Monthly Archives: July 2020

Sen. Ted Cruz said the future of conservatism after President Trump leaves office can be both populist and libertarian.

The Texas Republican weighed on ideological debates among conservatives, saying the future of conservative politics can be a combination of libertarian beliefs and populism during a Tuesday interview with the Washington Examiner about his podcast, The Verdict, co-hosted by conservative commentator Michael Knowles.

"I think properly understood, those concepts are complementary, and they're not antagonistic. So I am a conservative, an unabashed conservative. I'm also a populist. I am deeply a populist," Cruz began. "And I also have deep libertarian principles. Look, if you're protecting liberty, that is the foundation of our country. That is the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it comes to populism, I think the most fundamental and important shifts in the last decade in politics is that Republicans have become the party of the working class."

The idea of conservatism "conserving" libertarian beliefs, or classical liberalism, has recently been challenged by some writers. Sohrab Ahmari, a conservative opinion editor for the New York Post, advocated for a "common good" conservatism in May 2019. In an opinion piece for religious publication First Things, he wrote, "Here is the problem: The movement we are up against prizes autonomy above all, too; indeed, its ultimate aim is to secure for the individual will the widest possible berth to define what is true and good and beautiful, against the authority of tradition."

"There's some people who want to use the word populism to say, 'Well, we should just have socialism.' No, socialism is not populism. That's not good for the workers. Socialism is tyranny of government. Every socialist government across the globe has produced poverty and misery and suffering and death," Cruz said.

Earlier, Knowles said the ideological future of conservatism should focus on "ordered liberty" and unite against those "who want to tear down, not just one policy or another, but actually the symbol of our country itself, the star-spangled banner," echoing his previous essay in the American Mind titled, Its Good to Be Against Things.

Cruz did not answer when asked if he plans to run for president after Trump leaves office but called his bid for president in 2016 the "most fun" he's had in his life.

"We'll see. I probably won't make any announcements on this show. But look, it's no secret. I ran for president in 2016. We came very close. I'll tell you this: It's the most fun I've ever had in my life. And I enjoyed every minute of it," he said, adding he believes the United States needs leaders to defend the country in the future.

When asked, the Texas Republican also said he likes the idea of using his podcast to communicate with people similarly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's fireside chats.

"I am excited about the podcast as a tool. I like the fireside chat analogy. And look, FDR used that powerfully, used the new medium of radio to connect directly with the American people in a time of crisis," he said.

[Read more: Ted Cruz: Unlikely Samuel Alito will soon retire from Supreme Court]

Read more from the original source:
Ted Cruz: Future of conservatism is populist and libertarian - Washington Examiner

Later this week, the wearing of masks in shops and supermarkets will become mandatory in England. The question then will be how quickly the public accepts this new law whether face masks become a social norm could be of vital importance to public health.

The science behind the benefits of mask wearing is pretty solid. Masks principally protect others. You wear them because you dont want to pass on a nasty virus that you may not know you have. Pretty simple. Mathematical models suggest the more people that wear masks, the lower the transmission rate (effective R). And when we look abroad, the evidence supports this contention.

Mask wearing is, without the apparent necessity to enforce laws, almost ubiquitous in China, Japan, and south-east Asia. In a country once called the deferential nation, you might expect this policy would go down with relative ease. But a cursory glance at newspaper articles shows English commentators bristling at the suggestion of mandatory mask wearing. According to the Conservative MP Desmond Swayne, face masks are a monstrous imposition that threaten our fundamental liberties; the New York Times, meanwhile, reports that people in England would rather be sick than embarrassed.

For masks to be effective, people need to conform to wearing them. More than 80 years ago the behavioural psychologist Floyd Allport described what he called the J-curve hypothesis of conforming behaviour. He suggested that when a rule came into effect, almost everyone conformed, but a recalcitrant few resisted the rules with all their might, even to the point of breaking the law. They were usually a very small minority.

Allport looked at how motorists behaviour changed as they approached a crossroads and whether a stop sign was present or absent. Where a stop sign was absent, 17% of drivers stopped, 71% slowed down, and 12% kept going without slowing down. Put in a stop sign, however, and 75% of drivers stopped, 22% slowed a lot, 2% slowed a little, and just 1% didnt change their speed at all.

