Daily Archives: April 27, 2024

Fox Business Network anchor Charles Payne blew a gasket on Wednesday when a liberal pundit attempted to defend President Joe Bidens gaffes, calling his on-air colleagues comments dumb and insulting.

During the Fox News midday panel show Outnumbered, Payne blasted the president for repeating his oft-told false claim that he had previously driven an 18-wheel big rig.

Its interesting. I saw someone complaining about Donald Trump exaggerating, Payne groused. Theres a big difference between exaggerating and just lying. Maybe its his memory, but its one after another.

After Payne characterized the situation as surreal and akin to a comedy plot in a sitcom, liberal radio host Leslie Marshall interjected that Trump has also been known to lie. She also noted that its actually the ex-president who often gets a pass for misspeaking or flubbing a line.

From my perspective, when Joe Biden messes up a word, I hear about it across the board. I dont hear about it with former President Trump, Marshall said.

Attempting to contrast her own occasional verbal miscues with the president, Marshall recounted a recent instance of her mixing up Pakistan and Palestine on-air.

This did not sit well with Payne, who immediately cut the veteran radio host off and began berating her. It always offends me when people talk to me and us like were dumb! What youre making is such a dumb example! Were not talking about you or me or her making an occasional gaffe, the Making Money host growled.

While Marshall tried telling her colleague she didnt think he was dumb, an animated Payne continued his outburst. Were talking about gaffe after gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, the Fox Business star yelled while waving his arm up and down.

I dont appreciate you calling me dumb! Marshall retorted.

No, youre not dumb! Youre insulting! Payne fired back before repeating the word gaffe over and over and over. Its ridiculous!

After Payne was finished with his performative rant, the rest of the pro-Trump hosts on the panel also began lecturing Marshall for offering up a mild defense of the presidents verbal miscues and tall tales.

He does it each and every speech, former Trump flack-turned-Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany huffed. This is why, Leslie, each and every poll shows the American voters, a majority, dont think he has the mental acuity!

Marshall, meanwhile, attempted to calmly respond to the over-the-top histrionics displayed by Payne in yet another of an endless series of Fox News segments on Biden's cognitive ability.

I never said it was a one-off," she noted. What Im saying is, I think its normal for people to make gaffes. I use notes when I give speeches. Im not running for president.

The rest is here:

Fox News Anchor Comes Unglued, Berates 'Dumb' Liberal Colleague - The Daily Beast

Mathew Chandy 24 (CLAS) will be the first student to graduate as a statistical data science major in May thats on top of completing a major in statistics and minors in computer science, economics, and mathematics. And he was able to do it all in three years.

Why did you choose to go to UConn? Im from Storrs, so my hometown is right next to UConn. A lot of my friends from high school were going here too, so it just made the most sense.

What drew you to your field of study? I was originally just a statistics major, and I chose that because Ive always been a math-oriented person. Statistics allows you to apply math to very tangible problems. I also started coding early on, so data science allowed me to integrate my coding ability to statistics.

Did you have a favorite professor or class? My favorite professor was the one Im currently doing research with, Jun Yan in the Department of Statistics. Ive been doing research with him for the past three years. My favorite class was probably Introduction to Data Science, which was also with Yan. I liked that class because it allowed you to learn things by yourself and become accustomed to new software very quickly. That helped me grow in my ability to use different technology in data science. What activities were you involved in as a student? Research has been my main focus, but when I was a freshman, I was in Model United Nations as a volunteer for the UConn competition. This year, with a few other students, I helped found the Joint Statistical Club (JSC) and served as vice president. The objective of JSC was to create a community for statistics students and help connect undergrads with graduates as well. What was it like being in college during the pandemic? So, Im going to graduate in three years, meaning I actually started in 2021. But it is kind of weird to remember that when I started college everyone had to wear a mask, or your class might get cancelled if cases were high.

What are your plans for after graduation? Ill be pursuing a Ph.D. in Statistics at UCLA in the fall.

How has UConn prepared you for the next chapter in life? I think being really research-focused during my time at UConn will help my ability to be successful in my Ph.D. program. Also, UConn provides a lot of resources to help students be successful, like the STEM Scholars program and the Honors program. The Department of Statistics also encourages students to participate in conferences and competitions to build up experiences.

Any advice for incoming students? Take your time and explore different things.

Whats one thing everyone should do during their time at UConn? Go to basketball games! Hopefully we 3-peat, but in general, students should go.

What will always make you think of UConn? Well, Ill always come back here because I live here, but when I watch UConn basketball in the future, Ill look back very fondly on my time attending UConn.

How has being a student in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences impacted your UConn experience? I enjoyed the fact that CLAS was very diverse in its course offerings. I had to take biology and chemistry classes, which are pretty distant from my major. At the time, I mightve thought, Why do I have to take this? but now I realize its good because it widens your scope.

