Mediaboss Marketing

Oh, youre a libertarian? Yeah bro, I guess that copy of The Fountainhead with the pages stuck together youve got there shouldve been a clue. But if youre an actual rugged individualist, could you do me a solid and tell me 3 places you like to chill so I can steer clear of them?

If you could share where you and the other sworn enemies of food safety regulations meet up to exchange unpleasantries, Id be much obliged. Im sorry if this seems a little forward, but my friends and I just want to know where we can go with a reasonable chance of not wanting to leave as soon as we arrive.

Hey, lets try this. Ill name 3 places and you tell me if youve ever been. Cool? Whens the last time you saw a band with any female members? Okay, that doesnt surprise me. What about therapy? Yeah, that tracks. Now tell me about your most recent second date. No bro, I havent been following you around and spying on you. Well, I did talk to a barista who told me how you always go out of your way to explain to her why you dont tip. Whats that? Youre never getting coffee at that place again? Oh, sweet, I can start reading my new book there.

Oh, youre into books, too? Well, I probably dont have to worry about bumping into you at the library, but can you tell me about your favorite sections at the bookstore? Ah, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson? Yeah, I like fiction, too. But I generally prefer some element of realism in what I read. And I bet you like a very limited part of the history section, too, huh?

Now, wheres your favorite place to go shopping? Wait, can I guess? Is it the duty-free, where the soul-sucking government cant take the joy out of buying bulk booze and boxed chocolates with taxes that get wasted on hot lunch programs for freeloading public school children? Wow, I should buy a lottery ticket!

So basically just dont go to your bedroom or the internet and Im good? Cool.

Read the original:
Oh, You're a Libertarian? Name 3 Places You Like To Hang Out So I Can Avoid Them - The Hard Times

Good intentions aren't good enough when it comes to running for public office.

We're sure when the Libertarian candidate for justice of the peace in District 13, a large district covering south-central Benton County, signed up back on Feb. 28, he believed a run for public office was a civic-minded thing to do.

Last week, though, he told a reporter he's not "actively" running although his name will appear on the ballot in November. The reason: He doesn't have time, what with being busy with family and work.

He's not alone. Things do have a way of getting busy these days, and only the candidate can make a decision as to whether his heart is in it.

He's not the first nor will he be the last Arkansan to get caught up in the political moment, file for office then realize that actually running for election is hard work. That's particularly true when one decides to challenge an incumbent of a dozen years.

Truth be told, longtime Justice of the Peace Kurt Moore had and has every reason to expect to be reelected. His constituents have seen their way to elect him over and over and over.

Still, when someone files to run for election, it would be nice if they've given the move the weighty consideration it deserves before filing the paperwork for the contest.

Too often, we've seen political party organizers so eager to make their numbers, their only requirement for a candidate is that he or she can fog a mirror. Certainly, we've seen elected politicians whose capacity to do that could be questioned, but we'd rather see a genuine vacancy in the contest than to witness a party content with warm-body candidates.

It makes us appreciate the people who run for public office and actually mean it. Running for election, and certainly holding public office, can be a thankless task. The issues require time and considerable thought once a candidate is elected, if not before.

More people ought to embrace community service through seeking public office or volunteering to be on the boards and commissions of your local city or county. There's a real need and it matters when people are committed to involvement.

We don't criticize this one candidate for making a choice he felt was the right one. Rather, we encourage others to consider the call to public service in the way they feel they can best contribute.

There's always another election around the corner.

Here is the original post:
NWA EDITORIAL | Public service is a noble calling in need of those willing to answer - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

After a lengthy midterm primary in which some candidates had to wait more than a week to learn the results of their races, party nominees will campaign this month and next ahead of the general election to represent Anne Arundel County at the local, state and federal level.

Candidates have about six weeks to crisscross the county raising money and winning over voters in the lead-up to the Nov. 8 election.

[Counting Marylands many mail-in ballots can start Oct. 1, judge rules]

Voters must register by Oct. 18 or at their polling place on Election Day with proper Maryland documentation. Residents hoping to vote by mail must request their mail-in ballots by Nov. 1 and have their ballots postmarked by Election Day or deposited in a dropbox by 8 p.m. that day.

Early voting starts Oct. 27 and ends Nov. 3.

Here are the races to look out for.

Anne Arundel County Executive Democrat Steuart Pittman, who was unopposed in the July primary, has spent this year raising funds and touting his accomplishments from his first four years on the job.

Pittman faces Republican challenger Jessica Haire for reelection. Haire, the one-term County Council member from Edgewater, defeated former Annapolis Del. Herb McMillan by more than 2,000 votes.

