Mediaboss Marketing

As the novel coronavirus spreads across the United States and around the world, there are plenty of places to find sober, informative updates on the pandemic. One source to completely ignore, however, is the braying sports pundit Clay Travis, who on February 24 bravely declared that COVID-19 wouldnt be a big deal and has been just as wrong ever since.

Travis is not an epidemiologist or a medical professional of any kind. Hes a Nashville-based radio host and the mush of a little-watched gambling show on Fox Sports 1, the type of pundit who thinks politics and sports should be segregated unless it provides him an opportunity to rail against the wokeness of verified media members on Twitter, even though his account also bears a blue checkmark. Travis, who started the sports blog Outkick The Coverage in 2011 before he licensed it to Fox Sports in 2015, was never effective at retaining an audiences attention until he decided to take on the grift of being The Last Reasonable Man, someone who uses arrogance to uphold the illusion that everything hes arguing is unequivocally true. Heres an example of what he presents as rational thinking:

This must have sounded more convincing in his head. We dont have to imagine Clays hypothetical, since local news outlets cover car-crash fatalities all the time. Car crashes arent contagious, so it makes no sense to compare them to a disease. Also, plenty of government resources are devoted to telling the public to buckle up, be careful in bad weather, and not text while driving. But pseudo-facts over feelings really click with Traviss audience, some of the most credulous libertarians and social conservatives out there.

Travis isnt the only Reasonable Man whos proved to be particularly useless in the moment. Cosplay libertarian Ben Shapiro whose voice achieves an unprecedented frequency if someone posits that Confederate statues are useless last week asked where all the available COVID-19 tests were, temporarily dropping the whole government bad! act. Embarrassingly thin-skinned New York Times pundit Bret Stephens, whos brought this amorality to the most respected newspaper in the country, is writing about Woody Allen.

That Traviss following is so dim is precisely why its harmful for him to not treat the coronavirus seriously and parse data in bad faith. Last week, he continued to say the pandemic wasnt a big deal, because things in South Korea, where there were 8,412 confirmed cases as of Thursday afternoon, are just swell.

Once again, Travis presents bullshit posturing as common sense. South Korea is improving because theyve taken an aggressive approach to testing, making them free to most citizens. The U.S. has not, and the countrys broken healthcare system has once again been exposed as a sham easily overloaded by those who are sick. Americans would feel a lot less worried if they had easy and free access to tests from day one, as opposed to relying on a private sector that has taken weeks to put together a plan after the Trump administration was caught with its pants down.

Its difficult for someone who doesnt specialize in epidemiology to make assessments on rapidly changing data, and even tougher if youre a yokel who once melted down because an airline wouldnt allow his kid with lice to board. The resulting deluge of unanalyzed information can be overwhelming to the average person, possibly sparking a rush to stock up on distilled water even though theres no indication that the coronavirus will harm our water supply, but thats understandable. Getting anxious about this is a human response. However, its actively harmful to diminish a virus that is on every continent but Antarctica and say theres nothing to fear for anyone under 70, as Travis has. (Again: Wrong.)

While even the Trump administration is advising the public to take this seriously, Travis is intentionally misinterpreting it as panic so that he can appear to be wise and rational. (I asked a Fox Sports flack about Traviss rotten advice and will update if I hear back.) He might have achieved better results when hes pretending that Colin Kaepernick can only make Nikes stock go down and never up, but in this situation, he just looks more foolish with every passing day.

At this point in the pandemic, the only certainty is that washing your hands frequently and staying inside as much as you can will reduce risk for you and everyone around you. Until testing is ramped up, itll be difficult to have a full grasp on how many people have COVID-19: On Wednesday, expanded testing revealed that the number of cases in New York City have doubled; the number of cases in New York state have increased by more than 1,000. Meanwhile, in Italy, which has been hit especially hard by the disease, 475 people died in one day, the largest increase for the country so far. Travis called that a plateau.

Whats particularly aggravating is that if the drastic measures do work, and the outbreak subsides quicker than expected, the logic fetishists will pivot and say everyone was overreacting all along, that they shouldve never canceled March Madness or postponed the NBA season. Thats a small price to pay for not plunging even deeper into a global pandemic and financial crisis, but itll allow the grift to keep going, preying on the most gullible people out there.

