Category Archives: Libertarian

Our beloved Reason Roundtable listeners did not hold back: per Reasontradition, they sent in questions (and one limerick) and editors Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch have now given their answers. This is all in the spirit of Reason's annual webathon, in which we try to persuade you to make a tax-deductible donation to the nonprofit foundation that publishes our work. In fact, an anonymous, generous donor offered to match the next $100,000 you give us! Or, bid now to win the first-ever Reason NFT, if that's more your thing.

What did the editors do as soon as they were vaccinated? Which fictional characters best represent them? Are there new Reasonpodcast shows on the horizon? Can Peter really segue almost anything into a Marvel reference? (Spoiler: Yes.) Cocktails, American literature, relationship advice (it is cuffing season after all) and more all right here on this special video podcast. Want to not just hear but also see the collective groan in response to the phrase "2024 election"? Check out the video version here.

You definitely, maybe, possibly will be a better, smarter, more interesting, and maybe freshly date-able person after consuming this podcast. So please give us some money so we can do this all again next year, okay? Okay.

Cheers and libertarian love,

The Reason Roundtable

Audio production by Ian KeyserAssistant production by Regan TaylorMusic: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

See more here:

You Asked, We Gave You Libertarian Solutions, Star Trek Characters and...Dating Advice? - Reason

Johnson is sold to voters as a libertarian full of bonhomie but his Government is suppressing freedom of speech and movement

Peppa Pig World, we learned from Prime Minister Boris Johnson in his speech to the CBI, is a place with disciplined schools, safe streets, virtually no crime. Everything and everyone conforms to the rules. I loved it, Johnson told his audience. It is very much my kind of place.

Johnson has a reputation for being a great libertarian leader. The Coronavirus lockdowns, we were told, were an affront to his liberal tendencies. Hes the enemy of red tape, the ruiner of regulations. And yet, his fantasy of Peppa Pig World tells a different story. Despite the narrative we are fed, Johnson falls far short of his libertarian self-image.

Lockdowns aside, which were necessitated for public health more than political expediency, one of Johnsons first acts as Mayor of London was to ban alcohol on public transport. A policy welcomed by some, but not indicative of a free-wheeling approach to freedoms. As Prime Minister, he wasted no time in unlawfully shutting down Parliament.

How can a libertarian proponent of freedom of speech close down the space dedicated to democratic debate?

Central to Johnsons authoritarian tendency is his Governments new Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill. Last week, the Home Secretary Priti Patel introduced new amendments to the Bill that strengthened police powers to shut down and even criminalise protests.

The amendments include criminalising locking on, with specific emphasis on people locking themselves to transport infrastructure. The move appears to be a response to Insulate Britain protests, and protests against deportation flights, both of which involve people attaching themselves to transport, railways or roads. The police will enjoy new powers to stop anyone they reasonably believe may lock on to, or obstruct, major transport works.

Locking on has been a vital part of peaceful and nonviolent protests for centuries, from suffragettes chaining themselves to Parliaments gates to Greenham Common women attaching themselves to the famed military bases fence.

The vague wording of the proposed law means it could feasibly be applied to people linking arms and creating a human chain, even holding hands, as well as the more obvious acts of attaching oneself to a physical object. In doing so, it undermines a long history of nonviolent resistance where protesters put their own bodies on the frontline of the cause they believe in.

Such vagaries are a problem throughout the Bill, which allows the police to stop a protest if it creates too much noise and disruption, or causes someone serious annoyance and serious inconvenience. The problem is, one persons inconvenience is another persons no-bother. The lack of specificity when giving the State wide-ranging powers to prevent peoples freedom of speech, assembly and movement is deeply troubling.

The new clauses in the Bill dont stop there. Police will be given new powers to stop and search people at protests to avoid serious disruption, or if they believe a protester is carrying a prohibited object such as those used to lock on to infrastructure. Refusing could lead to a 51-week jail term.

Then theres the use of the Serious Disruption Prevention Order or SDPO. This order can be imposed on anyone convicted of a protest-related offence which, as the above demonstrates, could now include linking arms while chanting and marching through the local city centre.

