Mediaboss Marketing

Self-described libertarian, Kentucky Senator, and messy yard dispute loser Rand Paul has broken with fellow Republicans and become possibly the sole GOP voice opposing a national TikTok ban. In his view, banning TikTok would violate Americans right to free speech and would make vindictive US lawmakers no different from their Chinese counterparts whove moved to ban US social media firms like Facebook and YouTube. Pauls recent statements come just days after House lawmakers from both parties laid into TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew in a grueling five-hour hearing.

Mourning the Loss of Addison Raes Debut Album | The Meme Machine

Paul made his case in a Wednesday Courier-Journal op-ed where he said he would oppose attempts to ban the app, even those coming from his own party, because doing so would impinge on users freedom of expression. Republicans, particularly those in the House, have made opposing perceived censorship one of their primary talking points this year. Paul said a TikTok ban would essentially amount to the exact same type of censorship these lawmakers claim to so vociferously oppose. For those averse to TikTok or other social media companies data collection policies, Rand had a simple response: Dont use them.

I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous: videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the U.S. government banning speech, Paul wrote. For me, its an easy answer, I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers, even, if need be, from members of my own party.

Paul pushed back against accusations that TikTok is doing the bidding of the Chinese government by pointing to a wide variety of content on the app critical of the government. The senator went on to warn that banning TikTok could lead to a slippery slope where other US tech firms could potentially be subject to similar retaliation.

Paul calls the attempts to ban TikTok a, national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation.

Politically, Paul said a TikTok ban would be a disaster for Republicans and would all but guarantee they lose the votes of younger voters whove grown accustomed to the app. Even though support for a ban is growing amongst Democrats, Paul said the blame and backlash for a ban will stick to Republicans more.

As of now, Paul looks like the sole voice on his side of the aisle who opposes a ban. Numerous Republican lawmakers, including Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, have introduced legislation that would effectively ban TikTok nationally. Last week, newly minted Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy added his name to the ban brigade and revealed he would support legislation banning the app in the House of Representatives.

Though Democrats were quick to oppose bans when they were being orchestrated by the Trump administration several years ago, few of those same voices appear compelled to stand up for the company now. A handful of Democratic representatives, including outspoken supporter New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, joined a group of around 30 TikTok content creators to protest a possible ban last week. It was later learned by Gizmodo and others that those creators had their travel expenses paid by TikTok. One of Browns aides similarly told The New York Times TikTok helped orchestrate a meeting between the lawmaker and the influencer protestors.

My question is: Why the hysteria and the panic and the targeting of TikTok? Bowman, who has his own TikTok account with around 177,000 followers, said during the rally. As we know, Republicans, in particular, have been sounding the alarm, creating a red scare around China.

But Bowman isnt the only Democrat opposing the ban. This week, fellow New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez threw her hat in the ring, proclaiming her bold support for TikTok in, you guessed it, a TikTok video.

I think its important to discuss how unprecedented of a move this would be, Ocasio-Cortez said in her first-ever TikTok video. The United States has never before banned a social media company from existence, from operating in our borders. And this is an app that has over 150 million Americans on it

The 33-year-old representative, who propelled herself to the House in 2019 thanks in no small part to savvy social media skills, said many of these data privacy issues attributed to TikTok also applied to US tech firms like Meta. The solution, therefore, isnt a ban, but rather a push for meaningful federal data privacy laws.

The general US public, meanwhile, increasingly appears split over TikToks fate. A recent Washington Post poll shows 41% of US adults say they support a federal ban on the app. A slightly higher portion (49%) of adults in a recent SocialSphere poll similarly said they support a ban.

The bottom line is, whether its justified or not, the constant drumbeat of TikTok alarmism coming from D.C. appears to be having its desired effect of swaying public opinion. Paul, AOC, and others are hoping Tikok really is simply too important to users and essentially too big to ban.