[VOTER GUIDE 2022: Read the candidates' positions on the issues]

Haire, who is married to Dirk Haire, chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, faced criticism during her primary campaign for accepting tens of thousands of dollars from a Montgomery County developer that has sought to build a landfill in Odenton that many in the community oppose. Haire has fired back that Pittman Pittman received $2,500 from Conifer Realty, a developer that is building a workforce housing project in Odenton. He also granted the company a tax break, a move that was approved by a majority of the County Council.

On Oct. 18, Pittman and Haire will participate in a debate at Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts in Annapolis. The Capital and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce will co-host the event.

Two Democratic incumbents and two Republican incumbents on the County Council are seeking a second term.

In District 1, , former Council member Pete Smith takes on Republican Jeremy Shifflett to fill the seat Sarah Lacey left to run for State Senate.

The District 2 race will match incumbent Democrat Allison Pickard against Republican Noel Smith and Libertarian David Sgambellone.

After being unopposed in his primary, incumbent Republican Nathan Volke in District 3 will face Democrat Michael Gendel who filed to run as a write-in candidate last month.

Following two close primaries, Republican Cheryl Renshaw and Democratic former Anne Arundel County Board of Education member Julie Hummer won their respective races. They will now vie for the District 4 seat soon to be vacated by Andrew Pruski who reached his term limit on the council.

Meanwhile, incumbent Republican Amanda Fiedler will face Democrat Carl Neimeyer in the race to represent District 5.

Lisa Rodvien, the Democratic incumbent from District 6, will face former Annapolis Mayor Republican Mike Pantelides.

Coming out of another close primary in District 7, Republican Shannon Leadbetter and Democrat Shawn Livingston are seeking the seat Jessica Haire left up for grabs in her run for county executive.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a one-term incumbent, takes on Republican challenger Chris Chaffee, who defeated nine party challengers to win the nomination. Van Hollen defeated Michael Smith in the primary with almost 80% of the vote. A third candidate, Scottie Griffin, a Democrat, filed to run as a write-in last month.

Van Hollen has represented Maryland in the U.S. Senate since 2017 before which he represented Carroll, Frederick and Montgomery counties in the House of Representatives for fourteen years. In another term, Van Hollen said he would work toward creating jobs, better access to affordable childcare, lower healthcare costs and protecting the states environmental assets like the Chesapeake Bay, according to responses to the Baltimore Sun Medias voter guide survey.

Chaffee has posted videos to his Facebook page advocating for American energy independence from the rest of the world to combat gas prices and inflation. Chaffee earned about 21% of the vote in the primary.

After redistricting this year, Anne Arundel County will now be represented by Districts 3 and 5 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Democratic incumbent in Marylands 3rd Congressional District , John Sarbanes won his nomination handily with nearly 85% of the vote. Sarbanes has been a member of the House since 2007. In his Baltimore Sun survey, he said hed focus on getting special-interest group dollars out of the politics, strengthen the countrys education system and make government processes more transparent.

Sarbanes Republican challenger, Yuripzy Morgan, who won her primary race by more than seven percentage points , said in her campaign materials she will provide a new perspective to Congress after Sarbanes 15 years in the seat and his fathers, the late Sen. Paul Sarbanes, 30 years in the Senate. She also will work on reducing crime and managing inflation, she said in her survey response.

The states 5th Congressional District will feature a race between incumbent Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Chris Palombi, a rematch of a race Hoyer won handily in 2020.

In another two-year term, Hoyer would work on protecting voters rights and helping the nation recover from the pandemic economically, he said. Hoyer has served in the House since 1981. He won a three-way primary with about 71% of the vote. Palombi defeated six Republican opponents with about 68%. On Palombis campaign website he promised to work toward reducing the national debt, improving infrastructure and better securing the U.S.s southern border.

Three State Senate incumbents who represent Anne Arundel County in the Maryland General Assembly won their respective nomination and will seek another term this fall: Democratic state Sens. Sarah Elfreth, from District 30, and Pam Beidle, from District 32, and Republican state Sen. Bryan Simonaire from District 31.

Elfreth, a first-term legislator who represents the Annapolis area, will face Stacie MacDonald who won her nomination with 75% of the vote. Beidle, a first termer from Linthicum, is being challenged by Republican Kimberly June. Simonaire, a Pasadena representative seeking a fifth term, will face Libertarian Brian Kunkoski.

Following District 33 Republican Sen. Ed Reillys retirement, Del. Sid Saab is running to take his place and keep the seat red while Democrat Dawn Gile hopes to flip it.

District 12B, a new district created during legislative redistricting this year that includes parts of Anne Arundel County including Brooklyn Park, will match Republican Ashley Arias against Democrat Gary Simmons. Both Arias and Simmons emerged successful in their primaries thanks to razor-thin margins of 20 votes.