According to the Bill, an SPDO can be applied to someone whose activities are likely to result in serious disruption. This means a person can be prevented from even getting to a protest, so long as theres enough suspicion they may well be disruptive should they ever get there.

The SPDO severely restricts peoples freedom of movement. Those who have an order imposed upon them can be forced to report to the authorities whenever the courts demand it, as often as they demand it. They can be prevented from going to certain places, socialising with certain people even blocked from using the internet to encourage people to carry out activities related to a protest. Something as simple as tweeting about a protest could be treated as a violation of the order, which lasts for two years.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and support quality, investigative reporting.

The assault on the right to non-violence and peaceful protest exposes a hypocrisy in the Conservative Party.

Back in 2018, there was an attempt by Labour to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics designed to protect women from harassment while accessing healthcare. Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid called the measure disproportionate. More recently, Sir Desmond Swayne said they would be a curb on freedom of assembly and Congleton MP Fiona Bruce accused the zones of threatening hard won freedoms of speech, assembly and democracy.

All but one of the Conservative MPs who voted against a Ten-Minute Bill in 2020 to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics voted in favour of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Bruce did, however, express concerns about the Governments plans, not least because they would curtail the ability of people to protest outside abortion clinics.

Its not the only example where the Conservative Partys commitment to freedom of speech seems to privilege anti-rights activism over other types of speech or protest. The Department of Educations white paper on freedom of speech in universities quoted research by ADF International an organisation that claims to fight for freedoms while seeking to deny women freedom of choice when it comes to healthcare, and LGBTIQ people freedom to marry.

Then there was the news this week that individuals who criticised the current Government are not welcome in Whitehall a move in direct opposition to the white paper on freedom of speech in universities.

Ultimately, the current Conservative Government appears more interested in the freedoms of the few than the many. This is a Government in favour of the freedom to rip up red tape and wreak havoc on regulations, let alone the freedom to circumvent due process in order to deliver crony contracts. But when it comes to the freedom of the public to protest these same Government actions, it becomes clear how one-sided its commitment to liberty is.

The Prime Minister Boris Johnson has built his reputation on a liberatarian pose fuelling a culture war where his Government rails against cancel culture and accuses the left of being snowflakes who are intent on shutting down any speech or statue they dont like.

The truth is that Johnson is an authoritarian in libertarian clothing. He may claim his passion for freedom of speech when it allows him to attack wokeness. But as the head of a Government that wants to clampdown on hard-earned freedoms to protest, the narrative of Johnson as an instinctive liberal is as fictional as an episode of Peppa Pig.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

See more here:

New Clauses in the Policing Bill Expose Johnson's Faux Libertarianism Byline Times - Byline Times

In this February 26, 2007 file photograph, Charles Koch, head of Koch Industries, talks passionately about his new book on Market Based Management.

Bo Rader | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

The libertarian political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, has been rocked by an alleged extramarital affair involving a departing leader, as well as an exodus of key network donors while the organization undergoes major changes.

CNBC also has learned that Arlington, Virginia-based Americans for Prosperity, which has more than 3 million volunteers spread across 35 states, recently quietly settled a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in the group's North Carolina branch.

In response to this story, the group's spokesman Bill Riggs told CNBC that they found an "amicable resolution" in the lawsuit and defended the organization's workplace environment as "respectful, rewarding, and inclusive."

This week, Tim Phillips announced he was resigning as president of Americans for Prosperity after 15 years at the helm, citing what he called "challenging personal matters."

Phillips is said to have had what's described as an extramarital affair with a Virginia-based Republican official, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. These people declined to be named in order to speak freely about a private matter.

Claims of the affair came after Americans for Prosperity announced it had conducted an internal investigation into Phillips.

The group would not confirm or deny to CNBC what it had uncovered during the probe of Phillips. Instead, it provided the same statements that it to the Washington Examiner, which first reported Phillips was quitting.

Phillips said in a statement provided by the group: "This morning, I announced my resignation as president of Americans for Prosperity in order to focus on some challenging personal matters that require my full attention. It is difficult to leave this organization, but doing so now is in everyone's best interest."

