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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

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

Householder attracts write-in opposition in bid to keep Ohio House seat – The Columbus Dispatch

Randy Ludlow The Columbus Dispatch

FridayJul31,2020at7:15AMJul31,2020at9:48AM

The indicted Larry Householder faces write-in opposition for re-election to the chamber that booted him from the speakers rostrum of the Ohio House of Representatives on Thursday.

A fellow Republican and a Libertarian say they have filed petitions to oppose Householder, who remains a member of the House, in the Nov. 3 election.

Jay Conrad, a Marine veteran and college student from New Lexington in Perry County, will run as the write-in Republican against Householder following the former speakers arrest in a racketeering and bribery scheme involving the passage of House Bill 6 and its nuclear power plant bailout.

Former Coshocton City Council candidate Robert Leist, a maintenance coordinator at the Kraft Heinz Co., will run as a Libertarian candidate.

Partisan write-in candidates face an Aug. 24 filing deadline. No Democrat filed to run against Householder in the heavily GOP 72nd House District, which covers Perry and Coshocton counties and parts of Licking County, The filing deadline for independent write-in candidates has passed.

If Householder, who lives near Glenford in Perry County, wins re-election and remains a House member, he automatically would be removed if convicted of felonies in the federal criminal case. He and four co-defendants face up to 20 years in prison.

Rep. Bob Cupp, R-Lima, was elected Thursday by the House to replace Householder as speaker.

rludlow@dispatch.com

@RandyLudlow

More here:

Householder attracts write-in opposition in bid to keep Ohio House seat - The Columbus Dispatch

Conservatives and libertarians will appreciate ‘Hamilton: An American Musical’ – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Its no secret: America is in the midst of an identity crisis.

Recent weeks have seen developments that would have seemed unimaginable as little as 10 or 20 years ago from widespread demands to remove memorials dedicated to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, to coordinated efforts to erase their names from colleges and universities. As our republic finds itself torn by countless questions surrounding the Founding Fathers and how their legacies should be remembered today, perhaps no better moment exists for Americans of all political stripes to become absorbed in Lin-Manuel Mirandas masterpiece, Hamilton: An American Musical.

With two hours and 50 minutes of wildly provocative wordplay, outstanding overtures and painstakingly precise historical references, one might feel as though theyve been siphoned through an operatic timewarp straight to 1776 (with every bit of the revolutionary spirit one should expect). And make no mistake: With a storyline so refreshingly cognizant of the difficult questions society faces today, Hamilton is just as timely as it is masterfully made.

Often in the form of rap battles, awe-struck audiences can see Mr. Mirandas take on the adoption of the Virginia Compromise, the early (and still-relevant) objections to interventionist foreign policy, and the enduring debates on government finance and national debt. While the musical doesnt necessarily appeal to conservative or libertarian convictions in every way (for instance, Hamiltons impassioned support for a central banking system), many such ideas are still celebrated on stage.

For instance, in the shows account of George Washingtons life from his time as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to the end of his presidency in March 1797, one can see the honor, nobility and composure with which the Father of His Country conducted himself. In an era wherein it seems as though magnifying Washingtons flaws has become a popular trend, the musicals ballad One Last Time presents a new opportunity to visualize and admire his willingness to relinquish power a decision that shattered every precedent established by history.

Moreover, its no secret that Americas youth are tragically apathetic to politics and uninformed about our history. In 2019, the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation surveyed 41,000 Americans and found that only 27 percent of those under the age of 45 demonstrate a basic knowledge of American history. Moreover, a 2018 YouGov poll found that only 13 percent of high school students could pass a simple, five-question test on basic American history. Considering that the creation of this country is a story written by courageous, brilliant young people, this is even more problematic. Thomas Jefferson (a main character in the second act of Hamilton) was only 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison (already a member of the Virginia House of Delegates) was only 25; at the time he wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, he was 36.

And Alexander Hamilton was only around 19 (sources conflict as to his year of birth) when he became Gen. Washingtons right-hand man, assuming responsibility for handling written correspondence amongst Continental officials and military officers.

While many have been swift to point out the shows shortcomings (with some even flocking to Twitter to push the #CancelHamilton hashtag), Hamilton ultimately reminds us that we fought a revolution because a handful of young Americans decided that liberty was worth dying for. Their war was between a nation of unbreakable patriots and an empire that sought to rob them of their liberties and livelihoods.

As America undergoes such a tense and uncomfortable period of transformation, reflecting on our history is vital. This means both celebrating the achievements and learning from the mistakes of those who came before us.

To my libertarian and conservative friends: Watch the musical. While you may disagree with some of Alexander Hamiltons ideas, realize that this is the first piece of art in decades that is encouraging young Americans to explore our countrys founding. If nothing else, perhaps this musical represents an opportunity to rediscover the long-lost American tradition of young people advancing the cause of liberty.

Cliff Maloney is the president of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL).

Continued here:

Conservatives and libertarians will appreciate 'Hamilton: An American Musical' - Washington Times

Houston Southwest Tri-Counties joining a nationwide demonstration against voter suppression – On the 100th Anniversary of Women s Suffrage Voters Are…

Houston Southwest Tri-Counties joining a nationwide demonstration against voter suppression

On the 100th Anniversary of Womens Suffrage, Voters Are Once Again Demanding a Voice

Fort Bend, Brazoria, Matagorda Counties On August 8th, 2020 at 11:30, protesters are gathering in the first nationwide driving protest in counties all across the nation. The Fort Bend, Brazoria, and Matagorda Libertarian Parties will lead a group of local community members in a COVID-safe demonstration, driving convoy style down Lexington, Texas Pkwy, Shadow Creek Pkwy, Hwy 288, 518 West, and Hwy 6. They will be decorating their cars parade-style and will go live together on their social media channels.

This is a coordinated effort across the nation with convoys in 107 counties and almost 2000 participants to protest the Commission on Presidential Debates' continued decision to silence the Libertarian Nominee for the United States President, Dr. Jo Jorgensen, and all third parties who are listed on the presidential ballot.

One hundred years ago this year, women were taking to the streets to protest the government to recognize their rights as sovereign citizens, and their right to be heard in elections, led by the League of Womens Voters. The WVC also created the first presidential debates to give American voters a greater understanding of all their presidential candidates. In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed to take over sponsorship of the debate and boxed the WVC out.

The CPD created polling restrictions to not allow third-parties in the debate by selecting random polls to determine who is polling above 15%. The catch? Most of these polls do not even mention a 3rd party candidate. Voters are being left in the dark with systemic voter manipulation.

We demand polling restrictions are changed to quantifiable results that cannot be manipulated by the CPD. Third parties who are listed as options on American ballots shall be allowed to debate so that Americans can properly compare their choices.

And its not just third-party voters that think this:

63% of voters surveyed want a third party choice

Veripolls latest results show Dr. Jo Jorgensen polling at 36%

Over one-third of Americans identify as independent

It's been 100 years since the 19th amendment was passed, and Dr. Jo Jorgensen, the only female candidate (who is highly qualified), is still being silenced by the CPD.

Dr. Jo Jorgensen has her Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology, is a Senior Lecturer at Clemson University, is an accomplished entrepreneur, and has a pristine record. The Libertarian Party is one of the only parties in the U.S. that has secured ballot access for presidential candidates in all 50 states. She is an educated and articulate woman with fresh ideas, and with as divided as the American public is, she deserves to be heard.

Government is too big, too bossy, too nosy, and, worst of all, often hurts the very people it intends to help. The government doesnt work; liberty and freedom do. - Dr. Jo Jorgensen

We invite all local press to participate in this grassroots event and meet us in the parking lot of First Colony Church of Christ on August 8, 2020, at 11:30 am for a 30-minute fun-filled rally before the convoy begins to go live as a nation for this historic event!

Visit link:

Houston Southwest Tri-Counties joining a nationwide demonstration against voter suppression - On the 100th Anniversary of Women s Suffrage Voters Are...

STATESIDE: The third-party candidates who the big boys don’t like at the party – Bahamas Tribune

With CHARLIE HARPER

Did you know there were 21 third-party candidates whoreceived votes in the American presidential election of 2016? They were supported by such diverse collections of voters as the Prohibition (no alcohol drinking) Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and three different versions of the Socialist Workers Party. Together, they collected over six million votes in an election that saw Hillary Clinton lose in the American electoral college despite garnering over three million more votes than Donald Trump.

In states with close elections like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona, if just half of the third-party voters had backed Clinton, we could be castigating her instead of Trump for her handling of COVID-19.

Already for 2020, the Libertarians have nominated Jo Jorgenson; the Greens have selected Howie Hawkins and the Constitution Party has picked disgraced West Virginia ex-coal mine boss Don Blankenship. Well see how they do this year, but Gary Johnson won four million votes for the Libertarians four years ago.

And on July 4, the ranks of third-party candidates for this year added a real headline-grabber: billionaire music mogul and Yeezy sneaker impresario Kanye West who has flirted with Donald Trump and is scaring Democrats who are petrified with fear that they will somehow again underestimate Trump in their residual disbelief that the American people could possibly re-elect him.

