New Liberal MP rings opponent at 3am – 9news.com.au

Newly-elected Liberal MP Peter Katsambanis rang his opponent in the middle of the night to gloat after winning a bitterly fought battle for the seat of Hillary's in Perth's north.

Rob Johnson, a former police minister who fell out with Premier Colin Barnett and turned independent, on Sunday released what he said was a "drunken phone message left on my mobile at 2.49am this morning from Peter Katsambanis".

"Hello Rob, this is Peter Katsambanis calling, have a great day, enjoy the rest of your life, thank you, bye bye," it said.

Mr Johnson was unimpressed, saying "this demonstrates exactly why I ran for the seat in yesterday's election - I believe the people of Hillarys deserve better.

"This phone message and his comments to the media last night and this morning were deplorable and is representative of the dirty, vindictive and dishonest campaign he ran against me in the past few weeks," he said.

"On a brighter note, I have thoroughly enjoyed tremendous support and loyalty from my local community and am proud of what I achieved in my 24 years in parliament."

Mr Katsambanis lost preselection for Hillary's to local businessman Simon Ehrenfeld in a vote by local branch members but Liberal powerbrokers stepped in and would not endorse him.

AAP 2017

Auto news:Autonomous cars wont kill people, but they will take our jobs - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: What does the new American president mean for the auto industry? - caradvice.com.au

Auto news:A new Hyundai ute is now on the cards - caradvice.com.au

Auto news:GM could sell Opel to Peugeot parent - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Buying a new car? Here are 11 things you should consider first - caradvice.com.au

Continue reading here:

New Liberal MP rings opponent at 3am - 9news.com.au

Arizona Trump supporters call for ‘liberal genocide’ – The Grio

Last weekend, an Arizona community held a March for Trump that included heavily armed militiamen, white nationalists, a few elected officials and other locals.

I heard lock her up, lock her up, and we still need to pursue that, announced Arizona Congressman Anthony Kern in reference to Donald Trumps campaign promises to jail Hillary Clinton. And that was one of the milder things said at the rally.

If you dont like it here, go to Syria, go to someplace else, one attendee said.

I dont want em, as a veteran I dont want em, let em go back home, said another. If theyve got a problem, let Saudi Arabia take care of em.

Georgia student allegedly said he wanted to exterminate alln****s

Others spoke toDan Cohen of the The Real News Network about just who they wanted out of the country.

If she is Jewish, she should go back to her country, a 13-year-old Trump supporter said.

This is America, wedont want Sharia Law, one attendee explained. Christian country.

Then there was the chilling call for a liberal genocide from an Oath Keeper, who said:I just want to let them know that I cant wait for the liberal genocide to begin.

Thats the way to make America great again, he later toldCohen. Liberals are destroying the country.

See original here:

Arizona Trump supporters call for 'liberal genocide' - The Grio

Pauline Hanson Blames Liberal Preference Deal For Failure To Win A Single Seat In WA Election – BuzzFeed News

Labor has stormed home to win the state vote, achieving its biggest primary vote in WA since 1986. With a swing of around 16% against the eight-and-a-half year Liberal Barnett government, four Liberal ministers have lost their seats and Labor could win 10 more seats than the 30 needed to form government.

With 67% of the vote counted, ABC election analyst Antony Green has predicted Labor will hold 40 seats to the Liberals 14 and the Nationals five in the lower house. Only 4% of the upper house vote has been counted but at this stage Labor is in the lead, followed by the Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and the Greens.

Federal finance minister Mathias Cormann said the Liberals huge loss in WA was a long time coming and big swings werent unexpected.

Cormann was behind a preference deal that saw the Liberals preference One Nation ahead of Coalition partner the Nationals in upper house regional areas, in return for One Nation preferencing Liberals over Labor in all lower house seats it contested.

He admitted on Sunday morning that the deal had backfired.

Fewer people ended up voting for One Nation than otherwise might, he said on the ABCs Insiders.

At the beginning of the campaign, our primary vote was on 29%. The published polls were indicating that One Nation was on a 13% primary vote, and they have come in less than that. People will have all sorts of interpretation but, in the end, you have to look at the evidence.

But Cormann refused to rule out any future preference deals with the right wing party, either at a state or federal level.

Rebecca Le May / AAPIMAGE

ID: 10684790

One Nations support collapsed in the last week before the campaign.

At the start of the campaign the party was polling 13%, but that fell to 8% after comments by Hanson questioning the safety of childhood vaccination. In the end it achieved just 4.7% of the primary vote.

As the results started to roll in on Saturday night, Hanson admitted the deal with the Liberals was a mistake.

All I heard all day and leading up to this election was why are you sending your preferences to the Liberal Party? she told Seven News.

Hanson said she would look closely at any future preferences deals.

See the rest here:

Pauline Hanson Blames Liberal Preference Deal For Failure To Win A Single Seat In WA Election - BuzzFeed News

Donald Trump’s election and the erosion of liberal democracy (3 letters) – The Denver Post

Thinkstock by Getty Images

Re: Is liberal democracy in retreat? March 4 Christopher Hill column.

Christopher Hill suggests that President Donald Trump is threatening liberal democracy and has little respect for our system of checks and balances. Hill needs to check his data on who is doing the eroding.

President Trump is taking decisive action to reverse past presidential erosions by enforcing immigration laws, nominatingSupreme Court Justices who dont userelativistic interpretations, stopping the EPA from making laws, and overturning a federal health care law that is being forced on states and individuals.

Therefore, it is strange for Hill to say, alluding to Trump:Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers.

Perhaps the worldwide retreat to which Hill has alluded has been caused by imposing liberal democracy on countries whose social structure is tribal allegiance (Iraq and Afghanistan), and the erosion of the rule of law in our own country.

Don Garretson, Conifer

Christopher Hills commentary clearly shows why Donald Trump won the election. His assertion that this bizarre presidency produces constant anxiety ignores the fact that the hysterical, outlandish refusal to accept defeat by the Democrats is what creates the anxiety. Protesters and mobs have tried to bring the government to a standstill, if not to its knees. Hill goes on to say that the president doesnt understand American democracy and its checks and balances.

Seems to me Trumpunderstands them very well. He has tried to correct actions by the previous administration using the same executive orders as it did. Having a cherry-picked judge impose a stay does not make an action wrong. Many of us are tired of these tactics and want to see courts that respect the Constitution, not progressivism.

People who make a living in politics lose their objectivity and a feel for the pulse of the nation, and Hill should spend time speaking to real people, instead of politicians and world leaders who see everything through the prism of government control.

Rick Roeder, Littleton

Christopher Hill seems content to denigrate President Donald Trump, arguably the worlds easiest target, rather than to ponder Trumps surprising rise. As many ordinary Americans know, our citadel of democracy functions little better than its Middle Eastern equivalent. The system has been gamed by the personal-wealth-seeking, bait-and-switch political class.

Heres the question Hill should ask: How did Trump do it? Hint: It wasnt the Russkies. Voters were given the choice between a kleptocrat who got rich while inpublic service and an unscrupulous business tycoon who got rich beforepublic service. Struggling wage earners, ignored except during political campaigns, desperately grasped onto a few populist phrases.

In 1517, when Martin Luther tacked his manifesto on the door of a German chapel, who knew it presaged the downfall of the greedy, monolithic European Church? With pundits like Hill unable to see the forest for the trees, Americans must wait for our Martin Luther.

Mary Marcus,Englewood

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Read more:

Donald Trump's election and the erosion of liberal democracy (3 letters) - The Denver Post

What happens when Liberal backbenchers rise up: Aaron Wherry – CBC.ca

Wednesday was an eventful day for the House of Commons. Perhaps even an important one, precisely because it was so eventful.

In the climactic moment, 105 Liberals broke with the government and voted in favour of S-201, a bill sponsored by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant to ban genetic discrimination.

Moments earlier, 27 Liberal backbenchers had provided the decisive votes in favour of S-217, Conservative MP Michael Cooper's bill on detention in custody again, against the position of the Liberal government.

Less noticed, but still noteworthy, was the cabinet's own move a few hours earlier to amend C-22, a government bill that would establish a committee of parliamentarians to review national security operations.

Liberal members of the public safety committee joined with Conservatives and New Democrats to amend the bill late last year. On Wednesday afternoon, the government brought forward its own amendments to counter some of the committee's changes.

The prime minister has, rightly or wrongly, punted on electoral reform. Parliamentary procedures remain basically unchanged, though the government has at least now released a discussion paper and the Senate continues to be a live experiment in legislative independence.

The access to information system is still awaiting reform. Question period is still a mostly drab exchange of accusations and platitudes.

But interesting things keep happening nonetheless; indications that the House of Commons might be slowly changing.

With a few exceptions, the last Parliament wasn't generally given to such dramatic demonstrations of independent thought. But Wednesday was actually not the first time during this Parliament that Liberal backbenchers have decisively swung a vote.

Liberal backbenchers helped swing two votes against the wishes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet on Wednesday. (Chris Bolin/Reuters)

On Oct.26, 103 Liberal MPs voted to support Bill C-243, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen's bill on maternity benefits. And, that same day, 90 Liberals voted in favour of Bill C-240, Liberal MP Bryan May's bill to create a tax credit for first-aid training.

In both cases, Liberal cabinet ministers voted against.

But C-243 and C-240, along with S-217, were at the second-reading stage of the process and Liberals were merely voting to send the bills to committee for further study.

With S-201, the ban on genetic discrimination, Liberal backbenchers were voting to pass the bill into law.

