Daily Archives: May 14, 2021

T

he Government was today accused of nutty nanny statism with its plan to ban junk food adverts on TV before 9pm and a total ban online.

Despite railing against the Nanny State in the past, Boris Johnson plans to bring in a sweeping ban on junk food adverts.

The proposal to curb the advertising of fatty foods was revealed in a briefing document that accompanied Tuesdays Queens Speech.

Matthew Lesh, head of research at libertarian think tank the Adam Smith Institute, said: The ad ban plan is nutty nanny statism. It will do nothing to reduce obesity while savagely striking at struggling hospitality businesses and hurting the public.

The measures will apply to a shockingly large array of foods. It will be illegal to advertise online British favourites like fish and chips, scotch eggs or even a Full English breakfast; takeaways would be unable to post images of their food online; descriptive words like delicious will be banned.

Thousands of restaurants, which have been kept alive thanks to online delivery, will no longer be able to advertise online to find new customers, hitting small businesses the hardest.

Advertising Association chief executive Stephen Woodford said they were dismayed at the Governments decision that will damage business and put jobs at risk.

He added: The Governments own evidence shows that such measures will be ineffective in tackling obesity. The country needs balanced, consistent and well-evidenced policy interventions that will make a positive difference.

Christopher Snowdon, from free-market think tank Institute of Economic Affairs told the Standard: There still is no satisfactory legal definition of junk food. The kind of products that will be banned from advertising are not the kind of things normal people consider to be unhealthy or consider to be junk. Its going to affect everybody from the largest corporations to the local bakery, the local wedding cake maker, the local sweet shop.

The Government really needs to - at the very least - water down these proposals to protect what is the countrys largest and most important industry. Its a huge infringement of their free speech basically. This is really the last thing business needs, particularly at the moment.

Firms with more than 250 employees will be forced to list calories onfood - although plans to include drinks were ditched.

A new incentive scheme called Fit Miles will look at paying people to eat better and exercise more.

He said people were being sold a pig in a poke that it will only affect large hamburger companies, adding: Its not, its going to affect thousands and thousands of businesses large and small.

The Prime Minister abandoned his very libertarian view on food choices after contracting Covid-19 and ending up in intensive care last year. He admitted he had been too fat and his weight was likely a factor in him needing ICU.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan brought in similar policies at City Hall by outlawing adverts showing food and drinks with high fat, salt and sugar on the Tube, Overground and bus network.

Britain is the second fattest European nation and obesity is thought to be factor that could have worsened the countrys death toll during the pandemic.

The Prime Ministers official spokesman said the ban would be sensible and proportionate. Asked if it was possible to fine those who contravene the ban, he replied: Yes, were working with providers, were working with companies to make sure that this is something that can be done sensibly and proportionately.

Asked if a bakery selling cakes and pasties could not have an Instagram account, he replied: The consultation response will set out how we are going to do this sensibly and proportionately.

He said they would set out very clearly to businesses what would be required of them.

Read the rest here:

Government accused of nutty nanny statism over junk food ad ban - Evening Standard

Gas prices and inflation shoot up, there is trouble in Iran, crime is increasing and we have commodity shortages, "economic malaise," problems at the border and lines at gas stations. Wow, that visit between Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter is starting to make sense. And, if you can believe it, music today is even worse than disco.

Things are trending so badly that even Jimmy Carter is starting to compare Joe Biden to Jimmy Carter. Geico should be running commercials saying: "You can save 15% by switching back to Trump."

When asked at the border by Fox News reporters why they are coming here, illegals say they want to "escape socialism" in despot-led countries like Venezuela. Obviously, border crossers are not keeping up with politics in America.

For the kids out there, Jimmy Carter was a nice, old-line Democrat who became president after a scoundrel (Nixon) was president. Then people realized that they had made a mistake. Right now I would happily trade a few mean tweets for $1.95 per gallon gas and lower taxes. And Trump has been quiet. Personally, I am starting to believe he is not going to release his tax returns.

