Category Archives: Libertarian

How long has Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden been in the political game? Long enough to have been at the center of a smear campaign during the Senate confirmation hearings of the longest-serving member of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1991 showdown over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is mostly remembered today for the accusations of sexual misconduct leveled by Anita Hill. But the hearings actually kicked off with Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden trying to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

"I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety," Biden told Thomas shortly after the nominee's opening statement. "And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, 'I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would'not could, would'strike down laws restricting property rights.'"

"It has been quite some time since I have read Prof. Macedo," Thomas replied. "But I don't believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court."

Biden claimed that he didn't buy it. "Quite frankly, I find it hard to square your speeches," he told the nominee, "with what you are telling me today."

Thomas gave the speech in question at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco on August 10, 1987. It touched on a number of issues, including the views of Stephen Macedo, then an assistant professor in the government department at Harvard University and the author of The New Right v. the Constitution, a 1987 book published by the libertarian Cato Institute. The book made a case for "principled judicial activism."

Macedo's book was basically an extended critique of Robert Bork, the highly influential conservative legal thinker who championed a thoroughgoing doctrine of judicial deference. The "first principle" of the U.S. system, Bork insisted, was majority rule, not individual rights. What Bork's view meant in practice was that the federal courts should defer to lawmakers in most cases. "In wide areas of life," Bork argued, "majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities."

Macedo advanced the opposite view. "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers," he countered, "they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."

Which brings us back to Thomas. Here is his 1987 Macedo quote in full:

I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court, which would strike down laws restricting property rights. But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy. Hence, I strongly support the nomination of Bob Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork is no extremist of any kind. If anything, he is an extreme moderate, one who believes in the modesty of the Court's powers, with respect to the democratically elected branches of government.

So yes, Thomas said he found Macedo's arguments "attractive." But then Thomas immediately faulted Macedo and endorsed Bork, the very figure that Macedo was trying to bring down. In other words, Biden ripped Thomas' words out of context to give them the opposite meaning of what Thomas actually said.

The whole episode reflects poorly on Biden.

Visit link:

When Joe Biden Tried To Paint Clarence Thomas as a Crazy Libertarian - Reason

From Mark Glogowski, Ph.D., Libertarian candidate for NY State 139thAssembly District:

One of the most important issues I believe we face is the unconstitutional tyranny of our current taxation situation. Having an ally in your Assembly is crucial to correcting this. Being realistic, it will take time to unweave the tangled interrelations between government agencies and departments that have been created since the 16th Amendment was ratified, but it is doable. It will take time to get our obese government trimmed down to be lean and efficient, and with a lower appetite for taxes, but it is achievable.

There are several ways we can begin this process. The first is to get the state to operate within a balanced budget by cutting spending, not increasing taxes. We need a legislature that is aware of and pursues nongovernmental options when issues are being considered. A legislature that is willing to hear and apply Libertarian solutions, thus eliminating the need for the wealth of the people to support the governments involvement.

Here are just a few places and activities we could proactively begin:

Lets put a stop to government wasting your hard-earned money. If we are successful we will see more activity by private enterprise to help spur the economy and build a better community, such as the grant program set up by Heritage Wind.

All these barriers were placed by generations of Democrat and Republican politicians. You cannot employ the same thinking to change as was used to create this mess.

Support my efforts to become your NYS Assemblyman and I assure you, restructuring our financial (tax) structure, rescinding the 16thAmendment, and restoring financial barriers to taxing will be among my top objectives. As your Assemblyman, I will work to initiate a call to rescind the 16thAmendment and will seek the support of the Assemblies in 35 other States. I will work to give you back control over your wealth and possessions.

Vote Libertarian

Vote for Mark Glogowski for Assembly, District 139

Read more about my positions on other important issues at: http://www.glogowskiforassembly.com

See the rest here:

Libertarian Assembly candidate calls for line item veto to rein in spending, elimination of property taxes and more to get rid of 'tyranny' and bloat...

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and chairman of the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee, opened a half-virtual hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power with a combative opening statement: Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.

That set the tone for the hours of sharp questioning of four of the wealthiest people on the planet: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, whose companies have a combined market value roughly equivalent to the GDP of Japan.

