Category Archives: Libertarian

I recently found myself in a conversation with a libertarian journalist who was visiting Vienna. Should we be surprised that Austria decided to lock down the unvaccinated and that the government is pushing for mandatory vaccination? he bellowed at me. Was it not the Austrians and the Germans who were first to lock down their minorities in the 1930s? Its the kind of mind-blowing exaggeration that is so typical these days of vaccine skeptics and the anti-lockdown right.

The specter of fascism is never far away in European politics, and accusing your enemies of being the heirs to Hitler has been popular since the end of World War II. But something truly surreal is underway: Traditionally, it was the parties of the far right, some of them with roots in the Nazi past, that were accused of fascist tendencies. Now they are the accusers. Ive even heard some vaccine skeptics and anti-lockdown activists call for a Nuremberg trial for anyone who advocates mandatory vaccination.

Will these attempts to impugn the overweening state and accuse mainstream politicians of medical fascism work? Maybe. A recent survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations indicates that although most West Europeans support the restrictive policies their governments have put in place to fight the coronavirus, many also have mixed feelings. Almost half of Austrians and Germans, the poll found, experience the Covid pandemic as a loss of freedom. Populists are eager to weaponize this.

For the moment, they are failing. Recent elections in Germany, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria indicate that voters are less ready to follow populist leaders than they were just a few years ago. A YouGov-Cambridge Globalism study found in November that populist beliefs had broadly declined in 10 European countries over the past three years but that at the same time, conspiratorial beliefs are on the rise. I worry that the longer the pandemic restrictions continue and the harsher the economic effects are felt, the more likely populists arguments will resonate with the public.

The populist right has in recent months undergone an identity shift. It used to be that these parties claimed, with their positions on immigration and cultural change, to speak for the people, a silent majority. That doesnt work anymore. Austrias Freedom Party, for example, has adopted a hard-line anti-vaccination stance. But holding this position means that it can no longer claim to be the champion of the majority; most Austrians have chosen to get vaccinated. At least in Western Europe, the vaccinated are the majority. Not surprisingly, when populists are in power as they are in Hungary and Poland they adopt vaccine and lockdown policies similar to those introduced by mainstream parties elsewhere.

Populist parties now claim to speak on behalf of a persecuted minority of nonconformists and are repositioning themselves as champions of liberty and individual rights. This may sound familiar to many Americans: They are the same positions held by the American right, even when it is in power. Its now clear that the coronavirus crisis has contributed to the internationalization of the populist right.

This gambit to define freedom as heroic resistance to the interventionist state will likely falter in Europes aging societies, where many worry about the virus. But by opposing pandemic restrictions, these political players will have a better chance of attracting support from members of younger generations who are more likely than their parents to blame their loss of freedom on government policies than on the spread of a deadly virus.

For the young, the pandemic is associated far less with loss of life than with the destruction of their way of life. The European Council on Foreign Relations survey shows that they suspect that they have been turned into invisible victims of their governments risk aversion. It was indicative that in the Freedom Party-backed anti-vaxxer rallies in Vienna, anarchists and other leftists historically much more the territory of the young marched side by side with those who were their archenemies just yesterday.

What does this mean for mainstream politics? In the short term, the situation looks good: The parties of the center have benefited by meeting the majority of peoples expectations for precaution and protection. But by endorsing what increasingly seem like never-ending lockdowns and mandatory vaccination, European governments risk misreading a changing public sentiment.

In this context, the Omicron variant presents a major political risk. It requires a decisive response to prevent severe strains on health care systems, but at the same time, by adopting policies of maximum precaution that were the right approach at the beginning of the pandemic but are more questionable today, governments risk falling into a trap of their own making. The big state is back in a big way but trust in the big state is not.

Europes mainstream political parties are now wagering their legitimacy on their ability to beat back the pandemic. Its a dangerous gamble. Asking people to get vaccinated is good public policy, but it does not guarantee that no one will be infected or that nobody will die. Governments can reduce the risks, but they cannot eliminate them. The paradox is that the higher the percentage of vaccinated people in a society, the less likely it will be to support lockdowns and other restrictive policies. After two years of life marked by a shortage of space made up for by a surplus of time, as the poet Joseph Brodsky once described a prisoners existence, people are tired of being afraid. They expect schools to be open and life to return to something like normality.

The arrival of Omicron makes it clear that the pandemic is not yet over. But many people are already living as if the postpandemic world had arrived. In a moment like this, setting reasonable expectations is probably the best anti-populist policy any government can adopt. We cannot hope to defeat the pandemic; we will have to learn to live with it.

Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies, a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and the author, most recently, of Is It Tomorrow Yet? Paradoxes of the Pandemic.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

More:

Opinion | From the Silent Majority to the Unvaxxed Minority - The New York Times

Prime minister Boris Johnson no hiding place.Tommy London/Alamy Live News

Nobody predicted this scenario prime minister Boris Johnson held at bay by a key section of his own party, able to make decisions only with the aid of the Labour opposition. His Tory opponents may have mustered a hundred votes in the Commons, but all the signs are that a significant number of others nearly joined them. They are the Covid sceptics. And they have now been joined by Lord Frost, who has been crucial to Johnsons Brexit strategy.

What is surprising is that the philosophy that has caused this rebellion is libertarianism, the desire for the State to have as little role as possible in the affairs of its citizens even in the midst of a raging pandemic.

