Hail! Hail, Freedonia!

The country of Freedonia has successfully fought off the COVID-19 virus successfully. This small European nation in the middle of the coronavirus maelstrom reportedly used free market forces to keep its citizens safe.

President Rufus T. Canard remarked on the remarkable story of laissez-faire economics and public health. Did you know the invisible hand of the market belongs to God? He is better than a legion of unelected bureaucrats telling you to put face masks on.

Once the government of Freedonia realized the pandemic was sweeping through its neighbors it took tough action nothing. Privately funded hospitals had all the respirators they needed because thats how capitalism works. The citizens of this nation whose motto isHail Freedonia, land of the Brave and Free!immediately engaged in complicated statistical analysis and realized they had all better start practice social distancing. And best of all no one hoarded toilet paper.

Unrestrained market forces do not create panics where people hoard items like toilet paper, remarked President Canard. You can look that up in any economics textbook.

Citizens of Freedonia are proud of their nations dedication to Ayn Rands ideals,Friedrich Hayeks economics, and a total disregard of reality. They point to how the Great Depression never depressed and their successful pay-by-the-minute education system. The world envies how each and every enrolled student has their own coin operatededu-meter,Canard quipped.

I dream of a world where people can do what they want whenever they want regardless of facts, President Canard said. And that will make the world a better place.

In related news, an American televangelist pays for a private jet with sperm bank donations.

Did you enjoy this post? How about buying the writer a cup of coffee!

Or becoming a Patron?

See the original post here:

This Libertarian Country Defeated The Coronavirus With The Free Market - Patheos

In the absence of federal leadership, governors have become the public face of the effort to combat the coronavirus pandemic. Some of them, like New Yorks Andrew Cuomo and Californias Gavin Newsom, have risen to the media status of national hero, certainly in comparison to the deadly, daily clown show on display at the White House. Others have exposed themselves as unfit for office such as Georgias Brian Kemp, who this week expressed shock after learning a basic fact about the disease, namely that asymptomatic carriers can spread it.

Lost between the coasts, meanwhile, is the remarkable story of Kentuckys Andy Beshear, whose handling of the coronavirus crisis looks especially strong next to neighboring Tennessee. The two states are like a life-and-death experiment, showing the difference between governing and not governing in the face of a pandemic.

The 42-year-old son of former Gov.Steve Beshear, he won a contested Democratic primary against a more progressive opponent, and then went on to face the extraordinarily unpopular Matt Bevin in the general election in the fall. The Libertarian Party, which Bevin had tussled with, decided to field a candidate simply to undermine him. The libertarian pulled 28,000 votes, enough to swing the election; Beshear beat Bevin by just 5,000 votes.

Republicans in the state legislature immediately began calling the result illegitimate, with Republican Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers saying it was appropriate of Bevin not to concede and that the GOP-controlled legislature might end up choosing the victor. He specifically cited the libertarian vote, claiming the results werent a genuine reflection of support for the Republican incumbent. It felt like a dry run of the 2020 presidential election, which skeptics have warned Donald Trump may not concede even if he loses.

But instead of the quivering response the public has come to expect from Democrats a threat of a lawsuit, complaints about norms to the media Beshear plowed forward, talking and acting like the rightful winner of the election. He began naming cabinet members and setting up his government, and in the face of his show of force, the media recognized him as the winner of the election and the GOP crumpled.

Beshear was sworn in as governor on December 10, 2019, and immediately began wielding power. That day, he signed an order restoring voting rights to more than 100,000 felons. On December 16, he killed Bevins Medicaid overhaul, which had been designed to throw people off the rolls. Another key issue in the election had been anger from teachers at Bevin over a slew of assaults, chief among them his attempt to undercut their pensions. Bevin had been concealing a 65-page official analysis of that plan showing its cost to public workers and its ineffectiveness in the long term. Beshear spiked the plan, and, on December 20, publicly released the assessment, in all its gory details.

In February, Beshear, a deacon at his local church, became the first governor to appear at the Fairness Rally, an anti-discrimination event organized each year by LGBTQ leaders.

A photo he took with a group of drag queens launched a local scandal, and one Republican lawmaker lashed out at him for defiling the state Capitol. Beshear again fought back, calling the lawmakers attack homophobic and demanding he apologize personally to everybody in the photo. Beshears aides, and the state party, called on the man to resign, transforming the scandal into one about Republicans and their backward views on social issues.

Days later, on March 6, Beshear became one of the first governors in the country to treat the coronavirus pandemic with the seriousness it deserves, declaring a state of emergency when he announced the states first confirmed case a day before New York state.

Trump was still laughing the pandemic off as no worse than the common flu. That same day, March 6, Trump toured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declaring himself a natural expert. Anybody that wants a test can get a test, Trump lied from the CDC. I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, How do you know so much about this? Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.

Trumps expertise had led him to conclude, on March 2, the pandemic would be less of a problem than the flu. Were talking about a much smaller range of deaths, he said. Two days later, he told Fox Newss Sean Hannity, Its very mild. The day after Beshear had declared a state of emergency, Trump said, at a dinner with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and his entourage (who all went home with the virus) at Mar-a-Lago, Im not concerned at all. On March 10, he was still full of bliss. It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away, he said.

Tennessees Republican Gov. Bill Lee followed Trumps lead, telling his states residents no emergency declaration was necessary, even though Tennessee has more large urban centers than neighboring Kentucky. He finally switched course nearly a week later and declared an emergency, citing new information.

By that point, Beshear had already ratcheted up his warnings, urging Kentuckians to take the crisis seriously and to avoid large gatherings. By March 11, he announced the coming closure of schools. Beshear began 5 p.m. daily press briefings that have become appointment TV for a nervous public, even as Kentucky has one of the lowest spreads of the virus producing endless memes celebrating the governors empathy and authoritative style.

Less than two weeks later, Beshear began warning Kentuckians not to travel to Tennessee, where cases were exploding. Here in Kentucky, we have taken very aggressive steps to try to stop or limit the spread of the coronavirus to try to protect our people, he said. We have made major sacrifices such as shutting down bars and restaurants, nail salons, all these forward-facing businesses. But our neighbors from the south in many cases have not. On Sunday, the U.S. Army restricted travel to Nashville from nearby Fort Campbell in Kentucky, as well.

Tennessees mistakes couldnt be allowed to harm Kentuckians, he warned. I cannot control that Tennessee has not taken the steps that we have, Beshear said. I need you to be strong in your pride in this state, and I need you to make sure that you dont take someone elses lack of action and ultimately bring it back to Kentucky to harm us.

Beshear, by choosing to govern, has gradually risen to his own hero status, and, like Cuomo, become an unlikely sex symbol. A Reddit thread titled Govern me, daddy, became a Salon headline and a T-shirt.

Here is the original post:

A Little-Known Democratic Governor Is Breaking Out in Kentucky - The Intercept

Read: How the pandemic will end

Alternatives to originalism have always existed on the right, loosely defined. One is libertarian (or classical liberal) constitutionalism, which emphasizes principles of individual freedom that are often in uneasy tension with the Constitutions original meaning and the founding generations norms. The founding era was hardly libertarian on a number of fronts that loom large today, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; consider that in 1811, the New York courts, in an opinion written by the influential early jurist Chancellor James Kent, upheld a conviction for blasphemy against Jesus Christ as an offense against the public peace and morals. Another alternative is Burkean traditionalism, which tries to slow the pace of legal innovation. Here, too, the difference with originalism is clear, because originalism is sometimes revolutionary; consider the Courts originalist opinion declaring a constitutional right to own guns, a startling break with the Courts long-standing precedents.

These alternatives still have scattered adherents, but originalism has prevailed, mainly because it has met the political and rhetorical needs of legal conservatives struggling against an overwhelmingly left-liberal legal culture. The theory of originalism, initially developed in the 1970s and 80s, enjoyed its initial growth because it helped legal conservatives survive and even flourish in a hostile environment, all without fundamentally challenging the premises of the legal liberalism that dominated both the courts and the academy. It enabled conservatives to oppose constitutional innovations by the Warren and Burger Courts, appealing over the heads of the justices to the putative true meaning of the Constitution itself. When, in recent years, legal conservatism has won the upper hand in the Court and then in the judiciary generally, originalism was the natural coordinating point for a creed, something to which potential nominees could pledge fidelity.

But circumstances have now changed. The hostile environment that made originalism a useful rhetorical and political expedient is now gone. Outside the legal academy, at least, legal conservatism is no longer besieged. If President Donald Trump is reelected, some version of legal conservatism will become the laws animating spirit for a generation or more; and even if he is not, the reconstruction of the judiciary has proceeded far enough that legal conservatism will remain a potent force, not a beleaguered and eccentric view.

Assured of this, conservatives ought to turn their attention to developing new and more robust alternatives to both originalism and left-liberal constitutionalism. It is now possible to imagine a substantive moral constitutionalism that, although not enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution, is also liberated from the left-liberals overarching sacramental narrative, the relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy. Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not conservative at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.

Visit link:

Beyond Originalism - The Atlantic

As the coronavirus pandemic escalates, countries are facing increasingly complex ethical decisions in their bid to control the virus and save lives.

