Potential of Adipose-derived Stem Cells in Anti-Aging Treatments – Technology Networks (press release) (registration) (blog)

Posted on by

Adult stem cells collected directly from human fat are more stable than other cells such as fibroblasts from the skin and have the potential for use in anti-aging treatments, according to researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. They made the discovery after developing a new model to study chronological aging of these cells.

Chronological aging shows the natural life cycle of the cells as opposed to cells that have been unnaturally replicated multiple times or otherwise manipulated in a lab. In order to preserve the cells in their natural state, Penn researchers developed a system to collect and store them without manipulating them, making them available for this study. They found stem cells collected directly from human fat called adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) can make more proteins than originally thought. This gives them the ability to replicate and maintain their stability, a finding that held true in cells collected from patients of all ages.

Our study shows these cells are very robust, even when they are collected from older patients, said Ivona Percec, MD, director of Basic Science Research in the Center for Human Appearance and the studys lead author. It also shows these cells can be potentially used safely in the future, because they require minimal manipulation and maintenance.

Stem cells are currently used in a variety of anti-aging treatments and are commonly collected from a variety of tissues. But Percecs team specifically found ASCs to be more stable than other cells, a finding that can potentially open the door to new therapies for the prevention and treatment of aging-related diseases.

Unlike other adult human stem cells, the rate at which these ASCs multiply stays consistent with age, Percec said. That means these cells could be far more stable and helpful as we continue to study natural aging.

ASCs are not currently approved for direct use by the Food and Drug Administration, so more research is needed. Percec said the next step for her team is to study how chromatin is regulated in ASCs. Essentially, they want to know how tightly the DNA is wound around proteins inside these cells and how this affects aging. The more open the chromatin is, the more the traits affected by the genes inside will be expressed. Percec said she hopes to find out how ASCs can maintain an open profile with aging.

Reference:

Shan, X., Roberts, C., Kim, E. J., Brenner, A., Grant, G., & Percec, I. (2017). Transcriptional and Cell Cycle Alterations Mark Aging of Primary Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells. Stem Cells. doi:10.1002/stem.2592

This article has been republished frommaterialsprovided by Penn Medicine. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Original post:
Potential of Adipose-derived Stem Cells in Anti-Aging Treatments - Technology Networks (press release) (registration) (blog)

Iran tells US chess champion to wear a hijab here’s how she responds – TheBlaze.com

Posted on by

Nazi Paikidze is the reigning U.S. chess champion, but when the Iranian government told her she had to wear a hijab, the Muslim head veil, and restrict contact with men in order to compete in the world competition hosted by Iran this year, she refused. The morality laws were supported by FIDE, the international organization that coordinates the world chess championship event.

By participating, I would be forced to submit to forms of oppression designed specifically for women, Paikidze told Marie Clare magazine. It sets the wrong example, particularly for young girls interested in chess.

Paikidze further explained her decision in a post on Instagram in September.

This is a post for those who dont understand why I am boycotting FIDEs decision. I think its unacceptable to host a WOMENS World Championship in a place where women do not have basic fundamental rights and are treated as second-class citizens. For those saying that I dont know anything about Iran: I have received the most support and gratitude from the people of Iran, who are facing this situation every day.

Paikidze also retweeted this tweet noting the irony of members of the Swedish team, a country known for its feminist advances, giving in to the gender-specific oppression imposed by Iran by wearing the hijab.

I will NOT wear a hijab and support womens oppression. She told the founder of a group organizing against Irans hijab laws. Even if it means missing one of the most important competitions of my career.

When an Iranian chess player criticized her boycott saying that the tournament were important for women in Iran and presented them with an opportunity for show their strength, Paikidze appeared to respond on her Instagram account to the charge.

A message to the people of Iran: I am not anti-Islam or any other religion. I stand for freedom of religion and choice. Im protesting FIDEs decision not because of Irans religion or people, but for the governments laws that are restricting my rights as a woman.

The world chess championship began February 10th and will continue until March 5th. For boycotting the event, Paikidze forfeits the opportunity to win over $100,000 in award money.

She posted this tweet during whilethe competition continued without her:

Read the rest here:

Iran tells US chess champion to wear a hijab here's how she responds - TheBlaze.com

Our Aggressive "War on Drugs" Is Not Actually About Drugs – AlterNet

Posted on by

In 2016, Colombian President Juan Miguel Santos received the Nobel Peace Prize for reaching a peace accord with FARC and ending a 50-year war that has ravaged Colombia. In his address to the Nobel Committee, suggested that The manner in which this war against drugs is being waged is equally orperhaps even more harmful than all the wars the world is fighting today, combined. It is time to change our strategy."

The manner in which this war has been waged isprohibition, a strategy of suppression that criminalizes all parties to trade in a given commodity. Drug prohibition enables law enforcement to arrest and convict lots of people, but it never ever succeeds in eliminating, or even really reducing, drug traffic and use. Let me be clear, said Santos. The prohibitionist approach has been a failure. Except that it has succeeded wildly, in the U.S., in controlling and disenfranchising large social cohorts, young African American and Latino men. Santoss comments are unprecedented in this hemisphere.

Though there are European countries where narcotic possession and use are legal so many demonstrations that legalization does not drive up the numbers of drug users, does not increase crime, and does not turn cities into drug dens the prospect of legalization has never been realistic in the U.S.. And the liberalization of marijuana laws does not make it so.

Legalization of marijuana just reclassifies a drug that was misclassified to begin with; it does not change the structure of drug prohibition. Opiates and cocaine and hallucinogens have never been anywhere near reclassification, and since the election and the prospect of the appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general, even the gains of marijuana could be in question. Sessions was recently quoted as saying he thought the KKK were good guys until he heard they smoked pot, and that prosecutions should be stepped up. In his confirmation hearing, Sessions said no, he could not promise not to enforce federal marijuana laws, which has been the position of the Obama administration, as well as states and localities.

Did this election offer a challenge, then, to the basic principle of prohibitionism, with the legalization of recreational marijuana on the ballot in several states? No, but its reclassification does have some significance. It opens up a legal market with all the benefits: revenue, regulation of product and of industry practices, reduced inducement to corruption, and potential destigmatization. Medical marijuana is very popular. In recent years, at various levels, police have been instructed to forego arrests for small amounts of drugs, amounts that suggest personal consumption.

But the liberalization of marijuana laws and enforcement to date has been relatively superficial, meaning it can still be rolled back because nothing has yet happened to change our basic commitment to prohibitionism. As with the threat of detention, registry, deportation, individual mayors and commissioners can direct enforcement to step up arrests. The decline of stop-and frisk reduces the rate of this kind of arrest. By contract, when stop-and-frisk is amped up again, those arrests increase. As with trickle-down economics and rampant deregulation, corrupt cronyism, or old-fashioned overt racism and male chauvinism, obsolete logics seem to rear up as we stand to lose so many legal and cultural gains. So too with the war on drugs.

Trump and Sessions have a range of worldviews available to them. In contrast to Santos, there is Duterte of the Philippines, who is responsible for extrajudicial killings, and rounding up people suspected of drug activity to hold them in and mass detentions in inhumane conditions. Thousands of people have been murdered in the months since Dutertes accession to the Presidency. This is The War on Drugs run amok, the specter that represents the ad absurdum extension of prohibitionist policy, one calculated for maximal suffering. And this is the strategy applauded by Trump after the election. In one of his impulsive phone calls, Trump called and affirmed the realization of Dutertes promise to ramp up the drug war, to prevent the Philippines from becoming a narco state.

Trump inherits a very old war on drugs in the United States, one with prisons almost as overpopulated as Dutertes detention centers, where the insanity of the purely repressive approach, counterproductive and cruel, is the law and practice of the land. This war on drugs goes back before Nixons famous declaration and the Rockefeller Drug Laws of the 1970s. Our national commitment to drug prohibition goes back almost as far as our commitment to alcohol prohibition, a thirteen-year disaster that dramatized all the perils of a strategy of suppression but somehow did not persuade us not to use the same one with narcotics. With the installation of Harry J. Anslinger as Commissioner of the newly established Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, the federal government began a campaign of drug prohibition which, during his three decades in office, in making into federal law.

So why, if it only took us thirteen years to prove that alcohol prohibition was both costly and ineffective, have we failed to question the warrant for a strategy that has failed for over seventy years and counting?

We maintain a drug prohibitionist policy and law in the United States because there is a socially desirable result, although reduction of drug traffic and use is not that result. It is precisely because of the efficiency of racist and classist enforcement and administration of drug laws in effectively disenfranchising and disadvantaging huge cohorts of young African American and Latino men, those convicted of minor nonviolent drug offenses. The damage to these men and women are also affected, of course and their communities is extensive; their disenfranchisement hurts everyone, or again, serves a regressive social agenda.

Alexandra Chasin is associate professor of literary studies at Eugene Lang College, the New School. She is the author of Assassin of Youth: A Kaleidoscopic History of Harry J. Anslingers War on Drugs.

Read more:

Our Aggressive "War on Drugs" Is Not Actually About Drugs - AlterNet

Thousands of Filipino Catholics march against death penalty, war on drugs – Reuters

Posted on by

MANILA Thousands of Roman Catholics marched in the Philippines capital Manila on Saturday in the biggest gathering denouncing extra-judicial killings and a government plan to reimpose the death penalty for criminals.

