Category Archives: Ayn Rand

The Issues People is a series of interviews with voters in northeastern Ontario who live election issues every day and how that influences how they will mark their ballots on Oct. 21.

Antti Saari hasn't always thought about the future of the planet when deciding who to vote for.

"When I was young and stupid I read Ayn Rand and I thought that was the greatest thing," says the 71-year-old retired engineer and teacher in Sudbury.

"But I've grown up since then."

He now drives an electric car, is partof a local solar power project and has been focused on what politicians are saying about climate change in this election.

"I think about it quite a bit," says Saari.

"I'm really wanting to leave a better world for my grandchildren."

He says he likes the vision of the Green Party, but feels the NDP has a more concrete plan for reducing emissions and turning the tide of global warming.

Still,Saari, who lives in the Nickel Belt riding, says he is likely going to end up voting strategically based on who is likely to have a chance at being his local MP.

"I don't want to throw my vote away," he says.

Skye Little thinks about the environment every day and has worked to make his home and his Whitefish-based business Hia Media as sustainable as possible.

"Ithink that we have to be aware of the problems at hand and I think that people are not taking enough time to consider what they're doing on a day-to-day basis," says the 42-year-old.

"It's always interesting to see where people lie. And will they follow through?" says Little, who will vote in the Sudbury riding.

"Sometimes we have to live with what we've got and hopefully they're listening."

Kaitlyn Hunter says at 21, she's too young to have seen the affects of climate change.

But the woman from the far north Cree community of Peawanuck says the elders tell her how the seasons are shifting, the animals are behaving differently and the permafrost underfoot is melting.

"It'sbeginning to take a toll on the land and on the people to live in the northern communities," says Hunter, who is currently studying at Nipissing University in North Bay.

"It's not as pure as it used to be."

Hunter will vote for the first time on Oct. 21 and doesn't know yet which party she'll support.

She says she's more hopeful about the future of the planet thanks to the election campaign by "justseeing the progress throughout the month and seeing the parties coming up with action plans and proposals."

Saaritoo is trying to be optimistic about the next government and the future of the planet.

"I am still afraid, but I'm hoping," he says.

Read the original here:

Northern Ontario voters focused on the politics of climate change - CBC.ca

The Central Texas High-Speed Railway (aka, the Texas bullet train) proposed to run between Houston and Dallas continues gradually clearing hurdles, its officials hoping to begin construction in 2020 with an eye on the first trips in 2026. It has hired a builder, was granted an important petition from the Federal Railroad Administration and has secured financing for the privately-funded project.

Still, fairly significant impediments lay ahead, not the least of which is a ruling they are appealing to allow them the use of eminent domain in gaining the property they need for laying the tracks. But, most believe the train is far closer to being a reality today than it was even a year ago.

In a conservative state like Texas where trains are regarded at best with skepticism and at worst as some sort of a gateway drug to an Ayn Rand-like dystopian future, it's remarkable the project has made it this far. But, there are good reasons for a rail system like this one in Texas. Here are five of them.

Texas is flat.

For once, not having mountainous regions in central and east Texas isn't a bad thing. Unlike California, where one estimate suggested digging tunnels for their high-speed rail could cost more than the entire project, in Texas we have wide open prairies to cross making laying tracks much easier than other terrain. Sure, it doesn't make for much to look at when you're staring out the window, but at least you won't have to worry about being lulled to sleep by the boring scenery, falling asleep at the wheel and, well, you get it.

The project is private, not public.

One of the oft-cited concerns by the biggest critics is that a project like this is destined to fail only to be bailed out by taxpayers. Admittedly, privately-funded rail rarely works, but because the state of Texas eyeballs its purse strings the way Heimdall watched the bifrost bridge (yes, that was a reference to Thor...you're welcome), the legislature is already on high alert. Numerous bills and riders aimed at killing the entire project failed to pass in this last legislative session, but that doesn't mean the die hasn't been cast. Clearly the state isn't dropping a penny into the project.

But if anyone were overly concerned, consider the fact that the project is to be backed by investors. People don't bet their investment dollars, particularly in un-tested transportation projects in places like Texas, without feeling more than a little secure in their decision. It's one of the reasons why Vegas remains undefeated.

The station locations could spur economic growth.

The Houston station is planned for where Northwest Mall slowly crumbles near the intersection of the North Loop and 290. Since the completion (cough) of the 290 construction, the entire area is experiencing rather rapid development along the populated corridor. The mall sits adjacent to Hempstead Highway where there is already a rail line running northwest toward Austin, so infrastructure is in place and the area around it is primed for development. Frankly, economic growth is coming to the area anyway, but the promise of a new regional transit hub could certainly help speed that up, particularly if it came attached to a light rail or rapid bus line ferrying passengers into the Galleria and/or downtown.

Expansion to Austin and San Antonio seems almost a given.