Phillips did not return repeated requests for comment from CNBC.

"While the underlying issues were personal in nature,it was a matter of integrity that violated our principles," said a person within AFP who is familiar with the matter.

"AFP's internal investigation did not uncover any financial malfeasance. This was a personal issue and did not, to our knowledge, impact anyone else internally at AFP," the person said.

This person chose to speak on the condition of anonymity in order to openly discuss broad themes of what Phillips allegedly did.

With Phillips gone, there remain only two board members listed on the 501(c)(4) nonprofit group's website, including Mark Holden, who is listed as chairman. The group's CEO, Emily Seidel, is also a member of the board. AFP's 2020 990 tax disclosure lists at least six board members prior to the resignations.

In an internal announcement late last year, which has gone previously unreported, the organization said that two board members resigned from AFP's board. Frayda Levy, one of the board members who resigned, had been listed as the board's chair on previous tax disclosure forms. Jim Miller, who has ties to the Koch-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy, also resigned from the AFP board.

The announcement said that Levy would continue as a donor partner and active participant in AFP's New Jersey branch. Those leaving the board were moving on to have an active role on a formal advisory committee.

Several major donors have stepped away from financing Koch backed organizations as they have adjusted their political messaging during the administration of former President Donald Trump.

AFP has been backed by Koch and Republican-leaning donors for more than 15 years.

Its 990 tax filing for 2020 shows the group raised just over $58 million that year and had net assets of about $3 million by the end of it. AFP, like other similar nonprofits, does not publicly disclose the names of its donors. It finished 2020 with more than $64 million in revenue compared with about $54 million it received in 2019.

The Stand Together Chamber of Commerce, another Koch-backed group, disclosed in its 2020 990 form that it donated $40 million to Americans for Prosperity.

The group's spokesman told CNBC that AFP is gearing up for the upcoming 2022 elections.

"AFP has grown into a world-class organization with hundreds of staff across 35 state chapters with more donors and more resources than we've ever had before. In 2020, AFP and AFP Action engaged in and won more races than ever before, and we fully expect to exceed those numbers in 2022," Riggs said in an emailed statement.

During former President Barack Obama's administration, the group ran ads targeting the Affordable Care Act, his signature health care law that became known as Obamacare.

The group also saw major victories under Trump, including reformations to the tax code and the appointment of three Supreme Court Justices whom AFP openly supported.

But AFP also clashed with Trump when it came to trade issues such as the implementation of tariffs that the then-president imposed.

And since the start of Trump's administration in 2017, AFP has publicly said it is open to working with Democrats as well as Republicans.

However, during the 2020 election, the group's related but separate super PAC largely backed GOP contenders at the federal level, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. This year, it supported Glenn Youngkin in his victory over Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial race.

Some donors who have previously supported Koch-backed entities have signaled that they are not interested in supporting AFP or Koch-linked groups in the future.

Wealthy businesspeople such as Randy Kendrick, Diane Hendricks, David Humphreys, Bob Luddy and Chris Rufer have suggested to allies that they have no immediate plans to contribute to a Koch-backed group, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Kendrick could not be reached for comment.

The other donors did not respond to emails seeking comment.

AFP's controversies aren't limited to the departure of Phillips and some donors.

Last year, former AFP official Anna Beavon Gravely sued the group in North Carolina state court for gender discrimination, retaliation and wrongful discharge.

A spokesman for AFP said that the two parties settled the lawsuit amicably.

"We reached an amicable resolution in each matter. AFP is committed to a respectful, rewarding, and inclusive work environment," Riggs said.

Gravely claimed that she did not get a promotion to North Carolina state director in 2018 despite her clear qualifications for the job, which was given to a man with less experience, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by CNBC.

Gravely was eventually fired by the same man who got the job she was gunning for, the suit says.

The complaint takes aim at Phillip Joffrion, who was once a regional director at AFP. The group's public 990 form from 2016 lists Joffrion and says he was paid just over $125,000 that year. He is not listed on subsequent forms.

Joffrion, the suit says, was the authorized hiring manager for jobs that included the group's North Carolina state director post, the job that Gravely hoped to secure permanently after filling it in an acting capacity.