Dubbed a "Walk for Life" prayer rally and endorsed by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the gathering came just days after the church launched its strongest attack against President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs.

Organisers claimed as many as 50,000 people took part in the march toward Manila's Rizal Park, while about 10,000 based on police estimates stayed to hear speeches.

More than 7,600 people have been killed since Duterte launched his anti-drugs campaign seven months ago. More than 2,500 died in shootouts during raids and sting operations, according to the police.

Amid mounting criticism about a surge in killings, Duterte said on Saturday that the campaign was "by and large successful".

Speaking at the Philippine Military Academy's alumni homecoming in Baguio City, he said the drug problem was more complex than he initially thought, prompting him to seek military support.

"I need the help of each one, especially the military, not for social control but protection (for) the citizens from the lawless, the reckless, and the selfish," the firebrand leader said.

Both the government and police have denied that extra-judicial killings have taken place. But human rights groups believe many deaths that police had attributed to vigilantes were carried out by assassins likely colluding with police.

"We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill. It also increases the number of killers," CBCP president Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas said in a statement.

Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, who also joined the rally, called for strengthening and promoting the culture of non-violent movements.

In its most strongly worded attack on the crackdown on drug pushers and users, a CBCP pastoral letter read out at services across the country early this month said killing people was not the answer to trafficking of illegal drugs.

Nearly 80 percent of the Philippines' 100 million people are Catholic and until recently the church had been hesitant to criticise Duterte's war on drugs.

Senator Leila de Lima, a staunch critic of Duterte's war on drugs now facing three drug-related charges, also joined the rally. She said the charges were meant to silence her.

(Reporting by Enrico dela Cruz and Manuel Mogato; Editing by Michael Perry)

MANILA The foreign minister of the Philippines expressed doubt on Wednesday that a maritime sovereignty dispute with China could be resolved "during our lifetime", so it was better to set it aside, engage Beijing and avoid an armed confrontation.

SEOUL, Feb 22 South Korea's central bank held the smallest amount of foreign exchange currency forward positions last year since end-2012, data from the International Monetary Fund showed, in a sign the bank may have intervened less to weaken the won for trade competitiveness.

LAUNCESTON, Australia Something is not quite adding up in China's iron and steel markets, with the reasons for the current rally in prices for both commodities jarring uncomfortably with actual data.

Read more from the original source:

Thousands of Filipino Catholics march against death penalty, war on drugs - Reuters

Charitable gambling organizations look for tax relief | Local News … – Post-Bulletin

Posted on by

MANKATO Charitable gambling organizations parlayed a big sales year in 2016 into more donations to community causes.

But they feel they could help out even more if state taxes didn't claim so much of their gross receipts. In 2016, the nonprofits donated $62 million to charities, while paying $60.6 million in state taxes, according to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board's annual report.

The organizations may be in luck. Legislation passing through tax committees at the Capitol in recent weeks calls for charitable donations to be exempt from the state gambling tax rate.

Similar proposals haven't gained much steam in past sessions, but there's renewed optimism this year might be different. Al Lund, executive director of the Allied Charities of Minnesota trade group representing 1,200 organizations statewide, said he feels there's growing recognition that the state tax is cutting into the nonprofits' abilities to donate in their communities.

"Our members are more and more getting to the tipping point, so more are realizing that they need to get involved," he said.

Currently, a charitable gambling organization pays out more than 80 percent of its sales back in prizes to its patrons, which wouldn't change. The remaining percentage is then taxed incrementally depending on how much the organizations do in sales for pulltabs and other select forms of gaming from 9 to 36 percent for the top sellers. Whatever amount remains is then spent on lawful expenditures like charitable donations, building upkeep and expenses.

The new legislation would only lower taxes on the money organizations donate to charitable causes.

"What our charities are saying is we didn't get involved to become a primary tax collector for the state," Lund said. "We got involved to help our community."

Local gambling managers say the tax relief could be a major help, both in terms of allowing them to stay in the gaming business, and in how much more they'd be able to donate to their communities.

John Lamm, gambling manager for the Lake Washington Improvement Association, said he's reached out to area legislators in the hopes they'll get on board with the legislation. None of the 23 representatives signed on as authors for the bill are local.

Lamm said lowering the high tax rate his organization is big enough to fall in the 36 percent rate would be a step in the right direction.

"I think more should be done than that, but this is a start," he said. "What we're paying them is phenomenal."

One of the biggest charitable gambling organizations in the state, the Mankato-based Community Charities of Minnesota, paid more than $65,000 in state taxes in January alone, according to gambling manager Mark Healy. Municipal taxes in some communities further cut into gross receipts.

Healy said any dollar they don't have to pay in taxes would be a dollar put toward community causes.

"What's unfortunate about this is we can get money to charities and needy people a lot quicker than the Legislature can," he said.

Jim Steiert, president of Mankato Area Hockey Association, said he knows exactly how the tax relief could help his organization. With youth hockey participation on the rise, the extra money could be put toward a capital campaign for a new ice sheet in Mankato.

"Any tax relief would be welcome," he said. "Whether it's for charitable gambling or your personal tax return."

One roadblock for the tax relief is how it could impact funding for U.S. Bank Stadium. Charitable gambling has helped fund construction costs for the stadium since 2012.

Speaking to the tax committees in recent weeks, the Minnesota Department of Revenue's Tax Policy Manager Paul Cumings said the relief could negatively impact stadium funding. The hit to the state's general fund could also be greater than estimated, he said.

Lund said his organization has offered to work with the department of revenue to address the stadium funding issue before its potential inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.

"It's complicated and we have ideas on how to address that," he said. "We've offered to work with the tax chairs and department of revenue."

View original post here:

Charitable gambling organizations look for tax relief | Local News ... - Post-Bulletin

Bill in works to legalize casino gambling – Cherokee Tribune Ledger News

Posted on by

A locally elected state senator is carrying a bill aimed at legalizing casino gambling in Georgia and bringing two destination resorts to the state as early as 2019.

Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta, said Friday that Senate Bill 79, which he introduced late last month, could fill the states coffers by helping Georgia collect revenue residents currently spend in surrounding states with casinos.

Beach said hes trying to get the bill before the Senate Regulated Industries Committee for a vote sometime this week.

In order to become reality, he said, casino gambling must be approved by Georgia voters in a statewide referendum. The cities or counties where the casinos would be built must then hold local referendums where voters will decide whether they want a casino in their community.

The bill requires the casinos be built within 30 miles of a large convention center one in a large metro Atlanta county, either Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb or Gwinnett and the second in either Macon, Columbus, Augusta or Savannah, which also have large enough convention centers.

It would require a local referendum, he said. It just depends where they decide to locate.

According to the legislation, the state would levy a 20 percent tax on casino proceeds. Of that revenue, 60 percent would go toward education funding, with 30 percent allocated for the HOPE Scholarship and 30 percent for a needs-based college scholarship. Additionally, 15 percent would go to fund rural hospitals, 15 percent would be used for trauma care, 5 percent would go to expanding broadband in Georgia and the remaining 5 percent would go to law enforcement agencies across the state.

Beachs bill also calls for the creation of a gaming commission, with three members to be appointed by the governor, three appointed by the lieutenant governor and one appointed by the House speaker.

In the past, opponents of casinos have argued that they would take customers away from the Georgia Lottery, but Beach said that would not be the case.

These casino resorts will be so high-end that they wont hurt the lottery, he said. The people going to these destination resorts are not playing keno at the Chevron.

But not everyone is open to the idea of having casinos in the state, and Beachs bill faces opposition in the General Assembly, even from members of Cherokees legislative delegation.

Rep. Scot Turner, R-Holly Springs, said he opposes casino gambling in the state, not for moral or ethical reasons, but because he says Georgia taxpayers would be the ones who end up having to keep the states casinos afloat.

A lot of states have casino gambling so its not as appealing to the average tourist anymore, Turner said Friday. The only place it really works is Vegas. Every other state that has casino gambling ends up subsidizing it with massive amounts of tax dollars.

Aside from Nevada, he said, states with casinos ends up having to prop up the industry with tax money. And while casinos might do well for the first few years, Turner said that success rarely lasts.

Its a raw deal for the taxpayers, he said. After a few years, well end up having to bail them out.

Additionally, Turner said, states with casinos often see a spike in crime rates.

I have no problem with gambling and I enjoy going to a casino, Turner said. I just dont want to live in a place that has them.

Beach maintains that gambling is already legal in the state and said his bill would generate millions of dollars while increasing education funding for Georgias students.

We already have gambling here, he said. And the lottery plays on people who really cant afford to play the lottery.

Turner, however, said there is no moral equivalency between convenience stores that sell scratch-offs and casinos that offer commercial gambling.

Those two things are not the same, he said. A convenience store that sells lottery tickets does not increase crime rates or burden our criminal justice system the way casino gambling does.

At a 20 percent tax rate, Beach estimates casinos could generate up to $450 million of additional revenue annually. He also said the industry would create about 5,000 jobs for Georgians.