ICU Physicians are being forced to ration healthcare resources like ventilators and medication. Governments have introduced sweeping public health restrictions that have radically altered peoples day to day lives. And as authorities seek to stop the spread of the virus, questions are being asked about our duties to prisoners, migrants, and people on sea vessels.

These ethical dilemmas lead us to reflect on the philosophical frameworks that inform our decision making when faced with a global threat like the coronavirus. Commentators have discussed three philosophies in particular in recent days: communitarianism, utilitarianism, and libertarianism.

Communitarianism

Communitarianism is a political philosophy that emphasises the connection between individuals and communities. Communitarian thinkers suggest that individuals derive their identity from social groups, and that individual rights cannot and should not be viewed in isolation from community norms and interests. Communitarians, furthermore, see the welfare of society or communities to be the orienting principle of political decision-making, and are inclined to prioritise the public interest over the preservation of the liberties of individual citizens. Notable communitarian thinkers include Princeton philosopher Michael Waltzer and Harvard political theorist Michael Sandel (though Sandel is somewhat reluctant to identify as a communitarian).

As Bloomberg columnist John Authers observes, China practiced an authoritarian kind of communitarianism after the coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan in January. The people of the city of Wuhan were told to lock themselves in their houses, and often forcibly quarantined, for the good of the community and the state, largely identified with the Communist Party.

Yet there is a democratic form of communitarianism that is more in line with Western liberal values. The latter form of communitarianism is more defined by solidarity with societys most vulnerable rather than an idolisation of the State or some other political entity. Many of the restrictions on civil liberties in Western countries have been brought in under the guise of protecting societys most vulnerable (such as the elderly or people with disabilities).

In a recent address in St Peters Square, Pope Francis offered communitarian perspective on the current crisis, stating that we have realized that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together, each of us in need of comforting the other.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that gives primary importance to the consequences of actions, and, in particular, the utility that those actions produce. In the context of politics, utilitarianism takes the form of a calculus about political decision-making, whereby actors consider which course of action would bring about the greatest benefits for society at large.

One controversial example of a utilitarian approach to COVID-19 pandemic would be the so-called herd immunity strategy for managing the coronavirus threat. Some epidemiologists, as well as politicians, have advocated intentionally exposing society at large to the virus, with the aim of developing population immunity to COVID-19. This strategy would involve massive rates of infection and loss of life, but would allow for greater economic activity during the pandemic and would address the problem of the virus head on. A herd immunity policy was recommended to the UK government by its Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Vallance in mid-March, though the government says it is not currently pursuing this approach.

Utilitarianism is also exemplified in the rationing policies currently being advocated by many influential medical ethicists. Recently, several prominent doctors and ethicists in the United States published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguing that the value of maximising benefits is the most important value in ICU rationing.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that prioritises individual liberties over other goods. Libertarians are deeply suspicious of any attempt to limit individual freedom, even if this may be necessary to prevent some grave risk to society. Libertarians suggest that people should be free to take risks if they want to, even if this behaviour may be seen as imprudent, immoral or unreasonable by other members of society.

Libertarianism is exemplified in the behaviour of some members of the public in response to government warnings about the risk of contagion. Social media in recent weeks has been full of images of big social gatherings -- often in luxurious social settings -- even after governments have introduced strong new measures to stop the spread of the virus. If I get corona, I get corona, as a 22-year-old said on video recently in Florida. At the end of the day, Im not gonna let it stop me from partying.

Recently, scholars from the Mises Institute -- a libertarian think-tank in the United States -- argued that governments should immediately rescind lock-down laws, and instead allow individuals and families to decide what level of risk the wish to take in continuing with their daily lives during the pandemic. In a recent editorial, the editors of Institutes official blog state:

Xavier Symons is deputy editor of BioEdge

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

Read more from the original source:

Three political philosophies, and how they apply to the coronavirus pandemic - BioEdge

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

The coronavirus pandemic, which has grown to over 740,000 cases and 35,000 deaths around the world, has been so singular an event that even some staunch advocates for civil liberties say theyre willing to accept previously unthinkable surveillance measures.

Im very concerned about civil liberties, writer Glenn Greenwald, cofounder of the Intercept, who built his career as a critic of government surveillance, told BuzzFeed News. But at the same time, I'm also much more receptive to proposals that in my entire life I never expected I would be, because of the gravity of the threat.

Greenwald won a Pulitzer Prize in 2014 for his reporting on the disclosures by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed a vast secret infrastructure of US government surveillance. But like others who have spent years raising concerns about government overreach, he now accepts the idea that surveilling people who have contracted the coronavirus could be better than harsher measures to save lives.

The kind of digital surveillance that I spent a lot of years even before Snowden, and then obviously, the two or three years during Snowden advocating against is now something I think could be warranted principally to stave off the more brute solutions that were used in China, Greenwald said.

Greenwald said he was still trying to understand how to balance his own views on privacy against the current unprecedented situation. We have to be very careful not to get into that impulse either where we say, Hey, because your actions affect the society collectively, we have the right now to restrict it in every single way. We're in this early stage where our survival instincts are guiding our thinking, and that can be really dangerous. And Im trying myself to calibrate that.

The kind of digital surveillance that I spent a lot of years advocating against is now something I think could be warranted principally to stave off the more brute solutions that were used in China.

And he is far from the only prominent civil libertarian and opponent of surveillance trying to calibrate their response as governments around the world are planning or have already implemented location-tracking programs to monitor coronavirus transmission, and have ordered wide-scale shutdowns closing businesses and keeping people indoors. Broad expansions of surveillance power that would have been unimaginable in February are being presented as fait accompli in March.

That has split an international community that would have otherwise been staunchly opposed to such measures. Is the coronavirus the kind of emergency that requires setting aside otherwise sacrosanct commitments to privacy and civil liberties? Or like the 9/11 attacks before it, does it mark a moment in which panicked Americans will accept new erosions on their freedoms, only to regret it when the immediate danger recedes?

Under these circumstances? Yeah, go for it, Facebook. You know, go for it, Google, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, told BuzzFeed News. But then, when the crisis goes away, how is that going to apply given that it's in place? I mean, these are the obvious questions, and no, that would not be a good thing.

"My fear is that, historically, in any moment of crisis, people who always want massive surveillance powers will finally have an avenue and an excuse to get them, Matthew Guariglia, an analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told BuzzFeed News.

Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), told BuzzFeed News that its possible to find a solution that protects privacy and prevents the spread of the virus.

People like to say, 'well, we need to strike a balance between protecting public health and safeguarding privacy' but that is genuinely the wrong way to think about it, Rotenberg said. You really want both. And if you're not getting both, there's a problem with the policy proposal.

An aerial view from a drone shows an empty Interstate 280 leading into San Francisco, California, March 26.

Beyond the sick and dead, the most immediate effects that the pandemic has visited upon the United States have been broad constraints that state and local governments have imposed on day-to-day movement. Those are in keeping with public health experts recommendations to practice social distancing to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

While the US hasnt announced a nationwide stay-at-home order like France and Italy have, large parts of the US are under some degree of lockdown, with nonessential businesses shuttered and nonessential activities outside the home either banned or discouraged. And while President Trump and his allies have focused on the economic devastation wrought by this shutdown, some libertarians have raised concerns about the damage those decrees have done to people's freedoms.

Appearing on libertarian former Texas lawmaker and two-time Republican presidential candidate Ron Pauls YouTube show on March 19, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie pointed to a Kentucky man who, after testing positive for the coronavirus, refused to self-isolate, and whom sheriff's deputies forced to stay home. (Massie later came under bipartisan criticism for attempting to hold up the coronavirus stimulus bill in the House.)

What would they do if that man walked out and got in his car? Would they shoot him? Would they suit up in hazmat uniforms and drag him off? Massie said. Those are the images we saw in China two months ago and everybody was appalled at those images. And now were literally, we could be five minutes away from that happening in the United States, here in Kentucky.

Its crazy, and what concerns me the most is that once people start accepting that, in our own country, the fact that somebody could immobilize you without due process, that when this virus is over people will have a more paternalistic view of government and more tolerance for ignoring the Constitution, Massie said.

Last Monday, Paul's son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, announced that he had tested positive for the disease, only a few days after Ron Paul wrote in his online column that the pandemic could be a big hoax pushed by fearmongers to put more power in government hands.

But the elder Paul's concerns are not shared among some of his fellow former Libertarian Party nominees for president.

Johnson said measures to encourage people to stay in their homes and temporarily shutter businesses taken by states like New York were appropriate. I really have to believe that they're dealing with [this] in the best way that they possibly can, he told BuzzFeed News. And I think it's also telling that most of them are following the same route.

Johnson added that although it was easy to raise criticisms, as a former governor, he saw few other options.

You're just not hearing it: What are the alternatives? Johnson said. I don't know, not having [currently] sat at the table as governor, what the options were. And given that every state appears to be doing the same thing, I have to believe that everything is based on the best available information.

A security guard looks at tourists through his augmented reality eyewear equipped with an infrared temperature detector in Xixi Wetland Park in Hangzhou in east China's Zhejiang province Tuesday, March 24. Feature China/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

A map application developed by The Baidu Inc. displays the locations visited by people who have tested positive for the coronavirus in Shanghai, China, on Friday, Feb. 21. Qilai Shen / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Gaming out the role of intense surveillance during a pandemic isnt just a theoretical political debate on YouTube. Surveillance at previously politically unimaginable scales has reached countries around the world.

