Mediaboss Marketing

On the day before President Donald Trump hit his first 100 days, I woke up to a CNN headline that "we could end up having a major, major confrontation with North Korea."

I was tempted to go back to bed, but I persisted.

The news didn't make persistence easier. In another 100-days interview, this time with Reuters, the president wistfully lamented that his new job is "more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier." Now he tells us.

I could not help but draw a connection between this news and another story I was working on, an announcement by George Washington University that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will be teaching a class in the fall. The name of the class? "Dystopian Visions."

Is that an appropriate topic for these times or what?

In the relentless crush of daily news, I am not surprised by the notion that many readers would seek refuge in the works of writers whose perspective is not limited to the factual world.

Think of dystopia as the opposite of utopia, a very unpleasant place where people lead dehumanized lives under the heel of autocratic elites who profess to be creating a utopia.

After Trump's election to the White House, booksellers reported a surge in sales of such perennial favorites as "1984," "Brave New World" and "The Handmaid's Tale" a miniseries version of which has been streaming on Hulu. Recent years have seen a wave of new dystopian fiction, such as "The Giver," "The Hunger Games" series and the "Divergent" series in the young adult book and movie markets. Novelist Junot Diaz calls dystopia "the default narrative of the generation."

Yet the dystopian wave began long before Trump's election. As John Feffer, author of the dystopian novel "Splinterlands," recently wrote in The Nation, there was an apocalyptic mindset on both sides of the recent presidential election. On one side, Trump "tapped into the end-of-days impulses of Christian evangelicals, anti-globalists and white power enthusiasts." On the other side, Hillary Clinton supporters warned of a "Trumpocalypse" with more severe climate change, economic collapse and the outbreak of race wars.

But Sen. Paul's interest started well before the recent presidential race.

In a 2013 VICE interview he revealed, "I think dystopian novels are a discussion of politics, and sort of what happens if you let a government accumulate too much power." New presidents or kings think they're too good and smart to abuse their power, Paul said, offering President Barack Obama's early stand against indefinite detention for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as an example. Obama reduced their numbers, but politics prevented him from closing the place down as he had promised.

Good intentions, Paul said, are "not good enough. It's like when (President James) Madison said, "If government were comprised of angels, we wouldn't have to worry about how much power to give the government."

Having been immersed in reports of widespread intolerance for conservative speakers on campus, I feared that the announcement of Paul's new teaching gig would send angry letters and petitions flying like snowflakes. But initial reaction, at least, was quite the opposite. Available seats went quickly, despite its 8 a.m. time slot, which touched off unconfirmed reports of left-out Paul fans offering cash bribes to would-be seat scalpers.

The genre's appeal to the libertarian-minded Paul is easy to see. Dystopian fiction tends to cast bold, courageous individuals against big government, glorifying the smarts, skills and tenacity of its heroes and heroines. Its anti-authoritarian sentiments have instant appeal to rebellious teenagers whose central theme in life is the oppression imposed on them by their elders.

With that in mind, it is not surprising that Paul is quite popular among students, as his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian Republican, also was.

Yet we also need to be cautious about which lessons to take away from dystopian narratives. They often turn on the savior who steps up and leads the masses in Messianic fashion out of a crisis. Real life usually doesn't work out that easily.

Many of the same people who support Trump today ridiculed Obama supporters for following a "savior," until they had one of their own. Democracy calls for an electorate that remains conscientiously involved and refuses to pass the buck to others. Otherwise, just when you think "it's not the end of the world," it is.

Clarence Page, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/pagespage.

cpage@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @cptime

See the original post:
Why some think dystopia looks good these days - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune

By Sen. Rand Paul

American-built planes with American bombs were used by the Saudis to bomb a funeral procession in Yemen. Over 100 people were killed, and 500 mourners were wounded. Active duty American pilots have been refueling the planes dropping bombs across Yemen.

Sounds like war to me.

But when did we declare war on Yemen? When did Congress vote to authorize military force in Yemen? Who is the enemy, and why are we fighting them?

Lets be clear: war was NOT declared by Congress, as the Constitution requires. Congress never authorized American participation in a war in Yemen. And yet, here we are, involved in yet another Middle East war.

We havean unfortunatehabit of arming foreign nations, only to discover that these supposed allies may be creating more enemies for America than they are killing.

Not only are we selling the bombs to Saudi Arabia that they are dropping on Yemen, the presidents first military act was to send a manned raid of Navy Seals into Yemen.

RELATED:Paul slams McCain and Graham on Syria: They have learned nothing from our history in the Middle East

Tragically, one of our Navy SEALs was killed, along with several women and children. I dont blame our soldiers they take orders. They do the best that they can under the circumstances. I do, however, blame the politicians who send our soldiers into impossible situations.