The majority of the public quite like firm guidance and clear rules, and are out of step with this brand of Toryism. One might have expected a rebellion over government incompetence, which is widely disapproved of, and one is overdue concerning the Prime Ministers personal integrity, in which almost nobody has much faith.

But individual liberty? Not having to produce a so-called Covid passport before entering a night-club? Being required to wear a mask when travelling on public transport? Insisting that healthcare workers in day-to-day contact with frail and vulnerable patients should be vaccinated?

These are all measures which enjoy substantial support among the population at large, so Labour is well aligned with public opinion. So for the time being is the Johnson government, though muttering against him is growing louder from within its own ranks.The SpectatorandDaily Telegraphhave taken up the libertarian hue and cry, but not so far theDaily Mail, which has been a thorn in the side of many Tory governments in the past. But there is a libertarian momentum here, a sharp wind blowing across the political prairie, which is novel and unusual. It even links arms with the anti-vaxxer movement, the vociferous and sometimes violent campaign that takes distrust of science and politicians to its conspiratorial extreme. Its supporters do not wear masks. Some of them even believe the very existence of the Covid pandemic is fake news.

The North Shropshire by-election, a hitherto safe seat lost by a substantial margin, showed a massive volume of grass-roots Tory dismay with the Government. But heres the puzzle. Rural Tories are not by and large libertarians. They represent the land-and-property part of the Tory coalition, not the free-market entrepreneurial part. Their farmers and shop keepers do not warm to the idea of importing chlorinated chickens or hormone-fattened beef from America. They supported Brexit not because they wanted free markets and deregulation, but because they objected to to the idea of foreigners having any say in the government of Britain. At a push they are more for protection than for free trade.

What fuelled the anti-Tory votes in Shropshire were those other two sticks to beat the Government with, competence and integrity. They do not want the State demolished in the name of freedom. Many of them do very well out of it. They want good government. They want politicians who behave themselves properly.

So Boris Johnson has to fight a war on many fronts, which would challenge the skill of a genius or a saint, of which he is neither. Leaving aside for a moment the strange phenomenon of Tory Covid scepticism, there is an impression in the country that his lack of moral principle in his own life has set the tone for many in Government. I have noted in this space before that one of his biographers, Andrew Gimson, quoted a letter Johnson's housemaster at Eton had written to his parents, observations which seem as relevant today, I remarked two years ago, as the day they were made.

Boris sometimes seem affronted, he wrote, when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility... I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligations which bind everyone else. That still hits the nail. The ethical tone of an institution is set at the head. People learn to imitate their bosses. If they think that 10 Downing Street itself is pretty relaxed about following the rules, those in other parts of the Government and Tory party machine will feel the same. They feel they have been given tacit permission.

And so at the end of last year in various parts of the Whitehall and Westminster village, people assembled to flirt, eat cheese and other nibbles, drink wine and make a lot of noise, and perhaps enjoy a Christmas quiz together. OK as long as the rest of the public didnt know about it, they thought. The most devastating poster produced during the North Shropshire by-election campaign showed a group of well-known smiling Tory faces, with the unsubtle but totally deserved caption: Theyre laughing at you. Taking the conservative voters of rural England for mugs is about as toxic an insult as British politics has ever seen. These voters are not just disillusioned. They are hurt and angry.

Things can only get worse for Boris. The official science-based advice the government is receiving all points to further restrictions on personal liberty, and the sooner the better. If Johnson has lost control of his Party, he can only proceed to do what the scientists recommend if Labour backs him. That is a power shift of terminal proportions, for Labour can pull the rug out from under him whenever it likes.

Yet in this very confusing and paradoxical situation, one irony stands out. Johnson is, by temperament as the Eton school master pointed out, the very model of a modern libertarian. Some might even call him a libertine, a swordsman cavalier among cavaliers. He would be happier leading the rebels than resisting them. But he has hitched his star to the scientific advice, and has little choice but to follow it. If they say a surge in the prevalence of the Omicron Covid variant requires an end to family gatherings this holiday season another lockdown by any other name that is what he has to do. Whether his Tory opponents will ever forgive him is another question. So is the question of how long he can bear it.

Read this article:

The paradox of libertarian Boris following the 'star of science' - The Tablet

What will it take for voters to finally tire of rule by the Conservative Party? This is a question that has vexed many of us during the past decade. Things have frequently seemed hopeless. As recently as two years ago the press was awash with confident predictions of a further decade of Conservative rule.

Yet suddenly it feels as if the Conservative Party has run out of steam. Much as during the dog days of the Conservative governments of the 1990s, scandals are emerging thick and fast. There was the Owen Paterson corruption affair. The Christmas gatherings at Downing Street at the height of lockdown. The North Shropshire by-election. The only thing missing is a good sex scandal.

As a government, you must know youre in trouble when you become the butt of jokes on anodyne television entertainment shows such as Im a Celebrity. Or when youre booed by darts fans hardly a demographic that can be denounced by the rights culture warriors as the woke elite.

Boris Johnsons ideological flexibility has been one of his political strengths up to now. Indeed, the Prime Minister won a thumping victory in 2019 by winning over parts of the country that were long assumed to be Labour fiefdoms. Johnsons levelling-up agenda recognised that many people in the UK do not want the state off their backs, as Thatcherite backbenchers such as Steve Baker would have us believe. This was especially true in Britains former industrial areas, places that have for decades been benighted by deprivation and a gnawing lack of opportunity.

