Month: March 2020

Illinois Task Force Recommends Eliminating Prom Kings, Queens

Illinois Task Force Recommends Eliminating Prom Kings, Queens

Authored by Todd Starnes via Townhall.com,

Prom kings and queens in Illinois could be dethroned if the “Affirming and Inclusive Schools Task Force” has its way.

The report, “Strengthening Inclusion in Illinois Schools,” recommends districts “amend their school board policies to strengthen protections for transgender, nonbinary and gender nonconforming students.”

I predicted in my new book, “Culture Jihad: How to Stop the Left From Killing a Nation,” that the ultimate goal of the sex and gender revolutionaries was to completely destroy sex and gender norms.

The task force said school districts should eliminate or reframe any school tradition or gender-based activity that is not gender-neutral.

“For example, replacing ‘prom king and queen’ with ‘prom royalty’ or by providing school awards to any set of two students instead of best male/female,” the report recommends.

The report exposes a radical agenda to deconstruct gender from preschool through 12th grade classrooms across the Land of Lincoln. Boys who identify as girls could use the bathrooms and shower facilities of their choice.

“Facilities include, but are not limited to, locker rooms, restrooms, showering facilities, costume rooms/backstage areas, nurse’s office and athletic training rooms,” the report states.

The task force also recommended eliminating the use of gendered language.

“For example, district staff should call students ‘students’ or ‘scholars’ instead of ‘boys and girls.’ This can make a notable difference to transgender, nonbinary and gender nonconforming students who may feel alienated by the gender binary,” the report states.

Also included in the 44-page report:

  • Transgender, nonbinary and gender nonconforming students shall be allowed use of restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities that correspond with their gender identity.

  • Adopt a gender-neutral dress code.

  • Districts must allow transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students to compete on athletic teams and participate in interscholastic activities consistent with their gender identity.

  • School libraries shall include accurate and up-to-date information on gender identity and diversity, as well as gender-affirming children’s books, young adult fiction, fiction, non-fiction and multimedia.

  • Do not divide physical education classes by gender.

  • Never teach “appropriate” gender behavior.

  • Eliminate the use of gendered language.

  • Forms requiring signatures should indicate “Parent/Guardian” rather than “Mother/Father.”

Even more alarming is the lack of parental involvement or consent. The task force recommends engaging “parents and guardians as appropriate.”

“The rights of students under the IHRA and Title IX apply to schools regardless of parental involvement or consent,” the report states.

“In many instances, schools are not required to seek parental consent to support transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students, especially when the safety of the student is a concern.”

The sex and gender revolutionaries are enlisting children as young as 5years-old in their perverse plot to deconstruct gender. It is quite frankly government-sanctioned child abuse.

The good people of Illinois should root out this taxpayer-funded debauchery. Meanwhile, moms and dads should consider home schools or private schools.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2uWMqXO Tyler Durden

Bloomberg Drops Out, Demonstrating the Limits of Money and the Perils of Arrogance

“Why don’t they coalesce around me?” former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked yesterday before the wildly disappointing Super Tuesday performance that led him to drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination today. Bloomberg won the caucuses in American Samoa but fell far short of victory everywhere else after spending half a billion dollars of his personal fortune on a quixotic quest to replace former Vice President Joe Biden as the moderate alternative to an avowed democratic socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.).

Today Bloomberg endorsed Biden in a gracious statement acknowledging that “a viable path to the nomination no longer exists,” calling Biden “the candidate with the best shot” at defeating Donald Trump, and praising “his decency, his honesty, and his commitment to the issues that are so important to our country.” But Bloomberg never would have entered the race last November if he thought Biden was up to the task, and the chutzpah embodied in his strategy of skipping the early contests and debates, flooding the airwaves and internet with ads, and swooping in to rescue a party he joined less than two years ago goes a long way toward explaining why primary voters found him so unappealing.

