Mediaboss Marketing

Cryptocurrency may be coming to a Texas government in 2023. Turns out there has been an upswing in the number of politicians across the country who think it's a good idea to bring it into government and this state has its share of adherents.

Take for instance the 2022 midterm Libertarian candidate for Llano County Treasurer, Joe Burnes, who is really into Bitcoin.

Governments drive adoption? Sure, if you consider runaway printing of fiat which robs value and subesquently [sic] motivates people to buy Bitcoin...then yeah, they drive adoption, he recently said on Twitter in response to a pro-Bitcoin posy by investment YouTuber Anthony Pompliano. Burnes then added, "LOL".

Burnes formerly ran as a Libertarian in 2020 for Texas Congressional District 19, garnering 2.4 percent of the vote. The race was handily won by Republican Jodey Arrington.

Though listed as the candidate for treasurer on the official Libertarian Party of Texas site, Burnes does not seem to be doing much actual campaigning. He spends most of his time promoting cryptocurrency and trolling people who arent doing as well as he is.

Burnes did not respond to multiple requests for comment about him possibly introducing crypto into Llano County government, nor has he expressed specific plans to do so.. Nonetheless, his entry into the race is part of a disturbing trend.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may be heralded by their adherents as the money of the future, but more and more people are discovering the whole exchange is closer to a giant pyramid scheme. Because of the processing power required for each transaction, Bitcoin is mostly useless for day-to-day buying activity. Though nominally decentralized, the market has increasingly come under the control of several unregulated bank-like entities that essentially do the job of current world currencies, just worse. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies function more as a commodity, and the only possible payout in the end is cashing out for dollars.

The way a good pyramid scheme continues to operate is by bringing in more people at the bottom. Introducing Bitcoin into government is a fine way to accomplish that. The Libertarian Party of Texas seems happy to push that, as their dues can be paid in Bitcoin. In Arizona, Republican State Senator Wendy Rogers has filed legislation to make Bitcoin legal tender there.

Dan Olson is the creator of the incredibly detailed Bitcoin video essay Line Goes Up The Problem With NFTs. He says that while researching for the essay, he noticed a lot more attempts by politicians to get Bitcoin into local and state government.

I think it's just starting to form into something more coherent and organized. Says Olson. Where for most of the last decade it's mostly been Libertarian Party candidates who have crypto as just one bullet point in their platform to, like, do away with drivers licenses, I get the sense that there's a newer more mainstream, more local crop that are more focused on promoting crypto via positions in government (like the proposal in Arizona that will almost certainly be struck down as being extremely unconstitutional). I also know that the industry has ramped up a pretty substantial lobbying wing that's not just three kids in a trench coat.

Long term, its very unlikely that a few random conservative politicians will end up forcing Texans to have a crypto wallet, but we should know that they are currently trying.

Read the original here:
Does Bitcoin Belong in Texas Government? - Houston Press

Its hilarious that some folks are having a fit over President Joe Bidens plan to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Youd think it was the most outlandish and horrific presidential proclamation in recent history.

Ive lost track but it seems the whining has reached a crescendo. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas recently called Bidens pledge offensive and an insult to Black women on his podcast. (Query: Whats more amazingthat Cruz speaks for Black women or that theres an audience for his podcast?) He added that Biden was essentially dissing White America, if youre a White guy, tough luck. If youre a White woman, tough luck. You dont qualify.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi also chimed in, calling Bidens as yet unnamed nominee, the beneficiary of this sort of quota. And ex-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (remember her?) tweeted: Biden chose Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sexnot qualification. Shes been a disaster. Now he promises to choose Supreme Court nominee on the samecriteria. Identity politics is destroying our country.

For a woman whos yet to be identified as a contender, shes apparently already a bona fide catastrophe.

The Pied Piper of these rants is arguably libertarian Ilya Shapiro, former vice president of the Cato Institute, who started his attacks with a series of tweets on Jan. 26, right after Biden announced his plan to put a Black woman on the high court. Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, tweeted Shapiro, alluding to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He added that Srinivasan is solid prog & v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesnt fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy, so well get lesser black woman.

Theres a lot to unpack. And because of the outrage sparked by his tweets (since deleted), Shapiro has been put on administrative leave as the new executive director of Georgetown Law Schools Center for the Constitution.

Though hes apologized for what he calls an inartful tweet, I thought his tweets (not just one, as he claimed) were actually quite artful in delivering his message that no Black woman could be up to the job.

