Category Archives: Libertarian

The most fertile places for Minnesotas minor political parties to gather signatures to get their candidates on the ballot are lakes and festivals. But COVID-19 has made both off-limits for party petitioners and going door-to-door isnt a viable alternative.

So the leaders of Minnesotas Libertarian, Green and Independence-Alliance parties have asked state lawmakers for emergency relief to let them gather those signatures electronically.

Secretary of State Steve Simon has included that provision among several others related to the peacetime emergency caused by the coronavirus. But that request has been caught up in the fight over expanded vote by mail in Minnesota.

Under state election law, minor parties must gather signatures of 2,000 registered voters to place a U.S. Senate candidate before fall voters; 1,000 signatures for a U.S. House candidate; and 500 for state House and Senate candidates. They must collect those signatures from May 19 to June 2 (though they have more time for a presidential nominee).

Minnesotas requirements are already a heavy lift, the parties complain, which is why they are part of a federal lawsuit that is set to be heard on May 19.

We can only get so many signatures every day, and we only have 14 days to do it, maybe it limits the number of candidates for us, said Chris Holbrook, the chair of the Minnesota Libertarian party. The coronavirus only underscores the structural problems that we started suing on last year in the first place.

He said the Libertarians get 80 percent of the signatures needed by petitioning around the lakes in Minneapolis and at festivals like Grand Old Day in St. Paul. The parks will likely remain closed and Grand Old Day has been cancelled this year.

MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan

Libertarian Party Chair Chris Holbrook

The Libertarians are working with the Green Party and the Independence-Alliance Party to win the changes at the capitol.

Were all in the same boat, Holbrook said of the other parties. They have their different political philosophies and ideologies, and were not merging our political efforts with the exception of all minor parties are going to get screwed if they dont give us some option to participate.

The lawsuit is asking the U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to extend the petition window to the August 11 state primary date. At the same time, the minor parties have also asked Gov. Tim Walz to use an executive order to change the dates or lower the signature requirements. Finally, the parties are also asking the legislature to allow electronic signatures so we dont endanger the public or ourselves in getting our candidates on the ballots.

But Holbrook said the changes minor parties have asked for have previously been blocked by legislative Republicans, and that he expects a similar reaction this year.

The bill before the House State Government Finance subcommittee addressing some of the minor parties concerns tries to do a lot of things. Initially, the purpose of the bill was to appropriate money sent to the states by Congress for cybersecurity projects. While some of that money was eventually cleared for use by Secretary of State Steve Simon, an argument between DFLer Simon and the GOP-controlled Senate over voter ID and provisional balloting has left the rest, some $7.39 million, unappropriated. (In the meantime, Congress has sent even more money to the states, this time for COVID-19 related expenses related to elections; Minnesotas share is $6.9 million.)

Amendments to the bill, House File 3499, would give Simon the authority to make other election changes if the COVID-19 crisis continues through the primary and general elections. Those changes could include ordering the closure of high-risk polling places such as those in long-term care facilities. It would also authorize remote filing for office as well as extend the period before and after elections for absentee ballots to be processed and counted. Finally, it would respond to the request of the minor parties to be allowed to gather petition signatures electronically.

It is not really right and fair to make supporters of those parties go door-to-door or to public places to gather physical human signatures, Simon told the House committee Thursday. We might have our differences with people from non-major parties, but to ask them to go out and hustle signatures in public places doesnt seem very safe.

MinnPost photo by Greta Kaul

Secretary of State Steve Simon

Vote-by-mail has drawn opposition for national and state Republicans, making it unlikely to pass the GOP-controlled Senate. But Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, said he was leery of giving Simon any of the emergency powers the bill envisions. Instead, the Legislature could return to pass changes related to COVID-19 should they be needed as the election dates draw nearer.

Im hesitant to say were gonna wrap this up in a bow and let the secretary figure it out, Nash said. The Legislature has to continue operating as the Legislature. We have the election certificates, we have the ability to make these changes, committees are still meeting, we have a commitment to address election issues.

Rep. Michael Nelson, a DFLer from Brooklyn Park and chair of the committee, said the committee will keep working on the bill. I dont see this as us handing huge powers to the Secretary of State, Nelson said.

Current law does not allow any changes to polling places after December, 2019, for example, so moving or combining them because of concerns over COVID exposure must be authorized by the Legislature. There are things that have got to get done in here, he said.

The rest is here:

COVID-19 is killing minor parties' ability to get candidates on the ballot in Minnesota - MinnPost

Review of Nathan RobinsonsWhy You Should Be a Socialist(Macmillan, 2019).

Like Moses and the ancient Israelites, for forty or so years, socialists were lost in the wilderness. From 1975 to 2015, socialists were a fast-greying lot with no power and influence and very little hope. A small few cornered appointments at universities, stuck by their politics, but remained politically isolated. The rest congregated on the margins of political life; or hid their full convictions from their coworkers, friends, and family; or threw themselves into union and community activism but never dared to use the s word. Or they gave up altogether.

That has changed, thank God. Socialismis back. And were now in a moment that is calling out for new books, magazines, documentaries, podcasts, and commentary making the case for democratic-socialist politics to millions of readers.

Thats what makes Nathan Robinsons new book Why You Should Be a Socialist a welcome and useful addition to the bumper crop in cases for left-wing politics. In a little over 250 pages, Robinson persuasively lays out the moral case against capitalism, a system of brutal exploitation, oppression, and waste that Robinson dissects and disposes of in short order.

Robinson launches the book by engaging a hypothetical reader who is extremely dubious about socialist ideas and promises to win them over. Its a fruitful strategy. Even though most of his readers will probably be at the very least already curious about democratic-socialist politics, theyll find many of their doubts assuaged and questions answered.

Robinson does so by directing his attention first to awakening in his readers a socialist instinct. He invokes basic moral principles that many of us share, a hatred of cruelty and a passionate desire to alleviate suffering being prominent among them.