Gravely "was made aware of the existence of prior complaints sounding in gender discrimination and/or sexual harassment," the suit says.

The complaint highlighted a 2017 dinner during which Joffrion allegedly ridiculed Gravely for having a "rigid" personality and critiqued her for being too "process-focused."

Joffrion later told Gravely that one of the reasons she did not get the job was because of a concern related to her humility, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also refers to a separate class-action lawsuit filed against the organization for workplace discrimination.

It is unclear where that purported other suit was filed. The now-former AFP official who is said to be part of that complaint is based in Arkansas.

Shortly after Gravely's lawsuit was filed, AFP moved to have the complaint transferred to North Carolina federal court.

After the case was transferred there, AFP said in a court filing that the group "specifically denies that [Gravely] was subjected to any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct."

Court filings show that Gravely dismissed her lawsuit, with the consent of AFP, dismissed her lawsuit "with prejudice" in late September.

Such dismissals, which bar a plaintiff from refiling the same kind of suit against a defendant, are routinely done in cases where the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement of claims.

Gravely declined to comment to CNBC. Her attorney did not return a request for comment.

View original post here:

Influential Koch network rocked by an alleged affair scandal, donor departures and a discrimination lawsuit - CNBC

Mace and Greene. Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock

Rep. Nancy Mace is frequently in the news. On Thursday, it was the apparently sudden exit of her chief of staff and campaign manager. And for much of the week, the libertarian-ish South Carolina Republican has been feuding with the wilder and woolier members of her conference, especially the ubiquitous Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

The seemingly trivial spat is actually a glimpse into the future of the Republican Party. How the party should deal with self-promoting lawmakers like Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is a proxy for its bargain with former President Donald Trump. The GOP's small but vocal liberty wing split over Trump, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) largely aligning himself rhetorically (if not always voting the MAGA line) and former Rep. Justin Amash (first R, then L-Mich.) ultimately leaving the party in protest.

Mace was initially inclined to stand with Rand on the side of Trump, but since Jan. 6 she has drifted, however fitfully, in the Amash direction to the degree that the 45th president would like to see her unseated in a primary. This was the fate that befell her predecessor, former Rep. Mark Sanford, another quietly libertarian-leaning Republican, whose criticism of Trump ended a political career that had improbably survived scandal. (Trump's interference also caused the district to fall to the Democrats for two years, though redistricting will make this outcome less likely.)

While some Republicans of Mace's ilk hoped to capitalize on Trump's less hawkish foreign policy rhetoric, others had deep disdain for the low-brow populism he unleashed within the party. They'll be forced to take a stand if he runs in 2024. It's not clear that mud-wrestling with Trump's imitators is necessary, however. Trading insults with Greene gives her more oxygen while alienating Mace from conservatives who want their representatives to give liberals no quarter. Supporting primary challengers against Greene, Boebert, and pals has the potential to do more good than launching a flame war.

Story continues

And however either type of fight plays out, it's worth watching. We can be fairly sure the Republican future isn't Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the establishment, neoconservative throwbacks she leads. The debate is whether the GOP should steer toward Greene or Mace, and that debate is probably unavoidable.

Nancy Mace vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP

Trump is apparently a fan of Dr. Oz's Senate candidacy

Fox News personality Lara Logan condemned for likening Fauci to Nazi doctor

See the article here:

Nancy Mace vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP - Yahoo! Voices

The respected libertarian Cato Institute annually releases their list of most free and least free states and no surprise, the bluest statesCalifornia includedare at the bottom of the list. Read more and check out their interactive map here: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

From the report: The overall freedom ranking is a combination of personal and economic freedoms.

ANALYSISCalifornia is one of the least free states in the country, largely because of its long-standing poor performance on economic freedom. However, Californias economic freedom has improved since the late 2000s and, perhaps as a result, so has its economic performance. California has long suffered from a wide disparity between its economic freedom and personal freedom ranking, but it is not as if the state is a top performer in the latter dimension. Indeed, it is quite mediocre on personal freedom, although its recent decline in rank has more to do with other states catching up and passing it than any backsliding in the state itself.

