Mediaboss Marketing

The curator of a major public art show in Florida has resigned after the local mayor claimed two of the artists spoke too favorably about communism and pushed to defund the show. Shortly thereafter, the event fell apart.

In a marathon city commission meeting last month, Vince Lago, mayor of Coral Gables, Florida, objected to the inclusion of artists Sandra Ramos and Cai Guo-Qiang in the citys Illuminate Coral Gables art show. The recently elected official referenced interviews that Ramos and Cai had given in the past in which he felt the artists expressed sympathetic views toward the communist regimes of their respective home countries, Cuba and China. (Ramos currently lives in Havana; Cai in New York.)

I will continue to support the arts, but not at the expense of democracy and liberty, Lago said at the meeting, a video of which is available online. It is very easy to make comments on the record supporting communism and saying that communism is a great idea, but they are here in the United States taking American money. At the end of the day, that doesnt bode well for me.

Following Lagos comments, the commission voted to fund part of the 2022 edition of the art show on the condition that the two artists be dropped from the roster.

Days later, the board of Illuminate Coral Gables announced that the 2022 show had been postponed due to extenuating circumstances beyond our control, and that its chief curator, Lance Fung, had stepped down, according to the Miami Herald.

In an email to Artnet News, Fung clarified that he resigned primarily over the censorship of my curatorial work, as did John Talley, the executive director of Fungs company Fung Collaboratives who was helping in Coral Gables. However, we also knew we needed to support all 20-plus artists we were working with by not validating false claims and speaking up for their first-amendment rights.

Lago did not respond to a request for comment.

Sandra Ramos, 90 Miles: De-construction (2011-2021).

The first edition of Illuminate Coral Gables took place in February and March of this year. Eight site-specific projects, including video projections, sculptures, and installations, went on view throughout the city.

Both Ramos and Cai participated in the inaugural show, alongside artists including Kiki Smith and David Gumbs. Ramos, a Havana-born artist now based in Miami, installed a 32-foot walkway made of a dozen lightboxes as part of the project this year. The work, she said, was meant to symbolize a bridge between Florida and Cuba.

For his part, Cai, a major international artist who was born in Quanzhou, China, and now works in New York, transformed 27 pedicabs into roving, interactive sculptures, decking out each with handmade silk Chinese lanterns. The pieces belong to the artists ongoing Fireflies series.

I think the artwork is spectacular; hes an incredible artist, Lago said of Cai. But art doesnt trump my own personal beliefs, especially when youre talking about public funds.

Lago was prepared to increase the events budget from $100,000 to $300,000 prior to the postponement. The art world brings an opportunity to this community for dialogue, the mayor said at the meeting. Where my dialogue ends is people who sympathize with oppression, tyranny.

Fung, meanwhile, disagreed. With 100 percent certainty, I believe that both artists are not communist sympathizers, the curator told Artnet News. In addition to being passionate, visionary, and talented artists, they have become good friends of mine. They are compassionate, intellectual, and humanitarian people. All of these attributes, and others, led me to the decision to request their support by being a part of Illuminate Coral Gables.'

See the original post:
Plans for a Public Art Show in Florida Have Been Derailed After the Mayor Accused Two of the Artists of Being Communists - artnet News

Anton spent most of his life in Cuba before political oppression pushed him to immigrate to America in 2013.

It was not a lack of love and respect for his country that caused Anton to leave. On the contrary, Cuba was his beloved home. He never dreamed he would have to leave his life behind, but without the freedom to own property and earn a living free from government coercion, he and his wife felt they had no choice but to come to America.

PLF had the great honor of speaking with Antonnot his real nameabout the circumstances that led him to flee his own country because his individual liberty, specifically his right to economic liberty and property, and thus, his ability to pursue happiness, were threatened.

Speaking of his feelings upon making this difficult decision, he quotes a Cuban poet he has always admired: To immigrate from the country that youre born to another country is like to take a tree, a big tree, and transplant the whole tree with the root in another land.

He added, It takes time, but at the end of the day, he knew it was the right decision.

Some immigrants speak of the material opportunity that led them to America, but for Anton it was the Cuban governments quest to squash the individual that led to his exodus.