He said getting the bill through the Senate and House would be a heavy lift, but Georgians could stand to benefit from all the additional revenue.

But Turner said the bill has a zero percent chance of passing the House with so many residents opposed to it.

I dont think it has enough support, he said. The broad coalition of opposition across the state is widespread.

Beach said between tourists and residents who would attend the destination resorts, the industry would have enough support to thrive.

He said he and his wife took a trip to a couple North Carolina casinos after Christmas and realized about 80 percent of the cars they saw had Georgia tags.

Were funding North Carolinas education, he said, adding that those who are morally opposed to legalized gambling dont hesitate to send their children to college using the HOPE Scholarship, which is funded by the Georgia Lottery.

Without using any taxpayer money, the state could generate millions of dollars to be reinvested in education and healthcare. Thats hard for me to say no to, Beach said. Thats a good deal from an economic development standpoint.

Read more:

Bill in works to legalize casino gambling - Cherokee Tribune Ledger News

Hearing to continue tomorrow; anti-gambling advocate says ‘can’t define away pieces of Constitution’ – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Posted on by

TUESDAY, FEB. 21, 2017, 9:41 A.M.

Jonathan Krutz with the group Stop Predatory Gambling told the House State Affairs Committee that gambling is dangerous to people and economies. Theres an army of people behind me that are not going to come before this committee that are devastated by gambling, he said. Its certainly true that gambling has enriched the tribes, but it has done so at the expense of the local economies. Theyr not bringing new money into the economy, theyre just taking money out of the economy and putting it into a different place. Committee Vice Chair Jason Monks advised Krutz to stick to the bill.

Gambling increases crime, it increases embezzlement, it increases bankruptcy, Krutz told the committee. Theres a reason why our Constitution says that gambling is prohibited. Its having a very negative impact. People who are addicted, who cant control their gambling, theyre not there to win and theyre not there to be entertained, they go into a zone. Rep. Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer, objected to the testimony on a point of order, and Monks again cautioned Krutz to address the bill. The concern that I have is that our laws are not being respected, Krutz said. Are we going to honor an Idaho statute that violates our Constitution? You cant just define away pieces of the Constitution, and thats what this statute does.

With that, the committee had run out of time for todays hearing though there still were another 10 or so people signed up to testify. Monks announced that the panel would adjourn until 8:30 a.m. tomorrow, when it will continue the hearing. Only those already signed up today will be allowed to testify tomorrow; no new signups will be taken. We apologize for the inconvenience, Monks said, but this is an important issue, and I think you can see that the committee is doing a great job of doing their due diligence and asking the questions.

The House is now due on the floor for its morning session.

Read more:

Hearing to continue tomorrow; anti-gambling advocate says 'can't define away pieces of Constitution' - The Spokesman-Review (blog)

FA Cup goalkeeper’s pie-eating leads to gambling probe – RT

Posted on by

Published time: 21 Feb, 2017 13:39Edited time: 21 Feb, 2017 15:59

A gambling investigation was launched against English non-league goalkeeper Wayne Shaw after he was filmed eating a pie on camera during his teams 2-0 home defeat in the fifth round of the FA Cup on Monday.

The Gambling Commission launched an investigation into a possible breach of regulations after Shaw, Sutton Uniteds reserve goalkeeper, was filmed eating a pie on the sidelines in the 83rd minute of a match with Premier League Arsenal, the BBC reported on Tuesday.

Prior to the game, bookmakers had offered 8-1 odds on Shaw being filmed eating a pie during the match.

The commission is investigating whether there was any irregularity in the betting market and establishing whether the operator has met its licence requirement to conduct its business with integrity.

Integrity in sport is not a joke and we have opened an investigation to establish exactly what happened, said Richard Watson, the commissions enforcement and intelligence director.

Shaw himself has dismissed any notions of foul play, saying after the game that it was simply banter.

The reserve keeper, 46, said that he was aware of the bet, but hadnt put any money on it.

I think there were a few people [who placed bets]. Obviously we [players] are not allowed to bet. I think a few mates and a few of the fans, he told the Daily Mail.

Sutton and Shaw made headlines for the teams remarkable FA Cup run, which ended in the 2-0 defeat to Arsenal on Monday.

Arsenal, currently fourth in the Premier League, lie 105 places above Sutton who are in 17th place in the fifth-tier National League.

Suttons FA Cup exploits included unlikely wins over league opposition Wimbledon and Leeds United.

The goalkeeper has captured the publics attention with his less-than-athletic appearance, weighing in at 23 stone (322lbs).

He even had his picture snapped in the clubhouse bar during halftime of Mondays match.

Goals from Lucas Perez and Theo Walcott sealed the win for Arsenal, although Sutton won praise for the fighting spirit they showed throughout the game.

The hosts themselves came close to scoring through Jamie Collins and Roarie Deacon - who hit the crossbar with a fierce 25-yard drive in the second half.

It has since been reported that the club have asked Shaw to resign and he has accepted the request.

Go here to see the original:

FA Cup goalkeeper's pie-eating leads to gambling probe - RT

Veteran who lost millions wants military to screen for gambling addiction – My Fox Boston

Posted on by

by: Michael Yoshida, ActionNewsJax.com Updated: Feb 21, 2017 - 1:22 PM

A veteran said that he lost millions of dollars as a result of his gambling addiction, and he's speaking out now that government officials are recommending that military members be screened for such addictions.

He said gambling addiction is a threat to the health of service members and to national security, whether it's the pressures of being in debt or the debt being used to get information or other details. He said the concern is real when it comes to gambling and the military.

He didnt want his identity revealed but spoke anonymously with ActionNewsJax.com anonymously on an issue that he knows personally.

>> Read more trending stories

The Army veteran said he lost in todays value, $10 million while gambling. ActionNewsJax.com

I was betting $5,000 a roll of the dice at my highest point. Because its never enough, the veteran said.

Gambling is an addiction that he said doesnt get the attention it deserves.

Nobody talks about gambling as an addiction. Doctors dont screen for it ... were just having fun, the veteran said.

Someone who knows this person has this issue can use that to extort information from them.

Thats just one reason why the Army veteran wants the military to do more to address gambling addiction.

Its not harmless. Its not just entertainment It leaves them exposed, the veteran said.

He hopes that along with screening, the military will do more to help those who are serving.

(We need) initial orientation and education when youre first coming into the military especially if youre going into a region where its so readily accessible and part of the norm, the veteran said.

He said his gambling started in the military.

My very first trip to a casino was while I was in the military at Fort Dix in New Jersey, he said.

He said his addiction got worse.

I was risking everything from January through August, I lost $275,000, he said.

He said he has recovered and owns his own business. He hopes his story can bring changes to the military and help those who are still serving.

It may just look like entertainment, but it has the potential to ruin your life and your military career, he said.

But that could soon change. The Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Department of Defense start screening for gambling addiction, and provide better guidance to help service members who might have an addiction.

A lot of time, you know, guys have down time thats one of the things they turn to. Its easy, readily accessible, whether its playing cards, dice, etc., the veteran said.

The Army veteran said he was an adrenaline junkie and gambling can help feed a need for adrenaline.

The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that 36,000 active-duty service members meet the criteria for a gambling problem.

2017 Cox Media Group.

Go here to see the original:

Veteran who lost millions wants military to screen for gambling addiction - My Fox Boston

Betting turf war is torpedoing efforts to help problem gamblers – The Guardian

Posted on by

Bookies earned about 1.7bn from fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) last year. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

Problem gambling experts have criticised rival factions of the betting industry for waging a selfish war of words to protect their own interests amid the threat of tighter regulation.

The UKs leading gambling charity also warned that a narrow focus on controversial fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs), potentially ignoring online betting and fruit machines in pubs, amusement arcades and casinos, risks undermining efforts to help addicts.

The government is conducting a review of gaming machines that industry figures fear will lead to tighter curbs on betting machines and reduced profits.

The review has seen amusement arcades and casinos go on the offensive against bookmakers by highlighting the addictive nature of FOBTs, which make up more than half of bookies revenues at about 1.7bn last year.

The machines have been publicly reviled as the crack cocaine of gambling, a phrase thought to have been coined by President Donald Trump when he was running casinos to draw attention to video game bingo, which posed a threat to his business.

GambleAware chief executive Marc Etches said that while attention should be paid to FOBTs, which allow punters to stake 100 every 20 seconds, ignoring other types of gambling was a disservice to problem gamblers.

Theres a particular focus on machines in bookmakers but Ive observed the industry for the best part of two decades and in my experience its always been the same, he said.

When the National Lottery was introduced, elements of the industry didnt care for that.

When there was discussion of expanding casinos, there were businesses within the industry that campaigned against it. Such is the case around machines in bookmakers.

He added that it was problematic that a cross-party group of MPs, which has recommended slashing the maximum FOBT stake to 2, is backed by firms that profit from rival forms of gambling.

Groups that fund the MPs efforts include amusement arcade body Bacta, pub chain JD Wetherspoon, which operates fruit machines, and Hippodrome casinos.

The Association of British Bookmakers recently fought back against criticism of FOBTs, latching on to research published by industry regulator the Gambling Commission.

Using data compiled from real betting sessions, the commission found there was no consistent evidence that particular gambling activities are predictive of problem gambling.