Trump had great policies, but his brash personality wore on people. Still, he was a refreshing change. Trump was like being married to a nymphomaniac: fun for about a month.

Jimmy Carter was a devout Baptist; he did not chase women or drink. And he taught Trump something. You can be a one-term president, but that does not mean you can't continue to be a pain in the butt when you are out of office.

The economy boomed under Clinton and Trump. It did not under Carter and Obama. The economics lesson is clear to those paying attention: marital fidelity is not good for business.

Like Biden, Carter opposed busing, and, also like Biden, Carter now lectures the rest of us on race and calls us "racist." Nothing is better than two old men from slave states lecturing us on how to treat Blacks.

Like Carter, Biden wants to raise taxes that will hurt the economy. Tax increases are where the supposed "government of the people and by the people" stick it to the people to support their own big government.

Both Biden and Carter thought they could regulate citizens' behavior through dictates from a heavy-handed central government in D.C. Carter lowered the speed limits on highways to 55 mph while he flew around on jets and rode in limousines. Biden wants to outlaw menthol cigarettes. Wasn't that the type Obama smoked?

Carter thought he could tell Americans to turn their heat down and put on a sweater. Biden tells everyone to wear a mask unless you are already fully brainwashed by the left and/or support a 50% tax increase.

Like Jimmy Carter, Biden is old and living well. Lifelong politician Biden bikes, swims naked and watches what he eats. He takes care of himself, as is evidenced by his personal net worth.

I do like the comment that Carter made on "Meet the Depressed" with Chuck Todd. He says he does not send emails because the NSA sees them. I like his libertarian bent, but it is also probably because he does not know how to work a computer from Plains, Georgia.

Both Biden and Carter really felt that government had the answers to all our problems. They could tell us what to do, how to live and what to eat. I have a buddy who drinks, eats a cheeseburger a day, supports Republicans and drives a Hummer. I feel like maybe I am supposed to turn him in to the government.

Contact Ron Hart, a syndicated satirist, author and TV/radio commentator, at Ron@RonaldHart.com, or visit http://www.RonaldHart.com.

Read more:

Hart: Biden and Carter are two peanuts in the same shell game - Chattanooga Times Free Press

As I prepare my mail in ballot for the Republican primary, I remember my vote in the fall and my feeling that the Republican platform was still closer to my beliefs in free enterprise and the rule of law that I did not see the Democrats supporting.

I was then shocked and insulted by the president and Mike Kelly's attempts to disenfranchise my vote, the most sacred act in our democracy. Let's be clear, Donald Trump needed no help in losing the election.

Still, both parties are too far out to represent most of us that believe in freedom and the will of the people. Maybe it's time to consider a different path. Take a look at the Libertarian party. Their platform includes less government and taxes, personal freedom andresponsibility, free enterprise and civil liberties. The Libertarian presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen, was on the ballot in all 50 states and was the only candidate to visit Meadville during the campaign.

So why don't you hear and know more about them? Follow the money. See who is getting the paybacks now that Joe Biden is president and who the Republicans would now be indebted to.

If we are to change, it has to come from the grassroots, the old silent majority. If it takes a new party to do it, I'm for it!

THOMAS MATTIS

Meadville

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

More:

LETTER: It's time to look for another party - Meadville Tribune

by Paul Moomjeanpaulmoomjean@yahoo.com

I was sitting in a cigar shop the other day, enjoying a stogie with a buddy I had not seen in over a year, when he looked at me and asked, What the hell is a Republican today?

Having been a former GOP member myself from 1999 to 2002 and labeling myself a libertarian conservative most of my life, I really couldnt tell him what a Republican is today. I just know Im not it at all.

Is it a member of a group of rioters led by a man in a bear suit who lives at home with his mother? Is it what Bill Maher once said, old white men taking care of my money? Or is it some balance of both? Recently Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney have been facing backlash for holding the line against the banned-from-social media and former President Donald Trump, causing a series of hot mic drops and corporate booing. Yet in a conservative world with no balanced common sense, the country doesnt look to have another voice in the Congress unless it wears a bear outfit.

