Page 233«..10 20..232233234 235..240 250..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Richard Madeley’s cringiest gaffes as GMB host is coined the new Alan Partridge – The Mirror

Posted: August 4, 2022 at 2:48 pm

When you think of Richard Madeley, you probably also think of Alan Partridge.

The infamous socially inept and politically incorrect media personality - sorry, I'm talking about Partridge here - is known for his howling blunders.

Over the years, Madeley has drawn parallels with Steve Coogans bumbling, tone-deaf comedy character thanks to his hilarious off-key takes on the latest news stories.

The veteran host is a one-of-a-kind - and has built up a huge fan base for his unique way with words over the years.

He took over presenting on GMB from Piers Morgan - another man who bears a close resemblance to Partridge.

Previously Steve Coogan, who plays the bumbling personality on screen, admitted that he thought the pair were pretty similar.

"I suppose if you fused Richard Madeley with Piers Morgan you might get close to who Partridge is at the moment, he told Naga Munchetty on BBC Breakfast.

The ITV star seems okay with this branding, as he told one local paper: "I suppose I do have a bit of Partridge about me, but there's a bit of Partridge in every journalist on the planet."

Now as his name (once again) trends on Twitter thanks to his interview with Chloe Kelly, we've taken a deeper look into whether Madeley really is the real-life Alan Partridge. Back of the net!

Image:

He once scolded a guest for weeping when he met the paramedics who had saved his life, telling them: "Stop crying. This is supposed to make you happy."

He then added: "Anyway, after the break, the biggest dog in the UK. And he really is big. Don't miss it!"

Reflecting on a teacher remortgaging her home to save her dog's life, the 66-year-old asked viewers: "What price do you put on your pet's care? Is there a point where you just say, 'Too expensive, the dog has to die?"

While interviewing a group of Primordial Dwarves, he asked: "Do you find that people patronise you? That means they talk down to you."

The rise of 'Me Too' sparked a much-needed discussion about the inappropriate sexual conduct across countless industries.

Discussing the problem in Westminster, Richard said: "And that's one of the questions of the day. To touch or not to touch? When is it appropriate and when is it not? We'll be talking about that very soon."

Chatting to some 'freegans' who raids supermarket bins for food, he cheekily asked: "What's your supermarket skip of choice, then? I quite like shopping at Waitrose".

To one guest who had a stammer: "You looked as if your head was going to come off!

Quizzing one of the Birmingham Six, he asked: "What do you notice most that has changed during your 18 years in jail? Cars have five gears now, for example.

Image:

Richard married wife Judy in 1986 and the pair had two children: son Jack and daughter Chloe.

They ended up presenting This Morning on ITV together in 1988 - and along the way, Richard has been rather frank about their life.

He once told viewers: "When me and Judy were trying to conceive, I used to douse my balls in icy water before intercourse.

Another time, he mused: "Remember when you had thrush Judy? You had a terrible time of it."

When Judy once revealed she once dreamed of becoming a doctor, he shot her down, saying: "No, you would have ended up killing everybody."

And after she once confused a viewer's age, he laughed: "Ha ha, she failed maths. She did, she did!"

Image:

Famously, he once told Bill Clinton: I know what its like to be wronged by the press. I was once accused of shoplifting. Unlike you though, I knew I was innocent.

In 2007, former Dr Who Peter Davidson was interviewed by Richard, alongside his daughter, actress Georgia Moffett.

They aired a clip of her new show in which her character complains of her husband: "I just wish he had a bigger d***."

"Did Georgia wish you had a bigger d***?" Madeley then asked her dad - leaving people in stitches

While interviewing Keira Knightly, he yelled to his production team: Can we get some make-up please? Get Keira looking like a crack wh*re shed make a good crack wh*re!

Introducing Paul Gascoigne, he said: "He suffers for us. He bears our pain in the most public way possible. He serves a timeless human need, one that goes back long before the time of Christ. Perhaps this has always been Paul Gascoignes destiny.

Earlier this week, he called England player Chloe Kelly 'Coco' in an awkward interview on Tuesday morning (2 August).