But is Wests candidacy real? There are questions, some of which were underscored the other day when his wife, the TV celebrity Kim Kardashian, acknowledged to CNN that West has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and said its incredibly complicated and painful for many to understand.

Maybe so, but West has qualified to be on the ballot in Oklahoma. He is already too late to file in a lot of other states, many of which are going to deliver their votes for Biden anyway. But third-party candidates always scare the big established political Republican and Democratic duopoly in the US, and sometimes with good reason. In 1992, H Ross Perots maverick candidacy hurt both Bill Clinton and George H W Bush as Perot won 19 percent of the vote. Here is some of what West had to say recently: It is a form of racism and white supremacy and white control to say that all black people need to be Democrat and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote. All of that information is being charged up on social media platforms by Democrats. I was told that if I voted on Trump my music career would be over.

I was threatened as a celebrity into being in one party. I was threatened as a black man into the Democratic Party. And thats what the Democrats are doing, emotionally, to my people. Threatening them to the point where this white man (Biden) can tell a black man if you dont vote for me, youre not black.

At the very least, Kanye West is a wild card heading toward November. Both Trump and Biden are sure to keep an eye on him as long as he remains in the race.

Looking for an American tocarry the blame forthe COVID-19 devastation of the Bahamian tourist industry? A good candidate might be Ron DeSantis. Floridas governor has mismanaged his states response to this public health crisis. The Bahamas is suffering as a result.

At 41, Floridas Ron DeSantis is the youngest incumbent governor in the United States. His resume is impressive. Born and raised in Florida, he got degrees from Yale and Harvard, did a stint in the US Army which included service in Iraq and a detail to the US Attorneys Office in Central Florida. He was elected to Congress in 2012 from a district stretching northeast along I-4 from Orlando to the outskirts of Daytona Beach.

In 2016, DeSantis was hopeful of snagging the GOP Senate nomination until Marco Rubio, having been trounced by Donald Trump in the primaries, decided to run again for his own Senate seat after all. Then in 2018, DeSantis parlayed his loud support for Trump in the Robert Mueller investigation into the Presidents support for a gubernatorial run. Buoyed by Trumps endorsement, DeSantis narrowly won and presides over the Sunshine State today.

DeSantis consistent adherence to Trumps seriously flawed coronavirus playbook is blamed for at least some of Floridas current woes. According to press reports, DeSantis has met once this month with his top health experts. Instead, the governor appears to rely principally on wife Casey and the former hospital executive who serves as his chief of staff.

The fact that nearly 6,000 Floridians have died from COVID-19 and two percent of the entire state population is now infected shows the governor could have done a better job at protecting his constituents, many of whom in better times would be heading to The Bahamasto spend some dollars. Instead, DeSantis approval ratings have dropped by 25 percent and his states own massive tourist industry is slumping.

Trump doesnt see it. Ron DeSantis is doing a great job and will go down in history as a great governor of Florida, the President said.

Not on current evidence. The governor has led his state down the same dreary path Trump would take the rest of the country if other governors were as slavishly devoted to following the Presidents often fallacious advice.

The director of the University of Floridas Emerging Pathogens Institute told the Washington Post that in Florida we failed to convince people that as things began to open up there remained a critical need to maintain the basic practices recommended by the CDC, including masks and social distancing.

A West Palm Beach nurse summed up Floridas COVID-19 response this way: The fairy tales about everything being under control are nonsense. Our government has failed us.

As American professional sports try to resume some sort of normal activity, the major European soccer leagues have largely completed their business for the year.

In the best and by far most competitive league, Liverpool nevertheless ran away with the English Premier League title. Setting several records and nearly matching a couple of others, the Reds fulfilled the promise of their magnificent early season to win their first EPL title and first top-flight championship in 30 years.

Runners-up and defending champions Manchester City may be the second-best team in Europe. These two power houses were joined at the top by Manchester United and Chelsea. Further down the table, venerable Aston Villa managed to stay in the top division for another year and will be joined by tradition-rich West Bromwich Albion and Leeds moving up from the second tier.

Wolverhampton Wanderers, once proudly owned by Freeports Sir Jack Hayward, completed another successful first division campaign and are still contenders for the Europa League title this year.

But the rich do keep getting richer in Europe. It is hardly surprising to find such teams as Liverpool and Man City at the top in England. They are wealthy and powerful. In the top leagues in Italy (Juventus of Turin), Spain (Real Madrid), France (Paris St. Germain) and Germany (Bayern Munich), the champions were all predictable. Except for Spain, where Barcelona often crashes the championship party, these titlists have been winning for years.

Back in the US, baseball has resumed playing games that count in its 60-game season, after which more than half of all its teams are scheduled to compete in the televised, lucrative playoffs. The most significant opening series was in Washington, where the New York Yankees looked strong in beating the current champion Nationals.

Injuries and COVID absences are continuing to influence this already-weird season, with Houston, the Nationals and Dodgers among teams already suffering significant losses. And the Marlins have become a highly problematic proposition.

So far, sort of OK for the other big American leagues. The NBA is following its plan at Disney World in Orlando. The NHL is staging a playoff play-in. And the NFL, having cancelled all its exhibition games, has reopened its training camps around the country. Everyone in pro sports, big-time college sports and at the TV networks who underwrite them all with huge broadcast contracts is holding their breath.

What else can they do? The virus will have the last word.

Continued here:

STATESIDE: The third-party candidates who the big boys don't like at the party - Bahamas Tribune

Co-founder of influential conservative group: Trump’s tweet floating election delay is grounds for impeachment – WICZ

By Paul LeBlanc, CNN

The co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society said Thursday in a blistering New York Times op-ed that President Donald Trump's tweet musing about a delay to November's presidential election is grounds for impeachment.

Steven Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor who has offered broad defenses of the President in recent years, wrote, "I am frankly appalled by the president's recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist."

"But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate," he said.

It's a significant break from the co-founder of one of the most influential groups in Republican politics. The Federalist Society has emerged as a leading conservative and libertarian voice in recent years, urging a limited role for judges in society's problems.

The group has also worked closely with Republican administrations to influence the selection of judges. Its leaders advised the George W. Bush administration on appointments and, for Trump, have become an even closer partner in screening candidates for the bench.

The scathing assessment comes hours after Trump explicitly floated delaying November's election in a tweet claiming without evidence that the contest will be flawed.

"With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA," he wrote. "Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???"

Trump has no authority to delay an election, and the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for voting. Lawmakers from both parties said almost immediately that there was no likelihood the election would be delayed.

"President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he cannot postpone the federal election," Calabresi wrote. "Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and without precedent in American history. Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again."

The op-ed, paired with an array of meaningful pushback on Trump from congressional Republicans on Thursday, offers a rare look at the limits on loyalty to the President within the GOP when it comes to defending his more extreme political urges.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and Trump ally, told CNN when asked about the President's call to delay the election: "I don't think that's a particularly good idea."

And Majority Whip Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of Republican leadership, told CNN that there will be an election in November despite the President's tweet.

"I think that's probably a statement that gets some press attention, but I doubt it gets any serious traction," Thune said. "I think we've had elections every November since about 1788, and I expect that will be the case again this year."

Even with scores of Republicans openly challenging Trump's tweet, Calabresi's op-ed stand outs as a striking defection given his long history in the GOP. While he's offered some criticism of the President in the past, Calabresi has gained significant notoriety in recent years for his forceful repudiations of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as well as Trump's impeachment over his conduct with Ukraine.

Originally posted here:

Co-founder of influential conservative group: Trump's tweet floating election delay is grounds for impeachment - WICZ

Immigration Hawk Kris Kobach’s Senate Campaign Is Heavily Supported by Peter Thiel – Reason

Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state, is seeking the GOP nomination to replace retiring Republican Pat Roberts in this year's race for Roberts' U.S. Senate seat. And he has to thank for his campaign's viability an $850,000 investment from controversial tech billionaire Peter Thiel.

"I think the money that that super PAC is putting into the raceprimarily through this one rich guyis absolutely the lifeblood of the pro-Kobach campaign at this moment," Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas, told Recode. "You take that money away and Kobach doesn't have a lot of campaign left."

That Thieloften identified, including by himself, as a libertarianis dedicating himself to a candidate whose primary obsession is immigration restriction is a further sign of the tumultuous swirl of hypernationalism pushed by and surrounding Thiel (and discussed at length in a story in the August/September issue of Reason, now available online to subscribers).

Unnamed friends of Thiel tell Recodethat Thiel "has a really strong preference for people who stick their middle finger up to the status quo and conventional wisdom. There is nobody who I think was more obviously sticking his middle finger up at conventional wisdom quite like Kris Kobach."

Thiel back in 2016 shook up some of his libertarian fans by becoming a Trump delegate and hyping him onstage at the Republican National Convention. Thiel went on to become a poster boy for the new conservative nationalism and has been reported to be disappointed in the president lately and so far sitting out this presidential race.

Thiel had, however, reportedly began donating to immigration-restrictionist causes at least as far back as 2008, and over the years he's given to a wide variety of GOP candidates and PACs, including $2 million to a Carly Fiorina PAC.