The only stop on the line is purported to be in the Brazos Valley near College Station, which makes a lot of sense considering there isn't really another city along the route that is bigger than Brenham or Bryan. Additionally, with College Station only an hour from Austin, a spur that connects the Interstate 35 corridor between Austin and San Antonio something that has already been discussed feels like a no brainer. If 90 minutes to Dallas sound good, imagine 45 to the ACL Festival or an hour to the River Walk. Hell, Texas A&M students will practically be able to commute from Houston.

Driving and flying to Dallas sucks.

From traffic on the roadways, never mind the three-plus hour drive, to airport TSA stops and lost luggage, very little about a quick trip to Dallas (or Austin or San Antonio) is actually quick. It's a huge pain, in fact. Taking either option for work is an inconvenience you deal with. Taking them for entertainment purposes is out of the question unless you are planning to stay the night (or are a glutton for punishment). But, taking an Uber to a train station less than two hours before you're in Dallas grabbing dinner or going to a Cowboys game (not us, obviously, but someone might) sounds downright reasonable.

Jeff Balke is a writer, editor, photographer, tech expert and native Houstonian. He has written for a wide range of publications and co-authored the official 50th anniversary book for the Houston Rockets.

Read more from the original source:

High-Speed Rail in Texas: 5 Reasons It Can Work - Houston Press

Ive never been much for Ayn Rand, but man, this election threatens to turn thinking people from all segments of the political spectrum into fans of Atlas Shrugged.

With all due respect to the hard working men and women of the middle class and those eager to join them, getting ahead will require more than voting for a bundle of boutique tax credits or kitschy ideas such as camping vouchers.

There are moments in history, and were in one. The climate is at an inflection point, and neither of the two parties with the best chance of winning the election has had the courage to present a plan that will allow Canada to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

But at least the environment comes up on the campaign trail. There are decent odds that the next government will confront a recession, but no party has seen fit to factor that possibility into their spending programs.

No matter what happens in the short term, the economy will continue to leave behind industries on which Canada has built its prosperity. The contributions by oil, automobile production and retail banking all will shrink as a percentage of gross domestic product, replaced by the winners of the transition to a digital economy.

How would the Liberals or Conservatives manage that shift? No idea, because they havent said a word about it. But both would make it easier for first-time homebuyers to take on more debt, and both would trim tax rates so life would feel a little more affordable.

There is one group that would like to talk about big things, and thats big business. But too many of us have apparently told pollsters that we hate rich people, because anyone that runs a company that employs more than a few dozen people has been excluded from the campaign. Mom-and-pop businesses employ a lot of people, but its the big ones that drive most of the innovation and create most of the wealth. Income inequality is important, but Canada isnt the United States or India, where wealth gaps are extreme. Our political parties have lost sight of that.

Canadas business establishment isnt yet ready to decamp for some Randian paradise. Two corporate lobbies are using the Saturday papers to make one last attempt to push their way into the election debate. The Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), which represents fast-growing tech outfits, rounded up 112 chief executives to sign an open letter to the four major party leaders as an ad in the Globe and Mail.

Were writing because Canadas productivity is lagging and our future economic prosperity is at risk, the letter states. You can help by developing policies that advance innovative Canadian companies including increasing their access to skilled talent, growth capital, and new customers.

We're writing because Canada's productivity is lagging and our future economic prosperity is at risk

Council of Canadian Innovators letter

Separately, the Chamber of Commerce chose to intervene through a letter to the editor in the National Post. The Chamber conducted an extensive survey of its members and published a detailed list of policy recommendations well ahead of the start of the campaign. For the most part, the efforts of the countrys main business lobby have been ignored.

Party leaders have all made a number of promises to put a few dollars here and there back in the pockets of Canadians through various federal government programs, interventions and tax changes, wrote Ryan Greer, senior director of policy, and Phil Taylor, senior director of strategic communications. However, none of them has presented a serious plan to grow our economy. Go read all of the election platforms and promises released so far, and look for words like competitiveness and productivity. Their scarcity is astounding.

Go read all of the election platforms and promises released so far, and look for words like competitiveness and productivity. Their scarcity is astounding

Canadian Chamber of Commerce

The Conservatives havent yet released their full platform, so maybe they are holding out on the business community. Andrew Scheer, the leader, promised to appoint an expert panel to review the tax system, which would please most executives. But the target audience that day was smaller companies, and the headline was a pledge that would make it easier for doctors, consultants and other professionals to incorporate and use their companies to shelter passive investments from the Canada Revenue Agency.

Not quite a cut to capital gains taxes, which could spur investment in innovative companies. The Liberals also mentioned a tax review in passing, but one that would look to close loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Anything that might force an objective look at Canadas overly complicated and misaligned tax code could help, but its hard to be confident that the Liberals are serious, since they have dismissed the idea outright until now.