Imagine opening an app, scanning a QR code, and creating a profile thats instantly linked with information about your health and where you've been. The app tells you if youve been in close contact with someone sick with the coronavirus.

This software already exists in China. Developed by the Electronics Technology Group Corporation and the Chinese government, it works by tapping into massive troves of data collected by the private sector and the Chinese government. In South Korea, the government is mapping the movements of COVID-19 patients using data from mobile carriers, credit card companies, and the Institute of Public Health and Environment. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the country's internal security agency to tap into a previously undisclosed cache of cellphone data to trace the movements of infected persons in that country and in the West Bank. And in the Indian state of Karnataka, the government is requiring people in lockdown to send it selfies every hour to prove they are staying home.

No such tools currently exist in the United States but some in the tech community who might have been expected to oppose such capacities have found themselves favoring these previously unthinkable steps.

Maciej Cegowski, the founder of Pinboard and a frequent critic of tech companies intrusions into privacy, wrote a blog post arguing for a massive surveillance program to fight the virus.

My frustration is that we have this giant surveillance network deployed and working," Cegowski told BuzzFeed News. "We have location tracking. We have people carrying tracking devices on them all the time. But were using it to sell skin cream you know, advertising. And were using it to try to persuade investors to put more money into companies. Since that exists and we have this crisis right now, lets put it to use to save lives.

We put up with the fire department breaking down our door if theres a fire at our neighbors house or in our house because we know that in normal times our houses are sacrosanct.

This position is a major departure for Ceglowski, who has warned of how tech companies have invaded our ambient privacy and argued that tech giants reach into our lives is as pernicious a force as government surveillance.

We put up with the fire department breaking down our door if theres a fire at our neighbors house or in our house because we know that in normal times our houses are sacrosanct, Cegowski said. I think similarly if we can have a sense that well have real privacy regulation, then in emergency situations like this we can decide, hey, were going to change some things.

Those doors are already being broken down. The COVID-19 Mobility Data Network a collaboration between Facebook, Camber Systems, Cuebiq, and health researchers from 13 universities will use corporate location data from mobile devices to give local officials "consolidated daily situation reports" about "social distancing interventions."

Representatives from the COVID-19 Mobility Data Network did not respond to requests for comment.

A person watching live data reporting about the worldwide spread of the coronavirus.

Lots of companies claim that they have the technology to save peoples lives. But critics worry that they are taking advantage of a vulnerable time in American society to sign contracts that won't easily be backed out of when the threat passes.

Sometimes people have an almost sacrificial sense about their privacy, Rotenberg told BuzzFeed News. They say things like, Well, if it'll help save lives for me to disclose my data, of course, I should do that. But that's actually not the right way to solve a problem. Particularly if asking people to sacrifice their privacy is not part of an effective plan to save lives.

In response to the pandemic, some data analytics and facial recognition companies have offered new uses for existing services. Representatives from data analytics company have reportedly been working with the CDC on collecting and integrating data about COVID-19, while Clearview AI has reportedly been in talks with state agencies to track patients infected by the virus.

Neither Palantir nor Clearview AI responded to requests for comment, but the appearance of these controversial companies has raised alarms among those in the privacy community.

The deployment of face recognition, as a way of preventing the spread of virus, is something that does not pass the sniff test at all, Guariglia said. Even the companies themselves, I don't think, can put out a logical explanation as to how face recognition, especially Clearview, would help.

The leaders of other technology companies that design tools for law enforcement have tried to offer tools to combat COVID-19 as well. Banjo, which combines social media and satellite data with public information, like CCTV camera footage, 911 calls, and vehicle location, to detect criminal or suspicious activity, will be releasing a tool designed to respond to the outbreak.

We are working with our partners to finalize a new tool that would provide public health agencies and hospitals with HIPAA-compliant information that helps identify potential outbreaks and more efficiently apply resources to prevention and treatment, a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

We have so much history that shows us that mass surveillance generally isn't very effective, and mission creep is inevitable.

Those efforts cause concerns for people like Evan Greer, the deputy director of digital rights activist group Fight for the Future, who told BuzzFeed News that such tools, once deployed, would inevitably be used for more purposes than to fight the pandemic.

We have so much history that shows us that mass surveillance generally isn't very effective, and mission creep is inevitable, she said. It's not necessarily a question of if data that was handed over to the government because of this crisis would be repurposed. It's a matter of when.

In addition to those companies, many camera makers have been making a bold claim: Using just an infrared sensor, they can detect fevers, helping venues filter out the sick from the healthy. These firms include Dahua Technology in Israel, Guide Infrared in China, Diycam in India, Rapid-Tech Equipment in Australia, and Athena Security in the US.

In late February, Guide Infrared announced that it had donated about $144,000 worth of equipment that could warn users when fever is detected to Japan. The company said its devices would be used in Japanese hospitals and epidemic prevention stations.

Although Guide Infrared claimed that its temperature measurement solutions have helped in emergencies including SARS, H1N1, and Ebola, the Chinese army and government authorities are some of its major customers, according to the South China Morning Post. Its been used in railway stations and airports in major Chinese regions. Its also partnered with Hikvision, a Chinese company blacklisted by the US over its work outfitting Chinese detention centers with surveillance cameras.

Australian company Rapid-Tech Equipment claims that its fever-detection cameras can be used in "minimizing the spread [of] coronavirus infections." Its cameras are being used in Algeria, France, Egypt, Greece, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and many more countries, according to its website. UK camera maker Westminster International said that it has a "supply range of Fever Detection Systems for Coronavirus, Ebola & Flu."

US company Testo Thermal Imaging sells two cameras with a FeverDetection assistant. A section of its website titled Why fever detection? argues that managers of high-traffic venues have a responsibility to filter for fevers: Whether ebola, SARS or coronavirus: no-one wants to imagine the consequences of an epidemic or even a pandemic.

A Testo spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the company has seen a massive increase in demand for its products in response to the coronavirus and that its cameras are being used worldwide. The spokesperson declined to provide specific examples or name specific countries.

While the appetite for fever-detecting cameras is clearly there, civil liberties advocates have concerns. Guariglia said that, regardless of their thermal imaging capabilities, surveillance cameras are surveillance cameras.

More surveillance cameras always have dubious implications for civil liberties. Even if their contract with thermal imaging ends at the end of six months, Guariglia said, I bet those cameras are gonna stay up.

A man wearing a protective mask walks under surveillance cameras in Shanghai.

Julian Sanchez, an analyst with the Cato Institute and commentator on digital surveillance and privacy issues, told BuzzFeed News he was willing to accept measures he might otherwise have concerns about to limit the spread of the virus.

Im about as staunch a privacy guy as it gets, Sanchez said. In the middle of an epidemic outbreak, there are a number of things Im willing to countenance that I would normally object to, on the premise that they are temporary and will save a lot of lives.

But he still questioned the efficacy of some of the current proposals: Theres a ton of snake oil being pitched by surveillance vendors, he said.

More than that, he had concerns about what would happen to civil liberties after the pandemic passed, but the measure put in place to combat it did not.

I think a lot of civil liberties advocates would say, Well, if this is very tightly restricted, and only for this purpose, and it's temporary, then, you know, maybe that's all right. Maybe were able to accept that, if were confident it's for this purpose, and then it ends, Sanchez said. The question is whether that's the case.

Sanchez worried that the coronavirus, like the war on terror, is an open-ended threat with no clear end inviting opportunities for those surveillance measures to be abused long after the threat has passed.

In the same week that he spoke, the US Senate voted to extend until June the FBI's expanded powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, originally passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks 19 years ago.

Mar. 30, 2020, at 21:57 PM

Clearview AI has reportedly been in talks with state governments. An earlier version of this story misstated the government agency it had reportedly been in contact with.

The rest is here:

The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Set Off A Massive Expansion Of Government Surveillance. Civil Libertarians Aren't Sure What To Do. - BuzzFeed News

Subscribers to The Climate Crisis newsletter received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.

The coronavirus pandemic is now so sprawling that it has revealed the souls of tens of thousands of individuals, from remarkably kind nurses to online sellers seeking to corner the market for hand sanitizers (until finally deciding to donate them). One saga that we should not soon forget involves Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky. On March 16th, out of an abundance of caution, he said, he got an early test. For a week, while waiting for the results, he kept circulating in public, continuing his work on Capitol Hill (where he lambasted and then voted against a bill that would have offered free tests to all Americans), and even working out in the Senate gym and swimming in the Senate pool. The test results came back positive, and Paul then went into self-quarantine.

The reason to focus on this story is not to suggest that Paul is a selfish jerk; he is a medical doctor, for heavens sake. Its because he is the foremost representative of libertarian philosophy in our nations Capitol, and that philosophy has helped produce the world we live in: one in which we struggle to solve both the coronavirus pandemic and the larger climate crisis. Last week, I tried to show how those crises were linked through the variable of time; this week, its social trust thats the issue.