Anyone who wants to be president almost certainly has an inflated sense of his own competence and wisdom. That is especially true for someone like Bloomberg, a remarkably successful entrepreneur who became the world’s ninth-richest person by providing value to consumers and erroneously thought his skills as a businessman made him especially qualified to boss people around. But good politicians are skilled at concealing their arrogance, recognizing that voters may find it off-putting. Bloomberg has never been good at that.

This is a man who devoted much of his time as mayor to berating poor people for their unhealthy habits, a condescending paternalism epitomized by his extralegal attempt to ban the sale of large sugary beverages. He defended that crusade in embarrassingly grandiose terms: “We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other, to save the lives of ourselves, our families, our friends, and all of the rest of the people that live on God’s planet.” Bloomberg, who called protecting people from their own bad habits “government’s highest duty,” sincerely thought he was saving the world, one slightly smaller soda at a time.

This is a man so convinced that he was uniquely qualified to run New York’s government that he pushed through a legal change allowing him to serve a third term, then backed legislation reimposing the two-term limit. “Bloomberg thinks that being able to serve three terms in office is a good idea—just not for anyone else,” The New York Times noted at the time.

This is a man who either did not know or did not care that the “stop, question, and frisk” program he championed as a way of deterring young black men from carrying guns, which at its peak subjected overwhelmingly innocent people to 685,000 humiliating police encounters in a single year, was blatantly unconstitutional. That program, like Bloomberg’s panoply of paternalistic “public health” prescriptions, reflected his unshakable confidence that he knows what’s best, even when the supposed beneficiaries of his policies vehemently disagree. Bloomberg doggedly defended stop and frisk for years after leaving office, then abruptly reversed his position the week before he officially launched his 2020 presidential campaign, recognizing that the policy was unpopular with today’s Democratic primary voters.

Bloomberg thus began his presidential campaign on a false note, an awkward position for a politician vying to replace a president who can barely open his mouth without prevaricating. He compounded the dishonest tone of his campaign with a Super Bowl ad that was built around a lie about “children” killed by “gun violence.” The ad, which presented Bloomberg as a brave champion of public safety who is not afraid to take on “the gun lobby,” was also misleading in a subtler way. As David Harsanyi noted at National Review, the resources Bloomberg has devoted to promoting new firearm restrictions dwarf what the National Rifle Association spends to resist those policies.

Truth aside, the Super Bowl spot was compelling. But the same could not be said of many other ads that Bloomberg bombarded us with, which Democratic strategist Elizabeth Spiers described as “mediocre messaging at massive scale.” Whenever Bloomberg himself spoke, he came across as wooden and decidedly uncharismatic. While viewers might very well have agreed with his critique of Trump, that did not mean they saw Bloomberg the way he saw himself: as the guy with the best chance of defeating the president. Doubts on that score surely were not assuaged by Bloomberg’s disastrously lackluster debate performances.

Only yesterday, The New York Times was marveling at Bloomberg’s campaign organization, which hired more than 2,400 people, “opened more than 200 offices from Maine to California,” “blanketed the airwaves with half a billion dollars in ads and paid social media influencers to spread his message,” “deployed new artificial intelligence technology” to “adjust his message in real time as issues like the coronavirus outbreak erupted,” and “tapped into the political networks of mayors in major cities like Houston and Memphis, who helped Mr. Bloomberg fill his rallies with prominent local politicians and pastors.” This sophisticated operation was all the more impressive because it had been set up so quickly: “What other campaigns took more than a year to build, with visits to fish frys in Iowa and cable news studios, the Bloomberg campaign did over the three months from Thanksgiving to Presidents’ Day.”

But the Times also conceded that “there are those who find [Bloomberg] unappealing,” which turned out to be an obstacle that no amount of money could overcome. The most salutary aspect of Bloomberg’s campaign is that it demonstrated once again the fallacy underlying attempts to protect democracy by restricting speech. Even for a candidate who can far outstrip his competitors’ spending by shelling out less than 1 percent of his personal fortune, money can’t buy you love.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VGJPw5
via IFTTT

Wuhan Seafood Market, Ground-Zero For Coronavirus Outbreak, Demolished

Wuhan Seafood Market, Ground-Zero For Coronavirus Outbreak, Demolished

A seafood market at the heart of the coronavirus outbreak has been demolished two months after it was closed down, according to journalist Jennfer Zeng.