Thats the trouble with this campaign. The Trudeau Liberals lack credibility because they blew so many promises during their four years in power, and the Conservatives havent shown they would be any better. Scheers economic policy amounts to saying he will balance the budget, while making small-beer promise after small-beer promise that would widen the shortfall.

Canadas natural governing parties have met a big moment in history with small campaigns. The only people who appear to have noticed are those who all politicians have chosen to tune out. Because its 2019.

Email: kcarmichael@postmedia.com |

Read the original post:

Canada's natural governing parties have met a big moment in history with small campaigns - Financial Post

First, it happened on Fox News. Chris Wallace asked White House adviser Stephen Miller about the presidents decision to use private lawyers to get information from the Ukrainian government rather than go throughagencies of his government.

Millers response began Two different points when Wallace cut him off. How about answering my question? Wallace asked.

Miller, changing the subject, ignored Wallace. Wallaces question was never answered.

Then it happened again. Jake Tapper hosted Congressman Jim Jordan on his CNN show State of the Union. As the interview closed, Jordan simply started ignoring Tappers questions and giving his talking points instead. The interview concluded with a visibly frustrated Tapper signaling disappointment about his guests avoidance of simple and direct questions.

Both interviews clarified little. These clashes between recalcitrant guests and flustered hosts created sensational television, but rather than enlighten, as journalism should do, they muddied the story for uninformed viewers.

Audiences critiqued the behavior of the interviewer and interviewees using viral clips on social media, but little was noted about the troublesome aspects of the format itself. The live TV interview, with its tightly constricted parameters, has much to do with the journalistic failure that occurred. What happened in these interviews recurs with such regularity that the failure of this exercise is, by now, entirely predictable.

Perhaps its time to reconsider the journalistic value of live interviews and return to a standard that reflects what viewers should expect from news programming.

When radio broadcasting emerged in the 1920s, unscripted live interviews were rare. Radio networks and stations carefully policed their airwaves lest something too disagreeable, spontaneous, or controversial cause problems with sponsors or the Federal Communications Commission. As media history and radio studies scholar Jason Loviglio notes, even popular vox pop shows (featuring people-on-the-street interviews) were often scripted.

During World War II, broadcast interviews were diligently monitored by the Office of Censorship and the Office of War Information. Scripts of interviews with soldiers and homefront citizens alike were often censored to prevent a war secret accidentally slipping through.

After the war, radio documentary reporters began asking interviewees critical and even occasionally antagonistic questions in their recordings. But soon the anticommunism infecting American politics made broadcasters wary of unscripted responses. Controversial guests were either blacklisted by the networks or carefully vetted. News interview shows became largely friendly and promotional.

Villains and controversy remained rare even on journalist Edward R. Murrows celebrated programs, See It Now and Person to Person. When they did appear as in the famous broadcasts featuring Sen. Joseph McCarthy they were shown mostly in selectively edited film clips.

Then Mike Wallace arrived. Beginning with Night Beat, a local New York City program aired in 1956 and 1957, Wallace transformed the broadcast interview.

In the new documentary Mike Wallace Is Here, clips illustrate Wallaces revolutionary approach. He could be sarcastic, probing, antagonistic and critical. On both Night Beat and ABCs The Mike Wallace Interview, Wallace proved a relentless inquisitor. Acting the prosecutor, Wallace watched a procession of gangsters, corrupt politicians, and celebrities flinch and dissemble from segregationist Sen. James Eastland to the controversial author Ayn Rand.

But Wallaces abrasive style failed to fit the sunny optimism of the Kennedy years. When legal problems and dipping ratings ended his programs run, the Wallace style wouldnt return until the late 1960s.

Thats when the credibility gap caused largely by the governments misinformation about such issues as the Vietnam War and the audiences growing skepticism in an age of assassinations and turmoil had so widened that critics like The New Yorkers Michael Arlen argued that television news required more forceful and critical interviewing.

In 1968, CBS News assembled a new news magazine called 60 Minutes that forever changed American television. Although hampered by low ratings in its initial years, Wallace, its star, soon emerged as Americas crusading TV reporter. Hed grill everyone from the small-time con artist to the president, from dictators to celebrities to expose their weaknesses and reveal their humanity.

Imam, he said to Irans revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini during the hostage crisis of 1979, President Sadat [of Egypt], a devoutly religious mansays that what you are doing now is, quote, a disgrace to Islam, and he calls you forgive me, his words, not mine a lunatic.' The ayatollah responded by calling for Sadats overthrow.

60 Minutes spawned numerous imitators. Its mix of sensational investigations, celebrity profiles, and engaging stories made it one of the longest-running (and most profitable) network TV shows. It proved just how much money good TV interviews might earn.

60 Minutes relied upon carefully produced and edited interviews. But soon satellite technology facilitated live remote interviewing, and the live TV interview format became common. A key evolutionary moment occurred in 1979, when ABC inaugurated a series of shows about the Iran hostage crisis that evolved into Nightline.