According to Liberal sources, both the prime minister and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould addressed caucusWednesday morning about why the government opposes S-201. As Justin Trudeau explained to reporters that day, the cabinet believesthe bill violates provincial jurisdiction.

But nearly the entire Liberal backbench and a dozen parliamentary secretaries disagreed, siding with the House committee that studied the bill.

"I felt that the House justice committee came to the correct result in its deliberation and remain convinced that the important human rights concerns outweigh the concern that the bill might be ultra vires," explained Nick Whalen, the Liberal MP for St. John's East.

Did it feel odd to vote in favour of a bill that the prime minister spoke out against?

"Our obligation to use free votes for the best interest of the country and our constituents was a campaign commitment, and needs to overcome my natural desire to vote with the government," Whalen said. "So, yes. It feels odd, but it is part of a healthy working relationship and what should happen from time to time."

'There are differences in our Liberal caucus, but not a divide,' says MP Rob Oliphant6:48

Immediately after the vote, Oliphant was enthused.

"I think the new reality is that Liberal backbenchers are being empowered," he told reporters. "And I think that we're really trying to see how Parliament can change."

Excessive party discipline and the limited relevance of the backbench MP are the eternal laments of the Westminster parliamentary system.

But the last Parliament ended amid particularly loud complaint about the state of things personified by Brent Rathgeber after he quit the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent and the Liberals came to office with some suggestion things would be somehow different.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York in Toronto, is developing a reputation for voting his own way in the House of Commons. (Nathaniel Erskine-Smith)

And things have at least been somewhat different. There were hints of a livelier Parliament last spring and one Liberal MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith,has nowmanaged to break from the party line on 13 per cent of his votes far more than recent precedent and roughly in line with the most independent-minded membersofthe looser British Parliament.

Oliphant theorizes that Liberal MPs, having campaigned on a promiseof more independence for MPs and House committees, are now getting comfortable in their new jobs. And the prime minister, having promised to only whip votes in specific circumstances, isn't whipping every vote.

With S-201, Oliphantsays the result wasn't a division within caucus, but a mere difference of opinion. He suggestsConservatives and New Democrats are still getting used to the new reality, too.

"I think we're in a transition time,"Oliphantsaid Thursday, reflecting on S-201's victory.

Though MPs from the governing party often function as extensions of the government, they are also simply MPs, sitting outside cabinet and with some responsibility to hold the government to account. That was one of the messages Rathgeber tried to conveyas he took on the cause of reform.

Brent Rathgeber speaks about his decision to quit the federal Conservative caucus in St. Albert, Alta., in 2013. (Jason Franson/Canadian Press)

And while self-interest often holds partisans of the same stripe togetherpolitics is still a team sport a system that allows for greater independence could have some benefits. Legislation and spending might be better scrutinized. Public concerns and potential problems might be better aired. MPs who never ascend to cabinet might be able to establish themselves as important legislators.

Or so the reform-minded might dream.

It remains to be seen whether the spirit of Wednesdaywill continue on or evolve.

Liberals can say this is the change they promised.Wednesday'svotes, and the upset that night in a Liberal nomination race in St. Laurent, might suggest a party whose members are not easily controlled anyway.

With the example of S-201, the prime minister might learn to get behind his caucus when its opinion seems to be moving against him. Or his willingness to tolerate dissent might be tested.

But regardless of whatever rules or procedures are rewritten, the potential for change would likely still depend on how MPs assert themselves. And at the very least,Wednesdaymight suggest that some change is possible.

See the original post here:

What happens when Liberal backbenchers rise up: Aaron Wherry - CBC.ca

In liberal Hollywood, a conservative minority faces backlash in the … – Los Angeles Times

As an Academy Award-winning producer and a political conservative, Gerald Molen has worked in the entertainment business long enough to remember when being openly Republican in Hollywood was no big deal.

In the 90s, it was never really an issue that I had to hide. I was always forthright, recalled the producer, whose credits include Schindlers List and two Jurassic Park movies. It used to be we could have a conversation with two opposing points of view and it would be amiable. At the end, we still walked away and had lunch together.

Those days are largely gone, he said. The acrimony its there. Its front and center.

For the vast majority of conservatives who work in entertainment, going to set or the office each day has become a game of avoidance and secrecy. The political closet is now a necessity for many in an industry that is among the most liberal in the country.

Since the presidential election, some conservatives feel that their political beliefs are more of a career liability than ever even for those traditional Republicans disenchanted by President Trump.

I feel absolutely it has harmed me professionally, said Andrew Klavan, the L.A.-based screenwriter and novelist, and a reluctant Trump supporter. His credits include the 1990 Michael Caine dark comedy A Shock to the System and the novel True Crime, which was made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.

Klavan said that producers have called my agent asking, Why would you represent this guy? Anything that lowers your odds is going to hurt.

While no official tally exists, conservatives in the local entertainment industry estimate their numbers could be as high as a few thousand. Thats a small fraction of the nearly 240,000 entertainment-related jobs in the county estimated in the most recent Otis Report on the Creative Economy of the L.A. Region.

Friends of Abe the industrys largest conservative organization alone counts about 2,500 people on its roster, having started a decade ago with just a handful of individuals led by actor Gary Sinise.

The organization, which keeps the identities of its members secret, holds monthly social events as well as lunches for new members. A new member can only join through a recommendation by an existing member. The group doesnt endorse candidates, but does hold speaking events with past guests including Trump, Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck.

Hollywood conservatives are themselves a divided group when it comes to Trump, whose brash style and controversial policies on trade and immigration have alienated many Republicans.

Leaders of Friends of Abe said its members have sharply divergent views on the current president.

There are very conservative people in FOA who are troubled by his rhetoric, said executive director Jeremy Boreing, a filmmaker and self-described Trump skeptic. There are others who are very gung-ho and supportive of him. There are people who are cautiously optimistic and others who are just cautious.

He said it was too early to tell how Trump will affect the organization, but if Hollywood continues to overreact to Trump and toxify peoples professional lives, FOA will grow. We got started under [George W.] Bush, not under Obama. Hollywood was a more pleasant place for conservatives during Obamas tenure because Hollywood was in a good mood.

In casting his vote for Trump, screenwriter Roger L. Simon said it was because he believes Trump can enact change in the country. But the Oscar nominee said he isnt a social conservative. (He said he voted for Moonlight for best picture.)

I think most of the people on the right in Hollywood are on the right for reasons of foreign policy and the economy, said Simon.

Leaders of Friends of Abe said it has a large contingent of below the line talent technicians, artisans, musicians and other crew members who toil far from the limelight.

They fly under the radar, said Stephen Limbaugh, a film composer and a second cousin of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. Most dont advertise their political views and lead unpretentious lives. Its mostly beers after work.

But another concentration of conservatives can be found at the opposite end of the Hollywood spectrum: the corner offices of major entertainment companies.

Corporate Hollywood tends to be much more conservative and Republican, said Steve Ross, a professor of history at USC and author of the book Hollywood Left and Right.

That dates back to Louis B. Mayer, the MGM boss who was active in Californias Republican establishment and who would often mix business and politics.

Prominent Republican supporters today include NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke, former Univision head Jerry Perenchio and producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

Steven Mnuchin, who was national finance chairman of Trump's campaign and is now Treasury Secretary, was a Wall Street executive and film financier whose executive producer credits include American Sniper, Mad Max: Fury Road and Sully.

Talent agency William Morris Endeavor has close ties to Trump. Co-CEO Ari Emanuel, a Democrat, is a friend of the president, having previously worked as his agent, while chief financial officer Chris Liddell recently left the company to become Trumps director of strategic initiatives.

But corporate Hollywood is far from being politically uniform. Rival agency UTA recently protested Trump by canceling its annual Oscars party and holding a pro-immigration street rally. During the recent presidential campaign, a slew of entertainment bosses lined up to give money to Hillary Clinton, including Barry Diller, Haim Saban and ICM Partners Chris Silbermann.

Some believe that deep down, corporate Hollywood is politically agnostic and that profits supersede partisanship.

Where is this liberal Hollywood agenda? The agenda seems to be whatever will entertain mass audiences, said screenwriter Craig Mazin, who has voted Democrat and Republican and now describes himself as a moderate. How could an industry have been successful this long if it was alienating half the country?

Industry insiders say this is especially true in the exhibition industry, which includes the countrys major cinema chains as well as small-town theater owners.

Film buyers are greedy. They want a good performing film, said Ron Rodgers, the retired co-founder of Rocky Mountain Pictures, an independent distributor of conservative and Christian-themed movies.

He said hes had no problems selling his films in blue states, so long as exhibitors think a movie will play well. They will change religions for it.

The same can be said of some studios. Lionsgate, the Santa Monica-based mini-major, has distributed films by left-wing documentarian Michael Moore, including Fahrenheit 9/11. But the company is also behind the most recent documentary by conservative rabble-rouser Dinesh DSouza.

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party was savaged by critics and even earned a Razzie Award for the worst movie of 2016. But it was also the years top-grossing documentary, bringing in more than $13 million theatrically. Lionsgate, which declined to comment, distributed the DVD in the U.S.

DSouza said that since the election, Trump derangement syndrome has set in and that a lot of creative Hollywood is up in arms. That probably doesnt bode well for any conservatives in the industry, especially the ones who are outspoken about Trump.

Numerous actors including Meryl Streep, Samuel L. Jackson and Jessica Chastain have publicly denounced Trumps policies. Alec Baldwin has lampooned Trump several times on Saturday Night Live, while Jimmy Kimmel took swipes at the president while hosting the Oscars.

In such a charged climate, many conservatives in Hollywood keep a low political profile.

