Mediaboss Marketing

William Shatner at FreedomFest 2017 in Las Vegas Friday night. Credit: Emile Doak/The American Conservative

Is there a free mind? Are our minds free? Are we programmed by something up there to follow our fate? Or are we programmed by Mom and Dad at a very early age? So is there free will? Do we make choices?

So wondered William Shatner during his July 21 speech at the annual Las Vegas convention of libertarians and other free-marketeers called FreedomFest. He urged the audience to stick to its principles, not compromise as he says he did when he directed Star Trek V by giving up on his original vision of having the real God attack the crew with an army of lava men in the films climax.

Compromising principles is a mistake, suggested Shatner. Nobody can tell you what to do. Somewhere inside us is a core.

Is William Shatner a libertarian, you might ask? If not, whats he doing there? Well, it seems more like hes an environmentalist worried about overpopulationand hes a Canadian, of coursebut hes also expressed some populist longings for someone to sweep away the bureaucrats and make American democracy work again. And he avoids commenting on Donald Trump. Maybe call Shatner a frustrated technocratic populist? Sounds like sort of a Reform Party guy to me, leavened by an inevitable Star Trek-veteran love of science and education.

None of this makes him too much weirder than a previous FreedomFest speaker who went on to bigger things, namely Donald Trump. I suppose the question is how big you want the libertarian tent to be. You probably want a tent big enough to let in optimists who still believe we can invent and build things, but not a tent so big that it lets all the carny-barkers inside. A friend of mine in Colorado reports seeing someone flying around downtown Denver with a jetpack a couple weeks ago, so we know futuristic technological progress is officially going strong, but I worry more about unrealistic promises in politics these days.

I noticed some people joking online that theyd love to hear Shatner tell the assembled libertarians to get a life in the fashion of his notorious 1986 Saturday Night Live sketch about obsessive Trekkie conventioneers. I probably would have laughed harder at that joke myself a decade or two ago, when it seemed that the worst thing that could happen to the libertarian movement is that it might get too screechy and radical and alienate mainstream Americans. Everybody relax, I would have thought.

Nowadays, I worry more that in American politics, even the most radical road always leads back to the same mushy centrist middle, with a few highly predictable TV pundits guarding that middle against the emergence of any truly new ideas. So, if Shatner is unlikely to express a precise, coherent philosophical argument, I should at least root for him to leave crowds slightly confused, even if he says something stupid. That can spur thought. It beats sticking to safely-ambiguous, nigh-universal sentiments that are deployed as if to build coalitions but are really used mainly to make the speaker himself seem as non-threatening as possible, often boosting his career without doing much to shore up the hypothetical broader coalition. Absent utopian unanimity, one should root for competition, always.

Im beginning to feel the same way about fictional continuity in Star Trek, to my surprise.

A sci-fi geek, I have been as eager as anyone over the years to see massive fictional continuities like that of the Star Trek universe or the DC Comics universe kept perfectly consistent. Inevitably, though, things fall apart eventually. New writers and new producers like Star Trek/Star Wars director J.J. Abrams come along and cavalierly decide theres a certain scene they want to depict or a character they want to bring back, and out goes the whole timestream as were asked to pretend vast swaths of prior fictional history never happened. I used to think this process was as heartbreaking as watching footage of the old Penn Station being demolished.

But there comes a point when you realize that the hope of maintaining a consistent continuityor a large political coalitionis probably rooted in a misguided optimism. The editors are too busy to care about all the details, and the politicians and most popular pundits are too busy or corrupt to care about philosophical purity. So, then the disappointed idealist starts to root for chaos. Perhaps thats a little of what happened in November 2016.

Let my fellow libertarians fight viciously and devolve into factions (pausing to enjoy the occasional near-meaningless Shatner speech or other entertainment). Like small and decentralized states, the factionalism might afford a better chance for truth to survive out there somewhere than would one bland, homogeneous consensus version of the philosophy with all the rough edges polished and gleaming.

And if the new Star Trek: Discovery TV series comes out this fall and has a throwaway line in it suggesting that this timeline may replace both the Abrams films and all the TV material we know from the 60s and 90s, well, now Im okay with that possibility, too. I am preemptively embracing that anarchic conclusion before the monarchShatnerhas a chance to insult us all again. Let a hundred Omicron Ceti III flowers bloom.

In Vegas terms, until we really hit the jackpot, Im grateful so long as we can keep rolling the dice.

Todd Seavey is the author of Libertarianism for Beginners. He writes for SpliceToday.com and can be found on Twitter at @ToddSeavey.

See more here:
Is Star Trek Icon William Shatner a Libertarian? | The American ... - The American Conservative

Jabin Botsford | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, and Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas speak with reporters and members of the media after they and other Senate Republicans had a meeting with President Donald Trump.

A seven-year Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare faces a major test this week in the U.S. Senate, where lawmakers will decide whether to move forward and vote on a bill whose details and prospects are uncertain.

The Senate will decide as early as Tuesday whether to begin debating a health-care bill. But it remained unclear which version of the bill the senators would ultimately vote as lawmakers prepared to hear from U.S. President Donald Trump later on Monday.