Ayn Rand and her novelsone of which, Atlas Shrugged, was once, according to a survey for the Library of Congress, the second-most influential book in the country helped get this ball rolling. Rands novels are worth thinking about, because theyve shaped the thinking of American leaders since the Reagan era, when Rands acolyte Alan Greenspan became the most powerful economic figure on the planet. This view of the worldthat government is the problem, that we should free individuals and corporations from its clutcheshas made it all but impossible to address global warming. The Koch brothers, for instance, came directly from this milieu; it was after the late David Koch failed in his Vice-Presidential bid on the Libertarian Party ticket, in 1980, that he and his older brother Charles became two of the G.O.P.s biggest funders. Since they were among Americas biggest oil and gas barons, it was no wonder that they opposed restrictions on the fossil-fuel industry, but it wasnt just self-interest: the government action necessary to tackle climate change is incompatible with their belief system. The right-wing syllogism became, I think, the following:

Markets solve all problems.Markets arent solving global warming.Q.E.D.: Global warming is not a problem.

Thats not logical, but it is comforting if youve committed to the basic idea that, as Ronald Reagan once put it, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are Im from the government and Im here to help. But, of course, thats nowhere near the scariest sentence. Try: The hillside behind town is on fire. The subway system is flooded. Your test came back positive. There are no ventilators.

Old impulses die hard. Donald Trumpwho once described himself as a fan of Rands and her book The Fountainhead because it relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to... everythinghas been using the pandemic to, among other things, drastically relax what environmental laws remain. Meanwhile, his economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC, I just think the private sector is going to solve this disease. As Charlie Baker, the governor of Massachusetts, said, when informed of Trumps desire to pack churches on Easter, Yeah. No. In fact, the countries dealing best with the coronavirus are precisely those with high levels of social trust: South Korea, for instance, where a comprehensive national health system made sure that no one had to worry about getting a test or paying for treatment. Or the Scandinavian nations, which a United Nations report released on March 20th said are in the best position to deal with such crises. Nations with higher levels of social trust and connections are more resilient in the face of natural disasters and economic crises, it concluded, because fixing rather than fighting becomes the order of the day. Its probably no accident that, in many ways, the Nordic nations also lead the climate fight, or that South Koreas ruling party proposed a sweeping Green New Deal to confront the economic slump that the virus left behind. Working together is what humans are actually built to do.

Passing the Mic

The fossil-fuel-divestment movement has been one of the most productive fronts in the fight against climate change for nearly a decade, growing into the largest campaign of its kind, with endowments and portfolios worth twelve trillion dollars pledging to sell their fossil-fuel stock. But some of this countrys richest universities, including Yale and Harvard, have declined to join, despite votes showing students and faculty overwhelmingly in favor of divestment. So some Harvard students and alumni started a group called Harvard Forward, which, with a petition drive, managed to get five climate-focussed candidates on the ballot in the universitys Board of Overseers elections, which alumni would have been able to vote in beginning this week. (Harvard announced on Tuesday that, because of the coronavirus, it would postpone the balloting until midsummer.) One of them is Thea Sebastian, who graduated from the college in 2008 and the law school in 2016, and is the policy counsel for an N.G.O. called the Civil Rights Corps, where she coordinates nationwide strategies to address race-based and wealth-based injustices in our criminal-legal system.

Harvard is filled with scholars studying the climate crisis. Why do you think the administration has been so unwilling to follow institutions around the world and divest from fossil fuels?

Harvard has been an incredible leader on many issues, taking difficult stances that challenged accepted norms. Take, for example, our leadership on affirmative action. Take our stance on Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

Where our endowment is concerned, we havent shown this same courage. We only divested from apartheid after the moment had passed. And on climate change, were poised to do the same.

In my view, our reticence stems from a belief that investments and values are separable. If were doing good research and going carbon-neutral, we can make money however we want. Its the same bifurcationa line between profit and purposethat describes much of our economy.

The thing is, this bifurcation doesnt hold. Our investments are a crucial instrument of our values. Thats true both at Harvard and far, far beyond. We wont fix climate changeor solve structural inequitieswithout building an economy where companies act and invest responsibly. I want Harvard to lead this charge. And, in my view, that starts with divestment.

Much of your work is on civil rights and structural inequality. Harvard is as close to the center of the establishment as its possible to get. Can it really play a role in dismantling systems it helped build?

The rest is here:

Working Together Is What Humans Are Built to Do: Social Trust Is Key to Stemming the Coronavirus Crisis - The New Yorker

As a public service, Silver Cross Hospital & Shaw Media will provide open access to information related to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) emergency. Sign up for the newsletter here

While Illinois decided to go ahead and hold its primary election March 17 despite the novel coronavirus pandemic, other politicos are worried about how the crisis might affect the ability of third party candidates to get on the ballot in November.

Third party candidates need to collect signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot starting this month through late June. Under normal circumstances, candidates knock on doors or attend political events asking voters to sign their petition.

But as the COVID-19 pandemic has forced residents to stay in their homes and elected officials have banned large gatherings of people, thats made it more difficult to collect signatures.

The Will County Republican Party called on state officials this month to come up with some solutions to help third party candidates.

Ballot access is the American way, the party said in a statement. It is our vision that all parties have fair and equal access to pick their chosen candidates.

Danny Malouf, a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, said candidates like him are already at a disadvantage because they need to collect many more signatures than Republican and Democratic candidates.

For the U.S. Senate, he has to collect 25,000 valid signatures, five times more than Republicans and Democrats. In reality, he said that means he has to collect closer to 40,000 signatures to get on the ballot to ensure he has enough in the event some are challenged and deemed invalid.

Still, Malouf said he understands why people might be reluctant to answer their doors or even take a pen from him when residents have been told to practice social distancing.

This is a scary time for a lot of people, he said. We want to respect peoples health and concerns.

Matt Dietrich, a spokesman for the Illinois Board of Elections, said signature requirements are set by state law, which the General Assembly would have to change. While Maloufs efforts are made more difficult because the legislature isnt in session for the time being due to the pandemic, hes lobbied the governor for some sort of executive action.

But Deitrich said neither the governor nor the board of elections has the authority to change the requirements. His agency has been in contact with the Libertarian Party and Green Party over the issue.

Still, he added that third party candidates could take their argument to court to get some sort of relief considering the unusual circumstances.

The general election is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Read more:

Will County GOP, Libertarians worry how COVID-19 will affect third party ballot access - The Herald-News

Rep. Max RoseMax RoseOvernight Defense: Aircraft carrier captain pleads for help with outbreak | Pentagon shipment of ventilators delayed | Pompeo urges countries to be more 'transparent' with virus data New York representative to deploy with National Guard as part of coronavirus response Democratic lawmaker on stimulus vote delay: 'There will be blood on Thomas Massie's hands' MORE (D-N.Y.) called Rep. Thomas MassieThomas Harold MassieThe Hill's Campaign Report: North Carolina emerges as key battleground for Senate control The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Trump blends upbeat virus info and high US death forecast GOP challenger seizes on outrage against Massie MORE (R-Ky.) "un-American" during a passionate Fox News interview Friday morning and warned there will be blood on his hands if he forces Congress to push back a vote on a $2 trillion coronavius stimulus bill.

"Can you give me a read on where we are? We understand Thomas Massie, this Republican, who may hold things up a bit longer, although we still expect final passage at some point," asked "America's Newsroom" anchor Ed Henry.

"Is he on the house floor weighing his options? Hes a libertarian who is not happy about some of the spending items in here."

"So let me take a moment and talk about Thomas Massie, because I don't take his actions or his threats so lightly," Rose replied.

"Every single day constituents of mine, residents of my district, Staten Island and south Brooklyn, are dying. We see New York City, New York state, the epicenter of this crisis and that crisis will move on to other places in America."

"We have never seen a threat like this," Rose continued.

Massie, 48, has railed against the bill and is concerned about how much the package will grow the national debt, calling it not a good deal" in a Thursday tweet.

The Kentucky lawmaker has also indicated that he may force a roll-call vote, a process in which lawmakers need to be in the House chamber to form a quorum for a floor vote, further delaying the process.

Dozens of lawmakers scrambled to find transportation on Thursday night with little notice in order to be in Washington in case Massie does demand a roll-call vote.

"So Thomas Massie, this is disgusting. This is inhumane," Rose continued.

"You aren't a libertarian, you're un-American. If we push this back 24 hours there will be blood on Thomas Massie's hands, anyone else who steps in the way of this, blood on their hands. Weve got to get the money out into hospitals' pockets; PPE for our first responders, action is needed."

President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden campaign: Trump and former vice president will have phone call about coronavirus Esper: Military personnel could help treat coronavirus patients 'if push comes to shove' Schumer calls for military official to act as medical equipment czar MORE also ripped Massie on Friday morning, accusing him of being a grandstander who should be expelled from the Republican Party amid anxiety the libertarian lawmaker will object to the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package set to go for a House vote on Friday.

Looks like a third rate Grandstander named @RepThomasMassie, a Congressman from, unfortunately, a truly GREAT State, Kentucky, wants to vote against the new Save Our Workers Bill in Congress, Trump wrote in a pair of tweets Friday morning to his more than 75 million followers. He just wants the publicity. He cant stop it, only delay, which is both dangerous & costly.