See the article here:
Rand Paul Says a TikTok Ban Would Be Politically Disastrous - Gizmodo

Thanks to Scleroderma walk sponsors

On behalf of the Amherst Womans Club, Sweet Briar College and the National Scleroderma Foundation, we would like to say thank you to all the sponsors, walk participants and businesses that donated to our Stepping Out to Cure Scleroderma Walk held March 4, 2023, at Sweet Briar College.

Thanks to the generosity of many, we were able to raise over $16,000.00, which was designated for research for a cure for Scleroderma.

Thank you to the following Sponsors:

Greif, Inc.; Equis Financial, Amherst Rotary Club; Hermle, North America; Tru Vantage Solutions, Inc.; Amherst Womans Club, Sweet Briar College, National Scleroderma Foundation, Amherst County Lions Club, Cobb Dermatology, Ascension Church Mens Breakfast Group, Glad, Emmanuel United Methodist Church; Hickey Plumbing, Electric and Air, the Jordan Team Realty One Group Leading Team, Family of Laurie Babcock, Amherst Baptist Church, Amherst Order of the Eastern Star, Amherst County High School Theater Group, BonFire, Acorn Hill, Amherst County High School Athletic Dept., Main Street Settlement, Inc.; Edward Jones, Genevieve Fadool Senior Benefits, Ins.; Christians Backhoe Service, Rehab Associates of Central VA, Sardis United Methodist Church, Blue Ridge Group of Keller Williams, Family of Emily Burke Wood Daughtery, Staples, Melissa Floral Designs, Randolph Memorial Baptist Church, Yolan and Tyler Williams, Steve Martin Paint and Body Shop and Thirsty Dog Resort AirBNB.

People are also reading

MARGARET ANN WHITE, SUZANNE RAINE

Xi, Putin up to no good

Chinas leader Xi and Russian President Putin failed to find a suitable road to peace in Ukraine? None was expected. Xis trip to Russia was solely for Chinas benefit; Xi cares not one wit about peace in Ukraine. He went for and got more Russian fossil fuels and showed just how damaging Putins war has been for Russia. What was especially telling was Xis statement that both China and Russia have similar aims. While Russia wants to eliminate neighbor Ukraine, China wants to do the same with neighbor Taiwan.

China has yet to make the mistake of actually going to war and we can only hope that Xi is smarter than Putin by recognizing just how much he has to lose by taking that step. Putin has shown amazing stupidity strategically. His country was reaping billions by selling off its natural resources at good prices while its politics and economy were ignored by his customers, the West.

No American or European posed a danger to his gigantic fiefdom. Nobody cared; the oil and gas kept flowing. Trump almost removed the US from NATO, labeling it a relic of the past. Putin could have maintained that situation till his dying day but threw it all away by starting the war with Ukraine. Presently, with every passing day Russia becomes more a country to avoid than a country to include.

If Putin ends the war today how many decades will pass before the West again ignores the Russian barbarians? I expect to see China export some weapons to Russia as that will extend the war and further weaken Russia. I also expect China to one day occupy much or all of Eastern Siberia as it realizes that expanding northwards is doable and useful. Russia should recognize that no Western nation is presently pursuing imperialistic policies but China is. Thats where Russias danger lies.

Here in the US, the failure of a single bank in California almost threw the economy of the US into chaos and required a government bailout to restore order, yet the Republicans are planning on defaulting the entire US government unless they get their way. Folks, that is insanity, plain and simple. One can detonate a ton of explosives in a building but what does one have when the dust settles, a pile of rubble. Thats what the Republican plan will make of your lives and your country.

A familiar story

To paraphrase Mike Tysons famous aphorism Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face; everybody is a libertarian until they have to be bailed out. Many of the heroes of the tech world loudly proclaimed their libertarianism. No government interference into our business, thank you very much. Musk even presumes to tell us who to vote for. But now with the failure of Silicon Valley Bank they need a government bailout.

