Mediaboss Marketing

A grade six classroom awaits students at Hunters Glen Junior Public School in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, September 14, 2020.(Nathan Denette/Reuters)

Charlie Cooke is a friend and a treasured colleague, but I am finding it a little difficult to launch the next volley in the conversation about education policy, because I dont think Charlie has really written a response to my piece.

Instead, Charlie has offered up some simple-minded applause lines (Thereis nothing wrong with the Department of Education that could not be solved with a tactical nuclear strike) that do not address the substance of my argument and that are based on an unmerited metaphysical certitude that the U.S. government simply cannot produce or implement useful education policy. The United States is not an especially well-governed country, and I do not expect it to achieve the level of bureaucratic competence that we might expect of a Denmark or a Switzerland, but it has from time to time shown itself able to develop and implement policy in a programmatic way. It isnt Norway, but it isnt Pakistan, either.

That the United States could address in a meaningful way the complex issue of education simply by shuttering a federal department and patting itself on the back for a job well done is precisely the kind of thinking that has made todays Republican Party the intellectual powerhouse we all know and admire so deeply. If I were in the market for that kind of thing . . . I think I have a number for Rick Perry around here somewhere.

The U.S. government has a rich and complex relationship with education, especially with institutions of higher education. That means it has to make decisions about what sorts of things it will fund, encourage, or, at certain extremes, even allow. There are better and worse ways to make those decisions. Pretending that these issues can simply be ignored out of existence is the worst kind of nave libertarianism.

For example, Chinas rising eminence as a funder of and collaborator in research around the world, including in partnership with such important U.S. allies as the United Kingdom, presents real questions and challenges for the U.S. government challenges that are not going to be resolved by saying, Let the free market take care of it. I am a big, big fan of letting the free market take care of economic questions, but there are non-economic questions in play, too.

Whether there exists something called the Department of Education or whether these endeavors are organized in some other way, the policymaking and implementation are not going to be carried out by Smurfs, wizards, or libertarian unicorns with rainbows for manes. You could make education policy in the Department of Defense (one of the few federal departments that conservatives broadly trust), or you could make it at Treasury or Commerce or hand it off to the Federal Reserve, in which case you simply will have created an education department in disguise. The basic issues and the need for positive engagement with them do not go away, for the same reason that you cant cause an earthquake by shaking a desktop globe.

Dissolving the DOE as it exists might be a useful or even necessary administrative measure, but it would hardly render the underlying issues resolved. And conservatives are going to need something more than nuke-the-DOE banalities to deal with those issues if conservativism is to be something more than a rhetoric and a countercultural posture something more than words about words.

See the article here:
Education and Naive Libertarianism - National Review

History matters because it tells us that there will be another pandemic at some point and, due to certain features of the way we live now, this is more likely than it was a few decades ago. There are lessons to be learnt, and learnt fast, yet already we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We are fixating on an inquiry that will be extremely costly and achieve little rather than focusing on what the last 12 months tells us about our society, our governance, and the alarming degree to which fear trumps freedom.

During the pandemic the government has exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never before seen in modern-day Britain. And it has done so without opposition, not least from the Opposition, which has done little more than blithely suggest measures should have been tougher or brought in sooner. But it is the publics response that has handed government the legitimacy it needed to pursue a path of state authoritarianism.

93% supported the first national lockdown. Three in ten English people wanted the government to go further with the second. 46% supported the roadmap when it was announced on 22nd February, with 25% thinking the timeline was too rapid. When presented with a binary choice between freedom and safety the British public chose option three: more repression. Disregarding personal liberty when the risk is uncertain, immediate and absolute is defensible. Allowing government to "wrap its arms" around us while trampling on our freedom when that threat has manifestly been downgraded is not.

Professor Neil Ferguson told The Times in December that, in the chaos of February and March 2020, SAGE never thought the UK government couldnt get away with imposing Chinas lockdown policy. Then Italy did it, and soon thereafter we were all prisoners in our own homes. Will policymakers be so hesitant in shutting down social interaction in response to the next crisis? I doubt it.