Yet many of Johnsons backbenchers are decidedly uncomfortable with the Tory partys new electoral base. Or at least, they recoil from the ideological adaptability required to sustain it. They may have climbed into power in 2019 on the back of a manifesto that promised to create a fair society and ensure that work will always pay; yet the ideological flavour of their politics is libertarian: a creed that has even less support in the UK than the far left. And now that Johnsons ability to win elections is losing its shine a slew of polls have given Labour its biggest lead over the Tories since the last hurrah of the New Labour era these backbenchers are growing restless.

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak is arguably the favourite to succeed Johnson, should the latter be deposed. The Chancellor has had an easy ride up to now because he possesses the superficial qualities that impress many members of Britains media class. He is Dishy Rishi, the countrys Dr Feelgood who artfully steered the economic ship through the darkest days of the pandemic. He is an adept television performer who knows how to drop a catchy soundbite. And if nothing else, his ascent to the top job would provide a slicker antidote to the bumbling performances offered by Johnson.

Most importantly of all, he is ideologically in tune with the Tory partys libertarian backbenchers. Feted by sections of the media for the economic largesse he bestowed on furloughed workers during lockdown, Sunak is in actuality an economic liberal who, when left to his own devices, has made the wrong call at almost every turn during the pandemic. Indeed, it was Sunaks 500m Eat Out to Help Out scheme that drove infections prior to last winters catastrophic second Covid wave. It was also Sunak who invited lockdown-sceptic scientists to persuade the Prime Minister to delay the decision to introduce another lockdown a move that cost thousands of lives. More recently, Sunak has been chafing at the cost of the UKs vaccine booster roll-out.

Sunak is an economic liberal who is being touted as the next Tory leader at a time when, all around the world, the flavour of economics that he represents is being hammered at the ballot box. In Britain, neoliberalisms pseudo-meritocratic promise was undone, in part, by the grotesque concentrations of wealth it generated. The last four decades have seen market dogma given a free hand in the UK but who today can argue that material success is a product of hard work, when owning a home depends as much on inheritance as hours worked?

In order to take Johnsons libertarian rivals seriously, one must also be wilfully blind to the manner in which the British people and what the Tory back-bench MP Joy Morrissey last week derided as a public health socialist state have comported themselves during the pandemic. The NHS vaccine roll-out, public support for protecting the elderly and vulnerable during lockdown, the widespread appreciation shown towards hard-pressed healthcare workers all encapsulate values that are starkly at odds with the corruption, the grift and the arrogant and repeated violation of the rules by a government which had imposed those same rules on everyone else (not to mention attempts by backbenchers to generate a phoney culture war over masks and vaccination).

Electoral success is built on compromise; yet the hubris it generates often prompts a retreat to ones ideological comfort zone. Which of course requires a degree of historical amnesia about how you won in the first place.

Historical amnesia is precisely what is required to view Sunak as the potential saviour of the Tory partys wobbling electoral prospects. The reek of Tory sleaze is once again in the air. But going back to the future to the failed doctrines that have produced so much political upheaval in recent years wont save the party.

[See also: Boris Johnson is finally out of luck]

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. From the archive A weekly dig into the New Statesmans archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Visit link:

Tory libertarians want to govern a Britain that does not exist - The New Statesman

The once fringe notion that political candidates would receive campaign donations via Bitcoin or other virtual cryptocurrencies is entering the mainstream.

Kissimmee Democratic U.S. Rep. Darren Soto, as much a centrist Democrat as might be found in Florida but one whose interest in blockchain technologies runs deep is welcoming crypto donations to his 2022 election campaign.

He joins a list that started with extreme candidates mostly from the right wing, such as Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer of Lake Worth, along with Libertarians, and some techies, such as Democrat Andrew Yang of New York and Matt West of Oregon.

Sotos interest rises from his position as a co-chair of the Congressional Blockchain Caucus, a bipartisan group promoting blockchain technologies that led to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Another co-chair of that caucus, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, also is accepting Bitcoin campaign donations.

Soto said the caucus values welcoming new types of currencies.

In addition, for Future Forum (another congressional caucus that Soto chairs), this is an interesting new financial asset for young people. In fact, 45% of those using cryptocurrencies are millennial, and 13% are Gen Z, Soto added.

Its also about being competitive in the future. As these young people are getting older and they are contributing more, we want to make sure were well positioned, he said of his re-election campaign in Floridas 9th Congressional District, covering Osceola County, southern Orange County and eastern Polk County.

More campaigns are trying it out, including Democratic U.S. Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Ritchie Torres of New York, Republican U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Its kind of gathering momentum in terms of the number of candidates. It used to sort of be this symbol of Libertarian ideology, or sort of just a fringe stance. But I think as the general public has become more knowledgeable and familiar with cryptocurrencies, so have campaigns, observed Austin Graham, legal counsel for Campaign Legal Center, a national, non-partisan elections watchdog.

That being said, Graham said, Its still not like every candidate for federal office is now taking Bitcoin.

The legality of cryptocurrency contributions to federal political campaigns is generally accepted. But it is not fully resolved by the Federal Election Commission, particularly regarding the details. There have been no Commission hearings or votes, just a single advisory opinion, answering a single question.