Shapiro was adept at using the specter of the unqualified woman of color to stir fears that one of our most sacred institutionsthe U.S. Supreme Courtwould be jeopardized. Simply put, he used a racist tropethe radical affirmative action queento argue that a policy that advances a Black woman is inherently racist.

Unless Shapiro has identified every potential Black woman nominee and can defend their inferiority to Judge Srinivasan, this is the worst sort of casual racism and sexism, says Adrienne Davis, a professor at both the law and business schools of Washington University in St. Louis. Or, as [African American feminist scholar] Moya Bailey would call it, misogynoir.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Indeed, the list of Black women who might be contenders for the Supreme Court is almost an embarrassment of riches, chock full of Harvard and Yale law school graduates and former Supreme Court clerks. The three top contenders, according to multiple press reports, are: Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former clerk to Justice Breyer; Leondra Kruger, a judge on the California Supreme Court and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens; and J. Michelle Childs, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Other names rumored for consideration include: Holly Thomas, a judge on the Ninth Circuit; Eunice Lee, of the Second Circuit and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And the list goes on.

So what century are Shapiro and his cohorts living in when they suggest that theres no worthy Black woman to fill Breyers seat?

Also insidious is that Shapiro is stirring resentment between people of color. When he tweeted that Sri Srinivasan was the best pick, he signaled to Asian Americans to watch out because an unqualified Black or Brown Americanin this situation, a Black womanmight snatch away a coveted seat that rightfully belongs to them.

By all accounts, Srinivasan is an outstanding jurist but why is he suddenly being trotted out by foes of Biden? Is diversity suddenly a passion of the right?

Bringing Asian Americans in the picture can be done positively or negatively, says Frank Wu, president of Queens College, City University of New York, and the former chancellor at University of California, Hastings Law School. All too often, Asian Americans are introduced as spoilers, not in the spirit of civil rights and diversity, but instead to try to make Asian Americans an alternative to other people of color.

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger

Official Photo, California Supreme Court

Gabriel Chin, a law professor at University of California at Davis, adds that this is a familiar play. Critics of race-conscious policies try to pit people of color against each other, intentionally or unintentionally, he says, citing the Harvard admissions litigation in which the plaintiff argued that Asian American applicants are harmed by affirmative action, as an example. Chin says he believes breaking down historical patterns of discrimination benefits all groups. I do not think that if a Black woman wins, the potential Asian or other candidates lose.

Is Shapiro deliberately throwing fire at relations between people of color? I cant read his mind. (Ive attempted to reach out to Shapiro via Georgetown Laws press office, but I havent heard back.) But let me say this: Raising the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) of affirmative action is a distraction from those who truly enjoy the rights and privileges of power. Let me put it this way: Of the 115 justices on the Supreme Court since 1789, 108or 94% of them have been White men, as CNN reports.

All this brings up whats intrigued me for a long time: Why do we dissect the qualifications of minorities, particularly minority women, while White men seem to get an automatic pass?

I guess the answer should be apparent.

Read this article:
The Next SCOTUS Justice Will Be a Black Woman. Deal With It. - Bloomberg Law

The next pandemic might be more serious. But if the experts try to sound the alarm, the public will have no faith in them.

As the continued coronavirus lockdowns come to be gradually recognized as the grave error that they were, we must acknowledge the discomfiting fact that every single elite institution in the world got the pandemic response spectacularly wrong.

Governments were wrong. Virtually every nation, to varying degrees, went along with the CCP-inspired radical new lockdown model, as did most subnational governmental bodies.

Academics and experts were wrong. Leading scientists went far beyond their expertise in calling for sweeping policy changes, while the universities themselves scammed their students by switching to virtual learning but demanding full tuition.

The media was wrong. Most mainstream outlets fell in line as enthusiastic propagandists for the lockdown-and-mandate regime, mocking and censoring dissenting voices.

The entertainment industry was wrong. Actors, musicians, athletes, and other prominent cultural influencers used their considerable public sway to promote a new normal from whose worst impacts they were shielded.

International organizations were wrong. The World Health Organization misled the public again and again, while the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and others saw the crisis as a springboard from which to implement a set of long-desired social changes.

Billionaires and major corporations were wrong. These institutions, which one would ostensibly expect to be the most libertarian, went above and beyond in acting as enforcers for mask and vaccine mandates. Indeed, some (no names need be said here) had a financial interest in perpetuating lockdowns.