Theres a McCarthyism coming from the left, said one prominent TV and movie actor who requested his name not be used for fear of professional repercussions. The actor, who is conservative but not a Trump supporter, said political shouting matches have erupted on the set of one of his shows and that a conservative producer he works with has been shunned by colleagues.

In 30 years of show business, Ive never seen it like this, said the actor. If you are even lukewarm to Republicans, you are excommunicated from the church of tolerance.

(Unless youre a star like Eastwood and Jon Voight, Oscar winners who have openly supported Republican candidates. Voight even spoke during Trumps inauguration festivities: God answered all our prayers... Let us rejoice in knowing that from this time on, we will see a renewed America.)

Once you reach a certain level of success, its fine, said Michael Medved, the conservative film critic and radio host. It doesnt matter.

For Hollywood conservatives, a Republican in the White House doesnt necessarily herald a golden age of acceptance. In fact, its usually the opposite, said Lionel Chetwynd, the screenwriter and co-founder of Friends of Abe. He said industry liberals doubled down on their resentment toward conservatives during the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush years.

Today, their anger toward Trump is even more intense. And many hold enough industry power where they can be vicious, said Molen, the Schindlers List producer.

Even so, Molen said he thinks conservatives should stand up for their beliefs.

But I wouldnt flaunt it.

david.ng@latimes.com

@DavidNgLAT

ALSO

Almost 100 California entities are interested in building Trump's border wall

David Letterman has some thoughts about President Trump and Designer Shoe Warehouse

A message for Donald Trump from Iranian filmmaker who stayed home from Outfest Fusion festival

Read the rest here:

In liberal Hollywood, a conservative minority faces backlash in the ... - Los Angeles Times

Liberal Bullying On Campus: A Case Study – Power Line (blog)

Not all liberals are bullies, but a great many are. Where liberals are in the majority, the bullies among them try to make life miserable for those who fail to conform. Almost every college campus is in this category. A case in point, one of many, is St. Olaf College, where my youngest daughter is a sophomore. The college newspaper has a commendably balanced story on the intolerance that prevails there:

Of the 12 students interviewed by the Manitou Messenger, several have been violently threatened because of their political beliefs, and almost all of them feel as though they cant speak up about politics on campus in class, online or with their friends. *** Reagan Lundstrom Warner 20 is a political science major who has learned how to keep [her] mouth shut. While faculty are encouraged to remain unbiased, she said that one of her professors used class time to expound upon personal views.

[A professor] started every class with basically just ridiculing Trump for about 20 minutes, Lundstrom Warner said. She plans to transfer to St. Thomas University next fall.

St. Olaf is an expensive school. Do parents know that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars so that their children can be subjected to irrelevant political tirades?

My daughter was among those who were threatened with violence:

Many conservative students felt that the campus became more hostile during election season, and some students received violent threats. On the night of the election, a student in the Pause threatened to beat up [College Republican President Emily] Schaller, calling her a f***ing moron. Over the next couple of days, she overheard multiple students threaten to hurt the next conservative or Republican they saw. Vice President of St. Olaf College Republicans Kathryn Hinderaker 19 had a similar experience.

I think one of the hardest things was, the second day, I went into Buntrock and someone yelled from the bottom, if you voted for Trump, you better be f***ing scared. Everyone clapped and applauded, Hinderaker said. Obviously, it didnt feel super safe.

Facebook was another venue for threats against those suspected of voting for Donald Trump:

[Former student Katie] Ivance noted that the insults continued on social media.

People were saying [things] like F-you and I wish you were dead, she said. Ivance isnt the only one who has faced harassment online due to political beliefs. On Feb. 18, a student posted an unsolicited photo of a group of students that supposedly included Trump supporters and encouraged fellow students to remember their faces.

Ivance transferred to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities after the fall semester, citing harassment as her primary reason for transferring.

Schools cannot continue to permit this level of harassment and discrimination against non-left wing students. Public universities will not be supported by legislatures, and private colleges will not be supported by donors and parents, if the situation persists.

It is striking that this borderline fascist behavior by Democrats is occurring precisely as the Democratic Party slides toward irrelevance. Democrats try to enforce the view that voting for Donald Trump is beyond the pale, but Trump won the election. It is not as though Republicans are members of some obscure splinter faction. They control the presidency, both houses of Congress, thirty governorships and two-thirds of state legislative bodies.

Democrats are at a historically low ebb. You might think that this would cause liberals to re-examine their premises rather than try to bully others into submission. But thinking is not what liberals are best known for.

Read more:

Liberal Bullying On Campus: A Case Study - Power Line (blog)

No sign that Liberal knives are truly out for Kathleen Wynne – CBC.ca

One of the questions I get asked most often these days by friends and acquaintances is whether Premier Kathleen Wynne is going to resign to give her OntarioLiberal Party a fighting chance in next year's election.

Rumours certainly abound that there is a concerted movement to push Wynne out.

The people involved (according to the whispers)rangefrom ambitious cabinet ministers who want to be premier, to backbenchersworried about losing their seats, to grassroots Liberals who believe Wynne has irreversibly become a lightning rod for voter anger.

But if there truly is a movement among Ontario Liberals to topple Wynne so that someone else can lead the party into the 2018 vote, I can't find it.

I've spoken to a range of people who you'd think would delight in seeing the back of Wynne: strong supporters of SandraPupatello, her chief rival in the last leadership race;longtime Liberal backroomers who've been frozen out by Wynne's inner circle;and senior officials whose greatest loyalty is to the party, not to Wynne.

Even given the opportunity to speak off the record, none of them purports to smelleven a whiff of an imminent revolt.

The strongest statement I could coax out of a senior Liberal (not a Wynne loyalist) is that some key activists in the party are giving her until summer to show signs of a turnaround in the polls.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews (left) is one of Wynne's staunchest allies. (Geoff Robins/The Canadian Press)

"The knives are not out," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But these people arein the tool-shed and they're sharpening the knives. Whether they use them or not depends on where things go from here."

He said that Wynne would only step down if there is pressure from "a combination of caucus members and the party executive." He addedthat he sees no evidence of such pressure now.

One of Wynne's staunchest allies, Deputy Premier Deb Matthews, dismissed talk of dissension in theranks.

"Kathleen Wynne has really strong support in our caucus, in our party membership,"said Matthews in an interview.

Matthews is also co-chair of the Ontario Liberal re-election campaign and insistedthat Wynne is the best person to lead the party into the 2018 vote "because she's smart, really hard working, cares deeply about issues that matter to people and gets the job done."

Another senior party official who also said he sees no sign of a desire to dump Wynne called her "our best weapon."

Here's something else that makes me skeptical there really is a movement to push Wynne out: the fact that the PCs are loudly insistingthere is one.

From the PC candidate in the Ottawa-Vanier byelection:

Earlier this week, I received anemailpurporting to be from a group of Ontario Liberal Party members, past and present, calling for Wynne to resign.

The message's credibility quickly crumbled upon closer inspection.

There was no name or contact number. Nobodyresponded to my reply asking for an interview. It contained numerous sloppy grammatical errors and typos, referredto Hydro One as "Ontario Hydro" and spelledSt.Catharineswrong.

But the final straw was the message's rant against Wynne's plan to cuthydro rates by a further 17 per cent.

The plan may indeed have some long-term negative consequences for the province, but in the short term, it can bring only political benefits for the Liberals. Knowing how intense the hydro price backlash has been, and how relieved the Liberals are that the plan could neutralize what was the hottest political issue in the province, I can't imagine any real party member would see the move as a reason to push Wynne out.

Yes,the Liberals are jittery about polls putting them on average 14 points behind the ProgressiveConservativesand putting Wynne's personal approval rating at near-record lows.

But polls only indicate how voters feel right now. Theelectionis 15 months away, an eternity in politics. The Liberals were sagging at similar points ahead of the elections in 2007, 2011 and 2014 and won them all.

It's also unclear that any other leader would be able to magically produce a surge in the polls. No matter who the premier is, the party will almost certainly have to battle against sentiment that it's "time for a change" after 14 years of Liberal governments.

It's simply a little early to write Kathleen Wynne's political obituary just yet.But if you are a Liberal party member and youdo wanther gone, please do let me knowthat you're out there.

Visit link:

No sign that Liberal knives are truly out for Kathleen Wynne - CBC.ca

Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power – New York Times


New York Times
Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power
New York Times
Now, after being out of power for almost 10 years, the South Korean liberal opposition is on the verge of retaking the presidency with the historic court ruling on Friday that ousted its conservative enemy, President Park Geun-hye, who had been ...

and more »

Read the original post:

Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power - New York Times

Liberal Democracy Is Suffering From a Concussion – New York Magazine

Middlebury College students turn their backs to Charles Murray during his lecture on March 2, 2017. Photo: Lisa Rathke/AP

Heres the latest in the assault on liberal democracy. It happened more than a week ago, but I cannot get it out of my consciousness. A group of conservative students at Middlebury College in Vermont invited the highly controversial author Charles Murray to speak on campus about his latest book, Coming Apart. His talk was shut down by organized chanting in its original venue, and disrupted when it was shifted to a nearby room and livestreamed. When Murray and his faculty interlocutor, Allison Stanger, then left to go to their car, they were surrounded by a mob, which tried to stop them leaving the campus. Someone in the melee grabbed Stanger by the hair and twisted her neck so badly she had to go to the emergency room (she is still suffering from a concussion). After they escaped, their dinner at a local restaurant was crashed by the same mob, and they had to go out of town to eat.

