Levy on the unimproved value of land

A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements.[1] It is also known as a location value tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.

Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6] Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax because it does not hurt economic activity or discourage or subsidize development.

LVT is associated with Henry George, whose ideology became known as Georgism. George argued that taxing the land value is most logical source of public revenue because the supply of land is fixed and because public infrastructure improvements would be reflected in (and thus paid for by) increased land values.[7]

Land value taxation is currently implemented throughout Denmark,[8] Estonia, Lithuania,[9] Russia,[10] Singapore,[11] and Taiwan;[12] it has also been applied to lesser extents in parts of Australia, Mexico (Mexicali), and the United States (e.g., Pennsylvania[13]).

Most taxes distort economic decisions and discourage beneficial economic activity. For example, property taxes discourage construction, maintenance, and repair because taxes increase with improvements. LVT is not based on how land is used. Because the supply of land is essentially fixed, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on landlord expenses. Thus landlords cannot pass LVT to tenants, who would move or rent smaller spaces before absorbing increased rent.[15]

The land's occupants benefit from improvements surrounding a site. Such improvements shift tenants' demand curve to the right (they will pay more). Landlords benefit from price competition among tenants; the only direct effect of LVT in this case is to reduce the amount of social benefit that is privately captured as land price by titleholders.

LVT is said to be justified for economic reasons because it does not deter production, distort markets, or otherwise create deadweight loss. Land value tax can even have negative deadweight loss (social benefits), particularly when land use improves.[16] Nobel Prize-winner William Vickrey believed that

"removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with taxes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction."[17]

LVT's efficiency has been observed in practice.[18] Fred Foldvary stated that LVT discourages speculative land holding because the tax reflects changes in land value (up and down), encouraging landowners to develop or sell vacant/underused plots in high demand. Foldvary claimed that LVT increases investment in dilapidated inner city areas because improvements don't cause tax increases. This in turn reduces the incentive to build on remote sites and so reduces urban sprawl.[19] For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's LVT has operated since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant downtown structures from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.[20]

LVT is arguably an ecotax because it discourages the waste of prime locations, which are a finite resource.[21][22][23] Many urban planners claim that LVT is an effective method to promote transit-oriented development.[24][25]

The value of land reflects the value it can provide over time. This value can be measured by the ground rent that a piece of land receives on the market. The present value of ground-rent is the basis for land prices. A land value tax (LVT) will reduce the ground rent received by the landlord, and thus will decrease the price of land, holding all else constant. The rent charged for land may also decrease as a result of efficiency gains if speculators stop hoarding unused land.

Real estate bubbles direct savings towards rent seeking activities rather than other investments and can contribute to recessions. Advocates claim that LVT reduces the speculative element in land pricing, thereby leaving more money for productive capital investment.[26]

At sufficiently high levels, LVT would cause real estate prices to fall by taxing away land rents that would otherwise become 'capitalized' into the price of real estate. It also encourages landowners to sell or develop locations that they are not using. This might cause some landowners, especially pure landowners, to resist high land value tax rates. Landowners often possess significant political influence, which may help explain the limited spread of land value taxes so far.[27]

A land value tax has progressive tax effects, in that it is paid by the owners of valuable land who tend to be the rich, and since the amount of land is fixed, the tax burden cannot be passed on as higher rents or lower wages to tenants, consumers or workers.[3][28][4]

Several practical issues complicate LVT implementation. Most notably, it must be:

Levying an LVT requires an assessment and a title register. In a 1796 United States Supreme Court opinion, Justice William Paterson said that leaving the valuation process up to assessors would cause bureaucratic complexities, as well as non-uniform procedures.[29] Murray Rothbard later raised similar concerns, claiming that no government can fairly assess value, which can only be determined by a free market.[30]

Compared to modern property tax assessments, land valuations involve fewer variables and have smoother gradients than valuations that include improvements. This is due to variation of building design and quality. Modern statistical techniques have improved the process; in the 1960s and 1970s, multivariate analysis was introduced as an assessment tool.[31] Usually, such a valuation process commences with a measurement of the most and least valuable land within the taxation area. A few sites of intermediate value are then identified and used as "landmark" values. Other values are interpolated between the landmark values. The data is then collated in a database,[32] "smoothed" and mapped using a geographic information system (GIS). Thus, even if the initial valuation is difficult, once the system is in use, successive valuations become easier.

In the context of LVT as a single tax (replacing all other taxes), some have argued that LVT alone cannot raise enough tax revenue.[33] However, the presence of other taxes can reduce land values and hence the revenue that can be raised from them. The Physiocrats argued that all other taxes ultimately come at the expense of land rental values. Most modern LVT systems function alongside other taxes and thus only reduce their impact without removing them. Land taxes that are higher than the rental surplus (the full land rent for that time period) would result in land abandonment.[34]

In some countries, LVT is impractical because of uncertainty regarding land titles and tenure. For instance a parcel of grazing land may be communally owned by village inhabitants and administered by village elders. The land in question would need to be held in a trust or similar body for taxation purposes. If the government cannot accurately define ownership boundaries and ascertain the proper owners, it cannot know from whom to collect the tax. Clear titles are absent in many developing countries.[35] In African countries with imperfect land registration, boundaries may be poorly surveyed and the owner can be unknown.[36]

The owner of a vacant lot in a thriving city must still pay a tax and would rationally perceive the property as a financial liability, encouraging them to put the land to use in order to cover the tax. LVT removes financial incentives to hold unused land solely for price appreciation, making more land available for productive uses. Land value tax creates an incentive to convert these sites to more intensive private uses or into public purposes.

The selling price of a good that is fixed in supply, such as land, does not change if it is taxed. By contrast, the price of manufactured goods can rise in response to increased taxes, because the higher cost reduces the number of units that suppliers are willing to sell at the original price. The price increase is how the maker passes along some part of the tax to consumers.[3] However, if the revenue from LVT is used to reduce other taxes or to provide valuable public investment, it can cause land prices to rise as a result of higher productivity, by more than the amount that LVT removed.

Land tax incidence rests completely upon landlords, although business sectors that provide services to landlords are indirectly impacted. In some economies, 80 percent of bank lending finances real estate, with a large portion of that for land.[37] Reduced demand for land speculation might reduce the amount of circulating bank credit.

While land owners are unlikely to be able to charge higher rents to compensate for LVT, removing other taxes may increase rents, as this may affect the demand for land.[38][39]

Assuming constant demand, an increase in constructed space decreases the cost of improvements to land such as houses. Shifting property taxes from improvements to land encourages development. Infill of underutilized urban space is one common practice to reduce urban sprawl.

LVT is less vulnerable to tax evasion, since land cannot be concealed or moved overseas and titles are easily identified, as they are registered with the public.[40] Land value assessments are usually considered public information, which is available upon request. Transparency reduces tax evasion.[41]

Land acquires a scarcity value owing to the competing needs for space. The value of land generally owes nothing to the landowner and everything to the surroundings.[42]

It has been claimed that land is God's gift to mankind.[43] For example, the Catholic Church asserts in its 1967 "universal destination of goods" principle:

Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich."[44]

In addition, the Church maintains that civil authorities have the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good, including the right to tax.[45]

LVT considers the effect on land value of location, and of improvements made to neighbouring land, such as proximity to roads and public works. LVT is the purest implementation of the public finance principle known as value capture.

A public works project can increase land values and thus increase LVT revenues. Arguably, public improvements should be paid for by the landowners who benefit from them.[47] Thus, LVT captures the land value of socially created wealth, allowing a reduction in tax on privately created (non-land) wealth.[48]

LVT generally is a progressive tax, with those of greater means paying more,[4][49] in that land ownership correlates to income[50] and landlords cannot shift the tax burden onto tenants.[51] LVT generally reduces economic inequality, removes incentives to misuse real estate, and reduces the vulnerability of economies to property booms and crashes.[52]

Land value taxation began after the introduction of agriculture. It was originally based on crop yield. This early version of the tax required simply sharing the yield at the time of the harvest, on a yearly basis.[53][clarification needed]

Rishis of ancient India claimed that land should be held in common and that unfarmed land should produce the same tax as productive land. "The earth ...is common to all beings enjoying the fruit of their own labour; it belongs...to all alike"; therefore, "there should be left some for everyone". Apastamba said "If any person holding land does not exert himself and hence bears no produce, he shall, if rich, be made to pay what ought to have been produced".[54]

Mencius[55] was a Chinese philosopher (around 300 BCE) who advocated for the elimination of taxes and tariffs, to be replaced by the public collection of urban land rent: "In the market-places, charge land-rent, but don't tax the goods."[56]

During the Middle Ages, in the West, the first regular and permanent land tax system was based on a unit of land known as the hide. The hide was originally the amount of land sufficient to support a household. It later became subject to a land tax known as "geld".[57]

The physiocrats were a group of economists who believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of land agriculture or land development. Before the Industrial Revolution, this was approximately correct. Physiocracy is one of the "early modern" schools of economics. Physiocrats called for the abolition of all existing taxes, completely free trade and a single tax on land.[58] They did not distinguish between the intrinsic value of land and ground rent.[59] Their theories originated in France and were most popular during the second half of the 18th century. The movement was particularly dominated by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (17271781) and Franois Quesnay (16941774).[60] It influenced contemporary statesmen, such as Charles Alexandre de Calonne. The physiocrats were highly influential in the early history of land value taxation in the United States.

A participant in the Radical Movement, Thomas Paine contended in his Agrarian Justice pamphlet that all citizens should be paid 15 pounds at age 21 "as a compensation in part for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property." "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."[61] This proposal was the origin of the citizen's dividend advocated by Geolibertarianism. Thomas Spence advocated a similar proposal except that the land rent would be distributed equally each year regardless of age.[62]

Adam Smith, in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, first rigorously analyzed the effects of a land value tax, pointing out how it would not hurt economic activity, and how it would not raise contract rents.

Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

Henry George (2 September 1839 29 October 1897) was perhaps the most famous advocate of recovering land rents for public purposes. An American journalist, politician and political economist, he advocated a "single tax" on land that would eliminate the need for all other taxes. George first articulated the proposal in Our Land and Land Policy (1871).[63] Later, in his best-selling work Progress and Poverty (1879), George argued that because the value of land depends on natural qualities combined with the economic activity of communities, including public investments, the economic rent of land was the best source of tax revenue.[7] This book significantly influenced land taxation in the United States and other countries, including Denmark, which continues grundskyld ('ground duty') as a key component of its tax system.[8] The philosophy that natural resource rents should be captured by society is now often known as Georgism. Its relevance to public finance is underpinned by the Henry George theorem.

After the 1868 Meiji Restoration in Japan, land tax reform was undertaken. An LVT was implemented beginning in 1873. By 1880 initial problems with valuation and rural opposition had been overcome and rapid industrialisation began.

In the United Kingdom, LVT was an important part of the platform of the Liberal Party during the early part of the twentieth century. David Lloyd George and H. H. Asquith proposed "to free the land that from this very hour is shackled with the chains of feudalism."[64] It was also advocated by Winston Churchill early in his career.[65] The modern Liberal Party (not to be confused with the Liberal Democrats, who are the heir to the earlier Liberal Party and who offer some support for the idea)[66] remains committed to a local form of LVT,[67] as do the Green Party of England and Wales[68] and the Scottish Greens.[69]

The 1931 Labour budget included an LVT, but before it came into force it was repealed by the Conservative-dominated national government that followed.[70]

An attempt at introducing LVT in the administrative County of London was made by the local authority under the leadership of Herbert Morrison in the 19381939 Parliament, called the London Rating (Site Values) Bill. Although it failed, it detailed legislation for the implementation of a system of LVT using annual value assessment.[71]

After 1945, the Labour Party adopted the policy, against substantial opposition, of collecting "development value": the increase in land price arising from planning consent. This was one of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, but it was repealed when the Labour government lost power in 1951.

Senior Labour figures in recent times have advocated an LVT, notably Andy Burnham in his 2010 leadership campaign, former Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn, and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

The Republic of China was one of the first jurisdictions to implement an LVT, specified in its constitution. Sun Yat-Sen would learn about LVT from the Kiautschou Bay concession, which had successful implementation of LVT, bringing increased wealth and financial stability to the colony. The Republic of China would go on to implement LVT in farms at first, later implementing it in the urban areas due to its success.[72]

Alfred Marshall argued in favour of a "fresh air rate", a tax to be charged to urban landowners and levied on that value of urban land that is caused by the concentration of population.[73] That general rate should have to be spent on breaking out small green spots in the midst of dense industrial districts, and on the preservation of large green areas between different towns and between different suburbs which are tending to coalesce. This idea influenced Marshall's pupil Arthur Pigou's ideas on taxing negative externalities.[74]

Pigou wrote an essay supporting LVT, interpreted as support for Lloyd George's People's Budget.[75]

Paul Samuelson supported LVT. "Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'."

Milton Friedman stated: "There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."[76]

Michael Hudson is a proponent for taxing rent, especially land rent. ".... politically, taxing economic rent has become the bte noire of neoliberal globalism. It is what property owners and rentiers fear most of all, as land, subsoil resources and natural monopolies far exceed industrial capital in magnitude. What appears in the statistics at first glance as 'profit' turns out upon examination to be Ricardian or 'economic' rent."

Paul Krugman agreed that LVT is efficient, however he disputed whether it should be considered a single tax, as he believed it would not be enough alone, excluding taxes on natural resource rents and other Georgist taxes, to fund a welfare state. "Believe it or not, urban economics models actually do suggest that Georgist taxation would be the right approach at least to finance city growth. But I would just say: I don't think you can raise nearly enough money to run a modern welfare state by taxing land [only]."[77]

Joseph Stiglitz, articulating the Henry George theorem wrote that, "Not only was Henry George correct that a tax on land is nondistortionary, but in an equilitarian society ... tax on land raises just enough revenue to finance the (optimally chosen) level of government expenditure."[78]

Rick Falkvinge proposed a "simplified taxless state" where the state owns all the land it can defend from other states, and leases this land to people at market rates.[79]

Land taxes in Australia are levied by the states. The exemption thresholds vary, as do tax rates and other rules.

In New South Wales, the state land tax exempts farmland and principal residences and there is a tax threshold. Determination of land value for tax purposes is the responsibility of the Valuer-General.[80] In Victoria, the land tax threshold is $250,000 on the total value of all Victorian property owned by a person on 31 December of each year, and taxed at a progressive rate. The principal residence, primary production land and land used by a charity are exempt from land tax.[81] In Tasmania the threshold is $25,000 and the audit date is 1 July. Between $25,000 and $350,000 the tax rate is 0.55% and over $350,000 it is 1.5%.[82] In Queensland, the threshold for individuals is $600,000 and $350,000 for other entities, and the audit date is 30 June.[83] In South Australia the threshold is $332,000 and taxed at a progressive rate, the audit date is 30 June.[84]

By revenue, property taxes represent 4.5% of total taxation in Australia.[85] A government report[86] in 1986 for Brisbane, Queensland advocated an LVT.

The Henry Tax Review of 2010 commissioned by the federal government recommended that state governments replace stamp duty with LVT. The review proposed multiple marginal rates and that most agricultural land would be in the lowest band with a rate of zero. The Australian Capital Territory moved to adopt this system and planned to reduce stamp duty by 5% and raise land tax by 5% for each of twenty years.

LVT were common in Western Canada at the turn of the twentieth century. In Vancouver LVT became the sole form of municipal taxation in 1910 under the leadership of mayor, Louis D. Taylor.[87] Gary B. Nixon (2000) stated that the rate never exceeded 2% of land value, too low to prevent the speculation that led directly to the 1913 real estate crash.[88] All Canadian provinces later taxed improvements.