Workers & small businesses need money now in order to survive," Trump added in a subsequent tweet. "Virus wasnt their fault. It is HELL dealing with the Dems, had to give up some stupid things in order to get the big picture done, 90% GREAT! Trump tweeted. WIN BACK HOUSE, but throw Massie out of Republican Party!

Read the original here:

Democratic lawmaker on stimulus vote delay: 'There will be blood on Thomas Massie's hands' | TheHill - The Hill

Do you want to know which are Best Asus Routers brand? In addition to having a good VPN network to improve your online security and privacy, it is very important to have a good router at home, which is secure and offers good connectivity. ASUS routers always offer very good functionality and their signatures are the most secure right now.

ASUS routers are one of the best options right now to improve the quality of your local home network. You are going to notice a tremendous difference compared to the m * erd * routers installed by the telephone operators. You are going to take advantage of the 300MB, 400MB or 600MB installed in your fiber connection. Your WIFI connection will fly like never before. Forget about your interference problems.

The truth is that you have to reach a middle ground in quality, performance and price. Some are really expensive (you will not regret buying them) and others are more affordable. In any case, rest assured that you will not be worth paying your operator to install a new router of its own brand. Better buy one yourself and install it at home.

Best Asus Routers

They range from more than 300 euros to 60 euros. The most expensive models such as the ASUS RT-AC88U are perfect for gaming, while the ASUS RT-AC68U or ASUS RT-AC87U are perfect for greatly improving the routers provided by operators in US and in other countries.

-ASUS RT-AC88U AC3100 Dual-Band Gigabit Gaming Router (link aggregation, Aiprotection with TrendMicro, WTFast game accelerator, Nitro QAM)

-ASUS RT-AC87U Dual-Band AC2400 Wireless Router (Gigabit, Access Point Mode, 3G / 4G Dongle Support)

-ASUS RT-AC3200 AC3200 Tri-Band Wireless Router (Gigabit, Repeater, Access Point, USB 3.0, QoS)

-ASUS RT-AC68U AC1900 Dual-band Gigabit Wireless Router (Access Point, USB 3.0, Supports 3G / 4G)

-ASUS RT-AC1200G + Dual-Band AC1200 Gigabit Wireless Router (access point mode, triple VLAN, ASUS router application supported)

Best Asus RoutersModels to Use with VPN Networks or for Gaming:

1. Asus RT-AC5300 Router

The gaming router that we would recommend to everyone, and as it has excellent firmware, also to configure your VPN network throughout your home. The only downside is that it is somewhat expensive, and that the design may not like many, but I can assure you that it impresses. The WIFI signal goes through the thickest walls. Its kind of big and it only has a USB 3.0 port.

-Ultra-fast 4K / UHD resolution and fast file sharing

-Broadcom NitroQAM technology with up to 4334 Mbps

-44 antenna design with AiRadar technology to cover a larger area

-11ac: 2,167Mbps, 802.11n: 600Mbps

-4 x Gigabit Ethernet, 1 x WAN, 1 x USB 2.0, 1 x USB 3.0

Asus RT-AC86U Routers

A perfect router for gaming and to connect to your VPN network. You can install a third-party firmware, but the one that comes from the factory is perfect to use with your VPN network. The connection speed will be magnificent and the extension of your WIFI network too. Its design is daring, and it costs to adapt to the firmware if you have not seen it before, but in the end it is worth it.

-AC2900 Dual Band Gaming Router

-AiMesh Compatible: Connect compatible ASUS routers and create a versatile all-home networked mesh Wi-Fi system

-Triple-VLAN functionality, compatible with your operators triple-play services (Internet, IP Voice and TV), offers automatic management of IP addresses, OpenVPN server and client

-Adaptive QoS and WTFast game accelerator for online gaming and 4K streaming without delay

-High-speed wireless connectivity: AC2900 speeds with NitroQAM technology to perform on the busiest home networks

-Expanded coverage area: High-performance antennas, ASUS AiRadar, and Range Boost help cover difficult areas, and MU-MIMO maximizes performance by connecting multiple devices

-Professional grade security: AiProtection with Trend Micro technology protects all connected devices

-Simple administration: configure and manage your device from the ASUS Router app

-5 x Gigabit LAN, 1 x USB 2.0, 1 x USB 3.0

-11ac 1734 Mbps

Asus ROG Rapture GT-AX11000

Like the ASUS RT-AX88U, it supports the latest WIFI standard and has 8 WIFI antennas so that connectivity reaches your entire home. It also has a 2.5GBase-T port, Adaptive QoS to prioritize traffic and is perfect for use with VPN networks.

-High-speed Wi-Fi: 11000 Mbps

-Three ways to speed up games: speed up game traffic between your device and game server

-8 GHz quad-core CPU, and a 2.5GBase -T port

It is an expensive router, but if money is not an issue and you need the best of the best, then this router is perfect. If you are a game that needs the best connectivity, you can not hesitate to get this model.

More:

What Are The Best ASUS Routers in 2020? - The Libertarian Republic

There are no libertarians in a global pandemic. So goes the smug punchline of large-government advocates who point to the necessity of collective action in the face of an unprecedented global crisis. Without government, they say, wed all be dead.

Few libertarians would disagree. The hardcore libertarians at Reason magazine arent spending their days fulminating over the evils of government-required lockdown orders in the face of a fast-spreading, deadly disease. Thats because they, like all other sentient human beings, recognize that collective action is sometimes necessary.

But heres the dirty little secret: Institutional failures during this pandemic are more indicative of what our politics should be during nonpandemic situations, not the blunt-force ability of the government to shut down the global economy and force us all to stay home. The question isnt whether government has power. Government is power. The question is how and when to apply that power. And what weve seen is that government sucks at everything, even the most basic things it is supposed to do well.

Democrats and the media like to pretend that governments failures in this process arent endemic to government control. They like to blame such failures on Republicans, and on President Donald Trump specifically. But thats just not the case. Human beings are fallible, stupid, gullible and self-interested. Human beings who have the power of government to back them are not less human for having that power. Their humanity just has direr consequences, which is why in nonemergency circumstances, checks and balances are absolutely necessary.

Take, for example, the early days of the pandemic. Democrats say Trump was slow to respond to the incipient threat. But so were Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently declared, As Trump fiddles, people are dying, but in late February, she was walking the streets of Chinatown, encouraging citizens to join her. New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has ripped Trump for his supposed downplaying of the virus, but De Blasio spent a month poo-pooing its threat. When confronted about that simple fact by CNNs Jake Tapper, De Blasio conveniently suggested they stop looking backward.

Why should we trust these people, exactly?

Or take the roots of Americas inability to provide the health care resources necessary to hospitals across the country. While state and local governments were frittering away billions of dollars on useless government spending, they did precisely nothing to prepare for exactly the sort of black swan events for which governments were presumably invented. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent a month failing to produce useful tests and prevented physicians in Seattle from performing proper testing, even after President Trump issued a travel ban on China. For years in advance, members of the federal government of both parties had been warned about the need for ventilators and masks. No one produced or stockpiled them. The Food and Drug Administrations red tape prevented the quick development of new measures to deal with the novel coronavirus.

Why should these people control our lives, when the threat of the red death isnt hovering on our doorstep?

The government is a giant, lumbering idiot. Sometimes we need a giant, lumbering idiot. Almost always, we do not. And those who have used this pandemic response one of the rare times we need a giant, lumbering idiot to intimidate people into preventing mass infection of one another, and to borrow the money necessary to redress the injuries thus incurred as a rationale for a government-run new politics should have their heads examined.

Ben Shapiro, 36, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of The Ben Shapiro Show, and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller The Right Side of History. He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

See the original post:

Shapiro: Stop pretending pandemic politics are the new norm - Daily Herald

Regardless of our political commitments, we all want the world to be better. We want people everywhere to be healthier, happier, safer, and more prosperous than ever before. Political libertythe freedom to live our lives as we want while affording others the right to do the same, free from the heavy hand of the stateis the best way to achieve that goal.

Visions of Liberty is more than just an introduction to the broad scope of political liberty. It will leave you with astrong sensea clear visionof what the application of genuine libertarian policies looks like in practice.

Our contributors take different approaches. Some look to the past, pointing out how things worked before government got involved. Others look forward, offering future histories that describe how things could play out if we make certain choices. But each of them shares the fi rm belief that when freed from the meddlesome and coercive hand of the state, people can do amazing things. Liberty unleashes our drive for ingenuity and sense of compassion. This radical vision of aworld that might be is truly worth striving for.

Read the rest here:

Visions of Liberty - Cato Institute

Candidate filing for the November 2020 state and local elections ended on March 30.

In local races, filing to run are:

For Sheriff:

Democratic candidates: Arthur Jordan, Harold Ray Lowery, Pinky Regalado, Otis Rhodes and Alyssa Bodison.

Republican candidates: Craig Stivender, Mark Cobb, Buddy Hill, Anthony Buchanan and Dolphus Pinckney.

For Clerk of Court:

Democratic candidates: Wanda Taylor and Debra Bright.

Republican candidate: Becky H. Hill.

For Coronor:

Democratic candidate: Miguel Koger.

Republican candidate: Richard Harvey.