To achieve good compliance to a rule, Allport suggested, the purpose of it must be understood and the specifics must be crystal clear. The governments prevarications over masks with politicians regularly appearing without masks, and Michael Gove seemingly contradicting the mandatory policy later set out by Boris Johnson may have made this new rule anything but clear.

According to social psychologists, behavioural norms have two dimensions: first, how much a behaviour is exhibited, and second, how much the group approves of that behaviour. Getting people to wear masks requires social approval. The challenge for the government will be increasing social approval of mask wearing and doing it quickly. The medical historians Dorothy and Roy Porter once wrote that the subtle art of the administratively possible was at the heart of enforcing public health policies that threaten individual freedoms. Where this falls short, or where a policy is a matter of urgency, authorities may resort to using the threat of sanctions to quickly shift people towards perceiving something as a social norm which is why police in England will fine people for non-compliance.

We have a complex relationship with rules and public health in Britain. In the 19th century, when vaccination for smallpox was made compulsory, dissenters writing in 1854 declared that such a measure, unspeakably degrades the freeborn citizen, not only depriving him of liberty of choice in a personal matter, but even denying him the possession of reason. Those laws, which George Bernard Shaw later described as nothing short of attempted murder, were eventually repealed early in the 20th century for a number of reasons, including a belief that they were ineffective, that the side effects were worse than the diseases, and they were an assault on liberty. In much of the rest of the world, mandatory vaccination laws remain in place. Britain was, at least then, less deferential than Walter Bagehot might have anticipated.

Britains response to the introduction of mandatory seatbelts was rather more obedient. Those opposing the law argued, among other things, that it would be unenforceable. Proponents countered that the British were a law-abiding people and the measure would be virtually self-enforcing. And this proved to be the case when it was introduced in 1988. The compliance rate remains around 95%.

Americans, by contrast, responded more slowly. After seatbelt laws were introduced in the US at around the same time as the UK, initially only around 50% of Americans complied with them. Nowadays, compliance is around 90%. This same attitude in the US can be seen with the adoption of masks, where disputes have escalated even leading to a fatal shooting.

So, is Britain a land of feisty liberty-seeking individualism, or a deferential state? Perhaps it is neither. Notions of risk, public health, and adherence to norms, whether mandated through law or not, are playing out differently across the globe. Moving from east Asia, across Europe to the US, we can witness a gradient of mask use. In past times we might have viewed this as a gradient of the tradition of individualism, of non-conformity with social norms, of resistance to state authority. In Britain today we might instead see this as an expression of confusion, of a lack of concern for others, of limited social solidarity.

My sense, for what its worth, is that mask wearing will become more prevalent in England, more acceptable, less embarrassing, and will impact on the epidemiology in ways that are difficult to measure. Outliers will persist because full enforcement is too challenging, but they may be too few to matter. But another norm will persist for some time: our collective confusion about government interventions that should have been far clearer from the outset.

Richard Coker is emeritus professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

See more here:
Are the British conformist or libertarian? Our face mask response is telling - The Guardian

In 2017, 40 percent of entrepreneurs were female, representing a 58 percent uptick in female-owned businesses from a decade prior. Fifty-six percent of college students are female, a complete reversal from fifty years prior, when 58 percent of men filled university halls. Yet in 2017, only 2.2 percent of venture capital (VC) money went to women-founded companies. Society has changed, yet the worlds of start-ups and venture capital are still predominantly run by white men.

Big Think was founded in 2007 by Victoria Montgomery Brown and Peter Hopkins. As with many start-ups, the fundraising process provides quite a story, one that Brown has now decided to tell. Her forthcoming book, Digital Goddess: The Unfiltered Lessons of a Female Entrepreneur (HarperCollins Leadership), reveals how this website came to beand how women can overcome barriers in a male-dominated business world.

Below are six lessons from Brown's chapter on raising capital when you have no money or product. Brown writes that there are essential qualities for starting a business that help you navigate the terrain, such as a having a strong vision and maintaining unflinching tenacity. While some of these came naturally to Brown, others were hard-fought lessons that changed her for the better. The chapterand the bookis a reminder that with perseverance and dedication to learning, anything is possible.