See original here:
Fox Sports pundit Clay Travis is spreading the worst possible coronavirus advice - The Outline

Hollywood is one leg of the Axis of Indoctrination, with media and academia completing the trifecta.

There are some outspoken nonliberals in Hollywood. Self-described libertarian Clint Eastwood comes to mind. But the list is short. A month before the 2016 election, I met a young actress at a party. She just arrived in Los Angeles from Michigan and excitedly told me about a meeting scheduled the following morning with one of the major agencies in Hollywood, an agency she hoped would represent her. For an actor, getting an agent especially with one of the major firms is a huge accomplishment. Later at the party, I overhead the actress say something about voting for Donald Trump by absentee ballot. I wasnt sure I heard her correctly, so I quietly asked her if she voted for Trump. She said yes. I advised her not to mention this, under any circumstances, at her meeting the next day. She was surprised, and I was just as surprised at her navet. This place hates Republicans, I said, and hates Donald Trump to a degree Ive never seen.

A few days later, the host of the party told me that actress called her and asked her to thank me for the warning about not sharing her politics with the agency. The actress said that for the first 10 minutes of the meeting, three agents completed one anothers sentences about Trump, calling him degenerate, racist, sexist, idiotic and other things not printable.

How hostile is Hollywood toward Republicans? Consider this recent letter I received from a well-known, prominent and successful Hollywood conservative:

Hi, Larry.

I hope youre doing well. Something happened yesterday, and when it did, I immediately thought of you. It wasnt about you, but it puts a spotlight on some of what you talk about all the time.

I was attending an entertainment industry meeting yesterday, at a very high level, and when it was over, I ran into a friend of mine who just happened to be in the same building at that time. I hadnt seen him for quite a while. Hes an industry veteran whose career has spanned at least 30 years.

In the past, whenever we met, for lunch or just to talk, we always discussed politics. Hes a staunch conservative, and he is extremely well-versed on the issues facing this country and on the people who play significant roles in our government. He has always been very outspoken, proud of his affiliation and always willing to debate a Democrat or liberal on the facts and the lies. Hes very good at arguing, and, like you, he has instant-access statistics that are stored in his head.

Yesterday, when I bumped into him in a common area in the offices, I gave him a hug and asked him what he thought of the Democratic debates. He kind of shrugged. No comment. Then I showed him a website on my phone that gives the betting odds of who will win the primary and who will win the general election. He looked at it, but again, no comment. I told him that I hoped Bernie would win the nomination, because Id love to see American voters have to make a choice between prosperity and bankruptcy. He nodded, but that was pretty much it.

I gave him a hug and said goodbye. By the time I reached my car outside, he had already texted me twice. He apologized for not taking an active role in the discussion and said that there were people present in the office cubicles nearby, and he didnt want to have to argue with them after that, or be treated differently at the office because he said anything that could be interpreted as pro-Trump. He said he had to protect his job, and that he really couldnt risk talking to me.

Thats Hollywood.

The tolerant people who love everybody will destroy you if you disagree with them. Its ridiculous and scary, but its real, and I doubt most people outside of LA would believe to what extent. You could be a criminal or an illegal alien or a Palestinian terrorist, and they would leap to your defense and support your rights. But g-d forbid youre a Republican or a Trump supporter. Youre the enemy, and theyre blatantly against you and proud of it.

Thats all. This is the world I work in every day, and its disgusting. I grew up in a country where people, even total strangers, would say that they might disagree with my opinions, but they would fight to the death to defend my right to speak my mind. Those days are gone. Apparently, now they would fight to the death to keep me from talking.

I just thought youd want to hear this.

Welcome to Hollywood in Trumps America.

Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. Visit LarryElder.com and follow Larry on Twitter @LarryElder.

Read this article:
Hollywood in the Trump era: Conservatives not welcome - Sentinel & Enterprise

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThe Hill's Morning Report - US urges calm over coronavirus; Italy on lockdown This week: Surveillance, travel ban fights play out amid growing coronavirus concerns Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight MORE (R-Ky.) is taking on a familiar role as a thorn in the side of leadership as Congress barrels toward a surveillance deadline with no deal in sight.

Paul, a libertarian-minded Republican, is pushing for broader surveillance court reforms to be included as part of any bill that reauthorizes or extends the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 law that overhauled the countrys intelligence programs.