The football star was appearing on Good Morning Britain two days after her extra-time goal saw the Lionesses win the Euro 2022 final.

Wrapping up the interview, Madeley called Kelly Coco and thanked her for coming on the show.

Chloe -or Coco as I call my daughter Chloe -thank you for coming in, the presenter said.

Image:

Appearing on ITV's Good Morning Britain in 2021, Corrie actor Nigel Havers remained professional when Richard Madeley asked: 'Do you ever get mistaken for the Duke of Westminster?', confirming he didn't.

Awkwardly he had referred to the wrong duke - Gerald Grosvenor, who died in 2016...

"You look at the beach and you think, ahh, pretty pretty, lovely golden sand, thats safe. Not in certain parts of the country quicksand!

Watch out this summer...

Image:

The presenter once complained he had to carry around salt to ensure his dishes are correctly seasoned.

He told viewers: I have salt in my bag. Increasingly in restaurants they wont give you salt because its bad for the heart. I carry a little vial of salt, because if youre in a restaurant, and you order the soup, say, and it comes and its under-salted, why would you sit there for the next 15 minutes sipping under-salted soup?

Chatting about the heavy topic of war crimes, he said: "Obviously, we had the Nuremberg trials after the war and we hanged quite a few Nazis and imprisoned a lot of others and we let them out eventually.

"But we didnt go after the Hitler Youth as far as Im aware. We didnt go after the Hitler Youth we only went after adults who served in the Hitler regime. And thats something to reflect on, I think.

View original post here:
Richard Madeley's cringiest gaffes as GMB host is coined the new Alan Partridge - The Mirror

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off

What John Oliver Gets Right (and Wrong) about Inflation – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted: at 2:48 pm

Funnyman John Oliver recently offered a confused message on whats driving rent prices sky high. This week he moved onto inflation, and his analysis was much sounderthough he still made one critical mistake.

The British-American comedian and host of HBOs Last Week Tonight with John Oliver begins by noting everyone is pointing fingers over inflation. President Joe Biden blames Vladmir Putin. Republicans are blaming Joe Biden and his Build Back Better spending agenda. Democratic lawmakers Sheila Jackson Reid and Elizabeth Warren say its corporate greed, while other commentators have cited supply chain disruptions.

There has been a flurry of finger-pointing, Oliver says, with many tending to place the blame at whatever they were already mad at.

Some of these arguments make little sense, however, including corporate greed.

Its not like corporations only just got greedy the last two years, Oliver says, adding that some companies may be using the inflationary environment to charge higher prices. Most economists will tell you thats not what caused inflation in the first place.

He also debunked Bidens common refrain that inflation is Putins tax hike, though Oliver rightly noted the war in Ukraine has not helped inflation, since it has increased energy demand and disrupted supply.

When Biden said, Inflation is largely the fault of Putin, that is clearly not true, Oliver says. Inflation was happening before Putin even invaded Ukraine, so thats just not how time works.

Not only does Oliver reject these two misguided explanations, he largely gets the basics of inflation correct.

Too much money chasing a limited supply of goods can lead to inflation, he says.

This is an almost verbatim quote of Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who explained that inflation is caused by too much money chasing after too few goods. And Oliver notes that by expanding the money supply to finance massive stimulus spending, the government inadvertently created too much money without a corresponding increase in goods, causing inflation.

Importantly, Oliver says this wasnt the only cause of inflation, something some of Bidens critics have overlooked. (Government lockdowns, which crippled supply chains, also played a role, as did the war in Ukraine and government policies that hampered energy production.)

Olivers segment is funny and even informative in some ways. He goes off the rails though in a few ways.

First, as noted above, Oliver admits that people did have more cash on hand because of the Federal Reserves money pumping, but he argues that this policy was necessary because it helped us avoid a Covid-induced financial crisis.

The financial crisis was not induced by Covid, however. The financial crisis was induced by government, which closed the economy and put millions of Americans out of work.. This is an important distinction, and one Oliver probably overlooked in large part because he supported government lockdowns and ridiculed people who opposed them. Lockdowns failed to tame the virus, an abundance of evidence shows, but the action prompted the massive stimulus spending to avoid the Covid-induced financial crisis Oliver cites.