None of this is very surprising, given the current atmosphere on most American campuses. And protests against Murray are completely legitimate. The book he co-authored with Harvard professor Richard Herrnstein more than 20 years ago, The Bell Curve, included a chapter on empirical data showing variations in the largely overlapping bell curves of IQ scores between racial groups. Their provocation was to assign these differences to both the environment and genetics. The genetic aspect could be and was exploited by racists and bigots.

I dont think that chapter was necessary for the books arguments, but I do believe in the right of good-faith scholars to publish data as well as the right of others to object, critique, and debunk. If the protesters at Middlebury had protested and disrupted the event for a period of time, and then let it continue, Id be highly sympathetic, even though race and IQ were not the subject of Murrays talk. If theyd challenged the data or the arguments of the book, Id be delighted. But this, alas, is not what they did. (I should add up-front that I am friends with both Murray and Stanger having edited a symposium on The Bell Curve in The New Republic over two decades ago, and having known Allison since we were both grad students in government at Harvard.)

But what grabbed me was the deeply disturbing 40-minute video of the event, posted on YouTube. It brings the incident to life in a way words cannot. At around the 19-minute mark, the students explained why they shut down the talk, and it helped clarify for me what exactly the meaning of intersectionality is.

Intersectionality is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, its a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, thats my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.

It is operating, in Orwells words, as a smelly little orthodoxy, and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., check your privilege, and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. Its Marx without the final total liberation.

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if youre a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of white supremacy, you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You cant reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others souls, and wound them irreparably.

And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual a secular exorcism, if you will that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Heres how they begin: This is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not representative of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas. They never specify which of Murrays ideas they are referring to. Nor do they explain why a lecture on a recent book about social inequality cannot be a respectful discourse. The speaker is open to questions and there is a faculty member onstage to engage him afterward. She came prepared with tough questions forwarded from specialists in the field. And yet: We cannot engage fully with Charles Murray, while he is known for readily quoting himself. Because of that, we see this talk as hate speech. They know this before a single word of the speech has been spoken.

Then this: Science has always been used to legitimize racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, ableism, and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact, and supported by the government and state. In this world today, there is little that is true fact. This, it seems to me, gets to the heart of the question not that the students shut down a speech, but why they did. I do not doubt their good intentions. But, in a strange echo of the Trumpian right, they are insisting on the superiority of their orthodoxy to facts. They are hostile, like all fundamentalists, to science, because it might counter doctrine. And they shut down the event because intersectionality rejects the entire idea of free debate, science, or truth independent of white male power. At the end of this part of the ceremony, an individual therefore shouts: Who is the enemy? And the congregation responds: White supremacy!

They then expel the heretic in a unified chant: Hey hey, ho ho! Charles Murray has got to go. Then: Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay. Charles Murray, Go away! Murrays old work on IQ demonstrates no meaningful difference between men and women, and Murray has long supported marriage equality. He passionately opposes eugenics. Hes a libertarian. But none of that matters. Intersectionality, remember? If youre deemed a sinner on one count, you are a sinner on them all. If you think that race may be both a social construction and related to genetics, your claim to science is just another form of oppression. It is indeed hate speech. At a later moment, the students start clapping in unison, and you can feel the hysteria rising, as the chants grow louder. Your message is hatred. We will not tolerate it! The final climactic chant is Shut it down! Shut it down! It feels like something out of The Crucible. Most of the students have never read a word of Murrays and many professors who supported the shutdown admitted as much. But the intersectional zeal is so great he must be banished even to the point of physical violence.

This matters, it seems to me, because reason and empirical debate are essential to the functioning of a liberal democracy. We need a common discourse to deliberate. We need facts independent of anyones ideology or political side, if we are to survive as a free and democratic society. Trump has surely shown us this. And if a university cannot allow these facts and arguments to be freely engaged, then nowhere is safe. Universities are the sanctuary cities of reason. If reason must be subordinate to ideology even there, our experiment in self-government is over.

Liberal democracy is suffering from a concussion as surely as Allison is.

Meanwhile, of course, President Trump continues his assault on the very same independent truth in this case, significantly more frightening given his position as the most powerful individual on the planet. He too has a contempt for any facts that do not fit his own ideology or self-image. Thats why the lies he repeats are not just moments of self-interested dishonesty. They are designed to erode the very notion of an empirical reality, independent of his own ideology and power. They are an attack on reason itself. A fact-driven media has to be discredited as fake news if it challenges Trumps agenda. Equally, a bureaucracy designed impartially to implement legislation has to be delegitimized, if its fact-based neutrality challenges Trumps worldview. And so the administrative state, in Steve Bannons words, has to be deconstructed.

Likewise, a health-care bill must be passed through committee before an independent CBO can empirically score it. The overwhelming conclusion of climate scientists that carbon is warming the Earth irreversibly is simply denied by the new head of the EPA. The judiciary can have no legitimate, independent stance if it too counters the presidents interests. A judge who opposes Trump is a so-called judge. Equally, intelligence-gathering can have no validity if it undermines Trumps interests. It suddenly becomes intelligence. It can be ignored. Worse, the intelligence agencies are maligned as inherently political, rather than empirical. Last week, Trump went even further, claiming, with no evidence, that the Justice Department colluded in a criminal wiretap with the previous president to target Trumps candidacy in the last election. Maybe this was designed merely as a distraction from the accumulating lies of his campaign surrogates about their contacts with Russian officials. Maybe it was another temper tantrum from a man with no ability to constrain his emotions by reason. But I tend to think Peter Beinarts take is closer to the mark. Trump was delegitimizing the Justice Department so that he can reject the conclusion of any investigation of his campaigns ties to Russia as politically rigged:

They are all corrupt. They are all agents of the opposition, part of the massive conspiracy to deny Trump his rightful triumph. And thus, the independent standards by which they judge his actions are a sham. There are no independent standards. There is only the truth that comes from Trump himself.

This is the vortex we are being led into by the most reckless, feckless, and malevolent president in this countrys history. It is a vortex where reality itself must subordinate itself to one political side; where facts are always instruments of power and nothing else; where our entire Constitution, designed to balance power against power to give truth and reason a chance, is being deliberately corroded from within. Its been seven weeks. And the damage done to our way of life is already deep, and deepening.

Watch Paul Ryans Adams Apple When Hes Asked Why His Health Plan Cuts Taxes for the Rich

Allison Williams and Samuel L. Jackson on Getting Excited While Filming Sex Scenes: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Dont

Julia Louis-Dreyfus Goes on a Real Face Journey Watching Her Sons Basketball Game

Thats the year it was meant to explode, because Obama wont be here, the president explained to the House GOP leadership.

Then-president-elect Donald Trump had asked the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to stay on in November.

GOP Representative Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted an apology to his constituents.

Steve Bannons old site (correctly) notes that the House GOPs Obamacare replacement would hurt Trumps base and endanger his party in 2018.

And then force you to mitigate your genetic liabilities, or else accept higher premiums on your health insurance.

As GOP leaders try to whip the AHCA through the House unchanged, Trump is negotiating with conservatives in a way that could destroy Senate support.

Executive-branch employees are supposed to keep quiet on jobs numbers for an hour after their release.

Trump claims he didnt know that Flynn had lobbied for Turkey when he hired him. But his transition team was informed of that before Inauguration Day.

The action star is said to be keen on a Senate run so he can needle Trump, but hell first have to win back Californians.

Another report that hints at the the marginalization of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

A simple question explains the logic of the GOPs hatred for universal health insurance.

Which is to say, pretty much in line with what was happening under Obama.

Its pretty clear the economy was not Clintons problem.

Its the latest academic craze, and in practice it veers far from principles of liberal democracy.

Hes avoided questions from reporters, and wont take any members of the press on his trip to Asia.

Its still unclear what the barrier will look like, and even Republicans are questioning how it will be paid for.

Her ouster following a corruption scandal could have a major impact on how Asia and the U.S. handle North Korea.

Tom Cotton tells CNN that Paul Ryans bill would not solve the problems of our health-care system and would make things probably worse.

Excerpt from:

Liberal Democracy Is Suffering From a Concussion - New York Magazine

Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands – Washington Post

AMSTERDAM Xandra Lammers lives on an island in Amsterdam, the back door of her modern and spacious four-bedroom house opening onto a graceful canal where ducks, swans and canoes glide by.

The translation business she and her husband run from their home is thriving. The neighborhood is booming, with luxury homes going up as fast as workers can build them, a quietly efficient tramway to speed residents to work in the world-renowned city center, and parks, bike paths, art galleries, beaches and cafes all within a short amble.

By outward appearances, Lammers is living the Dutch dream. But in the 60-year-olds telling, she has been dropped into the middle of a nightmare, one in which Western civilization is under assault from the Muslim immigrants who have become her neighbors.

The influx has been too much. The borders should close, said Lammers, soft-spoken with pale blue eyes and brown hair that frames a deceptively serene-looking face. If this continues, our culture will cease to exist.

(Video: Anna-Maria Magnusson / Full Story Media for The Washington Post)

To Europes powers that be, the threat looks dramatically different but no less grave: If enough voters agree with Lammers and support the far right in elections here on Wednesday andacross the continent later this year, then its modern Europe itself defined by cooperation, openness and multicultural pluralism that could come crashing down.

[As Europe braces for the Trump era, a showdown looms over values ]

The stakes have risen sharply as Europeans anti-establishment anger has swelled. In interviews across the Netherlands in recent days, far-right voters expressed stridently nationalist, anti-immigrant views that were long considered fringe but that have now entered the Dutch mainstream.

Voters young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural said they would back the Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party no longer the preserve of the left-behinds which promises to solve the countrys problems by shutting borders, closing mosques and helping to dismantle the European Union.