"The time is ripe now. Its an inflection point. Youve got Republicans coming around to this," Paul said. "I think even the powers that be in the Senate, the Republicans that don't like it, they know that the president wants it, they know a lot of us who are reformers want it, and so I ultimately I think they acquiesce."

Paul isnt the only GOP senator pushing reforms as part of the USA Freedom debate Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (R-Utah), for example, is also deeply involved but Paul has publicly emerged as the loudest voice within the Senate RepublicanConference to demand changes to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

His position puts him at odds with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThis week: Surveillance, travel ban fights play out amid growing coronavirus concerns Turns out, voters don't mind 'two old white guys' Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight MORE (R-Ky.), who has personally backed a clean extension of the three expiring provisions that relate to roving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial phone records program.

But with no deal in sight and the clock ticking, McConnell is likely to need cooperation from Paul to get legislation across the floor.

The GOP leader has yet to tee up any bill related to the expiring USA Freedom provisions. Instead, the chamber will take a procedural vote on Monday night on a mammoth energy package, with final passage of that bill expected on Tuesday or Wednesday. The surveillance deadline, March 15, is a Sunday; the Senate normally leaves town for the week on Thursday afternoon.

Paul says he won't support a short-term extension and appeared skeptical that he would back a larger deal that paired a USA Freedom extension with reforms to FISA, though he added that he could support some of the surveillance reforms if they get standalone votes, as amendments, for example.

Hes also pushing for an amendment vote to prohibit FISA warrants from being used against American citizens and to prohibit information obtained in the FISA courts from being used against a U.S. citizen in domestic courts.

Im not for any extension. Im for fixing it. ... I'll vote no on any extension, Paul said.

The dynamic is reminiscent of a 2015 debatein which Paul was able to use hardball procedural tactics to force a temporary lapse of expiring Patriot Act provisions, though supporters were able to pass the USA Freedom Act, which reformed the provisions, over Pauls opposition 36 hours later.

The 2015 drama included a middle-of-the-night showdown as McConnell tried to clear several short-term reauthorizations, only to be blocked by Paul and his allies in the surveillance fight. In a dramatic moment, McConnell the senior senator from Kentucky who had endorsed Pauls presidential bid asked first for a two-month extension of the expiring provisions, then for eight days, then five, then three, then two, but was blocked at every turn.

There are differences. Unlike with the current fight over the USA Freedom bill, in 2015, Paul explicitly threatened to filibuster the Patriot Act provisions as he made the surveillance fight a key pillar of his presidential campaign.

Asked if he would allow McConnell to speed up consideration of a short-term extension of the USA Freedom Act, Paul sidestepped, saying his focus was on getting FISA reforms.

I think there needs to be FISA reform, and Ill continue to insist on FISA reform, Paul said.

Spokesmen for McConnell didnt respond to a request for comment about talks with Paul or his staff about letting a bill move quickly. Procedurally, the GOP leader has options for how he moves a bill and can keep the Senate into the weekend to buy himself more time.

Republican senators acknowledge that they are in the dark about what Paul may or may not do as lawmakers try to figure out what they can get passed before March 15. Adding to the timing crunch, the House is expected to hold last votes for the week on Thursday.

He may decide to do that here. Unfortunately, I think thats a risky proposition because if something bad happens, I wouldnt want to be in a position of blocking the tools that are necessary to protect the country, said Sen. John CornynJohn CornynRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Surveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Hillicon Valley: Barr offers principles to prevent online child exploitation | Facebook removes misleading Trump census ads | House passes bill banning TSA use of TikTok MORE (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneThis week: Surveillance, travel ban fights play out amid growing coronavirus concerns Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Hillicon Valley: Harris presses Facebook over census misinformation | Austin cancels SXSW over coronavirus fears | Surveillance deal elusive as deadline nears | FTC sends warnings to Cardi B, other influencers MORE (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Republican senator, argued that there was strong bipartisan support for a short-term extension.

So you just have to run the clock and win procedurally, but I would hope at least that we might be able to get our members to agree to a short-term extension, Thune said.

Paul told reporters that he thought Trump would support a roughly two-week extension. But Thune countered that it would take more time for Congress to agree to broader FISA reforms and that he didnt think that anything is lost by passing a two- or three-month extension.