His own process of radicalization provides the starting point for this part of the argument. I saw people buying new phones every year and keeping the old ones in a drawer, while a few miles away, day laborers picked tomatoes, earning 45 cents for every 30-pound bucket. I saw reports of Americans being charged $5,000 by hospitals for an icepack and a bandage, or paying $1,200 a month in rent for a bunk bed.

No doubt every reader has had similar experiences. And while the depravities of the capitalist system are onerous enough for those of us not on the top, the life of luxury for the lucky few makes it all the worse. Robinson appeals to those readers who want to see what being super-wealthy means, but [who] dont have the door codes to get inside their lairs sorry, homes to buy a copy of the Wall Street Journal and turn to its real estate section, which is literally called Mansion.

Robinsons point is a basic one, but one that deserves constant repetition: these shared moral inclinations ought to lead us to want to make dramatic changes to society in a socialist direction.

He then pivots to show how those moral instincts can be hardened into more concrete political commitments, particularly towards policies that help build a more solidaristic and egalitarian society. Such a society, Robinson points out, would actually be far freer than the world of capitalist freedom we live in today. Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a real plan to end mass incarceration all would expand the freedoms and quality of life of the vast majority, and are part of walking the fine line Robinson draws between both dream[ing] of a very different world and look[ing] closely at the world you actually live in and be[ing] realistic in setting short-term political goals.

Finally, Robinson dispatches with alternative political orientations. He shows how a conservative worldview is at its core an ugly one, and how liberalism is wholly inadequate to the challenges of the moment. In Robinsons apt phrasing, conservatives today are mean, false, and hopeless while liberals are engaged in the unenviable task of polishing turds.

Robinson carries out the core tasks he sets for himself with admirable skill. The socialist movement is lucky to have him, and he has made a valuable contribution to the debate about capitalism and socialism now underway in the United States.

But Robinson runs into trouble when he approaches strategic debates within the socialist left. Though a relatively small part of the book, its worth focusing in on two points where he is on much shakier ground: his unsubstantiated attacks on the most important political tradition in the history of the Left, Marxism, and his self-proclaimed identity with the politics of libertarian socialism.

The problems begin when Robinson turns his attention to Karl Marx, who he introduces as a thinker who cant be ignored. After recognizing the force of Marxs writings on capitalism and economics, Robinson disappointingly drudges up accusations against Marx from Marxs nineteenth-century anarchist contemporaries.

The accusations include claims that Marx had authoritarian tendencies. Where? When? Robinson doesnt say. Marxists have had too little regard for the importance of individual liberty. This is certainly true for Stalinism, but its hardly a fair picture of the rich democratic-socialist tradition inspired by Marx.

And the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Robinson writes, was right to worry that Marx and other socialists had become fanatics of state power. This is a bizarre claim, considering Marx spent his life running from state authorities in Germany and never lived to see a socialist state for which he could be fanatical.

Robinsons accusations against Marx go beyond establishing some critical distance from an important thinker. They play into destructive anti-socialist tropes that are as common as they are unwarranted.

Contrary to the claims of Robinson, Proudhon, and others, Marx was a committed small-d democrat. Marx was so committed to democracy that in The Communist Manifesto, he and Friedrich Engels argued that the struggle and realization of a democratic society were the key to the achievement of socialism: [T]he first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

Marxs successors in the socialist parties of Europe in the late nineteenth century were no less democratic in their politics. In fact, they were the main organizers for movements to extend suffrage to all, to defend and expand civil liberties, and to build unions and organs of democratic control in the workplace.

Robinsons attempted takedown of Marx therefore does an injustice to a committed democratic socialist, to many who identify as Marxists, and most troubling to young socialists looking for political direction. New socialists political development will benefit enormously from taking Marx and the Marxist tradition seriously and incorporating it into their newfound democratic socialism.

Robinson also throws his hat in with the tradition of libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists hate government and capitalism alike, according to Robinson. It is a tradition that commits itself unwaveringly to a set of respectable principles and compromises neither its radical socialism nor its radical libertarianism.

What this really amounts to for Robinson personally, however, beyond an understandable desire to reject the authoritarian socialist experiments of the twentieth century, is unclear. If what Robinson wants is a credible alternative to authoritarian socialism, he does not need to reject Marxism. Marxists from Rosa Luxemburg to Ralph Miliband and Michael Harrington have maintained a clear-eyed criticism of Stalinism and its ideological brethren without embracing a hazy notion of libertarian socialism.

These confusing twists limit the effectiveness of Robinsons overall argument. While his moral indictment of capitalism is compelling, his moral defense of the positive program of democratic socialism is lacking.

This is not because Robinson fails to make the case for why democratic-socialist ends would be morally desirable. The democratic-socialist future that Robinson trumpets a world where people do not go to war; there are no class, racial, and gender hierarchies; there are no significant imbalances of power; there is no poverty coexisting alongside wealth; and everyone leads a pleasant and fulfilled life is clearly a desirable one, and he makes that point effectively.

But Robinsons peculiar commitment to the politics of libertarian socialism makes presenting a defense of the democratic-socialist means to get there difficult, if not impossible. After all of Robinsons celebration of the desirability of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and other policies paid for by new taxes on the wealthy, he fails to make a moral defense of the necessity of using state power to win them precisely the kind of question the socialist-dubious reader, fed on a steady diet of libertarian capitalist talking points for most of their life, is likely most uneasy about.

Surely Robinson knows that if Bernie Sanders had won the 2020 presidential election and was able to enact these policies, it would have required a massive redistribution of power in society power that he would say he supports. But that redistribution would only have been possible because Sanders and the democratic-socialist movement he now leads would have had access to a portion of state power.

To take just one example, under the very best-case scenario, Sanders would have signed a bill enacting Medicare for All at some point in his administration. The millionaires and billionaires and the CEOs of major health insurance companies would inevitably object. But officials from the IRS and the power of the US judicial system would be used to ensure that new taxes are collected and the doors to every health insurance company in the country shuttered by force if necessary. (The collective shout for joy on that day, when it finally does come, will be overwhelming. I predict fireworks and mass parades.)