Use whatever will get you in the door

The greatest challenge every start-up faces is "first money in." Many investors are willing to back a good idea only when someone else has already committedand they like to know who that someone else is.

In some ways, being a female founder has its advantages. As Brown writes, a Boston Consulting Group study shows that female-run start-ups outperform male-run start-ups, generating 78 cents in revenue per dollar invested compared to men at 31 cents. That's solid data, but you still need to get in the door.

Brown leaned heavily on her master's degree from Harvard Business School. This helped tremendously for her first investor meeting with Founder Collective co-founder David Frankel. He was enthusiastic, but he wanted to know who else was interested. Brown turned to former Harvard University president, Larry Summers. His buy-in increased Frankel's interest; he became the lead investor.

Meeting with such heavyweights is no easy matter for entrepreneurs with no product or history in founding a company. As Brown writes, "Study after study confirms that people tend to equate confidence with competence." Presenting Big Think confidently made the impression needed to secure funding.

With two investors in, landing Nantucket Nectars founder Tom Scott and billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel was not as challenging as one might assume. Brown writes, "Getting the first investor feels impossible, but if you can pull it off, getting the second is sometimes surprisingly easy."

Quit your day job

This is one of the hardest aspects of being an entrepreneur. Not only do founders not have the capital needed to launch their company, they sometimes work for years without paying themselves. If investors are going to put money into your project, they have to know you're serious about success.

"People don't like to fund things if the entrepreneur and CEO don't have their entire skin in the game. You better have something big to lose, or how are people going to believe you are all in?"

With no income or savings, Brown quit her day job in order to devote her every waking hour to Big Think. Self-imposed deadlines made sure she hit her targets. Founding a company isn't comfortable; waiting for relief will only distract you from the work that needs to get done.

"If you truly want to start somethingwhatever it may bewaiting won't helpput yourself in a position where you must do it."

Three months after quitting her day job, money showed up in Big Think's bank account.

Build momentum

If you're trying to convince investors to believe in youand it is you that they're investing in, more than your productshow them traction, even when you don't have it. Go out and make it happen.

"Our investors needed to be intrigued by the idea and see its potential to succeed and to scale, but they also needed to see that I was actually in a place of discomfort if it didn't work out."

Securing funding before showing a minimal viable product (MVP) is no easy task. Brown knew that she had to show something. Big Think started as a video platform; she needed experts to appear on video. Through their networks, Brown and Hopkins contacted Richard Branson, Moby, the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman, and famed architect Lee Mindel. They wanted them to be anchors.

Convincing high-profile business leaders, artists, and academics to partake in a new project is as daunting as landing VCs. When these figures inevitably asked about precedent for such an initiative, Brown turned a potential negative into a positive. "No one. We are reaching out to a very select, initial group of experts to kick-start it."

Making people feel critical to a project's success is a powerful way to get their endorsement, Brown writes. More importantly, it worked. A risky play between content generators and financial backers worked out. Big Think had momentum.

Do your research

As mentioned, investors are often more interested you than your product. As Brown writes, fundraising is "about creating a situation where investors get a real glimpse of who you are and why they should invest in you."

It's not a one-way street. You should also be interested in them.

"Be truly interested in the person you are meeting or don't bother meeting."

Brown advises looking beyond LinkedIn profiles and superficial bullet points. Investigate their interests, such as their passions and philanthropic pursuits. Understand why they might be interested in your venture and where it intersects with their business. Discuss topics outside of the investment opportunity. Engage them as people, not bank accounts.

"Helping others feel attractive and specialnot in a sexual way but in a human wayhelps them see you as a more attractive person, too. But you have to mean it."

Learn to say yes

The discomfort of being a founder includes stretching your boundaries. PayPal famously iterated numerous times before finding success. Flexibility is key if you want to survive. Sometimes that means admitting your limitations.

"Here's something major that HBS [Harvard Business School] taught me. You don't need to know how to do things, you need to know how to ask people to do things for you."

Finding the right people is one aspect of saying yes. By admitting your limitations, you say yes to help. But there's also saying yes to projects you're not entirely capable of pulling off.