The ABB also pointed to figures suggesting that on average gamblers lost more money and spent more time on amusement arcade-style games.

ABB chief executive Malcolm George warned of the danger that adult gaming centres and other forms of gambling escape proper scrutiny.

The arcade industry and elements within the casino industry, which are commercial competitors of the bookmakers, have unfairly used FOBTs as the whipping boy for far too long when it comes to problem gambling.

In particular arcades, with vastly more machines, need to wake up to their responsibility to help problem gamblers, in the same way as the bookmaking industry has.

Bacta accuses the ABB of cherry-picking data that suits its own argument, focusing on averages rather than the extreme losses that can affect higher-stakes FOBT players.

The two sides have also drawn opposing conclusions about whether studies suggest that reducing the maximum stake on FOBTs would stem players losses.

Etches said the back-and-forth between competing firms in the same industry suggested that they were losing sight of the need to address problem gambling.

The industry needs to think more carefully about that bigger reputational issue and recognise that those who are thoughtful can see through some of this selfish behaviour, he said.

There are a lot of people who have a problem so we need to have a better discourse. A narrow focus that gets very shouty between campaign groups puts people off having a more grown-up more mature discussion.

The row over the role that FOBTs play in addiction reflects the limited amount of hard evidence on problem gambling.

One of the most comprehensive studies, by research group NatCen, looked at whether people who hold loyalty cards with bookmakers changed their behaviour over time, in an attempt to show whether FOBTs coincide with a slide into addiction.

It found a correlation between the use of machines in bookmakers and a descent into problem gambling, with the unemployed and ethnic minority groups worst affected.

But NatCen associate research director Heather Wardle, who sits on the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, is wary of drawing too many conclusions from this.

It shows an association, we just dont know whats driving that association. In all likelihood there are some people for whom the machines are causing them difficulties.

Others have immense problems with all types of gambling and happen to play machines.

She points out that similar research has not been done into amusement arcades, fruit machines or online betting, so it is difficult to compare the risk of addiction.

This raises the possibility that while FOBTs do pose a risk, a blinkered focus on them could allow other forms of betting whether its amusement arcades or online poker to escape scrutiny.

Like Etches, Wardle is concerned by the tendency of the warring factions to highlight data that suits their cause.

There is a lot of energy expended on different interest groups trying to make a case that one activity versus another is the most harmful thing, she said.

You end up with a polarised debate that misses the complexity of whats causing people harm and what you do about it.

I can perfectly understand why different stakeholders do that but its not particularly helpful. Id like to see people combine their energies into really thinking about how we help people and stop the horrendous problems they experience.

Read more:

Betting turf war is torpedoing efforts to help problem gamblers - The Guardian

For Schools, Gambling Funding Is No Jackpot – CityLab

Posted on by

Though states often pledge to fund public schools with taxes levied on lotteries and casinos, that money tends to get funneled elsewhere.

In 2008, after years of political squabbling over whether Maryland should host casino gambling, the question came up before voters in a referendum. The state government and the gambling industry lobbied hard for the votes, pledging that taxes levied on the gambling establishments would go to public education. TV commercials promised that casinos would bring hundreds of millions of dollars directly into our schools, and warned that if Maryland missed this opportunity, those stacks of cash would instead benefit students in the bordering casino-friendly states of West Virginia and Delaware.

The referendum passed. In 2012, after the most expensive political campaign in Maryland's history, a ballot question expanding gambling to table games also passed, narrowly. Maryland now has six casinos, including the Horseshoe Casino in downtown Baltimore, which opened in 2014. In the last seven years, these facilities have welcomed tens of millions of visitors and generated around $4.5 billion in profits. That has translated into $1.7 billion in funds for education, including $200 million from Horseshoe.

Yet Baltimores schools are in dire straits: Last month, city schools CEO Sonja Santelises announced that, due to a $130 million budget deficit, she is considering laying off more than 1,000 workers, including teachers.

That same week, the Baltimore Sun reported that the casino money the state had promised for public schools is instead being siphoned to pay for other government expenses, such as salaries and roadwork. As a result, Maryland schools have received the same amount of money they would have without the casino tax. And Baltimore schools have received less state money than they did before the casino opened.

The casino pitch that Maryland voters went for in 2008 is one that was honed over decades, as one by one states agreed to host the gambling industry. Its been a big turnaround for an industry that was all but banned nationwide in the early 20th century. Though Nevada legalized casinos in 1931, most states began to allow them in the 1990s. The promise of reaping economic benefits has driven the trend: Statistics from the American Gaming Association show that casinos bring thousands of jobs to host communities, and they also have a multiplier effect, in which new businesses then open in the surrounding area. This is particularly helpful, says Erik Balsbaugh, the associations VP of public affairs, for struggling post-industrial cities like Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Springfield, Massachusetts.

To win support, casino boosters often emphasized that a percentage of these benefits from lotteries and casinos would be funneled directly into public education. They countered fears of gambling with this emotional reference, says Patrick Pierce, a professor at Saint Marys College in Indiana who has studied the topic. Americans, at least on a symbolic level, place a great deal of emphasis on public education.

The tactic did the trick: Today, you can play the lottery and/or bet at a casino in most states.

Experts on gambling and state funding say that Maryland is only one of dozens of states taking gambling revenue meant for education and using it for other purposes.

In almost every case states either earmark the funds for education but then decrease the general fund appropriations for education by a similar amount, or, in more cases, they simply put the money in the general fund, says Denise Runge, a dean at the University of Alaska Anchorage and editor of Resorting to Casinos: The Mississippi Gambling Industry.

In the first year of operation, taxes from lotteries generally do go toward education, according to a study Pierce co-authored that looked at the period 1966 to 1990. You saw an initial bump in education spending by about $50 per capita, he says. But after a number of years, the practice of using the money for other expenses became commonplace. After eight or nine years, says Pierce, states with lotteries were spending less on education than states that didnt have the lottery tax.

State lawmakers welcome the lotteries and casinos for this very reason: The tax revenue gives them the flexibility to fund other programs or even cut other taxes. If youre a state legislator and youre telling citizens that you supported gambling because it improves childrens education, and then you used the money someplace else, you did a bait and switch, says Pierce.

And politicians become dependent on the moneysomething the gambling industry understands well. Pierce notes, for instance, that while Nevada is famous for its casinos, it doesnt have a state lotterycasino operators dont want the competition. The industrys pull with Nevada lawmakers is a major reason why we havent seen an effective push to put a lottery in place, he says.

Earl Grinols, an economics professor at Baylor University, says this relationship between government and gambling amounts to crony capitalism, in which the industry and state politicians stand to gain from each otherand do. The public system should be designed so that it leads people to do the right thing, he says. When you set up a system in which the gambling industry and state government have interests in common, you do the opposite. You create a system that encourages back-room deals.

But not all gambling-sourced school funds are fated to disappear: The exception are scholarships like Georgias Hope Scholarship program, which provides merit-based funding to students pursuing an undergraduate degree. The program didnt exist before Georgias lottery, which began in 1992, and so wasnt financed through a general fund that could be monkeyed with.

Every dollar from the lottery that comes in for the Hope Scholarship program goes to that program, says Ross Rubenstein, a Georgia State professor who studies lotteries and education funding. Whats more, Georgias model spurred states such as Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida to create similar lottery-funded scholarship programs.

Still, because these scholarships are merit- rather than need-based, they often benefit middle- and upper-income students rather than their poorer counterparts. Thats particularly problematic, because virtually every study on lotteries shows that lower-income households spend a larger amount of their earnings on lotteries or casino gambling than higher income households. Youre redistributing wealth from poor people to wealthier people, says Pierce. (Rubenstein notes that Georgia also straightforwardly distributes lottery money for pre-kindergarten programs. Benefits for pre-K are a little more even across income groups, he says.)

Politicians also like taxes from casinos and lotteries because theyre voluntary: However regressive these taxes are, no one has to pay them. As a result, theyre less likely to complain to state legislators about them. But this also makes these revenue streams unstable.

Runge of the University of Alaska notes that over time, casinos tend to make less money, as general interest drops off. Baltimores Horseshoe Casino, for instance, has seen a 14.5 percent decrease in its revenue in the past year. Rubenstein says theres a similar trend with lotteries. Everyone wants to play them when they are first available, he says, but then many people start to realize theyre not going to win, or they get bored with the games. So even if public schools were benefiting from these taxes, the revenue stream is not reliable.

The key, then, is not to reform this flawed system, but to scrap it for a better one. Pierce wants politiciansstate governors in particularto have the courage to tell constituents that taxes from stable sources, such as income or sales, are needed for education. And then they need to actually raise taxes.

If everyone really wants to support our schools, we need to make a public commitment to them, says Pierce. The way to do that is not through gambling.

Read the original post:

For Schools, Gambling Funding Is No Jackpot - CityLab

Oregon’s euthanasia bill awash with ‘ambiguity’ – OneNewsNow

Posted on by

Oregon is considering a bill that could allow the intentional taking of lives, if those lives fit into a particular category.