Robinson is free to have misgivings about all this as a libertarian socialist. But he must recognize that the kind of political revolution Sanders put forward, that millions of working-class Americans rallied to, and that Robinson himself supported, is a process that would be carried out through the use of state power.

The strategy of the political revolution is therefore at odds with the intellectual tradition that Robinson professes. Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and generations of anarchists would read Why You Should Be a Socialist and be baffled to find one of their ideological progeny advocating such a strategy. Theyd likely apply the same accusations of authoritarianism and state-power worship they once lobbed at Karl Marx at one Nathan J. Robinson.

All this matters because were sure to see a new and forceful moral indictment of redistribution made by libertarian capitalists as part of an ideological offensive against democratic socialism in the years to come. If as a movement we cant compellingly defend the moral desirability and necessity of using state power to redistribute resources, we open ourselves up to defeat in the battle of ideas.

The defense of the use of state power as a means to achieve democratic-socialist ends is readily supplied. Democratic majorities have a right in any society to make decisions for the whole as long as basic minority rights to dissent, dignity, and personal freedom are respected. And massive majorities exist for all the key points of Bernies program. The real activists undermining democracy are precisely todays libertarian capitalists who defend a system that has so far blocked these majorities.

But making that case depends on jettisoning the debilitating anarchist misgivings about majority rule and state power that are still too common even among socialists.

Robinsons views on Marxism and libertarian socialism are inconsistent with the politics he so effectively puts forward elsewhere in the book. But they make up only a small selection from an otherwise admirable work. And I imagine Robinson himself has embraced a kind of cognitive dissonance on this front, enjoying the entertaining prose of Bakunin and friends while advocating for a democratic-socialist strategy for using state power to rebuild the United States.

But if Why You Should Be a Socialist is intended as an introduction to socialist politics, Robinsons false starts on the question of strategy deserve a critical look. After all, as Robinson rightly notes, the battle of ideas is an essential part of the struggle, and getting our ideas right about strategy and history matters. And Robinson himself would be more than welcome in the Marxist-influenced democratic-socialist movement. On every other question, his ideas line up precisely with our tradition.

Still, none of this is to diminish an otherwise rich book that deserves to be read. We need more talented writers and thinkers like Nathan Robinson in the fight for socialism, and his work is a much-needed contribution to our shared project.

Go here to read the rest:

Why You Should Be a Socialist and a Marxist - Jacobin magazine

Tony Robinson grills a sausage for an order. Top Dog, a Berkeley food institution, has stayed open with take out orders during the Covid-19 shelter-in-place order in Berkeley, Calif. on April 14, 2020.

Tony Robinson grills a sausage for an order. Top Dog, a Berkeley food institution, has stayed open with take out orders during the Covid-19 shelter-in-place order in Berkeley, Calif. on April 14, 2020.

Photo: Douglas Zimmerman/SFGate

Tony Robinson grills a sausage for an order. Top Dog, a Berkeley food institution, has stayed open with take out orders during the Covid-19 shelter-in-place order in Berkeley, Calif. on April 14, 2020.

Tony Robinson grills a sausage for an order. Top Dog, a Berkeley food institution, has stayed open with take out orders during the Covid-19 shelter-in-place order in Berkeley, Calif. on April 14, 2020.

Berkeley institution Top Dog is on the ropes. But they still wont take federal aid.

For more coverage, visit our complete coronavirus section here.

You never forget your first trip to Top Dog.

The tiny, Berkeley-born grab-and-go grill is a rite of passage for Cal students, slinging superlative sausages late night til 3 a.m. along with a side of libertarian literature.

Top Dog opened in 1966, during the heart of the Free Speech Movement, and 54 years later, it still features walls plastered with everything from yellow-ish newspaper clippings pushing for the privatization of the postal service to "Freedom Works Better Than Government" bumper stickers.

All of which has made the coronavirus pandemic uniquely difficult for its owners, Richard and Renie Riemann.

"We dont want to take money from the government," Renie says. "Our political background is for smaller government regulations how can we turn around and do the opposite? This will challenge what we believe in."

Will it ever.

Top Dog has closed two of its three locations since the coronavirus pandemic forced a shelter-in-place order for six Bay Area counties including Alameda County and was forced to lay off one-third of its 19-person staff.

Renie, who graduated from Cal in 1967 and married Richard in 1968, said shes hopeful Top Dog can last through April.

"Its a pretty scary time," she admits from inside of a tiny office behind Top Dogs Durant Avenue location the only one still open. "Were trying to stay afloat, but the hardest part is bringing in enough money for rent for all three places and utilities."

The city of Berkeley launched a $3 million relief fund on March 22, offering $10,000 grants to struggling small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to help cover operational expenses (payroll, rent, working capital).

The federal government approved the CARES Act on March 27, which includes the Paycheck Protection Program. The government assistance program offers loans to brick-and-mortars like Top Dog that they promise to fully forgive provided at least 75% of the borrowed dollars are going to payroll costs, and the other 25% are to interest on mortgages, rent, and/or utilities.

Riemann has zero interest in both.

"Theres always something of a catch," she said of borrowing money from the government. "We need a lot more transparency in general. Ive talked to other businesses and customers, and theyre all disgusted by the way money is taken in and we dont know whats happening to it.

"Were fixing our own potholes it just doesnt make sense."

Renie, 76, spends her days in the office and still eats a sausage almost every day (for "quality control"). Like everyone else, she shouts her order from Top Dogs doorway to keep the recommended 6 feet of social distance, and marvels at a grill thats slightly less full of sizzling dogs than usual.

She wears a mask and remembers to wash her hands, but generally feels a bit helpless.

"With the '89 earthquake, my first thought was I need to help somehow. I need to work in a cafeteria, or help at a hospital. But now, Ive realized Im not 30 anymore. I feel 30, but Im 76, and I cant expose myself that would put my husband at risk."

And Renie is at risk, but that seems beside the point for her.