After scoring a sponsorship with Pfizer, the second Big Think project was with MSNBC. The media company had a deal to provide expert-driven content with GE and SAP. They just didn't have a team to produce it. Being nimble, Big Think could turn it around quickly.

"Smaller companies with greater agility can take advantage of this situation if they just have the courage to step up and offer."

Instead of focusing on the negatives, such as not having a website or even equipment, Brown and Hopkins saw the opportunity. They said yes, and completed the project without a hitch, because they had the foresight to say yes.

Learn to say no

Not everything demands a yes, however. Discernment matters in the frenetic world of start-ups.

There are investors, there are people that connect you with investors, and there are charlatans. As the latter often suck up oxygen in any room they enter, it's easy to confuse bluster with their capabilities.

And so we meet "Jake," who in the early days of Big Think promised a lot, demanded more, and delivered nothing.

"He hadn't brought us any investors, he hadn't booked any experts, he hadn't helped us put together the deck, so what were we doing spending time with him? He felt sort of sleazy, like a smooth talker but not a doer."

Brown told Jake he was not getting equity without deliverables during their final meeting. This news did not go over well. Jake yelled and stormed out. Such momentary discomfort is a low price for not giving up even a piece of your business. Calling our charlatans demands that you say no. Thankfully, for the future of Big Think, one bad evening paid off in the long run.

Credit: Harper Collins

--

Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter, Facebook and Substack. His next book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."

Excerpt from:
3 highlights from Penn Jillette's Big Think interview on 2020, cancel culture, and friendship - Big Think

Paul Shiraishi, a first-time candidate for office in Hawaii, is doing many of the important things needed to attract votes.

Hes got a great campaign website, for one, with the donate button featured on every page.

There are also great photos including Shiraishi in aloha wear with a kukui nut necklace, surfing, in his Marine uniform and with his grandmother.

He makes clear that he is offering a new, independent voice in the race to represent the state Senates 10th District (Kaimuki, Kapahulu, Palolo, Maunalani Heights, St. Louis Heights, Moiliili, Ala Wai).

Shiraishis biography is compelling, too: five years on active duty with the Marines, most of it in the Asia-Pacific region. Although born on Hawaiis ninth island i.e., Las Vegas he stresses local roots that extend three generations.

He studied economics and political science at UH Manoa, interned at the Hawaii State Judiciary and volunteered with Honolulu Habitat for Humanity.

At age 29 and ambitious, Paul Shiraishi would seem to have a good bet in getting elected to the Hawaii Legislature.

Theres just one very big catch: Shiraishi is running as a nonpartisan candidate in a mostly partisan field, for a legislative body that is heavily dominated by one political party.

According to election results going back decades, a nonpartisan candidate has yet to be elected to the Legislature. It is likely due in no small part to a state law that requires nonpartisan candidates to garner a precise number of votes in the primary election in order to advance to the general. (More on that in a minute.)

Shiraishi knows the odds and is not deterred.

If somebody doesnt necessarily agree with the Democratic Party, or maybe just wants to present competition to one-party dominance, they have nowhere to go, he said. They either pledge loyalty to Trump as a Republican, or they run as an independent. That is the only relative option.

Its not too hard to qualify for Hawaiis legislative primary ballot: A candidate must be a state resident for at least three years prior to election, submit a petition with 15 valid signatures from registered voters in the district, fill out nomination papers and a financial disclosure and fork over $250.

But, while Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian and other qualified independent party candidates have a good shot at advancing to the general election they merely have to win their race, and many partisan primary contests are uncontested or heavily favor incumbents nonpartisan candidates have one of two pathways, both largely beyond their control.

The first is to earn at least 10% of all the votes cast for the office in that particular primary. The second is to earn a vote equal to or greater than the lowest vote received by the partisan candidate who was nominated.

Heres how the State Elections Office explains it:

But is it a fair and reasonable formula? No, says one elections expert.

Its just dumb, says Richard Winger, editor of San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. I wish the Hawaii Legislature would get rid of it. There is no other state like it in the country for independent candidates, unless you include California and Washington, where the top two finishers advance.