Thiel's interest in Kobach is likely rooted in the same reasons he was enthusiastic about Trump. Kobach was one of the minds behind Trump's Muslim registry and his unrepentant anti-immigration views mark him as perhaps Trumpier than Trump. (Kobach believes COVID-19 death numbers are being manipulated up to harm the president, for one.) Trump endorsed Kobach in his failed attempt to become governor of Kansas in 2018, and Thiel began funding Kobach during that race. Fellow disillusioned Trump superfan and immigration-hater Ann Coulter co-hosted a Kobach fundraiser in Thiel's New York apartment.

Recodereports that Thiel has "cut at least three successive checks to [a pro-Kobach PAC called Free Forever], the most recent for a half-million dollars last month." The PAC has "spent more than four times what Kobach's campaign itself has spent on television and radio adsThe heavy amount of mailers sent by the PAC have run the gamut of attacking [Republican challenger Roger] Marshall as 'anti-American' for being insufficiently tough on immigration, alleging that he voted to fund 'Rosie O'Donnell summer camp,' 'global warming musicals,' and 'transgender plays,' and promising that Kobach will 'stop the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg.'"

Thiel's other candidate donations this year are going to another super immigration hawk, and advocate of sending in federal troops to quell protesters, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

Kobach is also one of the leading voices claiming American elections are rife with fraud and had his attempt to fight it when he was Kansas' secretary of state overturned in 2018 by a federal judge who questioned the reality of the problem Kobach was allegedly solving.

The primary election for the U.S. Senate seat Kobach is vying for will be held on August 4.

Read more:

Immigration Hawk Kris Kobach's Senate Campaign Is Heavily Supported by Peter Thiel - Reason

Why Cornel West is hopeful during the pandemic and anti-racism protests – Vox.com

Since this summers racial justice protests began filling the streets, the one public figure Ive wanted to talk to more than anyone else is Cornel West.

A professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy at Harvard, hes one of the most prominent and provocative Black intellectuals alive. Hes known for calling out racism, predatory capitalism, and unjust policies wherever he sees them. And judging by his new podcast, The Tight Rope (co-hosted by Tricia Rose), I was sure hed have a sharp analysis of the twin epidemics pummeling America today: white supremacy and Covid-19.

So I was thrilled when West agreed to come on Future Perfects limited-series podcast, The Way Through, which is all about mining the worlds rich philosophical and spiritual traditions for guidance that can help us through these challenging times.

West and I talked about some potential tools for dealing with white supremacy and Covid-19. We discussed Black liberation theology, which took off in the 1960s and emphasized that Gods primary concern is for people who are being oppressed. West is a Christian whos steeped in that theology.

But West is also steeped in a bunch of secular philosophical traditions from Marxism to existentialism to pragmatism so I asked him what those traditions can teach us about how to handle our current crises.

We covered questions like: Is the pandemic weakening or strengthening white supremacy? Whats the difference between optimism and hope and why does West say hes not optimistic but is hopeful?

By the end of this talk, I felt more hopeful myself. You can hear our full conversation in the podcast here. A partial transcript, edited for length and clarity, follows.

Subscribe to Future Perfect: The Way Through on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Dr. West, weve been through some really hard months. How would you diagnose the crisis that we see convulsing American life?

Youve got an empire that is experiencing spiritual decay and moral decline driven by greed, especially in high places, and hate being used as a divisive way of pitting citizens against one another. And then youve got corruption not just in the White House, but corruption really throughout our institutions.

So then when the pandemic hit, we began to see just the raw reality of the empire and the indifference towards the vulnerable. You began to see the health care system and all of its frailty, which my dear brother Bernie Sanders was pointing out with such courage just a few months ago during the campaign. You began to see the wealth inequality, the white supremacy, the male supremacy that the Me Too movement pointed out. You began to see the ways in which precious trans people are devalued, and gays and lesbians are dishonored. You just began to see the ugliness.

But you also see resilience. People in the streets. People waking up. Some people even recognizing, lo and behold, America is an empire! Its not just a democratic experiment. Its a democratic experiment against the backdrop of imperial expansion, especially a dispossession of land of indigenous peoples, the enslavement of Africans, white brothers who are working with no property these chickens are all coming home to roost at the same time.

Thats what I meant when I said we are witnessing America as a failed social experiment. Our conception of ourselves as being so exceptional is being shattered. Our conception of ourselves as somehow being innocent is being radically called into question.

There are different faith traditions and philosophies we can draw on for wisdom in a moment like this. Lets start by talking about Black liberation theology, which drew on the thought of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and others. Your friend Dr. James Cone, the theologian who founded Black liberation theology in the 1960s, described this theology as an interpretation of the Christian gospel from the perspectives of people who were at the bottom in society, the lowest racial and economic groups. And he encouraged Americans to reimagine Jesus as black. He drew parallels between the crucifixion of Jesus and the lynching of black Americans.

So talk to me about Black liberation theology and the role you think it can play in todays fight for racial justice. Can it provide the spiritual scaffolding for this movement?

It can certainly be one dimension in the leaven in the loaf. In the Democratic loaf.

I think in order to understand Jim Cone, weve got to go back to Hebrew scripture, because Hebrew scripture itself was one of the great moments in the moral evolution of the species. Unlike the Greeks, unlike empires and dynasties, Hebrew scripture comes along and says to be human is to spread hesed steadfast love, lovingkindness to the orphan, the widow, the motherless, the fatherless, the poor, the persecuted, the oppressed. And that I am going to be a God of the oppressed, of a hated people, a haunted people, of Jews under vicious domination and oppression. But I make a covenant with you: Do justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly with thy God.

Jesus comes right out of that prophetic Judaism that was at work in that covenant.

James Cone then comes along in the most barbaric century, the 20th century. Hundreds of millions of folks killed by Hitler, Stalin, European colonialism. Cone comes along and says, lo and behold, there is also an oppressed people in the midst of the American empire who have made a covenant with a God, who have fallen in love with a Palestinian Jew named Jesus.

And this Jesus, when he makes his way from Galilee into Jerusalem, what does he do? He weeps for Jerusalem. And he runs the money changers out of the temple.

Serious business. You dont see that on the walls of churches. No, not that Jesus. No, you get a domesticated, deodorized Jesus. Thats the Constantinian Christianity that becomes Christianity as a state religion. But the Jesus that Cone is talking about is running out the greedy, the indifferent, the callous, the powerful who are using their wealth and power to oppress poor people.

He says, now look at it from the vantage point of African slaves in the United States. Look at it from the vantage point of Negroes under Jim Crow. Look at it from the vantage point of Black folk under the new Jim Crow.

You have a very class-conscious race analysis compared to a lot of mainstream intellectuals, including Black intellectuals. Do you think the current protest movement is spending enough time talking about class?

Well, it depends on who you talk to, my dear sister. Anytime I get a chance to speak, I always make the connection between police power and police murder on the one hand with Wall Street power and Wall Street crimes on the other. So that you get the connection between white supremacy on the ground, and predatory capitalism, especially the financial services class, especially the oligarchs and plutocrats. So I love your question. This class question is in no way a luxury.

Youve written a lot about what it means to be an intellectual, especially a Black intellectual. But theres so much anti-expert, anti-intellectual sentiment in the US. So what role do you see for intellectuals now in responding to the pandemic and the protests?

I want to point out that America has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual civilization. Richard Hofstadter pointed this out with great, profound insight in his classic, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Remember, there he draws a distinction between intelligence and intellect. He says Americans love intelligence because its a manipulative function that allows them to do well, especially in the marketplace. Intelligence is something to be used as a calculating orientation, to make discerning insights to make more money for upward mobility, for the American dream.

Intellect is an interrogation of the most basic assumptions and presuppositions. So intelligence makes immediate evaluations, intellect evaluates the evaluations. Thats how Hofstadter puts it.

Theres never been space in American civilization, in American empire, for serious intellectual presence. Never. Thats why our greatest novelists, like Melville nobody cares. It is hard for any intellectual to gain a footing.

And of course, for Black intellectuals it becomes even more challenging. Enslaved Africans were not even allowed to learn how to read and write. When we do emerge with the word, the question becomes, can we be as empowering as the musicians? The intellectuals who have been most effective in American culture, its been much more the musicians than academicians. Because the musicians have been able to couch stories, narrative, ideas, visions in forms that everyday people in a business civilization can take in and be empowered.

Whereas the academicians, were so worried about our ranking and what tradition were going be promoting vis--vis other traditions intellectually that we cant dig deep inside of our own selves and give of ourselves in such a way that our fellow citizens will look at an intellectual and say, my God, I need that intellectual the way my mother needed Louis Armstrong.

So part of this is on the intellectuals themselves, to step out of purely ivory tower concerns and adopt more of a pragmatic approach. I know you yourself are steeped in the American tradition of pragmatism in philosophy, which really tries to focus on the social, cultural, and economic concerns, not just more abstract epistemology and metaphysics. But youre also steeped in so many other different philosophical schools like existentialism and Marxism. Im curious which philosophy you think has the most value to offer us all right now.

I think we have to be jazz men and jazz women. We have to be improvisational. We have to recognize that the abstract has its role to play, the academy has its role to play, but theres a whole host of other dimensions that have their role to play.