Instead, her full attention is on keeping the business alive not only for her and her husbands legacy, but for the Top Dog employees in their wills. Thats right: Four Top Dog employees will be bequeathed the Top Dog empire when the owners pass.

"A lot of our staff has been around for a long time our main manager, Jeremy (Bower), hes gonna be 60. I think he came on board when he was 18. Theyre all in the will," she says. "My husband and I said, 'You know, we have to keep this going, because when we depart we want to leave this to you guys.'"

To that end, Top Dog has asked for some forgiveness from local suppliers that have deferred bills, plus it haspartnered with Uber Eats to expand its reach locally ("thats been helpful," she says), and, less locally, theres been a slight uptick in mail orders from Old Blues.

"Cal has had so many people come through it; theres still a nostalgia for us," she says. "We just got an order back East, somebodys father who was a Cal grad, probably my age, and they remembered he liked Top Dog. It was costly to them, but I can appreciate it. Id do something like that. And every little bit helps.

"Most businesses like us have a thin profit margin, thats the scary part. You dont have a big buildup of back money to ride this out. Were staying afloat as long as we can."

Its just not entirely clear how long that will be.

"Were struggling along, weve got a skeleton crew, were just hoping the pandemic wont last too much longer for peoples health first of all, but also so we can all go back to business."

The one still-open Top Dog is located at 2534 Durant Ave. in Berkeley and open 10 a.m. to midnight. You can mail order sausages and buns at topdoghotdogs.com.

Grant Marek is the Editorial Director of SFGATE. Email: grant.marek@sfgate.com | Twitter: @grant_marek

See more here:

Berkeley institution Top Dog is on the ropes. But they still wont take federal aid. - SFGate

Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban said Sunday that he would not rule out running for president this year. Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and is one of the shark investors on the ABC reality television series Shark Tank.

I would've never considered it prior to a month ago. Now things are changing rapidly and dramatically, Cuban said on the Fox News Sunday program. Im not saying no, but it's not something Im actively pursuing. Im just keeping the door open.

Cuban, who is worth an estimated $4.1billion according to Forbes, has previously described himself as somewhat of a libertarian.

"Not so much libertarian as much as I'd like to be libertarian, he told ABC Dallas-based affiliate WFAA in 2015. "When I think libertarian, it's 'as small of a government as we can get, right now you just cut right through it and you make it [smaller] right now.' That's not real. There's got to be a process. There's got to be a transition. As a country, we make decisions. We make decisions that we're going to provide healthcare, right? We don't just let people die on the street. You can go into any hospital and they have to treat you."

Cuban has also said that while he would be interested in joining the Republican party, he feels the party is too rigid.

"I'm a Republican in the respect that I like smaller government and I like less intrusion in some areas. But there's sometimes where I think we have to intrude. I think there's sometimes when you have to do things," he continued.

The November election will likely be a race between Republicanincumbent Donald Trump, who is seeking a second term, and Democratic rival former Vice President Joe Biden. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders exited the race last week, leaving Biden as the almost certain Democratic nominee.

Cuban and Trump have feuded since 2016. Cuba, who endorsed Hillary Clinton,had harsh words for Trump at a Clinton campaign stop in Pittsburgh.

"You know what we call a person like that in Pittsburgh? A jagoff," Cuban said. "Is there any bigger jagoff in the world than Donald Trump?"

Trump would later callCubandopey" andnot smart.

The ongoing coronavirus outbreak has canceled in-person campaign rallies, forcing candidates to resort to digital events. As of Monday at 2:15 p.m. ET, there have been560,891 cases and 22,681-coronavirus-related deaths in the U.S.

View post:

Mark Cuban To Run For President? Billionaire Dallas Mavericks Owner Does Not Rule Out 2020 White House Bid - International Business Times

Photo by Tom Webster

No one is coming.

A simple phrase, but one that is rich with meaning. Three of those meanings weighed on my mind this morning while I took my morning constitutional around Boston Common.

My friend Jen Iannolo has an entire manifesto built around the phrase, No One Is Coming. Jens use of the phrase is empowering exhilarating, even. We do not wait for our future. We create our future. To realize that no one is coming to help you achieve your dreams is to kick you in the ass to go get what you want however you can with the resources available to you (and you always have more resources than you think.) In its use as an empowerment mantra, it doesnt mean that you are alone in this world. But it does mean that the CEO, COO, and CMO of the entity that will engineer the future you want is you, because no one else is coming.

Its also a very common phrase in movies and TV. Often, no one is coming means the coast is clear! Frequently, it portends a sense of false security. Cmon, Frank theres no one out there. Lets make our move! is the last thing Frank hears before he becomes Body #2 on Law & Order. This second connotation of no one is coming is very worrisome to me, because we are seeing it play out right now, with human lives, amongst elements of the US population who are chafing against social distancing and business shutdowns and what they see as a draconian infringement upon their civil liberties.

Where I live, in Boston, we are right in the middle of a terrible surge of COVID-19. The recent news that 147 out of 396 people tested positive at a local homeless shelter was concerning. The revelation that they were all asymptomatic is terrifying. Its terrifying to me because we all, no matter how smart, rely on empirical evidence. Its easy to poke fun at Florida beachgoers, or the people protesting COVID-related policies on the steps of the State Capitol in Austin, Texas and other places around the country with their misspelled signs, gleefully photographed for us by a media that doesnt exactly trip over itself to paint these people sympathetically. But these protesters, like poor Frank, think that the coast is clear because the facts on the ground suggest that no one is coming. No one they know is sick, and the sickest thing in America right now is our economy.

But you cant know that no one is coming. 400 homeless people at the Pine Street Inn thought no one was coming because none of them were visibly sick. The difference: testing. This is what concerns me about some of my smartest friends who say things like: Im pretty sure Ive already had it to justify their re-entry into society and the opening of their businesses. They cant know it because they werent tested. And they cant know if they are carrying it because it can be asymptomatic and it is virulent and contagious for a very long time. Many of these smart people I know also equate COVID-19 to the flu, which is another false equivalency. Unlike the flu, we are all getting COVID-19 at once.