Further, over the course of this pandemic the government has been engaged in a liberty-crushing side-hustle. No modern-day vice hasnt come under the microscope, scapegoated for its possible role in transmission or the severity of our symptoms. Alcohol, obesity, smoking, vaping. At the end of this month, the governments gambling consultation will draw to a close, and you can bet further legislation will be on the cards. Councils are introducing nil-caps for entertainment venues. Its an exhaustive, one-way ratchet, coming at a time when politicians are already stampeding on the fundamental principles that underpin our democracy.

It will be incumbent on us all to ensure the nation is unlocked as soon as it is safe to do so and there is a strong case for bringing the roadmap forward. But it is equally important that we become a freer society than we were pre-pandemic, not a more paternalistic one. Doing so will require that we all rediscover our libertarian spirit starting with the Prime Minister.

See the rest here:
If we don't rediscover our libertarian spirit, the next pandemic will crush us - Telegraph.co.uk

Join usat the 2022Libertarian Scholars Conference in Septemberin New York City.

The first Libertarian Scholars Conference was held in New York City in 1972 under the aegis of the Center for Libertarian Studies. The conference was held annually (except for 1973) throughout the 1970s in New York or Princeton, New Jersey (1977, 1978), with the 8th and last national conference taking place at the Hotel Diplomat in New York. In the early 1980s regional Libertarian Scholars Conferences were held in Chicago and other cities. The conferences featured papers by the founding fathers of modern libertarian scholarship, including Murray Rothbard, Leonard Liggio, Walter Block, Ralph Raico, Ron Hamowy, Roy Childs and Walter Grinder. Other prominent scholars who presented papers were Henry Veatch, Leland Yeager, Hillel Steiner, Douglas Rasmussen, David Calleo, Bruce Russett, and Samuel Brittain.

The Libertarian Scholars Conference was originally conceived as a forum for scholars from different disciplines to meet and exchange ideas on the study of liberty. The ultimate goal was to integrate their diverse insights and approaches into a broad interdisciplinary perspective on liberty, what Murray Rothbard called the discipline of liberty.The founders of the conference hoped that this discipline or systematic body of knowledge would give shape and direction to the growing ideological movement of modern libertarianism, much as British classical and French liberal political economy had guided the movement of classical (laissez-faire) liberalism. This series of conferences succeeded admirably in stimulating scholarly research from a libertarian perspective and attracting many new scholars, young and old, to the scientific study of liberty.

The libertarian movement has grown tremendously since the early 1980s and so has the need for intellectual guidance from experts in the social sciences and humanities, whose several disciplines help elucidate the nature of human liberty and its importance in nurturing and sustaining the social order that permits human civilization to flourish.

With this in mind, the Mises Institute, as heir to the Center for Libertarian Studies, has revived the Libertarian Scholars Conference, which will take place in September of 2022 in New York City.

Proposals for individual papers, complete paper sessions, and symposia are encouraged. Papers should be well developed, but at a stage where they can still benefit from the groups discussion. Preference will be given to recent research papers that are intended for submission to scholarly journals and have not been given at major conferences. All topics related to libertarian themes in the social sciences and humanities are welcome. Abstracts should be limited to 750 words. All proposals are peer reviewed by the Libertarian Scholars Conference Program Committee. Details on paper submissionsforthcoming.

Registration and venue details forthcoming.

See more here:
Libertarian Students Convention | Mises Institute - The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette

Bad things could happen

Editor:

Senate Judicial Resolution 8 or the Nevada Equal Rights Amendment passed the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections by a vote of 4-1 on March 9. The only no vote came from new Republican Sen. Carrie Buck. If this proposed constitutional amendment passes the Legislature twice, it will go on the ballot to a vote by the people in 2022.

SJR8 would add the following to the Nevada Constitution: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state or any of its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.

The vagueness of the language in this resolution could open the door to laws that would uproot the freedom of many Americans, including the unborn, and put young women at risk.