"Its intent," Gayle Atteberry of Oregon Right to Life tells OneNewsNow, "is to allow Alzheimers, mentally ill, and dementia patients who are conscious and are able to eat and swallow, to be starved and dehydrated to death. It's a horrifying bill. I've never seen one like it before."

Alex Schadenberg with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition makes similar arguments in a recent piece written for LifeNews.com.

According to Atteberry, individuals with those types of medical conditions aren't capable of authorizing the withholding of their own care. Concerned that passage of Senate Bill 494 would legalize what society has considered murder, Atteberry contends insurance companies are behind the measure.

"... We can only imagine the amount of money that is saved if Alzheimers patients who are not terminal die [sooner]," she says. She is convinced it's money behind the movement to legalize euthanasia.

Doctor-assisted suicide, legalized in Oregon 20 years ago, provides the means for a person to take his or her own life. For example, patients in Oregon have been refused expensive treatments for cancer but offered less expensive pills to kill themselves.

Atteberry contends the bill now being considered is one more step down the road to euthanasia of disabled and ailing patients the actual killing of innocent persons.

Her group maintains that the bill eliminates clear legal definitions that judges need when deciding a court case. "Ambiguity, which this bill creates in numerous ways, gives everyone involved in life-and-death matters clear reign to interpret situations as they want," says the pro-life group.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Read the rest here:

Oregon's euthanasia bill awash with 'ambiguity' - OneNewsNow

Why euthanasia slippery slopes are inevitable – National Right to Life News

Posted on by

By Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville

Advocates of legalizing euthanasia reject slippery slope arguments as unfounded fear-mongering and claim that its use will always be restricted to rare cases of dying people with unrelievable, unbearable suffering. But, as the Netherlands and Belgium demonstrate, thats not what results, in practice.

The logical and practical slippery slopes are unavoidable and inevitable, because those consequences are built into the act of legalization through its justification of inflicting death. Once we cross the clear line that we must not intentionally kill another person, theres no logical stopping point.

Let me explain.

When euthanasia is first legalized, the usual necessary and sufficient justification for breaching that line is a conjunctive justification comprised of respect for individual autonomy and the relief of suffering. But as people and physicians become accustomed to euthanasia, they ask, Why not just relief of suffering or respect for autonomy alone?, and these become alternative justifications.

As a lone justification, relief of suffering allows euthanasia of those unable to consent for themselves. Pro-euthanasia advocates argue that allowing euthanasia is to do good to suffering, mentally competent people. Consequently, denying it to mentally incompetent suffering people unable to consent is wrong; its discrimination on the basis of mental handicap. So suffering people with dementia or disabled newborn babies or children should be given access to euthanasia, as we have just seen legally allowed in Belgium.

And if one owns ones own life and no one else has the right to interfere with ones decisions in that regard, as pro-euthanasia advocates also claim, then respect for the persons autonomy is a sufficient justification for euthanasia. That is, the person need not be suffering to have access, hence the proposal in the Netherlands that euthanasia should be available to those over 70 and tired of life.

And once the initial justification for euthanasia is expanded, why not allow some other justifications, for instance, saving on healthcare costs, especially with an aging population? Until very recently, this was an unaskable question.

Now, its being raised in relation to euthanasia. Its anecdotal, but a final year medical student in a class I was teaching became very angry because I rejected his insistent claim that legalizing euthanasia was essential to save the healthcare costs of an aging population.

The practical slippery slope is unavoidable because familiarity with inflicting death causes us to lose a sense of the awesomeness of what euthanasia involveskilling another human being. The same is true in making euthanasia a medical act.

In summary, familiarity with inflicting death and making euthanasia a medical act makes both its logical extension and its abuse, in practice, much more likely, indeed, I believe inevitable. That means we need to stay firmly behind the clear line that establishes that we do not intentionally kill each other by rejecting the legalization of euthanasia.

Editors note. Margaret Somerville is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. This appeared at http://www.euthanasiestop.be.

More here:

Why euthanasia slippery slopes are inevitable - National Right to Life News

Stubbing out illegal cigarettes will help plug SA’s budget deficit – Business Day (registration)

Posted on by

There may therefore be a need to broaden the tax base and take a hard look at parts of the economy where the government is not getting its proper due.

Dealing with the trade in illegal cigarettes, for example, would be an easy place to start. It has cost the fiscus an estimated R4bn to R5bn in lost revenue each year, and about R24bn in the past five years.

Costing on average about R12 per pack and in some cases as little as R7 (compared to about R35 for the most popular brand on the market), it should be no surprise that the illegal trade is flourishing and accounts for a staggering 24% of the South African market. Growth in illicit trade can only serve to erode the tax base.

So, why does this matter? Some would argue that the legitimate tobacco sectors loss to illicit traders is no big deal. The production and sale of illegal cigarettes, however, is not a victimless crime. Not only does the government lose out on substantial revenues that could be used to deliver vital public services, but the proceeds from the sale of illegal cigarettes are often used to fund drug smuggling, human trafficking and other crimes that blight communities.

Some smugglers even have links to terrorism. Combined, this "double whammy" of tax losses and increased crime (which requires yet more expenditure on police to tackle it) is having serious consequences in SA.

In theory, correcting this should be relatively easy. Tobacco products are manufactured or imported in a limited range of brands and excise is levied at a specific rate per thousand cigarettes (R662), due for collection at the point of manufacture or import into the country.

An embossed diamond marking on the bottom of the pack is intended to provide a physical indication that tax has been paid.

Here is the original post:

Stubbing out illegal cigarettes will help plug SA's budget deficit - Business Day (registration)

What People Are Saying About Homeland Security’s Plan to Crack Down on Immigrants – Phoenix New Times

Posted on by

EXPAND

Scene from a travel ban protest at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

Melissa Fossum

This morning, the Department of Homeland Security announced its new plans to enforce President Donald Trumps executive orders on immigration.

Among the changes: tripling the number of agents who work in ICEs Enforcement and Removal division, and deporting immigrants before their cases have been heard in immigration court.

In addition, anyone whos been charged with a crime or has committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense is now considered a priority for deportation.

That includes people like Guadalupe Garcia who are guilty of nonviolent (and typically victimless) crimes like driving without a license or applying for a job with a fake social security number.

Thats just bad policy, David Leopold, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argues.

The immigration enforcement priorities are what keep us safe, he explained in a question-and-answer session for Americas Voice, a group that advocates for immigration reform.

If theyre spending resources on getting the bad people, then were safer. Theyre spending resources on the people who are easier to find the law-abiding folks. Whos easier to find: a woman whos tired after a day washing dishes, or a hardened criminal?

The priority of the Trump administration is to instill fear and panic, he added.

We'll be updating this post throughout the day as Arizonans react to the new executive orders. In the meantime, here's a sampling of the initial response on Twitter.

Update 12:11 p.m.: Activists fromLUCHA, Living United For Change in Arizona, will be at the State Capitol today at 4:30 p.m. to provide an update about what the new policies will mean and inform community members of their legal rights. More information here.

Update 1:31 p.m.: The Arizona Democratic Party is asking anyone who disagrees with Trump's new deportation plan to sign a petitionvoicing their opposition.

Update 2:06 p.m.: James Garcia, communications director for the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, says that the new immigration policies will have a tangible real world effect in Arizona.

Theres an estimated 350,000 undocumented immigrants living in the state, all of whom contribute to the local economy in various different ways.

Thats a substantial number of people thats a city, he says. Those are people who spend money, fuel this economy, do jobs that most people dont want to do.

And many of those people have family members who are legal United States citizens, meaning theres likely to be a ripple effect.

When undocumented people leave, they dont just leave by themselves, Garcia points out. They leave with children, they leave with spouses. When they leave, they take all of their economic impact with them. These are people who were pumping money into the tax system.

Roughly a fourth to a third of the small businesses in Arizona are owned by Hispanic immigrants including some who are undocumented or have DACA. Theyre likely to be hit hard by the new policies.

Anecdotally, Garcia heard that some businesses have already seen their customer base drop because undocumented immigrants are scared to be out and on the streets.

People are limiting their movements, theyre changing their patterns in life to avoid getting into a situation if they can, he says.

Arizona has been through this before thanks to S.B. 1070, Garcia points out.

When you go out and talk to major construction firms, you here that it is a lot of harder to find enough workers, he says. Theyre still feeling the consequences of S.B. 1070.

Update 3:40 p.m.: Rep. Ruben Gallego has issued the following statement condemning the new policies:

These new guidelines tell us one thing: the Trump administration is willing to go after just about any member of the immigrant community. Last week, ICE arrested a DACA recipient and continues to hold him in custody without showing sufficient cause for his detention. Now the administration releases guidelines that lay the groundwork for mass deportation and tries to sell it to the American people as business-as-usual. This is far from the truth.

Under these new rules, ICE can go after people who have not been found guilty of committing a crime and remove them from the country within days of their arrest. It also strips anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident of many due process protections. These are not the values our country was founded on.

I am dedicated to holding the Trump administration accountable and will continue to call out these policies for what they are: un-American.

Update 4:39 p.m.: Alessandra Soler, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona, has released the following statement:

These directives lay out a blueprint for mass deportation. They bring to life some of the worst of Donald Trumps campaign rhetoric and threaten to tear apart families and leave U.S. citizens without parents, children, husbands and wives. Its not who we are as a country to rule by fear, confusion and cruelty.