Trump last week initially suggested he was fine with letting former President Barack Obama's signature law collapse before later urging Republican senators to hash out a deal.

The Republican president is scheduled to make a statement on health care at 3:15 p.m. (1915 GMT) following a meeting with people the White House said were harmed by the Affordable Care Act.

"Republicans have a last chance to do the right thing on Repeal & Replace after years of talking & campaigning on it," Trump tweeted on Monday.

Republicans view the 2010 health law, also known as Obamacare, as a government intrusion in the health-care market. They face pressure to make good on campaign promises to dismantle it.

But the party is divided between moderates, concerned that the Senate bill would eliminate insurance for millions of low-income Americans, and conservatives who want to see even deeper cuts to Obama's framework.

The House in May passed its health-care bill. Senate Republicans have considered two versions but have been unable to reach consensus after estimates showed they could lead to as many as 22 million fewer Americans being insured. A plan to repeal Obamacare without replacing it also ran aground.

A Senate Republican aide on Monday said the Senate will vote this week on whether to begin debate on the House-passed health-care bill. If that procedural vote succeeds, the House bill would then be open for amendment on the Senate floor.

If the Senate approves a motion to begin debating a health-care bill, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will determine which proposal has the most Republican support and move forward to a vote, Republicans said.

Republicans hold 52 of 100 Senate seats. McConnell can only afford to lose two Republican votes as Democrats are united in opposition.

Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republican leadership, acknowledged on Sunday that there remained a lack of consensus among Republicans.

"Lots of members have different ideas on how it should be best amended to replace what is really a failing Obama health-care plan," Barrasso said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The Republican effort has also been complicated by the absence of Senator John McCain, who has been diagnosed with brain cancer and is in his home state of Arizona weighing treatment options.

Uncertainty over the health care's future has left health insurance companies and U.S. states as well as hospitals and other doctors unclear about future funding and coverage.

Public opinion polls also show Americans worried about potential changes to the health-care system.

Read the original post:
Republicans' push to roll back Obamacare faces crucial test - CNBC

The midterm election is also a referendum on the president and President Donald Trump's approval rating fell to 39 percent in the latest Gallup poll. Bloomberg's poll last week showed that health care is the most important issue for voters, and they don't like the way Trump has handled it.

Democrats Monday were out pushing a new agenda, aimed at business.Called "A Better Deal," the Democratic economic platform calls for more scrutiny of big mergers and a new independent agency to tackle the high costs of prescription drugs.

Clifton said about 90 percent of the swing in House races in midterm elections can be determined by the generic ballot question. He said in 2009, the data correctly pointed to an out-of-consensus view that the Democrats would lose badly in 2010.

"This was a big move no matter what number you use. This happens to every new president. This happened to Obama. It happened to Clinton. It happened to Reagan. It didn't happen to George W. Bush because of 9/11," Clifton said.

Clifton said while Republicans have a map advantage in both the House and Senate, midterm elections tend to have lower voter turnout and are presidential referendums.

"This is a sign the Republicans need to get their act together. They need to get policy passed," he said. "They've got some real issues, the Republicans."

More here:
Data showing Republicans could lose House majority puts pressure on Trump, GOP for tax reform - CNBC

Donald Trump stands next to Sen. Bob Corker during a campaign event at the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts on July 5, 2016 in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Getty Images

Its almost as if Congressional Republicans think there might be something to all this Trump-Russia stuff.

Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs.

In an almost unheard-of-these-days moment of bipartisanship and over White House objections, the Senate passed a bill 97-2 last month that would limit President Trumps ability to lift sanctions on Russia. The House is likely to overwhelmingly pass its own version of the bill this week. The New York Times reports today that, after fighting it, the White House has signaled it will now accept the bill, which also places new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, two major adminsitration priorities. It could hardly do otherwise given the bill's likely veto-proof support and the current political environment.

The official line is that the White House has been satisfied by a few changes in the House version, including the addition of North Korea and some tweaks requested by U.S. energy companies. But thats not exactly convincing, since the new version leaves in place the provision that the White House objected to in the first place, which Trumps legislative affairs director Marc Short called an unusual precedent of delegating foreign policy to 535 members of Congress.

The bill will sign into law the sanctions that Barack Obama imposed by executive order over Russias annexation of Crimea, support for armed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and meddling in the 2016 election. It will also impose a number of new sanctions related to Ukraine and human rights abuses. And while many sanctions laws give the president power to waive them in the name of the national interest, this law would require the president to certify that Russia has demonstrably changed its behavior in order to lift sanctions related to Ukraine and cyberattacks.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pleaded with Congress to craft the bill to give the president the flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation," but so far, Congress has not done so.

Under normal circumstances, Tillerson would have a point. Its far easier to get new sanctions passed in Congress than it is to lift them. (See: Cuba) But with this president, in these circumstances, Congress isnt taking any chances.