Given the history of Silicon Valleys relationship with Washington, the intensity and precision of some subcommittee members questions were remarkable. It is a sign that significant tech regulation may be closer than we think.

Despite its techno-libertarian image, the tech industry has had close political ties for decades and remarkable success in getting what it wants.

In the late 1970s, venture capitalists and semiconductor chief executives got Capitol Hill and the Carter White House to agree to tax cuts and looser financial regulations. In the 1980s, a group of young legislators became such boosters of the industry that they were known as Atari Democrats. Ronald Reagan extolled Silicon Valley entrepreneurship and helped tech companies fend off Japanese competition.

The bipartisan love affair intensified in the 1990s as Bill Clinton and Al Gore invited tech executives to shape early internet-era policymaking. Newt Gingrich, then the Republican speaker of the House, talked up cyberspace and formed close alliances with libertarian-minded tech thinkers. His partys leaders convened high-tech summits on Capitol Hill.

The lightly regulated online economy we have today is a product of that decade, when Silicon Valley leaders persuaded starry-eyed lawmakers that young, scrappy internet companies could regulate themselves.

Washingtons embrace of tech continued even as questions emerged about the industrys wealth and power. A 2013 Senate hearing to interrogate Cook about Apples tax avoidance quickly was sidetracked by lawmakers gushing to the chief executive about his companys innovative products. Pichai faced tough questions at a 2018 House Judiciary hearing, but also was showered with praise.

Google is still the story of the American dream, declared Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the committees chairman at the time.

Those days seemed a dim memory Wednesday. Instead, the mood recalled the traffic safety debates of the mid-1960s that helped catalyze significantly more regulation for the auto industry. After a steady drumbeat of studies and some short-lived congressional inquiries, traffic safety exploded into the public consciousness starting with Senate hearings in the summer of 1965, where top auto executives faced sharp questions about their lax approach to safety.

The evening network news programs showed Robert F. Kennedy, a newly elected senator from New York, grilling the leaders of General Motors about the tiny amount the company spent on safety research. Later that year a young lawyer advising the Senate committee, Ralph Nader, published a blockbuster expos of the industry, Unsafe at Any Speed.

This combination of political and media scrutiny led to passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which mandated seatbelts and additional car safety features, as well as road improvements like guardrails and traffic barriers.

Wednesday felt like Big Techs Ralph Nader moment: the pointed questioning by committee members, notably its Democratic women like Reps. Val Demings of Florida, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Lucy McBath of Georgia and Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania; the crescendo of investigative journalism that, in part, led to this weeks hearing by shining a critical light on Big Techs practices. And now, this House subcommittee is merely one of several legislative or regulatory bodies considering limits on Big Techs power.

There are of course many reasons tech regulation may not come to pass. The issues at stake are wickedly complex, and quite different for each of these companies, something chief executives sought to underscore in the hearing.

It appears to me, Bezos observed, that social media is a nuance-destruction machine, and I dont think thats helpful for a democracy. (Zuckerbergs reaction to that statement sadly was not visible to the audience.)

Large tech companies also have prepared for the regulatory onslaught by starting some of the most well-funded lobbying operations in Washington. They learned a lesson from Microsoft, whose presence in the capital before its antitrust case in 1998 consisted of one employee who worked out of the back of his car because he lacked proper office space.

Although the trial didnt end with Microsoft being ordered to break itself apart, it taught the company that government regulators needed to be taken seriously. And as a result Microsoft tamped down its most aggressive market practices, and escaped much of the yearslong policy scrutiny now facing its peers.

Then there is the sticky problem of public opinion. During other seminal moments carmakers in the 1960s, tobacco in the 1990s the problems posed by unregulated bigness were clear-cut. Cigarettes killed people. Cars were unsafe.

Techs consumer dangers are harder to see and acutely feel on an average day: misinformation, an incomplete search result, a unfairly promoted link, privacy erosion, a skewed algorithm. We may wish we used our smartphones less, or worry about what overuse of social media is doing to our communities and brains.

But we still routinely check our Facebook pages, buy apps via Apple, and click buy on Amazon Prime. Even if, as some representatives noted, we do so because we have little alternative.

What happens next will depend on many things, including the November election. But this week marks the end of Washingtons great love affair with tech, one that helped make these companies bigness possible in the first place.