Each time this happens the conventional wisdom is each time is different and this time it is. In 2008, many banks had bought into the housing mortgage market and when it went south. Forty hundred and sixty-five banks failed between 2008 and 2012, close to 9 million lost their jobs, $19 trillion of household wealth was destroyed.

Nobody thinks this is happening now but still the Fed and Wall Street are worried. The market is this giant organism; in fact, some say it is the only thing that exists. There are two things about the market that are very frightening; one it exists because of everybodys confidence in it and doubt can spread very fast, and two when something goes wrong in one place it can spread to the whole organism. So, every couple of decades or so the market collapses and people lose their jobs, their homes, their wealth.

There are a number of things we can say about this time with some assurance, and one is the era of cheap money is over for the time being, the wealthy will come out alright, and profit belongs to the bankers, and loses belong to the taxpayers and for us little folks you can finally earn some money with a savings account.

A good friend says in six months we wont be talking about the banks. Its what we will be talking about that worries me.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Continue reading here:
Letters to the editor for March 30 - Lynchburg News and Advance

A California-based transgender rights group, the Trans Radical Action Network, is planning a Trans Day of Vengeance protest outside the Supreme Court on Saturday, just days after a transgender person killed three children and three adults at a Christian school in Nashville.

Despite the terrible optics and uproar over the rally, the group appears to be moving forward with the planned event. In a press release on the Trans Radical Action Network website, the group says while they are horrified at the acts of violence committed at the Covenant school, they also reject any connection between that horrific event and ours.

The Trans/Non-Binary/Gender Non-Conforming/Intersex communities are facing astronomical amounts of hate from the world, the groups website states. Vengeance means fighting back with vehemence.

The right isnt buying it, and neither is Twitter, which has designated the Trans Day of Vengeance poster a violation of its community standards. On Tuesday, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene posted screenshots saying her official congressional Twitter account had been suspended for tweeting about the event.

My official Congressional account was banned for 7 days, Ms. Greene tweeted. In the wake of a transgender shooter targeting a Christian school and murdering kids, every American should know the threat of Antifa driven trans-terrorism. Twitter should not whitewash the incitement of politically motivated violence.

There is no overt connection between Antifa and the Trans Radical Action Network, though the groups Twitter and other social media accounts were made private amid the controversy, making that determination difficult. The Sun reached out to TRANs co-founder, Noah Buchanan, via Instagram but did not get a response.

We do not support tweets that incite violence irrespective of who posts them, head of Twitter Trust & Safety, Ella Irwin, tweeted, saying the platform had removed more than 5,000 tweets about the protest. Vengeance does not imply peaceful protest.

The disclosure that the 28-year-old shooter born female identified as transgender is sparking heightened rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. The shooter left a manifesto, according to police, but it has yet to be released to the public, so the motivation for the shooting remains unclear. The shooter was a former student of the Christian school.

In the wake of the tragedy, President Biden and the left are calling for an assault weapons ban. The left is also warning that the shooters identity could instigate violence against transgender persons.

Extremists are exploiting the Nashville shooting tragedy to continue dangerous campaigns against transgender people, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) tells the Sun in a statement. If extremist politicians cared about children at all, theyd stop the lying and start banning assault weapons.

Regardless of the perpetrators identity, it is important to understand that one persons actions do not reflect an entire community, a spokesperson for the National Center for Transgender Equality, Ash Orr, tells the Sun. The organization is also calling for gun control measures.

Some in the press have also insinuated that there may be a connection between the shooters motives and two recently passed laws in Tennessee. One restricts drag performances, and the other prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. Until the manifesto is released, this is all conjecture.

The temperature, though, in this cold cultural civil war is getting hotter. A press secretary for Arizonas Governor Hobbs, Josselyn Berry, tweeted a screenshot of a woman aiming two pistols with the tagline, Us when we see transphobes. She has since resigned.