Winger, whose expertise is recommended by the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that states cannot go above 5% as a vote requirement for moving on from the primary to the general election.

Only Georgia and Illinois use the 5% figure, and Winger said legal challenges will likely lead to throwing out the requirement. (Alabama uses 3%.)

Hawaiis 10% law was challenged in 1988 by Ted Erum, a Kauai resident. But he lost.

He should have won, said Winger.

Minor parties such as Green and Libertarians have had greater success in challenging and changing election laws because they have members. But nonpartisan candidates are invariably solo operators, so its hard to lobby for their behalf, said Winger.

Still, nearly every state legislator in the country is either a Democrat or a Republican, with minor party and independents making with the exception of states like Vermont and Alaska few inroads.

And here at home Greens and Libertarians have yet to send one of their own to the Hawaii Legislature.

The primary vote hurdle likely scares off candidates running as an NP.

Of the 29 candidates running for 13 state Senate seats this year, only two are nonpartisan. Of the 131 candidates running for 51 state House seats, only three are nonpartisan.

Heres another hurdle: Even though Hawaii voters are not required to register their party affiliation with the state, primary voters can only pick the ballot of one party in the primary. Its called an open primary, in that voters may choose which partys ballot to vote, as the NCSL puts it.

This permits a voter to cast a vote across party lines for the primary election, says the NCSL. Critics argue that the open primary dilutes the parties ability to nominate. Supporters say this system gives voters maximal flexibility allowing them to cross party lines and maintains their privacy.

Sen. Les Ihara says he welcomes electoral competition.

Nathan Eagle/Civil Beat

But here is whats undemocratic to me: In the general election this year voters could, if they so choose, vote for a Republican for the U.S. House, a Democrat for the state Senate and a Green or Libertarian or Aloha Aina party candidate for the state House. But in the primary they can only pull one partys ballot or the nonpartisan ballot.

The trend line may be moving away from party politics. While Congress, governor and lieutenant governor remain partisan races in Hawaii, all county offices are nonpartisan.

Sen. Les Ihara, 69, who has served in the Legislature since 1987 first in the House and since 1995 in the Senate says he welcomes Shiraishi to the District 10 race. Same goes for his Democratic primary opponents Vicki Higgins and Jesus Arriola.

My policy is to always have competition because you have to give voters a choice, said Ihara. I trust the voters will vote on who they think is best.

Thus far, in Iharas case it has always been him and the races have not been very close. He won the 2016 primary and general each with 70% of the vote.

Because about 8,000 people voted in the 2016 primary, Shiraishi figures he needs to get between 800 and 900 votes on Aug. 8 in order to go on to Nov. 3.

I hope Paul makes it past this years primary election, or else there is only the Democratic winners name on the general ballot, said Ihara. If its me, it might be my first ever unopposed general election.

And that may be the biggest reason Shiraishi is running, besides wanting to serve: to offer choice.

Win or lose, I really feel it should be easier to run as a nonpartisan and qualify for the general, especially given the state of politics in 2020, said Shiraishi, who said his politics lean conservative but he broke with the GOP over Trump. There is a frustration about divisive party politics with the president obviously but also with Democrats.

Sign Up

Sorry. That's an invalid e-mail.

Thanks! We'll send you a confirmation e-mail shortly.

Read more:
Chad Blair: There's A High Bar For Legislative Candidates Without A - Honolulu Civil Beat

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

Not long after the passing of John Lewis, tributes began pouring in from all points on the political compass, including some from ardent foes of the goals Lewis championed right up to his death on Friday. Vote suppressors praised the work of a public servant who had devoted his career to securing voting rights in America. Cop enablers praised a man who was nearly killed by a state troopers truncheon on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965.The hypocrisy was too much to bear.

Below are a few of the worst offenders.

The praise: McConnell on Saturday called Lewis a pioneering civil rights leader who put his life on the line to fight racism, promote equal rights, and bring our nation into greater alignment with its founding principles.