Margaret OMara is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times and a history professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. She is the author of three books, most recently The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America, and has published widely on the history of the high-tech economy.

See the article here:

OPINION EXCHANGE | The last days of the tech emperors? - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The economist James Buchanan, who along with Gordon Tullock founded the public choice school of economics, shares with Murray Rothbard a trait rare among his fellow economists. Like Rothbard, he is interested in political philosophy. He doesnt agree with Rothbards anarchism, and Id like to discuss one of his arguments on this issue. Buchanan rests his case on an odd view of ethics, and this leads him astray.

According to Rothbard, each person is a self-owner and can acquire unowned property through Lockean appropriation. Persons, if they wish, can hire agencies to protect themselves, but a monopoly state cannot justly seize control of defense and protective services and tax people to pay for these services.

Why does Buchanan reject this? The basic problem he finds with this view is that people wouldnt agree on the boundaries of rights. A Rothbardian world, he thinks, would be chaotic. In A Contractarian Perspective on Anarchy (Nomos, vol. 19, Anarchism, (1978)), he says:

I stated earlier that the primary value premise of individualism is the moral equality of men as men, that no man counts as more than another.The libertarian anarchist accepts this framework, but in a much more restricted application than others who also fall within the individualistic set. The libertarian anarchist applies the moral equality norm in holding that each and every man is equally entitled to have the natural boundaries of his rights respected, regardless of the fact that, among persons, these boundaries may vary widely. If such natural boundaries exist, the contractarian may also use the individual units defined by such limits as the starting point for the complex contractual arrangements that emerge finally in observed, or conceptually observed, political structures.

Buchanan doesnt write in an easy-to-understand style, so Id like to pause and explain his comment. (You might object that I dont write in an easy-to-understand style either.) Buchanan is saying that libertarians believe that everybody has the same rights but are willing to accept large inequalities in property and income. Contractarians like Buchanan could agree with this libertarian starting point, so long as there are objective ways of figuring out the boundaries of rights.

And this is exactly what he denies. In his opinion, objective boundaries of rights dont exist. He says,

What is the ultimate test for the existence of natural boundaries? This must lie in the observed attitudes of individuals themselves.In rejecting the extreme claims of the individualist anarchists, we should not overlook the important fact that a great deal of social interaction does proceed without formalized rules. For large areas of human intercourse, anarchy prevails and it works.In the larger context, however, the evidence seems to indicate that persons do not mutually and simultaneously agree on dividing lines among separate rights.

Buchanan thinks that people wouldnt agree about rights boundaries. For this reason, we need to have a state to settle these boundaries. He relies in this argument on a questionable conception of moral theory. Rothbard thinks that there is an objectively correct libertarian legal code that specifies the rights people have. Whether this code is correct does not depend on peoples agreeing to it. If they dont acknowlege it, they should. The code doesnt settle all disputed questions, but if you accept what Rothbard says, Buchanans argument for a state fails. Buchanans argument for a state depends on substantial disagreements about rights that people couldnt settle under anarchism, and he hasnt shown that there would be this level of disagreement if Rothbards system were in place.

Now we come to the heart of the dispute between Buchanan and Rothbard, and this is where I think that Buchanan has a mistaken notion of moral theory. In what is for him an expression of passion, he says of people who claim to judge on behalf or others what is in their interest, If God, in fact, did exist as a superhuman entity, an alternative source of authority might be acknowledged. But, failing this, the only conceivable authority must be some selected individual or group of individuals, some man who presumes to be God, or some group that claims godlike qualities.) Those who act in such capacities and make such claims behave immorally in a fundamental sense; they deny the moral autonomy of other members of the species and relegate them to a moral status little different from that of animals. Its clear that he would extend this condemnation to cover claims to know the moral truth about what people should do apart from their consent.

In other words, if you say that there is an objective law code that should prevail, regardless of whether people agree to it, you are immorally claiming to be better than other people. But in what way are you claiming to be better than other people any more than, say, an economist who advances a theory of how to analyze government is claiming to be objectively better than other economists who disagree with his theory? Buchanan would answer that this response misses the fundamental point. There are objective standards in science, but morality isnt a science. There is nothing beyond peoples value judgments.