This was not the only way the lockdowns caused inflation, however. The governments pandemic response is also what caused the supply chain problems.

"If you don't make stuff, there's no stuff, Elon Musk noted early in the pandemic.

Throughout the segment, Oliver points out that these supply chain issues have also exacerbated inflation. While the monetary expansion resulted in more money, the supply chain issues resulted in fewer goods and servicesa perfect recipe for inflation.

But Oliver misses a simple fact: however you slice it, inflation was caused by the government, whether its the supply chain disruptions they caused with lockdowns or the erosion of the dollars purchasing power through money printing.

This matters, because Oliver seems to see the solution to inflation as more government. Throughout his segment, he defends the Federal ReserveIt was not like the Fed was alone in calling this wrong. Most economists thought inflation would go away on its ownand concluded his show by advocating more government intervention to alleviate the problem. (Taxpayer-funded rental insurance. Taxes on higher-income earners to finance refundable child tax credits.)

I want to like John Oliver. Hes funny, has a great accent, and is not an unintelligent person.

But in his highly-entertaining and pretty informative analysis on inflation, he somehow still manages to miss the true culprit of inflation. Governmentabove any other single entityis the root of our inflationary problems. Nor should this come as any surprise.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments, the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek once observed.

John Oliver is right that corporate greed and Putins tax hike are poor answers when it comes to explaining inflation. But he still cant seem to see that the government is the root of the inflation problem, not the answer to it.

See more here:
What John Oliver Gets Right (and Wrong) about Inflation - Foundation for Economic Education

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off

Hannah Arendts Chilling Thesis on Evil – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted: at 2:48 pm

Nine months after the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann died at the end of a noose in Israel, a controversial but thoughtful commentary about his trial appeared in The New Yorker. The public reaction stunned its author, the famed political theorist and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt (1906-1975). It was February 1963.

Arendts eyewitness assessment of Eichmann as terribly and terrifyingly normal took the world by surprise. Her phrase, the banality of evil, entered the lexicon of social science, probably forever. It was taken for granted that Eichmann, despite his soft-spoken and avuncular demeanor, must be a monster of epic proportions to play such an important role in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th Century.

I was only following orders, he claimed in the colorless, matter-of-fact fashion of a typical bureaucrat. The world thought his performance a fiendishly deceptive show, but Hannah Arendt concluded that Eichmann was indeed a rather ordinary and unthinking functionary.

How callous! A betrayal of her own Jewish people! How could any thoughtful person dismiss Eichmann so cavalierly?! Arendts critics blasted her with such charges mercilessly, but they had missed the point. She did not condone or excuse Eichmanns complicity in the Holocaust. She witnessed the horrors of national socialism first-hand herself, having escaped Germany in 1933 after a short stint in a Gestapo jail for anti-state propaganda. She did not claim that Eichmann was innocent, only that the crimes for which he was guilty did not require a monster to commit them.

How often have you noticed people behaving in anti-social ways because of a hope to blend in, a desire to avoid isolation as a recalcitrant, nonconforming individual? Did you ever see someone doing harm because everybody else was doing it? The fact that we all have observed such things, and that any one of the culprits might easily, under the right circumstances, have become an Adolf Eichmann, is a chilling realization.

As Arendt explained, Going along with the rest and wanting to say we were quite enough to make the greatest of all crimes possible.

Eichmann was a shallow and clueless joiner, someone whose thoughts never ventured any deeper than how to become a cog in the great, historic Nazi machine. In a sense, he was a tool of Evil more than evil himself.

Commenting on Arendts banality of evil thesis, philosopher Thomas White writes, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camuss novelThe Stranger(1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just happened.

Perhaps Hannah Arendt underestimated Eichmann. He did, after all, attempt to conceal evidence and cover his tracks long before the Israelis nabbed him in Argentina in 1960facts which suggest he did indeed comprehend the gravity of his offenses. It is undeniable, however, that ordinary people are capable of horrific crimes when possessed with power or a desire to obtain it, especially if it helps them fit in with the gang that already wields it.