The ACLU is also concerned about the Trump administrations prioritization of immigrant detention. Asylum seekers, families and others who pose no risk to the public do not belong in jails, lining the pockets of for-profit prison corporations.

Furthermore, rushing to incorporate a massive number of new federal agents into an undertrained and inexperienced deportation force, which may be cooperating with state and local police, is a perfect formula for large-scale racial profiling and other constitutional violations, including unlawful searches and detentions.

Read more:

What People Are Saying About Homeland Security's Plan to Crack Down on Immigrants - Phoenix New Times

Ayn Rand Contra Nietzsche – The Objective Standard

Posted on by

From The Objective Standard, Vol. 12, No. 1.

Images: Ayn Rand, Courtesy of Ayn Rand Archives / Friedrich Nietzsche, Wikimedia

Editors note: This article is an edited version by Michael Berliner of Dr. Ridpaths article originally written for a 2005 project that was canceled. Because the article was written prior to the publication of A Companion to Ayn Rand, Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri, eds. (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), it makes no reference to that books chapter on Nietzsche by Lester Hunt.

I disagree with [Nietzsche] emphatically on all fundamentals.Ayn Rand (1962)1

I do not want to be confused with Nietzsche in any respect.Ayn Rand (1964)2

Why was Ayn Rand determined to distance herself from Nietzsche? Because in her time, as today, various writers portrayed her as a Nietzschean, claiming that she embraced his ideas and modeled her characters accordinglywhich she did not.

The notion of Rand as a Nietzschean was promulgated most viciously in Whittaker Chamberss 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, published in National Review. Although he acknowledged Rands debt to Aristotle, Chambers wrote that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche and that her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen.3 Since then, similar claims have been made in countless articles and books, including Goddess of the Market, in which Jennifer Burns declared that Rands entire career might be considered a Nietzschean phase.4

Was Rand influenced by Nietzsche? To some extent, yes. In the 1930s, she called him her favorite philosopher and referred to Thus Spake Zarathustra as her bible. As late as 1942, Nietzsche quotes adorned the first pages of each section of her manuscript of The Fountainhead. But from her first encounter with his ideas, Rand knew that her ideas were fundamentally different from his.

Rand first read Nietzsche in 1920, at the age of fifteen, when a cousin told her that Nietzsche had beaten her to her ideas. Naturally, Rand recalled in a 1961 interview, I was very curious to read him. And I started with Zarathustra, and my feelings were quite mixed. I very quickly saw that he hadnt beat me to [my ideas], and that it wasnt exactly my ideas; that it was not what I wanted to say, but I certainly was enthusiastic about the individualist part of it. I had not expected that there existed anybody who would go that far in praising the individual.5

However attracted to Nietzsches seeming praise of the individual, Rand had her doubts even then about his philosophy. As she learned more about philosophy and about Nietzsches ideas, she became increasingly disillusioned. I think I read all his works; I did not read the smaller letters or epigrams, but everything that was translated in Russian. And thats when the disappointment started, more and more.6 The final break came in late 1942, when she removed her favorite Nietzsche quote (The noble soul has reverence for itself)7 from the title page of The Fountainhead. By this time, she had concluded that political and ethical ideasincluding individualismare not fundamental but rest on ideas in metaphysics and epistemology. And this is where the differences between her philosophy and that of Nietzsche most fundamentally lie.

The roots of both Nietzsches and Rands philosophies can be traced to their youths.

Nietzsche (18441900) was raised in a strict Pietist household, and he fixated on the cosmos as the stage on which God and Satan battled for mens souls. Beginning in his youth, Nietzsche read widely in Greek and Nordic myth, occult literature, and heroic sagas, all of which he interpreted as the form taken by a cosmic war acting within the minds of men. He sought evidence for this cosmic storm in the power of visions and drives within himself, and, upon entering university to study theology, he pledged his life to first knowing and then serving this cosmic storm. He pursued this pledge in all of his writings, and, by the end of his working life, he believed that his insights into this storm were of cosmic significance.

By contrast, Rand (19051982) grew up in a predominantly secular household, was exposed to a world of productiveness, prosperity, stable order, and romantic arta world in which, through the exercise of reason, one could discover facts, grasp laws of nature, and thereby work for success and individual happiness. By an early age, Rand had identified going by reason as her leitmotif, had rejected faith and God, and had decided on a career in writing. In university she studied history and philosophy, and, upon graduation, left communist Russia for America in order to be free of tyrannical rule.

Compared at the beginnings of their respective professional lives, Nietzsches and Rands philosophies stand in profound opposition over two basic issues. Whereas Nietzsche held that the subject matter of philosophy is a cosmic storm of warring forces; Rand held that philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of mans relationship to existence.8 Whereas Nietzsche held that the proper method for studying philosophy is to look inward, at activities within ones self as a guide to the basic forces of the universe; Rand held that a proper method is to look outward, at objects in the world, and to build, through reason, a conceptual understanding of man and his relationship to existence. Nietzsche referred to his system of views as his ontological myth; Rand held that philosophy is the science of fundamentals.

In 1958, Rand wrote in her philosophical notebook that, in the 19th and 20th centuries, philosophy had admitted into its domain a series of fantastic irrationalities, which, being cosmology, were not part of the rational science of philosophy. As she emphasized the point, Cosmology has to be thrown out of philosophy (italics hers).9

This fundamental difference between Rands and Nietzsches philosophies was in place by their respective university years and would expand with time. This will become increasingly evident as we examine and compare their philosophies.

As a university student, Nietzsche had given up his Pietist vision of the cosmos. He still believed that some kind of forces raged throughout the cosmos, but he no longer believed those forces to be God and Satan, nor that religious faith was the means to accessing whatever forces exist.

Guided by Greek myth and three philosophersHeraclitus, Schopenhauer, and HegelNietzsche developed an early version of his cosmological myth. The most profound influence on Nietzsches life was the myth of Dionysus, who reigned in a hidden realm of formless turmoil and traveled to the human realm in order to show men the boiling cauldron out of which they had temporarily arisen and back into which they would be absorbed.

From a very early paper, The Dionysiac World View (1870), to the last passage of a grand posthumous collection of Nietzsches most significant passages, the Dionysian model of the cosmos remained central to Nietzsches worldview. As he put it in The Will to Power:

And do you know what the world is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; . . . a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing; . . . a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, eternally self-destroying, this mystery world.10

Alongside the Dionysian myth, Nietzsche revered Heraclitus, whom he characterized as having the highest power of intuitive conception11 and from whom he took the view that the universe is a random process, a flux, a becoming, out of which specific things emerge, temporarily, and then are reabsorbed. This underlying flux works through the increase and release of tensionthat is, through conflict, struggle, the interaction of positive and negative forces. All things are unifications of opposite states, Heraclitus said. All things happen according to strife and necessity;12 War is father of all and king of all;13 and the world is The eternal and exclusive Becoming, the total instability of all reality, which continually works and never is, as Heraclitus teaches.14

The young Nietzsche was convinced that the universe consisted of two contradictory forces, that these forces are more fundamental than the entities that they create and then reabsorb, and that process, activity, and changenot the things that act and changeare the cosmic fundamentals. There is no being behind the doing, he wrote; the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed; the deed is everything.15 What is basic is not that which acts, but activity itself.

Nietzsche found further support for this view of the cosmos in Hegels belief that the existing cosmos (Hegels Nature) was a realm of interacting and contradictory manifestations of one ultimate force. This dialectical explanation for all change would underlie all of Nietzsches further writings. On this view, reality consists of conflicting, contradictory forces. And entities, including men, are the arenas in which these forces clash. This Hegelian view, Nietzsche held, is the basis of an explanation for all things, all change, all evolutionary advances. (Hegels argument that one cosmic goal was being sought through change in the universe would also come to underlie Nietzsches final cosmic view.)

From Schopenhauer came a view of the cosmos that would prompt Nietzsche to write his first major work, The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music (the work that Ayn Rand said really finished Nietzsche for her). Unlike Hegels cosmos, Schopenhauers cosmic force was a Dionysian Will bent on destruction, although Nietzsche gave it a more positive connotation. With The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsches early metaphysics, that of two fundamentally opposing cosmic forces interacting, was complete.

In 1881, however, Nietzsche experienced a lightning bolt of inspiration about the ultimate nature of the cosmos. It was given to him that the cosmos was not composed of two opposing forces in dialectical struggle, but rather was one force in two opposing forms. And this force was not Schopenhauers Will-to-Destruction or Hegels Will (to cosmic self-discovery), but rather a cosmic Will to Power, a Will on a relentless quest for ever-increasing cosmic power.

In the next eight years, Nietzsche would interpret everything of interest to him as surface manifestations of this one basic force. The cosmos as Will to Power was Nietzsches ultimate cosmological myth. According to this myth, everything and every event ultimately is reducible to units of will, which he called quanta. These quanta, as he described them, are not things but processes, active centers of force or energy. And despite Nietzsches use of the term Will, he does not have in mind any aspect of consciousness, but rather some mystical force that underlies all consciousness and matter.

