Archive for October, 2020

Searl Letter to the Editor 10/23/20 | Opinion | carrollspaper.com – Carroll Daily Times Herald

Are you getting tired of all the political TV ads? There is one reason these ads are on TV, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. This decision has created a legal form of bribery and corruption. Citizens United gave corporations and political action committees the right to give millions to political candidates.

The U.S. Constitution gives the right to vote to citizens; corporations and PACs cannot vote. The Supreme Court has in the past denied corporations and PACs rights reserved for citizens. People are taxed and regulated differently than corporations. People enjoy the right in the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in criminal investigations, while corporations do not.

Personally I do not like the idea of an out-of-state corporation or PAC trying to influence the votes of Iowans. I do not like the idea these organizations giving large amounts of cash to candidates who are supposed to represent Iowans and thereby trying to corrupt or bribe an Iowa candidate. Even citizens should not be able to donate to a candidate they cannot actually vote for or against, and the amount of a donation should be limited. Just because a person has millions, it does not make their vote worth more than any other persons vote.

I would love to see a political campaign based on a candidates record, what they plan to do or their goals for the people they represent. Here is a unique idea: How about a campaign based on honesty and the truth, rather than lies and deception?

If candidates were required to give their opponents the same amount they spend on a negative ad so the opponents can respond, there would be far fewer negative ads.

During this election cycle, Republicans are using Citizens United money to prevent people voting by challenging absentee voting, eliminating polling locations and making people travel extended distances and stand in line during a pandemic to cast their vote. Following the election, Republicans undoubtedly will spend millions of Citizens United dollars to challenge the results of the election. This is just another method of taking your vote away.

Read the rest here:
Searl Letter to the Editor 10/23/20 | Opinion | carrollspaper.com - Carroll Daily Times Herald

Column: Barrett confirmation will roll back social progress – Valley News

Published: 10/23/2020 10:10:19 PM

Modified: 10/23/2020 10:10:09 PM

She lost me at sexual preference. I refer to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, whose qualifications fall far short of supreme.

During her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee she may as well have invoked the Fifth Amendment, given the number of reasonable questions she dodged.

As to sexual preference, she used that phrase as naturally as a Proud Boy might drop the n word. Among the factors I find disqualifying, this semantic slip is glaringly revealing. Sexual preference is laden with homophobic bigotry and legal peril. It not merely implies that gay and lesbian citizens choose their sexuality, but it denies the biological realities of sexual and gender identity.

Particularly at the time Barrett was coming of age, choosing to be gay would be a mighty masochistic choice unless one enjoyed humiliation from peers, scorn from family members, secrecy, risk of physical harm and, too often, terrible loneliness. Now, despite magnificent legal progress and a more accepting society, gay students and teachers are denied enrollment and employment at schools Barretts religion supports. Gays and lesbians are beaten by marauding gangs of thugs in areas of major cities and benighted rural towns.

Society and the law more easily shortchange gay and lesbian citizens when they claim (inaccurately) the infallibility of scripture and the notion that homosexuality is a choice too often accompanied by haughty language about conversion or psychiatric intervention.

Too many people are intimidated by religion and fail to speak up. The National Association of Independent Schools has a diversity standard requiring no discrimination on the basis of sexual identity yet accredits religious schools that exclude gay students and teachers. Hypocritical much? I confronted the association, but the board and president wiggled uncomfortably and sided with explicit bigotry, inaccurately citing the so-called ministerial exception accompanied by some convoluted babbling about a big tent. I dont want homophobes in my tent even especially in splendid ecclesiastic garb.

More as to Barrett: She was unwilling to affirm that climate change is at least partially due to human behavior. She couldnt go out on a limb and say tobacco causes cancer. She merely acknowledged that cigarette packages have warning labels. She wouldnt deny the president the power to unilaterally delay an election. She couldnt state whether voter intimidation was illegal. Fortunately no one asked her about up or down, black or white.

Although it may have been strategically wise, it was absurd that no Democrat examined her religious views. The idea that there can be no religious test for public office is a joke. As an enthusiastic atheist, Ive long recognized that I am unelectable. We will have a gay or Muslim president long before we inaugurate a non-believer, and I wouldnt bet the ranch on gay or Muslim.

Even among those claiming a more popular religious affiliation, oughtnt there be some inquiry about how far a candidates or nominees beliefs stray from the rational and empirical bases of our laws and secular social contract? Barretts written record, life choices, and confirmation hearing stonewalling suggest a woman who will be unable to divorce her lifelong indoctrination from her judicial contemplation.

This is not meant as an insult. Many things about her and her life are admirable, but she is ill-suited to sit on the nations highest secular court.

Finally, a word or two about Barretts (and others) originalism or textualism.