The big lesson of her thesis, I think, is this: If Evil comes calling, do not expect it to be stupid enough to advertise itself as such. Its far more likely that it will look like your favorite uncle or your sweet grandmother. It just might cloak itself in grandiloquent platitudes like equality, social justice, and the common good. It could even be a prominent member of Parliament or Congress.

Maximilien Robespierre and Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, I suggested in a recent essay, were peas in the same pod as Eichmannordinary people who committed extraordinarily heinous acts.

Hannah Arendt is recognized as one of the leading political thinkers of the Twentieth Century. She was very prolific, and her books are good sellers still, nearly half a century after her death. She remains eminently quotable as well, authoring such pithy lines as Political questions are far too serious to be left to the politicians, The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution, and The sad truth of the matter is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either evil or good.

Some of Arendts friends on the Left swallowed the myth that Hitler and Stalin occupied opposite ends of the political spectrum. She knew better. Both were evil collectivists and enemies of the individual (see list of suggested readings below). Hitler never intended to defend the West against Bolshevism, she wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism, but always remained ready to join the Reds for the destruction of the West, even in the middle of the struggle against Soviet Russia.

To appreciate Hannah Arendt more fully, I offer here a few additional samples of her writings:

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one liea lie which you could go on for the rest of your daysbut you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows.And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

_____

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convincedNazior the convincedCommunist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.

_____

The essence oftotalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy,is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them.

_____

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together, for it impliedas had been said at Nuremberg over and over again by the defendants and their counselsthat this new type of criminal, who is in actual facthostis generis humani,commits his crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he is doing wrong.

_____

Totalitarianism begins in contempt for what you have. The second step is the notion: Things must changeno matter how. Anything is better than what we have. Totalitarian rulers organize this kind of mass sentiment, and by organizing it they articulate it, and by articulating it they make the people somehow love it.They were told before, thou shalt not kill; and they didnt kill. Now they are told, thou shalt kill; andalthough they think its very difficult to kill, they do it because its now part of the code of behavior.

_____

The argument that we cannot judge if we were not present and involved ourselves seems to convince everyone everywhere, although it seems obvious that if it were true, neither the administration of justice nor the writing of history would ever be possible.

Hannah Arendt (movie trailer)

Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? by Richard J. Bernstein

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt

What Did Hannah Arendt Really Mean by the Banality of Evil? by Thomas White

Two Monsters of the French Revolution Who Were Consumed by PowerAnd Lost Their Heads on the Same Day by Lawrence W. Reed

What the Nazis Had in Common With Every Other Collectivist Regime of the 20th Century by Lawrence W. Reed

Excerpt from:
Hannah Arendts Chilling Thesis on Evil - Foundation for Economic Education

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off

What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted: at 2:48 pm

[Editors note: This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Newsletter, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.]

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government has imposed harsh censorship on its citizens to restrict negative discussions of the war.

Several independent news outlets in Russia have shut down, or have censored coverage of the war. Government censorship affected foreign reporters too: In March, Russia blocked access to the BBC, the Voice of America, and other Western outlets. The BBC halted operations in Russia to avoid arrest.

Last month, a court in Kaliningrad ruled that news outlets were guilty of a criminal offense for publishing a list of Russian military casualties because it was "classified information."

According to The New York Times, Russia's war censorship laws passed in March "could make it a crime to simply call the war a 'war' the Kremlin says it is a 'special military operation' on social media or in a news article or broadcast."

Besides banning criticism of the war, the legislation also makes "calling on other countries to impose sanctions on Russia or protesting Russias invasion of Ukraine punishable by fines and years of imprisonment."

The Russian government arrested thousands in mass demonstrations when the war began, and Russians continue to be detained for protesting the conflict.

Earlier this month, a local politician in Moscow, Alexei Gorinov, was sentenced to seven years in prison for speaking against the war in a city council meeting. The BBC reported:

Judge Olesya Mendeleyeva ruled he had carried out his crime "based on political hatred" and had misled Russians, prompting them to "feel anxiety and fear" about the military campaign.

