation on Wall Street the otherwise utterly irresponsible Trump administration is onto something.

Now read: Rex Nutting says Donald Trump and Gary Cohn are wrong in their claims about Dodd-Frank killing the economy

William Cohan is the author of Why Wall Street Matters, published on Feb. 28. Follow him on Twitter @WilliamCohan

Link:

This liberal painfully admits where Donald Trump is getting it right ... - MarketWatch

Man Arrested For JCC Bomb Threats Was Liberal Journalist Fired For Fabrication – Mediaite

Juan Thompson, the St. Louis native arrested for making bomb threats against Jewish centers, used to writeatleft-wing websiteThe Intercept before being fired for fabrication.

Heres Mediaites report on his firing a year ago.

News website The Interceptissued a mass retraction and correction Tuesday after admitting that one of their writers regularly fabricated sources and impersonated sources with fake Gmail accounts.

An investigation into [Juan Thompson]s reporting turned up three instances in which quotes were attributed to people who said they had not been interviewed. In other instances, quotes were attributed to individuals we could not reach, who could not remember speaking with him, or whose identities could not be confirmed, Editor-in-chiefBetsy Reed announced in a note to readers.

The authorities have not come out and said the two Juan Thompsons are the same, but tweets from the former journalist makes it clear they are. The FBI alleges Thompsonmade the threats in an attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend, while Thompsons tweets suggest the same.

In addition, an article filed shortly after Thompsons firingindicated he was from St. Louis.

UPDATE (11:11 AM ET): The Intercept confirmed in a statement that Thompson is a former employee, and denounced his actions.

[Image via screengrab]

>>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Read the rest here:

Man Arrested For JCC Bomb Threats Was Liberal Journalist Fired For Fabrication - Mediaite

Liberal support slides to lowest levels since 2015 election – CBC.ca

Support for Justin Trudeau's Liberals has sharply declined over the last three months, dropping to its lowest levels since thelast federal election.

The party has taken a hitin the polls in every region of the country, boosting both the Conservatives and New Democrats as a result. But despite the governing party's worsening fortunes, the Liberals still have as much support today as they did when they secured a majority government in October 2015.

The Liberals have averaged 40.5 per cent support in national polls conducted over the last three months, a drop of 6.8 points compared to the previous quarter. Though that is still above their electoral result of 39.5 per cent, it is a significant shift from the party's steady pollingat 46 to 47 per cent throughout 2016.

This is, by a wide margin, the greatest shift recorded in national voting intentions since Liberal support surged in the immediate aftermath of the 2015 election. This shift has all but erased those "honeymoon" gains.

Thenegative trend coincided with a number of issues that may have sapped Liberal strength, including the government's pipeline decisions, its broken electoral reform promise, the prime minister's cash-for-access controversies and his stay on the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.

(Note that past quarterly averages have been revised due to the inclusion of polling data from Nanos Research that had not been available at the time.)

The Conservatives have picked up 3.5 points in the past quarter, boosting the party to 31.8 per cent nearly identical to the Tories' electoral performance. This is another important shift, as the Conservatives had previously been stagnating under 30 per cent after losing power.

The New Democrats were also up, gaining 2.3 points to hit 15.6 per cent support. That is still down almost four points from their election showing in 2015, support the party has been unable to claw back from the Liberals.

In fact, the NDP's weakness would give the Liberals the potential to win more seats than they did in 2015 if an election were held today, due to gains in Quebec that would make up for losses in Ontario. The Liberals would likely win around 200 seats if an election had been held over the last three months, with about 110 seats going to the Conservatives and just 20 to the NDP.

Green support, at 5.4 per cent, was largely unchanged from the previous quarter.

The Liberals saw their support in British Columbia drop 7.6 points in the last quarter, the largest quarter-to-quarter decrease any party has seen in any region since the election. The Liberals are still ahead in the province, however, averaging 38.3 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 27.5 per cent and the New Democrats at 21.5 per cent.

Both parties picked up about three points from the last quarter, but are still below their results from 2015.

In Ontario, the Conservatives picked up 6.2 points and averaged37.6 per cent in the province, 2.5 points higher than their last election result. The Liberals dropped 7.2 points their second largest decrease in the country though stilllead with 42.9 per cent.

Themargin between the Liberals and Conservatives stands at just over five points. It was almost 19 points in the last quarter.