In last Sundays Boston Globe, there were 15 pages of obituaries.

The flu doesnt do that.

And consider this Massachusetts is pretty sick right now. We are right behind NY/NJ and closing in on 40,000 cases with a 4% mortality rate. This is happening now. But we started isolation and closing down businesses four weeks ago. Imagine what our state would look like if we had not taken these measures?

Soon, I fear, we wont have to imagine. There are absolutely parts of the country that are experiencing this crisis differently to how we are seeing it in Boston. One of these two things will be true: that will continue, and these areas wont be affected by the virus, or that they, like their urban-dwelling fellow citizens in our densely-packed coastal population centers, will still get it, eventually. The future, wrote William Gibson, is already here its just unevenly distributed.

If more sparsely populated areas of the country dont, in fact, get sick, it will be hard for those spared by this crisis to acknowledge anything other than what their eyes can see that they lived their lives without restriction and didnt get sick. There will be no thought that it might, in fact, have been the draconian, liberties-infringing actions of cities like New York City and Boston that sharply blunted the spread of the virus. Well never know, so well just believe what we see.

But if those parts of the country are wrong about this, if accelerating a return to normalcy brings this highly contagious pathogen to places that have not been staying at home and wearing masks and closing businesses, let me assure youno one is coming.

And this is the third and most sinister connotation of this phrase that has me deeply troubled. The groups protesting business closures and isolation are a small minority, but eventually, as the economic toll of this disease mounts, these cries will become more strident and the protests more numerous. Underlying them is a sharp libertarian streak the government has no right to infringe on our personal liberties. I have a few smart libertarian friends, and they speak articulately of the tightrope government has to walk to avoid becoming worse than the problem. I get that. Libertarianism isnt anarchy, though. Libertarians do believe in minimal intrusion from the government. Now, I might posit that slowing global pandemic warrants at least minimal intrusion, but lets set that aside. I am sympathetic to the libertarian argument here, and when the story of this crisis is written, years from now, there will no doubt be chapters about the cities and states that went too far. But heres my question for the protesters seeking a return to normalcy:

Whats the libertarian plan, here? Is there one? What is the plan to restore your familys economic prospects that doesnt potentially deprive other families of their life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness, which last I checked were also inalienable rights? This question may seem harsh and harshly posed. But the pointedness of the question is due to the awful truth of what we saw last week at a Smithfield plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. There was a report of one sick person there on March 25th. By April 15th, there were 644 cases and the plant was closed, eliminating the citys fourth-largest employer and a noticeable chunk of our nations pork supply. The people who went to work, even perhaps knowing that they were sick, went because they were a missed paycheck from ruin, and no one is coming. Today they are sick and home and still, no one is coming.

What I would respectfully ask re-openers to consider is that Massachusetts, today devoid of both its great marathon and our beloved Red Sox on this Patriots Day, is not different, but first. And part of being first is noticing what the stats say, and dont say, about the hidden impacts of this disease that other, less-affected areas havent had to consider. Here are a few unintended consequences of COVID-19 here in Mass., all reported by the Boston Globe: reports of child abuse cases, domestic violence cases, and heart attacks are all down significantly since we started sheltering in place here. This sounds like good news. It is not. In the cases of abuse and assault, many of these cases are first spotted in public, as victims bearing the marks of that abuse can be seen by co-workers and friends. Now? They are home, locked down potentially with their abusers, and unseen. No one is coming for them. In the case of the decline in heart attacks, there are reports of people experiencing the symptoms of a heart attack (which can present as indigestion) who didnt call an ambulance because they didnt want to risk getting sicker or even dying with COVID-19. We have no idea what is happening with people who live alone. No one is coming.

If Boston and NYC and Sioux Falls are not different, but first then this is what awaits many of the areas of the country that can least afford the disruption that COVID-19 has caused us. I grew up in a part of Maine that has a strong libertarian streak, and count many friends in that part of the world. When the response to COVID-19 or indeed any public policy doesnt seem to affect your corner of the world, I can understand the urge to cry out to a meddlesome government, leave us alone!

But what if, in the blink of an eye, you are?

Link:

No One Is Coming - Tom Webster - Elemental

Parties involved in the dispute over a petition asking the state Supreme Court to allow election administrators to conduct this Junes elections by primarily mail-in voting filed their responses ahead of next weeks oral arguments. The Supreme Court had set Wednesday as the deadline for the briefs.

At its heart, the state Supreme Court must decide whether it is practicable for the state Legislature to meet to make changes to the states election code in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and, if not, whether the court could legally order an all-mail election under the circumstances.

Many states have delayed their primaries because of the pandemic. And after the state and federal Supreme Courts denied attempts to ease absentee voting rules in Wisconsin, critics called the elections disturbing and a travesty after in-person voting continued.

Last month, 27 county clerks and the Secretary of State filed the emergency petition to the state high court asking for the order for mail-in elections. Republican legislators and the state party quickly opposed the petition and sought a Supreme Court hearing.

On Wednesday, an attorney for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a court filing that the state Supreme Court should order changes to how elections are conducted otherwise, with the specter of the COVID-19 pandemic looming over a June primary, New Mexicans may well be forced to choose between jeopardizing their health (and the health of their communities) or exercising the right to vote.

The Secretary of States office said in its filing that Secretary Maggie Toulouse Oliver is not legally able to unilaterally make a change to mail-in elections, and argued the state Supreme Court must make the change under the extreme circumstances.

The Republican Party of New Mexico has argued that absentee ballots are more secure and would allow voters to cast ballots without being in-person. And they argued that having an in-person voting option should also be considered.

Republican party chairman Steve Pearce told the Santa Fe New Mexican, Well, if you have bothered to go the Walmart or the supermarket during these times, I suspect that the crowd there is just as dense as it would be at any single polling place.