The legal system was wrong. While the Supreme Court may have overturned the Biden vaccine mandate, the same federal court systemincluding many conservative judgeswere frequently happy to allow public health to serve as a constitutional workaround. So, for that matter, were many once-respectable civil libertarians.

There were a few exceptions, mainstream figures who were willing to go against the grain and speak out against lockdowns. But they were just that: exceptions. The overwhelming majority of these institutions were clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Never before has anything like this happened; it is a historical first. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is now widely considered to be a mistake, but even that did not receive unanimous institutional support. It was denounced by prominent celebrities, and several major allies, including France and Germany, refused to fight. Imagine if there had been such high-level dissent from the lockdown regime.

The simple truth is that everyone to whom we would look for guidance during a time of crisis completely bungled this one. The economic and social damage done by lockdowns will take decades to repair, and it has come about thanks to a group of leaders who confidently, self-assuredly, and condescendingly led us all in the wrong direction.

The damage to public trust, however, may be worst of all.

Contrary to some popular sentiment, it is not a bad thing that we have experts or elite institutions. None of us, no matter how bright or diligent, are able to solve every complex problem for ourselves. Reliance on expertise is a heuristic, and on the whole a useful one. The same goes for talented artists, news organizations which keep us aware of important information, and businesses which provide valuable consumer products. None of these are bad in their conception.

Citizenship in a free society requires a certain healthy skepticism of these institutions, but it also requires some base level of trust. Institutional trust was badly battered in the Trump years, but it was still strong enough in March 2020 that when President Trump and Dr. Fauci stood side-by-side and told us that we would have to serve our nation by social distancing for two weeks, most of us went along.

That trust has now been lost. It is highly likely that a large section of the public will never do what elite institutions tell them to againand will in fact do the exact opposite. They will reflexively see a group of power holders who are at best incompetent and at worst malicious.

The problem with crying wolf, though, is that sometimes there is a real wolf. The next pandemic might be more serious. But if the experts try to sound the alarm, the public will have no faith in themand justifiably so.

The only hope we now have is to so thoroughly and transparently reform these institutions that they might regain some measure of public trust. It is not enough to move on from this purgatorial era of lockdowns, as we are (hopefully) now starting to do. After World War II, we did not merely bask in the victory. We also took steps to hold the direct perpetrators responsible and ensure that the lessons learned in the war would not be forgotten.

The same must be done here. We must have a full, exhaustive public audit that exposes exactly how and where it all went so badly wrong, how the most powerful people in the world could have come to implement a policy so massively misguided as planetwide lockdown, and to hold the globe in thrall to that self-evidently insane policy for two full years. Bad actors must be removed from these institutions whenever possible, and reforms must be put in place to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again.

If we can have a commission to investigate the riot at the Capitol on January 6, we can certainly have one dedicated to plumbing the depths of this great error.

It seems highly unlikely at this point that the major institutions will do anything other than stubbornly double down on their mistakes. But they must change. In the face of such massive failure, the only alternative to institutional reform would be institutional destruction, an outcome for which none of us should hope.

Jason Garshfieldis a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Townhall, RealClearPolitics, and numerous other publications.

Originally posted here:
All the Institutions Failed - The American Conservative

Welcome to Thursdays Overnight Health Care, where were following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. Subscribe here: thehill.com/newsletter-signup.

A new poll asked Italians about different ways to eat Italian food. Hint: Dont put pineapple on pizza.

Today, we delve into new CDC research, and the U.S. marks a shocking 900,000 COVID-19 deaths, on the way towards1 million.

For The Hill, were Peter Sullivan (psullivan@thehill.com) and Nathaniel Weixel (nweixel@thehill.com). Write to us with tips and feedback, and follow us on Twitter: @PeterSullivan4 and @NateWeixel.

Lets get started.

US passes 900K COVID-19 deaths

The U.S. death toll from COVID-19 topped 900,000 people, fueled by the highly contagious omicron variant, less than two months after the nation passed 800,000.

Despite three widely available vaccines that effectively prevent severe illness and death, only 64 percent of the population is fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The vaccination campaign has been beset by inequities, misinformation and political sabotage, and the unvaccinated are the ones suffering the most. More people have died in the 13 months since the vaccines have been available than before.

Data from the CDC show the total number of deaths involving COVID-19 in 2020 was 385,343.

The U.S. has one of the highest per capita rates of recorded COVID-19 cases in the world, with about 15,000 cases per 100,000 people, according to a New York Times tracker.