Anton and his family had committed what he describes as the three cardinal sins under communism: They were religious, they owned property (a few acres of land), and they had a history of distrust for the communist government. This painted a target on their backs and earned them a reputation as being capitalist sympathizersthe worst trespass of them all.

Antons family owned a small farm where they planted fruit and raised livestock which they would then sell to their local community. Community was important to his family. They also built churches for communities around the country.

Anton embraced the individualist mindset and used his skills to improve himself, his family, and his broader communities.

Owning property was bad enough on its own, but having the nerve to privately sell goods was a direct violation of communist principles.

His familys reputation followed Anton everywhere he went, from grade school to his first job. Communist governments make the claim that everyone is equal under their system, but Anton and his family were not treated as such.

Their beliefs were contrary to the post-1959 revolution Cuban way of life, and the family was discriminated against accordingly.

But Anton was brave beyond measure. Despite the great danger he and his family faced, they continued to build churches and feed the community.

Building an enterprise of any scale was not the communist way. Any form of entrepreneurship not sponsored by the government needed to be squashed in the name of the collective good.

As a young boy in school, Anton was taught to follow the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. He and his classmates were told that they would one day have one society where money would be useless. Under this ideal system, the Cuban people would work in factories, they were promised. When they finished their nine-hour shifts, the government would provide them with everything they needed. If they needed clothes, they would be given clothes. If they needed food, they would be given food.

This was the utopia the Cuban socialists strived to create. But such a system can never exist unless the individual is sacrificed to the masses.

Human nature dictates that individuals each have different wants and needs. It was of little importance to communist supporters that some may not want to work in a factory. Others may prefer goods and services not provided to them by the government. And some may not be willing to sacrifice the freedom to own property and keep the income they earn for whatever is deemed in the interest of the public good.

This ideal society does not and cannot exist.

As Anton expressed, We are not in a perfect world. And, what happened in Cuba in 1959 when the revolution took power, they took everything from the rich people. They made everybody equal. So, everybody in the end was very poor. There was no incentive for people to work, no incentive for the farmers to grow food. There was no incentive for people to go to factories to work because, again, in a perfect world, this idea that they are talking about is nice, but like I say, were not in perfect world.

Communist regimes make grandiose promises of free stuff and equality, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and equality of outcome is a perverse distortion of equality of opportunity. As Anton explained:

In my opinion, nothing in life is free, because yeah, its like that you are try to kill me and give my stuff away for free. Really?

He continued: People have good intentions, I understand this, but I will have to say that the way to the hell is good intentions.

The sanctity of the individual is undermined by collectivists ideologies, both in our own country and abroad. By placing the collective good before the sanctity of the individual, socialism and its more extreme form, communism, jeopardize our ability to live freely, peacefully, and productively without interference by government.

While our free-market, democratic system has helped keep full-fledged socialism and communism at bay, other countries have not fared so well absent these economic principles, as Antons story shows. We should use his story to be vigilant in protecting our capitalist system from the threat of socialism.

Anton laments that, thanks to American filmmaker Michael Moore, westerners have developed a false perception of socialism, especially when it comes to Cuban healthcare.

Michael Moore never went to our hometown hospital. He went to the best government hospitals. When he came back, he said that Cuba is a paradise.

He does not deny that the doctors in his country are talented, but they are underpaid. Doctors are expected to work without incentives. They bring home $40 to $50 per month, according to Anton.

The concept is free, he says, but in the reality it is very expensive, and as a Cuban, we are paying for this. Instead of bringing home an income and deciding for yourself if you would like to spend the money on a doctor, you are left with no choice.

And the education in Cuba is often not sufficient to train doctors; they have to go to other countries, like Brazil or Venezuela.

When we say free things, personally, we dont believe it. They are not free. This is a lie.

It was with a heavy heart that he and his wife eventually had to make the painful decision to leave their children, grandchildren, and friends behind in Cuba. It wasnt just their own lives they feared forthey also feared for those involved in the organizations they were active in.

If we dont leave the country, he thought, We will have serious problems, especially the part of the organization that we work over there in Cuba. The motive that I had to leave Cuba was more for safety and security, not just for me and my wife, but also for what was being done in Cuba.

So they left their old life behind and came to America.