Theyve found a very powerful narrative, said Koen Damhuis, a researcher at the European University Institute who studies the far right. By creating a master conflict of the national versus the foreign, theyre able to attract support from all elements of society.

Along the way, Europes old assurances have been swept aside. The far right may exist, the continents political establishment has long told itself, but a virtuous brew of growing economic prosperity, increased cross-border integration and rising education levels would blunt its appeal. Most important all, the pungent memory of the nationalist right's last turn in power would keep it from ever gaining control in Europe again.

But in 2017, every one of those assumptions is being challenged perhaps even exploded.

After the transatlantic jolts ofBrexit and Donald Trump last year, continental Europe is bracing for a possible string of paradigm-rattling firsts in its postwar history.

[In working-class Britain, populist wave threatens to smash traditional order]

In France,far-right leader Marine Le Pen has a credible shot at a triumph in spring presidential elections. In Germany,an anti-immigrant party appears poised to win seats in the national parliament this fall. And here in the Netherlands, a man convicted only months ago of hate speech could wind up on top when votes are counted in next weeks national elections.

At first glance, the Netherlands a small nation of 17million that has long punched above its weight on the global stage through seafaring exploration and trade seems an unlikely setting for a populist revolt.

Unlike in France, where the economy continues to stagger nearly a decade on from the global financial crisis, the indicators in the Netherlands are broadly positive: falling unemployment, healthy growth and relatively low inequality. By most measures, the Dutch are some of the happiest people on Earth.

And unlike Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the countrys borders to a historic influx of refugees in 2015, the Netherlands has been relatively insulated from mass immigration. Compared with its neighbors, the Dutch took significantly fewer asylum seekers during the refugee crisis, and much of the countrys nonnative population settled in the Netherlands decades ago.

Those differences make it all the more surprising that the far rights message resonates here and hint at just how difficult it could be to halt the global populist wave.

For much of the past two years, Wilderss Freedom Party has led the polls, though it has recently dropped into a virtual tie with the ruling center right.

Because of the deeply fragmented nature of Dutch politics there will be 28 parties on the ballot Wednesday the Freedom Party could come out on top with just 20percent of the vote. Even if it does, it is considered extremely unlikely that Wilders would end up governing, because other parties have spurned him.

But he has already had an outsize influence, forcing rival politicians including the prime minister, Mark Rutte, to shift their policies and rhetoric in his direction.

To many Wilders supporters, the overall picture of a growing economy with a comparatively small number of recent immigrants is beside the point. Their reasons for backing the platinum-haired politician who refers to Moroccans as scum and advocates a total ban on Muslim immigration run much deeper.

The main issue is identity, said Joost Niemller, a journalist and author who has written extensively on Wilders and is sympathetic to his cause. People feel theyre losing their Dutch identity and Dutch society. The neighborhoods are changing. Immigrants are coming in. And they cant say anything about it because theyll be called racist. So they feel helpless. Because they feel helpless, they get angry.

And today, that anger can be found far beyond the poorer, less-educated, working-class areas where Wilders and his party first gained substantial support.

I hear it on the tennis court and at the golf club. People dont want immigrants, said Geert Tomlow, a former Freedom Party candidate who fell out with Wilders but still sympathizes with many of his positions. One-third of Holland is angry. Were angry. We dont want all these changes.

That is true even in places where little seems to have changed.

Teunis Den Hertog, a 34-year-old small-business owner, lives in a pastoral town that he said is virtually untouched by immigration. Ive heard theres a Turkish man who lives here but just outside the town, thankfully, he said.

Nonetheless, Den Hertog said he wants the government to close the country to new arrivals and reestablish compulsory border checks for the first time in decades.

You can see a vehicle coming with a lot of men with dark skin and pick them out, said Den Hertog, who grew up poor and one of nine children but now earns enough to afford a comfortable, suburban-style house for his family of four. Otherwise, its just too dangerous.

Den Hertog said he typically avoids the countrys diverse, cosmopolitan cities. But Wilders supporters exist there, too, as Lammers the Amsterdam island resident can attest.

[Is it too late for the Wests center left?]

University-educated, financially successful and raised in the culturally progressive firmament of the Netherlands biggest city, Lammers had long staked her ground on the left. Her father was a regional mayor from the Labour Party, and she identified as a supporter well into adulthood.

I was very politically correct, she said. I believed in the social experiment.

It was a move up the social ladder that precipitated her shift across the political spectrum.

In 2005, she and her husband bought their home in the Amsterdam neighborhood of IJburg, an innovative development built on a cluster of artificial islands.

Like many who moved to the neighborhood, Lammers and her husband did so because the area offered bigger houses at lower prices than could be found in the crammed city center. And at first, it was everything they had hoped.

It had a village feeling. Everyone knew each other. They put a temporary supermarket in a tent, she recalled. It was cozy.

But then came a surprise. Families of Moroccan and Turkish origin started moving in, part of a social program to dedicate 30percent of the developments housing to people on low incomes, the disabled or the elderly.

Suddenly, she said, white Dutch residents had to share their streets, gardens and elevators with Muslim women wearing headscarves and men sporting beards. Crime, noise and litter soon intruded on her urban idyll, she said.

The newcomers generally spoke Dutch, and many seemed to work. But she faulted them for not integrating, the evidence of which she said could be found in their traditional dress and attendance at a modest, storefront mosque.

She suggested they try church instead, though Lammers said she does not attend. (Sometimes on Sunday I watch American church on the television, Lammers said. Theyre very opposed to Islam. I like that.)

If the newcomers have hurt her neighborhoods desirability, its not apparent in the home prices, which have sharply risen. Nor is it visible on the streets, which are clean, tidy and, on a mild late winters day, filled with children of various ethnic backgrounds happily riding scooters and bikes. But Lammers remains bitter.

You think youre going to live in a well-to-do neighborhood, she said. But you end up living in a so-called black neighborhood because of the socialist ideology.

Among the beneficiaries of that ideology is one of Lammerss friends, Ronald Meulendijks, a 44-year-old who has been living on full-time medical disability since he was 29.

The government pays him the equivalent of $1,000 a month and provides him with a steep discount on a light-filled, three-bedroom apartment in the heart of IJburg benefits he said he deserves as a native-born Dutchman with a long pedigree.

My whole family of seven generations paid taxes, he said.

Muslim immigrants and their children, by contrast, are undeserving, he said.

When I see all the refugees getting everything for free, I get very angry. I want to throw something at the television, said Meulendijks, who dotes on his pair of chow-chow rescue dogs and serves visitors to his art-filled apartment copious tea and strawberry pie. A government has to treat its own people correctly before accepting new ones. First, you must take care of your own.

And if the government fails, Meulendijks has dark visions of whats to come.

I think Holland will need a civil war, he said, between the people who dont belong here and the real people.

To drive home the point, Meulendijks has decorated his panoramic windows with five large posters bearing the face of Wilders and his partys campaign slogan: The Netherlands is ours again.

A pronounced nick in the glass the result of a carefully aimed rock suggests not everyone in the neighborhood agrees with Meulendijkss clash-of-civilizations worldview.

Neighbors said they did not recognize the grim vision of IJburg that Lammers and Meulendijks described.

Which country you come from or which religion you have, it doesnt matter here, said Iris Scheppingen, 41, a resident for the past decade who is raising three children in IJburg. The children all play together.

At a nearby halal pizza restaurant one of the neighborhoods few businesses that explicitly cater to Muslim customers the owner said the area was safe and quiet. He said he had never noticed a cultural clash.

Nice people here, said 49-year-old Farhad Salimi as his staff of young kitchen workers slung pies and sprinkled toppings. Everyone comes here for pizza. Immigrants. Dutch people. Everybody. We dont have problems.

The world, however, was a different story.

A refugee from Iran who moved to the Netherlands nearly 30 years ago, Salimi said he had seen what religious zealotry and the politics of exclusion did to his native land.

Now, the gray-haired Salimi fears, it is happening across the West, even in the peaceful and prosperous country that had so enthusiastically welcomed him.

The politicians are exploiting divisions, turning people against one another for their own gain, he said. Extremism is rising. Where will it end?

Everywhere, he said solemnly, is messed up.

Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.

Read more

Trump failed to build a wall in Ireland. That could mean trouble for Europe.

As Brexit tremors ripple, the Rock of Gibraltar shudders

British Prime Minister Theresa May warns Trump he cannot trust Putin

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Here is the original post:

Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands - Washington Post

There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble – FiveThirtyEight

This is the ninth article in a series that reviews news coverage of the 2016 general election, explores how Donald Trump won and why his chances were underrated by most of the American media.

Last summer, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in what bettors, financial markets and the London-based media regarded as a colossal upset. Reporters and pundits were quick to blame the polls for the unexpected result. But the polls had been fine, more or less: In the closing days of the Brexit campaign, theyd shown an almost-even race, and Leaves narrow victory (by a margin just under 4 percentage points) was about as consistent with them as it was with anything else. The failure was not so much with the polls but with the people who were analyzing them.

The U.S. presidential election, as Ive argued, was something of a similar case. No, the polls didnt show a toss-up, as they had in Brexit. But the reporting was much more certain of Clintons chances than it should have been based on the polls. Much of The New York Timess coverage, for instance, implied that Clintons odds were close to 100 percent. In an article on Oct. 17 more than three weeks before Election Day they portrayed the race as being effectively over, the only question being whether Clinton should seek a landslide or instead assist down-ballot Democrats:

Hillary Clintons campaign is planning its most ambitious push yet into traditionally right-leaning states, a new offensive aimed at extending her growing advantage over Donald J. Trump while bolstering down-ballot candidates in what party leaders increasingly suggest could be a sweeping victory for Democrats at every level. []

The maneuvering speaks to the unexpected tension facing Mrs. Clinton as she hurtles toward what aides increasingly believe will be a decisive victory a pleasant problem, for certain, but one that has nonetheless scrambled the campaigns strategy weeks before Election Day: Should Mrs. Clinton maximize her own margin, aiming to flip as many red states as possible to run up an electoral landslide, or prioritize the partys congressional fortunes, redirecting funds and energy down the ballot?