The rest is here:

California NOT land of the free. Here's the proof - KABC

The United States announced that, consistent withPresident BidenJoe BidenMarcus Garvey's descendants call for Biden to pardon civil rights leader posthumously GOP grapples with chaotic Senate primary in Pennsylvania Trump social media startup receives commitment of billion from unidentified 'diverse group' of investors MORE's Januaryexecutive order, it will end financing of oil and gas projects. Considering the likelihood of sizable exemptions, we remain skeptical.

In spite of our differences one of us is a libertarian who opposes all government-granted privilege to corporations, while the other is a progressive who believes government should provide a strong social safety net from cradle to grave and aid in the uptake of clean renewables we agree that the government should not prop up wealthy, politically connected corporations. Yet thats what the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) does, including for its wealthy friends in the oil and gas industry.

On average, the industry receives roughly$20.5 billion annuallyin direct U.S. subsidies, and$121 billion in tax breaks. When the pandemic started, the industry was fast to claim between $3 billion and $7 billion in free money from the Small Business Administrations Paycheck Protection Program. In addition, several federal agencies go to great lengths to serve their friends in the oil and gas industry, with the full support of Republican and Democratic White Houses and Congresses.

The Export-Import Bank is one such agency. Ex-Im describes its mission as supporting American jobs by facilitating U.S. exports. While this may sound good, its devilishness is revealed in its details. Historically,65 percent of Ex-Imfinancing has benefited 10 large domestic corporations, with 25 percent of its activities benefiting the oil and gas industry.

But Ex-Ims worst offense is its lapdog-like devotion to a few clients, such as Pemex, the Mexican state-owned energy giant and its biggest recipient. From 2007 through 2019, Pemex receivedsome $8.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loans.Between 2009 and 2017, fires, explosions and collapsing oil rigs killedmore than 190of its workers and injured more than 570. These accidents also resulted in severe environmental damage, including polluting three rivers, resulting in a half-million Mexicans losing access to clean drinking water.Recently, Pemexs disregard for environmental protection and safety caused aninferno in the Gulf of Mexicoresulting from a projectEx-Im supported.

These facts are well known to Ex-Im management. Yet, the agency nevertheless extended another $400 million in loan guarantees to Pemex last September. Now, its preparing another deal for Pemex, this time in a category with even less oversight.

Ex-Im is not afraid to go the extra mile to make its big oil-and-gas friends happy. In 2019, it announced a $5 billion deal (later revised to $4.7 billion) to support the development and construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Mozambique. Documents provided by the agency in response to a Freedom of Information Act request revealed how itwillfully ignoredwarnings of the many associated risks.

Enter bigwigs in the American LNG industry, who were upset over a foreign competitor getting a leg up from Ex-Im financing, even though they have also been a recipient. They threatened to go public with their opposition to the Mozambique project. After some arm twisting, Ex-Im decided to placate the industry with its own deal: a 90 percent guarantee for a $50 million supply-chain-finance deal for the benefit of a Texas-based company, extended through a supply-chain finance provider in January 2021.All Ex-Im had to do to make it happen was to use the cover of the pandemic to lifta pesky requirement that 50 percent of suppliers be small businesses benefiting from the Ex-Im program.

Satisfied, the LNG industry withdrew its opposition to the Mozambique project, as revealed bya letter released under transparency laws and produced bySource Material, a non-profit investigative journalism organization.

Despite cheerful press releases celebratingbothdealsas milestones for the agency, not all was right in the world of subsidized oil and gas. By May 2021, the aforementioned finance providercollapsed into insolvencyand the Mozambique projects operatordeclaredforce majeure, which allowed it to cancel contracts, withdraw all its staff and avoid promised compensation to poor project-affected communities because of an insurgent attack.

Ex-Im should have known better. Indeed, the financier in question had already beenunder investigation by a German regulatorfor some time, which led to a criminal complaint in March 2021. More damning was that in September 2020, when Ex-Im was working on the deal, the finance providers insurer opted not to extend coverage for its lending, a move that ultimately led to its collapse.Such lack of due diligence is nothing new for an agency that caters to special interests far more than taxpayers or the public welfare.