Originalism is the judicial approach that limits constitutional consideration to the text of the Constitution as written by the founders and by interpreting what they meant in the 18th century. It is cited as a judicial philosophy. It is not. It is a political philosophy masquerading as a judicial philosophy. It is no coincidence that the conservative justices march in lockstep. They are conservative. By limiting the scope of argument to the bare text, they may reject arguments of petitioners and respondents because the original text makes no mention of the redress they seek. Any legal scholar will tell you that this is done selectively, nearly always in support of a conservative political position. Pure originalism would have precluded nearly every social advance in American history womens rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, gay rights, union rights, to name a few.

Barrett will almost certainly be confirmed and, in many ways, our rights and social contract will be rolled back to an era when Barrett and her conservative colleagues will be more comfortable, exclusive religious beliefs included.

Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.

Go here to see the original:
Column: Barrett confirmation will roll back social progress - Valley News

Berkshire County Man Convicted on Counts of Domestic Assault – Live 95.9

A North Adams man was convicted on multiple counts of domestic assault stemming from incidents that occurred in March and July.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office secured a conviction in a serious domestic violence case on Monday despite the unavailability of the victim to testify.

Judge Laurie Macleod found Michael Lavigne, 49, of North Adams guilty on two counts of assault and battery on a household member after a bench trial in Northern Berkshire District Court. The Commonwealth proved that Lavigne assaulted the victim on March 7 and again on July 11.

Judge Macleod sentenced him to 18 months at the House of Correction.

It is our responsibility to hold violent offenders accountable for their actions. Mr. Lavigne demonstrated his willingness to use mental and physical abuse to control the victim. This sentence will prevent him from continuing that behavior, District Attorney Andrea Harrington said.

We do not turn a blind eye to domestic violence and this outcome is a reflection of the priority our office and our partners in law enforcement place on these crimes. I thank the North Adams Police Department and the Sheriffs Office for their dedicated investigation.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office utilized evidence-based prosecution to secure the conviction after the victim asserted the Fifth Amendment. The Commonwealth successfully argued that Mr. Lavigne coerced the victim not to testify through a series of phone calls from the House of Correction.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office prosecuted the cased based on previous statements, the recorded phone calls, and other evidence Police gathered to prove Mr. Lavigne committed the assaults.

Read the rest here:
Berkshire County Man Convicted on Counts of Domestic Assault - Live 95.9

Libertarian candidate Randy Laullin believes things can be run differently – KELOLAND.com

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KELO) There are two candidates running for South Dakotas only seat in the U-S House. One of them is Libertarian candidate Randy Laullin.

KELOLAND News caught up with Laullin on Friday to talk about why hes running for office.

He says he expects the truth from elected officials and from what hes seen, hes not sure if thats what the people are getting.

Laullin says there have been many different strategies dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. He believes things can be run differently.

Whats the truth, thats the question and we are getting that on all aspects of this and I think its very confusing to people and the way we are dealing with it throughout the country, I think its important we deal with it at a local level, Laullin said.

Laullin is running against incumbent Representative Dusty Johnson in the upcoming election.

Theyll both be joining us for a Candidate Forum. It will air the Sunday before the election, right here on KELOLAND News.

Read more:
Libertarian candidate Randy Laullin believes things can be run differently - KELOLAND.com

When Government Disappears: On Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling’s A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear – lareviewofbooks

OCTOBER 21, 2020

BEARS HAVE RECENTLY been enjoying a vacation from usual human activity. Wildlife conservationists have noted impressive ursine comebacks during the pandemic. Some of them have wandered down Main Streets. My own town in New Hampshire just threatened $500 fines on anyone who dares to not properly discard trash. We have learned that we must be tough to manage our trash attractants and to ensure that local bears and residents can safely co-exist, noted a stern email.

But just down the road from me in the small town of Grafton, principles like this are anathema to a gun-toting collection of libertarians who try to handle their bear problems a bit differently, as journalist Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling chronicles in the closely reported book A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear.

Grafton made national news in 2003 when libertarians associated with an initiative called the Free State Project began flocking there with the goal of weaning the small New Hampshire town from its already tiny government and proving the merit of their idea that people should live under no government at all. Having extreme political views in America is no rarity, but the actual implementation of a controlled social experiment is rare. Suffice to say, it didnt end well.

Hongoltz-Hetling got interested in Grafton after he heard stories of local bears acting strangely. He follows the situation as it gets weirder, and the book delivers an extended punch line to its joke title, becoming more gruesome even as it gets more humorous.

After the the libertarians did away with Graftons public funds and most rules, bears also wandered in for lunch because of the lack of trash regulations, even as fires ravaged the town in the absence of a properly funded fire department. A surprisingly protective llama named Hurricane launches its own counter-attack on a bear who comes too close to Dianne Burringtons sheep farm, and survivalists living in a tent city nearby put up a hapless sign that reads No Bears Allowed. John Babiarz, a volunteer firefighter who is one of the central figures in the book, is convinced that the bears are watching him, as gullible residents feed bears their uneaten donuts.