The Nevada State ERA could be used to mandate taxpayer funded abortions. This occurred in New Mexico when the New Mexico Supreme Court mandated this in 1998. This also occurred in Connecticut under the guise that restricting abortion is a form of sexual discrimination.

By promoting gender identity in the state constitution, it could mandate that men who identify as women be allowed to compete with biological women in sporting events. This would destroy womens sports and undermine the chances for young women to advance in their athletic field and receive scholarships to further both their athletic and scholastic goals.

Moreover, this amendment could risk the safety and violate the privacy of young women by allowing biological males to use female locker rooms andrestrooms.

Religious freedom could also be threatened by forcing businesses and faith-based organizations to bend to anti-family and sexual norms that violate their religious and personal convictions. This has happened elsewhere and could happen in Nevada under this amendment.

According to Alliance Defending Freedom for Faith and Justice, SJR8 would deny state financial aid to students at faith-based colleges and universities unless they abandon policies and practices reflecting their sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality It could forbid religious schools and organizations from ensuring that their employees abide by their doctrines or beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.

Physicians take an oath to do no harm and follow their conscience when treating their patients. SJR8 could force physicians to violate their oath and values and prescribe sex-altering therapies to young children who are struggling with gender identity. This could cause irreversible harm to the physical and mental well-being of our children into their adult lives.

The potential for significant harm is evident in this amendment.

Once you change the definition of gender (identity/expression) in the Constitution, legislators cannot address the unintended consequences, said Karen Barton England, executive director of Nevada Family Alliance.

Please contact the following Senate members requesting they oppose SJR8.

James Settelmeyer, Heidi Gansert, Ben Kieckhefer, Scott Hammond, Keith Pickard, andJoe Hardy. Contact information can be found at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Legislator/A/Senate/Current

Bob Russo

Gardnerville Ranchos

Mitigating factors in Engels-Meyer match

Editor:

Pardon my eye roll and sigh when I encounter yet another published bombshell from Danna Meyer (March 18, 2021 R-C) regarding an encounter she had with John Engels years ago. Yes, the commissioners reaction was overheated, but in the lead up to that face off there were what in a court of law would be classified as multiple mitigating circumstances.

The innocent female to whom she refers (who is Meyer herself) had been publicly harassing and insulting the commissioner for months. I witnessed this. What happened is he ran out of patience. A far more appropriate title for the YouTube clip might be, Worn Down Commissioner Finally Vents His Frustration at Relentless Female Antagonist.

Whats more, she hasnt stopped. Since the unfortunate incident, I have been in more than one group situation where Meyer took the floor and showed great delight in ridiculing the commissioner. And each time this happened when he was sitting with his wife among friends and quietly enjoying the gathering.

I suppose if Meyer wants to be known in the community as a one-note crybaby, thats her choice, but I wish shed take it someplace else, and give the R-C readers a break.

Virginia Starrett

Gardnerville

Placing things in context

Editor:

During one of the first county commission meetings after John Engels was elected, Meyer criticized Engels from the public comment podium, claiming that it was improper for John Engels to wear a hat while seated as a commissioner. Engels defended himself, pointing out that it displays the insignia of his Army service rank, captain, and his branch of service while in Vietnam, artillery.

Ever since picking this fight, Meyer has continued a public criticism campaign against Engels, which says way more about Meyer than it does Engels. Its a wonderful country that grants anyone the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Its too bad this woman serially abuses that privilege.

Bev Anderson

Fish Springs

Douglas Libertarians organizing

Editor:

Last November, one-third of Douglas County voters surprised the status quo by supporting a Libertarian candidate for commissioner. Thats more than any non-Republican candidate has won in this county in decades. One of the big reasons is because that candidate made himself visible, waving a huge sign at the 395 and 88 intersection every commute hour, posting signs, calling active voters, investigating issues, meeting with officials, and passing out literature at events.

Last Friday, he joined other liberty-minded people in Minden to find people interested in making the Libertarian Party more visible as an alternative to the GOP and Democratic Party.

Those at the gathering explored ways to get the partys philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government out to disillusioned and non-partisan voters.