While increasing evidence shows omicron may be less likely to cause death or serious illness than the delta variant, the sheer infectiousness and the speed at which it spreads has overwhelmed hospitals, primarily with people who have not been vaccinated.

Read more here.

More vaccinated adults hospitalized with omicron

A higher proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during the period of omicron dominance were fully vaccinated compared to the period of delta dominance, according to a new analysis. Still those people were also less likely to be severely ill or die.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysis of a single hospital in Los Angeles found there were more hospitalizations during omicron compared to delta, but that among omicron-period patients, vaccination particularly vaccination plus a booster dose was associated with lower likelihood of admission to an intensive care unit.

Among adults at least 65 years old hospitalized during omicron, vaccination was also associated with a lower likelihood of death while hospitalized.

"COVID-19 vaccination, particularly a booster dose, continues to be critical in mitigating the health care burden of the omicron variant," the CDC concluded in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Omicron-period hospitalizations overall were associated with a lower likelihood of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and death while hospitalized, compared with delta-period hospitalizations.

With COVID or because of it? According to the CDC, that distinction doesnt really matter. Even patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results admitted for non-COVID-19 conditions require isolation rooms and use of personal protective equipment and might transmit infection to health care workers, exacerbating staff shortages.

Read more here.

IOWA ANNOUNCES PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY END DATE

Iowa Gov.Kim Reynolds(R)announced on Thursday that the state's public health emergency proclamation for COVID-19 will end in February.

We cannot continue to suspend duly enacted laws and treat COVID-19 as a public health emergency indefinitely. After two years, its no longer feasible or necessary. The flu and other infectious illnesses are part of our everyday lives, and coronavirus can be managed similarly,Reynolds said in a statement.

State agencies will now manage COVID-19 as part of normal daily business, and reallocate resources that have been solely dedicated to the response effort to serve other important needs for Iowans, she added.

The governors officeannouncedthat the proclamation will end on Feb. 15.Only 16 of the hundreds of provisions under theproclamation are still active, according to the announcement, with those remaining focused onworkforce issues that the governors office said can be handled without the emergency executive powers.

The states two COVID-19 websites will be decommissioned, but data regarding weekly COVID-19 cases, positive tests since March 2020, deaths since March 2020 and vaccine information willremain on the states health department website, according to the announcement.

The Iowa Department of Public Healthwill "report relevant COVID-19 information weekly on its website, similar to how flu activity is reported,the governor's office said.

Read more here.

PAUL PROMISES INVESTIGATION OF FAUCI IF REPUBLICANS TAKE SENATE

Sen.Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Health Care US tops 900K COVID-19 deaths Paul promises investigation of Fauci if Republicans take Senate Rand Paul praises removal of Neil Young songs from Spotify: 'Seeya' MORE(R-Ky.) says he plans to subpoenaAnthony FauciAnthony FauciOvernight Health Care US tops 900K COVID-19 deaths The Hill's 12:30 Report: Strong jobs report surprises economists Paul promises investigation of Fauci if Republicans take Senate MORE's records if Republicans retake theSenate in November's midterm elections and he becomes chairman of acommittee.

Paul stands to become chairman of the Senate Health Committee if Republicans flip the 50-50 upper chamber. The committee's current ranking member, Sen.Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrOvernight Health Care US tops 900K COVID-19 deaths Paul promises investigation of Fauci if Republicans take Senate FDA nominee meets unexpected hurdles MORE(R-N.C.), is retiring.

"If we win in November, if I'm chairman of a committee, if I have subpoena power, we'll go after every one of [Fauci's] records," Paul said during an interview withconservativepodcast host Lisa Boothe. "We'll have an investigator go through this piece-by-piece because we don't need this to happen again."

During congressional hearings, Paul, a libertarian ophthalmologist, has repeatedly antagonized the nation's top infectious diseases doctor over the benefits of masks, vaccinations and the origins of COVID-19.

Read more here.

CDC: masks work, some better than others

People who said they always wore some type of face mask indoors were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 compared to those who did not.

High-quality N95 respirators and KN95 masks were better at stopping infections than other masks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Friday.

According to the study, surgical masks reduced the odds of testing positive for COVID-19 by about 66 percent compared to no masks at all. People who reported wearing N95 respirators while indoors were about 83 percent less likely to test positive compared with those who said they never wore a mask inside, the CDC found.