Why thats so rich: The GOP leader is blocking action on voting rights legislation that Lewis championed, including a bill to restore keyprotections for voters that the Supreme Court removed in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling. Shelby County is in Alabama, the state where state troopers fractured Lewis skull in 1963 as he marched against poll taxes and other methods used to stop Black Americans from voting. As it was during the civil rights movement, the Senate is no ally to the cause; its the thing to overcome.

The praise: On Friday night, Loeffler, a Republican appointed to a Senate seat in Lewis home state of Georgia, tweeted about Lewis: Few people have his grit, tenacity or courage. Georgia & our entire nation are better because of his leadership & courage.

Why thats so rich: One way Lewis showed grit was by appearing last month with DC Mayor Muriel Bowser at the newly named Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. Battling cancer, Lewis, in some of his last public remarks, celebrated the Black Lives Matter movement and praised recent demonstrations.

Loeffler, meanwhile, has capitalized on her ownership of a WNBA team in Atlanta, Lewis hometown, to push the league to stop its players from putting Black Lives Matter and Say Her Name slogans on their uniforms. We need lessnot more politics in sports, Loeffler wrote in a letter to the leagues commissioner. In a time when polarizing politics is as divisive as ever, sports has the power to be a unifying antidote.

The praise: In a statement on Saturday, Kemp called Lewis a Civil Rights hero, freedom fighter, devoted public servant, and beloved Georgian who changed our world in a profound way.

The praise: Rubio on Saturday tweeted a picture of himself with a person he apparently thought was John Lewis. It was actually the late Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Rubio, undaunted, corrected the error, displaying a picture of himself with the correct deceased Black guy and the words: John Lewis was a genuine American hero.

Why thats so rich: Rubio in the past hasnt much cared about voters waiting in line for hours to vote, a problem that tends to occur in heavily Black and Democratic areas in Republican-run states. Asked in 2016 by a voter about six-hour lines to vote in Miami, Rubio responded: That is only on Election Day.

The praise: The libertarian Cato Institute on Saturday tweeted a January article by one its scholar headlined John Lewis, Libertarian Hero. The article says that the right to vote, which Lewis championed, is a libertarian cause, which, yeah, OK, sure.

Why thats so rich: In 2013, Cato supported Shelby Countys successful bid to gut the Voting Rights Act.

Continued here:
They praise John Lewis but hate Black voting rights and Black Lives Matter. - Mother Jones

After Emmanuel Macron announced that masks must soon be worn in all enclosed spaces in France, speculation is mounting that Britain will inevitably follow suit.

But will lifelong libertarian Mr Johnson forced by the global pandemic to become uncharacteristically authoritarian really insist on such a draconian measure?While it is tempting to presume that the answer to that question will depend on the science, in reality to coin the Clintonesque catchphrase it's about the economy, stupid.

Although there is some emerging scientific evidenceto suggest that face coverings not only help stop transmission but also protect the wearer, the decision is being driven by fiscal, rather than health concerns.

As Matt Hancock admitted in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Government wants to "make shoppers feel even more confident about returning to the High Street".

Quoting Mike Cherry, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Health Secretary said: "Small businesses know that mandatory face coverings have a role to play in the nation's recovery, both physically and financially."

Read more from the original source:
Why Boris Johnson is having to sacrifice his libertarian values in the battle against coronavirus - Telegraph.co.uk

The State of Maryland is on the hook for $27,000 in legal fees to a national conservative organization that sued the state three years ago over voter registration rolls.

Its part of a settlement the state reached with the group Judicial Watch after a federal court earlier this year ordered the state to make all voter registration data available to the conservative organization.

Judicial Watch sued Maryland to obtain voter list data in 2017 after alleging that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who were eligible to register. It was part of the conservative groups nationwide campaign to clean up voter rolls.

In August 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen L. Hollander ordered the State Board of Elections to produce the Montgomery County voter data, concluding that Maryland election law is an obstacle to the intent of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Following the court ruling, state elections officials initially provided Judicial Watch with a list of registered voters but one that did not include their dates of birth. On April 17, the court ordered the state to produce the registration list with every voters date of birth.

Maryland politicians fought us tooth and nail to keep Judicial Watch from uncovering the full truth about their dirty election rolls, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in April following the federal court ruling. This latest court victory will allow Judicial Watch to ensure Maryland and Montgomery County are removing voters who have moved or died long ago.