See, I believe in engaging the public. I think its no accident that when you look at Ralph Waldo Emerson, he is the great Democratic public intellectual of the 19th century, and he is the godfather of the American pragmatism that you talked about, that I tried to talk about 30-some years ago in American Evasion of Philosophy.

So is it pragmatism that you would hold up as the philosophy has the most to offer us right now?

No, because pragmatism has its blind spots. When youre jazz-like, none of these schools ever provide enough. They all fall short. You need existentialism because youve got to deal with death, dread, despair, and disappointment. You dont get that from pragmatists. John Dewey on death? Dont hold your breath!

Marxism is indispensable as an analysis of capital, but Marxism on where do you go when your mama dies? Karl dont have too much to say about that! Every school of thought has its own limitations. And the question becomes accenting the best in each one.

Well, existentialism really emphasizes that its up to each of us to make choices and take responsibility for our lives, to make our own meaning in a world that doesnt come with meaning inherent in it. What do you think that that philosophy can teach us about how to handle this moment?

Richard Wright, the first great Black literary figure that the white mainstream had to take notice of, was an existentialist at a very deep level. And for him, it was always about digging deep and finding out who you are, manifested in the choices that you make, and then owning those choices. Being responsible, being accountable.

Its the exact opposite of what you see when you look at a neo-gangster like Trump. He thinks he can live his whole life with no answerability. Say and do anything he wants and get away with it.

So existentialism at its best reminds us: responsibility, accountability, answerability at the center.

Do you think that responsibility in our current situation is inevitably going to have to do with solidarity, both in terms of social distancing to prevent the pandemic from spreading, and in terms of solidarity of protest, maybe allyship between non-Black Americans and Black Americans?

Oh, absolutely. You have to have solidarity all the way down. And for me, its just fundamental human solidarity.

Im not sure I like the language of allies. Was John Brown an ally for the Black Freedom Movement? The brother gave his life and his sons. Calling him an ally kind of belittles his sacrifice. Rabbi [Abraham Joshua] Heschel was not an ally to Martin Luther King Jr. They were two brothers, one from the Jewish tradition, the other from a Black church tradition. They came together as human beings in the name of integrity, honesty, decency. Heschel says, I want to be a decent human being, and I understand that in my Jewish tradition to be decent is to be in solidarity with people who are suffering. Not just Black. Could be indigenous people. Could be the goyim. Whoever it is. Its a human decision that youre making.

It sounds like you really believe in the power of broad coalitions. Let me ask you this, though. Is the pandemic weakening or strengthening white supremacy?

Its both. On the one hand, it is revealing just how ugly the combination of predatory capitalism driven by Wall Street greed and the collapse of so much of civic life is. And so people are not just polarized, theyre also gangsterized. Well, one of the long traditions in America is, if youre going to join a gang for protection, white supremacy is waiting for you. And so we see an increase of white supremacist activity.

The white supremacy being decreased is this just beautiful, majestic, marvelous militancy of brothers and sisters of all colors, especially young brothers and sisters. And more and more largely vanilla. They have been Afro-Americanized by the music that they listen to. Theyve also awakened in terms of the lies that their parents have told them about America, about Black people and so forth.

Weve got both happening simultaneously. And thats what makes our turbulent times such fascinating times to live in.

One profound feature of our culture is this libertarian strain in American thought, this focus on individual freedoms, liberties, and autonomies. Has that hampered our pandemic response, in terms of people refusing to wear masks and all that?

Its Janus-faced. Its a good thing and its a bad thing. You can see the relation between certain Emersonian strands of being nonconformist and a deep distrust of the elites because they might be lying to you. But you have to be discerning. If the elites tell you the Earth is flat and youre distrustful, then that can be a good thing. If they tell you its round and youre distrustful, youve got to back off because the evidence is overwhelming, right? So it can go either way.

I have strong libertarian inclinations. Thats why I believe that Rush Limbaugh, hes got a right to be wrong. I fight for his right to be wrong. Libertarian sensibilities, I think, can be very important. Strong support of civil liberties is crucial.

But when it takes the form of I dont believe Dr. Fauci, I dont believe the CDC, and so forth well, no, theres evidence here. Libertarianism cant just go off into fantasy. Youve got to be tied to certain kinds of evidential forms of credibility.

In the wake of the pandemic and the protests, a lot of people are wondering how we can make lasting, substantive progress in this country. How do we make it so that the US doesnt just return to status quo around race in a year from now?

We have yet to have a serious discussion of what the status quo was. We havent had a discussion about the Obama administration. The Obama administration looks so wonderful in contrast to the neo-fascist gangster in the White House. But it was not wonderful at all. Not in terms of the bailout Wall Street made big money. The child poverty rate was still high. Still dropping drones in Afghanistan.

Yes, Obama was better, but better in relation to what?

It sounds like youre saying that if we want to see lasting change of the status quo, we first have to really interrogate what was that status quo all along. And that might mean getting into some, as John Lewis would say, good trouble, necessary trouble, by questioning even those on the left.

And questioning ourselves.

Lets close by talking about the importance of hope versus optimism. You define optimism as rational and evidence-based, whereas for you, hope is an act of courage and imagination that looks beyond what the existing circumstances tell us we can expect. So for you, what roles do hope and optimism play in this situation, where the pandemic requires an emphasis on evidence, but so much feels unknowable and demands this very high level of hope from us?

Well, we must accent the crucial role that science must play. Scientific temperament, not just scientific method, because the method can become dogmatic, too. But the temperament is forever Socratic, forever questioning. So science must play a fundamental role. But there are certain issues that science itself is relatively helpless about.

And that has to do with the meaning of life. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why not commit suicide tomorrow? Why do you love in this way? Why are you so attached to your mama when you know shes wrong on so many issues, but youd take a bullet for her in a heartbeat? You dont measure your mama based on scientific evidence. Its visceral, its not just cerebral. So we have to be able to acknowledge the roles that each one of these play.

Optimism for me has never been an option. Because theres too much suffering in the world. Think of all the African bones and bodies at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean with the slave trade. And Jewish brothers and sisters in the concentration camps. And Dalits in India. None of that can generate an optimism for me, ever.

But hope is something else, you see, because hope is not spectatorial. Its participatory. Youre already in the mess. Youre in the funk. What are you going to do? Hope is a verb as much as a virtue. Hope is as much a consequence of your action as it is a source of your action, as Roberto Unger always said. So that hope is something that you find in your immersion. And you decide youre going to fight till the end. No matter what.

When you say hope is also a consequence of your action, do you mean that by choosing to act now in this incredibly stressful time with integrity, with accountability, with responsibility, our actions themselves can nurture and fuel hope in us?

Thats eloquently put. Thats exactly right. Hope is about everybody trying to contribute to the push, the motion, the momentum, the movement for something bigger than them thats better. The good, the beautiful. If youre not in motion, youre a spectator.

Well, it doesnt seem to me like youre being a spectator these days. You and Professor Tricia Rose have a new podcast, The Tight Rope.

Thats true. Its truth-telling, witness-bearing, justice-seeking but also joy, because theres joy in what we do. You got to find joy in spreading hesed. If its always just a negative burden, youre not going to be a long-distance runner. No, were talking about a joy that will sustain you over against the grain, until the worms get your body.

And this particular podcast is an attempt to broaden the discourse, get beyond the two-party dialogue, get beyond the liberal versus conservative but also keep track of the centrality of the arts, the moral, the spiritual, the beautiful. We need to lift each other up.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and well send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the worlds biggest challenges and how to get better at doing good.

More:

Why Cornel West is hopeful during the pandemic and anti-racism protests - Vox.com

Federal agents in Portland opposed by some conservatives, libertarians – Washington Times

President Trumps deployment of federal officers to quell rioting in Portland, Oregon, and possibly elsewhere is seeing pushback not only from Democrats but also from conservatives and libertarians who say the federal government cant indiscriminately throw its weight around and trample on constitutional rights.

The White House insists the federal forces are necessary to stop the marauding mobs in Portland, but civil libertarians object to reports that unidentified officers are sweeping people up and detaining them.

Its pretty straight-up unconstitutional, said Nicholas Sarwark, a former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. I wish I could nuance this one its just all garbage. Theres nothing good there.

The White House said the law that created the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks gives the agency authority to protect federal property, which is the administrations reason for the deployment in Portland to protect a federal courthouse.

Mr. Trump has said he might send federal agents into Chicago and other big cities wracked by violent crime in the wake of the racial justice upheaval and calls to defund police departments.

The federal government does have disturbingly broad authorities to send law enforcers anywhere in the country if it chooses, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank.

That doesnt mean that there shouldnt be a political fight about it, he said.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the protests, which have lasted nearly two months in Portland since touched off by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, escalated into violent attacks and mobs hurling feces and batteries at law enforcement officers.

When a federal courthouse is being lit on fire, commercial fireworks being shot at it, being shot at the officers, I think that falls pretty well within the limits of the law, Ms. McEnany said.

Federal officers also sprayed protesters with tear gas, and there was at least one instance in which questionably identified law enforcement reportedly whisked someone away in an unmarked minivan.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, objected to the Trump administrations sending unidentified federal agents to Portland.