Takeaway: "These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection," the CDC wrote in the study, which was conducted by researchers at the California Department of Public Health.

"Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently," the CDC added.

Read more here.

WHAT WE'RE READING

STATE BY STATE

That's it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill's healthcarepage for the latest news and coverage. See you Monday.

View post:
Overnight Health Care US tops 900K COVID-19 deaths - The Hill

OLYMPIA Washington lawmakers are considering whether they should allow voters to select multiple candidates in order of preference in some local elections.

A Senate bill would allow counties, cities, towns, school districts, fire districts and port districts to adopt ranked-choice voting for general elections and primary elections if certain conditions are met. Jurisdictions would have the choice to adopt ranked-choice voting and have the discretion on which races would use ranked-choice voting.

Ranked-choice voting allows a voter to rank their candidates in preferential order. All first choice votes are counted, and a winner is declared if they have over 50% of the vote. If no one reaches the 50% threshold in the first round, the person with the fewest number of votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for that candidate has their votes count toward their next ranked candidate. That elimination process repeats until a candidate reaches the 50% threshold.

Prime sponsor Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, D-Tacoma, said allowing localities to adopt ranked-choice voting allows voters to make choices that best represent them.

It enables people to vote based on their values instead of having to settle for the lesser of what they consider to be two evils, Trudeau said at a Senate State Government and Elections hearing on Jan. 19.

Jurisdictions that use ranked-choice could get grants from the Washington Secretary of States office to adopt the system.

Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton said ranked-choice proposals have been floated over the past few years. She and other county auditors have been engaged in conversations with advocates about different proposals and their viability, she said.

This is a discussion that has evolved over the last several years, Dalton told The Spokesman-Review. Were working through this concept step-by-step.

Supporters of the proposal said the bill allows voters to have more options to choose from when electing leaders. Shae Dolan, high school senior from Tacoma and chair of the Legislative Youth Advisory Council, said youth voter turnout is so low not because of political apathy, but because candidates dont accurately represent them.

By increasing the choices on the ballot, preferential elections promote the viability of third party candidates, combat feelings of futility, improve representation and ensure young voters like me feel heard, Dolan said at the January 19 hearing.

Washington already has a top-two primary system, which allows the top two candidates in the primary, regardless of party, to advance to the general election. Proponents of that system, like proponents of ranked-choice, say the top-two system can lead to increased voter turnout and more competitive races.

Cornell Clayton, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University, said ranked-choice voting and the states top-two primary system both can theoretically lead to more moderate candidates. Ranked-choice, however, broadens the choices available to voters, Clayton said.

Travis Ridout, professor of government and public policy at WSU, said the theory that both systems can lead to more moderate candidates, while plausible, needs more studies.

Im not sure we yet have definitive evidence on the degree of moderation thats promoted, Ridout said. Though its very, very plausible.

In terms of the top-two system, a primary election that advances two members of the same party, Ridout said, doesnt offer people of the other party much choice in that general election.

Ridout said that voters in the current single choice system have to vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning which may not necessarily be their true preference. Under ranked-choice, they have more freedom to choose who they actually like.

You dont have to be worried about the viability of a candidate in order to vote for a candidate, Ridout said. If you want to vote for that Llbertarian, go ahead and vote for the Libertarian whether that Libertarians viable or not.

Opponents of the measure say ranked-choice voting can lead to voter confusion and delays in results. George Forman, a computer scientist from Port Orchard, said different vote tabulating algorithms could lead to different consensus results and the state shouldnt run that risk.

It would be better to have simple voting procedures everyone understands and not require running and trusting a computer algorithm to determine the winner, Forman said.

Dalton said ranked-choice voting cant be implemented right now. Outstanding issues like ballot design, rules relating to ballot counting and voter education need time to be fleshed out with auditors and advocates.

I would say were not there yet, Dalton said. Theres still a lot of individual steps and impacts that need to be explored, need to be worked and need to be thought all the way through.

Dalton said the discussions should continue to take place allowing time so auditors can be ready to implement a thorough product.

All county auditors in Washington want to ensure that if were tasked with implementing something, that we are able to put that function into production successfully, Dalton said. We do not want to fail in anything we do, and we do not want to fail because a function has been mandated before the processes are available and ready.

The bill was passed out of committee on Jan. 26. It has been referred to the Senate Ways and Means committee where it is awaiting a hearing.

Follow this link:
What would ranked-choice look like in Washington? The Legislatures hoping to find out - Yakima Herald-Republic