The right is blaming what it sees as an increasingly militant transgender rights movement. Yesterdays massacre did not happen because of lax gun laws, Tucker Carlson said on Fox News, pointing to other recent shootings, including at Club Q in Colorado, that were committed by LGBTQ persons. Yesterdays massacre happened because of a deranged and demonic ideology that is infecting this country with the encouragement of people like Joe Biden.

Several provocative images of transgender rights activists are being shared on social media to stoke fear of an armed trans rebellion. One shows transgender activists wearing t-shirts with images of long guns and the phrase trans rights or else.

In another, a transgender male in a bulletproof vest and pink face mask is standing in front of a transgender pride flag while holding a semi-automatic rifle, with several other guns in holsters at his waist. Kill christcucks. Behead christcucks, the tweet, a vulgar reference to Christians, says.

A Libertarian candidate for Senate from Georgia in 2022, Chase Oliver, who forced the Warnock-Walker runoff and is openly gay, Christian, and a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, tells the Sun he thinks the reaction to these armed transgender memes is overblown. He says conservatives and libertarians wear t-shirts with guns and provocative sayings on them all the time. Its not a threat, its an acclamation of our right to defend ourselves, he says.

The vast majority of trans people are non-violent and non-aggressive. And I would say the same thing about the vast majority of gun owners too, Mr. Oliver says. He says he conceal carries and that the best way to fight oppression is to be armed, as long as it is for self-defense purposes only. I do believe sincerely that if you are armed, its harder for people to oppress or attack you, he says.

The right, though, is framing this as a war between transgender activists and Christians. Representatives Mary Miller and Marjorie Taylor Greene sent a letter to the FBI Tuesday pressing the bureau to investigate the Nashville shooting as an act of domestic terrorism.

Our politics in general are getting more aggressive and more militant, and that isnt exclusive to trans people or people fighting for trans rights, Mr. Oliver says. We need to have a cultural ceasefire.

Go here to see the original:
Activists Plan 'Trans Day of Vengeance' at Washington Days After ... - The New York Sun

The Supreme Court's controversial 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council requires federal judges to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of federal laws that the latter administer, so long as Congress has not clearly addressed the issue in question, and the agency's view is "reasonable." Many conservatives and libertarians have long sought to overturn Chevron, and some hope that doing so will seriously constrain the administrative state. By contrast, defenders of Chevron (many of them on the political left) fear that overruling it would greatly hamper regulatory agencies, and prevent them from using their expertise effectively.

So far, at least, the Supreme Court has not been willing to overturn Chevron, though it has issued a number of decisions limiting its reach. But as my co-blogger Jonathan Adler notes in a recent article for the Brennan Center, many states have barred such deference to agencies when it comes to their state law. Jonathan discusses a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision holding that deference to agencies is only permissible if a statute is ambiguous, and even then never mandatory.

In another recent article (coauthored with Bradyn Lawrence), my wife Alison Somin (an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation), defends a proposed Nebraska law that would ban judicial deference to agencies in that state. The bill may well pass in the near future.

As Jonathan notes, Ohio is just one of many states that have either banned judicial deference to agencies or severely constrained it. The list isn't limited to conservative red states like Utah and Florida. It also includes the blue state of Delaware (a longtime rejector of deference) and purple states such as Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Some of these states restrict deference by state supreme court decision, others by legislation or the enactment of constitutional amendments.

The results of these state-level experiments should temper both hopes and fears associated with ending Chevron deference at the federal level. Ending or restricting judicial deference to agencies hasn't gutted the administrative state in any of these jurisdictions or even come close to it. Neither has it ended the use of agency expertise on regulatory issues and turned over policymaking to ignorant yahoos (or at least the yahoos don't seem to have much more influence than they would have otherwise). The no-deference and low-deference states have not become libertarian utopias (or dystopias, depending on your point of view).

So far, at least, the state experience reinforces points I made back in 2018 about the limited impact of ending Chevron deference:

[M]any people tend to forget that the Supreme Court only decided the Chevron case in 1984, and we had a large and active administrative state long before then. Somehow, the powerful agencies established in the Progressive era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Nixon administration managed to survive, thrive, and regulate without Chevron.