Right now, Cheney is at war with her own party. On May 5 she tweeted: History is watching us. We must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution or join Trumps crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have.

This set off the degenerates of the party, and they are looking to remove her from any form of power, including a May 2021 conference where she would be the third-highest-ranking GOP member. Remember, this is the daughter of maybe the most powerful republican of our modern era, former Vice President Dick Cheney. To think she could be removed from a seat at the table because she believes what every state also does, that Joe Biden won the election fairly, shows how far the party has dropped.

Sadly, the GOP is now a party of violent, anti-voting-law-creating, gun-loving, conspiracy-theory nuts, hellbent on being cruel to transgender people, minority races and millennial and Gen Z snowflakes. Recently, the GOP had Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is Black, speak after Bidens address to the nation. He said America isnt racist, and while America isnt racist, its not entirely not racist. The talking points of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, two very privileged white males on Fox News, seem to be the official talking points of the new unhinged GOP. This is the party that has lost the war on abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the nuclear family. Now they might prop up Caitlyn Jenner for governor of California, while systematically denying transgender people the respect they ask in pronoun assessment. And the reason the GOP lost everything is because they listened to Hannity and Carlson. And now the next wave is Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles from Daily Wire. These people want ratings. To those still in the GOP, in the words of Malcom X, Youve been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled!

Conservatism has become angry, like an impotent Clint Eastwood movie character, upset that the world grew up without their permission. To think that characters like Carlson and Shapiro are upset Derek Chauvin is going to jail after being found guilty of murdering George Floyd is downright wrong and insincere. Theres no way they watched that video and saw Chauvin as the man in the right unless they are clearly racist (which I dont believe) or just fighting for noise in the YouTube and 24/7 news cycle vacuum.

Conservatism and the GOP have become the party of whiteness. Its no longer a party with any ideals. It simply wants white people mad and hopes that its 75 million members will one day be enough to take back the presidency.

Not everyone is doing this. Conservatives George Will, Michael Medved and Mitt Romney are trying to be the practical people. But with George Will leaving the GOP, Medved being fired from Salem Radio for not signing a Trump loyalty contract, and Mitt Romney being booed by Mormons in Utah recently, only to remind them he was their GOP nominee in 2012, the party looks bleak, sad and scary.

So what the hell is a Republican today? Hell if I know.

Read more from the original source:

PURPLE IS THE NEW PARTY | What is a Republican today? - Ventura County Reporter

President Biden, Vice President Harris, secretaries of Commerce and Transportation meet with Sens. Capito, Barrasso, Blunt, Crapo, Toomey and Wicker in the Oval Office.

A powerful, fiscally conservative and libertarian political advocacy group is launching a new seven-figure effort to drive opposition to President Bidens wide-ranging infrastructure proposal that hes trying to pass through Congress.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), in announcing their new campaign titled "End Washington Waste: Stop the Spending Spree," said on Wednesday their aim is to inform Americans about what it calls "the harms of the proposal, while offering positive alternatives."

WHAT'S IN BIDEN'S $2.2T INFRASTRUCTURE AND TAX PROPOSAL?

AFP has committed to more than 100 events across the country to take its message directly to voters, including rallies, town halls, door-to-door canvassing, and phone banks. And the group highlighted that its campaign includes a paid media component, consisting of direct mail, digital advertising, and what it says are other tactics.

Americans for Prosperity, an influential fiscally conservative and libertarian political advocacy group, is launching a new seven-figure effort to drive opposition to President Bidens wide-ranging infrastructure proposal

The president formally announced his $2.3 trillion proposal titled the American Jobs Plan - six weeks ago. Thesweeping proposal aims to rebuild 20,000 miles of roads, expand access to clean water and broadband, and invest in care for the elderly.

"It's a once-in-a-generation investment in America, unlike anything we've seen or done since we built the interstate highway system and the space race decades ago," Biden said at the time.