We cannot give up liberty for security, Mr. Paul said on Twitter. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a Libertarian who quit the Republican Party last year, said on Twitter: Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. Hes not protecting liberty; hes practicing tyranny.

Federal officials do have less-publicized powers such as the ability to assist agents from other agencies if they need help.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has jurisdiction of areas in the U.S. that are within 100 miles of an external boundary.

That gives broader authority for Customs and Border [Protection] in particular to operate than folks may realize, said Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

But there is no generic federal police authority, he said. Nor should there be there is no general police power in the federal government. Thats the sort of power that was reserved to the states.

Mark Morgan, the acting chief of Customs and Border Protection, said deployed officers wear clearly marked uniforms that have personal identifiers.

He said he has supported removing officers names from their uniforms because many have been doxxed and their private information targeted.

In each and every instance when we approach somebody who we have probable cause who has committed a federal crime, we do identify ourselves as either police or a federal agent, Mr. Morgan told reporters Tuesday. Thats the truth.

Mr. Morgan also said the use of unmarked vehicles is standard practice and pointed out that marked patrol vehicles have been targeted by rioters elsewhere.

Mr. Olson said that from a practical perspective, it can be difficult for a member of the public to tell the difference between a federally authorized officer and a random freelancer trying to bark orders at them.

Aside from the question of whether or not federal troops or federal law enforcement should be sent in the first place, if they are going to be sent, lets get some understanding of what practices we want them to follow so that people can be sure, if they are inclined to comply with law enforcement, who they are, he said.

Some of Mr. Trumps Republican allies say its well within the federal governments authority to protect federal property.

It makes sense to defend federal facilities, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican. Theyve taken the courthouse out of operation, so yeah, he should be defending federal property.

Sen. Ted Cruz said there are not federal troops in place.

Theres federal law enforcement thats protecting courthouses and federal buildings that are under assault right now from violent rioters, the Texas Republican said. Federal law enforcement has not only the authority but the responsibility to protect federal facilities.

Mr. Sarwark said that people backing the presidents actions cant seriously defend the situation from a constitutional perspective.

This will separate the sheep from the goats, he said. If you dont oppose secret police disappearing people off of American streets because theyre leftists, then youre not really opposed to secret police youre just opposed to it being used against people you like.

Alex Swoyer and Dave Boyer contributed to this report.

More:

Federal agents in Portland opposed by some conservatives, libertarians - Washington Times

David DeGrazia: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others – Lompoc Record

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all - not focused on the agent's own good - but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether or not the woman who said she didn't need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk _ either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

Read more:

David DeGrazia: Maybe you have a right to put your health at risk, but not that of others - Lompoc Record

Sinclair Pulls the Plug on Fauci Propaganda This Time – Bloomberg

Photographer: Al Drago - Pool/Getty Images

Photographer: Al Drago - Pool/Getty Images

Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. is one of the largest television station operators in the country, with 191 stations in 89 markets broadcasting to 629 channels. For the most part, the company operates in small, conservative metropolitan locations. Most viewers arent likely to be aware of the Sinclair brand, because the thousands of hours of programming it produces each week air on channels affiliated with such household names as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Telemundo and Univision.

So when Sinclair got set to broadcast a hit piece over the weekend suggesting that Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, millions of its viewers might have believed they were hearing the truth instead of, say, irresponsible and dangerous propaganda.

Fortunately, Media Matters for America, a nonprofit, progressive center that monitors news organizations for what it describes as conservative misinformation, and CNN, the cable network, late last week published critiques of the upcoming show that sparked a backlash on social media and forced Sinclair to reconsider.

It did so grudgingly. We hear your feedback regarding a segment on this weeks America This Week, Sinclair noted in a tweet Saturday morning. Yet the company still seemed ready to plow ahead. Were a supporter of free speech and a marketplace of ideas and viewpoints, even if incredibly controversial, it added in another tweet. By Saturday afternoon, however, the company pulled back: After further review, we have decided to delay this episodes airing, it announced. We will spend the coming days bringing together other viewpoints and provide additional context. All stations have been notified not to air this and will instead be re-airing last weeks episode in its place.

More from

The episode reportedly was broadcast on at least one station, in Charleston, West Virginia, and was apparently posted to dozens of other local news sites before being taken down without explanation or correction. The episode featured an interview with Judy Mikovits, a controversial former medical researcher who also played a central role in the discredited video Plandemic. That 26-minute video went to great lengths to promote the idea that Fauci and elite globalists such as Bill Gates had pounced on the coronavirus pandemic to consolidate their power and increase their fortunes. Plandemic caused a sensation among far-right conspiracy theorists before major social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter banned it for promoting misleading medical content and other disinformation.

The host of Sinclairs Fauci smear, Eric Bolling, told CNNs Oliver Darcy that he wasnt aware of Plandemic and that he certainly didnt endorse Mikovitss theory about Fauci. During Bollings segment with Mikovits, an on-screen graphic asks, DID DR. FAUCI CREATE COVID-19?

Sinclair itself followed a similar route as it tried to distance itself from the controversy: At no juncture are we aligning with or endorsing the viewpoints of Dr. Mikovitz or endorsing the Plandemic documentary, the company tweeted.

Theres an easier way for Sinclair to show its sincerity when it says it doesnt endorse the views of reckless fanatics: Dont treat them as if theyre credible. Theres a difference between featuring vigorous, diverse debates over the facts and giving a platform to hysterical and tawdry conspiracy theories. Thats not about left versus right, its about objective reality versus fantasy. And if Sinclair were serious about not peddling misleading information on its airwaves, it would be more responsible about the possible fallout for people like Fauci, who is a lifelong public servant. Fauci recently said that he, his wife and his daughters have received serious threats because of advice hes given for combating the coronavirus.

It will be interesting to see if Sinclair drops the Fauci segment or airs a slightly more palatable version. I suspect Sinclair doesnt actually care very much, given its long history of promoting conservative and libertarian agendas and talking points near and dear to the heart of the companys chairman, David Smith. Smith has been a strong, vocal backer of President Donald Trump. In an interview with the Guardian two years ago, Smith said he once told Trump in a meeting at Trump Tower that Sinclair was here to deliver your message. Period. Trump has reciprocated the affection. So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased, Trump once tweeted. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.

Under Trump the Federal Communications Commission has loosened a number of regulationsin a way that made it easier for Sinclair to broaden its empire. (The one exception was the FCCs decision to scrap Sinclairs attempted takeover of the Tribune Media Co.) Jared Kushner, the presidents son-in-law, bragged in 2016 that the Trump campaign agreed to give Sinclair better access in exchange for favorable coverage. (Sinclair has said it never made that deal.)Boris Epshteyn, a Trump spokesman turned Sinclair political commentator, is now back as an operative in Trumps presidential campaign. Members of Trumps administration have publicly disparaged Fauci of late, so perhaps it was only a matter of time before Sinclair jumped on the bandwagon.

Sinclair exercises a heavy hand over the must-run editorial programming it requires its stations to carry a practice memorialized in a devastating 2018 Deadspin video showing Sinclair anchors on various networks all repeating the same talking points from a script. Although Sinclair has insisted during multiple past controversies that its dedicated to promoting a marketplace of ideas (the same language it invoked to defend the Fauci program), time and again it has airedsensationalistic,partisan programming as news or refused to air programs that contradicted the networks political leanings.

Sinclair, which had revenue of $4.2 billion in 2019, certainly has become muscular and influential enough to merit greater scrutiny. The Justice Department last year launched an investigation of the companys operating arrangements in markets where it has a dominant presence. Earlier this year, the FCC fined Sinclair $48 million, the largest penalty it has ever imposed on a company, for a number of problematic practices including Sinclairs attempt to deceive regulators during the Tribune Media talks, andfor airing sponsored content more than 1,400 times as if it were news and failing to properly identify ittoviewers.

Sinclairs influence matters especially now that local TV news is filling the void left by the decimation of traditional local newspaper reporting across the country. The demise of local newspapersis carefully examined in an important new book, Ghosting the News, by the Washington Posts media critic, Margaret Sullivan.

The cost to democracy is great. It takes a toll on civic engagement even on citizens ability to have a common sense of reality and facts, the very basis of self-governance, Sullivan writes. When local news fails, the foundations of democracy weaken. The public, which depends on accurate, factual information in order to make good decisions, suffers. The consequences may not always be obvious, but they are insidious.

Americans still broadly trust local news reporting at a time when other media outlets are suspect. In a recent survey from the Pew Research Center, 61% of respondents said they were paying close attention to coronavirus news, and 46% relied on local news for credible information about the pandemic. While Sullivans book focuses on newspapers, one of the important questions she asks is whether TV operators have the public-mindedness and integrity to carry the mantle of local news journalism forward particularly in an era when facts and objective reality are under assault.

Sinclair hasnt offered much proof that its up to the challenge.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:Timothy L. O'Brien at tobrien46@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Original post:

Sinclair Pulls the Plug on Fauci Propaganda This Time - Bloomberg

Editorial: Vote and make your voice heard | Opinion | timesnews.net – Kingsport Times News

Early voting is underway for Tennessee Republican and Democratic Party members to choose their candidates for the Nov. 3 general election.