Pre-Chevron administrative agencies did enjoy the benefit of less extensive forms of judicial deference, such as "Skidmore deference." Those would likely persist even if Chevron were to be severely limited or overruled. But even if the Supreme Court were to completely eliminate judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of federal law (thereby treating them the same as any other litigant), the latter would still wield enormous discretionary power. In a world where there are far more federal laws than any administration could hope to effectively enforce, they would still have broad discretion to determine which violators to go after, and how aggressively. They would also retain control over a broad array of technical questions.

Even on the specific question of interpretation of statutory law, the elimination of formal deference probably would leave in place a good deal of deference in practice. Across a wide range of issues, generalist judges seeking to manage large case-loads may still give special weight to the views of supposedly expert agencies, even if they are not formally required to do so. This is especially likely to happen when it comes to questions that are highly technical and not ideologically controversial.

To the extent that ending Chevron would put agencies on a tighter leash, it is far from clear that this would necessarily benefit the political right more often than the left. As my VC co-blogger (and leading administrative law scholar) Jonathan Adler points out in a New York Times article, a reduction in judicial deference could stymie deregulatory policies as readily as those that increase regulation. The Chevron decision itself deferred to a Reagan administration policy that shifted air pollution regulation in ways decried by environmentalists.

In policy areas such as immigration and drug prohibition, most conservativesespecially since the rise of Trumpactually favor more regulation than most of the left does. Pereira v. Sessions, one of the Supreme Court's recent decisions cutting back on Chevron deference, strikes down a policy that sought to make it easier to deport immigrants. The same is true of then-Judge Gorsuch's most famous lower court opinion criticizing Chevron.

But there are still likely to be important benefits to ending or at least curbing this form of deference. As Alison points out, doing so is a matter of basic fairness in the judicial process:

Chevron and its state clones require judges to abandon their traditional role as umpires who call balls and strikes. Instead, they require judges to put a thumb and in some cases, more like an anvil on the scales in favor of the government.

The Nebraska bill would reject the presumption in favor of agency interpretation with one in favor of one preserving liberty in cases where the law is vague. For reasons Alison outlines, this would be a beneficial change. But it is not entailed merely by barring judicial deference to agencies. It requires additional legislation, like the relevant provision of the Nebraska bill (or application of a constitutional rule to the same effect).

In addition to promoting more impartial adjudication, getting rid of Chevron deference can reduce partisan swings in legal interpretation, and end judicial abdication of duty. I summarized these points in my 2018 post:

Ending Chevron deference would not gut the administrative state. It would, however, have some important beneficial effects. It would put an end to what then-Judgeand future liberal Supreme Court justiceStephen Breyer, writing in 1986, called an "abdication of judicial responsibility." Neil Gorsuch expressed similar views more recently, calling Chevron "a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty." The Constitution gives judges, not agency bureaucrats, the power to interpret federal law in cases that come before the courts.

The elimination of Chevron would also increase the stability of legal rules, and make it harder for administrations to play fast and loose with the law. As Gorsuch pointed out in a well-known opinion he wrote as a lower court judge, Chevron deference often enables an agency to "reverse its current view 180 degrees anytime based merely on the shift of political winds and still prevail [in court]." When the meaning of federal law shifts with the political agendas of succeeding administrations, that makes a mockery of the rule of law and undermines the stability that businesses, state governments, and ordinary citizens depend on to organize their affairs. A new administration should not be able to make major changes in law simply by having its agency appointees reinterpret it.

More:
Ending Chevron Deference in the States - Reason

EVANSVILLE Hope springs eternal for local Libertarians, who are saddling up to try again to elect a mayor of Evansville this year despite less-than-promising results last time.

Michael Daugherty, a 43-year-old horse farm owner, believes he can penetrate the voting public's hard-wired affinity for Republicans and Democrats with electric debate performances, tireless door-to-door campaigning and an anti-crime message that resonates.