Partisans may say that shenanigans were to be expected under President TrumpDonald TrumpGOP grapples with chaotic Senate primary in Pennsylvania Trump social media startup receives commitment of billion from unidentified 'diverse group' of investors Iran thinks it has the upper hand in Vienna here's why it doesn't MORE. But the Pemex/Ex-Im alliance, as well as the agencys commitment to oil and gas subsidies, existed long before Trump entered politics. It will endure under President Bidens tenure unless Congress forces Ex-Im to endallhandouts to the oil and gas industry.

Veronique de Rugyis the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow with theMercatusCenter at George Mason University.Kate DeAngelisis an international finance program manager with Friends of the Earth U.S.

Read more from the original source:

Don't bank on an end to oil and gas handouts | TheHill - The Hill

Much thought has clearly gone into Ghislaine Maxwells in-court look, currently showing at New Yorks Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.

Observers have noted her transformation from wretched to confident, shambling to sharp into a much glossier, demonstrative figure who hugs her lawyers and looks as if she might have sauntered in there by mistake. It has also been noted that she often wears her face mask beneath her nose.

Regardless of the symbolic peril, the slipping Maxwell mask appears, contrasted with firmer fitting examples around her, close to being styled. And for anti-maskers, the way Ms Maxwells mask has a tendency to hover uselessly around her upper lip may strike them as just what they would do if they were compelled to wear one, but wanted to signal libertarian contempt. For the mask-compliant, the sight will be less appealing. Are her lawyers confident that Maxwells masked jury, which had to be certified free of anti-super-rich prejudice, is similarly relaxed on visible disregard for civic feeling?

If the aim is simply to allow the court to capture as much Maxwell defiance as possible, these glimpses could come at a substantial cost in Trumpian, sociopathic or other associations. Even before academics identified a connection between anti-mask attitudes and the dark triad of personality traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy), research confirmed the depth of the divide between those who do and those who do not conform with pandemic restrictions. In the UK, a 2020 Demos study showed the polarisation to be far more bitter than for Brexit, with the majority who did not break lockdown rules saying they hate, resent or think lockdown rule breakers are bad people. On masks, more than half of British wearers had severely negative attitudes about non-wearers.

Given this scale of disapproval, and additional figures showing that 80% of people supported mask wearing after freedom day, the enduring mask hostility among Tory MPs suggests problems beyond the irresponsibility and selfishness that informed Get Brexit Done. What possessed the 23 MPs, not all of them nonentities, who last week voted against introduction of a government measure intended to preserve, if not life, then Christmas? Of the 23, all but three were men; 20 were Conservative and three DUP. All but one were Brexiters, so no strangers to self-harm. But Brexit supporters may still be dying-averse. In contrast to the US, mask-wearing is not much, outside Westminster, of a political signal. A majority of Leave voters wanted, for instance, to keep masks compulsory on public transport.

While it wins them a treasured place on the anti-mask team that includes Piers Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Radio 4s death-defying libertarian Jonathan Sumption and a host of Spectator belligerents, some of last weeks Conservative rebels might still have considered how their show of resistance strikes civilians who dont have a choice. The same goes for the prime minister, whose public mask aversion is such that he cannot, even while touring a hospital, tie nestling virtuously against his belly, bring himself to wear one. Nor could the proximity of David Attenborough at Cop26 persuade him. Though, since Johnson once planned to visit the Queen from the No 10 plague pit, it was probably nothing personal: being a nonagenarian offers no protection against the worlds most prominent now Trump has gone Covid vector.

Plainly, for a vain exhibitionist being trailed around the country by his official photographer, the cost of face-covering will be higher for the prime minister than for a civilian. But the opposite also applies: on his avoidance of masks alone, even if nothing else were known about him, Johnsons unfitness for office would be confirmed. Questions are being asked about his Christmas parties, when nobody else was allowed them. But why would a person who splutters publicly in nurses faces worry about Christmas party guidelines?