For Colleton County Council:

District 23:

Democratic candidates are Phillip Taylor and Kevin Williams.

District 45:

Democratic candidate: Sabrina Johnson.

Republican candidates: William Smyly, Joe Flowers and Jeff Ament.

State Races

Democratic presidential nominations are on hold for the present, but statewide, the following candidates have filed to run in the November election.

For United States Senate:

Democratic Party candidate: Jaime Harrison.

Republican candidates: Lindsey Graham, Dwayne Buckner, Joe Reynolds and Michael LaPierre.

Constitution candidate: Bill Bledsoe.

Libertarian candidates: Keenan Wallace Dunham and David Weikle.

For United States House of Representatives:

District 1: Democratic candidate: Joe Cunningham.

Republican candidates: Nancy Mace, Kathy Landing, Chris Cox and Brad Mole.

District 6: Democratic candidate: Jim Clyburn.

Republican candidate: John McCollum.

Constitution candidate: Mark Hackett.

For South Carolina State Senate:

District 39: Democratic candidates: Vernon Stephens, William R. Johnson, Cindy Evans and Jerry Montgomery.

Republican candidate: Tom Conner.

District 40: Democratic candidates: Brad Hutto and Michael Addison.

District 43: Democratic candidate: Richard Hricik.

Republican candidate: Chip Campsen.

District 45: Democratic candidate: Margie Bright Matthews.

Republican candidate: Rodney Buncum.

For South Carolina House of Representatives:

District 90: Democratic candidates: Justin Bamberg and Evert Comer.

Republican candidate: Glenn Posey.

District 97: Democratic candidate: Ronee De Canio.

Republican candidate: Mandy Kimmons.

District 116: Democratic candidates: Millicent Traeye Middleton, Charles A. Glover, John Prioleau and Chardale Murray.

Republican candidate: Carroll ONeal.

District 121: Democratic candidate: Michael Rivers.

Republican candidate: Eric Erickson.

For Solicitor in District 14

Republican Duffie Stone.

View original post here:

Here are the candidates - Walterboro Live

You? she said, incredulous. Essential?

She started laughing and has been laughing pretty much ever since.

I think she has cabin fever, or maybe even a real fever.

Im no doctor, but I think the missus is a couple days shy of chasing me into the bathroom, chopping a hole in the door, then sticking her head through and shouting, Heres Johnny!

They say absence makes the heart grow fonder. But the opposite is true, too.

So I decided to go outside, sit in my car and call somebody.

And just who," my wife asked, "are you going to talk to?

Nobody, I replied, walking out the door.

Nobody lives in Keene, N.H., about 60 miles away from where were staying in Vermont. Last year, he legally changed his given name, Rich Paul, to, well, Nobody.

Nobody is part of the libertarian Free State movement. He thinks government is too big and pretty much useless, and believes people should smoke more weed, which, in the middle of a pandemic, sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Nobody didnt fare so well in the mayoral election last year.

I got about 2 percent of the vote, he said.

He saw the vote as tactical.

Clearly, he said, the good citizens of Keene would prefer I be governor.

So now hes challenging Governor Chris Sununu.

I talked to Nobody for an hour, and I must be crazy, because Im pretty sure he is and he made more sense than most people Ive talked to the last few weeks.

Nobody thinks Charlie Bakers decision to keep the liquor stores open while shutting down the recreational cannabis shops is logically and morally inconsistent, and even potentially dangerous, depriving people of a substance that reduces stress at a time of heightened anxiety.

I know alcoholics who stopped drinking because it was killing them and now they smoke weed, Nobody said. If you deprive them of marijuana, theyre going to start drinking again. Thats dumb.

Nobodys critics like to dismiss him by pointing out that he has a long criminal record.

He freely admits to his run-ins with the law, saying, I cant even count how many times Ive been arrested.

But he says most of his arrests were misdemeanors, and insists some others amounted to harassment, that law enforcements interest in him is based on a false belief that he supports potentially violent subversion. He says his most serious infraction was a setup.

I sold a pound of weed to a guy I used to buy ecstasy from, he said.

The guy was wearing a wire for the feds.

The most dangerous drug cartel in America is Big Pharma," said Nobody, "and the government is their muscle.

Hmm. I cant imagine why the government hates this guy.

Undaunted, Nobody has scheduled a rally at the state capital, on Aprils Fools Day, no less, challenging what he calls Sununus arbitrary ban on gatherings of 10 or more people. He is willing to take the risk of being arrested and even infected to make a point.

Im going to update my will to say dont give me a respirator if I get the virus, because I will have brought it on myself, he said. Frankly, if it werent for the governors order, I wouldnt go to Concord, Id just stay hunkered down in my house. Im more scared of the government than the virus.

Until April 1, hes sitting tight at his house in Keene, where the lights are on and Nobodys home.

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.

Read more:

In a pandemic, Nobody thinks we should smoke more weed - The Boston Globe

The coronavirus relief plan passed last week, but one congressman tried to stop it.

U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an ardent libertarian, nearly forced the entire House of Representatives to return to Washington to vote on the plan.

Massie defied the leadership of both parties on behalf of the Constitution . . . at least in his own mind.

Some conservatives saw him as a hero for standing up against the corruption of the swamp. But his protest was ultimately silly and a lame throwback to the libertarianism over which Donald Trump triumphed in 2016.

Massie outlined on Twitter why he opposed the coronavirus relief plan. His main beef was that the Constitution requires a recorded vote on such a bill.

(1/11)I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and I take that oath seriously.

In a few moments I will request a vote on the CARES Act which means members of Congress will vote on it by pushing yes or no or present.

Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 27, 2020

The Kentucky Republican also complained about the wasteful spending, such as $25 million for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the increase in the national debt. He didnt offer an alternative to the bill outside of making all of Congress fly back to D.C. to vote on it.

This move inevitably angered Massies congressional colleagues and President Trump. Trump even positively retweeted John Kerry calling Massie an asshole.

Never knew John Kerry had such a good sense of humor! Very impressed! https://t.co/vCVNMUeY2h

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2020

The congressman was right to oppose the unnecessary pork for undeserving recipients like the Kennedy Center. Most conservatives shared Massies disgust that these provisions made it into the final bill. But most conservatives also realized that there was something more important in the fight than Massies objections.

The relief plan was never going to be perfect. Congress needed to pass a quick compromise to help out Americans in desperate need. Republicans should have been more discerning in what they allowed into the bill. Massie, however, ignored the major problems in the bill.

He didnt mention the $350 million set aside for refugee assistance in his Twitter thread. This is far more than what was allocated to the Kennedy Center and is more of an insult to struggling Americans. Why is our government spending money on foreign nationals at a time when millions of Americans are out of work? This wouldve been a great question for a Republican lawmaker to ask about and oppose.

One Republican did make a fuss about itit wasnt Massie though. It was Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

$350m for Migration & Refugee Assistance

This is probably politically incorrect. I dont care.

We should secure the economic condition of *every American* before spending the first extra dollar on a program that largely supports people here illegally.

No for CBP/ICE, btw pic.twitter.com/gBFjM2xipt

Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) March 25, 2020

Additionally, the relief plan prohibits Defense Department funds to be used for the border wall. Coronavirus illustrates the dangers of open borders and globalism; any serious response would insist on stricter immigration controls and stronger borders. The provision limits Americas power to protect itself and prevent future pandemics from getting to our country. Yet, Massie, like all Republicans, ignored this restriction.

It would have been far more productive and relevant for Massie to focus on these concerns instead of reviving arguments from 2010. Nationalists and populists shouldnt see the Kentuckians fight as their own.

Serious Trumpists understand the government has an obligation to help out people in a time of need. The arguments over big government and the deficit are relics from the Tea Party era. Were in a new era where Republicans need to fight to protect the people and defend their interests. The government is no longer the enemy, but a tool to advance the national interest.

There is no libertarian solution to the coronavirus crisisunless of course, you want millions of Americans to go broke and the economy to crater.

Massie is a valuable lawmaker for his courageous stands on foreign policy and opposition to disastrous interventions. This is why the establishment hates him, not because he wants limited government. The establishment knows the limited government rhetoric is ultimately toothless. The real threat is the national populist agenda Trump ran on, which combined immigration restrictionism, economic nationalism, and noninterventionism.

It wouldve been great if one Republican lawmaker had taken a stand against the relief package on behalf of that viewpoint. Instead, we got a farcical rehash of the Tea Party fights against Barack Obama.

One Republican aide perfectly summarized Massies rebellion.

Massies a clown in a tricorn hat pretending like its 2010 again, a Senior Republican aide says to sum up the situation.

The aide adds, Hes got no plan to improve the bill because theres no magic bitcoin fix. This isnt TARP, its basically nation-wide hurricane relief.

Philip Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) March 27, 2020

Harsh words, but true. Massie is no national populist champion. Hes acting like a clown in a tricorn hat.

Read the original:

Don't Think of Massie as a Hero - American Greatness

Margaret Thatcher was a self-described libertarian from that era. She did something quite different with the single tax problem; she altered the class structure of the country.