But that is a view of morality that needs to be defended by argument. It cannot simply be taken as given. That doesnt show Rothbard is correct, but to refute him you would need to look at his reasons in defense of his view of libertarian rights and their proper boundaries. Its isnt enough to aver that if you claim to know moral truth you are claiming godlike powers.

There is a further problem with Buchanans view. From the vehemence with which he asserts the value of individual autonomy, it would seem that he takes this to be more than a personal preference. Is he claiming godlike powers or claiming to be morally better than others who interpret autonomy differently from him, or deny its value altogether? (Rothbard would be in the first group.) Buchanan would appear to grant himself immunity for behavior like that for which he indicts others.

You can learn a lot from reading Buchanan, but you wont find in his work a good reason to reject libertarian anarchism.

Read more from the original source:

Buchanan and Anarchism | Mises Wire - The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (RKy.) has crushed his opponent in the Republican primary for the Northern Kentucky seat he's represented since 2012. It was one of two notable victories for GOP primary candidates against more overtly Trump-aligned challengers.

By early evening, Massie had wracked up 88 percent of the unofficial vote against Todd McMurtry, a lawyer who represented Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann in his lawsuit against media outlets. The official results won't be released until June 30, when election officials have had enough time to count mail-in ballots.

Massie's libertarian streak and willingness to buck Republican leadership have earned him explicit rebukes from President Donald Trump in recent months, something McMurtry did his best to capitalize on.

When Massie held up the passage of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in Marchinsisting that the pricey legislation receive a roll call voteTrump called him a "disaster for America" on Twitter, and demanded his expulsion from the Republican Party.

Massie, in turn, made much of McMurtry's own social media activity. The lawyer had made several comments that were critical Trump. He'd also approvingly tweeted out a blog post primer on the alt-right and called for resistance to the "demonization of white people."

Those posts saw several Republican House members withdraw their endorsement of McMurtry, and cleared the way for Massie's victory.

Former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath is also leading in Kentucky's U.S. Senate Democratic primary against progressive challenger Charles Booker. Provided she maintains her lead once all the mail-in ballots are counted, she'll go on to face incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell (RKy), who also won his primary tonight.

Trump's endorsement of businesswoman Lynda Bennett also failed to prevent her stunning loss tonight to 24-year-old real estate investor and motivational speaker Madison Cawthorn in the Republican primary for North Carolina's 11th congressional district.

That seat was vacated earlier this year when former Rep. Mark Meadows (RN.C.), one-time head of the House Freedom Caucus, resigned to take up the position as Trump's chief of staff. Despite endorsements from Trump, Meadows, and Sen. Ted Cruz (RTexas), Bennett received 35 percent of the vote in the two-person run-off election.

According to the Charlotte Observer, Meadows' apparent manipulation of the process to make Bennett his handpicked successor angered local Republicans. Cawthorn re-framed Bennett's many high-profile endorsements as proof that Bennett would be beholden to Washington elites.

Provided he beats Democratic candidate Moe Davis in November, Cawthorn will become the youngest member of Congress.

Read the original:

Trump Wanted To 'Throw Massie Out of Republican Party!' but the Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Just Won His Primary Anyway - Reason

When it comes to the regulation of private businesses, I consider myself a libertarian. But as a realist, I recognize that when businesses become big and begin to be seen as abusing their power, they make it much harder for defenders of a pure free market to prevail in the regulatory debate.

NBC's attempt to deplatform the Federalist was only made possible by the immense power that Google has, with a near monopoly on the search traffic that fuels its advertising business. While it turns out that NBC got the story wrong, Google did put the Federalist on notice that it could lose access to Google Ads revenue if it didn't change its comment section, which has been temporarily removed.

In the debate concerning whether to target tech companies over their bias against conservatives, I've been on the side of arguing that private businesses should have the right to set any rules they want for users. I was critical of a proposal by Sen. Josh Hawley that would have ended the immunity that social media companies have against lawsuits for content posted on their platforms. Under his proposal, companies would have to apply to the federal government for temporary certificates of immunity after demonstrating they've been free of political bias in removing content. On the left, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed breaking up large tech companies though for different reasons.

Arguments in favor of the free market are always weakened when businesses behave in ways that make it easy for people to portray them as the bad guys.