The question is, does the president and do the people who dont want to see any extension at all make it difficult to get that done? he added.

What will be able to pass is unclear. House leadership is continuing negotiations on a larger deal, while lawmakers have also floated a one- to three-month short-term extension. As the deadline draws closer, so does the chance that lawmakers arent able to get a deal on anything, something leadership in both chambers had stressed they want to avoid.

If people want that hanging on their head, they can, said Sen. Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight As Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Ratcliffe nomination puts Susan Collins in tough spot MORE (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about a potential lapse.

Paul is part of a group of progressives and libertarian-minded GOP lawmakerswho have warned for years that the FISA court does not provide enough transparency or privacy protections for those under surveillance.

They found broader support among Republicans in both chambers after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions as part of the warrant applications involving Trump associate Carter Page.

Attorney GeneralWilliam BarrWilliam Pelham BarrRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Surveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Vulnerable Republicans dodge questions on support for ObamaCare lawsuit MORE pitched Senate Republicans late last month on a clean extension of the USA Freedom provisions while promising to use his own rulemaking authority to make changes to the FISA process.

But Paul appears to have a powerful ally in Trump, who railed against the Obama-era FBI during an interview this week with Fox News, saying that the FBI weaponized FISA and used it horribly.

Trump told Republicans, including Paul and McConnell, during a meeting at the White House that he would not extend the USA Freedom provisions without FISA reforms. Paul quickly touted the news on Twitter, during a TV interview and with a small gaggle of reporters back at the Capitol.

I think that helps. I think that the fact that hes been explicit in saying no clean reauthorization ... without significant reforms, that was very apparent, Paul told reporters. Even the attorney general, I think, has decided he better catch the train and modulate what comes out rather than just opposing it.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight | TheHill - The Hill

Just yesterday, I was scrolling through Twitter and came across six separate tweets relating to the Libertarian perspective on government, particularly about what would be the lack of funding in a governmentless society. All six were criticizing the idea that our already failing infrastructure could be managed by anyone less than our current government system. When trying to debunk Libertarian theory, statists often mention infrastructure and highways, yet fail to see the fallacies in their argument. It is not complex nor complicated, yet here we are.

When I say government, I am talking about the forcible entity in which a series of officials are elected to rule over a group of people and use said peoples finances in order to maintain systems such as defense, infrastructure, etc. I am not talking about a private entity or a private group voluntarily formed for the betterment of a community.

Businesses

Business would most likely be the largest contributor to the cost of our roadways/infrastructure. While they wouldnt be coerced into paying their fair share through taxes, they would be pushed to contribute through the laws of economics and business. In order to sell their goods, they must have customers, and they must have a supplier. In order to reach their supplier and customers, some degree of infrastructure is highly necessary, otherwise no money is made.

In fact, businesses initially paid for much of our current railroad system, as private companies built them and maintained them. There would be many incentives to have infrastructure from a logistical standpoint, so why wouldnt businesses contribute?

Suppliers

In the business world, your company either sells a service or supplies those businesses with the essential tools needed to sell a service. In order to sell a service, you have to have the supplies required. Such supplies are made and transported by outside companies that manufacture products for businesses, and those supplies are also delivered via infrastructure. That is why Libertarian theory also mentions the suppliers in the chain of payment to private industry. Companies like UPS, FedEx, DHL and many more would all have to contribute in order to make a profit and sell their services.

Salesmen

Do you like buying new clothes or shoes? Do you have private insurance? Do you like ordering pizza? If you do, then you understand that someone has to sell those. Typically, salesmen work for a much larger operation than just themselves, but every so often, they are part of a small-scale business. Either way, they have to move their product, so sales people would be more likely to contribute an amount, however small compared to larger corporations.

Tourists

Indirectly, tourists would pay for a small portion of the infrastructure through the costs of traveling and expenditures. Sure, that money would come directly from the business, but where did the businesses get their funds? From the tourists, who also need some source of infrastructure in order to travel from place-to-place.

Homeowners/Common People

While the business world requires infrastructure through profit-motive, the everyday person will have to contribute in order to live their lives appropriately and comfortably. We use roads every day, whether it be for traveling to work, getting groceries, going shopping and so much more. In order for the common people to pay their share voluntarily, there could be sources such as GoFundMe or Kickstarter.com that allow someone to do the math on a project and its cost, and consumers could join those groups to pay a specific portion to ensure that the infrastructure is cared for and built appropriately.