The White House emphasizes that the proposal would create millions of jobs and ignite the fight against climate change. The proposals massive tab, which would be spent out over eight years, would be paid for over 15 years by raising the corporate tax rate, which was dramatically cut by the 2017 tax cuts, the signature domestic achievement of former President Trumps tenure in the White House.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

While the presidents pushing for bipartisan support, Bidens finding little backing from congressional Republicans, who are dead set against making changes to the Trump tax cuts and who disagree on whats considered infrastructure. Theyve put forth their own proposal, with spending at less than half of what Bidens proposing.

"President Bidens multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal is Washington waste at its worst a partisan spending spree masquerading as road and bridge improvement," AFP president Tim Phillips argued in a statement.

"Less than five percent of the $4 trillion dollars goes to traditional infrastructure, while the rest goes to a partisan grab bag of top-down ideas that will lead to fewer jobs, tax increases that hurt workers wages and crush small businesses, and a rigged economy that leaves everyone worse off," he emphasized.

Americans for Prosperity president Tim Phillips headlines an event taking aim at President Biden's infrastructure proposal, in Des Moines, Iowa on April 22, 2021

Phillips charged that "handouts to benefit special interests, favors for labor unions that undermine workers ability to find employment, and unnecessary regulation all paid for by historic tax increases will only devastate our recovering economy."

AFP TARGETS DEMOCRATS OVER BIDEN'S COVID SPENDING PROGRAM

AFP said the first phase of their push will spotlight 27 House Democrats in 16 states, some of whom could face challenging reelections in next years midterms, or who are considering bids for statewide office. They are Reps. Tom OHalleran of Arizona, Stephanie Murphy Florida, Carolyn Bourdeaux and Lucy McBath of Georgia, Cindy Axne of Iowa, Lauren Underwood Illinois, Sharice Davids Kasnas, Elissa Slotkin and Haley Stevens of Michigan, Angie Craig and Dean Phillips of Minnesota, Kathy Manning of North Carolina, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, Andy Kim, Mikie Sherrill, and Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Shrader of Oregon, Matt Cartwright, Brian Fitzpatrick, Connor Lamb, and Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, Colin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher of Texas, Elaine Luria and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, and Ron Kind of Wisconsin.

Excerpt from:

Top fiscal conservative group targeting Bidens infrastructure proposal with new campaign - Fox Business

Starting a column with a disclaimer is weak. But the law I (mildly) challenge here has passionate defenders across the ideological spectrum and throughout the media. Whats more, I know the lawyers on the other side of this issue, and they are as good as they get. Those who fight them have about as much success as a masked monster squaring off against the Scooby Doo Gang. So before I go any farther down the foolish path of self-destruction, let me be absolutely clear on three fundamental points:

(1) transparency in government through access to the governments records is critical to constitutional order and the democratic process;

(2) the right of the people to watch the watchwomen and men in government should be inviolate; and

(3) there can be no tolerance for government officials who skirt or disobey the law on public records.

I forever proclaim my obeisance to the righteous cause of sunlight in government. But current law on public records has caused my libertarian ideals to clash with my bureaucratic experience. When I served as Gov. Brian Sandovals general counsel, I was in charge of responding to all public records requests. I saw plenty of room for improvement, and not just on the make-the-law-more-strict side of the equation. The ends of the law are good and noble, but the means often fall short, even when government officials sincerely try their best to comply. The law is constantly trying to keep up with new technology and changing behavior. Humans adapt fast.

I dont pretend to have the answers. But I wish to point out some reasons why current law may be failing in ways that go beyond bad acts by government officials. Even the most honest, efficient, and compliant public servants respond to incentives, and until we fully understand the good and bad incentives that current law creates, our attempts at reform will likely fall short no matter what else we do.

Current law is overinclusive

I probably handled between 40-60 public records requests in an average year. Never once was there anything that needed disclosing that caused me more consternation than the process itself. Searching for and reviewing thousands of records is a painful task. We had a small staff, and the deadlines to respond could be daunting, especially during the heat of a legislative session. We were rarely worried about the embarrassment of anything we had to produce, but we were always distraught about not properly complying with the law. Appearing to hide something would look worse than anything we were supposedly hiding. I had some sleepless nights, terrified that there was a document I missed and failed to disclose that would somehow be discovered and broadcast to the world. Thus, we took every request seriously, even the weekly faxes (yes, faxes) generated by bots for partisan organizations. All requests, no matter how prescient or absurd, were entitled to and received attention.