A free market healthcare system has been made harder to achieve by stories of insurers fighting to deny care to those who have insurance, of hospitals issuing exorbitant bills that are hard to justify, and of drug companies that rely on patent protection to charge jaw-dropping amounts for prescription drugs. Manufacturers that recklessly polluted and then tried to cover it up made it more difficult to argue against environmental regulations, and big banks that blew up the economy and then demanded bailouts made it more difficult to make the case against financial regulation.

Google, in trying to explain its threat against the Federalist, stated, "Our policies do not allow ads to run against dangerous or derogatory content, which includes comments on sites." To which many people had the same reaction: Has Google not looked at the comments section of any typical video on its own YouTube service?

This was not lost on Hawley.

On Wednesday, he is introducing legislation that would give "users the right to sue if the big platforms enforce their terms unfairly or unequally." He is being joined by Sens. Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Mike Braun.

In a political world in which most people are more interested in outcomes rather than underlying principles, if the power of Google and other large tech companies is used to disproportionately target conservatives, it's going to be increasingly difficult for those on the libertarian side of the spectrum to win any argument over the freedom of these companies to self-police.

Read the original post:

Google's warning against the Federalist is why libertarians will lose fight over Big Tech - Washington Examiner

HELENA A political-action committee backing the Green Party candidate in Montanas high-profile U.S. Senate race is being funded by a Texas-based conservative group, records show.

The group, CSG Action, also has ties to a Texas oil-and-gas executive whos donated to the Montana Republican Party and the campaign of Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, and who bankrolled a group that opposed Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in 2018.

The PAC, Go Green Montana, was formed in early May and last week reported spending $27,000 on digital ads, mailings and a website to support Wendie Fredrickson, the Montana Green Party for U.S. Senate.

Fredrickson, a former auditor for the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, won the June 2 Green Party Senate primary, defeating Dennis Daneke of Missoula.

She will appear on the general election ballot, along with Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and his Democratic challenger, Gov. Steve Bullock.

The Montana Republican Party financed the effort to qualify the Green Party for the 2020 Montana ballot, enabling candidates to run under that banner. GOP officials said they wanted to give Montana voters more choices.

The Montana Democratic Party says the effort to promote the Green Party and its candidates, including the Go Green Montana PAC, are part of an ongoing Republican effort to mislead Montanans and meddle in our elections.

The Montana Green Party also has distanced itself from Fredricksons candidacy and the Go Green Montana PAC, saying it has nothing to do with the latter and that Fredrickson hasnt contacted the local party.

Fredrickson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Go Green Montanas first finance report, filed last week with the Federal Election Committee, says it raised $45,500 entirely from CSG Action. Records indicate that CSG Action is the political arm of Citizens for Self-Governance, a group that describes itself on its website as dedicated to motivating a nationwide network of self-governing citizen activists, committed to bring government back to the people.

The president of Citizens for Self-Governance, based in Houston, is Mark Meckler, an attorney who was a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. Its chair is Eric OKeefe, who helped found U.S. Term Limits and has been involved in various conservative and libertarian-leaning groups.

A Texas telephone number listed on the groups website has been disconnected and the group did not respond to an email.

One of the listed directors of Citizens for Self-Governance is Tim Dunn, an oil-and-gas company executive from Midland, Texas, whos been politically active in many conservative groups and causes.

In 2018, he spent $2.2 million backing a group called the Senate Reform Fund, which spent most of its money on ads and other efforts to oppose Montana U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, when he ran for re-election.

This year and last, Dunn and his wife, Terri, have donated $20,000 to the Montana Republican Party, $11,200 to Daines Senate campaign, and another $15,000 to a committee affiliated with the Daines campaign.

Follow this link:

Texas-based conservative group funding 'green' PAC in MT - KTVH

Two familiar names are vying for the Democratic nomination in the 25th Congressional District.

Incumbent Joe Morelle and challenger Robin Wilt ran in a four-way race for the nomination two years ago. It was Morelle who ran away with the nomination, and later won both a special and general election to fill the seat that was long held by Louise Slaughter, who died in office in 2016.

