Mediaboss Marketing

With the recent release of BackWordz debut album and its success, it dawned on me that a part of libertarianism that was missing is just now beginning to bud into something. That something is taking our ideas and putting them into pop culture.

The ideals of libertarians have been stuck for decades in the academic realm because of the influences of economists, philosophers and historians. While this is great for defending those ideas with other intellectuals, it makes the literature and discourse explaining them and very dry and less accessible.

Frankly, its hard work to learn about free markets, non-aggression, and individualism because these are not widely expressed in popular media. This doesnt mean principle must be sacrificed to spread the ideology, but it might be time for libertarians to leave the lecture hall in favor of the concert venue or movie theater.

What makes the ideologies of the major parties (and even the more left leaning third parties) so rampant, is that their views have had their own music, movies and other pop culture influences for even longer. The 1960s saw the rise of music protesting the government and preaching the need for Civil Rights.

Country Joe Mcdonald wrote I-Feel-Like-Im-Fixin-To-Die-Rag and Creedence Clearwater Revival released Fortunate Son in 1969, both in protest of the Vietnam War.

Art was more geared towards drug use and sexual experimentation. An article from History Now describes the culture as youth counterculture, it carved out new spaces for experimentation and alternative views about what constituted a good society. While a new left, made up of civil rights and anti-war activists, developed as the war in Vietnam dragged out and became increasingly bloody, confounding, and ultimately unpopular.

Patriotic songs like Ballad of the Green Berets by Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and Merle Haggards Okie from Muskogee also did well as songs supporting the war. Vietnam was the first time that the nations music clearly reflected a division of political views in the country. The tradition of political music has expanded and continued since this era.

The lovers of liberty who would eventually become the Libertarian Party were just beginning to form in response to the war and the Nixon administrations lifting of the gold standard, so supporters of the major parties had way more time than the would-be libertarians to focus on music and art to express their views.

Today, the major parties also have more high profile celebrities, from Leonardo DiCaprio giving a speech on the environment while accepting his Oscar, to Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming Governor of California. Thebiggest libertarian celebrities, outside of economists and philosophers, include Drew Carey, Vince Vaughn and Clint Eastwood, who are not necessarily current A-listers.

Conservatives and liberals also have popular TV shows that support their narratives. Duck Dynasty, and 19 Kids and Counting come to mind when one thinks of conservative shows, while the left has shows like Dear White People, and Modern Family. The closest thing to a libertarian TV show is the greatness (personal opinion) of Ron Swanson in Parks & Recreation.

Libertarianism is just beginning to make its own pop culture and its spearheaded by music groups like BackWordz, and Freenauts, as well as websites like Anarchyball.

Clothing that contains messages of individual and economic freedom are becoming easier to acquire thanks to sites like Libertarian Country, and Threads of Liberty, and sites like Etsy and Zazzle that allow independent producers to sell their products.

This is just the beginning.

In the future, there could be libertarian music festivals, film festivals, art galleries and clothing outlets. What I hope to see is libertarian ideas to begin seeping into more and more pop culture until the values of individualism and non-aggression have become mainstream and more easily able to be adopted.

Like Loading...

Excerpt from:
Pop Culture is the Next Step for Libertarians - Being Libertarian

New York Magazine

The Good Republican Women - The New York Times New York Times A reader praises the courage of some female senators who put country before party. How Electing Republican Women Will Affect Politics - NYMagNew York Magazine all 2 news articles »

See the article here:
The Good Republican Women - The New York Times - New York Times

A push for gun rights including a stand your ground bill that drew a packed hearing at the Minnesota Legislature did not get a bill to the governors desk.

Both proponents and opponents of gun-rights bills expected strong backing this year, given that Republicans had just taken control of both houses.

But Republican leaders of key committees say they didnt want to push the bills when they were also working to craft a $46 billion budget for the state. They also anticipated strong opposition from DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, who has vetoed similar legislation in the past.