This is fairly remarkable: Two GOP-controlled houses of Congress have passed a bill over Trumps objections, that curtails his authority, and does so in part by codifying Barack Obamas executive orders into law. This is worth keeping in mind the next time a Republican senator dismisses the latest Russia revelation as a nothing burger or irrelevant, or insists that the real issue is leaks from the intelligence community. Republicans may not be willing to criticize the administration in public, but they dont quite seem to trust him either.

Last week, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker insisted that the language curtailing the administrations ability to lift sanctions is going to stay in this bill. (Corker also used the new sanctions as political cover, deflecting questions about Donald Trumps Jr.s e-mails earlier this month by bringing up progress on the sanctions bill, which he sponsored. Talk to others about politics. Talk to me about policy, Corker high-mindedly told reporters.)

Corker is thought of as a Tillerson ally and described him in the same interview as a good friend whose partnership he values, but the secretary of states lobbying clearly wasnt enough. While he may not be anxious to discuss them, Corkers concerns about the administration appear to be such that hes willing to limit his good friends ability to cut deals with Moscow.

Despite their seemingly limitless capacity to defend Trump publicly, GOP members of Congress clearly have some private concerns. Perhaps they could share them.

Read more from the original source:
One Sign That Republicans Aren't Entirely Unconcerned About Trump's Russia Connections - Slate Magazine (blog)

Only 36% of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, versus 58% who say they have a negative effect. Among Democrats, those figures are 72% and 19%, respectively. That finding represents a crisis.

For it to be a crisis does not depend on you having any conservative sympathies. For this to be a crisis requires only that you recognize that the GOP is one of two major political parties in American life, and that Republicans lack of faith in higher education will have practical consequences.

Further, it helps if you recognize that, in the present era, Republicans dominate American governance, with control of the House, Senate, presidency and crucially for our purposes, a significant majority of the countrys statehouses and governors mansions. They also have built a machine for state-level political elections that ensures that they will likely control many state legislatures for years to come.

As an academic, I am increasingly convinced that a mass defunding of public higher education is coming to an unprecedented degree and at an unprecedented scale. People enjoy telling me that this has already occurred that state support of our public universities has already declined precipitously. But things can always get worse, much worse.

And given the endless controversies on college campuses in which conservative speakers get shut out and conservative students feel silenced, the public relations work is being done for the enemies of public education by those within the institutions themselves.

Whos to blame for the fact that so few Republicans see the value in universities? The conservative media must accept some responsibility for encouraging its audiences to doubt expertise; so must those in the mainstream media who amplify every leftist kerfuffle on campus and make it seem as though trigger warnings are now at the center of college life.

But academics are at fault, too, because weve pushed mainstream conservatism out of our institutions. Sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons have found that about half of professors identify as liberal, versus only 14% who identify as Republican. (At the time of their study, in 2006, only a fifth of American adults described themselves as liberal.)

In Whats Liberal About the Liberal Arts? Michael Berube describes and defends a philosophy of non-coercion and intellectual pluralism that isnt just an intellectual curiosity, but an actual ethos that he and other professors live by. I grew up believing that most professors lived by that ethos. I dont anymore. And when I suggest its a problem that academics are so overwhelmingly liberal, I get astonished reactions. You actually think conservatives should feel welcome on campus?

In my network of professional academics, almost no one recognizes that our lopsided liberalism presents a threat to academia itself. Many would reply to the Pew Research Centers findings with glee. They would tell you that they dont want the support of Republicans. My fellow academics wont grapple with the simple, pragmatic realities of political power and how it threatens vulnerable institutions whose funding is in doubt. Thats because there is no professional or social incentive in the academy to think strategically or to engage with the world beyond campus.

Instead, all of the incentives point toward affirming ones position in the aristocracy of the academy. There are no repercussions to ignoring how the university and its subsidiary departments function in our broader society, at least not in the humanities and, for the most part, not in the social sciences either.

Universities make up a powerful lobbying bloc, and they have proved to be durable institutions. I dont think youll see many flagship institutions shuttered soon. But an acceleration of the deprofessionalization of the university teaching corps through part-time adjuncts? Shuttering departments such as Womens Studies or similar? Passing harsh restrictions on campus groups and how they can organize? Thats coming, and our own behavior as academics will make it easier for reactionary power, every step of the way.

Our public universities are under massive pressure and at immense risk, and those who should be defenders of public universities still dont understand that theyve created the conditions for their destruction.

Fredrik deBoer is a writer and academic at Brooklyn College in the City University of New York.

"The Tick" cast talks about the humor behind the series and the fan pressure that comes with a cult classic.

"The Tick" cast talks about the humor behind the series and the fan pressure that comes with a cult classic.

Melissa Benoist, David Harewood, Mehcad Brooks, Jeremy Jordan, Chris Wood, Katie McGrath, Odette Annable, plus two EPs:Jessica Queller, Robert Rovner talk "Supergirl" at Comic-Con 2017.

Melissa Benoist, David Harewood, Mehcad Brooks, Jeremy Jordan, Chris Wood, Katie McGrath, Odette Annable, plus two EPs:Jessica Queller, Robert Rovner talk "Supergirl" at Comic-Con 2017.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook.

Continued here:
Republicans don't trust higher ed. That's a problem for liberal academics - Los Angeles Times