The Conservatives have picked up support over three consecutive quarters in Alberta, where they lead with 60 per cent. The Liberals, down five points to 25.6 per cent, are still polling higher than their election result in the province.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Conservatives displaced the Liberals to take over the lead at 41 per cent. The Liberals dropped nearly seven points to 33.8 per cent, while the NDP was up 3.1 points to 17.8 per cent. Along with a 3.1 point gain in B.C., this was the NDP's biggest regional jump this quarter.

The Liberals won all 32 seats in Atlantic Canada in the last election and still hold a wide lead in the region, averaging 57.7 per cent to the Conservatives' 22.7 per cent,and 13.4 per cent for the NDP. The Liberals' slide of 3.2 points was their smallest in the country.

The Liberals had a more significant drop in support in Quebec, slipping six points. This decrease reversed four consecutive quarters of gains in the province, largely at the expense of the NDP.

But at 44.7 per cent, the Liberals are still polling significantly above their election haul of 35.7 per cent. This makes Quebec the province in which the Liberals are out-performing their election results by the widest margin insulating themselves against losses in other parts of the country.

The Bloc Qubcois, at 18.2 per cent, narrowly beat out the New Democrats for second spot in Quebec. The NDPwas still well below its election performance in the province at just 17.1 per cent. Though that was a gain of 2.8 points over the previous quarter, their 8.3-point under-performance of the last election is the worst of any party in any region in the country.

Of course, the New Democrats are without a leader, as are the Conservatives and the Bloc Qubcois. The Bloc and Tories will settle their leadership races in April and May, respectively. The NDP will choose its new chief in October.

Of the three, the polls suggestit is the next leader of the NDP that will have the most ground to make up assuming, of course,the slumping Liberals don't do it for them.

These quarterly poll averages are based on the results of 12 national and regional public opinion polls conducted between Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 by seven different pollsters, interviewing just under 16,000 Canadian adults using a variety of methodologies, including online panels, interactive voice response and telephone interviews.

Here is the original post:

Liberal support slides to lowest levels since 2015 election - CBC.ca

Georgia Democrat Scores Another Major Liberal Endorsement – Roll Call

Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff is picking up yet another endorsement from a national liberalgroup in the race for the states6th District.

Democracy for America, a political action committee founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, is backing Ossoff, according to a statement obtained first by Roll Call. Its the groups first congressional endorsement of the 2018 cycle.

Ossoff, a former Hill aide, has received national attentionfrom Democrats and liberal activists who see an opportunity to pick up a traditionally Republican seatin what is expected to be the first competitive congressional election of Donald Trumps presidency.

Electing Jon Ossoff isnt just an opportunity for Georgia to reject Donald Trumps hate-fueled agenda, its a chance to send a progressive leader from a new generation to Congress to fight for racial justice and against rapidly growing income inequality, Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, said in a statement.

Ossoff has already been endorsedby End Citizens United, and has receivedfundraising help from the liberal site Daily Kos.The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is sending staff to the district to boost Ossoff, whos one of five Democrats running in an 18-candidate jungle primary on April 18. If none of the candidates receive more than 50 percent of the vote, the top two vote-getterswill advance to a runoff on June 20.

Democracy for Americas approach is rooted inDeans 50-state strategy: the idea that liberalcandidates should be running across the country, even in red states. The group has about 30,000 members in Georgia and over the 2016 cycle, it raised and spent $2.69 million for candidates running at various levels across the country.

But winning here wouldstill be an uphill climb for a liberalDemocrat in a districtwhere Trump underperformed but one that has nonetheless traditionally votedRepublican.Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who represented this suburban Atlanta seat for six terms, won re-election last fall by 23 points. Trump, by contrast, carriedthe district by less than 2 points.

Republicans signaled this week that theyre not taking the race for granted. On Thursday, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to House GOP leadership, launched a $1.1 million ad campaign attackingOssoff as inexperienced and dishonest.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Continued here:

Georgia Democrat Scores Another Major Liberal Endorsement - Roll Call

The Story Behind That ‘Future That Liberals Want’ Photo – WIRED

Slide: 1 / of 1. Caption: Boubah Barry

Samuel Themer never planned to be a symbol of everything thats right or wrong with America. He just wanted to go to work. But when he hopped on the subwayto head into Manhattan on February 19, the Queens resident was in full draghe performs as Gilda Wabbit. He also ended up sittingnext to a woman in a niqab, a fact he initially didnt even notice. I was just sitting on the train, existing, he says. It didnt seem out of the ordinary that a woman in full modesty garb would sit next to me.

Someone on that W car with them, though, thought otherwise.Boubah Barry, aGuinean immigrant and real estate student, wanted to document what he saw as a testament to tolerance, so he took a photo of the pair andpostedit to Instagram. Its diversity, says Barry, who says he doesnt identify as liberal or conservative but does oppose President Trumps refugee ban. They sit next to each other, and no one cares.