Confronted by civilians, sometimes women and children, firing weapons at them, our soldiers must return fire. But before putting our soldiers in that unenviable position, shouldnt Congress debate whether involving our nation in a war in Yemen is in our national security interest?

The raid killed al-Qaeda operatives who, while likely enemies of ours, were actually fighting the same people the Saudis are fighting: the Houthi rebels.

To emphasize, the Saudis and al-Qaeda are fighting a common enemy in the Houthi rebels. In essence, we sent Navy Seals into Yemen to kill people who actually were fighting a common enemy.

In a country where so many factions are fighting,it is nearly impossible to distinguish friend from foe.

Thousands of civilians have been killedby Saudi bombings in Yemen. The blowback from these civilian deaths will be generations of hatred and likely more terrorism.

It isalso possible our involvement in the Yemeni Civil war could allow a situation where the Saudis and the Houthis decimate each other, leaving a vacuum that al-Qaeda fills. Think it cant happen? Well its exactly what happened when America and Saudi-supported rebels pushed back Assad in Syria, leaving a power gap thatISISfilled.

In recent years, there hasnt been a military action taken in Yemen by Saudi Arabia that doesnt have Americas fingerprints all over it.

As my colleague Senator Chris Murphy said last year, If you talk to Yemenis, they will tell you that this is perceived inside Yemen as not a Saudi-led bombing campaign [] but as a U.S. bombing campaign or at best a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign.

Obviously, none of this enhances U.S. national security. But how many Americans are even awarethat we are actively involved in a war in Yemen?

Last year I introduced abipartisanbillwith Sen. Murphyto stop a U.S. transfer of arms and dollars costing $1.15 billion in all to the Saudis. The Senate voted to allow the sale. The debate, however, prompted President Obama to reconsider and ultimately to cancel the sale of more bombs to Saudi Arabia.

Now, the Trump administration is considering going ahead with more missile sales to Saudi Arabia. This would be a serious mistake. If the sale is debated in Congress, I will reintroduce legislation to stop it.

Other reasons not to sell offensive arms to Saudi Arabia include their abysmal human rights record and lingering questions about that nations possible role in 9/11.

The families of 9/11 victims have an active legal case alleging Saudi culpability for 9/11. These are complaints that bear review, considering that 16 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

One of thememosdiscovered during the Hillary Clinton email leak stated, We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligenceassetsto bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical groups in the region.

RELATED:Ron and Rand Paul: Now is the time to pass Audit the Fed

A State Departmentcablereleased byWikileaksin 2009 revealed,Saudi Arabia remains a criticalfinancialsupport base for al-Qaeda [and] the Taliban []

Why dont we hear more about this?

President Trump promised to put America first again, precisely because so much of what we have done in our foreign policy in recent years has been to other countries benefitbut to the detriment of the U.S.

In the upcoming debate, I hope the president will seriously consider the unintended consequences of getting us mired in yet another Middle East war.

That would be a mistake. I think its high time we start learning from our mistakes.

More:
Rand Paul: The US should not fund Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen - Rare.us

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, quasi-Libertarian and former quasi-ophthalmologist, is teaching a class next semester at George Washington University called Dystopian Visions. Unfortunately, I am not a student at GW and registration is closed.

The class, according to the GW Hatchet, will focus on the history of dystopian attitudes and how they relate to current events and political debates.

When Senator Pauls office approached us about coming to campus to teach this course, we agreed that his unique voice as a sitting senator would provide an engaging backdrop for our students, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences Dean Ben Vinson told the Hatchet.

Sen. Paul, like many current members of the Republican party, is a glorious Picasso of contradictions. Hes advocated for criminal justice reform but recently voted to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general; he was a staunch opponent of the entire concept of executive orders when Obama was president but doesnt seem to have minded the steep mountain of em that Donald Trump has signed. Having once spent an entire day watching Rand Paul stomp around in a cotton mock-turtleneck on a livestream, nothing would please me more than to observe this manwho recently played a friendly game of golf with a kleptocrattry to explain the concept of dystopia to a bunch of undergrads.

Anyway, Im wondering if someone would be interested in giving me their spot? That would be great, thanks so much.

Original post:
Someone Please Sneak Me Into Rand Paul's Class on 'Dystopian Visions' - Jezebel

April 27, 2017 12:26 PM By Dom Giordano

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) Republican Senator Rand Paul voiced his support for the Trump administrations tax reform proposal, but expects to see many members of his own party come out against the plan.

Paul told Dom Giordano on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT that the White House really is trying to reduce the amount of money flowing to DC.

I like it because its bold. I like it because it cuts taxes and it doesnt play games and say were going to shift taxes around and its going to be revenue neutral. It does cut taxes. It take less money. It sends less money to the federal government. I say, if you want to defeat the beast, youve got to starve the beast. That means dont send more money to Washington.