According to a scientific study published in The Lancet, 66% of patients admitted to Wuhan hospitals (27 out of 41) as of January 2nd had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market.

And as Botao Xiao of the South China University of Technology notes, the market was just 918 feet from a Wuhan level-4 biolab conducting experiments on bat coronavirus.

Of course, China denies that the4 virus originated at the seafood market – publishing via CCP mouthpiece The Global Times a report titled: “New Chinese study indicates novel coronavirus did not originate in Huanan seafood market.”

According to the brand new study by Chinese researchers published on Feb 21,  the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November from a place other than the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. Of course, we already knew that, but what is critical is that until now, Beijing was adamant in sticking to the official narrative that it was the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan where the disease emerged, despite not providing any information on what animal was the vector, or who was patient zero.

The study suggests that patient zero – who has not yet been identified, and whose identity holds the key to unraveling the mystery of the coronavirus source – transmitted the virus to workers or sellers at the Huanan seafood market. The crowded market facilitated the further transmission of the virus to buyers, which caused a wider spread in early December 2019. According to the researchers, the new coronavirus experienced two sudden population expansions, including one on January 6, 2020, which was related to the Chinese New Year’s Day holiday.

So, COVID-19, which is 96% identical to bat coronavirus, didn’t escape from a level-4 biolab that was experimenting on bat coronavirus, located 918 feet from the first cluster of cases – according to China. And now, the seafood market at the heart of the outbreak which has killed over 3,000 globally and continues to rapidly spread, is no more.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3avHjgr Tyler Durden

Libertarian Super Tuesday: Big Night for Jacob Hornberger, NOTA; John McAfee Drops Out and Backs Vermin Supreme

Democrats and Republicans weren’t the only voters to experience the pains and pleasures of Super Tuesday—third parties, which in 2016 had their best presidential showing in two decades, were also on the ballot in a handful of states.

Libertarian Party primaries and caucuses are nonbinding, which means that no delegates are awarded based on results. As ever, candidates for the nomination of the country’s third-largest party need to persuade a simple majority of the state L.P. delegates who attend the May 21-25 national convention in Austin, Texas. Still, the election results provide a snapshot of what party members are thinking less than three months out.

So far, the trend line is unmistakable—the Libertarian front-runner at this point is longtime libertarian-movement hand and Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger. After previously winning the Iowa and Minnesota caucuses, and getting the second-most first-place votes in the New Hampshire primary as a write-in, Hornberger was the biggest human vote-getter in all three of the Super Tuesday primaries that have posted results so far.

In California, with 99.9 percent of precincts reporting, Hornberger led a field of 13 candidates with 17.5 percent of the vote. Tied for second with 11.6 percent were former military officer and Honolulu County Neighborhood Board member Ken Armstrong, and political satirist Vermin Supreme, the latter of whom previously won the New Hampshire primary. Lagging just behind at 11.4 percent was 1996 L.P. vice presidential nominee and academic Jo Jorgensen.

In Massachusetts, with 100 percent reporting (though the results are still unofficial), Hornberger was the leading vote-getting candidate with 12.6 percent, though he trailed that perennial L.P. favorite “None of the Above” (NOTA), which clocked in at 20 percent. Educator and controversialist Arvin Vohra was next at 6.3 percent, followed by a 5.9 percent tie between Vermin Supreme and Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman. Write-ins, which have not yet been broken down, amounted to a combined 26.3 percent.