Nightline host Ted Koppel bore in on guests with icy precision. Koppels interviews with everyone from the disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker and his wife Tammy Faye to Nelson Mandela became memorable moments in broadcast journalism history. Is it going to be possible for you to get through an interview without wrapping yourselves in the Bible? he asked the Bakkers.

Other TV interviewers, including Barbara Walters and Larry King, developed their own idiosyncratic styles for both live and taped programs. Audiences loved their favorite interviewers, and the TV interview reliably delivered high ratings and lucrative ad revenue.

But nothing equaled 60 Minutes. At its ratings apex, the programs most attractive feature remained those Mike Wallace interviews. On Sunday nights, after NFL football, Mike Wallaces weekly inquisition became an American TV ritual.

The legacy of 60 Minutes is mixed. Many young reporters idolized Wallace, and soon every TV market in America had its investigative I-teams revealing local swindles. Antagonistic interviews with bad guys became routine.

By the 1980s, talk shows with hosts like Morton Downey Jr. began inviting guests to appear in order to belittle them. Downey generated high ratings by yelling Shut up! at everyone in the studio. Later, at Fox News, Bill OReillys hectoring and insults also produced high ratings. Encouraged, TV news interviewers yelled more. Guests soon realized this, and began preparing more carefully by strategically rehearsing talking points and planning to ignore questions in favor of repeating their own messages.

The interviews by Jake Tapper and Chris Wallace who is of course Mike Wallaces son represent the culmination of this trajectory. It was entirely predictable that their two guests Sunday would stonewall any semblance of dialogue.

The cable channels have no one to blame but themselves. They have boxed themselves in with the popularity of their live interview shows and found success with a format that is both constricting and ripe for exploitation.

60 Minutes very rarely aired live interviews because that programs producers knew live TV can be commandeered. On a live broadcast, when a guest misbehaves or misinforms the audience, a host has few options. They can ungraciously argue and yell, but that might inspire sympathy for the interviewee. They can cut off the microphone, but that might incite charges of censorship.

Theres one option that could be considered by these programs: not inviting guests who will mislead audiences with provably inaccurate information.

The Biden campaign recently asked that Rudy Giuliani, the presidents personal lawyer, be excluded from interviews for these journalistic reasons. The request argues that the balance between informing and misinforming viewers is a journalistic question, not a political one.

Ultimately, this is not an ethical issue of balance or fairness. Citizens require credible, verified, and accurate information to perform their democratic responsibilities. Theres no journalistic obligation to disseminate views that mislead, misdirect, or offer irrelevant information designed to intentionally confuse viewers. In fact, there is a journalistic obligation to do the opposite.

To fulfill their democratic and journalistic responsibilities, perhaps TV news operations airing these programs could consider inviting alternative guests and changing the standard format. That way, we could all be more reliably informed.

Michael J. Socolow is an associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

View original post here:

Wriggling out of accountability: Misinformation, evasion, and the informational problem of live TV interviews - Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard

"Joker" is a movie that you ignore at your own peril. Its fans will no doubt complain that this review focuses on politics, but the movie's political implications are so explicit and intentional (despite the main character's last-minute protestations to the contrary) that ignoring them would be the film critic equivalent of dereliction of duty. If you're going to be a "message" picture, then your message defines your artistic merit.

Is it a dangerous manifesto that could inspire incels to commit acts of violence, as some of its critics fear? An edgy character study teeming with social commentary, as director Todd Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver seem to have intended? Is it a dark comic book adventure like "The Dark Knight" or a perverse ode to mentally ill social rejects, like the Martin Scorsese classics "Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" (and "The Dark Knight" as well)?

The answer is yes to all of those questions, but explaining why is not so simple. It's best to start by describing the skin of the film, its meandering plot, before trying to disentangle the messy entrails.

"Joker" is the story of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a mentally ill and impoverished street clown who has absurdly, cruelly implausible dreams of succeeding as a stand up comedian. The problem is that nothing in his life is particularly funny, an irony that does not escape the future Joker. He suffers from pathological laughter, is socially awkward, depends on numerous psychiatric medications, lives with an abusive and neglectful mother, has no real friends, and is prone to humiliating himself. A series of rejections and setbacks some economic, some social, some in the form of physical persecution - gradually transform him into a violent criminal. In the process he inspires protests and riots from countless other self-declared "clowns" like himself, with major consequences for both himself and Gotham City.

As a traditional comic book movie which this does not aspire to be "Joker" would be a failure. This is, emphatically, not a film for children, and not just because it mostly waits until the end to provide the requisite elaborate action sequences and special effects. "Joker" aims to be Heath Ledger's iconic iteration of that character from "The Dark Knight" by way of Martin Scorsese's gritty narrative style, flaunting its R rating with gruesome gore, an unremittingly bleak tone, vulgar language, and deeply disturbing subject matter.