In the House of Delegates, Democratic incumbent Dels. Shaneka Henson and Dana Jones are running to represent District 30A, which includes Annapolis, while newcomer Courtney Buiniskis is running as a Democrat in District 30B, which comprises Shady Side and Deale. Theyll face Republican challengers Doug Rathell and Rob Seyfferth in 30A and incumbent Republican Seth Howard in 30B.

District 31 saw the three Republican incumbents, Brian Chisholm, Nicholaus Kipke and Rachel Munoz defeat their challenger with wide margins. They will face Democrats Kevin Burke and Milad Pooran and Libertarian Travis Lerol in the general election.

As it happens

When big news breaks in our area, be the first to know.

Another trio of incumbents, Democratic Dels. Sandy Bartlett, Mark Chang and Mike Rogers defeated their challenger and will face Republican newcomers Michael Jette, Monica Smearman and Michele Speakman to represent District 32, which includes parts of Glen Burnie, Linthicum, Fort Meade and Maryland City.

In another House of Delegates race, Democratic County Council member Andrew Pruski defeated opponents to win the party nomination for District 33A by about 16 percentage points. He will face Republican Kim Mills. In District 33B newcomers Republican Stuart Michael Schmidt, who won 70% of his partys vote, will face Democrat John Wakefield. Meanwhile, Democratic incumbent Heather Bagnall will face Republican Kerry Gillespie to represent District 33C.

Other down-ballot races will feature match-ups between Democratic incumbent Scott Poyer and Republican Terry Gilleland for Clerk of the Circuit Court.

Republican incumbent Lauren Parker takes on Democrat Erica Griswold for Register of Wills.

Republican one-term incumbent Jim Fredericks matches up with Democrat Everett Sesker for Anne Arundel County Sheriff.

Incumbent Democrat Vickie Gipson and Republicans Maureen Carr-York and Nancy Phelps will face Democrat challengers David Duba and Marc Knapp and Republican Tony McConkey for Judges of the Orphans Court.

In the Anne Arundel States Attorney race Democratic incumbent Anne Colt Leitess is unopposed.

Read the original here:
Anne Arundel candidates gear up for the November general election. Here's what you need to know. - Capital Gazette

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell to step down as CEO after founding the company that is now the fourth-largest cryptocurrency exchange by spot trading volume.

COO Dave Ripley will take over the reins from Powell, who will continue as chairman of the companys board. The transition will be finalized in the upcoming months as the company looks for a suitable replacement for Ripley. Ripley and Powell will continue to perform their existing functions during the search.

Powell told Bloomberg that he had announced his decision to step down to the board over a year ago, citing boredom.

As the company has gotten bigger, its just gotten to be more draining on me, less fun, he explained.

Following his exit from the top job, Powell, a public critic of crypto regulation, will spend his time on crypto industry advocacy.

#JesPoS seemed like less work. @krakenfx is in excellent hands with @DavidLRipley. Ill continue to be highly engaged as chairman. Big thanks to the team for trusting me, our investors for taking a chance, and all my industry peers on the front lines, he tweeted.

Speaking with Fortune, Ripley confirmed that there would be little change in the companys libertarian culture when he succeeds Powell.

Powell founded Kraken in San Francisco in 2011 with fellow board member Thanh Luu. Kraken became the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S. during the last crypto bull market.

The outgoing CEO was a vocal opponent of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Controls decision to ban cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash and urged crypto investors to take their money off centralized exchanges following a Canadian trucker protest against government vaccine mandates in Feb. 2022. He also halted Krakens operations in New York after the New York Department of Financial Services required the company to comply with specific regulations to continue operations.

Powells outspoken leadership style made headlines earlier this year when he questioned certain employees choice of personal pronouns, igniting a firestorm of criticism from employees threatening to walk out.

In June, the controversial CEO published and co-authored with Ripley a company culture document drenched in libertarian philosophical values consistent with the so-called cypherpunk movement characteristic of early bitcoin adopters and believers. Powell encouraged those that disagreed with the document to opt into a program offering them four months salary if they never again worked at the company.

In hindsight, Powell believes that the document rallied the troops, galvanizing the company and making it a desirable workplace.

Going forward, consistent with his libertarian views, he believes that cryptocurrencies will continue to grow.

The world is a changing place, and Bitcoin is anti-fragile and a safe haven from whats happening in the legacy financial system, he said.

For Be[In]Cryptos latestBitcoin(BTC) analysis,click here.