What are these quanta doing? Seeking power. The only true existent, wrote Nietzsche, is the willing to become stronger, from each center of force outward. This is the most elementary fact, which results in a becoming, an acting.16

In Nietzsches world, there are no things, no individual entitiesthose are all mental constructions. True reality is activity, power seeking, conflict. Reality, at root, is made up of little imperialistic centers of will, all striving to gain power at the expense of others. Reality, including all life, is reducible to quanta seeking to dominate neighboring quanta and not to be dominated by them. This is Nietzsches version of the war that Heraclitus said was the Father of all and the King of all. In this process, as quanta randomly interact, two strains of quanta-combinations arise. Those encompassing greater strength and capacity for coordination are Nietzsches virile or master strain of the Will to Power, whereas the weaker and less capable are the decadent or slave strain.

Because life is a biologically evolved organization of quanta, it reflects the process of power seeking in which the quanta, whether virile or decadent, are engaged. Thus, Nietzsches Dionysian interpretation of life: Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the foreign and the weaker, oppression, harshness, imposition of its own forms.17

Although living things, as individual constellations of quanta, are necessarily egoistic to the core,18 said Nietzsche, the enhancement of their power, rather than the lives of individual men, is the ultimate cosmic goal. Nothing exists for itself alone.19 And further, Nietzsche tells us, There is nothing to life that has value besides the degree of power.20 The deepest desire of life is to create beyond and above itself.21 In other words, power is not for the sake of life; rather, life exists to serve power.

In sum, Nietzsches view of reality denies the fundamentality of individual entities. On the basis of an alleged mystical insight, he asserts the existence and omnipresence of a cosmic Will to Power as the true metaphysical fundamental. Activity is more fundamental than that which acts, and activity is the product of a dialectical clash of contradictions. Power (not life) is the ultimate value. Life is essentially conflict. And life in service to the cosmic Will to Power is the highest fate available to man.

These positions put him squarely in opposition to Ayn Rand.

It is difficult to imagine a metaphysics more opposite to Nietzsches than that of Ayn Rand. Nietzsches worldview is dominated by turmoil, flux, dialectics, contradictions, cosmological mythswith centers of power-seeking activity as the ultimate constituents. In contrast, Ayn Rands metaphysics consists of the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity, and, as a corollary, the law of causality.

In Rands view, the world out there consists of entities existing independent of consciousness, a world where existence has primacy over consciousness, a world of stable natural law. Her metaphysics, as we shall see, leads to views of human nature, epistemology, ethics, and politics that are opposite to those engendered by Nietzsches metaphysics of turmoil and flux.

Rand held that certain primaries are inescapable, directly observable, irreducible to anything more fundamental, implicit in all facts and knowledge, and rationally undeniable. These axiomatic facts are existence (something exists), consciousness (of which I am aware) and identity (and it is something specific). They are implicit in perception and used in any attempt to deny them.

Regarding the primacy of existence, wrote Rand, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from ones awareness of the external world.22 Thus, man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward,23 and the development of human cognition starts with the ability to perceive things, i.e., entities.24

In Rands metaphysics, entities exist out there. They are not mere illusory mental concoctions, as Nietzsche claims. And, contrary to Nietzsche, they are not cosmologically intuited constellations of unfolding contradictory forces; they are what we perceive them to be:

A thing iswhat it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristic would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent.25

Entities are what they are; A is A; to be is to be something specific; existence is identity. Thus, a contradiction cannot exist; nothing can contradict its own identity, nor can a part contradict the whole; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate ones mind.26

Nietzsches metaphysics was anathema to Rand, who held that change cannot be fundamental, for there is no change without something changing. Nietzsches dynamic universe, wrote Leonard Peikoff, was a resurrection of the ancient theory of Heraclitus: reality is a stream of change without entities or of action without anything that acts; it is a wild, chaotic flux.27 And Rand rejected it outright. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe, she wrote, are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.28

Ayn Rands world is not the mystery world of Dionysus. It is a causal world of lawful order. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, wrote Rand, the universe is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity.29

Rands world is not a Dionysian cauldron. It is not false, cruel, contradictory, demoralizing, without sense.30 And it is not a place in which mens lives are characterized by conflict, mystery, and fate. It is a world of entities, the identities of which determine their capacities to acta world of natural law and knowable fact. Consequently, it is a world in which individuals can live and prosper.

In Nietzsches view, as we saw earlier, the understanding (or naturalizing, as he termed it) of any subject matter involves reducing it to little bundles of power-seeking energy (i.e., quanta). Human beings are reducible to constellations of quanta, each caught up in the cosmic struggle to increase its power. From this, Nietzsche drew several inferences: . . .

To continue reading: Log in or Subscribe

Return to Spring 2017 Contents

1. Ayn Rand, Q&A, The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age, The Ayn Rand Program radio series, April 5, 1962, in Ayn Rand Answers, edited by Robert Mayhew (New York: New American Library, 2005), 117.

2. Ayn Rand, Objectivism vs. Nietzscheanism, Ayn Rand on Campus radio program, December 13, 1964.

3. Whittaker Chambers, Big Sister Is Watching You, National Review, December 28, 1957.

4. Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 303n4.

5. Ayn Rand, interview by Barbara Branden, transcript 198, The Ayn Rand Archives, Irvine, CA.

6. Rand, interview, 200.

7. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1989), 228.

8. Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It (New York: New American Library, 1984), 2.

9. Ayn Rand, Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman (New York: Penguin, 1997), 698.

10. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1968), 54950.

11. Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy during the Tragic Age of the Greeks, quoted in F. A. Lea, The Tragic Philosopher (London: Methuen: 1957), 46.

12. Heraclitus, B80.

13. Heraclitus, B53.

14. Nietzsche, Tragic Age of the Greeks, quoted in Lea, The Tragic Philosopher, 46.

15. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Book One, sec. 13, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1969), 45.

16. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in G. A. Morgan, What Nietzsche Means (New York: Harper, 1965), 277.

17. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, quoted in Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, 61.

18. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in Lea, The Tragic Philosopher, 285.

19. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in Lea, The Tragic Philosopher, 212.

20. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, 118.

21. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, 63.

22. Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed. (New York: New American Library, 1990), 29.

23. Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 29.

24. Ayn Rand, Art and Cognition, in The Romantic Manifesto (New York: New American Library, 1971), 46.

25. Leonard Peikoff, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, in Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 105.

26. Ayn Rand, This is John Galt Speaking, in Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York: New American Library, 1961), 126.

27. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (New York: New American Library, 1982), 51.

28. Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25.

29. Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25.

30. Nietzsche, Will to Power, quoted in Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, 50.

Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter.

See more here:

Ayn Rand Contra Nietzsche - The Objective Standard

Apply the Golden Rule to lift results – Business Management Daily

Posted on by

After serving as president of KFC, Cheryl Bachelder became CEO of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen in 2007. At the time, the national chain of fried chicken restaurants was a mess. Employee morale suffered amid plummeting sales and profits. Franchise owners distrusted the companys leadership team.

Determined to reverse the downhill spiral, Bachelder revamped the culture. She encouraged teamwork and knocked down silos that prevented collaboration. She treated every employee with respect and warmth, embracing the concept of servant leadership in which her job revolved around supporting their success.

Rather than make bold plans in her early months as CEO, Bachelder focused on mending fences with disgruntled franchise owners. She traveled to seven cities, meeting franchise owners in small groups and inviting input. Calling it a listening tour, she took detailed notes.

I think thats the keyto not assume you know, she says. And also that you never forget that the people closest to the business actually do know whats going on.

Based on their feedback, Bachelder formulated a turnaround plan. She drafted a one-page list of goals, strategies and priorities that she billed the Road Map for Results. She led town-hall meetings to share her road map with employees and solicit their opinions, asking them, Does that ring true? Is that what you were trying to tell us? Is that a plan you could be excited about?

Another key to the turnaround: Bachelders embrace of the Golden Rule. She urges everyone to act like the leader they wished they worked for. She often asks supervisors to describe the traits of a great leader that theyve known. Then she asks, Are you being that leader to the people that work for you?

Adapted from Servant Leadership in a Louisiana Kitchen, Sarah Stanley, http://www.acton.org.

See the rest here:

Apply the Golden Rule to lift results - Business Management Daily

Liberal group threatens to challenge Democrats with primary …

Posted on by

To press the issue, Sanders veterans, along with allied activists and organizers, have launched a new political action committee called We Will Replace You. The group is demanding that Democrats on Capitol Hill uniformly oppose all Trump nominees, including Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, demand the firing of top Trump strategist Steve Bannon and use all the levers of their limited congressional power to gum up the White House agenda -- or face opposition from within their own party.

They are also asking new supporters to sign a pledge -- written at the top of their homepage -- promising to back "primary election challengers against any Democrats who won't do everything in their power to resist Trump."

"Democrats need to know there is an actual political cost and this isn't just going to be folks showing up at their offices, but folks showing up at the ballot and different organizations supporting challengers who are going to push the party in a different direction," said Max Berger, a co-founder of #AllOfUs, the millennial progressive group that launched the new campaign.