Yet while it succeeds in aping the superficial aspects of Scorsese's style, "Joker" lacks the intelligence or gravitas of Scorsese's best work. If anything it reminded me of Phillips' first film, "Hated: GG Allin and the Murder Junkies," a documentary about a punk rocker whose shows included nudity, self-harm, violence against audience members, and eating various bodily excrements. Allin infamously befriended serial killer John Wayne Gacy, a fact that Phillips tellingly found to be cool and subversive instead of sinister (he even commissioned Gacy to design the film's poster). What's more, Allin's music was about as good as Fleck's comedy (that is, not very), and as a result, both movies mix their ostensible sympathy for their subjects with a sense of smug superiority. The end result, on both occasions, is simultaneously provocative and shallow.

And yes, there is good reason to worry that this film will appeal to incels. The character of Sophie Dumond (Zazie Beetz) exists for no other purpose than to be a supposed love interest who is stalked, obsessed over, has her apartment broken into, and is eventually reduced to a plot gimmick. She is, in other words, an object in Fleck's world rather than a three-dimensional character, with her main function that of reinforcing Fleck's sense of failure and justify his resentments against the world. This is perhaps an intentional parallel to Cybill Shepherd's Betsy from "Taxi Driver," but we actually saw Robert De Niro's Travis Bickle interact with her in meaningful ways and learned about her as a person. While Sophie isn't vilified, the simplistic and objectifying nature of her story arc is problematic, and meshes uneasily with a movie that is aimed at the violently embittered.

There is a different type of problem in the film's approach to economic issues. Like "The Dark Knight" trilogy, it wants to acknowledge social and political injustices, but lacks the courage to define itself as anything other than generically populist a creative choice that means it can be easily used for inspiration by both left-wingers and right-wingers. To be sure, Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen), the father of future Batman Bruce Wayne (Dante Pereira-Olson), has a clearly defined ideology: He is a loathsome oligarch who fancies himself the hero of an Ayn Rand fable. At no point does he question that his wealth and business success reflect on his worth as a human being rather than unearned privileges. He openly derides those who struggle in life as "clowns" who should simply accept their inferiority to him and be grateful that he wants to be their mayor (almost certainly as a Republican). When the Joker murders three of Wayne's obnoxious yuppie employees, the billionaire never questions that they are innocent victims of a jealous loser.

Yet those who oppose this unjust establishment aren't given a specific ideology, just explosively violent rage. It offers no solutions beyond "burn it all down," with the Joker openly (and somewhat disingenuously) disavowing any interest in politics during a climactic monologue. The desire to kill elites is instead driven by primal vengeance, not a desire for a new world order like the anarchism preached by Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane in "The Dark Knight Rises." Given the movie's ultra-violent conclusion, the malleability of this aspect of its identity is also potentially dangerous.

Finally there is its handling of mental illness. When I first saw trailers for the movie I was concerned that it would stigmatize people in this community, of which I am a member. My fears weren't entirely founded - Fleck is a sympathetic character and the movie is surprisingly realistic in depicting some aspects of how society mistreats the mentally ill but it still characterizes Fleck as prone to violence and crime. His unemployability is partially blamed on social cruelty, but there is still the sense that he is incompetent and undeserving of the success he seeks. Phillips doesn't explore Fleck's soul so much as present him as a spectacle, an act that objectifies mental illness as much as using it to make a character into a MacGuffin (which happened in 2018's "The Predator") or a monster (such as in 2017's "Split"). This cinematic trend of objectifying mentally ill characters for plot convenience has become so ubiquitous that it warrants a term.

Would I recommend the movie? If you want to see a memorably idiosyncratic Phoenix performance or are tickled by the idea of Robert De Niro in the Jerry Lewis character from "The King of Comedy," sure. If you enjoy Scorsese's style of filmmaking, yes as long as you are willing to accept a lesser-grade substitute. If you want to see a fun comic book movie, absolutely not.

Yet that isn't the big thing that matters here. The more important point is that, because "Joker" wants to be a deep movie and is almost certainly going to be a huge success due to the ongoing popularity of the Batman franchise, it is likely that many people will identify with Fleck and consider the movie to be thought-provoking. As a result, the ideas in "Joker" will have consequences. How we proceed with our conversation about them will help determine whether they are for good or ill.

Link:

"Joker" is a wildly uneven mess and a dangerous one in the wrong hands - Salon

Who are the real Nazis here?

Election

I attended the Bernier/PPC event at Mohawk College on Sunday. I wanted to see if they really were a far right party as many have claimed. And to be honest, I thought it might be fun to watch the circus.

Inside the theatre, I listened carefully to the panellists and my neighbours in the audience and did not hear any hate speech.

Outside was a different story. Antifa (who are opposed to Bernier's party) were roaming around in packs picking on those walking alone, the elderly, the infirm or their favourite targets women. They prevented their victims from moving forward, blew cigarette smoke into their faces while screaming "Nazi scum, off our streets." It's ironic they should call others Nazis because Hitler's storm troopers began exactly the same way disrupting political events by using intimidation and harassment. Whether they are on the left or the right is irrelevant this behaviour should not be tolerated.