The textbook definition of socialism is when the collective, or the government, controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Communism takes this further, giving the government total control over economic and even social issues.

Anton explains that each self-described socialist and communist country has adopted its own version of what this economic system means, despite what the actual definition may be. When asked the difference between socialism and communism, Anton explained that there is very little difference between the two.

In America today, many people push for socialism as a means of getting to equality. Anton would like to give advocates of such a system, like Senator Bernie Sanders, the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they arent talking about the same kind of socialism that destroyed his own country. But having seen the horrors of collectivism first-hand, he knows to be wary of such ideologies.

Anton has adapted to his new life in America. The freedom to hold and express ones own opinion is among his favorite aspects of American way of life. Unlike Cuba, in America, he loves talking to people with a host of different beliefs. He may not always agree, but he treasures the freedom they are allowed to exercise.

Our American government was instituted to keep each individual sovereign, possessing an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of our own happiness, something Anton did not have in Cuba.

One core concept all our Pacific Legal Foundation cases have in common is the principle of individualism. Whether we are fighting for equality before the law, property rights, economic liberty, free speech, or separation of powers, protecting the individual stands at the center of all we do.

When organizations like PLF fight for the dignity of the individual here in America, we are doing it to protect our countrys founding principles that have helped us maintain our freedom while other countries have crumbled.

PLFs main focus is law. But Antons story gives an example of how law and economics go hand in hand. Without the freedom to pursue his own happiness and earn his own living, there was no individual liberty. Socialism cant work on a foundation of individual liberty.And under such an oppressive government, there was no one to fight for him.

We should remember Antons powerful words: Cuba was heaven before 1959; when he left, he says, it was hell.

See more here:
One Cuban immigrant's story reminds us of the importance of fighting for individual liberty - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

For decades, communist China has been wielding its influence in African countries, establishing strong financial interests and working to convince growing nations that its authoritarian communism is a better form of government than democratic models of individual liberty and economic freedom.

While not a typical kitchen-table issue for Americans, Chinas stronghold on Africa poses serious national security and economic problems for the American people and human rights issues for many Africans. Thats why our elected leaders need to be taking immediate steps to reverse this course.

US taxpayers are by far the largest contributors of humanitarian aid to the African continent, and private American philanthropic aid is enormous. Yet the Chinese Communist Partys influence means that many African rulers side with Beijing over Washington on key strategic issues in places like the United Nations -- from glossing over human rights abuses to preventing a thorough investigation of the causes of the coronavirus outbreak.

Chinas influence takes several forms. First, African nations have long needed to develop their infrastructure, including roads, buildings, and communications networks, and China is sometimes the only willing lender. That also means that Chinese state-owned companies have been the main entities doing the building.

But things get pretty nefarious after that. China has built extravagant palaces and government buildings for free in many poor countries to gain even more influence with government officials. Burundi, the worlds fifth least-developed country, got a new $22 million presidential palace. Zimbabwe is about to get a $100 million Parliament building. Liberia got $66 million in new government buildings. All this money spent in some of the worlds poorest countries didnt help struggling citizens one iota.

Beijing also helps many African leaders maintain their hold on power. Those leaders often direct Chinas no-strings-attached aid to their own birth regions, to Cabinet officials, or to other places that will ensure they stay in power.

What problems does this pose for the US?

From a national security perspective, China is our primary global adversary, and it uses its influence over African nations to constantly undermine democracy and spread the poison of authoritarianism.

America and the entire world are safer when the planet is populated with democracies, because democracies dont go to war with one another. Moreover, the US military is constantly on guard against Chinese aggression in the Pacific. With Africas huge Atlantic coastline, it would be considerably more dangerous if China developed a base of operations in the Atlantic as well.

From an economic perspective, Africa has abundant natural resources that the rest of the world needs, and China has considerable influence over the export of these resources to other nations. For example, minerals such as cobalt and manganese are critical to the manufacture of many advanced technologies. Chinese companies dominate the global supply chain of cobalt, especially in Africa. If the Chinese government sees a strategic advantage in doing so, it may try to cut off the US and the rest of the world.