This is not to say the election was a toss-up in mid-October, which was one of the high-water marks of the campaign for Clinton. But while a Trump win was unlikely, it should hardly have been unthinkable. And yet the Times, famous for its to be sure equivocations, wasnt even contemplating the possibility of a Trump victory.

Its hard to reread this coverage without recalling Sean Trendes essay on unthinkability bias, which he wrote in the wake of the Brexit vote. Just as was the case in the U.S. presidential election, voting on the referendum had split strongly along class, education and regional lines, with voters outside of London and without advanced degrees being much more likely to vote to leave the EU. The reporters covering the Brexit campaign, on the other hand, were disproportionately well-educated and principally based in London. They tended to read ambiguous signs anything from polls to the musings of taxi drivers as portending a Remain win, and many of them never really processed the idea that Britain could vote to leave the EU until it actually happened.

So did journalists in Washington and London make the apocryphal Pauline Kael mistake, refusing to believe that Trump or Brexit could win because nobody they knew was voting for them? Thats not quite what Trende was arguing. Instead, its that political experts arent a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment. Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless theres very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber.

I recently reread James Surowieckis book The Wisdom of Crowds which, despite its name, spends as much time contemplating the shortcomings of such wisdom as it does celebrating its successes. Surowiecki argues that crowds usually make good predictions when they satisfy these four conditions:

Political journalism scores highly on the fourth condition, aggregation. While Surowiecki usually has something like a financial or betting market in mind when he refers to aggregation, the broader idea is that theres some way for individuals to exchange their opinions instead of keeping them to themselves. And my gosh, do political journalists have a lot of ways to share their opinions with one another, whether through their columns, at major events such as the political conventions or, especially, through Twitter.

But those other three conditions? Political journalism fails miserably along those dimensions.

Diversity of opinion? For starters, American newsrooms are not very diverse along racial or gender lines, and its not clear the situation is improving much. And in a country where educational attainment is an increasingly important predictor of cultural and political behavior, some 92 percent of journalists have college degrees. A degree didnt used to be a de facto prerequisite for a reporting job; just 70 percent of journalists had college degrees in 1982 and only 58 percent did in 1971.

The political diversity of journalists is not very strong, either. As of 2013, only 7 percent of them identified as Republicans (although only 28 percent called themselves Democrats with the majority saying they were independents). And although its not a perfect approximation in most newsrooms, the people who issue endorsements are not the same as the ones who do reporting theres reason to think that the industry was particularly out of sync with Trump. Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump. By comparison, 46 percent of newspapers to endorse either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney endorsed Romney in 2012. Furthermore, as the media has become less representative of right-of-center views and as conservatives have rebelled against the political establishment theres been an increasing and perhaps self-reinforcing cleavage between conservative news and opinion outlets such as Breitbart and the rest of the media.

Although its harder to measure, Id also argue that theres a lack of diversity when it comes to skill sets and methods of thinking in political journalism. Publications such as Buzzfeed or (the now defunct) Gawker.com get a lot of shade from traditional journalists when they do things that challenge conventional journalistic paradigms. But a lot of traditional journalistic practices are done by rote or out of habit, such as routinely granting anonymity to staffers to discuss campaign strategy even when there isnt much journalistic merit in it. Meanwhile, speaking from personal experience, Ive found the reception of data journalists by traditional journalists to be unfriendly, although there have been exceptions.

Independence? This is just as much of a problem. Crowds can be wise when people do a lot of thinking for themselves before coming together to exchange their views. But since at least the days of The Boys on the Bus, political journalism has suffered from a pack mentality. Events such as conventions and debates literally gather thousands of journalists together in the same room; attend one of these events, and you can almost smell the conventional wisdom being manufactured in real time. (Consider how a consensus formed that Romney won the first debate in 2012 when it had barely even started, for instance.) Social media Twitter in particular can amplify these information cascades, with a single tweet receiving hundreds of thousands of impressions and shaping the way entire issues are framed. As a result, it can be largely arbitrary which storylines gain traction and which ones dont. What seems like a multiplicity of perspectives might just be one or two, duplicated many times over.

Decentralization? Surowiecki writes about the benefit of local knowledge, but the political news industry has become increasingly consolidated in Washington and New York as local newspapers have suffered from a decade-long contraction. That doesnt necessarily mean local reporters in Wisconsin or Michigan or Ohio should have picked up Trumpian vibrations on the ground in contradiction to the polls. But as weve argued, national reporters often flew into these states with pre-baked narratives for instance, that they were decreasingly representative of contemporary America and fit the facts to suit them, neglecting their importance to the Electoral College. A more geographically decentralized reporting pool might have asked more questions about why Clinton wasnt campaigning in Wisconsin, for instance, or why it wasnt more of a problem for her that she was struggling in polls of traditional bellwethers such as Ohio and Iowa. If local newspapers had been healthier economically, they might also have commissioned more high-quality state polls; the lack of good polling was a problem in Michigan and Wisconsin especially.

There was once a notion that whatever challenges the internet created for journalisms business model, it might at least lead readers to a more geographically and philosophically diverse array of perspectives. But its not clear thats happening, either. Instead, based on data from the news aggregation site Memeorandum, the top news sources (such as the Times, The Washington Post and Politico) have earned progressively more influence over the past decade:

The share of total exposure for the top five news sources climbed from roughly 25 percent a decade ago to around 35 percent last year, and has spiked to above 40 percent so far in 2017. While not a perfect measure, this is one sign the digital age hasnt necessarily democratized the news media. Instead, the most notable difference in Memeorandum sources between 2007 and 2017 is the decline of independent blogs; many of the most popular ones from the late aughts either folded or (like FiveThirtyEight) were bought by larger news organizations. Thus, blogs and local newspapers two of the better checks on Northeast Corridor conventional wisdom run amok have both had less of a say in the conversation.

All things considered, then, the conditions of political journalism are poor for crowd wisdom and ripe for groupthink. So what to do about it, then?

Initiatives to increase decentralization would help, although they wont necessarily be easy. Increased subscription revenues at newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post is an encouraging sign for journalism, but a revival of local and regional newspapers or a more sustainable business model for independent blogs would do more to reduce groupthink in the industry.

Likewise, improving diversity is liable to be a challenge, especially because the sort of diversity that Surowiecki is concerned with will require making improvements on multiple fronts (demographic diversity, political diversity, diversity of skill sets). Still, the research Surowiecki cites is emphatic that there are diminishing returns to having too many of the same types of people in small groups or organizations. Teams that consist entirely of high-IQ people may underperform groups that contain a mix of high-IQ and medium-IQ participants, for example, because the high-IQ people are likely to have redundant strengths and similar blind spots.

That leaves independence. In some ways the best hope for a short-term fix might come from an attitudinal adjustment: Journalists should recalibrate themselves to be more skeptical of the consensus of their peers. Thats because a position that seems to have deep backing from the evidence may really just be a reflection from the echo chamber. You should be looking toward how much evidence there is for a particular position as opposed to how many people hold that position: Having 20 independent pieces of evidence that mostly point in the same direction might indeed reflect a powerful consensus, while having 20 like-minded people citing the same warmed-over evidence is much less powerful. Obviously this can be taken too far and in most fields, its foolish (and annoying) to constantly doubt the market or consensus view. But in a case like politics where the conventional wisdom can congeal so quickly and yet has so often been wrong a certain amount of contrarianism can go a long way.

See the original post:

There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble - FiveThirtyEight

WA election: Pauline Hanson says One Nation damaged by Liberal preference deal – ABC Online

Updated March 11, 2017 16:38:54

A preference deal struck with the Liberal Party head of the West Australian election has ended up hurting One Nation, the party's leader Pauline Hanson says.

Ms Hanson joined One Nation supporters at a polling booth in Baldivis in Perth's southern suburbs on election day, handing out how-to-vote cards to voters.

Earlier, a Newspoll published in The Australian newspaper showed a marked drop in support for One Nation, which peaked at 13 per cent at the start of February but dropped to 8 per cent in the wake of the preference deal with the Liberals and ongoing problems with candidates.

The Liberals agreed to preference One Nation ahead of the Nationals in Upper House regional areas in the state, in return for One Nation preferencing the Liberals over Labor in all Lower House seats it contested.

Today Ms Hanson conceded the deal had not helped her party.

"I think it's actually done One Nation some damage," she said.

"It's been the biggest topic, people ask me about preferences and they don't understand the voting system, the preference system, the preferences. I'd like it to be introduced into the educational system.

"I think that's where most of the damage has come from."

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who joined WA Labor leader Mark McGowan in the northern Perth suburb of Yokine, took aim at the Liberals over the agreement with One Nation.

Mr Shorten said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull should have condemned the deal.

"The Liberal deal with One Nation's been the ultimate exploding cigar of this election," he said.

"It just clearly shows a vote for One Nation is a vote for [Premier] Colin Barnett and the Liberal Party.

"And I have to say I think Malcolm Turnbull has been too weak in not stopping it."

Mr Barnett earlier refused to answer questions about One Nation after casting his vote in his electorate of Cottesloe.