The final results wont be known until after June 30, when all the absentee ballots can be counted, but the most current figures show Morelle leading Wilt by 30% after counting the votes that were made in person today and during early voting. Morelle has already secured the Independence Party nomination. Wilt appears to have conceded the race, posting the following on Facebook during the overnight hours:

While we are still awaiting every vote to be counted, we have fallen well shy of our vote goals to be successful in the contest for the 25th Congressional District Democratic Primary. I am honored by all of those who have supported me, and I will continue to advocate for every voice to be heard. I am humbled to have been part of this movement for change, and I realize we have much work left to do. I look forward to the continued engagement.

The Monroe County Board of Elections says 53,318 absentee ballots were sent out to Democrats in NY-25, with 25,746 returned as of Tuesday; ballots have until June 30 to reach the board of elections in order to be counted.

The winner will move to the general election, where they will face Republican and Conservative candidate George Mitris, Working Families candidate Afua Atta-Mensah, and Libertarian candidate Kevin Wilson.

The district includes all of Monroe County except for the towns of Scottsville, Rush, and Mendon.

View original post here:

Morelle with big lead over Wilt but absentee votes still to be tallied - WXXI News

After watching how some people wear their masks, I now understand why contraception fails! I mean, it really is not protective when the mask is covering your chin, or your nose is hanging out of it.

And I am sorry, but you do not need medical training (unlike some evil troll wrote on my Facebook page) to wear a mask properly. Just cover your nose and mouth for goodness sakes. Wearing a mask is about protecting yourself and others from this infection.

But what really burns my cookies is not wearing a mask at all.

All the studies show that wearing a mask and social distancing will diminish the spread of the virus. But for some very bizarre reason, some people think it is their God-given American right to not wear a mask and believe youre a communist or something if you even suggest it. I dont get it. Do they want to spread this virus FOREVER?

I see the posts they state that COVID isnt that big of a deal, its a media hoax, or its no worse than the flu, or its OK to thin the herd or other wacky ideas. And, besides, youre talking about their business so stay out of it!

But is it really just these non-mask wearing, non-social-distancing peoples business? NO, it is not.

Those of us who work in long-term care know our residents and staff are paying the price for these inane ideas. About 42% of deaths from COVID-19 in the US are from eldercare facilities, yet the population in eldercare facilities is approximately 0.62% of the entire population. And this isnt because eldercare facilities suck! Simply stated, our population is the most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Youve read enough well-written articles in McKnights, so you know all the uphill battles weve been facing from not getting appropriate PPE to asymptomatic spread from staff. (And no, public, we cannot make our employees live in our buildings, so that means that, yes, they will get exposed to you non-mask wearing fools.)

Please, wearing a mask is not a political statement. It is not a Democrat versus a Republican, versus a libertarian thing. Healthcare advocates from all sides of the aisle are begging you to wear your masks.

We are trying to save lives here. Our staff are putting their lives on the line every day. Is wearing a mask really that difficult?

Save a life, wear a mask.

Just keeping it real,

Nurse Jackie

The Real Nurse Jackie is written by Jacqueline Vance, RNC, CDONA/LTC, Senior Director of Clinical Innovation and Education for Mission Health Communities, LLC and an APEX Award of Excellence winner for Blog Writing. Vance is a real-life long-term care nurse. A nationally respected nurse educator and past national LTC Nurse Administrator of the Year, she also is an accomplished stand-up comedienne. The opinions supplied here are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer or her professional affiliates

Continue reading here:

Non-mask wearing fools - The Real Nurse Jackie - McKnight's Long Term Care News

The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates

For all his talk of caution, there is no disguising the massive scale of the changes that Boris Johnson set out today.

In almost every area, the PM went further than anyone really expected . Dinner parties and sleepovers albeit without hugs or handshakes are a big stride towards normality. So too is the announcement that restaurants can serve indoors, not just al fresco, which will allow venues around the West End to reopen their doors.

Moreover, the Prime Ministers libertarian instincts returned to the fore in another key area, which is over the concept of risk. As he told MPs: Our principle is to trust the British public to use their common sense in the full knowledge of the risks, remembering that the more we open up, the more vigilant we will need to be.

This is a really fundamental change from the idea of safety first which underpinned his March announcement of the closure of the British economy. Then it was enforced by heavy-handed policing and the issuing of spot fines, now it is to be policed by old fashioned common sense and people will be responsible for their own mistakes.