From a human rights perspective, the Chinese Communist Party supports leaders who keep their people under their thumb by working with them when others wont. It encourages some of the continents most brutal dictators to maintain their authoritarian governments. Not only does China prop up these authoritarian dictators, Chinese companies also have notoriously poor labor standards in Africa and have little regard for workers welfare.

Chinas outsize influence also means that many African leaders are consistent supporters of Chinas agenda. Many of Africas 54 nations vote with China at the UN, including voting for Chinas chosen candidates to run UN agencies (like the World Health Organization). Chinese candidates at global rule-making bodies help China champion its preferred standards for emerging fields, especially in tech. If Beijing is successful, it will lock in standards that advantage its own companies in fields that will shape the global economy for decades to come.

African nations also comprised almost half of the signatories of a 2019 letter defending Chinas human rights abuses of its Uyghur Muslim population. And building momentum at the UN for holding China accountable for its lack of transparency over the coronavirus outbreak will be difficult.

For these reasons and more, its critical that the United States counter Chinas influence in Africa. Senior US officials should be regularly engaging with many African countries, negotiating free trade agreements that benefit both the American people and the citizens of these nations, and encouraging investment from US companies interested in Africa.

The US must also promote the fact that individual liberty and economic freedom are what brought much of the world out of the desperate poverty we witnessed just decades ago, and they are proven antidotes to the oppression and poverty that plague some African nations today.

Doing these things doesnt just serve the American interest, it serves the people of Africa; and the emergence of more democratically led nations in Africa serves the interest of a more peaceful, more prosperous and more stable world.

Kay C. JamesKay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation. -- Ed.

(Tribune Content Agency)

By Korea Herald (koreaherald@heraldcorp.com)

See the original post:
[Kay C. James] Why Americans should be concerned about communist Chinas outsize influence in Africa - The Korea Herald

FILE PHOTO: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

By David M. GreenwaldExecutive Editor

Since the start of the pandemic, issues of government and health based restrictions have been framed by thoseespecially on the right, though not exclusivelyas an issue of freedom and rights. The argument goes that the individual and not the government should determine issues like masking, social distancing, and the like.

That issue has been amplified severalfold with the issue of vaccinations and whether or to what extent government and/or employers can mandate them.

In this piece I will argue that, while there are issues of freedom and rights embedded into this debate, for the most part and this extends well beyond the realm of COVID, we have misconstrued the issue of freedom way too narrowly.

When people yell freedom in this society, most often they are thinking along narrow self-interested lines. I want the freedom to do what I want.

The problem is that the government cannot operate along those lines of freedom. The government generally thinks not in terms of freedom but in terms of rights. Allowing someone to exercise their rights is relatively straightforward. Where government exists, however, is at the point where rights conflictgovernment has a responsibility to arbitrate and weigh on situations where my rights conflict with yours.

Many people yelling freedom forget this fact. The government has the obligation in my view of not only arbitration in the conflict of rights, but ensuring that the laws, to the extent possible, offer equal protection.

We may often think of freedom versus safetythe but reality is that safety is another way of designating other peoples rights. You may have the right to run down the street. But when you run into the street, you are putting other peoples rights in jeopardynot only their freedom of movement but also their freedom to live.

So the government preemptively steps in to create a set of rules that we follow. So we have traffic laws that prescribe and proscribe movements and govern when and where pedestrians can cross roadways and which laws that drivers have to obey to create as safe of an environment as possible.

What determines those laws? In part, community standards. But in part, a risk assessment.

Let us use speed limit as a case example here. In most places there are laws governing the maximum speed. Those laws generally allow people to drive at a faster rate of speed on the open road than on narrow and crowded city streets where there are more likely to be pedestrians and traffic controls.

Speed limits are limits on freedom. Thats one way to look at it. But another way is it is the governments decision to arbitrate between competing rights. My freedom of movement is circumscribed by your need to be able to safely move from point A to point B.

How does the government determine speed limits? A lot of it is based on risk assessment. The faster you go, the more freedom you have to determine your own safe rate of speed. But we know from studies, the faster you go the more likely driver error or roadway conditions are to create hazards, and so we weigh freedom against risk and arrive at a somewhat subjective limit for upper speed. That can vary state to state and also by location, but at the end of the day, risk assessment guides it.