We strongly encourage you to vote. Primaries typically have lower turnout, but the ability to cast a secret ballot is our fundamental right, and we applaud those who exercise it. Then too, you help pay for primary elections and should get something for your money. As well, some counties tie their general election to the primary, and if you reside in Sullivan County, there are a number of seats you should help decide.

If youre a dyed-in-the-wool party member, you might ask why your tax dollars are being used for the opposing party to select its candidates for state and federal office. Shouldnt each political party develop and pay for its own process to determine its candidates?

Many states, including Tennessee, have an open primary process, which means that you can vote in the other partys primary which you might do, for instance, to help nominate a weaker candidate to face your partys nominee in the general election. And a system dominated by the two major parties freezes out smaller political parties such as the Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties.

But for now, its what weve got, and in the primary election Aug. 6 voters will determine party candidates for the general election Nov. 3 for such offices as U.S. and Tennessee House and Senate. In Sullivan County, voters will also cast ballots for all 24 county constables, seats on the county school board for Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7, assessor of property, and judicial retention for the Court of Appeals, Western Division. Theres also a vacancy election for a public defender, and for a county commissioner in District 11.

Both parties have crowded ballots.

Democratic voters in Sullivan County have five choices for U.S. Senate to replace the retiring Lamar Alexander and three for the 1st Congressional District seat being vacated by Phil Roe. There are no contested races for the state legislature but many contested seats for the school board and constable races.

Republican voters have a huge ballot with 15 candidates for the U.S. Senate seat and 16 for Rep. Roes seat, along with competing school board and constable races.

The primary for the U.S. House seat is heavily contested because Republicans have held it for 139 years. The last Democrat to hold it was Robert L. Taylor from 1879 to 1881.

Your vote is important, and you should not take any election for granted. Your vote is your voice in the process which governs our country, and you should make yourself heard. Early voting locations for Sullivan County are the Election Commission office at 3258 Highway 126 in Blountville; the Civic Auditorium at 1550 Fort Henry Drive in Kingsport; and Slater Community Center at 325 McDowell St. in Bristol. The hours for early voting at all three locations are 9 a.m to 4 p.m. July 27-31, and 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday, Aug. 1.

Be sure to wear a mask and maintain social distancing.

All poll officials will be wearing face coverings and are trained in social distancing protocols.

Read this article:

Editorial: Vote and make your voice heard | Opinion | timesnews.net - Kingsport Times News

Bill Straub: Rand Paul objects to Trump’s Gestapo but then wants Dr. Fauci to be more optimistic – User-generated content

In The Sound of Music, that wholesome hash of low-brow entertainment produced on both stage and screen, a waddle of nuns is heard crooning the tune, How do you solve a problem like Maria?:

In Kentucky, the song might be improved if Oscar Hammersteins lyrics could be edited to ask, How do you solve a problem like Rand Paul?

The Republican senator from Bowling Green often comes across as the political version of the Scarlett Pimpernel they seek him here, they seek him there. Theres never any telling which version, good or bad, is going to appear.

Assessing the Commonwealths junior senator nine years into his job is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. He obviously has proved to be an embarrassment a dangerous one at that when it comes to the federal governments handling of COVID-19. If he were to have his way, its almost sure the plague upon us would prove even worse.

The NKyTribunes Washington columnist Bill Straub served 11 years as the Frankfort Bureau chief for The Kentucky Post. He also is the former White House/political correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service. A member of the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame, he currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, and writes frequently about the federal government and politics. Email him at williamgstraub@gmail.com

At the same time, Paul has displayed a willingness to rush in where angels fear to tread. While most of his Republican colleagues are playing Marcel Marceau when it comes to President Donald J. Trump, aka President Extremely Stable Genius, aka President Great and Unmatched Wisdom, he will occasionally offer an expression of something beyond annoyance.

Most recently Paul weighed in on Trumps decision to deploy brown shirts, Pinochet-style secret police, to Portland, OR, to stymie protesters who have taken to the streets over George Floyd, an African-American killed at the hands of police in Minneapolis, an event that understandably lit a match under the Black Lives Matter movement.

Trumps Gestapo, heavily armed and wearing camouflage outfits to apparently convince one and all that theyre real men, have displayed a propensity for randomly picking individuals up off the street, shoving them into unmarked vans and then holding them in custody for no apparent reason prior to release, all supposedly to protect federal property in the great state of Oregon.

The American Stasi, identified only by the word Police somewhere on their uniforms with no further details, has also seen fit to tear gas a group of mothers, arms linked, voluntarily standing between the secret police and protesters, whose numbers have mounted since the Gestapo was dispatched.

In other words, under Trump, the United States of America is showing signs of devolving into East Germany. And now hes talking about sending his minions into other American cities, like Chicago and Philadelphia. Most Republicans are twiddling their thumbs or changing the subject. Paul, to his credit, is not.

Writing in Reason magazine, the Bible of the Libertarian movement, Paul said, While I respect the determination to preserve law and order, sending in federal forces to quell civil unrest in Portland further distorts the boundaries, results in more aggression (including pepper-spraying and repeatedly striking a Navy veteran whose injured hand will need surgery), and has led to reports we should never hear in a free country: federal officials, dressed in camouflage, snatching protesters away in unmarked vehicles.

Sending the feds into Chicago wont make the situation there any better, either.

In a free society, Paul added, citizens should be able to easily distinguish between civilian law enforcement tasked with keeping the peace in our communities and the armed forces tasked with protecting our country from foreign adversaries.

Trying to find other Republican lawmakers who find Trumps secret police appalling is like trying to find a cold Budweiser in the middle of the Sahara. Do you think Senate Republican Leader Mitch Root-n-Branch McConnell, of Louisville, is going to cross Americas Mussolini on this issue? Oh come now. With re-election staring him in the puss, Mitch will stay mum until he figures out which side is politically advantageous and then act, picking the popular side.

It should be said that is something that Paul rarely does. Some of his decisions are, well, curious, and thats a very kind way to put it. At his worst, and its been on view on occasion, hell make your skin crawl as if youve been doused with hydrochloric acid.

Right now the celebrated libertarian is trying to deep six the next legislative effort to supply additional relief for those suffering from the economic impact of Covid-19.

The measure is still under development and there are plenty of reasons to believe its not going to provide the sort of help the nation needs. McConnell and other Republicans dont like the $600 per week bonus provided to unemployed workers and theyre seeking protections against lawsuits for businesses where workers contract the coronavirus while in the job. But the package will likely result in $1 trillion being circulated during hard times.

Paul wants none of it. He claims were losing the country and that adding trillions of dollars to the nations deficit is absurd, its obscene.

The majority of Republicans are now no different than socialist Democrats when it comes to debt, Paul said on Twitter. They simply dont care about debt and are preparing to add at least another trillion dollars in debt this month, combined with the trillions from earlier this summer.

Paul said it would be a mistake for the federal government to borrow money despite record low interest rates to stimulate the economy.

I dont think we should throw out good sense and believe in something the opposite of what we believe in because of this virus, Paul told Fox News. I think its a foolhardy notion to think you can just create money out of thin air, give it to people and that creates wealth.

The only way to survive and recover, Paul said, is to re-open the economy.

Paul, who hasnt covered himself in glory during the COVID-19 crisis, seems unable to come to grips with just how significant the problem is. Adding $5 trillion in debt during a relatively short period of time isnt particularly desirable. But more than 140,000 Americans have died as a result of the virus. The number of cases nationwide is rising a 30 percent increase over a 14-day period ending on July 21, with 65,274 new cases reported that same day.

Kentucky, in fact, is one of the states where incidence is climbing. As of Wednesday, 24,694 cases have been reported, resulting in 697 deaths. And 660 new cases were reported July 21.

Until a vaccine or some other way to fight the spread appears the only way to address the crisis is to shut things down. States like Florida and Georgia jumped the gun, leading to chaos and a rise in incidence that has overwhelmed the medical establishment. And only the federal government has the wherewithal to make sure those who are no longer getting a steady paycheck for reasons beyond their control make it through to the other side of this mess.

Re-opening things at this juncture will lead to more fatalities. The nation already is on the road to 200,000 deaths. Do you really want more?

To this point, Pauls major contribution to the coronavirus debate besides catching the disease and failing to quarantine himself as he waited for the test results has been to insult Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has spent the last few months warning about the spread.

Paul told him to display more optimism.

More than 140,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19.

Hows that for optimism?

More here:

Bill Straub: Rand Paul objects to Trump's Gestapo but then wants Dr. Fauci to be more optimistic - User-generated content

Are the British conformist or libertarian? Our face mask response is telling – The Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the rest here:

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

Md. on the Hook for $27K in Legal Fees to Conservative Group – Josh Kurtz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[emailprotected]

More here:

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

Theres no right to infect – Sarasota Herald-Tribune

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy.

A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones.

Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided with property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's own good but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house without an invitation. Rights extend only so far.

Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scope. That would mean there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. Then the only legitimate government would be no government at all. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazia is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

Go here to read the rest:

Theres no right to infect - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Tune in Tonight for July 21 – Waco Tribune-Herald

Spanish-language TV star Walter Mercado is the subject of Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado, now streaming on Netflix.