That being said, the Kentucky Senator does not expect the initiative to be popular with his colleagues.

I will tell you that his opponents will be largely establishment Republicans. Establishment Republicans want revenue neutral. Revenue neutral means that some people get a tax cut, if youre a buddy of government and you have a good lobbyist, you get a tax cut and if you dont, your taxes will go up. But, the net effect on the economy is zero. A tax cut, on the other hand, is something that will stimulate economy because it will leave, hopefully, trillions of dollars in the hands of those who earned it.

Paul expressed his frustration that fellow members of the GOP refuse to adopt a conservative consensus that exists outside of the capitol.

Ive always said, if were going to offset a tax cut, we should do it with spending cuts. Most of the establishment of Washington, and this is why Washington is so out of touch and so beyond belief that they have no common sense up here, most of the conservatives in the country would thats reasonable, if youre going to cut taxes and, if revenue is going to go down, cut spending to match that, so the deficit doesnt grow. In Washington, I can count on one hand how many Senators would be for cutting spending. Its five or less in the Senate. In the House, its about 30 or 40.

Weekdays: 9 a.m. 12 noon Which Philadelphia talk show host can judge the Miss Kensington Pageant one day, and talk with Mayor Michael Nutter about a New Day in Philadelphia? Philadelphia marvel Dom Giordano. Dom offers an intelligent guy ne...

NFL Draft Guide

Visit These 5 European Castles Without Leaving The States

Videos

About Us

Advertise

Business Development

Contact

Mobile

Connect

CBS Television Public File

CBS Radio Public File

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul Backs White House Tax Reform Plan CBS Philly - CBS Philly

Different cast, same script.

Donald Trumps victory in last years presidential election ended divided government in Washington. But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Republican lawmakers remain tooterrified of a possible government shutdown to stand up to Democrats spending demands.

Do you keep it open, and borrow a million dollars a minute, or do you use the leverage of deadline and say, Only pass spending bills that have reform?

Paul said Thursday on The Laura Ingraham Show that GOP leaders will likely sell out conservatives and work with Democrats to pass a spending bill before a funding deadline Friday.

Do you keep it open, and borrow a million dollars a minute, or do you use the leverage of deadline and say, Only pass spending bills that have reform? he said. So Im in the latter category. If theres no reform, Im not voting for anybody.

Paul noted that Congress has barely started working on the spending bills for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1 and still is dealing with spending for the fiscal year thats now more than half-finished.

I think were becoming weaker each day as we go deeper into debt, he said.

Paul said the Trump administration wants more defense spending, and the Democrats want to keep subsidies flowing to the health insurance companies.

Theyll probably both get what they want, and those of us who are concerned about the deficit will get the shaft, and we will be told, Youve got to vote for more military spending and youre going to have to vote for taxpayer subsidies for Obamacare,' he said. And frankly, I think thats the opposite, thats the opposite of what we need.

Trump has suggested that he might stop defending a lawsuit challenging the legality of cost-sharing subsidies that the government pays to health insurance companies, to help them pay out-of-pocket expenses for lower-income customers under the Affordable Care Act. A judge ruled that the payments are illegal because Congress never appropriated the money. If Trump stops defending the lawsuit on appeal, that order would take effect.

But Democrats have demanded that the spending bill due this week include those payments. Paul said Republicans likely will cave.

Realize, theres going to be Obamacare taxpayers subsidies in here, the same subsidies Ive been railing about, he said.

Paul said these deadlines represent the few times thatconservatives actually have leverage to win concessions. He said a fight over raising the governments borrowing limit during former President Barack Obamas presidency allowed conservatives to press the case for a balanced-budget amendment. Although they did not get that, they did win spending restraints known as the sequester.

Those reforms proved short-lived, however, as Democrats favoring more domestic spending teamed up with Republican defense hawks who wanted more Pentagon spending to bust through the caps.

Paul also lamented the inability or unwillingness of House Republicans to pass a full repeal of Obamacare. He said he appreciates negotiations led by the conservative House Freedom Caucus to improve the bill but added that he is not sure he could support it.

The Freedom Caucus has done yeomans work. Theyve made this terrible, terrible, rotten, no-good bill less bad. And thats sort of the way I see it now, he said. For me, its still difficult, you know, to think about supporting a bill that has taxpayer money going to insurance companies.

Paul said insurance companies saw profits jump from about $6 billion to $15 billion underObamacare. He said they complain about losing money in the individual market but make up for it in the group market. A better approach, he said, is to allow people without insurance from their employers to form buying co-ops to negotiate better rates.

Despite the work of the Freedom Caucus, Paul said, the bill still has billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies.

"And now we're sort of accepting the premise of Obamacare and just spending a little less on it," he said.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul's Budget Warning for GOP Leadership | LifeZette - LifeZette