In general, in the non-economic realm, I tend to be more libertarian. In fact, I generally consider myself a civil libertarian. I oppose government limits on free speech, think that most drugs should be legalized and, if not, decriminalized. I think things like sex work should be legalized but regulated.

I am more libertarian on things like gun laws than many on the left.

But I have a hard time understanding the freedom dimension to reasonable regulations with regard to COVID.

The problem again with COVID is that regulations are not about individual liberty exclusively. For example, if COVID were such that the precautions only impacted your own healththen by all means take whatever risks you want.

Let us take smoking as a good example here. If someone wants to smoke, that puts their health at risk. I am fine with that (we can debate the extent to which society should have to pay the bill for cancer treatment or the extent to which it is fair that we have to pay higher health insurance premiums to mitigate that risk, but thats a slightly different question).

But most places determined that you may have the right to smoke by yourself outside, but smoking can also impact others. Second hand smoke poses a health risk, and so most indoor places in most states have now forbidden ityou used to be able to smoke on planes, in restaurants, at bars, now you cant.

Wearing a mask is pretty much the same issue. When you dont wear a mask, you actually put other peoples health at risk, not your own.

Government therefore has a compelling interest in mandating masks to prevent disease spread.

I have heard people argue that if you want to live in fear, thats fine, but they dont choose to. But the mask issue is more complicated. If it again were merely about you avoiding getting sick if you didnt wear a mask, there would be a more compelling argument. But the mask issue is actually the opposite, it prevents you from spreading the virus to others. Thats a little different.

Vaccination, of course, is more complicated. You are not talking about a temporary and passive use of masks. You are talking about whether the government has an interest to compel an individual to inject something into their body.

I would argue that they dont.

However, freedom to act is not freedom to live without consequences or choices.

The government in my view, does have a compelling interest in regulating who can operate in the public realm and create increased levels of risk. Therefore the government I think has the ability to regulate who can enter public buildings, it has the ability to regulate who can go to restaurants, bars, and gyms, and it has the ability to weigh your freedom to not vaccinate against societys freedom to incur undo risk at entering the public realm.

Bottom line, I think the government does have the right to place restrictions on those who CHOOSE not to vaccinate. They are making a choice.

I have seen people say that they can choose not to wear a mask or not vaccinate and if I dont like it, I can choose not to leave my home.

Sorry, but we both have equal freedoms here. Our rights conflict. And there when rights conflict, the government has the duty to arbitrate those conflicts and they do so by managing risk. Right now in the middle of a pandemic, the government interest in protecting health and safety outweighs other factors.

When that risk is reducedas we have seen at various timesgovernment can and will remove those restrictions.

Read more from the original source:
Commentary: We Have Misconstrued Freedom in the Fight against COVID - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

GM Jan-Krzysztof Duda won the 2021 FIDE World Cup on Thursday, beating GM Sergey Karjakin convincingly in his white game, thereby avoiding a tiebreak. The 23-year-old Polish grandmaster finished the tournament undefeated and takes home $88,000.

Karjakin won $64,000 for coming second and, like Duda, he qualified for the 2022 FIDE Candidates Tournament.

GM Magnus Carlsen also won his second game against GM Vladimir Fedoseev to score 2-0 and come in third in the tournament, earning $48,000. Fedoseev won $40,000 for fourth place. (Mentioned prizes are after a 20% cut from FIDE.)

"I never really experienced anything like this before, at least in classical chess," was the first thing Duda said in his interview with FIDE after winning the World Cup. It seems like his country never experienced it either.

By reaching the final, Duda had already made history for Polish chess two days ago. The last time a Polish player qualified for the Candidates tournament was Miguel Najdorf in 1953.

Actually winning the tournament is a whole different matter, and can be considered the best-ever achievement by a Polish player in the history of the game. His win was widely reported in Polish media and he immediately undertook a number of interviews.

"Im very happy that chess has become popular in Poland recently," said Duda. "I am just happy to play chess, promote [it] in my country and worldwide. Im extremely happy."

The opening was another Queen's Gambit with 4...c5 and 5...cxd4, a topical line that we also saw Karjakin playing against Fedoseev in the semifinals.

"He played this against Fedoseev but I expected him to play even more solid, like the Queen's Gambit," said Duda. "I checked this line a little bit but OK, I thought, in general, I would press against this isolani pawn."