Fred Cranston, Hamilton

Andrew Scheer's boring fantasies

Election

An insurance broker? That's the best fake Andrew Scheer can conjure? Not astronaut, ninja warrior or heart surgeon?

At least if he's going to invent things he's done, he could have picked something more interesting. The man is too boring to lead.

Jeanette Morgan, Burlington

No such thing as absolute freedom

Public safety

The current controversy regarding "the rights" of anti-vaxxers and parents who believe in alternative medicine at the peril of their children's lives brings into glaring relief the misunderstanding of the concept of freedom and individual rights in this era.

Absolute freedom does not exist in nature or society. Reality restricts the possibility in nature and the benefits availed by living in a society preclude absolute freedom. Concessions must be made. Individual freedom/rights are tempered by the needs/benefits of the whole. That's what is known as "The Social Contract."

Gerard Shkuda, Burlington

Ayn Rand had most things dead wrong

Ayn Rand had it right on the economy (Sept. 25)

"A free mind and a free market are corollaries." Sorry, Ayn Rand had it wrong.

Let's add Pinochet to the list of notable figures the writer cites; he needed a bloody military coup to impose Milton Friedman's free-market policies in Chile, leading to the death and disappearance of thousands. The result was a crisis of corruption and debt so severe that the dictator was forced to nationalize several large deregulated financial institutions, producing more government intervention than there had been before the elected socialist government was ousted.

CEO Eddie Lampert tried restructuring Sears according to Rand's principles, breaking it into more than 30 individual units, each with its own management and measured separately for profit and loss, assuming competition would lead to higher profits. Where's Sears now? Thousands of free minded people ended up with no jobs and no pensions.

What would have happened in the 2008 collapse without government intervention and the bailouts of free-market institutions and corporations deemed too big to fail? Where would the wealthy be without the government enforced property and contract laws that work in their favour?

Support for unregulated free markets is support for homelessness and exploitative labour practices: 19th century laws to restrict child labour were opposed on the grounds they interfered with the operation of the market. Cooperation and compassion work better than unregulated self-interest.

Mark Dineen, Hamilton

Linc billboards a driver distraction

Distracted driving

In this era of distracted driving and accidents, I wonder who the bright light at City Hall is who thought that 8-by-40-foot illuminated billboards on the Linc, that change messages every 10 seconds, was a good idea?

Let's hope that the revenue generated is enough to offset the insurance claims when drivers get distracted and cause accidents.

Maybe it's a pilot project and we will soon see many more. And then, using technology, we can allow drivers access to the screens and they can stream their favourite programs as they drive.

Lee Fairbanks, Hamilton

Continue reading here:

Opinion | Oct. 5: Digital billboards dangerous, Ontario's heartless government and other letters to the editor - TheSpec.com

If theres one issue that almost everyone agrees on whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative its that cronyism is a significant problem in our political system, which is corrupted by special interest politics and rigged in favor of the well-connected and powerful.

But how well do we truly understand the nature and causes of cronyism, or how to solve the problem?

A thorough exploration of this question, and Ayn Rands distinctive perspective on it, can be found in the book Foundations of a Free Society: Reflections on Ayn Rands Political Philosophy, edited by Gregory Salmieri and Robert Mayhew. Cronyism is the focus of one essay in the collection, The Aristocracy of Pull: An Objectivist Analysis of Cronyism, by Steve Simpson, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and former director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Simpsons essay explains the origins of the corruption in our political system and points us toward the antidote.

As Simpson explains:

Ayn Rand viewed this issue radically differently from other thinkers and thus approached it in a fundamentally different way. She did not use the term cronyism and likely would not have used it, as it implies that the cause of problems such as pressure group warfare, influence peddling, and the unjust laws that result is individual favoritism. Instead, Rand looked for the cause of these problems in mistaken philosophical premises about the nature, purpose, and proper functions of government. In Rands view, the fundamental cause of these problems is not corrupt individuals but, rather, a flaw in the ends that government is held to serve. Increasingly, our laws and policies are based on and justified by altruism and collectivism, Rand argued. These premises lead to a political system that is designed to compel individuals to sacrifice their incomes, their labor, and ultimately their lives for the good of society. Rand saw any political system based on altruism and collectivism as a form of institutionalized thuggery a system in which some people possess the legal authority to impose their will by force on others. In any society, this will lead to a form of gang warfare, as different factions fight to control the government and thus the legal authority to sacrifice others.

Unlike the typical perspectives on cronyism we encounter today, Rands view is that the problem is deeply philosophical. Simpsons essay brings clarity to the issue, explains the origins of the corruption in our political system, and points us toward the antidote.