From a global perspective, the Senate didnt take it up, and the governor doesnt seem interested. Do you really want to take it up in a budget year? said Tony Cornish, a strong gun-rights advocate who chairs the Houses public safety committee.

The bills received a hearing in Cornishs public safety committee, but none in the Senate.

Why waste a lot of political capital on something that wont pass? asked Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, through which a gun bill would likely have to pass. Dayton had vetoed bills like the ones lawmakers worked on this year in the past, and said this years measures would meet a similar fate.

The author of the gun-rights bills that received a hearing, Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, said he was very disappointed that the Senate didnt move on the bill. Im just surprised that a duo Republican Legislature wouldnt move it at this time.

And Bryan Strawser of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which lobbies for gun rights, said there are a lot of people in House and Senate that have made campaign promises that will be held accountable in 2018.

Strawsers group endorsed Limmer in 2016, and gave him an A grade for his positions.

Hes been very disappointing when it comes to delivering. But prior to now, hes had an impeccable track record, Strawser said.

The Rev. Nancy Nord Bence, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun-control advocacy group, said her group mobilized its base eight times this year including four rallies.

She expressed exuberance that the bills hadnt made it to either full House or Senate votes in 2017, but quickly added, We have to remember theyre viable for another year.

And when it came to opposing legislation, Its also an utter defeat for the three gun-prevention bills that didnt even get a hearing.

The two bills that received a hearing this year include a constitutional carry bill, which would have eliminated the need for a gun permit on public property entirely in most cases, and the stand your ground bill, which would have expanded the types of incidents in which it is legal to take another persons life.

Current law allows a Minnesotan to use lethal force to stop a felony in their own homes. The stand your ground bill would have allowed lethal force to stop a variety of felonies, whether the potential victim was at home or not. In a home, a person could also have used deadly force in incidents they believed in good faith were required to succeed in defense.

Both bills received a hearing in Cornishs committee, but never got any further. Proponents of the stand your ground legislation were anticipating a floor vote of the entire House in the Legislatures final days, but that never materialized.

Legislation similar to the stand your ground bill reached the governors desk in 2012. At the time, Dayton said he opposed it due to strong concerns from the law enforcement community.

The hometown of Rep. Jim Nash has been corrected in this story.

Read the original here:
Minnesota gun rights legislation fails to get far, despite Republican legislative control - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

What conservative Republicans such as Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, dislike about Medicaid isnt just that its fiscally progressive. They also dislike that its working.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY ALEX WONG / GETTY

Many people who dont use Medicaid think of it as a federal health-care program for the impoverished and destitute, but its much more than that. In the past couple of decades, as incomes have stagnated and health-care costs have accelerated, Medicaid has turned into an essential support mechanism for millions of Americans who cant be classed as poverty-stricken, strictly speaking, but who also cant afford to bear the costs of private health coverage.

The numbers involved are huge. In March of this year, according toofficial figures, 74.6 million people were enrolled in plans supported by Medicaid or its sibling, the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Thats more than one in five of the U.S. population. Since 2013, the number of Medicaid and CHIP enrollees has risen by almost twenty million. Thats largely because the Affordable Care Act of 2010 significantly increased the programs income-eligibility thresholds.

The expansion under Obamacare focussed on working families with incomes just above the official poverty line. But many Medicaid beneficiaries are elderlyand infirm individuals living in nursing homes. In fact, about sixty per cent of all nursing-home residents now receive some sort of assistance from Medicaid. Kids are also big beneficiaries: Medicaid and CHIP now help to provide medical coverage for about a third of all the children in America.

Some of the families who benefit from Medicaid might not even realize they are receiving federal aid. Take New York States Child Health Plus program, which provides medical insurance for the children of low- to middle-income families who dont qualify for regular Medicaid. The program is partially funded by New York taxpayers, but it also receives matching funds from CHIP. Other states have similar programs.

Many Republican-run states have refused to accept Obamacares expansion of Medicaid, but someincluding Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvaniahave agreed to participate. Although the detailsdiffer from place to place, the common thread is that Republican governors and legislatures in these states have seized the opportunity get more of their citizens health-care coverage.