As the practice emerges, so do concerns raised by election watchdogs including Campaign Legal Center. They worry the whole point of cryptocurrencies anonymity at least undercuts one of the cornerstone values of campaign finance laws: transparency of who is donating. They also worry the fluctuating value of cryptocurrencies could complicate campaigns compliance with strict contribution limits.

In 2014, the FEC offered an advisory opinion to a political action committee saying the PAC could receive Bitcoin donations, provided it carefully documented who contributed, quickly converted the cryptocurrencies into dollars to set the value, and follow all other rules on donations.

That was it.

The FEC has not clarified yet whether that advisory opinion would also apply to candidates campaigns; whether donations to candidates should be limited to $100 like cash, or to $5,600 like checks; or whether the policy could be extended to other cryptocurrencies, which werent around much in 2014 but are flourishing now.

Starting with Paul and a couple of others in 2016, some federal candidates decided to read broad interpretations into the 2014 FEC advisory opinion, including that it could be extended to candidates fundraising, and that donations could be for the maximum $2,800 for a Primary and another $2,800 for a General Election.

In the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, crypto donation options remained a novelty, pursued by what some observers called the fringes of politics. Now, as many as 25 federal candidates and groups, including Soto, have opened their campaign coffers to cryptocurrencies, Business Insider reported last month.

Soto has received at least one Bitcoin donation, from an individual in California, in late July. That was for 0.070053 Bitcoins, which, when the campaign converted it and accepted it, was reported as worth $2,800. Last Friday, that much Bitcoin would have been worth $3,298 at the most recent exchange price, according to Coindesk.com.

Soto said it will take a while for crypto campaign donations to catch on, as a lot of people still have a lot to learn about cryptocurrencies.

Its a new technology and we have to combat a lot of ignorance. Overall we havent received a lot of cryptocurrency donations yet, though we hope to, Soto said. I would say its more just aiming for the future.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, techie Democrat Brian Fordeof California raised nearly half a million dollars of Bitcoin for his unsuccessful bid for a congressional seat in 2018.

Tracking Bitcoin contributions to campaigns is not easy. The FEC wants them listed as in-kind contributions. Information indicating that a transaction involved Bitcoin shows up only in footnotes in campaign finance reports.

The transparency question arises in the context of identifying the contributors to a political campaign. Bitcoin is designed to be anonymous, with accounts identified only by Bitcoin addresses and user pseudonyms. This differs from contributions through tools from banking institutions like checking accounts and credit cards, which are highly regulated and require that individuals of those accounts be identifiable, said Pete Quist, deputy research director for the nonpartisan watchdog group OpenSecrets.

Campaign treasurers are required to identify the donors, report the names, and confirm the contributions. But verifications of Bitcoin transactions cannot be confirmed through regulated financial institutions as with checks or credit cards, Quist noted.

That opens the prospect of ghost donors, a growing concern in an era of fears of foreign interference from countries such as Russia. The original source of the money may not be trackable.

Its not totally perfect, just because the underlying technology requires campaigns to take on an extra layer of trust, Graham said.

Soto defended the transparency, noting the donor still must be identified.

As it is, the FECs advisory opinion makes acceptance of cryptocurrencies complicated. Campaigns have to set up a separate system to gather donor information. They have to convert the currency to dollars. And if that results in too much money because of the current exchange rate, they have to refund the difference.

They need to comply in these transactions like any other contribution. The persons name, address, occupation needs to be on there. Its converted from cryptocurrency to dollars at the moment of the contribution, so theres no doubt about the value about that. So I think those are two important rules, Soto said. They have been approved by the FEC. I have obviously a compliance firm that helps run my campaign finance issues. There are other members, obviously, who have received cryptocurrency.

At the state level, many states are deferring to the FEC advisory, others are not taking stances, while still others are making their own rules. Tennessee passed a law legalizing Bitcoin donations, and laying out rules for them. California has prohibited Bitcoin donations in state and local campaigns.

I thought that was interesting because, you know, Silicon Valley and the image of California at the forefront of tech issues, Graham said. But their elections agency said, This is just too complicated, and there are too many opportunities for circumvention of transparency rules, and were just going to say its not allowed at this point.'

Post Views:429

Excerpt from:

Darren Soto paving the way for Bitcoin donations to campaigns - Florida Politics

To the editor: The time has come to abandon the term pandemic. We are numb to its utterance, and it fails to strike dread into our souls as once it did. I suggest another word: war. (Biden prepares military medics and hospital supplies as Omicron wave hits U.S., Dec. 20)

Our country is at war, and we are approaching 1 million killed. During times of war, the country mobilizes its resources, both human and material, to fight. This time, the foe is a microscopic particle that continues to endanger us all.

In the past, Americans have accepted the risk to their lives and well-being to fight the enemy. Young men and women put themselves in harms way to protect America. Unfortunately, times have changed.

A significant portion of our society sees no danger to the U.S. from this war. A significant portion of our society declines to take up a weapon (vaccination) out of the unfounded and unsubstantiated fear that it poses a serious risk to them, whereas 80 years ago their grandparents and great-grandparents did not hesitate to do so.

Its war, folks, and America needs you.

Dr. Bruce Littman, Porter Ranch

..

To the editor: Politicization of a pandemic is absurd, harmful and ugly. Cultural narcissism seems to have no bounds, especially in the guise of politics.

My view is simple and, at its base, libertarian: Exert all your freedoms to the limit, but not at the expense of harming others.