Politics lead to policy and policy to consequences. The government-hating residents take bear management into their own hands, which involves cayenne pepper, electrified fencing, motion sensors, booby traps, and radios that constantly blasted out disembodied voices. While some are hell-bent on going to war on the bears, others take to feeding the them as they sat, like rotund and feral wood-gods demanding tribute. The result is as much a fiasco as one would expect, and in 2012, the town experienced New Hampshires first bear attack in living memory.

Grafton was not an illogical choice for a libertarian takeover. It had been tax-averse since its 1761 founding and even once briefly seceded from New Hampshire. Located in a remote part of the Live Free or Die state, it seemed like the perfect place for an every-person-for-themselves tryout. But in spite of the preexisting taxphobic tendencies, many locals were adamantly opposed to the libertarian homesteaders from the beginning. One accused the newcomers of trying to cram freedom down our throats. And the situation evolves from there into what the author calls an unmitigated disaster as the bear behavior becomes more bizarre and rambunctious. [S]omething unusual seemed to be plaguing Grafton, something with the power to pit neighbor against neighbor, freedoms against security, man against beast.

This quirky book about bears is timely and now carries an urgent global message. Conversations around personal freedoms are intensifying with real implications for public health. Viruses, like bears, spread in the absence of a competent collective response, and the vulnerable are the hardest hit by the liberties taken by others. In Grafton, its not the liberators who are attacked by bears, but marginalized women living on fixed means in remote towns who are forced to contend with the repercussions of decisions not their own.

Hongoltz-Hetling takes the time to render the real people of Grafton on the page. The account is stronger throughout because of the fair treatment given to the people whose lives inform the story, a reminder that any political story is necessarily a human one. We learn how beliefs have been shaped by life circumstances, whether theyre a libertarian like John Babiarz with a fear of authoritarian government or a Vietnam-era vet who became an acolyte of the controversial Reverend Sun Myung in the case of Jessica Soule.

The author lets individuals have their version of the story before citing factors excluded by their worldview that make the reality more complicated. The libertarians are never presented as a simplified group, but as individuals with their own backstories. They have reasons for arriving at their political leanings. Some of the best scenes involve the infighting among the Free State settlers. It starts off so early that one of the founders of the Free State Project, Larry Pendarvis, doesnt even make it to Grafton because his difficult-to-defend views like the right to traffic in human organs or organize bum fights stirs up so much controversy among libertarians and locals alike. The states Libertarian Party even accuses him of turning Grafton against libertarian causes, and tells him to stay away from New Hampshire. Pendarvis doesnt give up his views, but he does give up on Grafton.

Hongoltz-Hetling doesnt condemn individuals for their beliefs, but he condemns actions like the killing of 13 bears in hibernation. By turning to the archives in addition to the contemporary reportage, he builds a case that libertarian ideas have little carryover to the real world when it comes to the value of unprofitable public services like wildlife management or firefighting. But he turns his critique to the Fish and Game department, too, for scolding individuals for improper trash disposal, conveniently diverting responsibility from the state. Theyre as much a part of the problem as the libertarians are.

The book is less forthcoming when it comes to suggesting fixes. Both the Grafton project and the book itself peter out to their endings when the Free State Project pulls the trigger on the libertarian plan to host a statewide takeover of New Hampshire. In this scheme, Grafton is just another town, and libertarians moving to the state often end up, ironically, in larger towns with more government-funded amenities. Meanwhile, wildlife attacks continue in the backwoods of New Hampshire (bobcats this time, not bears).

Life continues, or ends. Hurricane the llama dies of old age, and longtime Grafton resident Jessica Soule moves to Arizona. While this may be a disappointment to some, it is the story of a real and messy world in which neat resolutions are rarely realistic. Tying a bow on it would do a disservice to the complex and ongoing nature of this story, both in terms of the wildlife issue and the political angle.

The central observation of A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear is the insight that there is, in fact, a deep connection between strange bear behavior and the the boldest social experiment in modern American history. By zeroing in on bears as a subject, the book makes a compelling case that even those who believe in freedom above every other virtue are not free of the ecosystem in which they live.

Grafton was a concentrated case study in the philosophy that an individuals actions are solely their own business. The bear attacks were one symbol of the dire consequences that can follow. We are currently seeing the implications of this type of thinking on a national scale, when personal freedom is used to justify shirking public health recommendations around mask wearing, physical distancing, or limitations on gatherings. At a time when we are all being asked to think more about the ways our actions affect others, the personal freedom is getting put to the test in our country as it did in Grafton. For now, the bears are winning.

Amanda Gokee is a writer living in Vermont. Her recent work has been published by Atlas Obscura, the Valley News, and VTDigger, among others.

Read this article:
When Government Disappears: On Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling's A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear - lareviewofbooks