Early opposition to the Trump administration, most visibly in the form of mass protests and rowdy recriminations against Republicans at town hall meetings around the country, has turned up the heat on long-simmering efforts by the left to pressure moderate Democrats. With the party now totally out of power in Washington and at a crossroads, activists who gained experience during Occupy Wall Street and through work with the Movement for Black Lives, the Fight for $15 and other aligned causes see an opportunity for greater influence.

"We've had a generation of protests where people have learned how to fight those in power. But eventually, you get to a point where you realize that it's necessary for the communities that you represent to actually have power and not just to protest," Berger said. "The leaders that we see coming out of those movements are now looking to win elections and represent the communities they have been serving for the past decade."

We Will Replace You is operating as a hybrid PAC, meaning it can raise money and offer capped support to specific candidates while also making independent expenditures from a separate account. Co-founder Claire Sandberg, a former digital organizing director for the Sanders campaign, said the group is banking on a financial groundswell, delivered through ActBlue and other familiar channels, to deliver an early boost.

"We've seen the power of what an army of small dollar donors and grassroots volunteers can do when they are asked to do something that they believe in," she said. "We don't think that we need a giant pile of cash to make this project extremely successful electorally."

As Republicans learned earlier this decade, dedicated efforts to influence policy from within by launching contentious primary fights can yield mixed results. For every Mike Lee or Ted Cruz, both tea party-backed candidates who took on the GOP establishment before knocking off Democratic opponents in Senate races, there have been cautionary tales, like Sharron Angle and Richard Mourdock, who fumbled away seats Republicans expected to win.

Democrats have little margin for error in 2018, when 10 of their own come up for re-election. Republicans currently hold 52 seats in the upper chamber. If the GOP can flip eight more, they will claim a filibuster-proof majority and go forward with virtually no constraints on their legislative agenda.

Sandberg dismissed concerns, most often voiced by party centrists who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary, that a "tea party of the left" could harm Democrats on Election Day.

"We reject out of hand the notion that pushing Democrats to be better candidates will lead to more Republican victories," she said. "The much greater danger is a Democratic base that is uninspired by the party's tepid response to the Trump administration will not feel motivated to turn out."

We Will Replace You expects to ramp up its efforts in the summer. It has not yet named or set its sights on any particular race, though it could offer support to Virginia gubernatiorial hopeful Tom Perriello, who is running this year in a primary many Democrats will look at as a bellwether for 2018.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told CNN that while there has been "a constant appetite" for pitting progressive newcomers against establishment picks in open seat primaries, the increased pressure on elected Democrats has been a long time coming.

"There's been ebbs and flows in the willingness to primary incumbents and that will likely be way more on the table in 2018 than it's been in past cycles," he said. "And most likely there will be at least one clear poster child that people identify and collaborate around."

Read the rest here:

Liberal group threatens to challenge Democrats with primary ...

Conservative media outlets mocked liberal ones for their …

Posted on by

Donald Trump answers a question from CNN's Jim Acosta on Thursday.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

On Wednesday evening and throughout Thursday, conservative media outlets continued their coverage of Donald Trumps conflict with the intelligence community.

On the Daily Caller, an article titled How the Nations Spooks Played the Game Kill Mike Flynn claimed, The talk within the tight-knit community of retired intelligence officers was that Flynns sacking was a result of intelligence insiders at the CIA, NSA and National Security Council using a sophisticated disinformation campaign to create a crisis atmosphere. Breitbart, meanwhile, aggregated reporting on the issue from the Wall Street Journal under the headline Deep State #Resistance: Spies Withhold Intel From Trump, Says WSJ.

Meanwhile, National Review stood largely alone on Thursday in proposing that Congress should investigate Trumps relationship with Russia. In a formal editorial, it proposed that such an inquiry is necessary, whether or not this matter is on the order of Watergate. The editors wrote, A steadier hand is in order. Its time for the appropriate committees to conduct the oversightof the executive branch, and of the intelligence servicesfor which they are responsible.

Most publications turned their attention Thursday to other media outlets. Several sites featured posts mocking mainstream publications for worrying that Trump had primarily invited questions from conservative news organizations at his Wednesday joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Media Freakout Over Pecking Order Rages On, read a representative LifeZette headline. The Daily Caller drew from eight years of Barack Obamas interactions with the press to present 13 Hard-Hitting Questions Liberal Reporters Asked Obama, including one from Jim Acosta of CNN, who has been especially upset about conservative media access to the White House.

Town Halls Guy Benson approached the issue somewhat more soberly, offering a four-point analysis. Its fair to say that if President Obama had exclusively called on explicitly left-leaning outlets over the course of multiple consecutive press conferences conservatives would have melted down, Benson acknowledged. He went on to write that he didnt think personal pique was the top driving factor of their grousing. He proposed, however, that the mainstream presss reaction was driven by a deep-seated arrogance and ideological myopia, which blinds its representatives to the journalistic chops of less-than-liberal reporters.

Continuing this trend, conservative publications zeroed in on the presidents bromides against the mainstream media during his Thursday afternoon press conference. On its home page, Breitbart quoted Trumps assertion that the media has become so dishonest that if we dont talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Town Hall described the event as Round Two of his battle with CNNs Jim Acosta, writing, Trump asked CNN to do some self reflection. He told them to honestly consider not airing such anti-Trump news every night, and theyll see their ratings rise.

Sean Hannity presumably wasnt surprised by all this rancor. Youve heard me saying since 2008: Journalism is dead. But what were seeing play out now is far worse, he pronounced in his opening monologue.

Posts from conservative pages about polls indicating high approval numbers for Trump circulated widely on Facebook:

See more here:

Conservative media outlets mocked liberal ones for their ...

Liberal ‘lies’ about President Trump – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

Liberals have discovered a new word.

Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

MSNBC's Lawrence ODonnell went so far as to crown himself the enemy of Trump lies. Interestingly, the concept of lying has been noticeably absent from liberal vocabulary for the last eight years.

This characterization was nowhere to be found when President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaMellman: Rating the presidents Webb: The future of conservatism Moulitsas: Trumps warped sense of reality MOREs then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and blamed the Benghazi attacks on a YouTube video. In lockstep, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly assured the families of the four dead Americans that she would get the videomaker; this promise came despite Clinton knowing full well that terrorists were to blame.

Indeed, Clinton wrote in two emails in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi that these Americans were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group not at the hands of a spontaneous protest triggered by a video. Nevertheless, she purportedly deceived the families of these American heroes.

The L-word was absent when the Obama administration promised 37 times if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, only to be followed by millions of Americans losing their plans and doctors en masse. According to NBC, the Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance. Liberals, nevertheless, played the naivet card.

Lying allegations were nonexistent when Hillary Clinton vowed that she did not email any classified material to anyone on my email only to be followed by a revised vow that she never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received before finally arriving at the promise that she never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.

Is your head spinning? Mine too! Clintons evolving and lawyerly defenses of course came as the evidence of her sending and receiving classified information became public. As the facts grew, so too did evidence of Clintons intentional deception.

Rather than label the Obama and Clinton duplicities as lies, liberals rationalized them. Obama and Clinton did not intend to deceive, and thus they did not lie.

Rice and Clinton were caught up in the fog of war during Benghazi, as Clinton stated to a congressional panel. Obama did not realize millions would lose their plans. And Clinton, despite having three decades of government experience, just did not know how to handle classified information.

In other words, because these liberals did not intend to deceive a questionable notion at best, given the facts they did not lie.

If the left would use this same exacting precision in analyzing the words of President Trump, not only would they find that Trump is not lying but that he lacks the nefarious cover-up motives involved in several of the aforementioned Democratic mistruths.

For instance, I was at Trumps Saturday rally in Melbourne, Fla., where he urged his audience to look at whats happening last night in Sweden.

The left used Trumps vague statement to impart sinister suspicion. How dare he make up a terrorist attack!? and liar! were but a few of the apoplectic freak-outs. Meanwhile, the person beside me heard it entirely differently. Hes referring to information he gathered regarding Sweden last night, this person said.

Trumps clarification on Twitter that his last night remark indeed referred to a Friday night Fox News segment on crime in Switzerland validated the latter interpretation over the former. Nevertheless, the former interpretation was adopted as gospel.

The lefts lying narrative was again on full display when Trump stated that the murder rate was the highest it has been in 47 years. The liberals accused Trump of intentionally planting a false statistic, but they ought to have done a cursory Google search, which would have clarified exactly what Trump was getting at: the U.S. had just seen the biggest increase in murders in 45 years.

Trump used this statistic several times throughout the campaign, and Politifact rated his statement as mostly true. But this time Trump left out one word increase and the left lost it, resorting to the lying label.

The truth is liberals are using every tactic possible to drown the Trump presidency. False allegations of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and now lying each have their own chapter in the Trump takedown playbook.

As it turns out, the only lies being told are not by President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpWH adviser Stephen Miller: 'Nothing wrong' with Trump travel order Mellman: Rating the presidents Webb: The future of conservatism MORE but by liberals, who will hypocritically mischaracterize Trumps every action. They do so intentionally the very definition of a lie.

Kayleigh McEnany is a CNN political commentator who recently received her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School. She graduated from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and also studied politics at Oxford University.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more here:

Liberal 'lies' about President Trump - The Hill (blog)