Anti-vaxxers have the right to be committed to principles that cant stand the light of reasonable dialogue, but not at the expense of harming others.

Anti-vaxxers become hosts for mutations of this scourge. Anti-vaxxers dilute herd immunity. Anti-vaxxers, when they need hospitalization, cost upward of $30,000 per day of treatment, much of which is covered by insurance or taxpayers.

Why would someone so principled as to hold an unpopular anti-vaxxer position be willing to have others pick up the tab for their care when they become sick? If you are so foolish, or somehow enlightened in ways most of us cannot understand, as to risk being an anti-vaxxer, you should agree to pay for your treatment should you become sick.

Richard A. Nyberg, Newport Beach

..

To the editor: So this is how the world ends not with a bang or a whimper, but a sneeze.

Don Powelson, Eagle Rock

Go here to read the rest:

In the war against Omicron, anti-vaxxers are deserters - Los Angeles Times

As this Congressional session comes to an end, many people have been disappointed by the lack of action on important legislation. One of those is cannabis. Going forward, pro-cannabis legislators ultimately have choices to make. If comprehensive cannabis legislation is dead in this Congressand it isis any alternative palatable? Is the status quo of prohibition preferable to holding out hope for broad-based legislation at a later date?

As Democrats took control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2021, hopes were up. Many legalization supporters believed the time had arrived to advance this issue to the finish line. However, one year into the new Congress, reality should have finally set in: the math is still not favorable in Congress to pass comprehensive cannabis legalization and an alternative is likely necessary.

The reality that is holding Congress back from passing federal cannabis legalization is a simple one that often undermines complex, multi-faceted policy changes that have deep divisions within the legislative branch: there is not a sufficient coalition of House members and a filibuster-proof majority of senators who agree on comprehensive legalization. That result is often frustrating or bewildering for supporters of reform for two reasons. First, they look at national polling and see not just a majority, but a supermajority of Americans who support full-scale cannabis reform. Second, there are majorities of House and Senate members who would say yes to the basic question: Should cannabis be legalized nationally?

The latter, however, is the wrong question to ask. Often, in a legislative body, the issue is not whether a law should be reformed, but how that law should be reformed. And theres the rub for federal legalization legislation. Liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party cannot agree with moderate and libertarian Republicans on what cannabis reform should look like, even if majorities agree that the law should be changed. And as pro-cannabis reform members from both sides dig their heels in on the importance of provisions that are close to their heart (and the heart of their base), it makes assembling that coalition impossible.

Here are the fault lines

Liberal Democrats and especially the partys most progressive members are unwilling to support legislation that does not incorporate significant social equity and racial justice provisions into it. Their argument is a straightforward and convincing one: the War on Drugs was waged on the backs of Black Americans, Latinos, and indigenous populations, and reform should not proceed without a significant effort to right the wrongs of the past.

Moderate Republicans and libertarian members of the party see the issue from a market perspective. They believe government should get out of the way and let cannabis be treated as an agricultural commodity in which the business community and the free marketrather than government prohibitionshould prevail. (It should be noted that most pro-cannabis Democrats and Republicans do agree on some restorative justice such as pardons and record expungement for non-violent cannabis offenders.)

However, as legislation is drafted, any bill that does not include extensive provisions to advance social equity and racial justice is a non-starter for some key Democrats as well as within those communities hit hardest by the drug war. This situation played out most recently in efforts to include the SAFE Banking Act in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That effort to include an amendment to expand access to financial institutions for the cannabis industry ultimately failed in the Senate as senators like Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) preferred their own, comprehensive legislation. The stripping of SAFE Banking from the NDAA happened even as some in the cannabis advocacy community argued that SAFE Banking would help minority business owners in the industry.

When the SAFE Banking Act passed the House as a standalone bill in 2021, it garnered the votes of 106 Republicans, demonstrating that the GOP can deliver votes on cannabis legislation that makes it easier for markets and businesses to operate. However, months later, Sen. Booker announced his outright opposition to SAFE Banking if the comprehensive MORE Act or his (and Leader Schumers and Sen. Ron Wydens [D-Ore.]) Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act did not pass.

It is here that the division over cannabis reform is most obvious. While SAFE Banking garnered the votes of more than half of the House GOP Conference, the MORE Act (which passed the House in December 2020) received only five Republican votes. Since the legislation was reintroduced in the 117th Congress it has, to date, garnered only one Republican co-sponsor.

It is clear that as a legalization bill shifts away from a pro-business direction, the number of Republican supporters plummets. And while in a Democratic-controlled House, leadership can muster the votes to pass something like the MORE Act, the requirement to beat a filibuster in the Senate makes passage of more social equity and racial justice-oriented comprehensive legislation an impossibility. It is not clear if Democrats can even keep all 50 of their Democratic members in line for such a vote, and it is a certainty that they cannot attract the 10 or more Republicans necessary to clear the 60-vote hurdle. And more moderate legislation that could attract more Republicans will likely lose the more progressive members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Surely some progressives (perhaps rightly) worry that moderate legislation with the vague promise to do better for communities of color at a later date is likely an empty promisethose communities have lost that hand of poker on other issues in the past. At the same time, the status quo means there will be more cannabis arrests every year that disproportionately impact communities of color. Could something that offers a bit to both sides be possible? Perhaps combining federal decriminalization, seed funding for state level record expungement, a presidential promise to pardon past offenders at the bill signing, and SAFE Banking could be seen as a step in the right direction? Would piecemeal legislation under a Democratic Congress be better than rolling the dice in a (likely) Republican Congress in 2023, knowing the hostility of Republican leadership to legalization? The latter is the central question legalization advocates must ask themselves and answer.