Attacks on the press and dissidents in Russia are not new. But the country had a "mostly uncensored" Internet according to the New York Timesthat was, until Moscow blocked Facebook and Instagram.

These abuses of power should show us the dangers of giving the government the authority to restrict freedom of speech. But the Kremlin's stated justification for the censorship should also serve as a more specific warning.

The main laws under which Russia's censorship is taking place, Law 31-FZ and 32-FZ, prohibit "public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" and "discrediting" the use of the Russian military.

That is the official language in the law. And although no liberal democracies currently engage in campaigns of naked state censorship like Russia's, the idea of banning "knowingly false information" is familiar to citizens of the West.

But what the situation in Russia should teach us is that the definition of "false" always lies with the censors. It may sound good to want to ban misinformation, or any other kind of "bad" speech, but deciding what fits these ambiguous categories will give the censors great opportunity for abuse.

In the words of economist Milton Friedman: "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

Visit link:
What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off

Libertarians see opening to gain ground in Georgia 2022 elections – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted: at 2:46 pm

You can see in the polling that everybody kind of hates the two major parties and increasingly dont like where the country is going, said Ryan Graham, the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor and a former party chairman. We are giving voice to an underrepresented voting bloc in America.

Brett Larson, from left, Nathan Wilson, executive director of the Libertarian Party of Georgia, and Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Allen Buckley watch election results on a computer during a Libertarian watch party in November 2016 at the Mellow Mushroom in Atlanta. (BRANDEN CAMP/SPECIAL)

Credit: Branden Camp

There are 10 Libertarians on the ballot this November in statewide races, including for the U.S. Senate, governor and secretary of state.

But voters wont have a Libertarian choice in any congressional and legislative races because of Georgias ballot access laws, which are among the strictest in the nation. No third-party candidates have ever been able to run for the U.S. House under a 1943 state law that requires them to gather signatures from 5% of registered voters.

One of those Libertarian candidates, Angela Pence, tried to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in a solidly conservative northwest Georgia district. Pence fell far short of the 25,000 signatures she needed, gathering about 6,000.

I could have shook things up, but instead were going to have Marjorie again for another two years, Pence said. A Democrat isnt going to win in this district, but a Libertarian could have given her a run for her money. Its going to take enough people or the system getting so bad that theyre finally willing to change it.

The two big political parties have stymied Libertarians chances to field more candidates, leaving state law unchanged.

Libertarian challenges have also fallen short in court. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January reversed a ruling that would have lowered the number of signatures needed for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot. The Libertarian Party of Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Both major-party candidates for governor, Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams, plan to try to get Libertarians to vote for them.

The stakes in this election could not be higher, Kemp campaign spokesman Tate Mitchell said. Gov. Kemp will continue reaching out to voters in every community and on every side of the aisle.

Abrams campaign spokesman Alex Floyd said, She understands how voters are frustrated with the current political status quo in Georgia and has spent her career advocating for Georgians right to participate in our democratic process so they can make their voices heard regardless of the candidate they support.

Stacey Abrams is focused on reaching out to voters all across our state to talk about how her plans work for them.

Neither candidate has announced plans to expand ballot access to third parties if elected.

Under Georgia law, third parties can nominate candidates for statewide offices as long as at least one of their candidates received votes from more than 1% of registered voters in the previous general election. But candidates for district races must meet the states 5% signature requirement.

Republicans and Democrats often shy away from proposals that could weaken their duopoly control of Georgia politics.

You dont want my opinion on it because Id probably get thrown out of the Republican Party, said state Rep. Steve Tarvin, a Republican from Chickamauga and chairman of the House Interstate Cooperation Committee. I would say we need easier ballot access, but I dont think just anybody can get on the ballot. I dont know what the answer is, but I dont think its 25,000 signatures.

House Minority Leader James Beverly said hed consider bills expanding ballot access if Democrats took over a majority of seats in the House, which is unlikely to happen this year.