And in North Carolina, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported this morning, Hornberger again paced the biped field with 8.7 percent, though NOTA stomped with 29.8 percent. (NOTA wasn’t on the ballot in California.) Just behind Hornberger with 8.2 percent was antivirus pioneer and international man of mystery John McAfee, who promptly dropped out, threw his support behind Vermin Supreme, and announced his candidacy for vice president:

Not on any of the three Super Tuesday Libertarian ballots were recent entrants Lincoln Chafee (the former U.S. senator and Rhode Island governor, who finished second in the Iowa L.P. caucus and tied for fourth in Minnesota); entrepreneur/ex-convict Mark Whitney (11th and fourth, respectively, in same), and former million-vote-getting Georgia gubernatorial candidate John Monds (15th and fourth).

Meanwhile, the leading fundraiser in the race, activist and veteran Adam Kokesh, finished sixth in California with 7.9 percent, tied for eighth in Massachusetts with 4.4 percent, and ninth in North Carolina with 3.5 percent.

With the Democratic nomination seesawing back into Joe Biden territory, dimming the prospects of a populist/nationalist vs. populist/socialist election, the allure for potential latecomers into the Libertarian race will surely lessen. This could well be the final field in the contest to be the third candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Much can and will change between now and late May but, for the moment, Jacob Hornberger is your Libertarian front-runner.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VJRBp2
via IFTTT

Leftists Angry At Trump Donating Salary To Coronavirus Fight

Leftists Angry At Trump Donating Salary To Coronavirus Fight

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

President Trump donated his fourth quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services this week in an effort to help fight the Coronavirus, but leftists are angry about it because…  Orange man bad.

The donation of $100,000 is part of Trump’s promise to never take any salary while he is President. He has previously given away his salary to the Surgeon General’s office, border enforcement, and Veterans’ Affairs, to name but a few.

The move was nowhere near good enough for leftists though, who immediately compared the move to Hitler (an obvious starting point):

This one was furious that the Orange man’s salary would only pay for 50 coronavirus tests:

Presumably she has donated more money?

This one called it a ‘drop in the bucket’ and got angry about Trump owning property:

In an important counterpoint, these leftists want to know how “we” get back money Trump has spent on golfing:

This one flat out denied that Trump is donating anything. The proof? The check is dated January 29th:

Who’d have thought Trump could do something before announcing it?

And this one repeated a fake narrative spread by Democrats that Trump defunded pandemic response:

In reality, Trump is pushing pharmaceutical companies to accelerate a vaccine for the coronavirus, and working closely with the CDC to contain the outbreak.

In addition, Trump presided over enhanced border controls and blocking flights from infected areas weeks ago, while Democrats did nothing:

 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 – 12:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38ioH1O Tyler Durden

Travel Sector Collapses Into “Great Crisis” Amid Slump In Flight Bookings

Travel Sector Collapses Into “Great Crisis” Amid Slump In Flight Bookings

Airlines have canceled more than 200,000 flights as Covid-19 nears pandemic status. Retail outlets at airports across the world have reported a significant drop in foot traffic, resulting in a collapse in sales at duty-free shops.

The Wall Street Journal notes a plunge in global travelers, particularly ones from China, has led to a steep decline of internationalist tourists at major airports. The result, so far, has been devastating, said the Moodie Davitt Report, a travel retail-intelligence service provider, who warned the airport retail industry at major Asian hubs had plunged 60-70% since the virus outbreak began. 

“This is the greatest crisis the travel retail sector has faced, worse than [severe acute respiratory syndrome], the two Gulf wars or various financial crises,” the report said. “That’s largely driven by the fact that the Chinese traveler has become the epicenter of the sector over recent years and many retailers are worryingly reliant on them.”

Airports in Singapore and Thailand began to offer rent relief in February to retail outlets for the next 6-12 months. Officials at Hong Kong’s airport provided $205 million in assistance for industries directly or indirectly affected by declining air travel. 

Geolocation data firm Advan Research said Los Angeles International Airport foot traffic declined 20% YoY in February, a similar decline of 15% YoY was seen in San Francisco’s airport over the same month. 

New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport’s Terminal 1 retail outlets have recorded a halving of sales in the last month, mostly because flights from the terminal are destined for Asia, and the US government has placed flight restrictions to China.

“Now we’re making $1,000 to $2,000 a day, compared to $4,000 on regular days and $8,000 on exceptionally good days,” said one airport retail operator at JFK. 

Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield, a retail operator with stores at Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York airports, told The Journal that lower foot traffic has been visible since the virus outbreak. 

“Unless the crisis persists beyond six months, I think many tenants will stay put and wait this out,” said Manny Steiner, founder of real-estate consulting firm Steiner Placemaking Advisory.

Twitter users are reporting airports across the world are “empty:” 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 – 12:09

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cvue8B Tyler Durden

Libertarian Super Tuesday: Big Night for Jacob Hornberger, NOTA; John McAfee Drops Out and Backs Vermin Supreme

Democrats and Republicans weren’t the only voters to experience the pains and pleasures of Super Tuesday—third parties, which in 2016 had their best presidential showing in two decades, were also on the ballot in a handful of states.

Libertarian Party primaries and caucuses are nonbinding, which means that no delegates are awarded based on results. As ever, candidates for the nomination of the country’s third-largest party need to persuade a simple majority of the state L.P. delegates who attend the May 21-25 national convention in Austin, Texas. Still, the election results provide a snapshot of what party members are thinking less than three months out.

So far, the trend line is unmistakable—the Libertarian front-runner at this point is longtime libertarian-movement hand and Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger. After previously winning the Iowa and Minnesota caucuses, and getting the second-most first-place votes in the New Hampshire primary as a write-in, Hornberger was the biggest human vote-getter in all three of the Super Tuesday primaries that have posted results so far.

In California, with 99.9 percent of precincts reporting, Hornberger led a field of 13 candidates with 17.5 percent of the vote. Tied for second with 11.6 percent were former military officer and Honolulu County Neighborhood Board member Ken Armstrong, and political satirist Vermin Supreme, the latter of whom previously won the New Hampshire primary. Lagging just behind at 11.4 percent was 1996 L.P. vice presidential nominee and academic Jo Jorgensen.

In Massachusetts, with 100 percent reporting (though the results are still unofficial), Hornberger was the leading vote-getting candidate with 12.6 percent, though he trailed that perennial L.P. favorite “None of the Above” (NOTA), which clocked in at 20 percent. Educator and controversialist Arvin Vohra was next at 6.3 percent, followed by a 5.9 percent tie between Vermin Supreme and Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman. Write-ins, which have not yet been broken down, amounted to a combined 26.3 percent.

And in North Carolina, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported this morning, Hornberger again paced the biped field with 8.7 percent, though NOTA stomped with 29.8 percent. (NOTA wasn’t on the ballot in California.) Just behind Hornberger with 8.2 percent was antivirus pioneer and international man of mystery John McAfee, who promptly dropped out, threw his support behind Vermin Supreme, and announced his candidacy for vice president:

Not on any of the three Super Tuesday Libertarian ballots were recent entrants Lincoln Chafee (the former U.S. senator and Rhode Island governor, who finished second in the Iowa L.P. caucus and tied for fourth in Minnesota); entrepreneur/ex-convict Mark Whitney (11th and fourth, respectively, in same), and former million-vote-getting Georgia gubernatorial candidate John Monds (15th and fourth).

Meanwhile, the leading fundraiser in the race, activist and veteran Adam Kokesh, finished sixth in California with 7.9 percent, tied for eighth in Massachusetts with 4.4 percent, and ninth in North Carolina with 3.5 percent.

With the Democratic nomination seesawing back into Joe Biden territory, dimming the prospects of a populist/nationalist vs. populist/socialist election, the allure for potential latecomers into the Libertarian race will surely lessen. This could well be the final field in the contest to be the third candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Much can and will change between now and late May but, for the moment, Jacob Hornberger is your Libertarian front-runner.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VJRBp2
via IFTTT

Assad Joins Forces With Libya’s Haftar To Combat Turkey

Assad Joins Forces With Libya’s Haftar To Combat Turkey

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

While recent generations have shown them reluctant to expand far beyond their borders, in the past few months Turkey has shown interest in overseas military engagements. Forces have been active in northern Syria with an eye toward regime change, and Turkey has also committed to military involvement in Libya.