Two things are clear. The first is that this is more true to this Prime Ministers natural political instinct, which is a laissez faire philosophy around social issues and a natural antipathy towards elf n safety laws. The second is that the great easing from lockdown is too complex and too varied for blanket rules to be applied in the way they were when the only imperative was to stop everything.

For example, Londons many thousands of restaurants come in all shapes and sizes. Some have medieval stairways, some sit in modern office foyers; some are in basements, others aloft in skyscrapers; some even move around on trains. Closing them was easy. But where to draw the line on which can open? A blanket two-metre rule would kill most. A one metre rule would invite danger. So, Johnson has chosen on a formula that also fits his Tory nature, which is a very flexible one metre plus rule that puts the onus on managers to assess the risks in their premises and take appropriate measures.

The PM's announcement was a big stride towards normality(via REUTERS)

The PM calculates that restauranteurs do not want to kill their customers, and diners will walk out if their tables look too close. My duty is to guide the British people, he said. Note the word guide and not tell.

Did he have Chis Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallances blessing for the changes? Johnson pointedly did not claim their backing but instead said they had been confident that todays changes would not cause an upsurge. In other words, it was his decision, guided by experts but not led by them. The PM no longer feels the need to use scientists as cover.

It was therefore fascinating that todays huge announcements were used as cover for slipping out another one, that the 5pm daily coronavirus press briefings will end today . No more daily questioning of Whitty and Vallance and senior ministers to see if they all agree.

It was also telling that the PM, who does not always look a picture of health nowadays, was on ebullient form in the Commons. He teased Sir Keir Starmer (who welcomed the statement broadly) with a joke about U-turns, clearly unabashed at his own recent record of three handbrake swivels. He openly scoffed at the devolved Welsh government rule of staying within five miles of home and had a dig at Nicola Sturgeon. To holiday regions, he urged them to roll out the welcome mat" and not the "not welcome here sign. Clearly, Boris Johnson feels more comfortable in his skin announcing freedoms rather than rules.

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

A member of staff prepares to open a branch of H&M in Canterbury, Kent,

PA

Primark in Birmingham

PA

NikeTown Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Shop staff in face masks give a round of applause to the first customers through the doors at the Fenwick store in Newcastle

PA

Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

A doorman in a face mask waits to welcome back customers to the Fenwick store in Northumberland Street, Newcastle

PA

People queue for outside shops in Canterbury, Ken

PA

People queue for outside shops in Canterbury, Kent

PA

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

A customer dressed in personal protective equipment (PPE) in line to shop at Primark, Birmingham

PA

Primark in Birmingham

PA

Primark in Birmingham

PA

NikeTown Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Selfridges

Matt Writtle/Selfridges

Selfridges

Matt Writtle/Selfridges

A Harrod's 'Green Man' welcomes customers back to Harrods store in Knightsbridge, London

PA

Customers wait outside Harrods store in Knightsbridge, London

PA

Primark in Birmingham

PA

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Kathryn Stanczyszyn

Kathryn Stanczyszyn/BBC

People queue ahead of the opening of Primark in Leeds

PA

Selfridges

Matt Writtle/Selfridges

A customer dressed in personal protective equipment (PPE) in line to shop at Primark, Birmingham

PA

A customer carrying bags of shopping leaves Primark in Birmingham

PA

Primark Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Primark Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Shoppers in line outside John Lewis in Kingston

PA

Shops and businesses in Chelsea, West London prepare to re-open to customers

Daniel Hambury

REUTERS

REUTERS

REUTERS

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

A member of staff prepares to open a branch of H&M in Canterbury, Kent,

PA

Primark in Birmingham

PA

NikeTown Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Primark in Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Shop staff in face masks give a round of applause to the first customers through the doors at the Fenwick store in Newcastle

PA

Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

Oxford Street

Jeremy Selwyn

A doorman in a face mask waits to welcome back customers to the Fenwick store in Northumberland Street, Newcastle

PA

People queue for outside shops in Canterbury, Ken

PA

People queue for outside shops in Canterbury, Kent

PA

Primark in Oxford Street

See the original post:

Lockdown easing analysis: Boris Johnson's libertarian instincts returned... and he went further than anyone really expected - Evening Standard