Everyone who wishes to vote should be able to vote, and you should choose a candidate who best represents your interests. Having a third party isnt bad, said Beverly, a Democrat from Macon. I suspect Libertarians will be more inclined to vote for Democrats now because their basic philosophy upholds liberty as a core value.

Libertarian candidates know they dont stand much of a chance of winning this year, but they hope to make their case to voters and grow their base for the future.

The AJC poll showed 3% of likely voters support Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Chase Oliver and less than 1% backed gubernatorial candidate Shane Hazel. The highest-polling Libertarian candidates were Graham for lieutenant governor and Ted Metz for secretary of state, both at about 7%.

The poll of 902 likely voters was conducted July 14-22 and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points. It was conducted by the University of Georgias School of Public and International Affairs.

Support for Libertarians tends to decline by the time elections arrive. In 2020, Libertarian candidates received between 1% and 3% of the vote.

But that can be enough in a tight race between Republicans and Democrats to throw the election into a runoff, as has happened several times in the past 30 years.

When you have third parties, those two major parties know that if you dont keep your promises, you do have options, said Elizabeth Melton Gallimore, executive director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia.

Libertarian candidates 2022

U.S. Senate: Chase Oliver

Governor: Shane Hazel

Lieutenant governor: Ryan Graham

Secretary of state: Ted Metz

Attorney General: Martin Cowen

Agriculture Commissioner: David Raudabaugh

Labor Commissioner: Emily Anderson

Public Service Commission District 2: Colin McKinney

View post:
Libertarians see opening to gain ground in Georgia 2022 elections - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

State Libertarian Party asks for ‘relief from oppressive ballot laws’ – The Albany Herald

Posted: at 2:46 pm

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

Election 2022: Primaries clear Michigan fields; more will come at conventions – The Center Square

Posted: at 2:46 pm

(The Center Square) Michigans state primaries are in the rearview, but voters wont know the full slate of candidates for Nov. 8 for another few weeks.

Candidates for three of the states highest-ranking offices attorney general, lieutenant governor, and secretary of state are not determined by state primaries. Instead, candidates for these offices are determined by party conventions.

Additionally, candidates for Supreme Court, and the boards of Michigan State University, Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and the state Board of Education are nominated at conventions.

The two major party conventions will be held later this month, with the Democrats meeting Aug. 20-21, and Republicans convening Aug. 27. The Libertarian Partys convention was held July 10.

According to Ballotpedia, Michigan is one of 43 states to elect an attorney general whereas seven states either allow appointment by the governor or legislature.

Incumbent AG Dana Nessel is running unopposed by other Democrat candidates. Joe McHugh was selected as the Libertarian Partys candidate at the partys convention last month. Three Republican candidates are vying to unseat Nessel: State Rep. Ryan Berman; attorney Matthew DePerno; and former state Rep. Tom Leonard, who squared off against Nessel in 2018.

The attorney general serves a term of four years with no term limits. For example, Frank Kelly was nicknamed the Eternal General because he served from 1961 to 1999, making him both the youngest elected at 36 and the oldest at 74.

The lieutenant governor field includes Democratic incumbent Garlin Gilchrist, Libertarian Brian Ellison and Green Party candidate Destiny Clayton. A Republican contender for the office has yet to be determined.

Incumbent Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, will be challenged by one of the four Republican candidates: Cindy Berry; Kristina Karamo; state Rep. Beau LaFave; or Cathleen Postmus. Additional challengers are Libertarian Gregory Stempfle and Green Party candidate Larry Hutchinson Jr.

Go here to see the original:
Election 2022: Primaries clear Michigan fields; more will come at conventions - The Center Square

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

The Industrial Revolution and the Colonial Conundrum – Econlib

Posted: at 2:46 pm

It is often argued by the classical liberal thinkers that ideas of individual liberty were the driving force behind the Industrial Revolution. Intellectuals like Steven Pinker and Deirdre McCloskey see the revolution in a very linear fashion. They argue that people lived in pitiful conditions before the great industrial revolution came as a knight in shining armor to lift them up. However, the Industrial Revolution also provided newer tools which acted as catalyst for the exponential growth of colonialism, which curtailed individual liberty across the continents. Can we then, as classical liberals/libertarians, claim the credit of the Industrial Revolution, but choose to overlook the loss of liberty in the colonies established by the newly industrialized nations?