Given these burdens, everyone was incentivized to avoid proliferating written records. We communicated in person and on the phone, even as the rest of the world did the opposite. We were not trying to avoid transparency. We merely wanted to minimize both the workload when the requests came in and the worry that we would fail to comply with the law.

To be sure, we also liked the liberty to speak freely without fear that everything we said could go public, but our main goal was efficiency, not concealment. We really just wanted a smaller paper record to cut down on back-end work and unnecessary embarrassment. As long as in-person communications were (and absolutely should remain) outside the reach and burdens of the law, in-person communications were preferred. They were better anyway.

Public records law has not kept up with technology and behavior. In the 1950s and 1960s, when public records laws were first enacted, the targets were often real, substantive government records. Now it seems like the law mostly traps stray, day-to-day emails and texts between government employees. More and more documents are subject to production, but they likely say less and less. 20 years ago, bureaucrats likely did not take the time to type out a formal letter detailing last nights dinner. Few public servants are actually villains. But every email and text must still be searched, just in case.

In some respects, the random evolution of technology and market demand has been a boon for champions of transparency. Thankfully, we do not demand that phone calls be recorded, or that bureaucrats wear body cams. Had communication trends drifted away from the written word, where would we be?

In other respects, technology has left the law in the dust. For many good reasons (and some bad), people will use new technology if they think it falls outside the domain of public records law. It takes case law to keep up. Texts on ones own personal cell phone now seem to be in play if state business is discussed. I imagine even the best public servants are already adapting, especially with quarantine-necessitated breakthroughs in video conferencing. Few people want the world or their colleagues to see the entirety of their (mostly irrelevant) daily discussions, context free. And even if the written record did not ultimately need producing, someone else still had to comb through those personal words.

The law is underinclusive, too

Public records law applies almost exclusively to the executive branch of government. The legislative and judicial branches are largely free from any transparency demands, and it is hard to see the reason for it if we take the stated purposes of the law at face value. Why are the internal deliberations of executive staff over implementing a law more worthy of sunlight than the internal deliberations of legislators who passed the law or of the Supreme Court justices who rule on the law?

Consider the disputed decision at the end of the 2019 legislative session that certain bills were not tax increases and therefore did not require a two-thirds vote from both houses of the Legislature. Current law allows us to demand records on the topic from Gov. Steve Sisolaks office. But we do not have the ability to request the same records from the Legislature or related records from the Nevada Supreme Court as it weighs the constitutionality of the decision. Why?

Ive worked for both the legislative and executive branches; the topics of conversation are largely the same. And about every 20 years or so we get a look into the papers of a retired Supreme Court justice; much of what those papers reveal seems worthy of the publics attention, too. Who wouldnt like to see whether Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote on the Obamacare case, or the conversations between Nevada Supreme Court justices on any 4-3 case? Either way, it would be nice to see how the Legislature would draft the law and the judiciary would interpret it if it applied to them both as well.

Dont get me wrong: I am not necessarily advocating that we expand the law into other branches. There are likely many good reasons not to. I simply point out that the law already excludes much government activity.

In short, despite my rather downbeat analysis, I agree strongly with reformers and advocates for greater transparency: the law is not working as it should. But the answer may not be to keep turning up the same dial in the same way. We have to account for, appreciate, and respect the human behavior public records laws attempt to capture. Until we do that, both the advocates for transparency and good government officials will remain frustrated, while the full promise of the law remains unfulfilled.

Daniel H. Stewart is a fifth-generation Nevadan and a partner with Hutchison & Steffen. He was Gov. Brian Sandovals general counsel and has represented various GOP elected officials and groups.

Read this article:

Public records law that ignores reality will always fall short - The Nevada Independent