That’s given Turkey two potential enemies to worry about, and given them each a potential new ally. The Syrian government and Libya’s self-proclaimed Libyan National Army (LNA) under Gen. Khalifa Haftar have agreed to cooperation, and signed a memorandum of understanding to confront Turkish aggression.

Gen. Khalifa Haftar, via Middle East Monitor.

The LNA’s adjoining government, the eastern-based Tobruk Parliament, has confirmed it will be opening an embassy in Damascus. 

This will be the first Libyan embassy in Syria since the 2012 NATO-imposed regime change in Libya.

Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reports:

The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad reopened the Libyan Embassy in Damascus on Tuesday after an 8-year hiatus and handed it over to the “government” of east Libya-based renegade commander Khalifa Haftar.

The embassy was given to Haftar’s government after the two signed a memorandum of understanding to reopen embassies, the official SANA news agency reported.

The Syrian regime has become the first to recognize Haftar’s government, which does not have international recognition.

Since the LNA is heavily backed by much of the Arab world, their newfound alignment with Syria might open up the possibility of a Syrian rapprochement with those countries, most of whom had endorsed regime change in Syria as well.

Image via Commentary Magazine

With the Syrian “rebels” all but wiped out, they may find it’s easier to return to Damascus ties by way of common interests in Libya, and a common enemy in Turkey.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 – 11:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2vFXgSd Tyler Durden

Alexander Hamilton, Free Press Law Pioneer: Episode 10 of My “Free Speech Rules” YouTube Video Series

Thanks to a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation, and to the video production work of Meredith Bragg and Austin Bragg at Reason.tv, I’m putting together a series of 10 short, graphical YouTube videos explaining free speech law. Our videos so far have been

  1. “7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools,”
  2. “The Three Rules of Hate Speech and the First Amendment,”
  3. “Fake News and the First Amendment,”
  4. “Who Owns Your Life Story?,”
  5. “Is Money Speech?,”
  6. “Corporations and the First Amendment,”
  7. “The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students,”
  8. “Free Speech and Government Property,” and
  9. “Free Speech and Privacy.”

Our tenth, which we released a few weeks ago (and which I unaccountably neglected to post here at the time), is “Alexander Hamilton’s Influence on Free Press Law“:

As usual for our episodes, the full script is also posted right below the video on YouTube.

We’d love it if you

  1. Watched this.
  2. Shared this widely.
  3. Suggested people or organizations whom we might be willing to help spread it far and wide (obviously, the more detail on the potential contacts, the better).
  4. Gave us feedback on the style of the presentation, since we’re always willing to change the style as we learn more.

Please post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TnF4Gk
via IFTTT

Alexander Hamilton, Free Press Law Pioneer: Episode 10 of My “Free Speech Rules” YouTube Video Series

Thanks to a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation, and to the video production work of Meredith Bragg and Austin Bragg at Reason.tv, I’m putting together a series of 10 short, graphical YouTube videos explaining free speech law. Our videos so far have been

  1. “7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools,”
  2. “The Three Rules of Hate Speech and the First Amendment,”
  3. “Fake News and the First Amendment,”
  4. “Who Owns Your Life Story?,”
  5. “Is Money Speech?,”
  6. “Corporations and the First Amendment,”
  7. “The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students,”
  8. “Free Speech and Government Property,” and
  9. “Free Speech and Privacy.”

Our tenth, which we released a few weeks ago (and which I unaccountably neglected to post here at the time), is “Alexander Hamilton’s Influence on Free Press Law“:

As usual for our episodes, the full script is also posted right below the video on YouTube.

We’d love it if you

  1. Watched this.
  2. Shared this widely.
  3. Suggested people or organizations whom we might be willing to help spread it far and wide (obviously, the more detail on the potential contacts, the better).
  4. Gave us feedback on the style of the presentation, since we’re always willing to change the style as we learn more.

Please post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TnF4Gk
via IFTTT