But someone did care. After the post was shared by Instagram account subwaycreatures, the photo driftedacross the internet until /pol/ News Network attached it to a tweet on Wednesday with the message This is the future that liberals want.

/pol/ News Network, which also recently declaredGet Outto be anti-white propaganda,probably intended the post to be a warning about the impending liberal dystopia. But as soon as actual liberals saw it, they flipped the message on its headand began touting the message as exactly the future they wanted. They filled /pol/ News Networks mentions with messages endorsing the photo and adding their own visions of a bright future. By Thursday, it was a full-blown meme. Soon images of a future filled with interspecies companionship, gay space communism, and Garfield flooded onto social media.

As one of the people at the center of the meme, Themer is happy to be a symbol of the far-rightsfear of an inclusive futureand part of the online communitys response to it. I absolutely believe its the future I want, says Themer. I want it to not be a big deal that we sat next to each other, were just being ourselves.

But he also recognizes the danger of using a meme to reinforce an echo chamber, no matter the political bent. The perspectives that are being illustrated by this imageit worries me that the divide is so deep, he says. I dont like when its used just as simple confirmation bias. When two groups use the same image to prove their critiques of the other, it fosters prejudice, rather than conversation. Themer would rather the image prompt a dialogue across the political chasm and get people to see themselves in Barrys photo.

If we can come to have empathy for each other, we can come to a place where we can find common ground and move forward, he says. Thats the goal.

The backlash against the /pol/ News Networks post is a rare display ofa memesredemptive powerits abilityto flip a bigoted statement into one of optimism. Liberal voices have co-opted the image as a way to create a utopian vision lit by the rosy glow of President Beyonc, Never Nude Syndrome, and lots of dogs.

But empathy? Thats a tall order for the internet in 2017. Still, if an opera-singing drag queen from Kentucky, a woman in a niqab, and a Guinean immigrant can come together and coexist peacefully on the W train, it just might be possible for the rest of us.

Read more:

The Story Behind That 'Future That Liberals Want' Photo - WIRED

New Zealand Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business …

Download PDF Quick Facts

New Zealands strong commitment to economic freedom has resulted in a policy framework thatencourages impressive economic resilience. Openness to global trade and investment are firmly institutionalized. The financial system has remained stable, and prudent regulations allowed banks to withstand the past global financial turmoil with little disruption.

Other institutional strengths of the Kiwi economy include relatively sound management of public finance, a high degree of monetary stability, and strong protection of property rights. The government continues to maintain a tight rein on spending, keeping public debt under control and sustaining overall fiscal health. A transparent and stable business climate makes New Zealand one of the worlds friendliest environments for entrepreneurs.

New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy and one of the AsiaPacific regions most prosperous countries. After 10 years of Labor Partydominated governments, the center-right National Party, led by Prime Minister John Key, returned to power in November 2008. Key was reelected in 2011 and 2014. In December 2016, Key resigned and endorsed his deputy, Bill English, who was elected to succeed him as prime minister. Far-reaching deregulation and privatization in the 1980s and 1990s largely liberated the economy. Agriculture is important, but so too are a flourishing manufacturing sector, thriving tourism, and a strong geothermal energy resource base. Following a sizable contraction during the global economic recession, the economy has been expanding since 2010.

Private property rights are strongly protected, and contracts are notably secure. The judicial system is independent and functions well. New Zealand ranked fourth out of 168 countries surveyed in Transparency Internationals 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index. The country is renowned for its efforts to penalize bribery and ensure a transparent, competitive, and corruption-free government procurement system.

The top income tax rate is 33 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 28 percent. Other taxes include a goods and services tax and environmental taxes. The overall tax burden equals 32.4 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 42.2 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 0.5 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 30.4 percent of GDP.

The entrepreneurial environment is one of the worlds most efficient and competitive. Start-up companies enjoy great flexibility under licensing and other regulatory frameworks. The labor regulations facilitate a dynamic labor market. New Zealand, which has the lowest subsidies among OECD countries, removed all farm subsidies more than three decades ago and spurred the development of a vibrant and diversified agriculture sector.

Trade is important to New Zealands economy; the value of exports and imports taken together equals 55 percent of GDP. The average applied tariff rate is 1.3 percent. There are few barriers to foreign investment, although some investment may be subject to screening. The financial sector, dominated by banking, is well developed and competitive, offering a full range of financing instruments for entrepreneurial activity.

Visit link:

New Zealand Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business ...