It is time for the libertarians of the 21st century to acknowledge the elephant in the room: colonialism. Its essential because many argue that the Industrial Revolution or even the ideas of Libertythat Pinker and McCloskey cherishwere the causal forces behind colonialism. I am not suggesting that these people are correct; however, their point resonates favorably among a sizable population group, even beyond the former colonies.

If the history of enlightenment and Industrial Revolution has to be seen in a linear fashion, what should we make of colonialism? A part of the linear transformation towards the Liberal world order? If liberty should be valued for its consequences, why should postcolonial thinkers go down the path? History, as some argue, perhaps, is the history of discourse and discourse, in itself, is a game of articulation. If we as libertarians lose the game of discourse and articulation, what lies ahead for the movement?

When the Britishwho kick-started the Industrial Revolutionbecame better-off and moved to distant lands for more opportunities to trade, they forgot the values of liberty. In my country, India, they stole over 45 trillion dollars over the years of their rule. Not only that, they went on to acquire the forests by alienating local communities and forest dwellers, who lived there for centuries. Throughout, they acted as if the notion of property rights was not relevant in colonial India. Lets not forget that property rights are intrinsic to the ideas of liberty. Libertarian thinkers like Murray Rothbard consider property rights as the sine qua non of Human Rights.

There may be an argument that the ideas of liberty helped in the development of countries which went through the industrial revolution. As per McCloskey, the ideas of liberty allowed the English people for the first time to experiment, to have a go, and, especially, to talk to each other in an open-source fashion about their experiments and their goings, rather than hiding them in posthumously decoded mirror writing out of fear of theological and political disapproval. Furthermore, others argue that the Industrial Revolution could very well have happened in China, but it didnt, because the rulers there did not support innovators and in fact restrictive on them when they started attaining success.

China did not have an Industrial Revolution and the British did. However, we must note that Chinaat that pointdid not go on to take away resources of people across the globe, but the British did. Business is not a zero-sum game of resources, but a positive-sum game instead. While exploring the newer lands for business opportunities, had the British adhered to their liberal principles, the British would still have grown, and so would have been the other countries.

Liberty, we must remember, is not relative. If the ability to choose is violated, even for a single human being, there is no liberty. It is still not late. Libertarians of the 21st century should stop resting on the laurels of the Industrial Revolution, and look into the degeneration of newly industrialized nations into illiberal colonial powers. We should do some soul-searching and try to understand these ideas of the Enlightenment- what was their soul, what went wrong, and why it went wrong. This will help us to present a strong narrative about a world based on the soul and principles of liberty for all.

Adnan Abbasi is currently pursuing Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) degree majoring in Social and Political Science from Ahmedabad University. He is a Writing Fellow at Students for Libertys Fellowship for Freedom in India.

See the rest here:
The Industrial Revolution and the Colonial Conundrum - Econlib

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

School choice is the free market solution to failing public schools – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 2:46 pm

The governments corner on the education market is a common enemy among liberty lovers. Throughout the country, government-funded public school systems are outdated and broken. They push values and ideologies that make parents uncomfortable, they systematically waste taxpayer dollars, and, worst of all, they fail to equip future generations with the tools they need to succeed in the wider world. Even basic literacy has been declining for decades, and children who are behind in reading by third grade may never catch up.

For these reasons, its easy to see why free marketeers such as Clemson professor C. Bradley Thompson, libertarian activist Jacob Hornberger, and Fox Newss Kennedy Montgomery have publicly embraced the idea that public schools should simply be abolished all at once.

But the chances of that happening are slim to none. Every state has a compulsory schooling statute, and eliminating these statutes would be arduous, especially when most parents are satisfied with their childrens education. Believe it or not, parental satisfaction in public schools has remained above 67% over the past two decades, and public school is still the first choice for 41% of parents today.