Duda had already faced it against GM Alexander Grischuk earlier in the tournament, where he played 9.Bd3. This time, he chose 9.Rd1.

Duda: "The important thing is not to play 9.Bd3, a move I have played a dozen times and which is the most stupid move order!"

Taking on f6 and d5 felt like "very simple play" to Duda, who could play for two results after that. "I was totally in control and a bit more active," he said.

It was also a very welcome type of position for him, in a situation where both players were exhausted after three weeks of top-level chess.

"To be honest, in this game I was missing a lot of stuff so it's pretty lucky I had such a position that I didn't need to calculate that much," said Duda.

His idea to keep the king in the center was nice as well and made a lot of sense when the queens got traded quickly. Visually, it seemed Black was close to equality but in fact, he was in trouble, as Duda showed with energetic play on the kingside combined with the great find 25.Rd7!.

For a brief moment, it looked like he was perhaps letting his opponent slip away when Karjakin's 26...Na5 allowed the simple tactic 27.Rxd8, immediately spotted by our commentator GM Vishy Anand. However, by then virtually everything was winning and just a minute later Karjakin resigned anyway.

Asked if he can see himself fighting in 2022 for the world championship, Duda replied: "Yeah, why not. If I will have such a good form like here, I'm probably unstoppable in such case!"

Duda's win has the whole chess world impressed, including the world champion himself, who, after Karjakin, was the first to congratulate the winner.

Carlsen started his post-game interview by congratulating Duda once again, saying: "First of all, huge congratulations to Duda for winning the World Cup. Considering the line of opponents that he beat in the last four rounds, never losing a game, and obviously never being in a must-win or desperate situation is a massive achievement. So he's a richly deserved winner."

Although he couldn't win the only trophy that is missing on his mantle, Carlsen did leave the World Cup quite satisfied. It always works wonders to your mood if you can finish an event with a win, let alone two.

Apart from the result, the way Carlsen won was quite similar to yesterday's game, with another exchange sacrifice followed by domination on the board.

"It's kind of funny that the exchange sac happened on the same square, so f5, then f4, and sort of the same bishop," said Carlsen. "But the theme here was that once I give up this exchange I just gain control over all the key squares so even though it probably doesn't have to collapse immediately it should be winning."

The intrigue started much earlier, with Carlsen spending five minutes and 31 seconds on his second move (after 1.e4 c6).

As it turned out, that think, and what came out of it, was about fighting spirit.

Carlsen: "What was happening is that he plays everything so it's hard to prepare for. I was just deciding whether I should play a quiet game or where we go for a position where we play for three results and finally I decided that I played enough quiet games in this tournament when I was up 1-0 so I thought let's just play and we'll see."

The opening went well for the world champion, but he felt he played inaccurately and let his opponent back in the game a little bit while keeping the advantage. However, when he got a passed pawn on d6 it already looked bad for Black and the sac on f5 was a nice killer, although Carlsen did miss a quicker win soon after itbut then we wouldn't have seen that second, complete domination on the board.

"At the end, I was just very happy to find this idea with 47.Bg4, caging in the rook, so I didn't even have to calculate any lines," said Carlsen.

Where Candidates winner GM Ian Nepomniachtchi had joked about Fedoseev's lack of space the other day, Carlsen's second GM Peter Heine Nielsen noted it got even worse the next day.

Carlsen noted himself that this was the first tournament since August 2019 that he won rating points8.4, to be precise. As reported earlier, he is the only 2800+ player right now. The last time that that was the case was in October 2013.

The Norwegian GM was happy with 11/14 score, his third place, and the over-the-board practice he wanted, in light of the upcoming world championship match.

Carlsen: "I've gotten to a point where I don't think it's like win or bust every time. Especially in such a format, I don't think you have that sort of mentality."

Finals | Results

The FIDE World Cup takes place in the Galaxy Leisure Complex in Sochi, Russia, until August 6, 2021. Each round consists of two classical games and, if necessary, a rapid/blitz tiebreak on the third day. The open section began round two with 128 players and the women's section, 64.

Previous reports:

View original post here:
Duda Wins FIDE World Cup, Carlsen Third - Chess.com