The Democratic Party of New Mexico argued that portions of the election code already allow for mail-in elections and that the court could cut and paste from that portion of the election code in its ruling. That section of the election code allows for local special elections with no candidates on the ballot, such as bond elections, to be conducted through primarily mail-in means.

The Republican Party had argued that such an election for Albuquerque Public Schools resulted in thousands of ballots returned as undeliverable and said there could have been fraud in that case. DPNM called the talk of voter fraud speculative and unsubstantiated.

The Democratic Party, citing President Donald Trumps statements on the Fox News program Fox & Friends, said Republicans opposed widespread mail-in elections for partisan advantage.

The Libertarian Party of New Mexico, the third major party in the state, said they believe the Legislature must meet to change the law and argued that legislators could be in Santa Fe and meet by electronic means from their own offices, which would fulfill the constitutional phrase of meeting in the seat of government.

The Libertarian Party also said that, if necessary, all legislators could be outfitted with a full isolation suit.

Daniel Ivey-Soto, an attorney for the County Clerks and a state senator, quoted Eddy County Clerk Robin Van Natta, from an election seminar for county clerks and other elections personnel conducted by teleconference this week, in a supplemental brief filed on Wednesday.

What keeps me up at night more than anything else is the safety of my staff, my poll workers, and the voters. I cant in good conscience ask people to show up to work the election and then me being responsible for someone getting this and they die.

The Legislative Council, an interim committee that includes legislative leadership from both chambers and is in proportion to legislative partisan makeup, responded to whether the Legislature could make changes to the Election Code during a special or extraordinary legislative session. The council addressed whether such a session could be done remotely to avoid the need to gather so many legislators in one location during the public health emergency in which the governor banned gatherings of more than five people in nearly all cases.

The council did not take a specific stance on any change, but highlighted potential hiccups, including that for any potential change in law to go into effect it would need to have an emergency clause attached, which would require a two-thirds majority.

The legislative council also says that rules of both chambers currently require the physical presence of legislators, with rules in each chamber using the word present many times. To change these rules it would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber or for the House Rules and Order of Business Committee and Senate Rules Committee to first meet and recommend changes; this would allow the chambers to pass rule changes by a simple majority.

A special session would require the governor to call the Legislature into session, while an extraordinary session would require three-fifths members of each chamber to sign onto a petition to call themselves into a session.

Related

Read this article:

Briefs filed in case over whether NM will move to vote-by-mail primaries during coronavirus emergency - New Mexico Political Report

The construction sector is among the largest industries in the world. It has the highest number of employees as well as the most intensive labor activities. There are also lots of machines, high voltages of power, toxic chemicals, a lot of off-ground activities, and many other hazards. Its for these reasons that the construction industry has lots of accidents, most resulting in fatal injuries and even death. Research has shown that the construction industry loses nearly 1,000 personnel a day to work-related deaths. If you work in this industry, then its essential to understand the accidents that can occur, preventive measures to take, and what to do in case it happens to you.

According to research, four common accidents occur in the construction sector. These four hazards include:

As a construction worker, you often have to work from high points such as roofs, ladders, and scaffoldings. It puts one at the risk of falling and sustaining injuries. Research shows that about 39.2% of deaths are due to fall majorly because safety rules for heights are often overlooked.

Falls from heights are more common in construction but also preventable. Here are some ways to minimize falls:

Usually, a building under construction does not have doors, trails, or other protective measures installed. You can ensure the environment is well lit, and there are safety measures protecting you against every hole and openings on the site.

Ladders are mostly used to work on areas that are slightly off the ground. You need to use the ladder properly to avoid falls. It should be well-positioned and stable on even ground. Additionally, check the ladders regularly to ensure they are free from damages and defects.

In addition to ensuring site safety, personal protective equipment is also essential. It includes items such as non-slip shoes, boots, helmets, etc. The gears vary depending on your line of work and are necessary since they reduce construction risks by a higher percentage.

You can also be hit by anything from a truck to rolling or falling objects. Most cases of struck-by accidents include cranes or truck accidents. Well, many other objects can also result in fatal accidents that may lead to permanent disability or death. When doing masonry work, for example, there is an additional risk that involves lifting equipment used to position a slab or wall. In this case, a site manager or supervisor needs to ensure that materials used can handle the weight or force hence minimizing the risk of the slab or wall falling on the workers. Additionally, when working near suspended equipment or loads, ensure that the operator is fully aware of your presence.

Protective equipment reduces these risks quite significantly. Use gear like hard hats, face shields, and heavy-duty work gloves, etc. You also need to be careful and ensure your team members are aware of your location.

Electrocution is also quite common in construction sites. Workers will often be in contact with power lines or electrical materials that can pose a danger to them. That said, the most affected workers are the electrical power line installers. Most sustain fatal injuries and may die due to power leaks and other power-related failures.

Beware of power lines

Do not go near high power lines unless you are an electrical professional. Even if you are, you should beware of electrocution, thus ensuring you are protected.

Beware of ground faults

Watch out for ground faults. That is why it is necessary to have proper footwear in the construction site. The ground faults can result in burns, fires, and explosions. You also need to ensure that the ground fault protection is the acceptable electrical standards.

Watch out for equipment errors

Regardless of your role in the construction site, you must understand how the machines operate and be on the lookout for faults. Ensure you also know the dangers of the equipment, which can cause electrical shock.

This accident is also known as trenching. It could be due to being exposed to harmful chemicals or being trapped in between objects. The objects may squeeze, pinch, or crush you.

-Wear protective clothing

-Avoid loose clothes, hair, and Accessories-Ensure your hair is tied neatly and not hanging. Do not wear hanging accessories as they can be caught in the machines.

Now, construction accidents can cause:

-Broken bones

-Amputations

-Burns

-Eye injuries

-Neck injuries

-Spinal cord injuries

-Brain Injuries

-Respiratory diseases

-Death

Due to the labor-intensive nature of the construction site, there is a chance that you or a colleague might be hurt at some point. The damage might be mild or fatal and can result in permanent disability or death. When this occurs, you should report it to the supervisor and get medical attention immediately. It is also vital to contact a construction accident attorney to assist you in getting compensated for severe injury cases. The attorney will guide you throughout the process of getting compensated and also represent you. Here are some of the steps you will need to follow to get compensated after a construction site accident.