No single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the State to the people. MP Michael Heseltine on the sale of publicly owned housing (Right to Buy), UK (1980)

The introduction of the Right to Buy policy in the 1980s can be considered one of the greatest intergenerational injustices in recent political history. David Kingman at the Intergenerational Foundation, UK (2017)

The Single Tax broke through in elections on two occasions. In 1886, Henry George ran for mayor of New York, leading a party of labour unions, Catholics, and Georgites with a land value tax platform. The Pope himself took part in stopping him. Then, in 1906, in Great Britain, the Liberal Party, propelled by an historic re-emergence of the land reform movement, won a landslide general election victory. The House of Lords sacrificed its legislative veto to halt land value taxation.Two elections, two crises.

The single tax (i.e. the shifting of taxes from labor and capital onto land value) had met formidable opposition. The single tax as something one can vote for ended in Great Britain soon after the Great Warat that time of revolution, imperial dissolution, regicide, epidemic and economic dislocation. Very close to home, Ireland, where the land question had raged for decades, was at war with the British Empire. From Londons point of view, it was not a time for experiments.

The [Liberal-Conservative] coalition dug the grave wide and deep. They flung into it the Land Taxes of Mr Lloyd George, the Land Valuation of Mr Lloyd George and the Land Policy of Mr Lloyd George. They dumped earth upon it. They stamped down the ground over the grave. They set up a stone to commemorate their victory for testimony to the passing stranger. Here buried forever, lies the Land Crusade.Never, it would seem, was a cause so sensationally and utterly destroyed. C. F. G. Masterman, politician and commentator (1920) quoted by FML Thompson in The Land Question in Britain, 1750-1950

Exactly the same thing happened on the Left. The Left was very closely linked to Georgism. A majority of Fabian-socialists either were or had been Georgists, and the Fabian society was formed by activists minted by Henry George himself, by his speeches and debates in the 1880s. Years of trying to reconcile Georgism and socialism followed, but the vanguard of the Left then also abruptly dropped the single tax.

The attempt to put into force any such crude universal measurewhich, it may be explained, is very far from being contemplated by the Labour Partywould inevitably jeopardise the very substance of the nation. B. and S. Webb, A Constitution for a Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (1921),quoted in Peter dA. Jones Henry George and British Socialism.

The Representation of the People Act (1918) had added millions to the electorate. The pre-war land crusade, which was especially intense in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, had driven three general election victories in a row. What might it do now, with so many new landless voters? For the sakes of both the old right and the new left, liberalism, this thought-out, land-centric incarnation, had to be buried.

Disappearance was, indeed, achieved, but the burial was a hoax. The Single Tax to this day, lays living, etherized upon a table. The patient is tended to, kept under, by a staff of ex-devotees; lords, liberals, leftists unable to let go completely. Many were libertarians. Libertarianism was borne on the Georgist wave, just as socialism was. But unlike socialism, libertarianism naturally developed on Georgist lines: both are classically liberal and anti-monopoly. Albert J. Nock, the greatest libertarian critic of The State, had no doubt:

[Henry George] was the only [reformer] who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.

But post-World War II libertarianism also reached for the anaesthetic. A heavy price was paid. In order to sever roots and accept in toto the current system of state-founded, state-protected land monopoly libertarianism had to sacrifice its first principle: self-ownership. It also had to withdraw its original and most powerful critique of The State. In 1939 the author of Taxation is Robbery, Frank Chodorov,had written: The socialization of rent would destroy taxes. The State (as we know it) would disappear.

That taxation is intolerable, of course, remains central to libertarian rhetoric. But the rhetoric is thin. Does libertarianism today claim, as Chodorov did, that taxation itself can be abolished, transforming the State into something else, free of systemic privilege, i.e. minarchy? Would it say this: The [modern doctrine of taxation] does not distinguish between property acquired through privilege and property acquired through production. It cannot, must not, do that, for in so doing it would question the validity of taxation as a whole. If taxation were abolished, for instance, the cost of maintaining the social services of a community would fall on rentthere is no third sourceand the privilege of appropriating rent would disappear

The answer is no. In 1957, a former student of Georgism, Murray Rothbard, stepped in and ended the single tax debate within mainstream libertarianism. He simply denied the existence of rent: The first consequence of the single tax, then, is that no revenue would accrue from it.

Despite the misunderstanding, he got away with it. Chodorov had placed the single tax at the center of the libertarian critique of the state. The prolific Rothbard, the quietist, the etherizer, overwrites Taxation is Robbery. The meme taxation is theft was then appropriated and etherized and has become a mantra. State transformation via tax reform is a cancelled option; the most a libertarian can aspire to now is tax evasion: We should welcome every new loophole, shelter, credit, or exemption, and work, not to shut them down but to expand them to include everyone else, including ourselves.

Such was the transition to Royal Libertarianism.

Margaret Thatcher was a self-described libertarian from that era. She did something quite different with the single tax problem; she altered the class structure of the country. Before Thatcher became Prime Minister, she was grilled on land economics and the unearned increment by William F. Buckley (a Georgist) on television. She skillfully tiptoed around the subject but did, when pressed, give a nod in the direction of the single tax. She clearly understood the Georgist diagnosis of economic malaise. However, a few years later, after the election, she administered the anti-Georgist cure. The policy was called Right to Buy, the sale of publicly-owned real estate (council houses and, crucially, the value of their locations) to tenants. Around two million took up the offer. A boom in the wider real estate market followed. The government, in the Parliamentary debate on the bill, was frank: No one can dispute that the home owner in recent decades has gained immensely from the fact of ownership. The gain has accrued partially from the judgement and thrift associated with the saving to buy, but even more from the tax-free windfall gains that have accrued to virtually everyone once he has bought his own home.

Heseltine then went on to describe how the tenant paying rent (i.e. the non-landowner) is in a very different boat. The tenant receives no benefit from rising land value. On the contrary, the renter pays higher rents. This, of course, is the Georgist thesis on inequality in a nutshell, presented as common fact. But instead of using that fact to advocate for the single tax, it is used to advertise real estate:

There is in this country a deeply ingrained desire for home ownership. The Government believe that this spirit should be fostered. It reflects the wishes of the people, ensures the wide spread of wealth through societyand stimulates the attitudes of independence and self-reliance that are the bedrock of a free society.

The aim was to create an incentive society, a property owning democracy. The home-owner was a variation on libertarianisms entrepreneur ideal-type. This entrepreneur does not see Chodorovs distinction between production and privilege: between an innovator-entrepreneur (production), and a rentier-entrepreneur (privilege).

The Bill has two main objectives: first, to give people what they want, and, secondly, to reverse the trend of ever-increasing dominance of the State over the life of the individual,Heseltine said in 1980.

The language is deflecting; it is the people who want the expansion of the land windfall. Thatcher was following Rothbard to the letter; she achieved the radical expansion of a tax loophole. It was a brilliant move, and it laid in a voting block hostile (we are told) to any attempt to revive the sleeping patient.

In recent years, the results of Right to Buy have been examined. The first Right to Buy house, a two bedroomed terrace was sold in 1980 to its council tenants. Located near enough to London, this is what happened to its price:

1980: 8,000 (average wage 6,000)

2020 301,000 (average wage 36,000)

332,000 (current est.)

That price rise, that increment, was privatized in 1980, an act of enclosure. However, in widening land monopoly, Thatcher ignored the law of monopoly: The big eventually devour the small. The attempt to engineer a permanent property owning middle class has failed.

40% Of Right-To-Buy Homes Now In Hands Of Private Landlords.

In The Huffington Post, 2017

For 25-34 year-olds earning between 22k and 30k per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago.

In The Guardian, 2018

Adults in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago.

In The Guardian, 2020

Margaret Thatcher engineered a new landowner class large enough to keep the Single Tax out of politics. But she used the poison as the cure. The home-owning class is now shrinking. Monopoly feeds on monopoly. The patient lays etherized.

Darren Iversen is an independent student of Georgist history in England.

More here:

Margaret Thatcher, Libertarianism, and the Etherization of the Single Tax - Merion West

President Donald Trump and Senator Tom Cotton in the White House in Washington, D.C., August 2, 2017(Carlos Barria/Reuters)

Charles Fain Lehman has written an assessment for the Washington Free Beacon of the policy divide among congressional Republicans on how best to confront the economic dimension of the coronavirus outbreak. He argues that the debate maps at least partly onto pre-existing political struggles within the Republican Party, pitting those open to greater government intervention, such as senators Mitt Romney, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley, against more libertarian-leaning members.

This is true, to some extent. One can quibble somewhat with certain aspects of this analyis, however. Certainly, libertarians might resent being stuck with Senator Lindsay Graham as their ostensible philosophical representative. And when a policy expert at a think-tank Lehman describes as libertarian-leaning helps design the plan of one of the supposedly anti-libertarian members, one wonders how severe and serious the distinctions his assessment focuses on are, at least amid coronavirus. (Even if Samuel Hammond isnt exactly a libertarian.)

Theres something meaningful to the fact that no one in Congress is really arguing for the federal government to do nothing, which is not what most libertarians would be on board with now anyway. Instead, theyre arguing over the best way to increase government involvement. This is an extraordinary crisis. Government does often grow in such times in ways that linger afterward. But we have no way of knowing at this time if the attitudes and policies that emerge now will carry on into the future (or if they should). Right now, we dont even know whats going to happen next week.