Ultimately, cannabis reform supporters inside and outside of Congress need a reality check about the state of play of current cannabis reform proposals, and what additional complications the future may offer. Regardless of the chosen path forward, there will be naysayers, holdouts, resistance, and anger. There will be accusations of bloated government or not doing enough to reverse the effects of the drug war. That is standard for an interest group environment on a passionate issue in a deliberative body. However, in the end, Congress has a choice between doing nothing and letting prohibition win the day and allowing all of the consequences of that to remain. Or doing something short of perfect, that addresses some of the real harms that drug prohibition has created in this country.

Original post:

The numbers for drug reform in Congress dont add up - Brookings Institution

Axios on facebookAxios on twitterAxios on linkedinAxios on email

Data: Reason Foundation; Map: Thomas Oide/Axios

Colorado's highway system just can't catch a break.

What's happening: It ranked 37th in the nation for overall condition and cost-effectiveness, according to the latest annual report from the Reason Foundation, a libertarian organization.

Why it matters: Colorado lawmakers began pumping millions of dollars more into the state's transportation system in recent years, but not enough to make a dent in the rankings.

What they found: "Colorado ranks poorly, not because it is worst in any one category. Rather the state ranks middle to poor in most every category," the report found.

The other side: Colorado Department of Transportation officials took issue with the report's analysis of outdated pavement data from 2018 and 2019 that excludes recent improvements.

This story first appeared in the Axios Denver newsletter, designed to help readers get smarter, faster on the most consequential news unfolding in their own backyard. Subscribe here.

Support local journalism by becoming a member.

Learn more

No stories could be found

Get a free daily digest of the most important news in your backyard with Axios Denver.

Support local journalism by becoming a member.

Learn more

View original post here:

Colorado's highway system ranks poorly, but more cash is on the way - Axios

If I knew the fun in 2021 was going to be so short lived, I wouldnt have worn Uggs for most of the time. Luckily, according to Tik Tok, they are trending again (at least the ultra minis).

When top search terms for the year are insurrection, cicadas and vaccines -- its fair to feel exhausted as this wild year winds down. A year that kicked off with swelling hope vaccines! was quickly blunted on January 6th. And yet, as things went sideways politically, there were still moments of inspiration. Amanda Gormans poetry at the inauguration. Social progress. More female CEOs. The hope we had was so grand it almost crescendoed to the palpable roar of a Pandemaissance. But the universe had other plans and the emergence of variants meant that we couldnt exactly exhale, let alone fully celebrate. So for the rest of the year we wobbled between office openings, social engagements, hope, disappointment, loss and waiting on PCR tests. We buoyed ourselves with Ted Lasso, Lil Nas Xs Montero, debates about what is and isnt cheugy and any other cultural gem or aesthetic that might give us momentary lift. Our exhaustion and longing would come and go, even though we didnt fully have that same freedom. Adam Grant nailed this mood by attaching the word languishing to our collective experience.

But now as a new year presents itself, we too have a chance to present ourselves again and think about what reinvention looks like in a world that keeps changing its rules. Pantone is betting that Very Peri, a medium lavender shade, will launch us into 2022 with the creativity we need to meet this challenge. This color, Pantone explains, combines the tranquility of deep blue with the energy of red, offering us creative courage and imagination. But in this cool color there are a slew of other associations -- the irises Van Gogh painted while in a mental asylum, the color of the cocktail Nathan hands Issa Rae in her multiverse reality on season 5 of Insecure, and of course Elsas icy, ethereal wardrobe in Frozen 2. The thread? All of these lavendered references conjure emotional tension that must be worked out or better yet, worked through. And isnt that all of us? Bruised but ready to recover. Choosing to hold on versus just hang on. As we look to 2022, the road to emotional recovery wont always be easy but it will offer us some relief as we find inspiration in the unexpected and the mundane. The selfish and the selfless. The peculiar and the divine. With that, lets take a look at the trends and movements that will move us in the new year.

Gen X Flex: Lets start with some positive news. Gen X, the scorned middle child, saddled between Boomers and Millennials will be put on a cultural pedestal in 2022. Historically this generation, born between 1965-1979 has been depicted in an unflattering light, mainly as defined by other generations who have marked them as too fiercely independent or borderline antagonistic. But turns out receiving Ataris instead of trophies may have better equipped them for more time at home and a society that is going through an enduring disruption. On top of that Gen Z has thrust Gen X culture into the spotlight making every relic feel relevant again, from the Sopranos to Lilith Fair, platform shoes, Grunge Rock and even the Gap Khaki's swing craze. Research has shown time and time again that while Gen X may be the most stressed of generations they are also equipped to handle it best. Maybe listening to Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and the Breeders for all of those years helped create an emotional toughness that would have longevity. Though they can be perceived as aloof, Gen X has historically been tolerant of difference and has wisely sat out of the tedious micro culture wars between Gen Z and Millennials, because who cares where you part your hair. In the new year well see a Gen X Flex emerge as this underdog generation takes on the role of older statespeople, helping us all find new perspectives in the year to come.