High among the unexpected, non-health compensations of masks is their value as shorthand. At the same time as they impede communication, they offer, anywhere that people exhibit extreme non-compliance, a rapid non-verbal personality indicator that is rivalled only, I would argue, by manspreading. Of course there are many other single but baleful inducements to run for the hills personalised number plates, not tipping, devotion to the works of Ayn Rand or Judith Butler but these may take time to discover or may even, on rare occasions, be redeemable.

Mask aversion once fell, just about, into that category. Last summer, anti-maskers could argue that they preferred the previous official guidance. Jenny Harries, now head of the UK Health Security Agency, had indeed treated the worlds mask-wearing nations to her superior, anti-mask theory in March 2020. You can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in, she said. Incredibly, or perhaps as a result if Johnson was involved, she was promoted.

As evidence has mounted to back mask efficacy, Johnson, even with this stimulus to lead by example, has treated masks as if they were a lefty plot against his face. A masked audience watching Macbeth recently noticed that the prime minister, squished into a crowded little theatre, preferred to follow the on-stage psychopathy with his face uncovered. In doing so, he perhaps revealed more about himself than idiot contrariness. Low compliance with containment measures was directly associated in one study with antisocial traits, especially lower levels of empathy and higher levels of callousness, deceitfulness and risk-taking. Though its too late to save us from Johnson, the psychology of mask behaviour might help to screen out another leader who shouts, when discouraged: Let the bodies pile high in their thousands.

Meanwhile, we may be getting closer to understanding the MPs who last week voted, in defiance of scientific advice and majority opinion, against protecting public health. Werent they once great respecters of majorities, even narrow ones? But its pointless to expect logic. Like the Macbeths, they simply couldnt help themselves.

Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist

Read the original here:

Refusal to wear a mask says more about you than your face ever could - The Guardian

I wholeheartedly agree with Larry Penners opinion piece about the consequences of us becoming a debtor nation, the same way I agree with the authors opinion piece from ten years ago when he had his written tete-a-tete with then-Congressman Gary Ackerman on these very pages.But..The author makes suggestions about how leading Dems Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, and friends should show their faith in the bill.

But the author, who appears to lean Republican/Libertarian in his political opinions, neglects to mention that some Democrats voted against the bill and some Republicans for it.

Doesnt the author care enough about his opinion pieces to stop telling half-truths and tell the entire story?

The author is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to express his opinion. He should not omits facts inconvenient to his opinion.

The inference is the Democrats are bad and the Republicans are good when the truth lies in the middle. Let me add that at almost 60 years old I have never been a registered Democrat. Ive been Republican, Independence, Blank, and Conservative. Every enrollment except Blank has been affiliated with Republicans.

Nat Weiner

Bronx

See more here:

Readers Write: TANSTAAFL - For donkeys and elephants - Readers Write - The Island Now

As you preside over the bewildering and nonsensical inconsistency of mask-wearing in schools, I thought I might distract you with another matter of great importance: the behaviour of Ofsted inspectors.

As all of us involved in schools in England know, we work in a territory policed by a triumvirate: Ofsted, the league tables and the Sats results. There are no Covid-like press conferences where representatives of these three stand at lecterns being quizzed by journalists. Why not? After all, at key moments in the year (like GCSE Handwringing Day or International Performance Comparison and Sneering Day) education in schools is presented as if it were a pandemic of decline.

Perhaps we are supposed to believe that the three parts of the triumvirate work independently of each other, doing good, in the manner of Oxfam, Christian Aid and Children in Need, though with you at the helm. But if you had wanted to invent a set-up that was as undemocratic as possible and as unrepresentative of the people working in it, youd be hard pushed to beat it.

Right now Ofsted is causing particular concern. Did you see last weeks Guardian article, I cant go through it again: headteachers quit over brutal Ofsted inspections, and the readers letters that followed? If you missed them, please take a look. They paint a picture of a profession in distress. Headteachers say Ofsted inspectors are refusing to take into account the effects of Covid on schools. The head of Lancaster Royal grammar school, Dr Chris Pyle, says that some recent Ofsted reports exclude all specific references to the pandemic.