The Aristocracy of Pull is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the root of and the solution to the deeply ingrained problem of cronyism. To learn more, buy your copy of Foundations of a Free Society today.

The author would like to acknowledge the useful editorial feedback of Keith Lockitch in improving this article.

Join the conversation. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Share this article:

Read the original post:

What Is the Root of Cronyism? - New Ideal

Yaron Brook, the chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute, is Tom Needham's exclusive guest this Thursday at 6 pm on WUSB's THE SOUNDS OF FILM. Dr. Brook is co-author, with Don Watkins, of In Pursuit of Wealth, Equal Is Unfair and of the national best-seller Free Market Revolution. He is also the host of The Yaron Brook Show on BlogTalk Radio. He is in New York City this week in order to attend the Ayn Rand Institute's 2019 Gala.

The ARI's Gala is at Apella on Wednesday, September 25, 2019. The event is going to feature a special discussion with John Allison, Yaron Brook and Dave Rubin addressing the question, "Why do businessmen support those institutions that seek to destroy them?"

Mr. Allison is an Executive in Residence at the Wake Forest University School of Business. He is the retired president and CEO of the Cato Institute and was chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation. During Allison's tenure as CEO from 1989 to 2008, BB&T grew from $4.5 billion to $152 billion in assets.

Dave Rubin is a talk show host, comedian, and TV personality. He is the host of The Rubin Report, a talk show about big ideas and free speech. Dave has been heralded for his politically incorrect and honest approach to discussing complex issues and current events focusing on politics, religion, and the media.

The evening will include live and silent auctions with proceeds benefiting ARI's educational programs.It should be an inspiring, thought-provoking evening celebrating the ideas of Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

THE SOUNDS OF FILM is the nation's longest running film and music themed radio show. For the past 30 years, the program has delivered a popular mix of interviews and music to listeners all over Long Island, parts of Connecticut and streaming worldwide live on the internet. Past people interviewed for the show include writer Chris Hedges, Michael Moore, Barbara Kopple, Chuck D, Peter Fonda, RBG's Julie Cohen, director Matt Tyrnauer, Ricki Lake, Dr. Jordan Peterson, William H. Macy, author Robert Greene, and composer Rolfe Kent.

More:

Ayn Rand's Influence On Culture, Business & Politics is Explored On Tom Needham's SOUNDS OF FILM - Broadway World

THE FIRST FRIDAY BOOK GROUP will meet at 10 a.m. Oct. 4 in room 129 of the Jackson County Senior Center. The book to be discussed is The Traveling Cat by Hiro Arikawa. The November selection is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. For more information, call 586-4940.

Cullowhee Valley School is having its annual yard sale from 8 a.m. to noon, Saturday, Oct. 12. The yard sale helps middle school students earn money to go towards their annual trips to Camp Greenville and Charleston, South Carolina. Community members can reserve a table for $30 by visiting the front office staff by Wednesday, Oct 2.

The CommUnity Square Dance is 7-9 p.m. Saturday at Reid Gym at Western Carolina University. The caller will teach and call all dances to live old-time music. No experience or partner is necessary. For more information contact Pammanottus@gmail.com.

Harris Regional Hospital will host a reception and dedication ceremony for anyone affected by breast cancer. The event will take place at noon Thursday, Oct. 3 at Harris Medical Park, 98 Doctors Drive, Sylva. Attendees will be allowed a time to place a card on the tree of hope in celebration and/or memory of a breast cancer patient. Refreshments will be served.

View post:

Noteworthy: Notes from our business community and everywhere else - The Sylva Herald

The Westcott Cultural Fair

The Westcott Cultural Fair celebrates its 28th year in 2019. Artists from across Syracuse and Central New York will perform, including: Kambuyu Marimba at 12:30 p.m. on the NY State of Health Dell Street Stage, the Nottingham High School Jazz Band at 5:10 p.m. on The Belly Dance Stage, and the nationally touring funk-jam group Sophistafunk at 5:30 p.m. on the WAER Center Stage.

Where: The Westcott Cultural Fair, 826 Euclid Ave., Syracuse

When: Performances start at noon on Sunday, Sept. 22

How much: This is a free event. Details here.

Innovative, funky, and masters of improv, Flux Capacitor hits all the right notes as a jam band. Flux Capacitor formed in West Reading, Pa., in 2007 between brothers Peter, Michael, and Jason Specht. Flux Capacitor is influenced by a wide spectrum of genres and sounds ranging from Bob Marley to Pink Floyd. Since their debut release, They Know We Know in 2009, the band has toured internationally, sharing the stage with acts such as Rusted Root, Lukas Nelson and Railroad Earth. Must be 18 or older to attend.

Where: Funk n Waffles, 307-313 Clinton St., Syracuse

When: 9 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 22

How much: Tickets are $10. Details here.