New Blueprints: Over the past 18 months our society has been pressure tested like never before, and there are cracks in the system wherever we look--from family care to economic opportunity, social inequities to climate change. These fissures have catalyzed a great reprioritization, which has manifested into a great resignation. And now individuals and societies are creating new blueprints acknowledging the need for the revolutionary over the evolutionary. From conscious capitalism to B corp designations we are seeing the emergence of healthy organizations built around structures of wellness, sustainability, inclusion and equity--this new world is shifting power to employees, and forcing needed change for all of us. According to experts at Stanford University, and detailed in their new report The New Map of Life, theres no roadmap for the places we are going. Many children born today in the developing world will have the chance to live to 100. Well need to rethink models for life, work, and society that are not built on traditional timelines of marriage in the 20s and retirement in the 60s. The elongation of lives will create less mania in the middle for those juggling family, work, stress, and aging parents who have been asking the question: are we doing it wrong? In the new year and beyond, we will see conversations and shifts taking place around these issues: A commitment to lifelong education. Multiple careers in a lifetime. Concentrations of time spent with loved ones outside of parental leave. The widespread adoption of the four day work week. And well all be better off with these new foundations.

Speaking Outside the Box: Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, a reasonable amount of baggage has accumulated beside you. While many of us would like to check our bags, sometimes the best way to escape may be to catch a new train all together. In the new year, there will be noticeable momentum in this direction as political and cultural influentials dissociate from the right, left and center, with some even creating new spaces all together. These outside voices will challenge and provoke conversations in a variety of directions -- and there is a cultural appetite for it. Substack continues to gain steam, offering journalists a platform to create newsletters free from overly influential editors and advertisers. This model encourages writers to bring value over clickbait. Libertarian media is popping up in the mainstream with new spotlights on publications like Reason magazine (tagline: Free Minds and Free Markets). Reasons editor in chief, Katherine Mangu-Ward, is making rounds on national morning and late news shows by challenging the dominant political parties and their lack of flexibility. Adding to libertarian mojo, rising star Jane Coastan, just got a big podcast deal further growing her influence as she critiques both Democrats and Republicans. Fresh povs can also be found from linguist John McWhorter, former conservative Joe Scarborough who has denounced the Republican party, and of course New Yorks energetic new mayor, Eric Adams, known for bold ideas and even bolder soundbites. In the new year well hear hot takes that will veer away from predictable party lines, all in time to make the 2022 midterm elections more unpredictable.

: In a society that has endured so much, there is an understandable excitement around a new and next frontier. After all, thinking about the future has been proven to generate hope. Which brings us to all the buzz about the metaverse, even if most Americans arent sure what it is. Wired magazine defines the metaverse as connected technologies characterized by persistent virtual worlds that continue to exist even when you're not playing. This universe where value creation is fairly independent of the real world also includes bitcoin, NFTs and other trendy notions. Despite any confusion, these new markets are creating intrigue and opportunities for brands to reach exciting levels of engagement. WarnerMedias Wonder Woman: The Themyscira Experience has been visited nearly 30 million times on Roblox. Facebook plans to spend $10 billion to become a metaverse company. But its all fun and games when we are purchasing art, digital handbags and outfitting superheroes. But what happens when some of the more dystopian themes that we experience IRL move to a universe without moral code? Instagram has been linked to depression among teenagers. The U.S. Surgeon General recently issued a warning on the mental health crisis affecting teens as they straddle their lives on social media with the realities of the physical world. Weve seen misinformation flow freely across once trusted platforms like Facebook and consumers and brands boycotting the company accordingly. So in the new year the more we innovate in the metaverse, the more we will fuel a movement of the metADverse that is, major detractors who will challenge, question, and work to halt this very meta development.

Quirkouts: When culture fully embraced the phrase the Covid 19lbs to discuss the weight gain associated with quarantine life -- it marked a moment for much needed levity and perhaps a signal that we would see a shift in how we talk about weight and working out moving from self-serious to self-deprecating. During much of Covid many were forced to improvise fitness routines -- any time moving outside was considered a win. But even as gyms and fitness classes started to open again, there was a realization that we dont need to be warriors to ride an exercise bike or be part of a cult-like gym just to get fit. In 2022 expect to see this sentiment grow with the emergence of more quirkouts and a fitness and leisure world that will become increasingly strange. From the full adoption of work out dresses, to a rise in plogging a Swedish sport that combines jogging and picking up waste to pickleball courts popping up across the U.S. in parks, clubs, schools, mansions and parking lots. Pinterest is even noting the rise in search for activities like lazy workouts in bed. The best part of this movement? Departing from the serious tone of fitness will make exercise less intimidating for all kinds of people, ultimately making it even more effective. Plus no one has to commit their soul in order to play.

Joy & Rest Revolution: Since Arianna Huffington famously said women should sleep their way to the top, the notion of sleep has been a hot topic in culture, mainly around its wellness benefits and ability to unlock potential and cognitive ability. During the pandemic sleep and coziness remained top of mind resulting in soaring mattress sales and the golden age for PJ sets. But there is a sea change starting, an idea that positions rest and joy as an acknowledgement of human worth outside of productivity and output. This movement originated in the Black community among female voices advocating for rest among Black women as the ultimate act of resistance in a world that constantly burdens them. The conversation continues to expand as we see a number of feminists challenging the paradigm of women as super heroes, suggesting this narrative enables disproportionate stress and labor. Afterall, time bias proves womens time is valued less at home and at work resulting in a piling up of tasks that are undervalued, ultimately causing women to devalue their own time and worth. To combat this systemic issue Eve Rodsky, womens advocate and author, has just released Unicorn Space, a call for women to find time that isnt defined by work or who they care for, but instead time for retreat, wonder and creative pursuit not because its been earned but because it is a right of every human being.