"Not talking about One Nation, this is about the Liberal Party today," he said.

"I'm here to vote ... I don't really care too much about Pauline Hanson and One Nation. My opponent is the Labor Party."

Topics: elections, states-and-territories, government-and-politics, one-nation, wa, perth-6000, baldivis-6171

First posted March 11, 2017 16:27:22

Read more:

WA election: Pauline Hanson says One Nation damaged by Liberal preference deal - ABC Online

The Vast Wasteland Of Liberal Late Night Comedy – Townhall

|

Posted: Mar 11, 2017 12:01 AM

It has been many years since late night television comedy was enjoyable. Its heyday was during the Johnny Carson era when Americans were entertained by a host with tremendous skill. Carson was a true talent who combined great humor with impeccable timing. The Tonight Show featured the best guests and a host who knew how to hold an audience. Carson did not have to stoop to crude humor and he did not alienate Republicans or Democrats, for he made fun of politicians from both parties in equal doses. Johnny Carson was not known as a liberal or a conservative, only the best late night comedy host of all-time.

When Jay Leno replaced Carson there was a tremendous uproar from fans of David Letterman; however, the choice was the right one. Leno provided audiences with good-natured humor and he delivered excellent ratings, winning the battle against Letterman for most of his 22 years on the air. While Letterman turned off many viewers with his liberal slant, Leno was quite similar to Carson, fairly making fun of both Republicans and Democrats.

Today, there are no more late night comics in the mold of Leno or Carson. The entire line-up of current late night comedians is solidly liberal.

In the last month, the new ratings king of late night comedy is Stephen Colbert, who is on a hot streak after non-stop Donald Trump bashing for the past few months. This is bringing in younger viewers, while sacrificing older and more conservative viewers.

The only difference between Colbert and the other liberal hosts such as Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel is the intensity of his attacks against Trump. In fact, in a recent segment, Colbert compared Trump to the cannibalistic character from Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter.

Comedians never did this type of outrageous mockery during the Obama years. In fact, most comedians fawned over Barack Obama and gave him an eight-year pass, even though there was plenty of material they could have used. Now that a Republican is in the Oval Office again, it is a comic open season on the presidency.

Unfortunately, comedians are not limiting their vile attacks to Trump. For example, so-called comedian Samantha Bee, host of the TBS show Full Frontal, targeted young attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference on a recent show. In one segment, her correspondent mocked the Nazi haircuts of several of the young men participating in the conference.

The problem for Bee was that one of the victims of her mean-spirited insult was Kyle Coddington, a young man battling stage IV brain cancer. When Coddingtons sister defended her brother online, Bee apologized and made an online donation of $1,000 to an account raising funds for his cancer treatment.

Clearly a small donation and belated apology was the least that Bee could do after such a vicious attack on an unsuspecting and courageous young man. He should have been praised for attending the conference while battling cancer, not ridiculed. While Bee apologized to Coddington, she did not express any regrets for insulting the other young men who were lampooned.

In effect, her shows reporter called a bunch of young people attending a conservative conference Nazis. Their crime was to sport a closely cropped haircut, a style that has also been worn by plenty of liberal celebrities such as actor Brad Pitt and singer Macklemore.

Bees Nazi comedy is typical of what is constantly offered by untalented leftist comedians. They often use terms such as Nazi, or Fascist when referring to conservatives and they love comparing Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler or other monsters such as Hannibal Lecter. These insults only drive away millions of Americans who might otherwise watch their programs. Why would any conservative watch a program that is going to incessantly trash their President and their political movement?

It is no surprise that audiences for these late-night comedy shows today is much smaller than it was just five years ago, and less than half the audience size that watched Johnny Carson a generation ago. In Carsons last year, an average of 6.5 million viewers watched his program nightly, while an average of just 3 million people watch Colberts lame show today.

If the late-night hosts continue with this type of comedy, they will be preaching to an ever-smaller choir of liberals. Too bad liberals also operate all the other television networks. If one of these networks had any common sense, it would offer counter programming.

How about a conservative on late night television? Unquestionably, such a comedian, or even a fair one like Carson or Leno, would draw great ratings. Sadly, these network executives are more committed to their liberalism than drawing viewers or making money.

The rest is here:

The Vast Wasteland Of Liberal Late Night Comedy - Townhall

Opinion: Calls For Liberal Genocide and Deporting Jews Are Part of the Trump Effect – PoliticusUSA

This column is often noting that there has always been a contingent of hate in the population and that the hateful contingent also makes up most of the stupid contingent. And despite what some readers may believe, it is acutely disappointing to ever have to comment about how nasty other Americans are to their fellow citizens, but the truth is often disappointing and a curse for a classical cynic.

A day or so ago someone had the temerity to ask this author what was wrong with Trumps hateful, racist rhetoric during the campaign and continuing unabated, and why are liberals so appalled at hearing it come from the man living in the White House. Seriously, the person asking the question wanted an answer, but only to condemn a legitimate reason as an excuse to silence the real Americans many sane Americans consider the stupid and hateful contingent.

For a growing number of American citizens, whats wrong with a politician inciting hate among the stupid contingent is all too real, and not in a good way, and all too frightening. There are more than enough examples of Trump and companys hateful rhetoric producing the results their hate-speech intended to deliver, and last week a journalist, Dan Cohen, revealed that there is a herd mentality among Trumps angry acolytes targeting more than just Muslims and Mexicans.

Mr. Cohen reported on, and documented, a Phoenix Arizona rally for the Trump that went from bad to seriously ugly including calling for a liberal genocide and evicting Jews out of their Christian America. Apparently, those calling for exterminating liberals and deporting Jews were incited by Republican politicians who may genuinely be part of the hateful contingent, but they are not stupid; unless they dont know precisely what their prodding will produce.

As one commenter on Cohens article rightly noted, besides the Trump effect emboldening racists, evangelical fanatics, and xenophobes, it has transformed an already toxic public discourse into a forum for every ignoramus to spout their death wish for anyone who refuses to go along with their twisted vision of what their America will become with Trump in the White House. The commenter wrote:

One of the primary effects the Trump phenomenon has had on the political discourse is to normalize proud ignorance in public. This deeply misinformed contingent is always there, but Trump has given them the confidence to speak their minds.

As Mr. Cohen noted, that confidence produced a decidedly dangerous insight into how close those deeply misinformed Trump supporters are to acting on their deep-seated hate and it leaves one wondering how long before they stop the stupid talk and start shooting. It is important to note that none of the hate being espoused today began with Trump, and it is not something he created, But he did take advantage of it after American citizens elected an African American man as their President. It is also noteworthy that the simmering hate and resulting vitriol was not because Barack Obama won the presidency, it was always there for Republicans to tap into and Trump the Republican is no exception.

Some of the comments reported by Dan Cohen are typical of a certain kind of American that almost always includes armed militias, evangelical zealots, and white supremacists; what some would call the typical rank-and-file Republican. Those kind of Americans were ripe for incitement to express their hate to a reporter and only white Christians were exempt. For dogs sake, even Senator John McCain was branded as a communist in his home state by conservatives that almost assuredly voted for him in the November election. Now they are angry that McCain is not in thrall of the Trump.

One of the rallys participants, a Vietnam-era veteran, summed up the attitude that the crowd expressed toward anyone they considered their enemy and condensed them all into the Democratic Party; a segment of the American people that the Trumps real Americans need to wipe out.

The Democratic Party is the socialist party in the United States because they are anti-Americans, theyre not pro-Americans. Theyre liars and misleaders, and they want to wipe us out. And we need to wipe them out.

Now it may seem that this is just an isolated group of angry, hateful, stupid people talking, but talk turns into action and since the election the action has become more frequent and more deadly. In fact, one of the three separate white male terrorists arrested during a six-day period a couple of weeks ago railed on his fellow real American white supremacists for being all talk and never taking action. Fortunately he was arrested before he could launch an attack on non-white people. Remember, there have been several shootings and attacks on minorities and vandalism targeting Jews and Muslims since the election; often accompanied by references to the Trumps presidency and calls to get out of my America.

This author has made a few decades worth of trips around the Sun and observed some relatively tense moments in the nations history during those orbits. However, the rancor and threats of violence against other American citizens coming rapid fire from one specific group is unprecedented and terrifying. It is true that there isnt much common ground for conservatives and liberals to meet on, seldom has been, but the level of abject hate leading to calls for a liberal genocide is beyond partisan politics. It is a clarion call to exterminate any group that may possibly align with non-conservatives and as it was throughout Barack Obamas tenure in the White House, Republicans have been silent because they are terrified of offending their supporters or criticizing their expressions of intense hate.

The accusations from Republican voters that Senator John McCain is a communist informs that it isnt just liberals, Jews, Muslims and Mexicans Trumps people want to exterminate, it is anyone who fails to meet the requirements to be a Trump follower; a white Christian raging with hate and stupid enough to express that hate in public.

Angry white people, anti-Semitism, Dan Cohen, Donald Trump, hate speech, John McCain, liberal genocide, Phoenix Arizona, trump rally

See the article here:

Opinion: Calls For Liberal Genocide and Deporting Jews Are Part of the Trump Effect - PoliticusUSA

Liberals’ new parliamentary reform plan angers Tories, NDP – The Globe and Mail

The Liberal government is proposing major changes to the way Parliament functions, including limiting the delay powers of opposition MPs, allowing electronic voting and ending Friday sittings.

Government House leader Bardish Chagger released the proposals in a discussion paper Friday afternoon as MPs headed home for a break week, arguing that it is time to recalibrate the balance of power between the governments duty to pass legislation and the oppositions right to be heard.