Estonia levies an LVT to fund municipalities. It is a state level tax, but 100% of the revenue funds Local Councils. The rate is set by the Local Council within the limits of 0.12.5%. It is one of the most important sources of funding for municipalities.[89] LVT is levied on the value of the land only. Few exemptions are available and even public institutions are subject to it. Church sites are exempt, but other land held by religious institutions is not.[89] The tax has contributed to a high rate (~90%)[89] of owner-occupied residences within Estonia, compared to a rate of 67.4% in the United States.[90]

Government rent in Hong Kong, formerly the crown rent, is levied in addition to Rates. Properties located in the New Territories (including New Kowloon), or located in the rest of the territory and whose land grant was recorded after 27 May 1985, pay 3% of the rateable rental value.[91][92]

Municipal governments in Hungary levy an LVT based on the area or the land's adjusted market value. The maximum rate is 3% of the adjusted market value.[93]

Kenya's LVT history dates to at least 1972, shortly after it achieved independence. Local governments must tax land value, but are required to seek approval from the central government for rates that exceed 4 percent. Buildings were not taxed in Kenya as of 2000. The central government is legally required to pay municipalities for the value of land it occupies. Kelly claimed that possibly as a result of this land reform, Kenya became the only stable country in its region.[94] As of late 2014, the city of Nairobi still taxed only land values, although a tax on improvements had been proposed.[95]

The capital city of Baja California, Mexicali, has had an LVT since the 1990s when it became the first locality in Mexico to implement such a tax.[96]

A land value taxation on rural land was introduced in Namibia, with the primary intention of improving land use.[97]

In 1990, several economists wrote[98] to then President Mikhail Gorbachev suggesting that Russia adopt LVT; its failure to do so was argued as causal in the rise of oligarchs.[citation needed]Currently, Russia has an LVT of 0.3% on residential, agricultural and utilities lands as well as a 1.5% tax for other types of land.[10]

Singapore owns the majority of its land which it leases for 99-year terms. In addition, Singapore taxes development uplift at around 70%. These two sources of revenue fund most of Singapore's new infrastructure.[11]

South Korea has an aggregate land tax that is levied annually based on an individual's landholding value across the whole country. Speculative and residential land has a progressive tax rate of 0.25%, commercial and building sites 0.32%, farm and forest lands 0.1% and luxury properties 5%.[99]

As of 2010, land value taxes and land value increment taxes accounted for 8.4% of total government revenue in Taiwan.[12]

The Thai government introduced the Land and Building Tax Act B.E. 2562 in March 2019, which came into effect on 1 January 2020. It sets a maximum tax rate of 1.2% on commercial and vacant land, 0.3% for residential land and 0.15% for agricultural land.[100]

In the late 19th century George's followers founded a single tax colony at Fairhope, Alabama. Although the colony, now a nonprofit corporation, still holds land in the area and collects a relatively small ground rent, the land is subject to state and local property taxes.[101]

Common property taxes include land value, which usually has a separate assessment. Thus, land value taxation already exists in many jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have attempted to rely more heavily on it. In Pennsylvania certain cities raised the tax on land value while reducing the tax on improvement/building/structure values. For example, the city of Altoona adopted a property tax that solely taxes land value in 2002 but repealed the tax in 2016.[102] Many Pennsylvania cities use a split-rate tax, which taxes the value of land at a higher rate than the value of buildings.[13]

China's Real Rights Law contains provisions founded on LVT analysis.[103]

In 2010 the government of Ireland announced that it would introduce an LVT, beginning in 2013.[104] Following a 2011 change in government, a property tax was introduced instead.

After decades of a modest LVT, New Zealand abolished it in 1990. Discussions continue as to whether or not to bring it back. Earlier Georgist politicians included Patrick O'Regan and Tom Paul (who was Vice-President of the New Zealand Land Values League).

In September 1908, Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George instructed McKenna, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to build more Dreadnoughts. The ships were to be financed by an LVT. Lloyd George believed that relating national defence to land tax would both provoke the opposition of the House of Lords and rally the people round a simple emotive issue. The Lords, composed of wealthy land owners, rejected the Budget in November 1909, leading to a constitutional crisis.[105]

LVT was on the UK statute books briefly in 1931, introduced by Philip Snowden's 1931 budget, strongly supported by prominent LVT campaigner Andrew MacLaren MP. MacLaren lost his seat at the next election (1931) and the act was repealed, MacLaren tried again with a private member's bill in 1937; it was rejected 141 to 118.[106]

Labour Land Campaign advocates within the Labour Party and the broader labour movement for "a more equitable distribution of the Land Values that are created by the whole community" through LVT. Its membership includes members of the British Labour Party, Trade Unions and Cooperatives and individuals.[107] The Liberal Democrats' ALTER (Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform) aims

to improve the understanding of and support for Land Value Taxation amongst members of the Liberal Democrats; to encourage all Liberal Democrats to promote and campaign for this policy as part of a more sustainable and just resource based economic system in which no one is enslaved by poverty; and to cooperate with other bodies, both inside and outside the Liberal Democrat Party, who share these objectives.[108]

The Green Party "favour moving to a system of Land Value Tax, where the level of taxation depends on the rental value of the land concerned."[109]

A course in "Economics with Justice"[110] with a strong foundation in LVT are offered at the School of Economic Science, which was founded by Andrew MacLaren MP and has historical links with the Henry George Foundation.[111][112][106]

In February 1998, the Scottish Office of the British Government launched a public consultation process on land reform.[113] A survey of the public response found that: "excluding the responses of the lairds and their agents, reckoned as likely prejudiced against the measure, 20% of all responses favoured the land tax" (12% in grand total, without the exclusions).[114] The government responded by announcing "a comprehensive economic evaluation of the possible impact of moving to a land value taxation basis".[115] However, no measure was adopted.[116]

In 2000 the Parliament's Local Government Committee's[117] inquiry into local government finance explicitly included LVT,[118] but the final report omitted any mention.[119]

In 2003 the Scottish Parliament passed a resolution: "That the Parliament notes recent studies by the Scottish Executive and is interested in building on them by considering and investigating the contribution that land value taxation could make to the cultural, economic, environmental and democratic renaissance of Scotland."[120]

In 2004 a letter of support was sent from members of the Scottish Parliament to the organisers and delegates of the IU's 24th international conferenceincluding members of the Scottish Greens, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish National Party.[121]

The policy was considered in the 2006 Scottish Local Government Finance Review whose 2007 Report[122] concluded that "although land value taxation meets a number of our criteria, we question whether the public would accept the upheaval involved in radical reform of this nature, unless they could clearly understand the nature of the change and the benefits involved.... We considered at length the many positive features of a land value tax which are consistent with our recommended local property tax [LPT], particularly its progressive nature." However, "[h]aving considered both rateable value and land value as the basis for taxation, we concur with Layfield (UK Committee of Inquiry, 1976) who recommended that any local property tax should be based on capital values."[123]

In 2009, Glasgow City Council resolved to introduce LVT by saying "the idea could become the blueprint for Scotland's future local taxation".[124] The Council agreed to[125] a "long term move to a local property tax / land value tax hybrid tax". Its Local Taxation Working Group stated that simple [non-hybrid] land value taxation should itself "not be discounted as an option for local taxation reform: it potentially holds many benefits and addresses many existing concerns".[126]

In Zimbabwe, government coalition partners the Movement for Democratic Change adopted LVT.[127]

Bernard Clerfayt called for the overhaul of the property tax in the Brussels region, with a higher tax for land values than for buildings.[128]

Excerpt from:

Land value tax - Wikipedia

Condition of homelessness without regular employment or income

Vagrancy is the condition of homelessness without regular employment or income. Vagrants (also known as vagabonds, rogues, tramps or drifters)[1] usually live in poverty and support themselves by begging, scavenging, petty theft, temporary work, or social security (where available). Historically, vagrancy in Western societies was associated with petty crime, begging and lawlessness, and punishable by law with forced labor, military service, imprisonment, or confinement to dedicated labor houses.

Both vagrant and vagabond ultimately derive from the Latin word vagari, meaning "to wander". The term vagabond is derived from Latin vagabundus. In Middle English, vagabond originally denoted a person without a home or employment.[2]

Vagrants have been historically characterised as outsiders in settled, ordered communities: embodiments of otherness, objects of scorn or mistrust, or worthy recipients of help and charity.

Some ancient sources show vagrants as passive objects of pity, who deserve generosity and the gift of alms. Others show them as subversives, or outlaws, who make a parasitical living through theft, fear and threat.

Gyrovagues were itinerant monks of the upper Middle-Age.Some fairy tales of medieval Europe have beggars cast curses on anyone who was insulting or stingy toward them. In Tudor England, some of those who begged door-to-door for "milk, yeast, drink, pottage" were thought to be witches.[3]

Many world religions, both in history and today, have vagrant traditions or make reference to vagrants. In Christianity, Jesus is shown in the Bible as having compassion for beggars, prostitutes, and the disenfranchised. The Catholic Church also teaches compassion for people living in vagrancy.[4] Vagrant lifestyles are seen in Christian movements, such as in the mendicant orders. Many still exist in places like Europe, Africa, and the Near East, as preserved by Gnosticism, Hesychasm, and various esoteric practices.[citation needed]

In some East Asian and South Asian countries, the condition of vagrancy has long been historically associated with the religious life, as described in the religious literature of Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Muslim Sufi traditions. Examples include sadhus, dervishes, bhikkhus, and the sramanic traditions generally.

From 27 November 1891, a vagabond could be jailed. Vagabonds, beggars and procurers were imprisoned in vagrancy prisons: Hoogstraten; Merksplas; and Wortel (Flanders). There, the prisoners had to work for their living by working on the land or in the prison. If the prisoners had earned enough money, then they could leave the "colony" (as it was called). On 12 January 1993, the Belgian vagrancy law was repealed.[5] At that time, 260 vagabonds still lived in the Wortel colony.

In medieval times, vagabonds were controlled by an official called the Stodderkonge who was responsible for a town or district and expelled those without a permit. Their role eventually transferred to the police.

In premodern Finland and Sweden, vagrancy was a crime, which could result in a sentence of forced labour or forced military service. There was a "legal protection" (Finnish: laillinen suojelu) obligation: those not part of the estates of the realm (nobility, clergy, burghers or land-owners) were obliged to be employed, or otherwise, they could be charged with vagrancy. Legal protection was mandatory already in medieval Swedish law, but Gustav I of Sweden began strictly enforcing this provision, applying it even when work was potentially available. In Finland, the legal protection provision was repealed in 1883; however, vagrancy still remained illegal, if connected with "immoral" or "indecent" behavior.[6] In 1936, a new law moved the emphasis from criminalization into social assistance. Forced labor sentences were abolished in 1971 and anti-vagrancy laws were repealed in 1987.[7] Sweden still has laws requiring vagrants to get employment, even employments without pay, or they'll have all of their belongings removed and be forced to live on the street.[8]

In Germany, according to the 1871 Penal Code ( 361 des Strafgesetzbuches von 1871), vagabondage was among the grounds to confine a person to a labor house.[9][10]

In the Weimar Republic, the law against vagrancy was relaxed, but it became much more stringent in Nazi Germany, where vagrancy, together with begging, prostitution, and "work-shyness" (arbeitsscheu), was classified "asocial behavior" as punishable by confinement to concentration camps.

In the Russian Empire, the legal term "vagrancy" (Russian: , brodyazhnichestvo) was defined in a different way than in Western Europe (vagabondage in France, Landstreicherei in Germany). Russian law recognized one as a vagrant if they could not prove their own standing (title), or if they changed residence without a permission from authorities, rather than punishing loitering or absence of livelihood. Foreigners who had been twice expatriated with prohibition of return to the Russian Empire and were arrested in Russia again were also recognized as vagrants. Punishments were harsh: according to Ulozhenie, the legal code, a vagrant who could not elaborate on his kinship, standing, or permanent residence, or gave false evidence, was sentenced to a 4-year imprisonment and a subsequent exile to Siberia or another far-off province.

In the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (1960)[ru], which came into force on 1 January 1961, systematic vagrancy (that which was identified more than once) was punishable by up to two years' imprisonment (section 209).[11]

This continued until 5 December 1991, when Section 209 was repealed and vagrancy ceased to be a criminal offense.[12]

At present, vagrancy is not a criminal offence in Russia, but it is an offence for someone over 18 to induce a juvenile (one who has not reached that age) to vagrancy, according to Chapter 20, Section 151 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The note, introduced by the Federal Law No. 162 of 8 December 2003, provides that the section does not apply, if such act is performed by a parent of the juvenile under harsh life circumstances due to the loss of livelihood or the absence of living place.

The Ordinance of Labourers 1349 was the first major vagrancy law in England and Wales. The ordinance sought to increase the available workforce following the Black Death in England by making idleness (unemployment) an offence. A vagrant was a person who could work but chose not to, and having no fixed abode or lawful occupation, begged. Vagrancy was punishable by human branding or whipping. Vagrants were distinguished from the impotent poor, who were unable to support themselves because of advanced age or sickness. In the Vagabonds Act 1530, Henry VIII decreed that "beggars who are old and incapable of working receive a beggar's licence. On the other hand, [there should be] whipping and imprisonment for sturdy vagabonds. They are to be tied to the cart-tail and whipped until the blood streams from their bodies, then they are to swear on oath to go back to their birthplace or to serve where they have lived the last three years and to 'put themselves to labour'. For the second arrest for vagabondage the whipping is to be repeated and half the ear sliced off; but for the third relapse the offender is to be executed as a hardened criminal and enemy of the common weal."[13]

In the Vagabonds Act 1547, Edward VI ordained that "if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. The master has the right to force him to do any work, no matter how vile, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent for a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he runs away three times, he is to be executed as a felon... If it happens that a vagabond has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to his birthplace, branded with a red hot iron with the letter V on his breast, and set to work, in chains, on the roads or at some other labour... Every master may put an iron ring round the neck, arms or legs of his slave, by which to know him more easily."[14]

In England, the Vagabonds Act 1572 passed under Elizabeth I, defined a rogue as a person who had no land, no master, and no legitimate trade or source of income; it included rogues in the class of vagrants or vagabonds. If a person were apprehended as a rogue, he would be stripped to the waist, whipped until bleeding, and a hole, about the compass of an inch about, would be burned through the cartilage of his right ear with a hot iron.[15] A rogue who was charged with a second offence, unless taken in by someone who would give him work for one year, could face execution as a felony. A rogue charged with a third offence would only escape death if someone hired him for two years.

The Vagabonds Act of 1572 decreed that "unlicensed beggars above fourteen years of age are to be severely flogged and branded on the left ear unless someone will take them into service for two years; in case of a repetition of the offence, if they are over eighteen, they are to be executed, unless someone will take them into service for two years; but for the third offence they are to be executed without mercy as felons." The same act laid the legal groundwork for the enforced exile (penal transportation) of "obdurate idlers" to "such parts beyond the seas as shall be [] assigned by the Privy Council".[16] At the time, this meant exile for a fixed term to the Virginia Company's plantations in America. Those who returned unlawfully from their place of exile faced death by hanging.

The Vagabonds Act 1597 banished and transplanted "incorrigible and dangerous rogues" overseas.

In Das Kapital (Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Eight: Bloody Legislation Against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing Down of Wages by Acts of Parliament), Karl Marx wrote:

James 1: Any one wandering about and begging is declared a rogue and a vagabond. Justices of the peace in petty sessions are authorised to have them publicly whipped and for the first offence to imprison them for 6 months, for the second for 2 years. Whilst in prison they are to be whipped as much and as often as the justices of the peace think fit Incorrigible and dangerous rogues are to be branded with an R on the left shoulder and set to hard labour, and if they are caught begging again, to be executed without mercy. These statutes, legally binding until the beginning of the 18th century, were only repealed by 12 Anne, c. 23.[17]

In late-eighteenth-century Middlesex, those suspected of vagrancy could be detained by the constable or watchman and brought before a magistrate who had the legal right to interview them to determine their status.[18] If declared vagrant, they were to be arrested, whipped, and physically expelled from the county by a vagrant contractor, whose job it was to take them to the edge of the county and pass them to the contractor for the next county on the journey.[18] This process would continue until the person reached his or her place of legal settlement, which was often but not always their place of birth.