DisclaimerAll the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Read more from the original source:
Outspoken Kraken CEO Walks Away From Top Job, Calls It 'Draining' - BeInCrypto

As I noted yesterday,I'm still trying to fully digest theNetchoice v. Paxton opinions, but I passed along two commentaries from top scholars on the subject, one entirely critical from Prof. Genevieve Lakier (Chicago)and one that's mostly critical fromProf. Alan Rozenshtein (Minnesota). I thought I'd also pass along are more positive commentary from Prof. Adam Candeub (Michigan State):

Last Friday in NetChoice v. Paxton, Judge Andy Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals wrote an opinion for the Fifth Circuit upholding H.B.20, Texas's law prohibiting social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, from discriminating against users based on their viewpoints. The Texas law would require the internet platforms' content-moderation policies to employ viewpoint-neutral criterion, ending censorship of conservatives and dissenters from the internet.

Big Tech supporters on the left and libertarian right greeted the opinion with beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth. The Left worries that the platforms will be less able to stifle views it finds dangerous and undesirable. (Commenters on the Left have yet to square this view to their hostility to corporate First Amendment rights in Citizens United.) Libertarians decry the opinion as an intrusion on the internet platform's "editorial discretion" which they claim the First Amendment protects completely. Both sides smear the opinion as an act of judicial willfulness unmoored from precedent.

But Judge Oldham's opinion stands on firm ground. The opinion's critics argue that the First Amendment protects the act of exercising "editorial discretion": the right of platforms to control what content they transmit. But, critics forget that the First Amendment protects only expressive actsa point made clear in the two Supreme Court case on which Big Tech (and Judge Oldham's critics) base all their critique: Miami Herald v. Tornillo and Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston.

In Miami Herald, the Supreme Court held that when newspaper editors decide to include a particular op-ed in their pages, they convey the editors' message that the article is insightful or otherwise valuable. Similarly, the St. Patrick Day's Parade organizers in Hurley, expressed a message, attributable to them, of general support for each group it approved to march, communicating with the various groups a discrete set of ideas and positions.

In contrast, most platform acts of content moderation are not expressive under the Supreme Court tests. Most obviously, they are not expressive because most are never communicated and therefore cannot convey a message. For instance, shadow banning, by which a platform renders a user's posts invisible to all but that user, cannot convey a message because no one knows, except the platform, that it is happening.

Indeed, all other types of invisible content prioritizations lack the required expressiveness because users don't know when content is promoted or hidden. Instead, invisible prioritization only communicates by reference to other speechand as the Court recognized in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, protected speech must convey a message itself, without extraneous explanation. Finally, content moderation as a whole cannot convey a message because the platforms keep their decisions private, and users lack access to representative samplings of edited material to infer any message.

Of course, when an internet firm bars an individual from their platforms because of his viewpoint and explains why, the platform engage in an expressive act. But, these acts of platform censorship simply express discriminatory animus. Just as the First Amendment does not protect lunch counters in their "expressive" refusals to serve individuals belonging to a particular race or religious groups, so the First Amendment does not protect the platforms in their discriminatory refusal to serve the public even if the platforms consider their refusals expressive. Indeed, state and local civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of political belief or affiliationand have survived for decades without successful First Amendment challenge. H.B. 20 stands firmly on the rationale that undergirds all of our civil rights law.

And, finally, as Judge Oldham pointed out, just as telephone companies do not express their customers' conversations which they transmit, a social media platform's transmission of a message does not express its own editorial decisions or speech. The platforms themselves maintain this position vociferously. In countless section 230 cases, the social media firms argue that they should have no liability for their users' speech because it is speech, as section 230 states, of "another." Now, the platforms claim users' speech as their own for First Amendment purposes. But, they cannot have their section 230 free lunchand eat it too.

The opinions' critics end up arguing that the First Amendment gives private businesses and entities control over opinions expressed within their premises. But, precedent rejects that view. Cable systems must carry local broadcast stations; telephone companies must carry messages expressing all viewpoints; and, airlines must carry passengers regardless of their views of the 2020 election. Similarly, courts, like the Supreme Court in Pruneyard, have long upheld state laws that require shopping centers to allow political expression, prohibit neighborhood associations from banning political lawn signs, and limit employer's ability to control their employees' political speech and expression on the job. This precedent upholds H.B.20.

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in this case because it touches key issues in today's political discourse. The complex concerns it raises deserve the most exacting scrutiny. But, claims that the Fifth Circuit's opinion is anything but a thoughtful reflection of the Supreme Court's current First Amendment jurisprudence should not mar that important public discussion.

Prof. Candeub is a law professor at Michigan State University and senior fellow at the D.C.-based Center for Renewing America, and served as expert witness for the State of Texas in NetChoice v. Paxton.

Originally posted here:
Another Commentary on the Fifth Circuit's Texas Social Media Law Decision - Reason