The Maryland Board of Public Works is set to vote Wednesday to confirm the $27,000 settlement payment to Judicial Watch.

At the same meeting, the BPW is scheduled to vote on a proposed $35,600 payment to reimburse attorneys for the Maryland Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Maryland for ballot access litigation against the state.

The third parties sued the state in May to reduce the signature requirement to appear on the November ballot. They argued that the states stay-at-home order and social distancing guidelines since the outbreak of COVID-19 made it impossible for them to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The Greens and Libertarians reached a settlement with the state a month ago cutting in half the petition signature requirement for gaining ballot access for the November general election.

As part of the settlement, the Green Party and its law firm are in line for a $25,000 payment from the state, while the Libertarians and the Center for Competitive Democracy, a national ballot access organizational, will split $10,600.

In a related development, Amber Ivey, an unaffiliated candidate for Congress in the 7th District, announced Monday that she had reached an agreement with state elections officials that would cut her signature requirement for ballot access in half. Initially, the State Board of Elections had said the state ballot access settlement with the Green and Libertarian parties would not apply to independent candidates, but Ivey sued.

I believe that every person has the right to ballot access, she said in a statement. COVID-19 restrictions have made it especially hard for candidates to collect signatures, which interferes with their constitutional right to seek to be on the ballot.

[emailprotected]

See the original post:
Md. on the Hook for $27K in Legal Fees to Conservative Group - Josh Kurtz

BARNEGAT, NJ: New Jerseys 3rd Congressional District Independent Candidate Martin Weber is vowing to preserve the spirit and legality of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment needs to be defended for the law-abiding citizens, says Weber. When you look at many gun owners here in the 3rd District, you see people who are hunters and those who use them for sport and recreation.

The candidate does recognize the calls by advocates to ensure there are reasonable regulations and background checks. I firmly believe that if you want to own a gun, you should be trained, certified, and registered, states Weber as he is calling for creating a program that has individuals complete a one-time certification course in which they learn how to properly handle and maintain their firearm. You have people out there who buy a gun and injure themselves (sometimes fatally) while trying to clean it, cites Weber. There is a role for groups like the NRA (National Rifle Association) and even retired military and law enforcement personnel to properly train gun ownersit is all about safety.

Our newsletter delivers the local news that you can trust.

Weber, 56, is the owner of YoBuck Landscaping Company in Barnegat and sits on the Zoning Board in town. He is a U.S. Army Veteran and former Captain of the Barnegat Volunteer First Aid Squad.

Weber will be speaking at a Second Amendment Rally that is being organized by 2nd District Libertarian Candidate Jesse Ehrnstrom. Others scheduled to speak include Second Amendment advocate Anthony Colandro, and 4th District Libertarian Candidate Michael Rufo. The Second Amendment Rally will take place on August 22nd, at 290 Route 72 in Barnegat from 11 AM to 4 PM.

Press inquiries can be directed to the campaign at press@martinweberforcongress.com For more information about the campaign, please visit our Website at martinweberforcongress.com or on Facebook at Martin Weber for Congress.

Read the original here:
Weber Reaffirms Commitment to Preserving 2nd Amendment Rights - TAPinto.net

* Illinois Public Radio

Rapper Kanye West was among those submitting petitions for the fall ballot Illinois on the final day for independent and third party candidates to file.

West said he is running for president. But he has missed the deadline to file in several states. While he was on time in Illinois, filing does not guarantee a spot on the ballot. Pettitions can be challenged for the number of signatures and their vailidity. West did not have a vice presidential candidate file with him. []

A judge eased signature requirements for third parties this year due to the COVID-19 outbreak. That made it much easier for the Libertarian candidates running for the legislature to get on the ballot. Steve Suess, the partys state chairman, said that should send a message to the two major parties. []

More than 10 Libertarians are running either for a legislative or a congressional seat in Illinois, along with the offices of President and U-S Senate. The Green Party also has several running for state legislative posts.

You can see all the newly filed candidates by clicking here.

* Fox News

Four minutes before the Illinois State Board of Elections 5 p.m. CT deadline, two [West] representatives filed 412 petition sheets with election officials, a spokesperson confirmed to Fox News.