In 1795, the Speenhamland system (also known as the Berkshire Bread Act)[19] tried to address some of the problems that underlay vagrancy. The Speenhamland system was a form of outdoor relief intended to mitigate rural poverty in England and Wales at the end of the 18th century and during the early 19th century. The law was an amendment to the Elizabethan Poor Law. It was created as an indirect result of Britain's involvements in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (17931815).[20]

In 1821, the existing vagrancy law was reviewed by a House of Commons select committee, resulting in the publication of the, 'Report from the Select Committee on The Existing Laws Relating to Vagrants'.[21] After hearing the views of many witnesses appearing before it the select committee made several recommendations. The select committee found that the existing vagrancy laws had become over-complicated and that they should be amended and consolidated into a single Act of Parliament. The payment of fixed rewards for the apprehension and taking vagrants before magistrates had led to abuses of the system. Due to the Poor Laws, vagrants to receive and poverty relief had to seek it from the parish where they were last legally settled, often the parish where they were born. This led to a system of convicted vagrants being 'passed' from parish to parish from where they had been convicted and punished to their own parish. The 'pass' system led to them being transported by vagrancy contractors, a system found to be open to abuses and fraud. It also found that in many instances the punishment for vagrancy offences were insufficient and certain types of vagrants should be given longer prison sentences and made to complete hard labour during it.[21]

Based on the findings and recommendations from the 1821 House of Commons Select on Vagrancy,[21] a new Act of Parliament was introduced, 'An Act for the Punishment of Idle and Disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds, in that Part of Great Britain called England', commonly known as the Vagrancy Act 1824.[22] The Vagrancy Act 1824 consolidated the previous vagrancy laws and addressed many of the frauds and abuses identified during the select committee hearings. Much reformed since 1824, some of the offences included in it are still enforceable.[23]

Colonists imported British vagrancy laws when they settled in North America. Throughout the colonial and early national periods, vagrancy laws were used to police the mobility and economic activities of the poor. People experiencing homelessness and ethnic minorities were especially vulnerable to arrest as a vagrant. Thousands of inhabitants of colonial and early national America were incarcerated for vagrancy, usually for terms of 30 to 60 days, but occasionally longer.[24]

After the American Civil War, some Southern states passed Black Codes, laws that tried to control the hundreds of thousands of freed slaves. In 1866, the state of Virginia, fearing that it would be "overrun with dissolute and abandoned characters", passed an Act Providing for the Punishment of Vagrants. Homeless or unemployed persons could be forced into labour on public or private works, for very low pay, for a statutory maximum of three months; if fugitive and recaptured, they must serve the rest of their term at minimum subsistence, wearing ball and chain. In effect, though not in declared intent, the Act criminalized attempts by impoverished freed people to seek out their own families and rebuild their lives. The commanding general in Virginia, Alfred H. Terry, condemned the Act as a form of entrapment, the attempted reinstitution of "slavery in all but its name". He forbade its enforcement. It is not known how often it was applied, or what was done to prevent its implementation, but it remained statute in Virginia until 1904.[25] Other Southern states enacted similar laws to funnel blacks into their system of convict leasing.

Since at least as early as the 1930s, a vagrancy law in America typically has rendered "no visible means of support" a misdemeanor, yet it has commonly been used as a pretext to take one into custody for such things as loitering, prostitution, drunkenness, or criminal association.[citation needed] The criminal statutes of law in Louisiana specifically criminalize vagrancy as associating with prostitutes, being a professional gambler, being a habitual drunk, or living on the social welfare benefits or pensions of others.[26] This law establishes as vagrants all those healthy adults who are not engaged in gainful employment.

In the 1960s, laws proven unacceptably broad and vague were found to violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[citation needed] Such laws could no longer be used to obstruct the "freedom of speech" of a political demonstrator or an unpopular group. Ambiguous vagrancy laws became more narrowly and clearly defined.[citation needed]

In Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Florida vagrancy law was unconstitutional because it was too vague to be understood.[27]

Nevertheless, new local laws in the U.S. have been passed to criminalize aggressive panhandling.[28][29]

See the original post:

Vagrancy - Wikipedia

Conservatives across the state of Florida celebrated on Tuesday night after control of the Sarasota County School Board shifted from liberal to conservative.

Bridget Ziegler, Robyn Marinelli, and Timothy Enos were all endorsed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and were all victorious Tuesday night in their elections for the Sarasota School board.

Various conservatives in the state touted the victories and suggested they represented a shift against Critical Race Theory and other "woke" policies that DeSantis and Republicans in Florida have railed against.

"Sarasota School Board had a 3-2 liberal majority," Christina Pushaw, rapid response director for DeSantis's reelection campaign, tweeted on Tuesday night. "Today @RonDeSantisFL endorsed candidates won and flipped the school board so its now 4-1 anti wokes indoctrination and pro parental rights."

CHARLIE CRIST WINS DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, WILL TAKE ON DESANTIS IN NOVEMBER

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a press conference to announce the expansion of a new, piloted substance abuse and recovery network. (Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

"All three of our endorsed candidates in Sarasota County, Florida have WON their elections.," the 1776 Project Pac tweeted. "We just flipped the school board from a 3-2 liberal majority to 4-1 conservative."

DESANTIS TOUTS 'RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS' IN FLORIDA GOV RACE: 'WE HAVE THE WIND AT OUR BACK'

Former Associated Press editor Ted Bridis tweeted Tuesday night that 25 conservative school board candidates supported by DeSantis won elections.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks to the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on July 22, 2022. (Sarah Freeman/Fox News)

DeSantis also had a big night in Miami Dade County where conservative school board candidates also took control.

"The 1776 Project PAC was successful across the state of Florida," Ryan Girdusky, founder of the 1776 Project PAC, told Fox News Digital. "This shows what happens when conservatives like the 1776 Project PAC, Moms for Liberty, and Gov. DeSantis team up behind great candidates. Florida today, the country."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

Link:

DeSantis-backed candidates flip Florida school board from liberal to ...

Zoom out

Global Freedom

Internet Freedom

Democracy Status

Year 1973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030

Country All countriesAngolaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAzerbaijanBahrainBangladeshBelarusBrazilCambodiaCanadaChinaColombiaCubaEcuadorEgyptEstoniaEthiopiaFranceGeorgiaGermanyHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranItalyJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKyrgyzstanLebanonLibyaMalawiMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoMyanmarNigeriaPakistanPhilippinesRussiaRwandaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSri LankaSudanSyriaThailandThe GambiaTunisiaTurkeyUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamZambiaZimbabweAfghanistanAlbaniaAntarcticaAustriaBurundiBelgiumBeninBurkina FasoBulgariaThe BahamasBosnia and HerzegovinaBelizeBoliviaBruneiBhutanBotswanaCentral African RepublicSwitzerlandChileCte d'IvoireCameroonDemocratic Republic of the CongoRepublic of the CongoCosta RicaCyprusCzech RepublicDjiboutiDenmarkDominican RepublicAlgeriaEritreaSpainFinlandFijiFalkland IslandsGabonGhanaGuineaGuinea-BissauEquatorial GuineaGreeceGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasCroatiaHaitiIrelandIraqIsraelJamaicaKuwaitLaosLiberiaLesothoLithuaniaLuxembourgLatviaMoldovaMadagascarNorth MacedoniaMaliMontenegroMongoliaMozambiqueMauritaniaNamibiaNigerNicaraguaNetherlandsNorwayNepalNew ZealandOmanPanamaPeruPapua New GuineaPolandPuerto RicoNorth KoreaPortugalParaguayQatarRomaniaWestern SaharaSouth SudanSenegalSolomon IslandsSierra LeoneEl SalvadorSomaliaSerbiaSurinameSlovakiaSloveniaSwedenEswatiniChadTogoTajikistanTurkmenistanTimor-LesteTrinidad and TobagoTaiwanTanzaniaUruguayVanuatuWest BankYemenCrimeaMonacoAndorraKosovoLiechtensteinPalestineSan MarinoSomalilandAbkhaziaTransnistriaSouth OssetiaNagorno-KarabakhGaza StripBarbadosComorosGrenadaDominicaKiribatiMauritiusMicronesiaPalauSamoaSo Tom and Prncipe St. Kitts and NevisSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSt. LuciaTongaMaldivesCabo VerdeNorthern CyprusSeychellesTuvaluMarshall IslandsHong KongIndian KashmirPakistani KashmirTibetAntigua and BarbudaMaltaNauruEastern Donbas

Status

Trend

2021 was the 16th consecutive year of decline in global freedom.

Not Free

Partly Free

Free

From 2020 to 2021

Less free More free

3+

1-2

0

1-2

3+

Although global internet freedom declined for the 12th straight year in 2021-22, a record 26 countries recorded improvements.

Score: 0-39

Score: 40-69

Score: 70-100

From 2021 to 2022

Less free More free

3+

1-2

0

1-2

3+

In 2020, a record low 10 of 29 countries were classified as democracies.

Consolidated Authoritarian Regime

Semi-Consolidated Authoritarian Regime

Transitional or Hybrid Regime

Semi-Consolidated Democracy

Consolidated Democracy

From 2020 to 2021

Less free More free

2+

1

0

1

2+

Read the rest here:

Explore the Map | Freedom House

Women who advocated for women's right to vote

First suffragettes

Later groups

Key people

A suffragette was a member of an activist women's organisation in the early 20th century who, under the banner "Votes for Women", fought for the right to vote in public elections in the United Kingdom. The term refers in particular to members of the British Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), a women-only movement founded in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst, which engaged in direct action and civil disobedience.[1][2] In 1906, a reporter writing in the Daily Mail coined the term suffragette for the WSPU, derived from suffragist (any person advocating for voting rights), in order to belittle the women advocating women's suffrage.[3] The militants embraced the new name, even adopting it for use as the title of the newspaper published by the WSPU.[3]

Women had won the right to vote in several countries by the end of the 19th century; in 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country to grant the vote to all women over the age of 21.[6] When by 1903 women in Britain had not been enfranchised, Pankhurst decided that women had to "do the work ourselves";[7] the WSPU motto became "deeds, not words". The suffragettes heckled politicians, tried to storm parliament, were attacked and sexually assaulted during battles with the police, chained themselves to railings, smashed windows, carried out a nationwide bombing and arson campaign, and faced anger and ridicule in the media. When imprisoned they went on hunger strike, to which the government responded by force-feeding them. The first suffragette to be force fed was Evaline Hilda Burkitt. The death of one suffragette, Emily Davison, when she ran in front of the king's horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby, made headlines around the world. The WSPU campaign had varying levels of support from within the suffragette movement; breakaway groups formed, and within the WSPU itself not all members supported the direct action.

The suffragette campaign was suspended when World War I broke out in 1914. After the war, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave the vote to women over the age of 30 who met certain property qualifications. Ten years later, women gained electoral equality with men when the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 gave all women the right to vote at age 21.

Although the Isle of Man (a British Crown dependency) had enfranchised women who owned property to vote in parliamentary (Tynwald) elections in 1881, New Zealand was the first self-governing country to grant all women the right to vote in 1893, when women over the age of 21 were permitted to vote in all parliamentary elections.[6] Women in South Australia achieved the same right and became the first to obtain the right to stand for parliament in 1895.[9] In the United States, white women over the age of 21 were allowed to vote in the western territories of Wyoming from 1869 and in Utah from 1870.

In 1865 John Stuart Mill was elected to Parliament on a platform that included votes for women, and in 1869 he published his essay in favour of equality of the sexes The Subjection of Women. Also in 1865, a women's discussion group, The Kensington Society, was formed. Following discussions on the subject of women's suffrage, the society formed a committee to draft a petition and gather signatures, which Mill agreed to present to Parliament once they had gathered 100 signatures.[10] In October 1866, amateur scientist Lydia Becker attended a meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science held in Manchester and heard one of the organisors of the petition, Barbara Bodichon, read a paper entitled Reasons for the Enfranchisement of Women. Becker was inspired to help gather signatures around Manchester and to join the newly formed Manchester committee. Mill presented the petition to Parliament in 1866, by which time the supporters had gathered 1499 signatures, including those of Florence Nightingale, Harriet Martineau, Josephine Butler and Mary Somerville.[11]

In March 1867, Becker wrote an article for the Contemporary Review, in which she said:

It surely will not be denied that women have, and ought to have, opinions of their own on subjects of public interest, and on the events which arise as the world wends on its way. But if it be granted that women may, without offence, hold political opinions, on what ground can the right be withheld of giving the same expression or effect to their opinions as that enjoyed by their male neighbours?[12]

Two further petitions were presented to parliament in May 1867 and Mill also proposed an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act to give women the same political rights as men, but the amendment was treated with derision and defeated by 196 votes to 73.[13]

The Manchester Society for Women's suffrage was formed in January 1867, when Jacob Bright, Rev. S. A. Steinthal, Mrs. Gloyne, Max Kyllman and Elizabeth Wolstenholme met at the house of Dr. Louis Borchardt. Lydia Becker was made Secretary of the Society in February 1867 and Dr. Richard Pankhurst was one of the earliest members of the Executive Committee.[14] An 1874 speaking event in Manchester organised by Becker, was attended by 14-year-old Emmeline Goulden, who was to become an ardent campaigner for women's rights, and later married Dr Pankhurst becoming known as Emmeline Pankhurst.[15]

During the summer of 1880, Becker visited the Isle of Man to address five public meetings on the subject of women's suffrage to audiences mainly composed of women. These speeches instilled in the Manx women a determination to secure the franchise, and on 31 January 1881, women on the island who owned property in their own right were given the vote.[16]

In Manchester, the Women's Suffrage Committee had been formed in 1867 to work with the Independent Labour Party (ILP) to secure votes for women, but, although the local ILP were very supportive, nationally the party were more interested in securing the franchise for working-class men and refused to make women's suffrage a priority. In 1897, the Manchester Women's Suffrage committee had merged with the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) but Emmeline Pankhurst, who was a member of the original Manchester committee, and her eldest daughter Christabel had become impatient with the ILP, and on 10 October 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst held a meeting at her home in Manchester to form a breakaway group, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU). From the outset, the WSPU was determined to move away from the staid campaign methods of NUWSS and instead take more positive action:[17]

It was on October 10, 1903 that I invited a number of women to my house in Nelson Street, Manchester, for purposes of organisation. We voted to call our new society the Women's Social and Political Union, partly to emphasise its democracy, and partly to define its object as political rather than propagandist. We resolved to limit our membership exclusively to women, to keep ourselves absolutely free from party affiliation, and to be satisfied with nothing but action on our question. 'Deeds, not words' was to be our permanent motto.

The term "suffragette" was first used in 1906 as a term of derision by the journalist Charles E. Hands in the London Daily Mail to describe activists in the movement for women's suffrage, in particular members of the WSPU.[19][20][21] But the women he intended to ridicule embraced the term, saying "suffraGETtes" (hardening the 'g'), implying not only that they wanted the vote, but that they intended to 'get' it.[22] The non-militant suffragists found favour in the press, as they were not hoping to get the franchise through 'violence, crime, arson and open rebellion'.[23]

At a political meeting in Manchester in 1905, Christabel Pankhurst and millworker, Annie Kenney, disrupted speeches by prominent Liberals Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey, asking where Churchill and Grey stood with regards to women's political rights. At a time when political meetings were only attended by men and speakers were expected to be given the courtesy of expounding their views without interruption, the audience were outraged, and when the women unfurled a "Votes for Women" banner they were both arrested for a technical assault on a policeman. When Pankhurst and Kenney appeared in court they both refused to pay the fine imposed, preferring to go to prison to gain publicity for their cause.[24]

In July 1908 the WSPU hosted a large demonstration in Heaton Park, near Manchester with speakers on 13 separate platforms including Emmeline, Christabel and Adela Pankhurst. According to the Manchester Guardian:

Friends of the women suffrage movement are entitled to reckon the great demonstration at Heaton Park yesterday, arranged by the Women's Social and Political Union, as somewhat of a triumph. With fine weather as an ally the women suffragists were able to bring together an immense body of people. These people were not all sympathisers with the object, and much service to the cause must have been rendered by merely collecting so many people and talking over the subject with them. The organisation, too, was creditable to the promoters...The police were few and inconspicuous. The speakers went by special [tram]car to the Bury Old Road entrance, and were escorted by a few police to several platforms. Here the escorts waited till the speaking was over, and then accompanied their respective charges back to the special car. There was little need, apparently, for the escort. Even the opponents of the suffrage claim who made themselves heard were perfectly friendly towards the speakers, and the only crowding about them as they left was that of curiosity on the part of those who wished to have a good look at the missioners in the cause.[25]

Stung by the stereotypical image of the strong minded woman in masculine clothes created by newspaper cartoonists, the suffragettes resolved to present a fashionable, feminine image when appearing in public. In 1908 the co-editor of the WSPU's Votes for Women newspaper, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence,[26] designed the suffragettes' colour scheme of purple for loyalty and dignity, white for purity, and green for hope.[27] Fashionable London shops Selfridges and Liberty sold tricolour-striped ribbon for hats, rosettes, badges and belts, as well as coloured garments, underwear, handbags, shoes, slippers and toilet soap.[4] As membership of the WSPU grew it became fashionable for women to identify with the cause by wearing the colours, often discreetly in a small piece of jewellery or by carrying a heart-shaped vesta case[28][4] and in December 1908 the London jewellers, Mappin & Webb, issued a catalogue of suffragette jewellery in time for the Christmas season.[29] Sylvia Pankhurst said at the time: "Many suffragists spend more money on clothes than they can comfortably afford, rather than run the risk of being considered outr, and doing harm to the cause".[4] In 1909 the WSPU presented specially commissioned pieces of jewellery to leading suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst and Louise Eates.[29]

The suffragettes also used other methods to publicise and raise money for the cause and from 1909, the "Pank-a-Squith" board game was sold by the WSPU. The name was derived from Pankhurst and the surname of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, who was largely hated by the movement. The board game was set out in a spiral, and players were required to lead their suffragette figure from their home to parliament, past the obstacles faced from Prime Minister H. H. Asquith and the Liberal government.[30] Also in 1909, suffragettes Daisy Solomon and Elspeth McClelland tried an innovative method of potentially obtaining a meeting with Asquith by sending themselves by Royal Mail courier post; however, Downing Street did not accept the parcel.[31]

1912 was a turning point for the suffragettes, as they turned to using more militant tactics and began a window-smashing campaign. Some members of the WSPU, including Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband Frederick, disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. In response to this, the Government ordered the arrest of the WSPU leaders and, although Christabel Pankhurst escaped to France, the Pethick-Lawrences were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. On their release, the Pethick-Lawrences began to speak out publicly against the window-smashing campaign, arguing that it would lose support for the cause, and eventually they were expelled from the WSPU. Having lost control of Votes for Women the WSPU began to publish their own newspaper under the title The Suffragette.[32]

The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs, as part of a wider bombing campaign.[33] Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England.[34] In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage.[35] Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. They also burnt the slogan "Votes for Women" into the grass of golf courses.[36] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack.[36] There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913[36] and in April the newspapers reported "What might have been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes":

Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.[37]

There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[38] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".[39]

One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King's horse, Anmer, at The Derby on 4 June 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pull down the horse, attach a suffragette scarf or banner to it, or commit suicide to become a martyr to the cause. However, recent analysis of the film of the event suggests that she was merely trying to attach a scarf to the horse, and the suicide theory seems unlikely as she was carrying a return train ticket from Epsom and had holiday plans with her sister in the near future.[40]

In the early 20th century until the outbreak of World War I, approximately one thousand suffragettes were imprisoned in Britain.[41] Most early incarcerations were for public order offences and failure to pay outstanding fines. While incarcerated, suffragettes lobbied to be considered political prisoners; with such a designation, suffragettes would be placed in the First Division as opposed to the Second or Third Division of the prison system, and as political prisoners would be granted certain freedoms and liberties not allotted to other prison divisions, such as being allowed frequent visits and being allowed to write books or articles.[42] Because of a lack of consistency between the different courts, suffragettes would not necessarily be placed in the First Division and could be placed in the Second or Third Division, which enjoyed fewer liberties.[43]

This cause was taken up by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), a large organisation in Britain, that lobbied for women's suffrage led by militant suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst.[44] The WSPU campaigned to get imprisoned suffragettes recognised as political prisoners. However, this campaign was largely unsuccessful. Citing a fear that the suffragettes becoming political prisoners would make for easy martyrdom,[45] and with thoughts from the courts and the Home Office that they were abusing the freedoms of the First Division to further the agenda of the WSPU,[46] suffragettes were placed in the Second Division, and in some cases the Third Division, in prisons, with no special privileges granted to them as a result.[47]

Suffragettes were not recognised as political prisoners, and many of them staged hunger strikes while they were imprisoned. The first woman to refuse food was Marion Wallace Dunlop, a militant suffragette who was sentenced to a month in Holloway for vandalism in July 1909.[42] Without consulting suffragette leaders such as Pankhurst,[48] Dunlop refused food in protest at being denied political prisoner status. After a 92-hour hunger strike, and for fear of her becoming a martyr,[48] the Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone decided to release her early on medical grounds.[46] Dunlop's strategy was adopted by other suffragettes who were incarcerated.[49] It became common practice for suffragettes to refuse food in protest for not being designated as political prisoners, and as a result they would be released after a few days and could return to the "fighting line".[50]

After a public backlash regarding the prison status of suffragettes, the rules of the divisions were amended. In March 1910, Rule 243A was introduced by the Home Secretary Winston Churchill, allowing prisoners in the Second and Third Divisions to be allowed certain privileges of the First Division, provided they were not convicted of a serious offence, effectively ending hunger strikes for two years.[51] Hunger strikes began again when Pankhurst was transferred from the Second Division to the First Division, inciting the other suffragettes to demonstrate regarding their prison status.[52]

Militant suffragette demonstrations subsequently became more aggressive,[46] and the British Government took action. Unwilling to release all the suffragettes refusing food in prison,[49] in the autumn of 1909, the authorities began to adopt more drastic measures to manage the hunger-strikers. In September 1909, the Home Office became unwilling to release hunger-striking suffragettes before their sentence was served.[50] Suffragettes became a liability because, if they were to die in custody, the prison would be responsible for their death. Prisons began the practice of force-feeding the hunger strikers through a tube, most commonly via a nostril or stomach tube or a stomach pump.[49] Force-feeding had previously been practised in Britain but its use had been exclusively for patients in hospitals who were too unwell to eat or swallow food. Despite the practice being deemed safe by medical practitioners for sick patients, it posed health issues for the healthy suffragettes.[48]

The process of tube-feeding was strenuous without the consent of the hunger strikers, who were typically strapped down and force-fed via stomach or nostril tube, often with a considerable amount of force.[42] The process was painful, and after the practice was observed and studied by several physicians, it was deemed to cause both short-term damage to the circulatory system, digestive system and nervous system and long-term damage to the physical and mental health of the suffragettes.[53] Some suffragettes who were force-fed developed pleurisy or pneumonia as a result of a misplaced tube.[54] Women who had gone on hunger strike in prison received a Hunger Strike Medal from the WSPU on their release.[55]

In April 1913, Reginald McKenna of the Home Office passed the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill Health) Act 1913, or the Cat and Mouse Act as it was commonly known. The act made the hunger strikes legal, in that a suffragette would be temporarily released from prison when their health began to diminish, only to be readmitted when she regained her health to finish her sentence.[42] The act enabled the British Government to be absolved of any blame resulting from death or harm due to the self-starvation of the striker and ensured that the suffragettes would be too ill and too weak to participate in demonstrative activities while not in custody.[49] Most women continued hunger striking when they were readmitted to prison following their leave.[56] After the Act was introduced, force-feeding on a large scale was stopped and only women convicted of more serious crimes and considered likely to repeat their offences if released were force-fed.[57]

In early 1913 and in response to the Cat and Mouse Act, the WSPU instituted a secret society of women known as the "Bodyguard" whose role was to physically protect Emmeline Pankhurst and other prominent suffragettes from arrest and assault. Known members included Katherine Willoughby Marshall, Leonora Cohen and Gertrude Harding; Edith Margaret Garrud was their jujitsu trainer.

The origin of the "Bodyguard" can be traced to a WSPU meeting at which Garrud spoke. As suffragettes speaking in public increasingly found themselves the target of violence and attempted assaults, learning jujitsu was a way for women to defend themselves against angry hecklers.[58] Inciting incidents included Black Friday, during which a deputation of 300 suffragettes were physically prevented by police from entering the House of Commons, sparking a near-riot and allegations of both common and sexual assault.[59]

Members of the "Bodyguard" orchestrated the "escapes" of a number of fugitive suffragettes from police surveillance during 1913 and early 1914. They also participated in several violent actions against the police in defence of their leaders, notably including the "Battle of Glasgow" on 9 March 1914, when a group of about 30 Bodyguards brawled with about 50 police constables and detectives on the stage of St Andrew's Hall in Glasgow. The fight was witnessed by an audience of some 4500 people.[60]

At the commencement of World War I, the suffragette movement in Britain moved away from suffrage activities and focused on the war effort, and as a result, hunger strikes largely stopped.[61] In August 1914, the British Government released all prisoners who had been incarcerated for suffrage activities on an amnesty,[62] with Pankhurst ending all militant suffrage activities soon after.[63] The suffragettes' focus on war work turned public opinion in favour of their eventual partial enfranchisement in 1918.[64]

Women eagerly volunteered to take on many traditional male roles leading to a new view of what women were capable of. The war also caused a split in the British suffragette movement; the mainstream, represented by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst's WSPU calling a ceasefire in their campaign for the duration of the war, while more radical suffragettes, represented by Sylvia Pankhurst's Women's Suffrage Federation continued the struggle.

Prominent British-Indian suffragette Sophia Duleep Singh, the third daughter of the exiled Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh, campaigned for support for the British Indian Army and lascars working in the Merchant Navy. She also joined a 10,000-woman protest march against the prohibition of a volunteer female force. Singh volunteered as a British Red Cross Voluntary Aid Detachment nurse, serving at an auxiliary military hospital in Isleworth from October 1915 to January 1917.[65][66][67][68]

The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, which had always employed "constitutional" methods, continued to lobby during the war years and compromises were worked out between the NUWSS and the coalition government.[69] On 6 February, the Representation of the People Act1918 was passed, enfranchising all men over 21 years of age and women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications,[70][71] gaining the right to vote for about 8.4million women.[71] In November 1918, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 was passed, allowing women to be elected into parliament.[71] The Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21, granting women the vote on the same terms that men had gained ten years earlier.[72]

The 1918 general election, the first general election to be held after the Representation of the People Act 1918, was the first in which some women (property owners older than 30) could vote. At that election, the first woman to be elected an MP was Constance Markievicz but, in line with Sinn Fin abstentionist policy, she declined to take her seat in the British House of Commons. The first woman to do so was Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor, following a by-election in November 1919.

In the autumn of 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst had sailed to the US to embark on a lecture tour to publicise the message of the WSPU and to raise money for the treatment of her son, Harry, who was gravely ill. By this time the suffragettes' tactics of civil disorder were being used by American militants Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, both of whom had campaigned with the WSPU in London. As in the UK, the suffrage movement in America was divided into two disparate groups, with the National American Woman Suffrage Association representing the more militant campaign and the International Women's Suffrage Alliance taking a more cautious and pragmatic approach[73] Although the publicity surrounding Pankhurst's visit and the militant tactics used by her followers gave a welcome boost to the campaign,[74] the majority of women in the US preferred the more respected label of "suffragist" to the title "suffragette" adopted by the militants.[75]

Many suffragists at the time, and some historians since, have argued that the actions of the militant suffragettes damaged their cause.[76] Opponents at the time saw evidence that women were too emotional and could not think as logically as men.[77][78][79][80][81] Historians generally argue that the first stage of the militant suffragette movement under the Pankhursts in 1906 had a dramatic mobilising effect on the suffrage movement. Women were thrilled and supportive of an actual revolt in the streets. The membership of the militant WSPU and the older NUWSS overlapped and were mutually supportive. However, a system of publicity, Ensor argues, had to continue to escalate to maintain its high visibility in the media. The hunger strikes and force-feeding did that, but the Pankhursts refused any advice and escalated their tactics. They turned to systematic disruption of Liberal Party meetings as well as physical violence in terms of damaging public buildings and arson. Searle says the methods of the suffragettes harmed the Liberal Party but failed to advance women's suffrage. When the Pankhursts decided to stop their militancy at the start of the war and enthusiastically support the war effort, the movement split and their leadership role ended. Suffrage came four years later, but the feminist movement in Britain permanently abandoned the militant tactics that had made the suffragettes famous.[82][83]

After Emmeline Pankhurst's death in 1928, money was raised to commission a statue, and on 6 March 1930 the statue in Victoria Tower Gardens was unveiled. A crowd of radicals, former suffragettes and national dignitaries gathered as former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin presented the memorial to the public. In his address, Baldwin declared:

"I say with no fear of contradiction, that whatever view posterity may take, Mrs. Pankhurst has won for herself a niche in the Temple of Fame which will last for all time".[84]

In 1929 a portrait of Emmeline Pankhurst was added to the National Portrait Gallery's collection. In 1987 her former home at 62 Nelson Street, Manchester, the birthplace of the WSPU, and the adjoining Edwardian villa (no. 60) were opened as the Pankhurst Centre, a women-only space and museum dedicated to the suffragette movement.[85] Christabel Pankhurst was appointed a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1936, and after her death in 1958 a permanent memorial was installed next to the statue of her mother.[86] The memorial to Christabel Pankhurst consists of a low stone screen flanking her mother's statue with a bronze medallion plaque depicting her profile at one end of the screen paired with a second plaque depicting the "prison brooch" or "badge" of the WSPU at the other end.[87] The unveiling of this dual memorial was performed on 13 July 1959 by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.[88] The Pankhurst's name and image and those of 58 other women's suffrage supporters are etched on the plinth of the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, London that was unveiled in 2018.[89]

In 1903, the Australian suffragist Vida Goldstein adopted the WSPU colours for her campaign for the Senate in 1910 but got them slightly wrong since she thought that they were purple, green and lavender. Goldstein had visited England in 1911 at the behest of the WSPU. Her speeches around the country drew huge crowds and her tour was touted as "the biggest thing that has happened in the women movement for sometime in England".[90] The correct colours were used for her campaign for Kooyong in 1913 and also for the flag of the Women's Peace Army, which she established during World War I to oppose conscription. During International Women's Year in 1975 the BBC series about the suffragettes, Shoulder to Shoulder, was screened across Australia and Elizabeth Reid, Women's Adviser to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam directed that the WSPU colours be used for the International Women's Year symbol. They were also used for a first-day cover and postage stamp released by Australia Post in March 1975. The colours have since been adopted by government bodies such as the National Women's Advisory Council and organisations such as Women's Electoral Lobby and other women's services such as domestic violence refuges and are much in evidence each year on International Women's day.[91]

The colours of green and heliotrope (purple) were commissioned into a new coat of arms for Edge Hill University in Lancashire in 2006, symbolising the university's early commitment to the equality of women through its beginnings as a women-only college.[92]

During the 1960s, the memory of the suffragettes was kept alive in the public consciousness by portrayals in film, such as the character Mrs Winifred Banks in the 1964 Disney musical film Mary Poppins who sings the song "Sister Suffragette" and Maggie DuBois in the 1965 film The Great Race.[93] In 1974 The BBC TV series Shoulder to Shoulder portraying events in the British militant suffrage movement, concentrating on the lives of members of the Pankhurst family was shown around the world. And in the 21st century the story of the suffragettes was brought to a new generation in the BBC television series Up the Women, the 2015 graphic novel trilogy Suffrajitsu: Mrs. Pankhurst's Amazons and the 2015 film Suffragette.[94]

In recognition of having meetings at the Royal Albert Hall in London, the Suffragettes were inducted into the Hall's Walk of Fame in 2018, making them one of the first eleven recipients of a star on the walk, joining Eric Clapton, Winston Churchill, Muhammad Ali and Albert Einstein, among others who were viewed as "key players" in the building's history.[95]

In February 2019, female Democrat members of the US Congress dressed predominantly in white when attending President Trump's State of the Union address. The choice of one of the colours associated with the suffragettes was to signify the women's solidarity.[96]

See Template:Women's suffrage in Scotland

^ The Oxford English Dictionary has this, "Originally a generic term, suffragist came to refer specifically to those advocates of women's suffrage who campaigned through peaceful, constitutional measures, in distinction to the suffragettes who employed direct action and civil disobedience."

Holton, Sandra Stanley (2002). Suffrage Days: Stories From the Women's Suffrage Movement. London and New York: Routledge. p.253.

See more here:

Suffragette - Wikipedia

In David Mamets film State and Main, a Hollywood big shot tries to shortchange a set hand by offering him an associate producer credit on a movie. A screenwriter overhears the exchange and asks, Whats an associate producer credit? The big shot answers: Its what you give your secretary instead of a raise.

The practice of land acknowledgmentpreceding a fancy event by naming the Indigenous groups whose slaughter and dispossession cleared the land on which the audiences canaps are about to be servedis one of the greatest associate-producer credits of all time. A land acknowledgment is what you give when you have no intention of giving land. It is like a receipt provided by a highway robber, noting all the jewels and gold coins he has stolen. Maybe it will be useful for an insurance claim? Anyway, you are not getting your jewels back, but now you have documentation.

Long common in Canada and Australia, land acknowledgment is catching on in the United States and already de rigueur in certain circles. If you have seen enough of theseI have now watched dozens, sometimes more than one at the same eventyou learn to spot them before the speaker even begins acknowledging. In many cases the tone turns solemn and moralizing, and the speakers posture stiff, as if preparing to read a confession at gunpoint. One might declare before, say, a corporate sales retreat: We would like to respectfully acknowledge that the land on which we gather to discuss the new line of sprinkler systems is in Mikmaki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mikmaq. The acknowledgment is almost always a prepared statement, read verbatim, because like all spells it must be spoken precisely for its magic to work. The magic in this case is self-absolution: The acknowledgment relieves the speaker and the audience of the responsibility to think about Indigenous peoples, at least until the next public event.

From the May 2021 issue: Return the national parks to the tribes

Thanksgiving relies on a cartoon version of the settlement of the Americas, focusing on a moment of concord between victim and gnocidaire. Land acknowledgments are similarly confected to stroke the sentiments of mostly non-Indigenous audiencesthis time by enabling their preening self-criticism.

Earlier this month, Microsofts annual Ignite conference began with a land acknowledgment so bewildering to viewers that it went briefly viral. But it was not abnormal among statements of this sort. The emcee acknowledged that the companys headquarters, one square mile of land outside Seattle, was occupied by the Sammamish, Duwamish, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, Snohomish, Tulalip, and other coast Salish people... since time immemorial. She noted that the tribes are still there but offered no connection between the past and today. Few if any of the baffled viewers would deny the historic presence of these peoples amid the sacred groves that later produced PowerPoint and Clippy, the Microsoft Word mascot. But in the absence of context, the effect of this parade of names was to suggest that for thousands of years the Indigenous peoples were crammed onto the Microsoft campus uncomfortably like canned salmon, doing who knows what, until Bill Gates arrived in the late 20th century to turn them into programmers.

Maybe it is a victory for Indigeneity to have the name Muckleshoot even mentioned at a Microsoft conference. By far the most common defense of land acknowledgments is that they harm no one, and they educate Americans about a hidden history that took place literally where they stand. Do they not at least do that?

No, not even a little. It is difficult to exaggerate the superficiality of these statements. What do members of the acknowledged group hold sacred? What makes them unique and identifies them to one another? Who are they, where did they come from, and where are they going? The evasion of these fundamental questions is typical. The speaker demonstrates no knowledge of the people whose names he reads carefully off the sheet of paper. Nor does he make any but the most general connection between the event and those people, other than an ancient one, not too different from the speakers relationship with the local geology or flora.

At ceremonies and events in my home city of New Haven, Connecticut, I have heard acknowledgment that we are on Quinnipiac land. This statement is never accompanied by mention of the basic fact that the Quinnipiac all but ceased to exist as a people more than 150 years ago, and there is no currently recognized Quinnipiac tribe. I suspect that few in the audience know this, and that few of the speakers do. (There is an Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council. Its leader, Iron Thunderhorse, is currently in prison in Texas for rape, and projected to be released in 2051, at the age of 107. He is half-Italian, was born William Coppola, and according to a legal filing by the Texas prison authority, was not listed as Native American on at least one of his purported birth certificates.)

Some people argue that land acknowledgments are gestures of respect. Im not sure one can show respect while also being indifferent to a peoples existence. The statements are a counterfeit version of respect. Teen Vogue put it well, if unintentionally: Land acknowledgment is an easy way to show honor and respect to the indigenous people. A great deal of nonsense about identity politics could be avoided by studying this line, and realizing that respect shown the easy way is just as cheap as it sounds. Real respect occurs only when accompanied by time, work, or something else of value. Learning basic facts about a particular tribe might be a start.

Most of these acknowledgments are considered (by the speakers, anyway) moral acts, because they bear witness to crimes perpetrated against Native peoples and call, usually implicitly, for redress. If you enjoy moral exhibitionism, to say nothing of moral onanism, land acknowledgments in their current form will leave you pleasured for years to come. (Cartoon history serves this purpose well; reality, less so. Do you acknowledge the Quinnipiac, or the tribes they at times allied with the English to fight? Or both?) The acknowledgments never include any actual material redressreturn of land, meaningful corrections of wrongs against Indigenous communitiesor sophisticated moral reckoning. Nor is there an easy way to reckon with this past. In the early 1600s, as many as 90 percent of the Quinnipiac were wiped out, along with other coastal Native Americans, by chicken pox and other diseases imported by Europeans. How does one assign blame for the spread of disease, hundreds of years before anyone knew diseases were something other than the wrath of God? (Does China owe Europe reparations for the Black Death, which came, like COVID-19, from Hubei? Or should China take two Opium Wars and call it even?)

Without time, work, or actual redress, the land acknowledgment that implies a moral debt amounts to the highwaymans receipt. To acknowledge Indigenous homelands and to return those lands are related, but the former alone allows for rhetoric without further action, Dustin Tahmahkera, a professor of Native American cultural studies at the University of Oklahoma, told me. If Microsoft truly felt bad about the location of its offices, it could move its operations to soil less blood-soaked. (There arent many such places, alas.) Not every Microsoft conference needs to be an announcement of a real-estate deal. But if Microsoft is going to acknowledge a debt, it should also pay it.

Read: How to acknowledge a shameful past

If the practice of land acknowledgment persists, it should do so in a version less embarrassing to all involved. I would propose restricting such acknowledgments to forms and occasions that preserve their dignity and power.

Follow these rules, and object to any land acknowledgments that violate them:

These reforms in land acknowledgment would leave plenty of cynicism to go aroundnearly all warranted, I think. Land acknowledgments are a classic culture-war issue, Nick Estes, an American-studies professor at the University of New Mexico, told me via email. They can be a pantomime of caring or outrage mostly by professional class elites and educational institutions. Meanwhile, he asked, what of the real issues facing Indigenous peopleshousing, employment, child removal, generational poverty, lack of adequate healthcare, police violence, racism, and erasure; in other words, real colonialism?

Land acknowledgments are just words, and words can distract from real issues, in particular the ultimate one, which is Native American tribal sovereignty. But some words are honest, even loving, and others are hollow and nauseating. As an American, and as a once and future member of an audience at ceremonies and events, I would be thankful for more of the former and fewer of the latter.

Read the original here:

Land Acknowledgments Are Just Moral Exhibitionism

Land of Dreams contains both one of Randy Newmans all-time best and worst songs making for a rather interesting artistic portrait, indeed.

But well get to these songs in a moment. For now, its worth mentioning that, when it was released, Land of Dreams raised eyebrows when it was announced that Newman who always wrote in character and used that device as a way to shine a light on some of the uglier parts of the American psyche was writing autobiographical songs.

Well, not exactly. After the opening three songs that draw (at times, somewhat loosely) on his childhood, Newman went back to his familiar songwriting mode. But these three songs take a more personal look at a child experiencing the things, such as religion, racism, and bullying, that Newman often wrote about on previous records. In the first song, Dixie Flyer, we get a striking portrait of his grandmother, Her dress as black as a crow in a coal mine, before we find out that her Southern Jewish family is trying to pass as Christian. The second song, New Orleans Wins the War frames the Souths well-documented historical amnesia in a hazy, Technicolor memory: Blue, blue morning, blue, blue day/All your bad dreams drift away. The third song, Four Eyes, has an amazing introduction that captures just how fucking scary a parents tough-love pep talk sounds to a child before his first day of school, which, of course, does nothing to ease the pain of being taunted by his peers.

Then, the masterpiece. Bad News from Home is an under-three-minute blast of hard-boiled noir. Over an ominous, circular chord progression, the hapless narrator watches the betrayal in front of him with a nightmarish vividness:

At the end of this bone-white gravel road

They both lie sleeping on a feather bed

And her hairs as black as the sky at night

But her eyes are gray like the moon

A career highlight, Newman never wrote anything like this song, before or since.

Yet he never wrote anything as spectacularly bad as Masterman and Baby J. What is intended to be a late-80s parable about escaping the horrors of ghetto life devolves rapidly when Newman tries to imitate the vocal cadences of an aspiring Black rapper and, if that doesnt completely sink the song, the overdone turntable scratching surely does.

That Newman was also known for having lengthy bouts of writers block perhaps explains how he could be conflicted about where to take a song. Bad News makes the wise decision to leave us with the narrators simmering rage: You can run but you cant hide . . . You said you loved me, but I know you lied. On the other hand, Masterman exhibits Newmans penchant for taking highly conceptual satire to perverse lengths in a not very flattering light.

Slotted in between Newmans best and worst song is Roll with the Punches, which uses the anachronistic imagery of a minstrel show in a far more toxic way than the kinder, gentler treatment on New Orleans Wins the War. As the narrator in Roll with the Punches, Newman voices a conservative patriots typically self-serving argument for the American Dream and, as it turns out, the narrator is introducing a Black child tap dancer, who is being crassly marketed as an entertainment act. This imaginative historical narrative appeared to scandalize those used to the cool amorality of sex, drugs, and rock n roll. The album reviewer for Rolling Stone called Roll with the Punches, one of [Newmans] most disturbing portraits of callowness.

Another problem is Newmans unsuccessful attempts to hide some of his weirder ideas in the plain sight of contemporary production trends. The song that follows Masterman, Red Bandana, an unholy mess of chirpy synth sounds, only really took off when he stripped it down and played it at a show in the 2000s that I saw he hammered home with delight the bluesy riff, even shouting to the crowd as the final note faded, That was dirty!

What saves Land of Dreams from getting no more than a mixed review is Newmans going big at the end. If Trouble in Paradise, his last album, made five years earlier, closed with a profoundly anti-nostalgic elegy for Vietnam, Newman closes Land of Dreams with I Want You to Hurt Like I Do, a strychnine-laced ballad that takes dead aim at the pathos of We Are the World that 1985 spectacle of sappy liberal do-goodness. Here is another monster produced by the land of dreams, a guy whose strongest feelings are manifested by abandoning others.

I Want You to Hurt, of course, can have a between-the-lines reading as commentary on Newmans own failed relationships, as if only by fanning the flames of his own self-hatred can he face the cultural void of the George H.W. Bush years. But, hey, thats life as a sardonic songwriter. Newman goes as far as to remind us, in the title of the preceding song that cries crocodile tears for the hardships of NPR listeners everywhere: Its Money That Matters.

See the original post here:

Year of the Month: Randy Newmans LAND OF DREAMS Produces Nightmares - The-Solute

Where are the defenders of Kanye Wests right to speak out on television and on social media? The newest censors in our land are the moguls who own the newspapers and TV stations and social networks like Twitter and Meta; they proudly de-platform the rants of the Kanye Wests.

I was among the lucky who got to hear West, the Black dissident, on Tucker Carlsons Fox News Channel show when West mocked those who criticized his having worn a White Lives Matter t-shirt. I heard his contentious viewpoints about Jews, some of whom think they have a right to dictate the terms and prohibitions of our discourse about vexing social justice issues if and when an advocate utters the J-word. I disagreed with most of what West had to say, but Im glad I got to hear it from the horses mouth.

Who do these modern-day censors think themselves to be, and why do they think that the readers of tweets and watchers of the Idiot Box need their protection from the rants of the weirdest and wildest provocateurs of our times?

The modern-day censors think that banning the wild West from our TV screens and his angry voice from our social media outlets is the civically responsible solution. Why not deplatform hate speech? Because their rules are arbitrary, and their goalposts, ever-moving. Today theyre banning Kanye; yesterday they banned speakers on our college campuses who spoke up for Palestinian rights, or on behalf of Zionism, and the defenders of Anita Bryant, the fierce opponent of gay rights.

It was on the college campus where literal barricades were erected against hearing the speeches of renegade lecturers who decried censorship of any kind, where the advocates of political correctness were welcomed and the purveyors of anti-racism were cheered; they condemned the works of authors like Mark Twain whose Huckleberry Finn cleverly and prodigiously used the N-word.

Kanye West attends the "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" Premiere Screening on Oct. 12, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

That Mark Twains books and the author himself was anti-racist did not much matter to the zealots who think the best thing about freedom and speech is purging controversial ideas and bad words from our conversations. Gone and just about forgotten are the great defenders of free speech stalwarts like Nat Hentoff, the now-deceased author whose columns and books argued that odious ideas and so-called hate speech not only deserved to be heard and read, but should never be banned outright in our literature or public arenas. Rather, they should be answered.

Hentoff was one who favored bringing onerous, offensive ideas into the open where they could be confronted instead of hidden or squelched as bad ideas. In a democracy, practiced in a truly open discussion, the instinct to bury our viewpoint differences is the equivalent of errant nonsense.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

But not even the American Civil Liberties Union took Hentoffs side when he excoriated its leaders for passing rules that would have prohibited its dissident board members from expressing to the public their opposition to pompous, errant positions.

Even then, Hentoff and his free speech colleagues were a dwindling legion, especially on the college campus and on television. I remember a time when Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan were invited onto television talk shows to pronounce their ideology and to protest Black incursions on everything sacred and white. Occasionally, a Black nationalist would be invited onto TV and to the campuses to complain about whites studied silence about supposed Jewish foes of Black power and intact Black communities.

Not every day did we see the likes of Louis Farrakhan or Black anti-Semites on our TV screens or in major media but occasionally, they got heard and seen, and their books and venomous preachments read and debated. Airing such putrid sentiment and contested opinions used to be the fashion of the colleges and social media.

Yes, I understand the legal argument that Twitter and Facebook, as private companies, have a right to craft and enforce so-called community standards and ban people who turn their platforms into uncivil environments. I am speaking to the wider wisdom of such an approach, not to its legality. The First Amendment surely does not require owners of our media to let in trouble-making speakers. (West may try to avoid the problem by buying Parler, another social media platform; well see if he can build that into a true free-for-all.)

But where are the owners of mass media who used to welcome fierce and contentious disagreements about social events and civic matters? Are there none (other than Elon Musk) who want to hear what others think and say who disagree with them and the body politic?

Stifling free expression in any widely available forum is un-American. Not every social media platform, newspaper or TV station will choose a free forum for programming choices, but some, at least one, should be a purveyor of free, unfettered speech (with warnings to their audience, if they want). If racists or anti-Semites make it on the platform, so what? Neither Jewish nor Blacks blood is so thin we cant stomach hearing what our foes think of us and themselves by way of fake superiority.

Meyers is president of the New York Civil Rights Coalition.

More:

Where are the liberal defenders of Kanye West's freedom to speak? - New York Daily News

Brett Guthrie's leafy orchard has been a constant on Sydney's western fringe, growing fruit for generations.

As he drives out of the family farm, he's astounded by how rapidly the scenery has changed, from farmland and green pastures to housing developments.

"It's creeping and definitely coming toward us," he said.

He's part of the Western Sydney food bowl, a $600 million business, which makes up three quarters of Sydney's agricultural activity.

But the farmland is at risk,as Sydney's south-west and north-west undergoes a rapid transition.

An extra 833,000 more people are expected to call Western Sydney home in the coming two decades.

There are some difficulties in quantifying the changing landscape, with Australian Bureau of Statistics land-use definitions changing over time.

But a Western Sydney University (WSU) study estimatesup to 60 per centof farming land in Sydney's west and outer suburbshas already been lost in the last decade.

In the local government areas (LGAs) of The Hills Shire and Blacktown, around 40 per centof agricultural land has been lost in the last five years.

In Camden, south-westof Sydney, researchers found a quarter of agricultural land was lost in that period.

Mr Guthrie feels it's vital for agricultural land to remain in the Sydney basin.

"If we keep doing what we're doing now, we're going to find that creep keeps on coming in and we're going to find less and less productive agricultural land," he said.

"Once it's gone, it's gone forever."

WSU Associate Professor Awais Piracha said growers and farmers are incentivised to sell up or try and rezone their land, with the price difference between rural and residential use increasing to up to 200 per centin parts of the west.

"We have had a policy direction which encourages residential development at the fringe," Dr Piracha said.

"From 2010 onward, we have been much more liberal with land releases in Western Sydney ... because of that we have much more new development taking place."

Australian Farm Institute general manager, Katie McRobert, said the price discrepancy between farming and residential landmakes it more likely families will sell off their farms.

"It's almost inevitable that when you come to that decision, 'what do we do next with the farm? How do we how do we pass this on? And what do we do within our family?' It's going to be a sell decision," she said.

"That's what's going to benefit the children financially, so they don't feel that they have an option."

Oran Park, in the Camden LGA, is one such suburb experiencing a significant growth in new homes.

State government planning data predicts Camden's population will grow by 83 per centin the next 20 years.

Thousands of new homes are expected to be built in Oran Park, and neighbouring Catherine Fields and Leppington, over the next five years.

Tim Reid, general manager of Edgewater Homes NSW, has been at the coalface of significant demand for housing in the area.

"We're seeing massive amounts of mums and dads, first and second home buyers looking for properties in the area.

"That comes with the employment in the area ... this south-west corridor is a big driver of employment.

"People want to be close to where they work, they also want to be close to where their kids go to school, and where their families can interact with the community."

Ms McRobert feels the importance of the Sydney food bowl is often understated.

"People don't expect that a lot of food that they eat is coming from the Sydney bowl, the value of food that's produced around Sydney is really very important to the agricultural economy," she said.

"Most of the LGAs in Sydney, who host agriculture, they don't actually have a specific agricultural strategy in place.

"If you don't have that strategy, it's very easy to make ad hoc decisions and hand things over to developers very quickly."

Although there have been some moves to protect agricultural land in outer and rural suburbs, Dr Piracha feels much of Sydney's agricultural land could disappear in the coming decades.

"That's the direction we are going in, and it's quite likely to happen in my view, because we have been losing it very fast," he said.

A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Planning and Environmentsaid about 1,560 hectares of land had been set aside for "industrial-scale agriculture purposes" as part of the future Western Sydney Aerotropolis.

They said the agribusiness precinct would generate 10,000 jobs and "continue to provide food securityand supply to Sydney".

The government's new agritourism policy had also cut tape to allowingfarmers to diversify their income through ventures like farm stays and cafes, they said.

Read the original post:

Rising populations and development in Sydney's west threatens food bowl - ABC News

By John J. Duncan Jr.

duncanj@knoxfocus.com

Last week I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court cases in the 1960s which banned prayer and Bible reading in public schools.

In the prayer case, all three levels of the New York Courts trial, appellate, and supreme had ruled in favor of allowing nondenominational prayers, but they were reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision in 1962 and one the next year went contrary to several earlier Supreme Court opinions.

In Zorach v. Clauson in 1952, the court said, We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.

That opinion was written by the super-liberal Justice William O. Douglas. He added that it was ridiculous to believe there should be a separation of church and state in every conceivable way: A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was in Congress was showing people around the Capitol when I had time. I was always grateful for my job and I loved (and still love) history.

In fact, I took most of my electives at UT in history and could have had a degree in history if I had been in the College of Liberal Arts.

I remember one anti-communist physics professor at UT who told me he had voted to change the name of that college to the College of Arts and Sciences because he was neither a liberal nor an artist.

People were frequently surprised when I told them every session of the House and Senate was opened with prayer. They were even more surprised when I showed them the prayer room just off the rotunda in the center of the Capitol and told them that there were House and Senate prayer groups that met each week in the Capitol when in session.

I had the privilege of sitting on the platform during eight presidential inaugurations, and everyone had both opening and closing prayers.

I think it is sad that we give our national leaders the privilege of prayer and Bible reading in the nations capitol but we dont give that same privilege to the nations school children.

Also, it seems to me that the problems of this country have grown bigger just about every year since prayer and Bible reading were banned in our public schools.

I know that most children probably didnt pay much attention or get much out of it when hearing prayers or Bible verses in school. But it sent a very important message to children that there was a higher power in charge or who was there to help during tough times later in life.

And who could know when a child might have come to school hurting in some way because of an argument between parents, a divorce, or a death in the family who might have been comforted by a prayer or a Bible verse?

We have had great technological progress since the 60s, but in many personal, moral, and human ways, we have often regressed. We certainly have much more crime (murders, violence, etc.), more family breakups, and more personal breakdowns.

In 2nd Chronicles 7:14, the Bible says: If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and heal their land.

We need healing in this country today, both as individuals and as a nation. And we need more prayer in our government, in our schools, and in our homes.

I remember hearing a prayer by my friend John Wood, the former pastor of Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church. He prayed for everyone there, of course, but then added that he was praying especially for those who were not there and who thought they didnt need prayer, and thus needed it most of all.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court On Prayer And Bible Reading II - The knoxville focus

While the current global atmosphere seems quite bleak for American-style liberal democracy, the anti-Hijab movement in Iran is a surprising pushback out of the blue. This is happening amidst the rise of conservative tendencies across the world that are feeding a strong current of right-wing politics. Much of this is a result of rampant globalization and immigration.

However, the Iranian paradox emerges from the fact that the waves of globalization could never fully hit the Iranian shores especially after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Its seclusion continued even after the triumph of US-led free-market capitalism in the early 1990s. The situation was further exacerbated after the US imposed heavy sanctions on the country in 2011.

Iran as an economy and society therefore is yet to experience the forces of globalization like the rest of the world after the fall of Communism. In that sense, it is around three decades behind, and continues to maintain its pre-globalization virginity somewhat.

The anti-hijab movement has to be viewed from a larger perspective than what a merely feminist prism can offer us. The death of the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of the Iranian morality police has only acted as a trigger to release a gamut of bottled-up forces in the country. Going by the lyrics of a song that has emerged as the anthem of this movement, the common anxieties include the embarrassment of an empty pocket, a command economy, students and their future, yearning for a normal life, a forced paradise, imprisoned talents and so on.

Much of the unrest clearly has to do with Irans struggling economy and high levels of unemployment amongst the educated youth. As per the countrys latest census (2016-17), the unemployment rates for men and women aged 25-29 were 34.6 percent and 45.7 percent, respectively. This has largely been a result of overbearing state bureaucracy and the dominance of state enterprises, both of which have stifled the growth of the private sector.

Besides, Irans oil-centric economy has been more of a curse than a blessing when it comes to inequality in the country. Its fruits, even after the removal of the Shah in 1979, have been enjoyed by a minority Iranian elite. The sector continues to be dominated by state enterprises that are notorious for corruption, red tape and controversial contracting. Rather than boosting productivity and growth of the sector, successive governments have kept the oil prices low in the domestic market, thus using it as an instrument for populist politics. Even the most promising sector of the economy therefore hasnt been able to generate a healthy rate of jobs for the youth.

When Donald Trump reimposed the sanctions in 2018, the crude oil exports instantly halved. Under American pressure, dozens of European firms exited Iran, leaving thousands of educated youth unemployed. Eventually, the Covid-19 pandemic further weakened the economy and resulted in the further loss of at least 7 million jobs.

The death of Mahsa Amini therefore was a trigger that released a massive current of socio-economic tensions bottled up in Iran for years. Much of this was a result of external pressure applied by the West to gradually implode the Iranian system. But a lot must also be attributed to the lack of an imaginative policy of the regime which failed to share the fruits of the countrys resources amongst the population.

Although the movement has so far been limited to urban Iran, it is gradually beginning to spread to smaller towns of the country. The protesting youth are actually using this opportunity to demand the complete ouster of the regime. If this materializes, it will have far-reaching implications beyond Irans national boundaries.

Indian authorities in Kashmir for one, would be watching the developments very closely. They would love to press home the advantage if such an ouster were to materialize. The authorities realize that liberal-democracy has much better chances to gain a foothold in Kashmir as compared to hardline nationalism. Ironically, while liberals are abhorred by the right-wing in the rest of India, in Kashmir they could become the means of introducing lasting stability.

The authorities have already warmed up to this idea and have made a steady start in this direction. The government has lately been inaugurating movie theatres, promoting fashion shows, shopping malls and liquor outlets, which form the economic and cultural paraphernalia of an urban, liberal-democratic order. As separatist politics seems to be receding from the landscape, the government realizes that this space could be filled effectively by a large liberal constituency which will act as a storm-breaker against potential waves of fundamentalism in the future. A sprawling population of liberals will also see the Indian system as a protective outer shell for the preservation of their values, lifestyles and businesses.

The tiny, green shoots of liberal-democracy have in fact already started to become visible in the valley. Kashmir since the land reforms of 1970s, has seen the emergence of an affluent, upwardly mobile middle class. Over 30000 students from J&K travel abroad for studies every year, mostly to Europe. Srinagar now has a thriving culture of startups, cafes and high fashion, which is quite remarkable for a relatively small, non-metropolitan city. The millennial and Gen-Z influencers, especially female, have taken to social media quite actively and fearlessly. These are indications of a gradually ripening substratum for a liberal-democratic outlook to take root in the valley.

Luckily for Indian authorities, the triumph of the Iranian movement will be received with a sense of gratification, if not jubilation, in the Sunni-majority Kashmir. It therefore has the potential of capturing the imagination of the youth and giving a significant impetus to the budding liberal forces in the valley. Ironically, while the liberal forces across the world are retreating, in Kashmir these could actually hold the key for a politically stable future. Indian authorities would love to capitalize on this unique opportunity, pretty much along similar lines as successive governments in the past have patronized Kashmirs moderate and composite Sufi culture.

[Photo by Brett Morrison from Los Angeles, CA, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Danish Zahoor is a Jammu & Kashmir (India) based Educator and Columnist. His areas of focus are Geopolitics, Conflict, Energy, National Security and Diplomacy.

Excerpt from:

Whats Driving the Iranian Revolts and What it Means for Kashmir - The Geopolitics

Yesterday, Delta Air Lines (NYSE:) announced it invested $60 million in Joby Aviation and the could increase up to $200 million. Joby Aviation is a leading electric air taxi startup which is offering a home-to-airport service. Delta has entered a "mutually exclusive" contract with the start-up across the US and the UK for five years, with an option to extend it. The stock finished the day down 1.97%.

At a briefing, Joby CEO JoeBen Bevirt gave reporters an example of his company's service to customers. A trip from Manhattan to JFK Airport, which can be as long as 50 minutes in old-fashioned earthbound travel, can take as little as 10 minutes with a Joby five-passenger aircraft. Bevirt also said the cost would be comparable to an Uber ().

However, as exciting as all that sounds, it is unclear how it will boost Delta's profits. Firstly, the airline is not the only one pursuing air taxi to airport service. Second, there is still considerable regulatory red tape and it is unknown when the service will begin. Delta is due to report on Thursday.

Based on 11 Wall Street Analysts on Tipranks, the average price target for the stock is $45.15, a 56.55% upside, within the next 12 months.

I don't think that will happen, but even if it does, I expect the stock price to fall at least to $25, if not retest $20, first.

The stock completed a second consecutive H&S continuation pattern. A return move successfully confirmed the second one's integrity. The throwback formed a rising flag, bearish after the preceding five straight day selloff. The H&S continuation pattern reflects a failed attempt for a bottom, and a flag projects a continued selloff. The rising range is a rest period after a whirlwind shocked short sellers. They increased demand when they covered these shorts, causing the flag to rise. The ongoing supply drowned out available demand pushing it below the flag. That penetration signals to all those who exited short positions that the party is not over, attracting new short sellers.

The H&S target is set by measuring from the head of $35.79 to the pattern's breakout point of $30.53, triggering a $5.26 move, targeting $25.27.

There are two target interpretations for the flag, conservative, to its first decline end, and a liberal one which includes its ultimate low.

The conservative measure, from the Sept. 20, $33.27 high, to the Sept. 26, $28.01 low, is a $5.26 move (ironically, precisely the same as the H&S) from its $29.40 point of breakout, setting a $24.14 target. However, although the price penetrated the flag bottom, it could still retest its high.

The liberal measure is a $6.07 move from the same high to the $27.20 low on Oct. 3, measuring from the same breakout point to $21.13.

Conservative traders should wait for the flag penetration to reach below $28, then successfully retest its integrity before considering a short.

Moderate trades would be content with a lower low, then wait for a throwback for a better entry if not added confirmation.

Aggressive traders may short according to their strategy. Here's an example:

Trade Sample - Aggressive Short

Disclaimer: The author has no positions in any securities mentioned in this article.

See original here:

Chart Of The Day: Will Delta Air Lines Crash Land Towards $20? - Investing.com

Letter-writerDIANNE DEANEs rates notice is causing her distress. The unimproved value of her land has jumped 50 per cent and shes as mad as hell

I WAS distressed to receive my rates notice for 2022 to find that the valuation of the unimproved value of my land had increased by around 50 per cent in just one year.

I agree with Ron Edgecombe, of Evatt, in his concern over the ACT Unimproved Land Valuation increases (Letters, CN October 6), but its not only units that are being treated unfairly.

My rates for a medium-size block are now $4324 a year, almost doubling in the last seven years. My fixed income in retirement certainly hasnt doubled in the same period.

Its not as if the increase in rates offers any increase in services. Instead, potholes are not fixed, grasslands are overgrown to the extent they cant be used (unless you are a horse or kangaroo), health and mental health services, the education budget and public housing have all declined.

I object to an inflated valuation of my land that I believe is based primarily on two factors: the need for the ACT government to pay for its useless extensions to the tram, and the governments failure to make new land available to match the pace of demand and thus greatly inflating the cost of new land, which in turn also helps pay for the tram.

What a tidy solution to years of mismanagement and misplaced priorities of this government!

I urge those concerned with this rude grab for money to lodge a written objection with the Commissioner for ACT Revenue at revenue.act.gov.au/rights-and-obligations.

Its too late to wait until the next election to give this government the message. Do it now.

Dianne Deane, via email

DRIVING south along Athllon Drive, as I pass over Sulwood Drive, I am greeted by a sign that says: We are duplicating this road.

It has been there since before the last ACT election, now some two years hence.

What has happened in the fulfilment of this statement? Nothing!

It is testament to yet another unfulfilled election promise from the Labor/Greens. Perhaps it is a dual-use sign usable at the next election thats cost-saving economy for you!

Would the ACT government either get on with the job, or perhaps be more honest about it, and remove the sign!

Graham Harper, Wanniassa

I RECENTLY returned from a holiday in WA and had the opportunity to use Perths public transport system.

What a contrast with the shambolic system here.

First of all, the bus drivers accept cash and interstate visitors can pay that way if they are not there long enough to justify buying a pass. They recognise interstate Seniors Cards, too.

With the diabolical debt that the ACT government has got the territory into (ref Stanhope & Ahmed in various editions of CityNews), you would think they would see the importance of ending a stupid policy that bleeds revenue and resumed accepting cash on our bus system.

But no, covid must be a much more virulent strain here than in the West!

Another massive difference between the two transport systems is that in Perth, bus services on weekends are a little less frequent than on Monday to Friday with 10-15-minute intervals being commonplace and 30 minutes in the evenings. Compare that with the two hour intervals we have had to suffer on weekends in Canberra on non-Rapid routes for two years.

We cant afford a better service despite the outrageous property rates because of the governments arrogant refusal to recognise the outrageous disruption and cost of extending light rail.

Colin Lyons, Weetangera

FEDERAL Liberal Party vice-president and Sky News regular Tina McQueen comes across as rather Putinesque (No coming back for Libs without those lefties, citynews.com.au, October 5).

Any teal-tinged voter who is wondering about supporting the Liberal Party, or any moderate-leaning party member aiming for future party preselection, would be running yet another mile away from the party by now.

Many would also have reason to be suspicious about the true credentials, beliefs and motivations of future Liberal female candidates in particular.

So far, the ACT Liberals, who are also on a rocky path to resurrection, have not shown intestinal fortitude to stand up to Ms McQueens damning and controlling comments about ridding the party of lefties, and only welcoming good conservatives.

Or did too many local members and MLAs instead attend the Conservative Political Action Conference Australia at the beginning of October and remain in thrall of the presentations made by McQueen, Nigel Farage, former Trump associates, Australian right-wing politicians and commentators, arch-conservative lobby groups and think-tanks?

Sue Dyer, Downer

DEAR Dr Douglas MacKenzie (Letters, CN October 6), as a true believer I know that you will continue to crow about the Labor Partys ascendancy to the government benches, but to quote a 600-year-old French quotation: The king is dead long live the king.

Let your mate Albo get on with his job and hope that all will be well with the world for the next few years.

Dave Jeffrey, Farrer

I HAVE received a five-and-a-half-page statement from the ACT Revenue Office showing what I owe but nowhere does it show what I have paid.

As your columnist Paul Costigan (Canberra Matters) often states, this government shows an outrageous disrespect and inefficiency in dealing with Canberrans.

Imagine if the statements of my bank or body corporate didnt show the amounts Ive paid over the period covered by the statements. Who does the ACT Revenue Office take us for?

By the way, I must point out another inept, new way this government is choosing to serve its constituents, namely, not supplying the name of the officer who sends you a letter.

Instead it says Delegate of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue Operations. It might sound impressive to them, but not to us.