In short, it isnt politically viable to pursue an agenda of abolishing public education in our current moment (and it may never be so). If free marketeers wish to make a real impact on education in America, theyd do better to embrace educational freedom of all kinds.

Advocating incremental change to improve our K-12 education system by empowering parents with educational choices is a much more popular and effective strategy for freeing students from the failing government schooling apparatus. For example, education savings accounts, which let families use their childs education funds on private education expenses, including tutoring, special needs therapies, and private school tuition, poll at about 75% favorability among parents of various backgrounds.

Yet some libertarians make perfect the enemy of the good by opposing school choice since it does not meet their standards of market competition. Students dont have time for libertarian pipe dreams no matter how just and right they may be. Children and their families dont care that education savings accounts arent the perfect market solution. Theyll settle for the boosts to test scores, civic values, and educational attainment that all stem from the opportunity to choose an academic environment that suits them best.

Furthermore, free marketeers who oppose school choice havent looked deeply enough into their own philosophy. Adam Smith himself observed in The Wealth of Nations that for a very small [expense] the [public] can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education [to read, write, and account].

In essence, Smith believed that universal education was of the utmost importance, as it would offset the harmful effects of the division of labor. It was the responsibility of any prosperous society to ensure that workers and elites alike had access to at least some form of learning.

However, Smith was careful to note that education should be a partnership between public authorities and the market because if [the teacher] was wholly, or even principally paid by [the government], he would soon learn to neglect his business. Smith wasnt alone either. Other classical liberal or free market theorists such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and James Buchanan recognized the positive role government financing can play in promoting parental choice in education.

Liberty is rarely expanded in one fell swoop. It is a long march that takes time, effort, and persistence. Libertarians should continue to follow these theorists lead and unite with a public thats open to reforming a broken system. Libertarians could help students and their families by embracing incremental educational choice reform. The future of American education requires innovation, and educational freedom can improve the educational system immediately while also upholding free market ideals.

Garion Frankel (@FrankelGarion) is a graduate student at Texas A&M Universitys Bush School of Government and Public Service and a Young Voices contributor. Cooper Conway (@CooperConway1) is a national voices fellow at 50CAN and a Young Voices contributor.

See the original post here:
School choice is the free market solution to failing public schools - Washington Examiner

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

The primary is over Here’s who you can expect to see on JoCo ballots in November – Shawnee Mission Post

Posted: at 2:46 pm

There are several federal, state and local elections on the ballot for the upcoming general election see who is on the docket. File photo.

Unofficial results from Tuesday night show that Johnson County voter turnout hit more than 53% for the 2022 primary election.

Next up is the Nov. 8 general election, during which voters will decide who becomes the new chair of the Board of County Commissioners, as well as races for U.S. Senate, the Third District U.S. House of Representatives seat, a slew of local statehouse contests and some other statewide and local offices.

The Post put together the following list using Johnson County Election Offices unofficial final results and the Kansas Secretary of State unofficial Kansas election results of candidates who have either already filed for November or who won their primary Tuesday and are set to advance.

Read the original post:
The primary is over Here's who you can expect to see on JoCo ballots in November - Shawnee Mission Post

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off

Page 233«..10 20..232233234 235..240 250..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Richard Madeley’s cringiest gaffes as GMB host is coined the new Alan Partridge – The Mirror

What John Oliver Gets Right (and Wrong) about Inflation – Foundation for Economic Education

Hannah Arendts Chilling Thesis on Evil – Foundation for Economic Education

What the War in Ukraine Can Teach Us about the Dangers of Censorship | Matt Hampton – Foundation for Economic Education

Libertarians see opening to gain ground in Georgia 2022 elections – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

State Libertarian Party asks for ‘relief from oppressive ballot laws’ – The Albany Herald

Election 2022: Primaries clear Michigan fields; more will come at conventions – The Center Square

The Industrial Revolution and the Colonial Conundrum – Econlib

School choice is the free market solution to failing public schools – Washington Examiner

The primary is over Here’s who you can expect to see on JoCo ballots in November – Shawnee Mission Post

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution