I’m Not a Terrible Person, I Just Believe in Freedom

I see the look in my best friend’s eyes when I talk to her about free markets. She looks at me like she doesn’t know me. As if the friend that she has laughed and cried with, that she trusts, has been invaded by an inhuman body-snatcher.

But I only told her that
developing countries have experienced great successes in their private schools (especially compared to public schools which cost three times as much for the same or worse results), that perhaps alternatives to failing public schools aren’t a bad thing, and that we need to guard against giving away our power because one day it might end up in the hands of a monster.

It makes sense to me, but I can tell she thinks that I no longer care about the experiences of minorities in America, the LGBT community, or women’s rights.


Not so! I must not be explaining myself to her accurately. Allow me an attempt to do so now.


E Pluribus Unum


I truly care about the people who live in our society. True, I am a white, middle-class, heterosexual woman who lives in the southern United States. Also true, I feel a strong connection with the disenfranchised people who are struggling to get by and to be accepted in the land of the free and abroad.


I don’t believe in freedom and capitalism because of some careless idea about pulling oneself up by the bootstraps. I know that some people don’t have boots to stand in. And that is a shame. I feel for those people. I know how easily that could have been me, and still could be.


These are my people.


I think about the ways that we are the same. There are kind people in every group, who feel when strangers are hurting, who love animals and the environment, and who care about the lives of everyday Joes and Josephines. My people, the human race, all over the globe, they feel the power of music. They smile at babies, share meals, embrace. They’re innovators and explorers; long ago, they took to the seas, the mountains, and the moon. Scattered all over the planet, they look up at the same stars. They hope and dream.

I want more than prosperity for these people. I want opportunities. I certainly don’t want all of us to be equally screwed.


I acknowledge that I am privileged by experiences over which I have no control and that have nothing to do with the person that I am. For example, if I speak and write with “correct” grammar, no one calls me a credit to my race. If I am nonviolent, career-driven, or pursue an education, I am not labeled as ‘one of the good ones’. If I buy nude pantyhose, the nylon will actually resemble the color of my skin.


Like you, I have no control over the place of my birth or to what family I was born. The world is not just and we all fear the power of others to make us small. To make us disappear.

There are people a plane ride away from me who confront this reality daily. I’ve seen pictures of cities reduced to rubble and of kids who have only lived through war.

A majority of humanity wants the same things, to feel safe in the world, in our homes, on the street. It’s nice to be nice and what stops us? Nothing.


Power and Freedom


I’m not so naïve as to deny the impact of historical horrors and people with iron fists, whose amplified voices have moved feet and toppled innocents. As a people, we have flung salt at each other, thrown up walls, and tossed over exploding bombs. But every day we have an opportunity to be better than yesterday.


We give away our power so easily, out of fear and hate and hope. I want opportunity for you, just like I want opportunity for me. I also want your freedom, and mine.

The question of policy will always be: where do we draw the line?


I like to imagine my ideal government as a metal fence post. It has clearly defined geometry, a solid foundation, and within its structure, it stands strong. Society and people's lives twine around the post like vines, occupying the negative space, growing, flowering, reaching for the sun. The fence post doesn’t show favoritism, it doesn’t suppress or give one vine a boost. It is functional and useful and it stops right there.


We are at liberty to add love, multiply our empathy, and forget to divide. But I believe the solution to our concerns is subtraction of power from the grasp of people who will take it.


Freedom as a life philosophy and free-market economics are about civil rights and allowing the people who need it most to build wealth. They are not about stepping on the poor or ignoring women’s and minority rights. There can be a balance between protecting people and allowing society to progress through 
spontaneous order.

According to Vox,
3.3 million women marched down US streets last Saturday. They did not do so by the grace of government. Individuals made choices; they used their agency and their civil rights to assemble, use speech, and protest. What will stop passionate people from fighting against injustice?
Politicians can only play catch-up. Culture, which you and I contribute to at every moment of our lives, defines what our society looks like and how people are treated. We don’t need Government to save Gotham. We have us.

Marianne March
Marianne March
Marianne is a recent graduate of Georgia State University, where she majored in Public Policy, with a minor in Economics.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

‘This Is Barbarism’: Ukrainian Troops on High Alert as War Intensifies

A memorial to war dead in Avdiivka. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
KYIV, Ukraine—Using artillery, tanks, and rockets, combined Russian-separatist forces attacked Ukrainian forces along the front lines in eastern Ukraine on Sunday and early Monday morning, highlighting, once again, that the February 2015 cease-fire has failed.
“This is barbarism,” Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said Monday in response to the attacks, according to a tweet from his press secretary, Svyatoslav Tsegolko.
Cease-fire monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, tallied 2,260 “cease-fire violations” on Sunday.
And early Monday morning, combined Russian-separatist forces launched a predawn artillery attack and follow-on ground assault on the Ukrainian-held front-line town of Avdiivka.
Ukrainian officials claimed the attacks were an attempt by combined Russian forces to derail the cease-fire by effectively baiting Ukraine into retaliatory actions, which could be used as an excuse for further escalations, or for propaganda.
By Monday afternoon, Ukrainian forces announced they had repelled the attack on Avdiivka, but combat was ongoing.
Combined Russian-separatist forces launched an attack on the front-line town of Avdiivka early Monday morning. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
“The enemy continues to fire at our positions with heavy artillery and mortars,” Ukrainian military spokesman Col. Oleksandr Motuzyanyk told reporters in Kyiv Monday.
Poroshenko, who was on a diplomatic trip to Germany, cut short his visit.
“The president has cut short his visit to Germany because Russian fighters’ attacks on Avdiivka have caused an emergency situation, which may turn into a humanitarian disaster,” Tsegolko, Poroshenko’s press secretary, wrote on Twitter Monday.
Five Ukrainian soldiers died in the attacks Sunday, and nine were wounded, according to the Ukrainian military. Two more soldiers died during fighting in Avdiivka Monday morning, according to Kyiv.
Ukrainian troops have been placed on “high alert” along the 250 miles of front lines in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled eastern region on the border with Russia, the Ukrainian military said Monday.
Artillery damage in Avdiivka. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
Sunday and Monday’s attacks were significant because they marked an uptick in the typical level of fighting, but they were not extraordinary. They are simply the latest chapter in a cyclical pattern of endlessly escalating and diminishing violence, which has come to define the war in Ukraine.
The conflict has killed more than 10,000 Ukrainians, and displaced about 1.7 million people, according to estimates by the U.N. and other humanitarian aid groups.
The conflict—Europe’s only ongoing land war—retains the potential to escalate into a major, larger conflagration.
Kate M. Byrnes, acting deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Mission to the OSCE, said in Vienna on Sunday that the cease-fire in Ukraine remained “elusive.” She called for a withdrawal of all banned weapons from the front lines, and for both sides to commit to the cease-fire’s terms.
“Otherwise, there is little to stop small-scale clashes from escalating, and this conflict from continuing,” Byrnes said.
As part of the February 2015 cease-fire, which is called Minsk II, heavy weapons are banned from the front lines.
The OSCE is the multinational group charged with monitoring the Ukraine cease-fire, but it has no enforcement mandate. OSCE monitors identify cease-fire violations through direct observation, or by hearing the sounds of explosions or small arms fire. However, a single cease-fire violation might, in fact, comprise numerous individual attacks.
In 2016, OSCE monitors registered more than 300,000 cease-fire violations in eastern Ukraine.
Culture War
Ukrainian officials take seriously the possibility of a full-scale Russian invasion. Ukraine’s military doctrine identifies Russia as the country’s top military threat, and Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, has ordered a top-to-bottom overhaul of the military by 2020.
There are also worries about the war spilling over to other countries throughout the region.
In the Baltic countries, for example, civilian defense units harkening back to the partisan groups of World War II are actively training to defend against a Russian invasion.
The U.S. and NATO have shifted military assets eastward in a move to reassure NATO’s eastern flank, which has been rattled by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, as well as to deter Moscow from military adventurism—covert or overt—against any NATO member.
The war in Ukraine—Europe’s only ongoing land war—is approaching its third anniversary. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

The situation throughout Eastern Europe, especially within the former boundaries of the Soviet Union, has become a dangerous cycle of brinkmanship, with NATO and Russia locked in a tit-for-tat ratcheting up of their military presence throughout the region.
Meanwhile, Europe’s only ongoing land war continues to simmer in eastern Ukraine.
And as Ukraine rapidly rebuilds its conventional military forces with an eye toward Moscow, the country is also waging a cultural purge of all things related to its Soviet past and Russia.
Russian TV channels are being banned, it’s illegal to play the Soviet national anthem in Ukraine, and cities with Soviet-era names are being renamed.
On Khreshchatyk, Kyiv’s main boulevard, sidewalk vendors sell rolls of toilet paper adorned with the likeness of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
For Ukrainian leaders, there is little wiggle room—from both a strategic military perspective, as well as with public opinion—to tolerate a Russian provocation without it leading to a major escalation of the war.
More of the Same
While a full-on Russian invasion is Ukraine’s nightmare scenario, there is already a low-intensity war ongoing in the Donbas, in which Ukrainian troops are engaged in daily combat against Russian troops and their separatist proxies.
According to the Ukrainian military, combined Russian-separatist forces focused their attacks on Sunday on Ukrainian positions at the southern end of the front lines near the industrial port city of Mariupol.
A Ukrainian soldier at a front-line position near Novomykhailivka. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
Ukrainian forces in the town of Vodiane, about 8 miles northeast of Mariupol’s city limits, reported 180 122 mm mortars were fired at their positions within a 180-minute period. The attacks also comprised BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket systems, rocket-propelled grenades, and small arms.
Pro-Russian separatists took control of Mariupol in the opening months of the war in 2014. Ukrainian forces, bolstered by volunteer paramilitary units, took back the city of nearly half a million people in a series of battles from May through June 2014.
Combined Russian-separatist forces countered with a series of raids and tank attacks on Ukrainian forces around the city in August and September 2014. But Ukraine repelled the offensive, and Mariupol has remained under Kyiv’s control.
Despite two cease-fires, however, the fighting never stopped.
A building damaged by artillery in Marinka. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
Since September 2014, the front lines have remained largely static outside of Mariupol. With the war on their doorstep for almost three years, the city’s residents have grown accustomed to the daily rumble of fighting coming from the front lines less than 10 miles away.
Overall, Ukrainian forces reported 38 separate attacks on their positions in the Mariupol area on Sunday, 14 of which comprised heavy armor. More than 50 separate attacks occurred along the 250-mile length of the front lines.
“The situation in the Donetsk sector near Avdiivka remains tense,” the Ukrainian military said in a statement on Monday. “In the morning, the enemy continued their insidious attacks with the use of tanks and artillery systems … At about 10:30 [a.m.] Kyiv time, the shelling from heavy weapons stopped, but harassing fire from small arms is continuing.”
At the northern end of the front lines near the Russian border outside the separatist stronghold of Luhansk, combined Russian-separatist forces launched a total of six heavy artillery attacks against Ukrainian positions on Sunday.
No End in Sight
The war in eastern Ukraine is approaching its third anniversary, and the conflict shows little sign of easing off.
During the days the fighting is usually relatively calm, or nonexistent, while OSCE cease-fire monitors patrol the war zone in their bright white SUVs. But the cease-fire monitors do not typically work after dark, which is when, like clockwork, the war begins in earnest.
It’s a daily charade, in which daily battles comprising hundreds of shots fired are registered as “cease-fire violations.”
Ukrainian soldiers in a trench in Pisky. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
The war has been mostly static since the Minsk II cease-fire went into effect in February 2015. Consequently, both sides are dug in. For its part, the Ukrainian military has constructed a series of trenches and fortified positions. Major road intersections are defended with armor, and the surrounding fields are heavily mined.
According to various estimates from both Ukrainian military sources and independent intelligence groups, combined Russian-separatist forces in the Donbas comprise about 40,000 pro-Russian separatists and about 5,000 Russian regulars.
Ukrainian military and NATO reports, as well as many independent news reports, have confirmed Russian troops, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and financing are crossing from Russia into Ukraine’s two separatist breakaway territories.
Russia has repeatedly denied supporting the separatists.
The Daily Grind
For those civilians caught living within its grasp, war has become a way of life.
In Mariupol over the weekend, residents duct-taped their windows the same way Floridians do to prepare for a hurricane.
According to the social media posts of some Mariupol residents, the sounds of artillery from the front lines on Sunday were loud enough to rattle windows in the city center.
A week before Christmas in Avdiivka, a woman carried an infant in her arms as she walked along a sidewalk pockmarked by mortar shrapnel. Occasionally, the air rumbled with the burst of a mortar, or crackled with a machine gun burst. Framed in the background was an apartment building shredded to ruins by years of artillery strikes.
In the snowy woods outside of Novomykhailivka in late December, Ukrainian troops from the Aidar Battalion were hunkered down in primitive underground shelters, holding the line against their combined Russian-separatist enemies.
The living conditions were miserable. The bitter cold was inescapable, and despite three years of combat operations, the troops were still undersupplied with fresh food and basic military kit like boots and body armor.
A warning sign on the edge of a minefield in Avdiivka. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)
Some of those troops had been serving in combat since the war began in April 2014. Yet, they were resolved to keep fighting until the conflict was over.
The week before Thanksgiving 2016 in the front-line town of Marinka, the nighttime sky was alight with the crisscrossing paths of tracer fire.
The sky buzzed with the sounds of drones orbiting overhead. The sounds of mortars and artillery were a constant drumbeat, rising and falling in pace and intensity like the movements of a symphony.
At an elementary school in Marinka, Red Cross humanitarian workers teach students how to react in an artillery attack.
Inside the school, green and red stickers are attached to the hallway walls at intervals, respectively indicating where it is, and is not, safe to take shelter in an artillery attack. The Red Cross also teaches residents about landmine safety. Children are told not to play in fields.
During the day in Marinka, there is a cacophony of workers hammering nails as they repair artillery-damaged buildings. By night, the pounding of nails is replaced by the hard cracking burst of mortar explosions, and the metal snarl of machine guns.
There is one curious side effect of the war—a surge in the war zone’s fowl population.
Due to the war, hunting has been banned in the Donbas.
“The war continues, but life goes on,” Edward Kulinich, a Ukrainian civilian volunteer who transports supplies to front-line troops, told The Daily Signal.

Report by The Daily Signal's Nolan Peterson.  Originally published at The Daily Signal.

Maximizing Your Assets in Retirement



(Family Features) No matter how diligent you may have been about saving for retirement, unexpected life changes and economic realities can negatively impact your retirement budget. Sustained low interest rates have suppressed yields on income from bonds and rising health care expenses have affected retirees of all ages.

Many retirees are surprised to learn that one of the most valuable assets in their portfolios may be a life insurance policy that they no longer need.

It’s not uncommon for people to outlive their need for life insurance, and if you no longer need the policy or can no longer afford the premiums, you could consider selling the policy through a life settlement. This is a financial transaction in which a policy owner works with a company, such as Coventry Direct, to determine if they qualify to sell their life insurance policy. The policy seller receives an immediate cash payment while the buyer assumes all future premium payments. Most life insurance policy types qualify, even convertible term life policies.

Consider this story about a financial advisor who recently retired from a long, successful career. He decided the money he was spending on the rising premiums for his $799,975 life insurance policy could be used to help fund his retirement. After some research, he called Coventry Direct and was happy to learn he had an option other than just letting the policy lapse. He sold his policy through a life settlement for $25,000, which was more than four times the value he would have received if he surrendered the policy back to the insurance company.

If you don’t own a life insurance policy or still need your coverage, you may want to evaluate the real estate you own. Think about downsizing to a smaller home or selling other property you no longer need. Many retirees discover that they have significant equity tied up in real estate – equity that could be used to help fund expenses.

Another useful exercise is reviewing your investments. If your retirement income is failing to produce the amount needed to maintain your lifestyle, you may need to rebalance your portfolio in order to meet your changing needs.

If you find your retirement income is insufficient, there are options available to maximize your assets. For many retirees, an existing life insurance policy may be a hidden asset that can be utilized to generate cash. To learn more about life settlements, visit coventrydirect.com/lifesettlements or call 888-858-9344.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

SOURCE:

Coventry Direct

Congress Set to Overturn Obama Gun Control Rule

Congress is poised to unravel one of the Obama administration’s midnight regulations that could prevent certain Social Security disability beneficiaries from buying guns.

The Social Security Administration finalized a rule just before Christmas 2016 in which it would send information of recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income to the Justice Department’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

This is triggered if the agency determines someone else is managing a recipient’s finances because the recipient isn’t mentally fit to manage their own affairs.

Rep. Ralph Abraham, R-La., helped advocate possible elimination of the gun control rule under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn regulations imposed in the last six months of an outgoing administration.

>>>Here’s the Tool Congress Can Use to Curtail Obama’s Regulation Legacy

“This issue really can be boiled down to one point: No American should be denied their constitutional rights because someone else handles their finances,” Abraham told The Daily Signal in a statement.

“Allowing bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration to determine whether or not beneficiaries are fit to exercise their Second Amendment rights is a clear violation of due process, and I’m pleased the Congressional Review Act will give us the opportunity to right this wrong with passage of this joint resolution,” Abraham added.

Under the rule finalized on Dec. 19, the Social Security Administration would first have to determine if someone else is handling a beneficiary’s affairs. The rule states:

At the commencement of the adjudication process we will also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, of their possible federal prohibition on possessing or receiving firearms, the consequences of such prohibition, the criminal penalties for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from the prohibition on the receipt or possession of firearms imposed by federal law.

Former President Barack Obama’s White House announced a package of executive actions in January 2016 that said:

The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

The National Rifle Association credited Abraham, Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., for pushing the rule into the Congressional Review Act.

“Protecting Americans’ fundamental rights is a top priority for Whip Scalise, and that includes undoing this Obama-era power grab against our Second Amendment rights,” Scalise spokesman Chris Bond told The Daily Signal in an email. “After eight years of an Obama administration that showed disrespect for our constitution, this unified Republican government is going to take power away from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and work hard to restore Americans’ liberties.”

The regulation has the backing of gun control groups.

Elizabeth Avore, legal director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group created by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, argued in July, as part of the public comment period, the rule was needed to keep guns away from the mentally ill. Her comment said:

As is required for a finding to be prohibiting, [Social Security Administration] officials have determined in these cases that the person “lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs,” and, under the proposed language, these incapacity findings will only be prohibiting if they are made due to mental illness. … The rule does not reach any beneficiaries who are assigned a representative payee due to physical incapability or for reasons other than legal or mental incompetence.

A spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety had nothing to add to the matter when reached by The Daily Signal.

Johnson said he has been dedicated to defending the Constitution from his time in the military through Congress.

“Former President Obama’s last-ditch effort on gun control that would harm Social Security beneficiaries with disabilities is wrong,” Johnson told The Daily Signal in a statement. “I opposed it from the get-go, fought to stop it, and am encouraged by the support of the National Rifle Association, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force, and the National Council on Disability on this issue. I look forward to overturning the rule soon.”

Denial of a constitutional right is not something that should ever be decided administratively, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“No administrative process and no administrative law judge should be able to take away a constitutional right,” von Spakovsky said. “This should exclusively be a regular court of law to determine if someone is disabled enough to pose a hazard with a gun, not a federal bureaucrat.”

The National Rifle Association celebrated the congressional review as a victory.

“Congress’s decision to review the Obama administration’s backdoor gun grab is a significant step forward in protecting a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding gun owners,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in a public statement. “The NRA has been fighting this unconstitutional government overreach since it was first discussed and we look forward to swift congressional action.”

Report by The Daily Signal's Fred Lucas.  Originally published at The Daily Signal.

What Turns Big Business into an Economic Mafia

The state should never own or control major industries or enterprises. Additionally, it should not hand out favors to some companies at the expense of others. When it does, the result is almost always corruption, kleptocracy and a political culture that benefits the most privileged and criminal elements of society.

Take Ukraine for example. There are many historical and geopolitical reasons for its current predicament, but let’s focus on the economic forces at play. Andrew Roth, who writes for
The Washington Post at its Moscow bureau, wrote an article last year that details the political crisis in Ukraine, fueled by corruption between those in power and the financial elites:
The Ministry of Infrastructure’s bloated portfolio of almost 300 state-owned enterprises, including a railroad, seaports and roads, funnel cash to corrupt businessmen with connections to Ukraine’s parliament, he says. For months, they have blocked his attempts to privatize them.
“If the state-owned companies suddenly disappear, if they’re privately owned, then what’s in it for them? They cannot skim from those companies anymore.”
There you have it. This is one major reason why post-Soviet Ukraine (and Russia for that matter) has had such a horrible time trying to build a stable, viable nation state. So long as its members have a personal stake in state-owned companies, the Rada, the unicameral parliament of Ukraine, will be unable to make common-sense economic reforms.

The state cannot eradicate corruption. Sure, the law has a role to play, but too much involvement makes the problem worse. People like to help out their friends at the expense of other people, no matter how awful those friends may be. The only way to end corruption would be to end friendships. Let’s do a little thought experiment to illustrate this.


The Problem of Human Frailty


Let’s say you and I live in a fictional post-Soviet country. I run a government ministry charged with prosecuting fraud and abuse. You run a state-owned freight company that ships goods by rail.

Your business is failing, your workers have connections to drug dealers and gangs, and your equipment is old and often breaks down. The worst part is, you have a competitor who can do business 1,000 times better, and may soon run you out of business.

But you don’t have to worry. Since we’re such good friends and we go way back, I’ll help you out.

I’ll have my employees bypass your company when we run an audit. Since you’re already owned by the government, we have the same boss! You’re insulated from the law, because you and I are the law. Plus, I’m friends with the transportation minister, who can give you priority access to the railroad tracks. In fact, if you give me a cut of your profits for a few months, I can slip some of that money to the head of the secret police and have your competitor framed for bribery and locked away for the next 10 years. We could even torture him if you like.

If anyone protests, we’ll have our media cronies call them “traitors” who are secretly working for “the decadent West” (with some homophobia or antisemitism thrown in for good measure).


Oh, they have a “change.org petition?” Adorable. We have tanks.


If you give me access to your mansion on the water, I’ll even have the treasury seize all of his business assets and give them to you! You’ll never have to worry about competition, innovation or investment ever again!


But maybe I won’t do this.


Maybe I have principles. Maybe I care more about right and wrong than about my screwball buddy who’s really bad at running his business. Those thugs you hired back in the bad, old days of the 90s? You’re going to have to let them go. The audit will go as scheduled, and you’re going to have to lower prices to compete with the new guy. Eventually, we may have to privatize you. We can’t just keep using taxpayer money to pay for a terrible service, especially when they can voluntarily purchase a good one (sorry, bro).


Just kidding; you should have seen your face!


A Sign of What’s to Come?


Calling for the nationalization of major industries is naive.
When the state owns or runs major enterprises, it holds the population hostage to all the faults and imperfections of the people in those businesses.

This should serve as a cautionary tale to those Americans now cheering the incoming administration for the Carrier deal and proposed infrastructure projects. 

There’s nothing wrong with saving people’s jobs, but one issue with the Carrier deal is that negotiations were with a single organization.

No changes were made to Indiana’s laws and tax structure that would incentivize more businesses to stay. It was an explicitly populist move, meant to increase the President-elect’s political capital, not a broad economic reform that allows for meaningful employment for all Americans. It doesn’t help that the deal may have something to do with United Technologies, Carrier’s parent company, wanting to hold on to federal contract money.


The real danger of a Donald Trump presidency is not diplomatic rapprochement with Russia, but that he threatens to curse the United States with a similar economic mafia culture.


Consider a future where we waste spending on nationalistic vanity projects, consolidate power among the regime’s friends and loyalists, and apply endless red tape to shut out emerging competitors. The state has always had an uneasy relationship with the cultural foundations of markets, fair play and competition. But Trump’s worst impulses threaten to deal these traditions, built over centuries through common law and revolutions, a nearly fatal blow.

Maybe we’ll get lucky, and this is all just populist bravado. But we can’t base our social and economic order on luck. People don’t always do the right thing. Many people often enjoy doing the wrong thing.
When businesses are state-owned or handed favors to the detriment of others, it’s easier for bad actors to get away with terrible things, because they’re connected with and insulated by those in power. It creates a culture where businesses thrive according to their connections and unearned privileges, not the crueler dictates of market forces.

J. Andrew Zalucky
J. Andrew Zalucky
J. Andrew Zalucky is a Connecticut-based writer focused on politics, history and cultural issues. Since 2011, he has run his own website, For the Sake of Argument. In addition, he writes about extreme music and is a regular contributor to Decibel and Metal Injection.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

How Regulation of Private Schools Hurts the Poor

Every private school choice program in the United States monetarily benefits private schools at the expense of an increased regulatory burden.  Even decision-makers that support private school choice agree that some degree of quality control is essential for programs to be successful.  However, in attempting to control quality through regulation, bureaucrats inadvertently limit the quality of schooling options available to disadvantaged children across the United States.

Regulation Costs Reduce Supply


How can an attempt to force schools to be high-quality produce contrasting results?  In order for policy-makers to enforce a certain minimum level of quality, they must first define what educational quality ought to look like.  One problem here is that children and parents are so diverse that the selected definition is sure to fail for an enormous amount of families.  Perhaps even more problematic is the fact that adhering to the designated standards introduces additional costs to private schools without a clearly substantial quality improvement.

The
61 private school choice programs across the United States include many regulations that attempt to control quality levels such as teacher certification, financial audits, standardized testing, open-admissions and the prohibition of parental copayment.  These all serve as additional costs to private schools.  Since school leaders make the cost-benefit decision of whether to participate in a given private school choice program, regulation costs decrease the number of options available to families.

The Best Schools Are The Least Likely to Participate


And which private schools are the most likely to accept participation?  Obviously, the schools in financial distress will have the largest incentive to accept program funding.  Furthermore, the private schools that are highly-specialized and already have a successful educational model have the most to lose from regulations.  The result?  Quality controls ensure that the children most in need end up with defective schools.

Specifically, teacher certification requirements limit the supply of teachers that private schools can employ.  A
supply reduction increases the price that a private school must pay for any given teacher, while simultaneously reducing the number of high-quality teachers to choose from.  Standardized testing requirements guarantee that private schools will have to change their educational model to mirror the very schools that disadvantaged children are so desperately trying to escape.  Forcing private schools to accept voucher funding as full payment is particularly costly for high-quality schools that pour large amounts of resources into the education of their students.  This regulation is equivalent to prohibiting disadvantaged people from spending resources on food above the determined food stamp amount.  Perhaps even more importantly, this provision eliminates much of the financial incentive necessary for market entry.

Why They Want to Regulate In the First Place


If the attempt to control quality harms children, why do policy-makers still try?  The ultimate reason for these regulations is that elite decision-makers believe that parents will not choose schooling options that are beneficial to their children or society.  Allowing parents to choose for their own children requires bureaucrats to have faith in the masses to make rational choices.  What if parents make the wrong decisions?  Elites would surely feel responsible for those bad decisions, and they do not want to risk experiencing guilt.


We could easily remove all of these negative consequences by adopting the optimal form of quality control: educational choice through families.  By simply allowing parents and children to choose their own educational products, we ensure that low-quality options disappear while the presence of high-quality options grows.  Besides, even if parents do occasionally make inadequate decisions for their own children, shouldn’t we prefer that to inadequate decisions made by a bureaucrat in an office, hundreds of miles away?

Corey DeAngelis
Corey DeAngelis
Corey DeAngelis is a Distinguished Doctoral Fellow, University of Arkansas.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

How the Left's Racial Politics Backfired

Get out the Doritos. Pop the top on your Bud Light. Go down to your man cave, plop down on your La-Z-Boy, invite your friends over and turn on the Packers game.

Here come the White people.

CNN commentator Van Jones, clearly upset by the results coming in last night, claimed that Democrats got “White-lashed.” In a way, he was right. But he has only himself to blame.
The problem with liberals is that they want all the advantages of racial politics and none of the detriments. They have succeeded in weaponizing entire racial groups, but when they find that they have inadvertently weaponized the ones who vote the other way, they get upset.

Nate Cohn at the New York Times said something interesting about Trump's win to which everyone should pay careful attention. He said that “white working class voters just decided to vote like a minority group. They're [over] 40% of the electorate.”



The White Minority


In a sense, I think a large part of Donald Trump's vote consisted of people who felt like saying, “You want racial politics? We’ll give you racial politics!”

These people are not racist. They’ve got too many other issues to deal with that really matter. Under normal circumstances, white people just don't think very much about race. They have always been the default ethnic group, so they've never had to think about race. But they are now surrounded by a culture obsessed with both race and gender. And they are regularly lectured by the liberal elites who just got spanked at the polls that they should think about it all the time.

Black Lives Matter, but your little White honky life is politically meaningless. Go help your children finish their Black History Month coloring assignment from school and shut up. And don't even think about touching that Peach crayon. If your finger even touches anything lighter than Burnt Sienna we'll cut it off.

This is what many Whites think they hear. They may be wrong or right, but that is beside the point. And when other things in their lives make them feel undervalued—the loss of their manufacturing job, the collapse of their marriage, the effect of drugs on their family, the bad schools their kids have to go to—when this is the reality of their lives, then watching television and hearing about how everyone except you deserves more attention and assistance becomes just a little hard to bear.

And when you are forced toward sentiments you don’t really think you should have by a self-righteous cultural establishment that is always telling you how you should feel, you tend to get a little cranky, and when you get cranky you end up as the beer frame at the bowling alley. And you take it out on someone who represents this establishment at the polls.

So Hillary did serve some purpose.

Just look at where Trump was the strongest: in the Appalachias and the rust belt. There’s a reason J. D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, is the man of the hour. It is he who has presented the liberal Democrats with their causa mortis. He’s the one who, by mere reflection on the plight of the White middle and underclass—and its underappreciation—did more to predict what happened yesterday than all the sophisters and calculators manipulating the polling data.

Race did play a role in Trump's win, but not in the way that the liberal media thought. Through their control of what Richard Weaver called the “great stereopticon”—the media construct by which we are all propagandized—we are told that we should think about race and gender everywhere all the time. The problem is that when Whites are forced to think about race, they are also forced to act like a minority—as Cohn points out, a very large one. The problem here is that the result is almost exactly the opposite of what the purveyors of racial politics intended.

Quite frankly, it serves them right.

And when you add gender into the mix, it becomes nitro to the racial glycerin. Liberal Democrats victimized themselves on election night. They need to think harder about whether they really want the kind of culture they have been trying to create: one divided along lines of race and gender.
What they found out on election night is that it doesn't always work to their advantage.

Republished from Intellectual Takeout.
Martin Cothran
Martin Cothran
Martin Cothran, the author of Memoria Press’ Traditional Logic, Material Logic and Classical Rhetoric programs, is an instructor of Latin, Logic, Rhetoric, and Classical Studies at Highlands Latin School.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Government Schools Are No Place for Bright Kids

Sometimes, something that’s right in front of you can escape your attention.

Over the past five years I’ve looked at countless student performance numbers, and almost always, my attention goes to the large percentages of students who are performing below grade level in reading, math, history, etc. I see these numbers as evidence of the failure of the current education system.

But a recent policy brief (titled “How Can So Many Students Be Invisible?) has brought something else to my attention—something equally, if not more, damning of the education system. It’s the fact that large percentages of American students are performing ABOVE grade level.


After looking at data from five different, nationally-respected assessments of student performance, the researchers found that “20-40% of elementary and middle school students perform at least one grade level above their current grade in reading, with 11-30% scoring at least one grade level above in math.”


Most would read that and think it’s evidence to the contrary: that it means that our education system is doing a good job. But not me, and not the professors who put together the brief.


You see, because the system arbitrarily separates students by age, students of varying academic abilities get put on the same track. The low performers remain consistently behind, in a constant struggle to play catch-up. And they’re the ones who get the majority of the attention of today’s schools and education reformers.


But the high performers are suffering in this system, too. They’re forced to sit in a classroom for seven hours a day going over simple material and concepts at a snail’s pace. Eventually, intellectual atrophy sets in.

That’s what happened to me. I was bored for almost the entirety of my elementary and middle-school career because I already knew, or quickly understood, most of what was being rehashed over and over again. And it wasn’t because I’m a genius; I consider myself merely “average bright”. Over time, I went from being an intellectually curious child to apathetic and lazy about learning. I’m sure many others have had a similar experience.


In their recommendations, the professors who wrote the brief concluded that “the U.S. K-12 context, which is organized primarily around age-based grade levels, needs serious rethinking.”


I think that’s putting it too mildly.


Honestly, I’m starting to think that this education system doesn’t need to be reformed; it needs to be destroyed.

Republished from Intellectual Takeout.
Daniel Lattier
Daniel Lattier
Dan is the Vice President of Intellectual Takeout. He received his B.A. in Philosophy and Catholic Studies from the University of St. Thomas (MN), and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. You can find his academic work at Academia.edu.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Let Stem Cell Donors Be Paid. Lives Depend on It

I’m proud to release a new report, Bone Marrow Mismatch: How compensating bone marrow donors can end the transplant shortage and save lives. The report analyses the science and ethics behind the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) proposed rule to redefine hematopoietic (blood-forming) stem cells (HSC) as an organ. These are the cells that originate in bone marrow but are also found in the bloodstream. Today, over 70% of HSC donations are extracted from the bloodstream through a safe, non-invasive technique known as apheresis, after which the cells quickly regenerate.

In 2011, a federal court ruled compensating donors of HSC by apheresis to be legal due to the procedure’s comparability to plasma and whole blood donation. HRSA’s rule change would supersede the court and violate congressional intent, thereby making compensation to all HSC donors illegal under the National Organ Transplant Act. HRSA has until December 18th to move forward on its rule.

Why is this important?

Nearly 2% of the U.S. population is a registered bone marrow donor. And while the volunteer donor registry has grown in recent years, it remains both too small and beset by low follow-through rates. Using the best available data, this paper estimates that the gap between the actual and optimal size of the bone marrow registry leads to 1318 fewer transplants and 275 deaths per year – creating a net social cost well in excess of $100 million a year. This impact is felt disproportionately by racial minorities, for whom finding a close genetic match is most difficult. I, therefore, argue that legalizing compensation for HSC donors would help to close that gap by increasing registry size among target populations while improving follow-through rates of those who are called upon to donate.


According to another estimate, in 2012 the unmet demand for HSC transplants across the United States was 10,276 adults, out of a total demand of 16,096 for the same population. In children, the unmet need was 3,213 out of a total demand of 4,561. Together, that implies an overall shortfall in demand of 65%. The demand for HSC transplants has accelerated as the population has aged, with adults ages 51 to 64 receiving 32 percent of all transplants. This suggests the supply shortfall will only widen if no further action is taken.


HRSA is concerned that legal compensation could cause exploitation, devalue the human body, and/or reduce the altruistic motivation of donors. In a September 7, 2016, open letter to HRSA, twenty-two of the country’s most prominent ethicists argued that each of these objections are fundamentally flawed. In that time the list of signatories has grown to thirty-seven. This report goes deeper into disputing HRSA’s weak ethical objections and outlines the strong positive case for compensation. The Niskanen Center thus joins the signatories of the letter found at DonationEthics.com in demanding that this rule not be enacted. At stake are thousands of leukemia and anemia patients that face preventable death due to a self-inflicted shortage of bone marrow donor matches.

In writing this report I am indebted to the tireless work of the Institute for Justice, an early champion of bone marrow compensation; Peter Jaworski, who brought the issue to my intention and created DonationEthics.com; and Doug Grant, CEO of Hemeos, a healthcare start-up wishing to compensate donors for their peripheral blood stem cells. The research of economist Mario Macis has also been incredibly useful for building the case that compensation for blood and blood-derived cells is both safe and efficient.

This first appeared at Niskanen Center.
Samuel Hammond
Samuel Hammond is a poverty and welfare policy analyst at the Niskanen Center.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

UPDATE+PHOTOS: Five dead in Quebec City mosque shooting

Police arrive at the scene of a fatal shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City, Canada, January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

An ambulance is parked at the scene of a fatal shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City, Canada January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

Police officers are seen near a mosque after a shooting in Quebec City, January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

Police officers are seen near a mosque after a shooting in Quebec City, January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

Police officers are seen near a mosque after a shooting in Quebec City, January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

Swat team police officer walk aournd a mosque after a shooting in Quebec City, January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Mathieu Belanger

QUEBEC CITY (Reuters) - Five people were killed after gunmen opened fire in a Quebec City mosque during evening prayers, the mosque's president told reporters on Sunday.

Earlier, a witness told Reuters that up to three gunmen fired on about 40 people inside the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center. Police put up a security perimeter around the mosque.

Quebec police confirmed the shooting at a Quebec mosque in a tweet, and police on the scene said there had been fatalities.

"There are many victims ... there are deaths," a Quebec police‎ spokesman told reporters.

A police tweet said there were deaths and injuries and that suspects had been arrested.

"Why is this happening here? This is barbaric,” said the mosque's president, Mohamed Yangui.

Yangui, who was not inside the mosque when the shooting occurred, said he got frantic calls from people at evening prayers. He did not know how many were injured, saying they had been taken to different hospitals across Quebec City.

In June 2016, a pig’s head was left on the doorstep of the cultural centre.

Like France, Quebec has struggled at times to reconcile its secular identity with a rising Muslim population, many of them North African emigrants.

The face-covering, or niqab, became a big issue in the 2015  national Canadian election, especially in Quebec, where the vast majority of the population supported a ban on it at citizenship ceremonies.

Incidents of Islamophobia have increased in Quebec in recent years. In 2013, police investigated after a mosque in the Saguenay region of Quebec was splattered with what was believed to be pig blood.

In the neighboring province of Ontario, a mosque was set on fire in 2015, a day after an attack by gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris.



 (Reporting by Kevin Dougherty in Quebec City; Editing by Peter Cooney)