Words like superstar dont really capture the figure at the center of Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado, a documentary now streaming on Netflix.

Mercado and his fame are a perfect example of the fluid nature of celebrity in a multicultural universe. For Spanish-speaking television fans of a certain age, Mercado was a giant of the industry, a fixture watched every day for his florid costumes, grand gestures and colorful recitations of the days horoscope. Other American viewers may have never heard of him. Or if they had, dismissed him as a quirk of Spanish-language television, a baroque curiosity, like the recurring Bumblebee Man character on The Simpsons.

As the title implies, Mercado dispensed a philosophy of universal love. And he was much beloved. Fans here include Lin-Manuel Miranda, of Hamilton fame, who describes how Mercado demanded affection and commanded devotion from his extended family.

An aspiring actor from Ponce, Puerto Rico, Mercado was asked one day to read the horoscopes for TV viewers and performed with such authority and apparent fervor that audiences demanded it become his steady gig. He would go on to conquer markets all through Central and South America, transfixing audiences with his ambiguous sexuality, his pantheistic philosophy and many, many costume changes.

We meet Mercados manager, Bill Bakula. Through his business acumen, Mercado appeared in many new countries, and even appeared on these shores on Sally Jessy Raphael and Howard Sterns radio show. But then, around the turn of the century, Bakula would entice Mercado into signing a contract giving Bakula virtual control over his image and likeness, gaining hold over Mercados very identity. Clearly the villain of the piece, Bakula has no problem appearing here and seems to regret nothing.

Original post:

Tune in Tonight for July 21 - Waco Tribune-Herald

Tune in Tonight: A TV stars message of love: Mucho Mucho Amor on Netflix – The Ledger

Words like "superstar" don't really capture the figure at the center of "Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado," a documentary now streaming on Netflix.

Mercado and his fame are a perfect example of the fluid nature of celebrity in a multicultural universe. For Spanish-speaking television fans of a certain age, Mercado was a giant of the industry, a fixture watched every day for his florid costumes, grand gestures and colorful recitations of the day's horoscope. Other American viewers may have never heard of him. Or if they had, dismissed him as a quirk of Spanish-language television, a baroque curiosity, like the recurring Bumblebee Man character on "The Simpsons."

As the title implies, Mercado dispensed a philosophy of universal love. And he was much beloved. Fans here include Lin-Manuel Miranda, of "Hamilton" fame, who describes how Mercado demanded affection and commanded devotion from his extended family.

An aspiring actor from Ponce, Puerto Rico, Mercado was asked one day to read the horoscopes for TV viewers and performed with such authority and apparent fervor that audiences demanded it become his steady gig. He would go on to conquer markets all through Central and South America, transfixing audiences with his ambiguous sexuality, his pantheistic philosophy and many, many costume changes.

We meet Mercado's manager, Bill Bakula. Through his business acumen, Mercado appeared in many new countries, and even appeared on these shores on "Sally Jessy Raphael" and Howard Stern's radio show. But then, around the turn of the century, Bakula would entice Mercado into signing a contract giving Bakula virtual control over his image and likeness, gaining hold over Mercado's very identity. Clearly the villain of the piece, Bakula has no problem appearing here and seems to regret nothing.

In addition to profiling a much-beloved future, "Mucho" explores how Mercado endured as the butt of jokes and how his image clashed with a dominant macho culture and how his blend of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity thrived in a largely Catholic region.

After a two-decade hiatus, due to his bad business deal, Mercado would emerge for a major recognition of his impact on Latin culture and television itself. He would also be embraced by young gay viewers who saw him as a pioneer, proud to be himself in an indifferent, even hostile, world.

"You have to be nice to people, you have to give the best of yourself every moment of your life, and you have to believe in yourself," were his guiding principles. Mercado died last November, shortly after a major museum tribute in his hometown.

There's much to love about "Mucho Mucho Amor." Like a good melodrama (or telenovela), it even provides someone (Bakula) to boo.

"Frontline" (10 p.m., PBS, TV-MA, check local listings) examines the impact of COVID-19 on America's food supplies, and how farmworkers, many of them undocumented, were considered "essential" even as they were most vulnerable to both deportation and infection.

TV-themed DVDs available today include the UMC network's "Behind Her Faith," with episodes starring Essence Atkins, Niecy Nash and other actresses.

TONIGHT'S OTHER HIGHLIGHTS

Simon Cowell and crew reflect on the season so far on "America's Got Talent" (8 p.m., NBC, TV-PG).

Game meats (boar, elk and venison) dictate the menus on "Hell's Kitchen" (8 p.m., Fox, r, TV-14).

An abusive boss may have been murdered by a victim on "FBI" (9 p.m., CBS, r, TV-14).

"Bryan Callen: Complicated Apes" (9 p.m., CW, r, TV-14) offers stand-up observations.

A cult leader puts out a hit on his own family on "FBI: Most Wanted" (10 p.m., CBS, r, TV-14).

The duels continue on "World of Dance" (10 p.m., NBC, TV-PG).

John Quinones hosts "What Would You Do?" (10 p.m., ABC).

CULT CHOICE

The 2015 documentary "Notfilm" (8 p.m., TCM) looks back at efforts to create playwright Samuel Beckett's only film, featuring Buster Keaton in one of his very last filmed roles as well as interviews with Grove Press founder and publishing legend Barney Rosset.

SERIES NOTES

A body puts an airstrip under scrutiny on "NCIS" (8 p.m., CBS, r, TV-PG) ... On two helpings of "Modern Family" (ABC, r, TV-PG): Claire's interview (8 p.m.), Mitch's crisis (8:30 p.m.) ... Henry's difficult decision on "DC's Stargirl" (8 p.m., CW, TV-PG).

Bright undergoes scrutiny on "Prodigal Son" (9 p.m., Fox, r, TV-14) ... Jack's tech side on "black-ish" (9 p.m., ABC, r, TV-PG) ... Stereotypes on "mixed-ish" (9:30 p.m., ABC, r, TV-PG).

LATE NIGHT

Jimmy Fallon welcomes Andy Samberg, Jose Andres and Perfume Genius on "The Tonight Show" (11:35 p.m., NBC) ... Chris Evans, Action Bronson, Elle King and Nikki Glaspie drop by "Late Night With Seth Meyers" (12:35 a.m., NBC).

Link:

Tune in Tonight: A TV stars message of love: Mucho Mucho Amor on Netflix - The Ledger

There Are All Kinds Of Hindus In India: Here Is An Idea Of Who A Hindu Is – Swarajya

I have had passionate discussions with Jain and Sikh friends about intra-Dharmic boundaries with respect to Hinduism, the term.

Ideally, the term should be junked (I say that as a Hindu) and at least for intra-Dharmic purposes, we should all be just Sikh, Jain, Shaivite, Vaishnavite, Brahmo, Buddhist, Charvak etc (and hopefully no castes, but that is another long discussion). But we are where we are.

Now, the term Hindu started as geographical and non-religious, then with invaders who could not be assimilated it became a negative/residual term implying all non-Muslims and non-Christians of India.

But then, and this is the third stage, in the nineteenth century some Sikhs, Brahmos and Buddhists started to see themselves differently and now some Jains, Lingayats etc.

In the twentieth century, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Dr B R Ambedkar (and many others) started to say caste Hindus or what would be called Savarnas. They were accurate, even though in the end Jinnah and Ambedkar had very different ideas about Indian unity.

Ironically in second stage, when Hindu just meant non-Christian and non-Muslim Indians, that word Hindu (which later got ism added to it) became a revolutionary and deeply political term as, despite caste, it presaged kafir/heathen unity for the first time in India and perhaps for the first time in the world in relation to both the proselytising monotheisms.

So far, the pagans and gentiles and mushrik (polytheists) were being defined by others, while these spiritually fluid populations never thought it fit to define theological hard boundaries.

Now when I asked one of my Sikh friends how am I not him and how is he not me, he said Sikhism does not have caste (Sikh society very much does), does not have idol worship (except the beautiful and revered Guru Granth Sahib), and of late because some even say Sikhism is monotheistic or even Indo Abrahamic.

As if Hindus cannot be monotheistic, or monistic, or pantheistic and so on but I get ahead of myself.

Why did the Hindu-Sikh split happen in the late nineteenth century? Partially because the otherwise wonderful Arya Samaj defined Hinduism as back to the vedas, and almost everything else as corruption including idol worship.

It was a difficult time for Indian civilisation, and it was at least a positive if flawed definition of Hinduism but given this Sikh separation made full sense to be fair.

Now in reality, most Hindus do not live by, or even normatively buy the Arya Samaji definition. Most Hindus worship deities or murtis, most still do not read the vedas with any understanding even if in translation (of course many exceptions exist).

Many Hindus from Kerala and some from elsewhere even eat beef, though it is perhaps a recent phenomenon, and I dare anyone to call them not Hindu.

What I am getting at is that, while going by what people call themselves is a perfectly fine way to look at the world, we also have to look at some logical differentiation points. If you do the latter and not the former how do you define Hindus in India? But I get ahead of myself again.