"I feel that if I get a platform and I can actually debate the other candidates after their primaries, I feel that would be where I would shine and what would set me apart," said Daugherty, owner of Mane Haven Equestrian Center in Evansville. "I clearly don't have the fundraising efforts as the Republicans and the Democrats. That will be the biggest hurdle, getting my message out and getting in front of people."

More:GOP has hot contest for Evansville mayor and not much else

The Libertarian Party nominated Daugherty by convention Sunday for this year's election to choose a successor to Mayor Lloyd Winnecke. In the fall election, he will face presumptive Democratic nominee Stephanie Terry and the winner of a Republican primary election pitting County CommissionerCheryl MusgraveagainstNatalie Rascher, senior talent acquisition advisor at Clifton Larson Allen.

Daugherty said he harbored political ambitions before the Evansville Water & Sewer Utilitysuccessfully sued his mother for some of her land for its Wansford Yard Lift Station project but he admitted he's still fired up over the idea that a government agency could have a "blanket authority to just condemn somebody's property."

Indiana law does allow utilities, among other governmental entities, to condemn a property needed for a public works project. Imogene Daugherty would not engage with the city because of concerns for wildlife and a belief the city could have picked a different route for the wastewater system. City officials said they would have preferred to have negotiated with her, having the property evaluated by third-party appraisers and reaching a fair value for the desired 30-foot easement.

Were he in a similar situation as mayor, Michael Daugherty said, he would ask the utility to search harder for "alternatives that are the least invasive to homeowners."

Daugherty's voting history in Indiana indicates he cast ballots in Republican primary elections in 2008, 2014, 2018 and 2022. He said he was a Republican until 2020, when Libertarian gubernatorial nominee Donald Rainwater's campaign captured his imagination and turned him into a party-switcher.

"I am very moderate, so I'm in the middle, so I pull both ways," Daugherty said. "I'd had (Libertarian) values for a long time, but I was not honestly aware of the Libertarian Party much in Indiana until Donald Rainwater pushed out."

As a Libertarian, Daugherty's baseline support for this year's mayoral election will have to be built upon if he aspires to win.

Libertarians fell so far short of electing a mayor in 2019 that their nominee, Bart Gadau, finished 10 percentage points behind independent candidate Steve Ary, who had needed a petition drive to appear on the ballot. Libertarians already have ballot access by virtue of receiving at least 2% of the vote in elections for Indiana secretary of state.

Winnecke rolled up nearly 81% of the vote in 2019, well ahead of both Ary and Gadau. Democrats did not nominate a candidate that year.

More:FOP puts support behind Cheryl Musgrave in Evansville mayoral race

Daugherty said he retired as owner of Abstract Technology Group LLC after 14 years in 2022. He said he is a state-licensed professional engineer. Having left Evansville for Purdue University in 1997, he returned from Tippecanoe County in 2020.

The next mayor must move decisively against a scourge of drugs and crime, Daugherty said.

"Moving back, my hometown was pretty much unrecognizable," he said. "When I was a kid, you rode bikes around and our parents didn't worry about us getting shot or robbed."

As mayor, Daugherty said, he would support police with "more education, more budgets, going through with a fine-tooth comb, working with the City Council to see where we can get either federal matching dollars or something to help the police force, whether it be technological advances or just finding ways to make our city safer."

More:Mayor seeks funds for one Republican candidate, says another would be 'terrible' for city

Gadau, the Libertarian Party's 2019 mayoral nominee and its longtime chairman, was a third-shift worker during that campaign. He said Daugherty has to do more campaigning than he was able to do.

"I wasn't able to attend very many functions, so just getting out there and going to every event that he possibly can and knock on every door he can," Gadau said.

Door-knocking? Daugherty is ready to knock on doors.

"I'm going to go door-to-door until I can't walk," he said with a chuckle.

Excerpt from:
Here's the man Libertarians are putting up for mayor of Evansville - Courier & Press