Workers compensation is a form of insurance that gives benefits to employees when they get hurt at work. It is a requirement for employers to cover their workers at construction sites. This compensation will cover wage loss, medical expenses, and other damages incurred.

You can also sue your employer for compensation in case the accident occurred as a result of negligence on their part.

You can also sue a third party for the accident that occurred on the site. In this case, you file a workers compensation claim and a separate third-party lawsuit against the individual. To win this lawsuit, you need to prove that the injury caused was as a result of negligence on the part of the party.

This form of insurance allows the family to claim on behalf of the deceased employee. In this case, the death must have been caused by an injury that the employee sustained while working on the site or on duty.

Takeaway

The nature of work in the construction industry exposes you to numerous risks and dangers. These dangers can result in fatal conditions. It is, therefore, crucial to have sufficient knowledge of the industry as well as the emergency response steps to take in case of an accident. You should also know that the law protects you from these types of accidents. Thus, you ought to speak to a reputable and experienced construction accident attorney to fight for your rights.

More here:

Construction Accidents and Personal Injuries, Everything You Ought To Know - The Libertarian Republic

Review by Brian Lowry, CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the final chapter, one of Joe's employees says there's "a lot of drama in the zoo world." That's about the only thing that's understated in "Tiger King," which -- even amid the current glut of true crime -- is the kind of juicy morsel that's almost impossible to resist.

"Tiger King" premieres March 20 on Netflix.

View original post here:

'Tiger King' is the weird docu-series distraction we can use right now - WICZ

By Abram Brown with Chris Helman

In his corner of the Texas oil patch, Bud Brigham has kept things going as much as he can in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. Most of the employees at Brigham Minerals, which he founded and currently chairs, are working from home. Brigham is also the chairman of Atlas Sand, whose plants are still going full throttle, he says, processing the sand that gets sold to frackers.

As the name of that company hints, Brigham is a libertarian, and he once financed a movie trilogy of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged. I do wonder, are we overreacting? he says, doing his best Dagny Taggart imitation. Is the cure worse than the ailment?

That sentiment has spread widely in the last 48 hours. Tweets and email chains, many penned by desperate small-business owners, found their way to the Fox News punditry set. Just as the spread of coronavirus creates a curve of the number of people infected, this economic shutdown is creating a curve of the number of people affectedlosing their jobs, their homes, their businesses, Fox host Steve Hilton said Sunday night, asking viewers if they were familiar with that famous phrase: The cure is worse than the disease. It was then only a matter of time before the Tweeter-in-Chief weighed in. WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM, President Trump, caps lock emphatically on, wrote shortly before midnight Sunday. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO. He doubled down yesterday morning, retweeting those who agreed with himand finished by retweeting his own late-night tweet.

By yesterday, Trumps notion had become a mainstream talking point, as prominent observers including Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Fox News Laura Ingraham and Brit Hume and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis all insisted that an economic crash will kill more people than the virus, and we should therefore let those who are purportedly less at riskthe young and middle-agedgo back to producing and consuming.

All of which has scientists, doctors and other health-care professionals aghast. Their consensus: Stay home and dont go within six feet of anyone. We have to hunker down, says Vincent Racaniello, who teaches microbiology and immunology at Columbia University. He doesnt think its safe to resume normal life until the country reports no more than 10 new cases in a day. (The U.S. is currently reporting thousands per day.) Look at all the people dying in huge numbers on a daily basis in Italy, he adds. We need to prevent that. When Dr. Anthony Fauci, the governments leading expert on infectious diseases, didnt appear at yesterdays circus-like press briefing, Trump was asked if Fauci agreed with him on the need to ease social distancing to speed the reopening of the economy. No, he doesnt not agree, the president responded, his use of a double negative only muddying the waters further.

Does this standoff represent yet another culture war, this one with hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on the line? This is probably unprecedented, says Greg Wawro, chair of Columbias political science department. It is bleak. Its bleak.

Both sides come armed with statistics. The science-first side argues in terms of sickness and mortality, citing a worst-case scenario that projects 160 million to 214 million Americans infected with COVID-19 and a death toll of 200,000 to 1.7 million. These models factor in the past few weeks in Europemodels that in fact seem optimistic given the pathetic state of testing in the U.S. so far, as well as government mandates far less draconian, even in New York and California, than in Italy and Spain.

The business-first side, meanwhile, cites lost dollars. On the positive end of things, Bank of America thinks the economy will slide 12% in the second quarter; Deutsche Bank predicts 12.9%. This would represent collapse, BofA economists wrote in a recent research report. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24% drop. Global recession in 2020 is now our base case, Morgan Stanleys chief economist, Chetan Ahya, concluded in a recent report. Those estimates would likely translate to between 5 million and 8 million vaporized jobs. One Federal Reserve official, Mercer Bullard, said yesterday that unemployment could reach 30%, the highest in American history. (During the Great Depression, joblessness peaked at 24.9% in 1933.) These numbers feel like an almost self-inflicted wound given that just four weeks ago, the economy seemed headed to another year of healthy growth amid the longest expansion in American history.

I would love to see life going back to normal, says Luciana Borio, a physician who served on Trumps National Security Council. However, I do not think thats going to be by the end of this week.

To the science side, economic speculation is irrelevant. The most important thing here is to save peoples lives, and there is no value you can put on a persons life, right? says Columbias Racaniello. Especially if its someone who means something to you. Recognizing the potency of this argument, the business-first types have cobbled together dubious estimates of the lives taken by recession and poverty.