Election officials will be counting those signatures of registered Illinois voters, of which he was supposed to have had at least 2,500 to get on the ballot. Petition sheets usually contain 10 names per sheet.

They contain 10 lines per sheet. Those lines arent always filled with valid names or any names, for that matter. We shall see.

Adding This was an obvious rush job and they may not survive a challenge

* Bernie

In a central Illinois race, Angel Sides, who got less than 5 percent of the vote in a five-way, 2018 Democratic primary for the U.S. House from the 13th Congressional District, filed as a Green Party candidate in the 87th House District, where state Rep. Tim Butler, R-Springfield, has been unopposed.

In the 96th House District, John Keating II of Springfield filed as a Green Party candidate. Hes taking on Democratic state Rep. Sue Scherer and Republican Charlie McGorray, both of Decatur.

In the 100th District, where Democrat Brandon Adams of Jacksonville already was taking on Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Jacksonville, two candidates filed Monday: Thomas Kuna of Kane, in Greene County, on the Bullmoose party; and Ralph Sides under the banner of the Pro-Gun Pro-Life party.

More:
Your Illinois News Radar Longshot day at the ISBE - The Capitol Fax Blog

Commentary: A fundamental assumption underlying libertarianism is the persons sovereignty over their own physical bodies. This idea is the foundation of the right to private property, which is ownership over the product of ones physical body.

Personal sovereignty also provides the fundamental logic to the adage, Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, or to rephase in a way more relevant to the time of COVID, Your right to spiel virus ends at my nasal cavity. For libertarians and libertarian fellow travelers, like me, these are always the hardest questions, how to reconcile conflicting rights. Where does the right to swing end and the nose begin? It is a hard question, not easily answered.

For those who simplistically state that it is their American right not to wear a mask, they are wrong because the right they claim conflicts with others right to go into public without being coated in virus laden spital. Among the fundamental functions of government according to libertarians is the adjudication of conflicting rights. For government to decide that the balance falls on requiring masks in public is not in conflict with basic American liberties. For government to decide the opposite also is not conflict. Balancing competing rights is a basic element of politics.

One idea would be to abandon a pure libertarian approach to bring in utilitarian considerations. Utilitarianism is the school of thoughts that argues for the application of cost benefit analysis in determining the best policy to pursue.

In the case of masks, the utilitarian would compare the cost or harm imposed on the wearer to the benefit accruing to others. For example, one economic study found that mandatory mask laws reduced transmission rates by 10%, which would have reduced cumulative deaths in the United States by 40% through the end of May, about 40,000 lives.

The EPA uses $7.4 million as the value of a statistical life, meaning saving one life on average is expected to add $7.4 million in economic output. If wearing masks saves 40,000 lives, that translates into an expected savings of $296 billion. A disposable face mask costs about 40-cents, so giving every American one mask a day for 90 days costs about $12 billion. The net monetary benefit from wearing masks is about $284 billion, or $811 per person for the three months ending May 31.

Of course, the above calculation does not take account of human suffering. The suffering of the millions who have contracted COVID, as well as the suffering of their loved ones, must be weighed against the discomfort felt by reluctant mask wearers. I think it obvious were the balance falls.

That is not to say that reluctant mask wearers dont have a point. They are being asked to sacrifice their comfort and incur what they perceive to be an indignity for the benefit of others. This when the science, while becoming more certain, is still evolving.

Here Libertarian ideals can come to the rescue. The solution is to compensate mask wearers for giving up their property right, which is the joy of going maskless. Exactly how this would be done isnt completely clear, maybe with a tax write-off. A simpler and more effective payment might well be to say thank you to those around you wearing a mask, for their considerate behavior and kind concern for their follow Las Crucens health.

Christopher A. Erickson, Ph.D., is a professor of economics at NMSU. He considers himself to be a commonsense libertarian, meaning that he defaults to libertarian solutions, except when those solutions dont work. The opinions expressed may not be shared by the regents and administration of NMSU. Chris can be reached at chrerick@nmsu.edu.

Read the original here:
Those who claim wearing masks to be un-American haven't thought through the problem - KRWG