Libertarians come from all political persuasions, from extreme liberal to ultra-conservative. What they have in common is the desire to pursue their interests, operate businesses, educate their children, and strive for prosperity without interference from intrusive government regulations.

Basically, the partys mantra is Do what you want as long as you dont hurt anyone. As simple as that sentence is, it seems to be a radical idea in this age when both the GOP and the ever-more-progressive Democratic Party want to control everyones health care, business activities, and use of private property. Libertarians just want to be left alone and allow you the same freedom.

In Douglas County, 53 percent of voters are registered as GOP; 22 percent as Democrats, and 25 percent as Libertarians, nonpartisan, and other. With the party schisms that are developing lately, there are undoubtedly members of both parties who are looking for an alternative.

Up until four years ago, when Gary Johnson ran quite visibly for president, Libertarian candidates were only on paper. Voters rarely met or learned anything about them. Then Charles Holt entered the local election and stirred up an over-confident GOP ticket. He mustve hit a nerve because signs were destroyed or removed and vicious letters against Mr. Holt filled the local editorial page.

Those attending Fridays meeting had a good laugh about it all in retrospect because it was a strong indication that Holt woke a sleeping lion. Spurred by that realization, they brainstormed ideas to make the Libertarian alternative more visible for Douglas County voters.

If youre one of those who want an alternative, investigate the Libertarians, either on Facebook or http://www.lpnevada.org. Or come to the next meeting April 23 at 6 p.m. at Cookd in Minden.

Meanwhile, be on the lookout for Libertarians at local events, fairs, farmers markets, wine walks, anywhere where you can meet and discuss issues with people who want to return America to a time where people said, its a free country rather than there oughta be a law.

Sue Cauhape

Minden

Duffy going to be missed

Editor:

Im writing to acknowledge the retirement of Deputy Theresa Duffy, an outstanding member of the Douglas County Sheriffs Office. I first met Duffy when she was coordinator for the week-long Sheriffs Citizen Academy, a five-day evening orientation class held in the Judicial & Law Enforcement Center conference room. This program provides Douglas County citizens a comprehensive overview of the sheriffs various departments directly from the deputies and command staff who manage and provide services from K-9 to Lake Tahoe patrol, street patrol, citizens patrol, search and rescue, and many other DCSO operations, all ably coordinated by Duffy.

In what I believe was her last assignment before retiring, Sheriff Coverley assigned Duffy to assist Sgt. Bernadette Smith, coordinator of the DCSO Caring Neighbors program that was experiencing a growing workload. Smith coordinates a group of selfless volunteers to deliver non-law enforcement assistance to those in need, but Duffys availability allowed the program to help those who needed law enforcement assistance.

Duffy had various other assignments during her law enforcement career, but probably none that delivered the compassionate assistance to our countys most vulnerable residents. This program includes various services from delivering meals to those with mobility issues, to coordinating assistance with other county departments, to protective interventions.

I gather Duffys last assignment before retiring was working with Smiths Caring Neighbors program, a fitting finish to a most honorable career. May God bless the retiring Duffy and Smith for their service to the countys most vulnerable citizens.I dont envy Coverleys task of picking a member of the command staff to inform Smith that she will never be allowed to retire.

Lynn Muzzy

Minden

Glad to be back in the Valley

Editor:

My husband and I moved to the Carson Valley in 2010 to enjoy the beauty and the closeness to children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, after 10 years we decided to move to greener pastures. At that time in our lives, we realized our error and needed to return to our doctors and network of friends in the Carson Valley.

We have received a fabulous welcome. These people and businesses have gone above and beyond to assist us with this transition. Teddy Carlson Mc Kone-Intero Real Estate; Anthony Bartone-Finance of America; Mary Kelsh and Kim Figueroa-First American Title; Donna Presto-Signature Title; Carla. Barry & Micky Jones- Carson Valley Movers; Natalia K. Vander Laan-Attorney; Carson Tahoe Health Care; and our wonderful, supportive friends of the communities of Saratoga Springs and La Costa.