Seth Haley, as known as Com Truise, produces a slow-moving electronic sound coined as slow-motion funk. He creates a warped, almost sluggish sound that is laden with synthesizer hooks. Born in Oneida, NY, Haley is now based out of Los Angeles. Com Truise released his latest album, Persuasion System, in 2019.

Where: The Westcott Theater, 524 Westcott St., Syracuse

When: 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 24

How much: Tickets start at $20. Details here.

English horror punk outfit Creeper comes to the stage with an energy and ferocity of a horror film come to life. Creeper incorporates elements of glam rock and goth into their sound, drawing on influences from artists such as David Bowie and Alkaline Trio. In 2015, Creeper toured with the punk group the Misfits across the U.K. Opening for Creeper will be bands Dracula Jones and Hurtin Units. Must be 18 or older to attend.

Where: The Lost Horizon, 5863 Thompson Road, Syracuse

When: 7 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 28

How much: Tickets start at $15. Details here.

Collective Soul is a post-grunge rock band that rose to fame during the 1990s. The bands name, Collective Soul, comes from a line in the Ayn Rand novel, The Fountainhead. Collective Souls sound has evolved over the years, incorporating elements of pop, hard rock, and alternative rock into its grunge roots. The band celebrated 25 years together in 2019 and also released its newest album, Blood.

Where: Mulroy Civic Center Theaters, 421 Montgomery St., Syracuse

When: 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 28

How much: Tickets start at $32.50. Details here.

A funktastic fusion of R&B, rock, jazz and Latin American styles, War became a popular outfit in the 1970s. Their music, which at times was politically motivated, was regarded for its eclectic, sunny, laid-back style. War emphasized a group focus, where all band members were emphasized, and it lent itself well to their long jam recordings. War has gone through considerable lineup changes in the decades since its inception, but continues to remain true to the bands toe-tapping groove roots.

Where: Turning Stone Resort Casino, 5218 Patrick Road, Verona

When: 8 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 28

How much: Tickets start at $59.50. Details here.

Adrian Younge and Ali Shaheed Muhhamad came together in 2013 to create the musical project The Midnight Hour. However, plans shifted as both artists were called upon to write the score for the Netflix series, Luke Cage. In 2018, The Midnight Hour dropped their debut eponymous album. The collaboration, which creates an ear-catching mix of soul, R&B, rap, and jazz, features a full orchestra and rhythm section.

Where: The Haunt, 702 Willow Ave., Ithaca

When: 8 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 28

How much: Tickets start at $25. Details here.

Check out our calendar of nearly 500 shows at venues from Buffalo to Albany in our Upstate NY Concert Calendar.

Shows we added this week: The Midnight Hour, The Marvel Years, Defunk, Marco Benevento, Luna, Of Montreal, The Fleshtones, The Districts, Palehound, Lawrence, Sammus, Irreversible Entanglements, ZZ Top, Cycles, The Greyhounds, Church of Cash, My So Called Band, Sick of it All, Moon Boots, Bear Grillz, Clairo, Fruit Bats, The Devil Wears Prada, Loud Luxury, Lotus, Dark Hollow, Cashmere Cat, Kung Fu, Lily Kershaw, Ani DiFranco, Martin Sexton, Capitol Steps, Collapsing Scenery, Falling in Reverse, Crown the Empire, Tom MacDonald, Little River Band, Buddy Guy, Keb Mo, Get the Led Out, Here Come the Mummies, Room Full of Blues, Foghat, The The Band Band, Reverend Horton Heat, Jim Breuer, Patty Griffin, Hot Tuna, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Lil Baby, Saweetie, Da Baby, STS9, Trampled by Turtles, Insane Clown Posse, Sonata Arctica, Cody Johnson, Shoreline Mafia, Falling in Reverse, Michael Ray, Jimmie Allen, Jimmy Herring, Justin Hayward, Boz Scaggs, Sam Bush, John Pizzarelli Trio, Bob Dylan, Vampire Weekend, Chelsea Grin, Carrie Underwood, Fantasia, Maddy ONeal, Helicopter Showdown, Champagne Drip, Freddy Todd, Ire Clad, Dredneks, Frank White, Radkey, Cordovas, Too Many Zoos, Biocratic, Sloan, Carl Palmers ELP Legacy, Strictly Hip, The Jayhawks, Brad Ray, Vinnie DeRosa, Matisyahu, Graham Nash, Lee Brice, Jocelyn and Chris Band, Trey Anastasio, Big Something, Lullwater, Vanessa Williams, The Grass Roots, The Allman Betts Band, Lil Tjay, Gaelic Storm, Aztec Two Step, 420 Funk Mob, That 1 Guy, Dustbowl Revival, Thurston Moore, The Felice Brothers, Lindsey Stirling, Consider the Source, Colt Ford, Epic, Minnesota, Belphegor, Necromicon and Suffocation.

Read this article:

Flux Capacitor, Collective Soul, and War: 7 shows to see (Sept. 22 to 28) - syracuse.com