Vivien Munoz, Holt

RICK Forsters arguments in favour of the monarchy are so old hat Im surprised he didnt also regurgitate the tedious, If it aint broke, dont fix it.

While listing the terrible nature of republics, he failed to mention how the world has also seen many bad monarchs and monarchies over the centuries.

In our own lifetimes, British monarchs have done little or nothing to prevent us from falling into catastrophic times, to avoid disastrous economic downturns, or to right the wrongs placed on the disadvantaged.

And critically, how many times has the British monarch sided with Australia over the interests of the British government? The answer is, none. Historically, what did the cousins, George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II do to prevent the slaughter of World War I?

I could go on, pointing out that the late queen on her travels abroad, was required to speak on behalf of the UK government, rather than Australia. King Charles III will be required to do likewise.

It has been Australian governments that have had to speak up for Australia, as John Curtin did in bringing troops back from the Middle East to fight the Japanese, against the wishes of the British War Cabinet. What did the British monarch have to say about that?

We dont know, because were not allowed to know what our Head of State thinks behind the palace doors, even when our interests are at stake, such as with the Whitlam dismissal. It took 50 years and High Court intervention to get access to the letters between Kerr and the Palace. Does Rick think this is acceptable for an allegedly democratic nation?

Im not against any individual monarch its the institution that is at fault, serious fault, as far as Australia is concerned. Surely we are capable of learning from the mistakes of other republican systems, most of which have plenty of good points as well as faults, just as we can take some of the values of our present system and preserve them in a changed format while getting rid of the useless bits.

The main consideration is; it is long past time that a sovereign Australia stands up for itself, with a system that represents us first and foremost and is represented at its head by an Australian rather than by a foreigner who is foisted upon us through an accident of birth.

By the way, he or she must also be a believer in a particular brand of a particular religion that had its origins in the aberrant behaviour of a monarch seven centuries past. That too, is apparently a desirable value for this modern multicultural society to live with.

It IS broke, and it does need fixing.

Eric Hunter, Cook

In a world of spin and confusion, theres never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Original post:

Letters / 'Give this government the message. Do it now' - Canberra CityNews

Electioneering ahead of next years local council elections has already begun.

The battle lines are being drawn over the Faraday Road former football pitch - with the current Conservative administration being labelled "mean-minded".

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party say they will overturn current plans to build offices on the patch of grass on the edge of the London Road Industrial Estate.

Green Party councillors have given a categoric assurance that, should the Conservatives fail to retain control of West Berkshire Council in the elections in May 2023, they will seek the immediate reopening of Faraday Road as a football ground in line with the planning permission already granted to the Newbury Community Football Group.

The Lib Dems say they are confident of a majority at the next local election, and the Greens are confident of stealing more seats, and claiming the balance of power on the council.

Unless we are given very clear and strong reasons why not, we will upon taking control of the council next May proceed to allow the Newbury Community Football Group to implement its planning consent at Faraday Road," said Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Wash Common).

"We will not sign up to any deals with any other organisation that purports to offer another site.

The Faraday Road pitch has been closed for team football for around four years now.

The build of the Monks Lane site is dependent on the outcome of a Judicial Review - on the legality of the planning consent process - going in the councils favour.

"It is only the link made by the current executive with Faraday Road that we object to," Mr Vickers added. "We have no problems with there being an all weather sports pitch on rugby club land or even sharing it with other sporting bodies. We assert that it cannot be seen as a replacement for Faraday Road."

He poured scorn on Green ambitions to claim the fight.

"It doesnt make much difference what the WBC Green Group think," he said. "They are not going to be in a position to take any decision on their own. If Lib Dems need their support, wed be grateful for it of course. Asking if we would join up with the Greens is like asking our Lib Dem colleagues in Parliament to join up with Labour in opposing some Government proposal and overturn it after the next General Election when Labour had already announced they would do so."

But the Greens want a piece of the action.

We have also consistently opposed the financially ruinous scheme to replace Faraday Road with a so-called sports hub at Monks Lane, which was given planning permission in the most questionable of circumstances and will be a burden to West Berkshire council tax payers for many years to come, said David Marsh (Green, Wash Common).

We agree with Sport England that Monks Lane is not equivalent or better than Faraday Road: it's too small, it can't be scaled up adequately, and the astronomical cost would be much better spent on addressing the need for sporting facilities across West Berkshire.

Unlike Monks Lane or the equally unsuitable Manor Park, it will be a genuine sporting and social hub for the local community in Clay Hill and further afield. It is a sustainable location well served by public transport.

Faraday Road had been earmarked for housing to finance the redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate. But the council U-turned earlier this year, and it's now set for commercial use.

Meanwhile - Liberal Democrat Newbury town councillors Nigel Foot and Stuart Gourley are demanding answers from West Berkshire Council on what they say is the lack of publicity given to the public consultation on building a new sports pitch on the green space in Manor Park.

They have also argued that the proposed sports pitch is a threat to the local areas accessible green space, which they say is an important site for the areas biodiversity and drainage.

Residents have told us that they are concerned that a playing pitch on the Manor Park site would do tremendous damage to the green space in our area, putting at risk biodiversity and natural drainage, said Liberal Democrat Newbury town councillor Mr Foot.

Rather than rip up this vital piece of Clay Hill green space, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that it would be a much better use of taxpayers money to return sport to the Faraday Road ground.

"The Conservative council bosses mismanagement of the whole London Road Industrial Estate saga has been staggering, and its no wonder that we are finding more and more West Berkshire residents turning to the Liberal Democrats to provide the fresh start our area needs.

See the original post:

A game of two halves... or is it? - Newbury Today

If The Handmaid's Tale's subject matter wasn't so consistently dark and heavy, the opening moments of episode 7, titled "No Man's Land," could almost be called a comedy of errors. It picks up right where last week's cliffhanger left off, with Serena (Yvonne Strahovski) pointing a pistol at June (Elisabeth Moss,) forcing her to drive somewhere.

But gun-slinging Serena's also experiencing painful contractions, causing her to accidentally fire a shot through the windshield. Dumbfounded by the sheer ridiculousness of the predicament she's found herself in, June pulls over and flees. Serena takes the wheel, but almost immediately drives into a ditch. A conflicted June comes to her rescue, opening the driver's side door to find Serena hunched over the wheel, yet still attempting to steady the weapon toward June. "Are you in "fking labor?," she says, before effortlessly disarming her. Discovering Serena's water has broken, June then assists her to a nearby abandoned barn, offering a sarcastic, "Maybe they'll have a manger," on the journey over.

The pair display a drastically different dynamic in the next scene, a flashback from the start of their relationship. They're attending a birthing ritual at a Commander's home, where a meek June/Offred is introduced by Serena as her "new handmaid." As the two join the other wives, handmaids, and a preaching Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd), they share a knowing smile over the absurdity of the ceremony.

Back at the barn, June brings Serena a blanket and shares stories of her own pregnancy trials and tribulations, including having to birth Nichole all by herself, under less than ideal conditions. June seems to take some pleasure in seeing Serena work through her painful contractions, but still tries to comfort her. But Serena forcefully pushes her away, claiming June wants to kill her and her baby. June storms off in a flurry of F-bombs, and heads back to the stranded vehicle.

While she attempts to free the car's mud-submerged tire, we're again taken back to the Gilead birthing, where things have taken a horrific turn. The handmaid, who we learn is called Ofclarence, has died, and the infant is removed from her surgically. As June/Offred silently watches in shock, Aunt Lydia scolds her for not praying along with her sister handmaids.

In the present day, June manages to free the vehicle, but her moral compass gets the best of her before she can drive off. She returns to the barn to help Serena, who's clearly relieved June hasn't abandoned her. Now committed to staying and delivering Serena's baby, June digs in. While Serena braces herself against June's shoulders, the reluctant midwife wipes her patient's forehead and talks her through the contractions. Following plenty of pain and tears from both women baby Noah arrives. "He's perfect," June tells Serena.

Next, we get one last flashback to Gilead, where Ofclarence's face is covered with a sheet, while Aunt Lydia explains to her handmaids that she "has fulfilled her duty in this world." A few rooms over, the wives are fawning over the recently deceased woman's newborn, who now belongs to Commander Clarence and his wife. Serena is also in attendance, but looks uncomfortable and isn't celebrating. She and June/Offred exchange an awkward nod when the latter passes by.

While nursing Noah, Serena asks June why she didn't kill her when she had the chance, during the protest at the Gilead Information Center. Holding back tears, June takes her time answering before quietly responding, "I didn't want to." They also discuss whether the baby will grow up to be like his father, the vile Fred Waterford, but June again comforts Serena, saying his upbringing will take precedence over his dad's genes.

Back to business, June's ready to move Serena and her baby to a safer place. But the new mom objects, insisting she can't go back to Canada or Gilead. She admits to feeling like a prisoner under the Wheeler's roof: "I'm they're handmaid... it's like I'm you." She tearfully suggests staying behind and sending Noah with June, allowing her and Luke (O-T Fagbenle) to raise him.

"He would be safe with you. He's a good man. The kind of man who would never do the things his father did, the things that I did," she says of Luke. She even posits it's all God's will she's just a vessel and June's the avenging angel meant to raise her son. She caps her emotionally wrought proposal with a longtime-coming apology to June.

But June's all set with the too little, too late apology. She instead hits Serena with some hard truths: "This isn't Gilead and I'm not you," she says before telling her she will save her life and keep her and Noah together. "You're his mother and he belongs with you that is God's will."

Fast-forward to a Toronto hospital, where Serena and Noah are being whisked away in a wheelchair while June assures her everything will be okay. With Serena in good hands, June makes an urgent call, presumably to Luke. She later visits Serena, who's stressing about her doctor's liberal use of antibiotics and baby formula to treat her and Noah in an "unnatural" way Gilead would frown upon. Once again, June is there for Serena, comforting her and calming her down. Serena's also reminded she has no home to return to, and surmises she's in a figurative "No Man's Land." She extends a hand to June and thanks her. June uncomfortably accepts the gesture.

June returns to the waiting room, where Luke arrives with good news. The thumb drive containing the intel on Hannah's wife-prep school is being worked on. But that's not all Luke's brought, as he's apparently put in a call to the immigration authorities. They arrive with the police to detain Serena, informing her, as an undocumented person, she has no right to legal council. They cuff her to the hospital bed and tell her Noah will be placed with a child protection unit.

June and Luke watch all this unfold from outside her room. The tears welling up in Luke's eyes suggest he's sympathetic, but he's also satisfied with the part he's played in finally taking Serena down "At last, she knows what it feels like." But June's distracted by Serena's frantic, desperate pleas for help: "June, don't let them take my baby, please. June, help me."

As Serena screams and struggles against her restraints, Luke says quietly, "Justice," as if trying to convince himself he's done the right thing. Wide-eyed and more conflicted than ever about her relationship with Serena, June offers a barely audible, halfhearted response: "Right."

Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

Related content:

Here is the original post:

The Handmaid's Tale recap: Born to run - Yahoo Entertainment

CORVALLIS, Ore. Oregon State University and the OSU Foundation on Friday launched Oregon States second university-wide fundraising campaign, Believe It: The Campaign for Oregon State University.

Donors have already committed more than $1 billion to the campaign that seeks to raise $1.75 billion to support OSU priority initiatives, including student access and success, faculty positions, academic programs, research, statewide community engagement programs, OSU Athletics and facilities on OSUs Corvallis campus and OSU-Cascades campus in Bend.

The campaign is led by the OSU Foundation. It is planned to support the following university priorities: $460 million for student support, including scholarships, fellowships and experiential learning funds; $500 million for faculty positions and academic program support; $320 million for new facilities, renovations and equipment; $250 million for emerging strategic initiatives; and $220 million for programmatic support, including outreach and extension programs throughout Oregon and beyond.

The OSU Foundation hosted a campaign celebration Friday night. More than 500 donors, alumni, students, faculty and other stakeholders gathered on the universitys Corvallis campus Memorial Union Quad during Homecoming Weekend to formally mark the beginning of the public phase of the Believe it campaign and hear stories about what philanthropy and involvement with OSU can make possible.

As Oregons public land grant university, OSU is ideally suited to serve Oregonians in all communities, and provide solutions to challenges that face the nation and world, said OSU President Jayathi Murthy. The phenomenal support already provided to the Believe It campaign is a testament to Oregon States donors and their belief in the universitys ability to help transform the lives of learners of all ages and promote social, cultural and economic progress within Oregon and beyond.

The university and the OSU Foundation began working on the Believe It campaign in 2017 with then-President Edward Ray, aligning campaign priorities with OSUs Vision 2030 and Strategic Plan 4.0. Donors to date have created nearly 500 new scholarship, fellowship and student support funds, an increase of 26% since the campaign began.

We concluded our first campaign in 2014 having raised $1.14 billion, but just as important, we created a catalyst for philanthropy at OSU, said Shawn L. Scoville, the Oregon State University Foundation president and CEO. Were seeing the momentum of philanthropy within OSU in the $1 billion to date donors have committed in the Believe It campaign. Our donors have stepped forward with more than 1,100 commitments of $100,000 or more, and weve received more gifts of $1 million or more in the first phase of this campaign than we did in the universitys entire last fundraising campaign. I am grateful to all our donors, volunteers and supporters who believe in OSUs mission and have helped us reach this milestone.

This campaign also seeks to grow and deepen alumni and other supporters involvement in ways that advance student success and a sense of belonging to the larger OSU community of 200,000-plus alumni and 300,000 parents and friends all over the world, Scoville said. Volunteers recruited through the campaign, for example, will serve as career mentors for students and recent graduates and help alumni to become advocates for the university.

At the campaign launch event, OSU announced plans for a new $200 million, 150,000-square-foot advanced research and education facility that will be named the Jen-Hsun and Lori Huang Collaborative Innovation Complex. The naming is in recognition of the couples $50 million gift to support the complex. Jen-Hsun Huang is the founder and CEO of NVIDIA, and he and his spouse, Lori, met at Oregon State and are OSU graduates.

A total of $100 million in private gifts has been committed to the center that will harness one of the nations most powerful supercomputers and team-based research in artificial intelligence, materials science and robotics to solve global challenges in areas such as climate science, oceanography, sustainability and water resources.

The center will employ a NVIDIA supercomputer to support faculty in addressing highly complex and challenging computational problems. The OSU supercomputer powered by next-generation NVIDIA CPUs, GPUs and networking is expected to be among the worlds fastest university supercomputers, powerful enough to train the largest AI models and perform complex digital twin simulations. The complex will also have a state-of-the-art clean room and other specialized research facilities.

We discovered our love for computer science and engineering at OSU. We hope this gift will help inspire future generations of students also to fall in love with technology and its capacity to change the world, the Huangs said.

AI is the most transformative technology of our time, they added. To harness this force, engineering students need access to a supercomputer, a time machine, to accelerate their research. This new AI supercomputer will enable OSU students and researchers to make very important advances in climate science, oceanography, materials science, robotics and other fields.

The university also announced that a 49,000-square-foot arts and education complex under construction on the Corvallis campus will be called the Patricia Valian Reser Center for the Creative Arts. The naming is in recognition of Resers previously anonymous $25 million gift for the facility. Scheduled to open in spring 2024, the facility will serve as a statewide portal to the arts and support the universitys historically unique STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and math) education opportunities. Reser has given $36 million to supports arts education and programs at OSU.

I believe for OSU to reach its full potential as a world-leading, problem-solving, path-finding, change-making university the university of the future we must have a thriving College of Liberal Arts. We must have arts that flourish and speak with academics and research, Reser said. When faculty and students engage in the arts, they expand their ability to find new solutions to problems of every kind. We must nurture our greatest natural resource: human creativity.

Another significant facility project underway on OSUs Corvallis campus is work to complete Reser Stadium. Along with an anonymous $50 million lead gift made in 2021, 20 donors have given a total of $91.6 million for the $160.5 million Completing Reser Stadium project.

The Believe It campaign is guided by a steering committee of 12 alumni, donors and volunteers, and is co-chaired by alumni Ruth Beyer, College of Liberal Arts, 77; Jon DeVaan, College of Engineering, 85; and John Stirek, College of Business, 82.

More than 56,000 people have made a gift to the campaign so far.

We are tremendously grateful for the generosity of Patricia Valian Reser, Lori and Jen-Hsun Huang, and every single donor giving at any scale to advance excellence and student success at Oregon State, said Beyer, DeVaan and Stirek in a statement about the launch. The Believe It campaign is about supporting the world-changing solutions that Oregon State University delivers through its teaching, research and engagement programs. OSUs donors, volunteers, alumni, parents and friends are showing the world what they believe in: the power of Oregon State providing knowledge and innovation to better Oregon and change the world.