As Id hope you would acknowledge, the impact of the illness itself, the absences, the casualties, the lockdown and the online teaching has been a trauma felt acutely by school communities. Of what benefit can it be for Ofsted to turn up at a school and trample over people who have experienced such high stress and, in some cases, loss and bereavement?

The fact is this high-handed approach is bred by the structure and terms of reference of Ofsted. The idea that a judge, prosecution and jury arrive one day at a school, at short notice, conduct a trial and then leave is a poor way to run education. In my school visits these days, I also rush in and out though usually I give them a bit more notice of my arrival! But Im not inspecting teachers, Im doing that very non-Ofsteddy thing of coming in to support teachers and pupils. While Im there, I often hear from teachers about Ofsted visits. The one theme I hear over and over again is that they feel the inspectors were not sympathetic to the specific conditions of the school. Its as if inspectors come briefed with a notion that teachers are bad people making excuses for their own incompetence. So the report that some inspectors dont want to hear about the experience of Covid came as no surprise to me.

One headteacher told me an Ofsted inspector complained that the Year 6 results were showing a significant decline. The headteacher pointed out that the dip in scores coincided with the sudden arrival of a cohort of refugee children, none of whom spoke English. In other words, the composition of the class had changed between one set of scores and the next. Though the refugee children had made huge advances in the few months they had been here, the effect on the data was that the scores were low in an absolute sense. What did the inspector say to the headteacher? That it was no excuse. In Ofsteds world, data can exist independently of the people being measured. Please, Mr Zahawi, listen to the teachers and headteachers in the Guardian article and the letters. The system is not benefiting teachers, pupils or families, and its all predicated on the idea that the only way to improve education is through top-down hectoring.

How interesting to see that your government is trying to cope with Covid by encouraging people to choose the right path, whether that be the wearing of masks, getting vaccinated or holding parties. This approach is much preferred, Ive heard ministers saying on the radio, to making such measures compulsory. And yet when it comes to education, you and your colleagues drop this libertarian approach and opt for the big stick. Tell us: why should education be excluded from your libertarian methods?

We really do have to make our minds up whether we think education should be about consent or coercion. Here we are, in the midst of two crises threatening humanity: disease and climate change, and the best we can come up with for schools is the authoritarian triumvirate. Does it ever give you pause for thought that a coercive system might not be the best way to foster creative and questioning minds, the kind of minds we desperately need to solve humanitys problems?

Yours, Michael Rosen

Continued here:

Dear Nadhim Zahawi, please sort out Ofsteds lack of humanity. Theres no excuse - The Guardian

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) A year after suffering a huge election loss, New Zealand's conservative opposition leader Judith Collins was ousted Thursday by her caucus.

Collins was in the role for a tumultuous 16 months. She never polled well as leader of the National Party, even after liberal Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's popularity began to fade somewhat in recent months as a coronavirus outbreak took hold in Auckland.

Rumors about a possible move against Collins had been circulating for weeks. But she ended up making the first move on Wednesday night by stripping former leader and potential rival Simon Bridges of his portfolios.

Collins said she made the move because she had found out for the first time that Bridges made inappropriate comments to female colleague Jacqui Dean about five years ago at a function.

But other National Party lawmakers weren't impressed with the move by Collins, pointing out that Bridges had apologized at the time.

The new National Party leader will be chosen next week. Possible contenders include Bridges, former Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon and former police officer Mark Mitchell. Collins plans to stay on in Parliament as a lawmaker representing the Auckland district of Papakura.

Collins said it had required stamina and resolve to take on the leadership during the worst of times.

I knew when I was confided in by a female colleague regarding her allegation of serious misconduct against a senior colleague, that I would likely lose the leadership by taking the matter so seriously, Collins wrote on Twitter. If I hadnt, then I felt that I wouldnt deserve the role.

Dean said that Bridges apologized at the time but the incident "continued to play on my mind.

Ardern last year won a second term in a landslide of historic proportions. The popularity of her Labour Party has slipped since then, but most of the gains have gone to the libertarian ACT Party, while Collins and the National Party have continued to languish in opinion polls.

Read the original post:

New Zealand opposition leader Collins ousted by caucus - Plainview Daily Herald