We really need to bring the House of Commons into the 21st century, said Ms. Chagger in an interview. The minister said the changes are aimed at making Parliament more predictable and productive.

Opposition MPs immediately slammed the proposals, warning that it would curb their ability to challenge the government.

The proposals echo some of the Parliamentary reform promises made by the Liberals during the election campaign. They include changes to the daily Question Period by having one day a week where the Prime Minister answers all of the questions, as is the case in Britain. Ms. Chagger said the committee should debate whether the Prime Minister should also attend Question Period on other days.

However, the Liberals have already made two failed attempts since the election to change the House of Commons rules. Last May, the government withdrew a controversial motion that would have given it new powers to limit debate. Also last year, a study by the Procedure and House Affairs committee aimed at making Parliament more family friendly held hearings on the idea of eliminating Friday sittings but found no consensus for a change. That same committee is being asked to consider the governments latest proposals. A Liberal motion has circulated that proposed that the committee complete its review by June 2.

Ms. Chagger suggests in her letter that in lieu of Friday sittings, the House of Commons could add more sitting days in January, June and September.

Concern from the opposition Friday focused on changes that would limit the ability of opposition MPs to delay legislation in the House or in committee with long speeches known as filibusters. One section of Ms. Chaggars letter recommends limiting speeches in committee to 10 minutes.

Committees can, at times, become dysfunctional, she wrote. The principle of deliberations in the House and in committees should be to engage in substantive debate on the merit of an issue, not to engage in tactics which seek only to undermine and devalue the important work of Parliament.

Conservative deputy house leader MP Chris Warkentin said his party will strongly oppose changes that limit the ability of MPs to challenge the government.

The idea that they would suggest that MPs bringing the concerns of their constituents forward is somehow an unacceptable use of time for the House of Commons is absolutely reprehensible, he said. To remove those opportunities is really an abuse of power and something that we will definitely oppose.

Mr. Warkentin said his party will not support the elimination of Friday sittings. He said the government appears to be using calls for improved work-life balance as an excuse for limiting accountability.

We believe MPs should work five days a week, and frankly its the experience of most of us that we work seven days a week, he said. I know that theres a lot of Canadians that would suggest that if the Liberals wanted to do less work or if they dont like the job that theyve been elected to do, that there might be somebody else who would replace these members of Parliament.

NDP MP Ian Rankin said the Liberal proposals would be a setback for Canadian democracy that would limit the oppositions powers to hold the government to account.

We do look forward to a healthy debate on this discussion paper, even if it appears healthy debate may be severely restricted around here in the future, he said in a statement.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Originally posted here:

Liberals' new parliamentary reform plan angers Tories, NDP - The Globe and Mail

Fictional TV Satirist Jonathan Pie Goes Viral Attacking Liberal Students’ ‘Orwellian’ Tactics – Heat Street

Spoof British political pundit Jonathan Pie, whose rant against Hillary Clintonwent viral just after the election, has done it again.

Pie, a fictional political TV reporter who is the creation of English comedian Tom Walker, is left-wing but he isnt exactly afraid to call out liberals when he thinks they deserve it.

His latest dispatch is one such occasion. Entitled The Fear of Language, Pies video takes students to task for being afraid of debate, wanting to take down statues of colonialists and putting trigger warnings on novels they dont like.

The video has been watched over 100,000 times on YouTube and got 1.9 million views on Facebook.

Pie begins his video polemic mocking the bizarre attempts made by regional authorities in Salford, the northern city where he is filming his video, to ban swearing before launching into a diatribe about liberals attitude to free speech.

Pie asks: Why are people so afraid of language?What baffles me is this fashion for stifling language and opinion comes from the left. Liberals. Students.

Students saying, You cant do this, you cant do thatall this youthful energy concentrating on stopping debates rather than winning them. No wonder being right-wing is the new RocknRoll on uni campuses. Thats how you rebel these days.

On a roll, Pie adds: Youve got students calling for statues of dead men to be torn to the ground because they were colonialists. Im not being funny but who wasnt?! Its not an honor to have a statue in your image or a building in your name 100 years after your death. Youre dead!

Its no longer an honor- its a reminder. Theyre reminders of how we got to where we are. Our history is being erased- by students. Some of them history students! Its revisionist. Its f***ing Orwellian. All for fear of causing offense.

Literature. If youre offended by To Kill a Mockingbird because it uses language of its time that is no longer acceptable, if you cant make that distinction, then youre a f***ing idiot and you have no appreciation of context and you have no place doing a f***ing literature degree.

And yet certain Unis- theyre putting trigger warnings on these novels because they may cause offense.

How many times do you hear that? This was edited, censored, banned because it may cause offense. Im sorry but no-one has a right not to be offended because offense- its entirely subjective.

Right on!

Read more here:

Fictional TV Satirist Jonathan Pie Goes Viral Attacking Liberal Students' 'Orwellian' Tactics - Heat Street

Trump supporters call for ‘liberal genocide’ and deportation of Jews at Arizona Rally – Raw Story

13-year-old tells Jewish woman to "go back to her own country" (Photo: screen capture)

Maricopa County burnished its reputation as theTrumpiest in Americalast weekend as hundreds of locals, including heavily armed militiamen, white nationalists and even a few electedofficials, gathered to support the 45th president. The ensuing March for Trump was as horrifying as it sounds.

I heard lock her up, lock her up, and we still need to pursue that, announced Arizona Congressman Anthony Kern; a nod to a prominent Trump campaign promise to imprison then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

If you dont like it here, go to Syria, go to someplace else, one attendee shouted.

I dont want em, as a veteran I dont want em, let em go back home, another seconded. If theyve got a problem, let Saudi Arabia take care of em.

Some even dared to tell Dan Cohen of the The Real News Network how theyd make America great again now that Trump was in office. And Muslims werent the only religious minority unwelcomed.

If she is Jewish, she should go back to her country, a 13-year-old Trump supporter said of a protester.

This is America, wedont want Sharia Law, one attendee explained. Christian country, he added.

One man insisted that Senator John McCain was a secret communist.

I think theres a lot there, he said of Pizzagate, a deranged right-wing conspiracy theory that Clintons campaign chairman John Podesta was running a child prostitution ring out of a Washington, D.C. pizzeria. Definitely enough to warrant an investigation.

The days proceedings would grow uglier still.

I just want to let them know that I cant wait for the liberal genocide to begin, an Oath Keeper shouted at a small group of protesters.

Thats the way to make America great again, he later toldCohen. Liberals are destroying the country.

Watch:

Follow this link:

Trump supporters call for 'liberal genocide' and deportation of Jews at Arizona Rally - Raw Story

Gender targets can still be achieved, says Liberal leader Matthew Guy – The Age

State opposition leader Matthew Guy still believes he can achieve an ambitious goal to increase the proportion of Liberal women in Parliament by 10 per cent at every election despite five out of the last six Liberal preselections being won by men.

Last April, Mr Guy became the first Victorian Liberal leader to set a target to lift female representation in politics, and also established a new group - Women to Win to recruit, train and mentor aspiring candidates.

"If we want more women in our state parliamentary ranks then we have to get serious," he said at the time.

Since then, the Liberals have held six consecutive preselections for the safe seats of Evelyn, Brighton, Burwood, Narracan, Nepean and Sandringham, yet only one Evelyn was won by a female candidate.

However, when asked if he believed Liberal members were serious enough about tackling the party's gender gap and whether he thought his broader target could still be achieved Mr Guy said yes.

"Our Women to Win program is doing some great work in identifying and mentoring a fantastic group of potential candidates who might in the future put themselves forward for preselection," he said. "Our goal is to have as many talented, hardworking, and community minded women and men as possible running for each preselection so branch members can preselect the best candidate for that particular electorate."

Labor, however, accuses the Liberals of going backwards. While Goodyear procurement manager Bridget Vallence was chosen last Saturday to replace retiring Liberal MP Christine Fyffe in Evelyn, earlier in the seat of Brighton, former staffer James Newbury was chosen to replace veteran Louise Asher, who is also quitting at the next election.

"Only in the Liberal Party can replacing a woman with a woman be described as a 'boost' for gender targets," Labor MP Jaala Pulford tweeted last week.

Mr Guy's comments come as nominations for upper house preselections closed on Friday, with Liberal powerbroker Inga Peulich facing a fight to remain in Parliament after three people - Mordialloc MP Lorraine Wreford, councillor Damien Rosario, and Mark Barrow - challengedher spot in the south-east metro region.

In the eastern metropolitan region, veteran MP and president of Parliament's upper house Bruce Atkinson is also being challenged by Nick Demiris, a former staffer to conservative Abbott Government minister Kevin Andrews.

Nine people have also nominated to replace former minister Richard Dalla-Riva in the same region, including former staffer to premier Ted Baillieu and major fundraiser Gladys Liu.

Continued here:

Gender targets can still be achieved, says Liberal leader Matthew Guy - The Age

Privileged, Entitled, Violent Students and the Liberal Journalists’ Scapegoat – CNSNews.com


CNSNews.com
Privileged, Entitled, Violent Students and the Liberal Journalists' Scapegoat
CNSNews.com
Middlebury College students turn their backs to Charles Murray, unseen, who they call a white nationalist, during his lecture in Middlebury, Vt., Thursday, March 2, 2017. Hundreds of college students on Thursday protested a lecture by a speaker they ...
Middlebury College and the generational clash within liberalismThe Economist

all 70 news articles »

Read more here:

Privileged, Entitled, Violent Students and the Liberal Journalists' Scapegoat - CNSNews.com