Or in 2024. Yet Lehman writes:

Cotton, Hawley, and Rubio are all considered potential contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential primary. A successful run by any of them could shift the balance of power in the party away from its more libertarian, business-oriented wing and into the hands of the nascent populist, worker-focused tendency awakened by, among other things, the electoral success of President Donald Trump.

Whether this framing is correct or not, the amount of things we know for certain is, at this time, incredibly low. We dont know what Congress is going to do, whether America will successfully limit the spread of coronavirus, or how it will impact the 2020 election (or if it even will). Lehman may be right that politics isnt stopping completely during this extraordinary event, even if its singular nature suggests caution regarding its utility as a reference point for politics beyond. But whatever happens, speculating about the 2024 presidential primary seems genuinely impossible right now.

Read more:

COVID-19 and . . . 2024? - National Review

Springfield, IL - People looking to run for public office as third-party or independent candidates are facing a new struggle to get on the ballot due to the novel coronavirus. Petitioning for alternative political parties in Illinois started this week, but candidates are struggling as they can't talk face-to-face with residents during the stay at home period.

The Libertarian Party of Illinois asked Gov. JB Pritzker's office and the State Board of Elections what they could do to help alternative party candidates appear on the November ballot. Officials from the Board of Elections said nothing can be done without action from state lawmakers.

"We're kind of screwed right now, to be quite honest. It's impossible to gather petition signatures at this time," said McLean County Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Suess. "And there's not really a time table for when it will be possible either. We only have 90 days, so we have 89 more and the clock's ticking."

The Libertarian Party says they'll continue to look for solutions with the Governor's office and Board of Elections to give every political party the opportunity to be on the November ballot. Party members say lowering the current petition signature requirements could be a good first step, but they realize it would require proposals to move quickly out of both chambers. With the General Assembly canceling their third consecutive week of scheduled session due to COVID-19, it's highly uncertain if such plans could pass before the end of session in May.

"I have hopes that they'll be in Springfield in a few weeks in April, but who knows how long this shelter in place will be in order and how long it will be before our General Assembly can get together and actually work on something," Suess exclaimed.

Link:

Illinois third-party candidates seek changes to ballot access amid COVID-19 pandemic - WGEM

Life is made up of stages, and although many believe that reaching 60 means giving in to a life of rest, dont forget you can always enjoy an interesting, fulfilling life. You can go out, travel, explore new places, and there is no reason you cant have an intimate date with escorts in London and be seduced.

Theres nothing quite like arriving at a social event with a stunning and sophisticated escort on your arm with an impeccable presence. Nowadays, many people do, and its a practice that brings class to those who choose the best companions.

After a life of work, effort and dedication, this last stage doesnt have to mean distancing yourself from the activities that you were passionate about in your youth. Your body may not respond in the same way, but maintaining a balanced diet after 30 can drastically prolong your sex life.

Sex shouldnt become taboo after a certain age, as its a natural human practice. Its benefits have been proven through studies that show having an active sex life reflects in an improvement in your physical and mental state.

Couples who have been together for many years can still keep their action going in bed, even after a lot of time has passed. This doesnt often happen, and people older than 60 who maintain an active sex life are considered lucky in our society. Sex reduces the risk of prostate cancer, improves cardiac activity and significantly increases your happiness.

Your brain health can improve, and, considering that the majority of illness during this period affect the brain, it is a good way of keeping deterioration at bay. Your physical appearance will improve, and, of course, your vitality will shoot up. According to David Weeks, people who have sex look 7 years younger than they are.

Your sex drive usually awakens in certain circumstances, and it is clear that youthfulness, vitality and beautyare stimulating for anyone. Opting for an escort is a great idea for men of a certain age, as certain obstacles are skipped over and you can go straight to action.

Many dream of spending the last years of their lives travelling, so its good to have a companion who can make those moments much more pleasurable: good conversation, a night of dancing, and rounding off with great sex is something that doesnt sound so bad if you really think about it.

Nowadays, reaching a certain age is a victory, and fulfilling your desires can be a good way of injecting a little vitality into your old age. Having a gorgeous companion is undoubtedly a great way to keep the flame of passion alight.

Here is the original post:

The benefits of sex after 60 - The Libertarian Republic

Written by Jane Arraf Mar. 25, 2020

The country of Jordan has implemented one of the strictest lockdowns in the world to stop the spread of the coronavirus, forcing most people to stay indoors and temporarily shutting down even grocery stores and pharmacies.

The Middle Eastern country with its 10 million residents has so far arrested more than 1,600 people for breaking the five-day-old curfew, which bans even going for walks or allowing pets outdoors.

After three days of complete lockdown, the government has commandeered city buses to deliver bread and other essentials directly to neighborhoods. It had considered ensuring distribution of cigarettes to smokers in a country with one of the highest smoking rates in the world.

On Tuesday, Jordan began allowing a limited reopening of small grocery stores for those between ages 16 and 60. It kept a ban on driving. Security forces say they have impounded more than 600 cars for breaching the ban.

The strict measures were taken after a less-severe curfew imposed the previous week was widely flouted, with some Jordanians continuing to hold weddings and other large gatherings.

"Especially in countries without very much intervention, the infection rate can rise really very fast," says Dr. Najwa Khuri-Bulos, an infectious disease specialist and adviser to Jordan's Ministry of Health. "There is a window period where you can interfere effectively. Hopefully doing these kinds of very strict measures will make it manageable."

As of Wednesday, the kingdom has 153 current confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, and the number has been rising steadily but slowly.

Jordan also hosts more than 600,000 Syrian refugees, and the global pandemic had sparked fears that the country's medical care system would be very quickly overloaded.

Last week, the country started placing arriving travelers, including Jordanians, in mandatory 14-day quarantine. About 5,000 people have been quarantined in hotels in the capital of Amman and the Dead Sea. Shortly after, it stopped all incoming and outgoing commercial flights.

The shutdown has had severe economic repercussions in the already poor country.

"Nobody is in denial about the potential economic cost of the shutdown, but authorities perhaps believe that this cost is to be paid 10 times down the line if the virus spreads further. So the main goal is to reduce the human toll," says Nasser bin Nasser, director of the Amman-based Middle East Scientific Institute for Security.

Bin Nasser says most Jordanians seem to be accepting the restrictions. "Maybe in the U.S. or other libertarian societies where freedom of movement is so ingrained in the national psyche this would be harder," he says.

Read the original post:

Jordan Keeps Coronavirus In Check With One Of The World's Strictest Lockdowns | NPR - KCRW

People who own big cats are unusual, were told near the outset of Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness, which proceeds to prove that and then some over seven jaw-dropping episodes. Netflix has made a lot of noise with unscripted programming, but its going to roar with this beyond-bizarre docu-series distraction, which demonstrates that outlandish people who love filming themselves are a formula for TV thats grrrr-reat.

Its hard to know, frankly, where to begin with all the strange twists and turns, but directors Eric Goode and Rebecca Chaiklin rightly assume that its easiest to work backward from the (almost) end: Joseph Maldonado-Passage, an eccentric keeper of tigers, lions and other big cats in Oklahoma who goes by the name Joe Exotic, allegedly having orchestrated a murder-for-hire plot against Carole Baskin, a woman who runs a facility called Big Cat Rescue, who had lobbied to shut down operations like his.

After that, though, theres a whole lot to chew on. Big cats, it turns out, are a kind of aphrodisiac, inspiring what can only be described as cultish devotion including Joes marriage to not one but two men; another big-cat owner, Bhagavan Doc Antle, who is basically a polygamist; and Jeff Lowe, who comes into Joes orbit later and brags about using exotic pets as a come-on to find partners for threesomes.

But wait, theres more: The colorful characters that Joe attracts to work for him (including one who loses a limb to a tiger attack); Joes desire to create his own media kingdom, enlisting a former Inside Edition correspondent, Rick Kirkham, to oversee his TV efforts; and finally, Joes forays into politics, running for president before mounting a libertarian bid for governor of Oklahoma, despite being a little unclear on what a libertarian actually is.

Finally, theres Baskin, who would seemingly be the voice of reason in all this, objecting, as she does, to people housing and trading in dangerous cats. Still, she finances those efforts largely through the fortune she inherited from her late husband, who disappeared under the kind of mysterious circumstances that even a Dateline NBC producer might consider too good to be true.

Because the big-cat owners are showmen (beyond the zoo, Joe fancies himself a country-and-western singer), theres a whole lot of vamping for the cameras. They also tend to document their actions extensively, which makes the occasional use of reenactments here feel especially gratuitous.

Still, even by the standards of reality TV a genre populated by exhibitionists and those seeking their 15 minutes of fame Tiger King is so awash in hard-to-believe oddballs that lean into their image it genuinely feels like a Coen brothers movie come to life, the kind of thing any studio would return to the writer saying the screenplay was too over the top.

During the final chapter, one of Joes employees says theres a lot of drama in the zoo world. Thats about the only thing thats understated in Tiger King, which even amid the current glut of true crime is the kind of juicy morsel thats almost impossible to resist.

Tiger King premieres March 20 on Netflix.

See the original post:

Tiger King is the weird docu-series distraction we can use right now - Q13 News Seattle