Theyre also trying to compare potential coronavirus deaths to those from heart disease (650,000 deaths annually), cancer (600,000) or automobile crashes (1.3 million), knowing that no one would advocate shutting the economy to stop such losses. Negative effects on the economy create lots of misery for people, says Harvard professor Jeffrey Miron, a former fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Adds David Friedman, a retired Santa Clara University professor and son of free-market apostle Milton Friedman: The government shutting down the economy or freezing the economy or printing $2 trillion to give to people doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

But the winning argument, on economic terms, belongs to the scientists. The idea that economy versus lives is a zero-sum game is false. The most vexing potential problem with COVID-19 isnt the death rate. Its the risk of a surge that collapses the U.S. health-care system, with most cities already preparing for triage and carnage on a scale never seen in peacetime America. That alone would cripple both the biggest player in the American economy and undermine whatever consumer and corporate confidence could be imbued with a business-as-usual attitude. Its why even President Trump was imploring everyone to flatten the curveat least until this weekend.

I would love to see life going back to normal, says Luciana Borio, a physician and the former chief scientist at the FDA, who served on Trumps National Security Council, planning for worst-case scenarios like these until she left when the president dismantled the groups team of health experts. I think we should try to do everything we can to bring it back to normal as soon as is feasible and responsible to do so. We shouldnt sit and wait a second longer than its needed. However, I do not think thats going to be by the end of this week.

Or next Monday. March 30 looms large, as Trump began urging distancing on March 15, for a suggested 15 days. Despite all the friendly PSAs, though, only a handful of states have imposed the kind of stay-at-home mandates that could actually stem this scourge. Most of the country is still congregating, which means most of the country will start getting sick only on or around March 30when the death counts in places like New York, judging by the experience of Europe, will start to become staggering.

Its all a false dichotomy. Business and science arent zero-sum, the same way that solving climate change should be viewed as an extraordinary investment opportunity rather than a cost. Great science blossoms under entrepreneurial capitalism. Great business is based on reason and data.

Data, or lack thereof, is the biggest culprit behind this catastrophe. Americas inability to amass enough test kitsmuch less masks and ventilators to protect health-care workersmeans were flying blind. Thats the biggest difference between the United States and a coronavirus role model like South Korea, which opened 600 testing centers and is now producing 100,000 testing kits per day.

It might be reasonable to gambleand try to restart thingsif you actually understand [the scope of the problem], says Borio. We dont.

See the original post:

As Science And Business Go To War With Each Other, President Trump Pours Fuel On The Fire - Forbes

Vermin Supreme has been running for president for over 30 years. His two most recent bids polled at third and fourth in the 2012 and 2016 New Hampshire Democratic primaries, respectively. But now, the boot-bonneted boomer is running to win.

When I spoke to Supreme in January, he had just triumphed in New Hampshires Libertarian presidential primary. Now hes runner-up in the LPs primaries, with a chance to be on every Americans ballot come November.

This is my first legitimate, actual, bona fide, real campaign, he said. In the past, I ran as a Democrat and was not a Democrat, I ran as a Republican and was not a Republican. Right now, I am a Libertarian and seeking the Libertarian party nomination.

Its notable that I was recruited as a candidate. Supreme described how his now-campaign manager, Desarae Lindsey, approached him about seriously running, which hes been doing for about a year. His campaign staff now has at least 30 members.

Supreme said, This is a campaign that is unlike any other campaign that Ive run. It has strategic considerations.

For example, he told me, In the past, I loved to get on the New Hampshire primary ballot and get a lot of my publicity from that stunt. The Libertarian party of New Hampshire, however, did not want any fusion candidates, so I had to forego that.

He also feared that sore loser laws which forbid a defeated primary candidate from making a third-party run in the general might keep him off the ballot in some states.

I am making an offer to the Libertarian party, he said, an offer predicated on my internet celebrity, vast reservoir of political capital and good will, my experience as a seasoned campaigner, and of course, the power of the magic boot.

As you know, Supreme said, the boot is magic. It allows me to communicate with the media and millions of people from around the flat earth.

The magic boot is not all fun and games. According to Supreme, his public persona has helped him develop some simple, elegant, yet very effective techniques that are essentially a communications strategy.

My fanbase goes from far-left to far-right, it creeps into places where Im not even comfortable having fans, quite frankly, he said. But I cant really help that, except denounce their ideologies from time to time.

During our conversation, he expressed qualified optimism that this strategy would translate into success in the Libertarian primaries and even the coveted five percent of the national popular vote needed for a third party to receive federal funding. No Libertarian candidate has yet reached that threshold, but Gary Johnson captured 3.28 percent in 2016, the partys best-ever performance.

This expectation might not be unreasonable. More than just the American counterpart to the UKs Lord Buckethead, Supreme has long stood out among Americas perennial presidential candidates.

Some of his most famous policy proposals range from the pony pledge free ponies for all to the zombification of Americas political class, who would then operate power-generating treadmills. His endearing and memorable antics include the glitter-bombing of Randall Terry, another obscure candidate in the 2012 Democratic primaries.

But behind his political persona lies an incisive satirist and impassioned activist. A committed libertarian, Supreme has built up street cred as a cop whisperer in the rioters community.

I have been actively exercising the First Amendment to use my bullhorn to break the tension in some very intense police-demonstrator situations, he said. I like to read excerpts from crowd control manuals to the riot police to make sure they are trained up and aware of necessary public safety information. I help avoid crowd panic, which can be really dangerous.

Supreme believes that this background strengthens his credentials with people, especially young people, across the political spectrum.

Ive gotten TikTok famous all of a sudden, he said, discussing how he joined the platform after his campaign hashtags started trending. Essentially, Im the voice of a new generation, though its not my generation. Im a vessel, if you will.

I dont have any ambition about consolidating political power within the party or something of that nature, he said. But of course, theres a potential pay-off for the party and for myself. Thats the synergy.

Everybodys got their own motivations for running for president. Selling more books and college tours were never mine. With a chuckle, he added, But, eh, now they are a little bit.

Read more:

Vermin Supreme's quest to win hearts, minds and the Libertarian primaries - The Spectator USA