As we continue our journey through life, we have determined that the Carson Valley provides us the support, professionalism, friendship and love not found elsewhere. Thanks to everyone who assisted us with this transition. The Carson Valley is truly a gem.

Lois Bock

Minden

Scouts always prepared to help

Editor:

On the afternoon of Feb. 27, my facemask attacked one of my hearing aids and apparently deposited it in the grass at the Minden Park where Cub Scout Troop 33 and BSA Troop 20 were gathered for a BSA annual Blue and Gold Ceremony.

After the event, some of the Scouts saw my wife and I crawling through the grass, acorn shells and miscellaneous debris that accumulates in our beautiful park over the winter months. They found it interesting to follow two senior citizens as they slithered and crawled around their festivities like a pair of wounded armadillos.

When they learned the reason for our circuitous rambling they immediately joined forces along with dozens of well meaning, supportive parents and Scout leaders. After a few hours of well-coordinated recovery drills we succeeded in convincing them to return to their refreshments and fellowship, although the hearing aid was still missing in action.

These young Cub Scouts and their devoted families are what makes the Carson Valley such a wonderful place to live. One of their parents, Shandra, drove to her home in the Johnson Lane area and returned with a metal detector which she loaned us over night. Our thanks also go to their troop leader, John and his great group of volunteer pack leaders. Michelle from the Town of Minden Office, as well as countless dog walkers, our neighbor and family members were also in the ranks.

Oh, in case youre wondering, we found the mischievous hearing aid the next day in the basement stairwell of our 115-year-old home across from the Park.

Keep up the good works Carson Valley

Gary and Judy Williams

Minden

Beginning of the end

Editor:

The beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.

The avalanche of illegals into this country by President Biden will have far reaching effects as stated in Guy Farmers column. How can we accommodate and support these people when we cant help and control our homeless population and fail to provide real assistance to our veterans?

American taxpayers have had their rights taken away by the Democrats who continue to use the pandemic as an excuse to control us. This coupled with the border crisis, unemployment, business and school closings is changing the way we live in the United States.

The current administration is all about control as evidenced by the enormous number of executive orders issued by Biden or those who control him. His mental health appears on the verge of collapse and we will be his beneficiaries.

Kenneth M. Bezich

Minden

Help those at home

Editor:

I would like to share my thoughts on the so called border crisis.

America has its own crisis: Hunger and homelessness.

We see these sad stories every day. We also see the governments, local and federal, stating there is no money to help these people. Mostly they give lip service only.

There are charities like Wounded Warrior to help underfunded American hero veterans with their problems. It appears that this American crisis cannot be solved.

However, it appears that there is plenty of money to help the open border people get food, housing, schooling and medical assistance. This crisis has the unlimited support and funding to be resolved from federal and sanctuary city sources. Its obvious what their priorities are and it is not us.

The next time you walk by American citizens who are homeless, cold, sick and hungry, or see a long food line, just think that they are only American citizen in crisis, not foreigners. Just ignore them. Too bad for them that they were born in American and are in crisis.

I know my thoughts are not politically correct. Those poor people looking for a better life boo hoo. How about a better life for needy Americans? Ill be surprised if this letter is printed. I also expect hate mail from people who think that borders are not required and should be open to the world and it is Americas responsibility to take care of them rather than solve our own crisis.

Charity begins at home. God bless America.

Ron Savinski

Gardnerville

Read more:
March 25, 2021, Letters to the Editor | Serving Minden-Gardnerville and Carson Valley - The Record-Courier

YAL. Most of our campus knows this group has been very prevalent in recent conversations amongst students. President Conner has even spoken up on the issue. I would like to give an unbiased explanation of who the Young Americans for Liberty are and why their presence on campus has been debated by students so much recently.

Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is a political organization with chapters in colleges across the country. Their ideologies align with libertarian views, and they strongly preach the importance of free speech within the college environment. The libertarian mindset emphasizes the importance of constitutional rights and independence (think Ron Swanson, a fictional but very by-the-books libertarian figure that you can use as a reference). I am by no means an expert on libertarianism, and I will not try to explain the party further due to my lack of sufficient knowledge.