Let us consider the case of Jainism, another beautiful Dharmic panth and my personal favourite provided there was not the reality of war in the world (I am not saying Jain thinkers have not thought of that dichotomy, there is much more nuance just expressing my appreciation).

Some of my Jain friends have told me atheism/agnosticism and strict vegetarianism, for example, are some clear differentiations with respect to the Hindu masses.

Similarly, Brahmos have told me they are not Hindus and so have Buddhists. I have read articles that when pushed on cattle sacrifice some tribals have said they are not Hindu and had it not been for the work of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and their schools even the rest of the North East and much of central India would have been lost to Abrahamicism.

However, what is very clear is that there are all kinds of Hindus in India, even if ratios vary. Vegetarian and meat eating, casteist and anti-caste, idol worshipping and not worshipping anything (even a book symbol), believer and atheist, shramik and charvak, vedic and nastik, monotheist and polytheist, and so on.

As I have often said, if Christianity and Islam would have deeper footprints in China, you would have a larger religion than Hinduism there called Hanism it didnt happen as in the nineteenth century despite a weak state they brutally suppressed almost all Abrahamic imperialistic ideas.

So, if today, one is to give a positive definition of Hinduism that fits, unlike the Arya Samajis one (but they did a lot of good work overall) then it is: A Hindu is a Dharmic who is related to Indian culture or Bharatiya Sanskriti. And who is a Dharmic? Who believes in reciprocity in spiritualism.

That is my definition of who is a Dharmic, and the Indian subset thereof about who a Hindu is. I am sure there maybe faults with these as well, but I will wait for better ones. There are many nuances about reciprocity or mutual respect versus just tolerance but let us move on for now.

So if one goes by this definition of Hinduism, many of the non-Hindu Dharmic claimants, which and who I totally respect (and we are anyway discussing rashtra not rajya) do not stand scrutiny as per this above definition since they are very much part of Indian culture, even often leading figures thereof.

Are these self definitions nonetheless genuinely felt? Absolutely yes, in most cases. Is there some regulatory arbitrage, aka claiming separatism, because of our pseudo secular state that has minorityism enshrined in it with respect to education and place of worship regulations? That too, sadly.

Now the statist-regulatory arbitrage goes back beyond the Nehruvian (Ottoman millet style in the social sphere) state to the colonial one and its various theories of who could fight and who could not. That in term determined who could be employed in the army one of the few stable jobs available in a brutally poor country, and this classification further widened intra-Dharmic religious boundaries.

Note the word Dharma itself is acceptable to Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism though it may not be currently to Zoroastrianism, Shintoism or even neo-paganisms in the West, at least at first brush.

I will finish with one example: as I have often said Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Lion of Punjab, saw himself no differently from any Hindu Ranjit Singh in Oudh say in terms of his spiritual (and not just civilisational) identity.

He after all gave gold to mandirs in Kashi (Banaras) and bequeathed the Kohinoor to Jagannath, a tribal Hindu deity in far off Odisha. Giving gold/diamonds to Hindus so far from his kingdom had limited use at best in terms of politics for power consolidation in Punjab. There were mandirs nearby to patronise which he also did.

So just because some terms are today contested, it does not mean the status quo is final. In any case, we have to get beyond semantics and reach the essence of things whereby we can bring spiritual brotherhood to the whole world while still maintaining cultural and national diversity.

This article first appeared on Medium, and was republished here with permission.

Follow this link:

There Are All Kinds Of Hindus In India: Here Is An Idea Of Who A Hindu Is - Swarajya

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits | Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits – Patheos

Image by Hans Linde via Pixabay, Public Domain Image.

As Pagans, we can merely observe the eight High Days and then move on with our lives. As Devoted Pagans, we can develop a practice that we undertake daily that helps us to build better relationships with the entities, spirits, and allies in our lives.

This is the fifth in a series of Building a Devotional Practice with presentations. The first three dealt with the Land, the Sea, and the Sky. In this offering, we continue our discussion of building devotional practices with the Kindreds. The first of our Kindreds discussions was about building a practice with the Ancestors. This presentation will deal with the Nature Spirits.

I divide the Nature Spirits in to three groups. The first is the spirits of nature that represents creatures that we recognize in this middle world: creatures of the realms, land, sea, and sky. This would include mammals, inspects, fish, birds, etc. These entities have names that everyone understands.

These creatures have correspondences that most people are aware of. Sharks are aggressive, foxes are wily, doves are peaceful, and cats are inscrutable. Some of these animals may be allies of ours. If they are allies, they may exhibit the kind of attributes we come to expect. By the same token, they may also exhibit qualities that are particular to our relationship with them.

The second group of Nature Spirits are the spirits of place. These are not creatures, but elements in nature that have special or perhaps magical qualities that one would NOT necessarily associate with them. For example, some rivers in the ancient world were revered as sacred, like the Danube or the Seine. One may also discover places in nature that feel differently that others, that feel sacred, or holy, or even alive and sentient.

Think about some of the rivers that you are familiar with: do they feel magical or are they just rivers? Think of other bodies of water that have caused a feel of awe or presence in you: these are the spirits in nature that I am talking about, all contained in the category of Nature Spirits. This kind of feel may include glades or canyons or long stretches of sky. If it feels holy or sentient or special, I would trust your intuition.

The final group of nature spirits are imaginary creatures. These are gnomes or sylphs or dryads or yeti, creatures that you have a connection to but are not generally acknowledged as existing in the real world. In the work that you do, these creatures may call to you and if they do, I would respond to them. Just because a unicorn may not exist in the real world, they may very well exist in your magical or vital world

What can the Nature Spirits bring to our lives and our practice? I believe that the one thing that the Nature Spirits can help us with is to give us an understanding of the cycles in the world and in our lives. The Nature Spirits, like us, live within the solar and lunar cycles that affect this world, our planet. While we as humans and many of these creatures live longer that a single solar cycle, we all take part in the cycles of renewal: birth and rebirth, emergence from our slumber, growth, flourish, harvest, decline, death and decay.

Some of the cycles do not mean actual events: death and decay may just refer to times where our lives slow down to reflect the natural world around us. Emergence may describe the seed emerging from the earth, but it may also refer to a time in our lives when we break through the situations we have found ourselves in for some time. For spirits of place, they teach us of the specialness of those places and what those locations mean in our lives. For imaginary creatures, they have lessons to teach us as well. After all, an imaginary creature can be a liminal entity as well.

How do we build a relationship with the Nature Spirits? In addition, where do we build a relationship with them? I think the best place for any kind of devotional is at an altar or shrine. For the Nature Spirits, this altar is best found in nature.

One must be careful to not be too literal. If one wishes to build an altar to wolves, one does not have to build one in a wolves den. The idea is to build an altar or shrine to the wolves not among the wolves. While many of us would consider that nature is outside, it is not exclusively outside.

For altars in nature, I think that it is best to build incidental altars, or altars that are not permanent. These are called incidental because they are often made with items found on hand, at or around the location where they are built.

I often look for three things in an incidental altar: a tree, especially one that has an indentation in it which can act as a well, and a fire analog. What exactly is a fire analog? This is something that represents a fire without being an open flame. My favourite choice of items for this is a red stone, like red jasper. Red jasper is red, like the sun, like the fire. Given a tree, an indentation as the well, and a red jasper, the hallows are all present.

For the pantheists in the crowd, everywhere and anywhere is the altar or sacred place.

What if the recognition you wish to bestow doesnt require the presence of hallows? You may have a tree, a field of flowers, a stump, a rabbit warren, or any of several things which you feel are holy or sacred. I would recommend making offerings to that item and make an offering that is of value to that location. Yet what offerings should one make?

Water is the perfect offering in nature. If any of the objects of your devotion are living creatures, they will appreciate and benefit from water. Should the object of the devotion is water or lives in water, I would recommend an offering that is left at the side of a waterway or body of water. If the entity to which you wish to leave an offering is imaginary, use the imagination to find a perfect offering. In fact, ask the entity what offering it would prefer.

How does one do this? Sit, stand, or lay next to the place where you choose to make an offering. Listen to the world around you. Be still and listen. Close your eyes. After some time, you will feel a rhythm around you, the sounds of the place. Open yourself up as your immerse yourself into the sound and see what impressions come your way. Some may be subtle; some may be very direct and clear. Trust your intuition; trust yourself.

You may find that a good offering is a poem or a prayer. It may be a song or a drawing. It may be something drawn in the dirt. Open your senses so that you can receive impressions from the world around you. Listen and learn. As you spend more time in your sacred place, with your sacred allies, you will come to a greater understanding of them. They will better understand you.

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits helps us to understand and cherish those who share this middle realm with us. These spirits share the cycles of the year and the dance of the seasons with us, yet sometimes, our cycles may be much longer than the usual annual cycles in our world.

We see the tree, most often, as the symbol of the Nature Spirits. It spans the worlds, with roots that sink deep into the earth, past the Ancestors to the dark waters below, and branches which reach up to the heavens, into the Sky, to touch the Shining Ones. Between the world of the Ancestors below and the realm of the sky and the Shining Ones above, we, in the middle realm, give offerings and thanks.

Read more here:

Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits | Building a Devotional Practice with the Nature Spirits - Patheos