At the national level, however, the Republican Party remains implacably opposed to Medicaid expansion. As the House Republicans health-care-reform bill, called the American Health Care Act, makes clear, the Party doesnt merely want to roll back the Obamacare reforms; it wants to shrink the entire program, transferring it to the states and imposing tight caps on the payments they receive from the federal government.

That is the blueprint for Medicaid laid out in the latest version of the A.H.C.A., which Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and his colleagues voted through, earlier this month.According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Offices scoring of the A.H.C.A., which it released on Wednesday, the bill would reduce over-all federal spending on health care by about $1.1 trillion over ten years. Of that, eight hundred and thirty-four billion dollarsfully three-quarters of the savingswould come from cuts to Medicaid.

The political battle over the A.H.C.A., and much of the media coverage, has focussed on the individual-insurance marketand the bill would have alarming consequences there, such as forcing much higher premiums onpeople with prexisting conditionsandold people of modest means. But,in terms of over-all money spent and numbers of people affected, the bigger story lies elsewhere. From a financial and human perspective, the Republican bill is, above all else, an assault on Medicaid.

The C.B.O. estimates that by 2026, if the A.H.C.A. were enacted, spending on Medicaid would be reduced by a quarter compared to current spending. In the same time period, the number of people covered by Medicaid and CHIP would fall by about fourteen millionaccounting for almost two-thirds of the total decrease of twenty-three million predicted by the C.B.O.

Why is the Republican Party so hostile toward Medicaid? It cant simply be reflecting the wishes, and interests, of its voters, many of whom are now beneficiaries of the program. Donald Trump appeared to understand this when, from the beginning of his campaign, he promised not to cut Medicaid. (Of course, this pledge turned out to be worth about as much as a marketing flyer for Trump University.)

The two keys to the Republican attitude are money and ideology. If you view the modern G.O.P. as basically a mechanism to protect the wealthy, Medicaid is an obvious target for the Party. The program caters to low- and middle-income people, and its recent expansion was financed partly by an increase in taxes on the richest households in the country.

Under the Affordable Care Act, households with taxable incomes of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year were obliged to pay a 3.8-per-cent tax on their investment incomemoney from things like stock dividends and interest payments on bondsand a 0.9-per-cent surtax on their other earnings. TheA.H.C.A. would abolish these taxes, providing significant handouts to families in the top one per cent. From a fiscal perspective, the cuts to Medicaid pay for these handouts.

Some analysts would leave it there and say that you dont need to get into the nature of conservative ideology; that ideology is merely a pretext for taking from the poor and giving to the rich. I have some sympathy for this view, but I dont think its the whole story.

What conservative Republicans like Ryan dislike about Medicaid isnt just that its fiscally progressive. They also dislike that its working.As medical costs have risen and the private sector has failed to cover an increasing number of Americans, the Medicaid and CHIP programs have filled some of the coverage gap, and have done so relatively cheaply. (Studies show that covering people with private insurance plans costs somewhere between a quarter and a thirdmore than Medicaid.)

For any politician who loathes government interventions in the economy, and whose real goal is to head off socialized medicine, the expansion of Medicaid represents a serious threat. Here is an embryonic single-payer system that is growing fast and could befurther expanded pretty easily. That means it has to be crippled now, before it gets more firmly established. Hence, the A.H.C.A.

Of course, the A.H.C.A.isnt yet law. The measure now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where attention will again focus on premiums and coverage in the individual market. These are important issues, to be sure. But also keep a keen eye on what happens to the Medicaid provisions of the bill. If you want to know where todays G.O.P. ultimately stands, that will be the biggest tell.

Follow this link:
The Republicans' War on Medicaid - The New Yorker

New York Times

Checking Democracy's Pulse New York Times American democracy remains healthy, but its health has worsened for the first time in recent history, according to a new survey of 1,126 political scientists. Three-quarters of respondents said the quality of United States democracy had declined in the ...

Follow this link:
Checking Democracy's Pulse - New York Times