In theory, a club that promotes freedom of speech on campus can accommodate those who feel silenced in their communities and would like an outlet to express their opinions without judgment. In reality, however, this creates a space where students express views that are ultimately harmful to marginalized students existence. The club was introduced following a controversy on campus last fall involving a white student mocking the eyes of an Asian student as part of a TikTok trend called the Fox-Eye trend. Some students took sides on whether or not this was acceptable, creating division on campus. Some were adamantly opposed to the backlash the student faced, calling it cancel culture over what they deemed an act of accidental racism. Some became directly affiliated with and even gained leadership positions in YAL following the incident. This affiliation was the initial cause for outrage in many campus communities, who felt the club was created to allow a safe space for students who aimed to incite more threatening incidents like this under the umbrella of free speech.

Those involved in YAL have posted on their Instagram page about accepting all students, only aiming to break the stigma that Skidmore is a partisan school. Clubs exist on campus for both Democrats and Republicans; however, there arent any that specifically talk about more specific political leanings; e.g., liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, centrism, socialism, etc. Students who dont specifically fall under those two labels but still want to be politically involved on campus typically resort to the one that better represents them. While this is not a perfect system, it allows safe spaces for students to find others with like-minded views on different issues happening in the United States.

I say we dont need more political clubs on campus because, despite the lack of specific political spaces to align with every students view, I fear that this will create more division. I think the goal should be to create different areas for expression outside of the political spectrum. Many students are overwhelmed with the number of political events occurring daily, and as we become adults, we must stay on top of current events. This can be very exhausting (except for political science majors, perhaps.) I think that clubs should be outlets for students to express their interests and find new passions and that we should shift our focus from trying to create political safe-spaces to just creating safe spaces!

Clubs are supposed to be inclusive and enjoyable, but many clubs on campus do not get much attention or attendance. We should promote clubs with little awareness and create clubs for students who genuinely do not have a safe campus space. For instance, neither physically nor mentally/learning disabled students have a club or organization on campus. This is not because Skidmore does not care about disabled students, but rather because there is not enough student involvement, whether it be lack of interest or lack of club promotion. These organizations on campus only exist as long as students continue to be a part of them. We as a student body need to be more vocal and take more initiative to create spaces for students who do not currently have access to supportive resources on campus. I am now part of a commission to start a club that promotes sobriety on campus for students who struggle with addiction. Alcoholics Anonymous or similar organizations are other examples of clubs that existed on campus but were discontinued, not because students werent struggling with addiction, but because of lack of student involvement.

Before we jump to creating clubs for students and aiming for all-around inclusion, we as a student body need to think about the nearly 130 clubs and 19 sports we have on campus and how we utilize them. Most of us have gone to club fairs, signed up for an email list, and never received an email. How can we change this? If youre not receiving emails from a club you thought was interesting, how can you take the initiative and make the club more active? If you dont see your clubs meeting times on SkidSync, how can you contribute to their presence on campus? Skidmore students first need to help boost the under-appreciated clubs and safe-spaces on campus collectively before we jump to start new ones. This way, students can involve themselves more in different campus circles and activities, and we can have more unity all around.

YAL was not approved by Skidmores student government (SGA) due to the national clubs foundation in discriminatory practices and prejudiced ideology. Although Skidmore College prides itself on students having a place to discuss politics surrounding politics freely, they also strive to protect marginalized populations voices on campus. Herein lies the central moral and ideological dilemma: should Skidmore College ban YAL to prevent creating a platform for possible hate-speech or allow a YAL chapter on campus to uphold the first amendment right to free speech?

The Student Government will be hosting their recurring open Senate meeting tomorrow, Tuesday March 23, at 8pm. At 8:45, SGA plans to reconvene on the approval of YALs trial period. You can tune into the meeting by joining the Zoom meeting using the meeting code 423 957 5121.

Continued here:
Why We Don't Need Any More "Political" Clubs on Campus The Skidmore News - Skidmore News