For more information on Believe It: The Campaign for Oregon State University, please visit OSUBelieveIt.org.

Here is the original post:

Oregon State University announces second campaign with $1 billion already given toward $1.75 billion goal - Oregon State University

Daines endorsement

Far away from the Beltway Bubble of Washington D.C., county government is on the frontline of every issue facing policy makers and our communities. Thats why we need local elected officials with the knowledge and know-how to serve their constituents.

For nearly a decade, Ive had the pleasure of working with Flathead County Commissioner Pam Holmquist on important Montana issues ranging from forestry and land management to job creation. Ive sat with her in meetings on Capitol Hill advocating for the Kalispell Bypass project. Weve had important discussions at mills and manufacturing facilities in the Flathead Valley about increasing high paying job opportunities for Montanans.

Working on behalf of a county that is more than 70% federal land, Pam has been a constant voice for commonsense forestry and land management policies. She understands that commonsense management enhances our public lands, lowers the risk of catastrophic wildfires and helps sustain Montana timber jobs.

Pam also has unmatched knowledge of the ins and outs and intricacies of county government, which has proved vital as she advocates for Flathead County on the state and national levels. Shell continue working to protect private property rights, deliver critical public services and keep the county on a strong fiscal track.

I have always appreciated Pams kindness, candor and honesty in discussions.

Pam Holmquist is a strong advocate for the Flathead and a top-notch public servant. She has my full support.

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, Bozeman

Its election season, also known as the season of misleading information. A prime example is what appears to be Montana Democrats main talking point on legislative races: If the Republicans can flip just two more legislative seats, theyre coming after the constitution.

What the Democrats fail to mention is that the Legislature cannot change Montanas Constitution. It says right there in the constitution that any proposed amendments have to be voted on by Montana voters. At most, the Legislature can propose amendments for the voters to decide. A good example of that is the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot this year to safeguard our privacy in the digital age. Republicans passed it in the Legislature over the objections of more than 20 House Democrats. Now, voters will get to decide whether the government is required to get a warrant before accessing our election communications.

Despite the Democrats fear mongering about make believe threats to constitutional rights, I dont see voters approving changes to reduce or eliminate freedom of speech, personal privacy, tribal sovereignty, religious freedom, public education, a clean environment, civil rights, the right to bear arms, hunting and fishing rights, or public access rights, among others. Nor do I see Republicans proposing any radical changes like that.

What Montana Democrats are really saying is that they dont trust Montana voters. Montana Democrats believe the government knows what is best for you and they dont trust you to update our constitution if thats what you want to do, whether regarding digital privacy or any other topic.

The Montana Democrats are spinning lies and nonsense because they know Montana does not support their far left liberal agenda of pushing woke policies destroying our families, culture, and schools. Montana doesnt support their agenda promoting soft on crime policies, open borders bringing in dangerous drugs, and destroying our energy and natural resources economy while supporting OPEC oil and overseas mining employing child labor, not to mention Bidens reckless spending and inflation.

With an unpopular agenda like that, I guess Im not surprised Montana Democrats have resorted to trying to mislead Montanans about our own constitution. This November, remember, only you can change Montanas constitution. But Montana Democrats will implement reckless policies if you vote for their candidates.

Vote Republican for common sense solutions.

State Sen. Greg Hertz, Polson

This year Montanans are facing the most critical general election in recent history with results that will have significant impacts on future generations.

We Montana citizens, no matter the party affiliation, have certain, unimpeachable duties which must be performed intelligently and with empathy. We are instructed in Isaiah chapter 1 verse 17: Learn to do good, make justice your aim; redress the wronged, hear the orphans plea, defend the widow.

Learn to do good, make justice your aim. We are urged by these words to be open minded, to do our homework and then make a judgment as to whom will best be of service to our community, to future generations and who will best represent us with their experience, qualifications and most importantly, their character. We will then exercise our right to vote and elect with certification. Our choices start with the election for Justice of the Supreme Court, our United States Representative and for our local district representatives. Make justice your aim and do your very best.

Michael L. McKenna, Bozeman

Read the original:

Letters to the editor Oct. 17 - Daily Inter Lake

A laurel to the brave and brilliant young reporters at theIrish Roverthe independent student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indianafor bringing to light something shameful. AsRovereditor-in-chiefW. Joseph DeReuil reportedlast week, Notre Dame sociology professor Tamara Kay has sought to provide abortion access to students at our Ladys own university in the wake of the Supreme CourtsDobbsdecision.

A sign posted until recently on Kays officedoor read: This is a SAFE SPACE to get help and information on ALL health-care issues and access confidentially with care and compassion. The sign also included her personal e-mail address, as well as a capital J inside a red circle, which apparently has emerged as some sort of code among pro-abortion professors willing to help students terminate their pregnancies.

The J professors help students access morning-after abortifacientsnot illegal under Indiana law, but also not offered by campus health servicesas well as "Plan C" abortion pills that work up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Confronted by theRoverfollowing a university panel titled Post-RoeAmerica: Making Intersectional Feminist Sense of Abortion Bans, Kay claimed, For me, abortion is a policy issue. And yes, my view runs afoul of Church teaching, but in other areas, my positions are perfectly aligned [with the Churchs].

Since then, Kay has removed the sign on her door, and her Notre Dame inbox auto-generates the following lunatic response:

Dear Friends and Colleagues, Notre Dame police are monitoring and curating this email account, so it may take a bit longer than normal for me to get back to you. Apparently, white-nationalist Catholic hate groups are not happy with my academic work on reproductive health, rights, and justice. But ND supports my academic freedom, so if you are interested, check out my website below. Have a wonderful day!

University public-relations and legal teams have so far failed to reply to theRovers repeated inquiries.

Meanwhile, a Notre Dame Law School alumnus who goes by Eudaimonia on Twitterreported on an upcoming panelat his alma mater. Held under the auspices of the LGBT Law Forum, the panel is titled Decriminalizing Sex Work, and one of the featured speakers is described as a law-student sex worker.

What the hell is going on at Notre Dame? The short answer is that large swaths of the faculty and administration have traded in the universitys Catholic identity and mission for the pottage of liberal acceptance and prestige. Father John Jenkins, the universitys president, exemplifies the pusillanimity and self-abasement of Notre Dame leaders. In 2009, Jenkins honored the newly elected President Barack Obama, a champion of the culture of death. In 2016, he bestowed American Catholicisms highest honor, the Laetare Medal, on then-Vice President Joe Biden, another abortion supporter. Hope the liberal head-pats are worth it, Father!

The deeper answer has to do with the generational crisis in Catholic education. In 1967, leading Catholic educatorsincluding then-Notre Dame President Theodore M. Hesburghdeclared themselves free of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself, in what became known as the Land OLakes Statement (the position paper was adopted at a gathering in Land OLakes, Wisconsin).

This bold casting off of authority ran utterly contrary to the ancient precepts of the Catholic university. Formerly, Catholic education drew on the classical tradition, which held that the educators role is to help students learn to love what is lovable and contemn what is hateful or wrong. And it recognized the special role of the Church as humankinds divinely ordained guide in this regard. Free inquiry and free speech, in this telling, werent absolute masters, but servants that had to be carefully restrained to yield good work.

The Land OLakes signatories sought to unshackle themselves from these precepts, and behold what they wrought. At many Catholic universities, including increasingly at Notre Dame, the liberal arts mirror the narrow specialization, technocratic blandness, and haphazard quality of their secular counterparts. Not to mention the moral degradation. In response to all this, an older generation of Catholic academics, including not a few hopelessly timid conservatives at Notre Dame, insist that more free speech and more free inquiry are the answer, as if that werent what brought us to the current nadir.

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

But young, orthodox Catholics are increasingly seeing through the academic-freedom ruse, and demanding something more. As DeReuil, theRovereditor-in-chief, wrote in an editorial last week:

The same line [academic freedom] has repeatedly been invoked against supporting the Catholic mission of the university and bolstering the religious ethos on campus.

As theRoverreported this fall, academic freedom is the reason Notre Dame sellssexualized childrens book in her bookstore and why she must allow professors to help students obtain abortions.

The hypocritical, unequal application of academic freedom seen through this curation fosters justifiable anger: Let me say what I think, too! Let me have a voice in the conversation! But would the happy and free society, which some seem to idealize, truly be realized where anyone is free to spread pornography, sexualize children, promote the occult, and advocate for killing the unborn?

Clearly, allowing all viewpoints is not a final answer: some restrictions on speech even at the highly protected university are necessary for a flourishing community.

The present at Notre Dame is utterly bleak. But the next generation bears hope.

More:

The Shame of Notre Dame - The American Conservative

It is challenging to keep track of Russian and Ukrainian casualties because Russia and Ukraine have the incentive to conceal those numbers. On the other hand, open-source reporting has resulted in some estimates that are most likely to be within a reasonable range of the actual figure.

Many estimate Russia has lost around 2,000 tanks, many of which Ukraine has seized. The most recent offensive alone is estimated to have captured around two dozen tanks, which is sufficient for Ukraine to equip two tank companies.

This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.

If accurate, the above represents approximately 66 percent of Russias modern tank forces. The figure, of course, does not include the 20,000 old tanks that Russia keeps in storage. Evidence suggests that Russias tank problems have reached a crisis level. There is confirmation that T-62s are now in combat in Ukraine.

According to some estimates, Russia has suffered the loss of around 4,500 infantry fighting vehicles, which accounts for approximately 34% of its total force. Ukraine has also shot down two hundred fifty of Russias most cutting-edge aircraft, though this only accounts for about 18% of Russias aircraft fleet.

Additionally, 1300 pieces of artillery, both self-propelled and traditional, have been captured, abandoned, or destroyed. This figure accounts for approximately 23% of Russias total artillery stock.

As for troops, Over 90,000 Russian soldiers have died, cannot be accounted for, or have suffered such serious injuries that they are unable to return to service, independent Russian media project iStoriesreported, citing sources close to the Kremlin.

Russian morale is at an all-time low, according to reports. Of course, this is not Russias only problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. Almost from the moment that military operations began, the Russian military was suffering from low morale. In retaliation for the high number of casualties they were suffering, one tank unit even ran over the legs of their commanders.

Following its defeat in the Kharkiv Oblast, Russia has initiated a significant nationwide recruitment effort to compensate for the number of soldiers it lost in battle. However, Russias partial mobilisation is indicative of the countrys realisation that it cannot generate the manpower necessary to achieve its goals in Ukraine.

On the front lines at home, sanctions imposed by the West have been criticised, even within the West, as being ineffective, even though Russias economy is beginning to show signs of severe deterioration due to the sanctions.

However, this was only possible due to Russias extensive use of its currency reserves to artificially prop up its economy. These reserves are slowly being depleted, and the reduction in energy that Russia supplies to Europe as a result of both self-imposed energy restrictions in Russia as well as Russias deliberate attempt to exert pressure on Europe by cutting off gas flows has resulted in the drying up of Russias most lucrative source of revenue. Energy sales have been the primary factor in keeping the Russian economy afloat.

As a result of the steep drop in sales to Europe, Russia has been searching for alternative buyers, and those alternative buyers are now responsible for determining prices. For example, both China and India are stocking up on low-cost energy from Russia at prices they set and then turning around and selling it to other countries to make a profit.

In contrast, Ukraine is gradually gaining the support from Western nations that it has required from the very beginning of its political crisis. Western governments are, for the most part, deciding whether to provide Ukraine with heavy equipment like tanks and aircraft.

The United States has given its approval for Ukrainian pilots to receive training on the F-16 and F-15. And its inevitable that the Ukrainian air force will be flying Western fighters within the next six to eight months.

Britain, as many of you know, continues its weekly shipments of everything from anti-air missiles to ammunition. Additionally, the UK is erring ongoing intelligence information to Ukraine through the use of frequent surveillance aircraft missions to the region.

Germany is currently debating whether or not to provide Ukraine with Leopard 2 tanks. Additionally, a growing number of calls coming from within the United States could result in approval to provide Ukraine with Abrams tanks. Im not joking. This would be huge.

Alongside the US and UK, Canada is even helping to train Ukrainians to defend their homeland. Other countries, are, of course, helping in a multitude of ways.

Is it fair to say that Ukraine is winning the war? Sorry for the vague answer here, but yes and no. Let me explain. Wars dont count as won until theyve been fought and won. Various factors can potentially bring about a significant shift in Ukraines circumstances. Ukraine may be offered less support due to the growing sense of exhaustion among some Westerners regarding the situation in Ukraine.

As a result of being cut off from Russian supplies, Europe is already preparing for a harsh winter, which an energy shortage will compound. Moreover, this harsh winter may cause a significant shift in European public opinion against maintaining support for Ukraine. Lets hope it doesnt.

Despite this, the United States, the United Kingdom and other significant players maintain their quite solid commitment to Ukraine and appear poised to provide that country with even more technologically advanced equipment.The assistance of the United States and the United Kingdom alone may be sufficient to turn the tide of the war in Ukraines favour, but as the old saying goes, the more, the merrier.

Despite all of the above, Russia maintains a military that remains a significantly capable force despite being clumsy and inept. So dont let their failings make you think Russia is a paper tiger. It isnt.

Even a full-scale mobilisation is unlikely to win the war for Russia at this point because it would take nearly a year to organise, train, and equip new forcestime that Russia does not have. Moreover, Ukraine had been underestimated at almost every point since the start of the invasion, with many analysts and Western governments expecting the capital to fall within days. It didnt fall. It pushed back.

However, there is a genuine concern that people will overestimate Ukraines capacity for success in its objective of retaking the land seized by Russia. The offensive operation in the East is still meeting with a great deal of success. However, the element of surprise played a significant role in the success of that offensive, and it is improbable that the same level of tactical surprise can be achieved again.

But I was wrong about this before, and I hope I am this time too. The conflict will inevitably devolve into a drawn-out slugfest in which Russia will play the heavyweight role. The only way for Ukraine to push Russia back toward its borders is for the West to maintain and significantly increase its support.

Ukraine is not necessarily winning, but it is a long way from losing.

Go here to read the rest:

Is Ukraine winning the war? - UK Defence Journal

Sustainability was another recurring theme in the meeting. For the eighth consecutive year, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Educations Sustainable Campus Index Rankings placed CSU in the top five among doctoral institutions. This year, CSU is ranked second, following four years at number one.

CSU plays an international leading role in food, livestock and soil sustainability research, according to a presentation by College of Agricultural Sciences Dean James Pritchett and faculty members. The presentation highlighted programs such AgNext, which provides a public-private partnership for sustainable animal agriculture. According to program director and Professor of Animal Sciences Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, AgNext at Colorado State University is a leader for research in animal and ecosystem health while enhancing profitability of the supply chain. It serves as the crossroads for producers, industry partners and researchers to come together to innovate real-time solutions for sustainable animal agriculture.

CSUs climate-smart research facility at ARDEC is the largest university research facility of its kind in the nation. It is equipped with the best emissions measurement technology that evaluate greenhouse gases from cattle in feedlot and grazing settings.

The College of Agricultural Sciences Soil Carbon Solutions Center is building tools needed to accelerate the deployment of credible soil-based climate solutions, measure their impact, and bring them to scale, according to Executive Director and Ecologist Jane Zelikova. The Center has engaged interdisciplinary research to accelerate the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices that build soil carbon on working lands. Because soil is one of the largest natural carbon reservoirs, work conducted at the Center has the potential to address climate change and improve environmental, economic and social sustainability of food, fiber and bioenergy production.

In a separate report, Interim Vice President of Engagement and Extension Kathay Rennels reported on how CSU is partnering with CSU Pueblo and other agencies to extend the benefits of the Universitys agricultural research and development to rural communities. The systemwide Rural Initiative is focusing on accessible education, improved health (mental health, aging, prevention), thriving economy (especially economics in agricultural spaces), and vibrant communities (the College of Liberal Arts providing faculty/training resources).

Every place Ive gone around state, Ive heard nothing but strong connections with CSU. Most of the connections are around agriculture which it should be, Board Vice President Armando Valdez reported. We hope to expand into other areas beyond agriculture impact and engage. Ag is a strong leverage point we can push out from. I appreciate that you are making sure we can afford and sustain the programs we implement.

See original here:

Faculty/staff compensation is a top priority, Miranda tells Board of Governors - Source