Age of Innerlightenment: With nowhere to go for much of the past year and a half, many landed in their own heads. Time for big reflection meant time for big questioning and the chance to metabolize the individual and collective trauma weve all experienced. As we confront the future there is a new acknowledgement that although there are benefits to seeing bright spots in the dark, toxic positivity is actually detrimental to our psyches. In a recent article in The Atlantic, Scott Barry Kaufmann introduces another framing: tragic optimism or the ability to create meaning and connection by digesting negative experiences. This author references Austrian psychologist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl who first coined the term by discussing the growth that happens through both good and bad. But while past generations may have relied on faith as a tool to process, that is not no longer common among the majority of Americans. Today just 47% of adults belong to religious congregations compared to 70% in 1999. Luckily a crop of scholars have emerged helping us all find our way and its not self help or even self preservation its innerlightment. Brene Brown has garnered A-list attention with her calls for vulnerability and in her new book, Atlas of the Heart, identifies the 87 emotions that define the human experience while introducing frameworks that help us tell our stories and find our way to our truest selves. Priya Parker unpacks the origins of social gathering and the importance of group experience and social ritual, helping us understand the impact of a distanced world. Esther Perel discusses paradox in society today, a theory that proves two opposing ideas can both be true, inviting us to process what that means for our egos and relationships. This journey inward is enabling us to create stronger outward connections and a new social currency around emotional fluency. With this process comes a kind of peripheral vision that lets us see around corners and widens our lens to see others' fragility and strength along with our own. The magic of 2022 will not depend on any particular outcome, but instead it will live in the odd and joyous process of trial and error, experimentation, dialogue and the will to live with scar tissue.

Adrianna G. Bevilaqua is chief creative officer and MD at M Booth

Go here to see the original:

Emotional rescue. 7 trends for the new year - PR Week

By DAVID HAMPTONLos Alamos

Dear County Council,

In 2019, Council voted to use a LEDA Grant to give six lots of County-owned land to a developer to create a privately-owned convention center, cafe, and hotel under the Marriott brand at Trinity and 20th.

The contractual deadline for the developer to submit site plans for all aspects of the development is about to expire, and Council must decide how to handle this upcoming crossroads.

While we disagree on many issues, the undersigned members of the Republican Party of Los Alamos, theDemocratic Party of Los Alamos,and the Libertarian Party of Los Alamos oppose extending the contract between Los Alamos County and the developer of the land for the proposed Marriott convention center.

There has not been substantive progress toward the agreed upon goals in the original contract, and the small business environment in Los Alamos County has continued to deteriorate. We believe Council should revert the six lots of county land to what was originally intended: community capital investment to support owner-operated small business, similar to what is presently being pursued with Pet Pangea.

We believe that opportunities such as these are essential to retain successful businesses like those that have recently departed, such as Fleur de Lys.

We hope that this nonpartisan recommendation will encourage the current Council to choose to reclaim this land for its highest and best use: supporting community investment in locally-owned small businesses.

Thank you for your consideration:

Editors note: County Council Chair Randall Ryti replied to Hamptons letter as follows:

Mr. Hampton

On behalf of Council, I thank you and the signatories to this letter for your input on the question of extending the agreement for the 20th Street LEDA project.

Randall Ryti, County Council Chair

Original post:

Letter To The Editor: Request To County Council Concerning Property At 20th And Trinity - Los Alamos Daily Post

The hedge fund-owning son disagrees in the media with his father's tax policies.

A disagreement over taxing the rich between Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and his hedge fund-owning son, Adam, is going increasingly public.

The Senate Finance Committee chairman is a major advocate of increasing taxes on the wealthy while his Florida-based son has criticized such efforts on social media and news interviews. The New York Times posted a lengthy story about the dispute Friday, Dec. 10, and printed the article in its Sunday edition. The Hill, an online political news outlet, then reported on the article.

"Why does he hate us / the American dream so much?!?!?!?!" Adam Wyden tweeted last month. "Reality is: most legislators have never built anything so I guess it's easier to mindlessly and haphazardly try and tear stuff down."

Ron Wyden told the Times that he has avoided talking to his son about their disagreement.

"He doesn't talk to me about his business, and I don't talk to him about mine," he was quoted as saying.

Ron Wyden is a Democrat and his son describes himself as a libertarian.

The U.S. senator is pushing to add his proposal to tax billionaires' unrealized capital gains to the Build Back Better legislation that has passed the U.S. House and is now before the U.S. Senate. Democrats are hoping to pass the massive social and climate spending package as soon as possible, but are still negotiating details with holdout members.

Adam Wyden has said he will personally not be hurt by his father's proposal.

"Thankfully, I think I can compound faster than my dad and his cronies can confiscate it," he tweeted last month.

The younger Wyden continued to criticize his father and other lawmakers. The younger Wyden was asked about his tweets during a CNBC interview last month.

"It's clear to me that the people that are making these policy decisions have never experienced the up and downs of running a business," he said.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Visit link:

Wyden, son spar publicly over taxing the rich - Pamplin Media Group