Private companies would have many incentives to build, maintain, and repair our roads and infrastructure. To start, it is highly profitable. For our failing system, billions of dollars are expedited every year. Construction and base companies could make major amounts of money from building bridges, buildings, roads, etc.

Next, private companies would be held accountable by the consumer, who pays and uses the roads, to keep the infrastructure maintained and repaired as needed. Currently, this is where our government falls the shortest in the infrastructure category. You can hardly drive anywhere without seeing potholes, cracks, and other broken aspects of our highways, despite there being constant construction. If you switch over to the railways, private companies almost always uphold their rails, and keep them in the most usable shape possible. That is because of accountability.

If the people are happy, they will keep paying for roads to be placed, maintained, and repaired, so that itself should be enough of an incentive.

Otherwise, there would be no money going to the roads and companies/businessmen in charge of building such systems would go bankrupt.

In a privatized, free market system without a coercive government in place, our infrastructure will be cleaner, safer, and more efficient than our current system. This is because the owners of the road would have their own self-interest at heart, along with profit-motive.

Why, though? Because of economic competition and financial motivation. If Company A has a reputation for having the highest-quality, safest roads, then they will be making more of a profit than Company B, who makes roads that arent as dependable. If Company B wants to catch up with A, they will have to invest more time, money, and effort into their systems. If there are roads that are entirely unsafe, then you can simply not use them and they lose money, along with popularity.

Privatizing infrastructure would also introduce new technology, similar to some things used by private businesses. You could have apps like Yelp, TripAdvisor, and much more.

While most people cannot imagine a society without a gun to your head, it is not as complicated as it may seem. It just comes down to whether or not you want to cut out the middleman and keep asking yourself, But Muh Roads?

Read the original post:
Without Government, Who Will Build The Roads? - The Libertarian Republic

The relaxation of sports betting rules that emerged from the 2018 Supreme Court ruling has led to changing attitudes across the United States that go far beyond putting a dollar or two on the Patriots in the Super Bowl. The whole concept of gambling is being viewed with fresh eyes.

A decade ago, the very word was something to be uttered in hushed tones and with a cautious look over your shoulder, but today, attitudes are starting to come into line with those of Europe. There, nobody gets too hung up on the gambling aspect. If you should happen to win, thats a nice bonus, but if you dont, its still been money well spent on a fun, sophisticated night out.

Strategy or luck?

Casino gaming tends to evoke visions of either frantically flashing slot games or James Bond-style action at the card table. But theres another form of gaming with a history going back hundreds of years. Games involving dice present a middle ground between the simplicity of, say, the roulette wheel and the complexity of a card game like poker that might take months or even years to master.

Dice games are truly international in nature. There are plenty of guides online in multiple languages that will can go in-depth on the strategic side. For example, Thai Casino is the best place to learn to play dice for Thai and there are similar guides for other nationalities. We will, therefore, leave the details to those experts, but here, well talk briefly about two of the most common dice games you will find in physical and online casinos craps and sic bo.

Which should you play?

Of the two dice games, craps is the most common in the western world. It was even played by the most famous casino gamer in movie history in Diamonds are Forever. Sic bo, on the other hand, is far more popular in Asia and less common in west, although that is gradually changing.

Those who are new to casino gaming tend to be put off craps by the apparent complexity of the gaming table. In this respect, sic bo is definitely at an advantage, as there are fewer choices or decisions to make. All the player has to do is place a wager on either the combinations that will appear on the three dice rolled or the total value of the roll (ie from 1 to 18). The dice are rolled just once, so its a simple case of place your bets, roll the dice and win or lose.

In craps, two dice are rolled, but bets are carried forward and you either win or lose over a sequence of rolls. To play effectively, you need to spend a little time researching the different bets that can be placed and the house edge associated with each.

Each game has its pros and cons. Despite being the lesser known game of the two, sic bo is simpler and therefore a better choice for the beginner. But if you are prepared to do a little research, you will be amply rewarded by the deeper gameplay and strategy involved in craps.

Photo: eclesh

Visit link:
The roll of the dice craps or sic bo? - The Libertarian Republic