See original here:

Mathew Chandy '24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences - UConn Today - University of Connecticut

When both Jeff Bilbro and a Catholic priest recommend an article to you, youd best pay attention. It just might be God telling you something. This happened to me recently. I would not give myself the extravagant title of Gods messenger, yet perhaps there is something providential in two thoughtful people sending me the same article independent of each other. The article in question is Bryan Garstens The Liberalism of Refuge, published recently in the Journal of Democracy as the lead essay in a symposium asking Can Liberalism Be Saved? The article gives me an opportunity to do something Ive been meaning to do for some time, namely sort through some inchoate ideas regarding liberalism.

The article is in some sense Garstens contribution to what we might call the liberalism wars. Perhaps instigated by Patrick Deneens Why Liberalism Failed, first published six years ago, a robust scholarly and online debate has emerged regarding the relative value of liberalism as a vital political philosophy. We have critics of liberalism such as Catholic integralists, national conservatives, and those generically called post-liberals. These schools of thought in one manner or another criticize liberalism for eroding community, placing too much emphasis on commerce, warping religion, subjecting the world to a heartless and homogenizing globalization, and more sins beyond that. There has been a reaction against liberalisms critics, mostly (but not exclusively) from those on the libertarian right who wish to defend classical liberalism that they argue undergirds the progress of the modern West. The first piece I ever wrote for Front Porch Republic was a review of Jonah Goldbergs Suicide of the West, a book which reads like a love letter to John Locke and the glories of free market individualism. Released the same year as Deneens book, the two works form a kind of point/counterpoint in the liberalism wars. Garsten has authored an ingenious if ultimately unconvincing entry into this debate.

It might help to define our terms. What do we mean by liberalism? As noted, this is a question that has launched a thousand scholarly ships, so far be it from me, in a mere review essay, to give a comprehensive definition of the term. Still, I think we can lay out some basics. Liberalism, as I see it, starts with the individual. The individual is a complete human being before the formation of any political or social structure. Such an individual is recognizable to anyone familiar with the state of nature thinking of, say, Hobbes and Locke. Liberalism holds that this individual has certain natural rights that he or she bears equally with all other humans. We now have the foundational liberal ideas of natural rights and natural equality. Because these rights are natural, endowed by our Creator rather than by government, it suggests some limitation on government. Natural rights serve as a kind of check on authority. Liberals, then, tend to believe in some form of limited government. Serving the ends of limited government are such institutional commitments as separation of powers, equality before the law, and due process of law. Natural equality suggests the justness of a basically democratic regime; the average person should have some say in how and by whom he is governed. Liberal politics often shares a commitment to liberal economics, meaning restricted intrusion of government in economic activity and a general commitment to free markets and free trade. Liberal economics stems from one of our natural rights, namely the right to property.

I do not mean to suggest that this is a comprehensive definition of liberalism. Nor do I claim that one can get to one or more of these principles only through liberalism. But I think this is a fine summary of basic liberal commitments.

To this Garsten adds another liberal ideal, that of refuge. Garsten professes Liberal societiesare those that offer refuge from the very people they empower. Even a monarchy might earn the moniker liberal if a citizen who fell out of the kings good graces could take refuge under the protection of this or that aristocrat or constituency. We might ask if the good of refuge is foundational or whether it relies on other deeper commitments. For example, basic belief in human equality and liberty leads to a notion of human dignity. Because humans have dignity, when a government or fellow citizens become oppressive to a person or definable group, such individual or group needs to be able to seek refuge in the law or in notions of liberal toleration that might mitigate the damage. We could conclude, then, that it is not refuge that sets liberalism apart but deeper commitments that are more foundational. Garsten implicitly concedes this point when, in his response to other symposium contributors, he argues that Southern slaveholders/segregationists should not have been granted liberal refuge. The Southerners violated a liberal principle deeper than refuge, namely that of equality. There is a particular concept of the human person that underlies any defense of a politics of refuge. Garsten leaves that anthropology assumed rather than articulated.

Garsten accuses skeptics of liberalism of practicing a demonology, turning liberalism into a kind of boogeyman. (Garsten seems to take it for granted that there are no actual demons, thus demonology is a kind of delusion). He readily acknowledges, however, that liberalisms commitment to openness and mobility may undermine dedication to religion, place, or tradition. Here he accuses what he uncharitably calls antiliberals of having a politics of temptation. These antiliberals (such as Deneen) exaggerate any questioning of authority, thinking the slightest concession to openness tempts us toward unlimited freedom, weakening the authority of parent, teacher, or minister, responsibility to spouse, children, or neighbor.

Garsten seems blind to the actual erosion of social capital under liberal individualism run amok. Cue here the mandatory reference to Bowling Alone. One need not resort to chimerical apparitions to see actual damage caused by liberal commitments. Lets turn to religion as one example.

Garsten ignores the fact that liberalism arose hand in hand with centralization of state power. The nation replaced the church as an object of religious devotion. As William Cavanaugh has noted, the post-Reformation era was an age of political centralization. The wars of religion were to a significant degree really wars of centralization, as there was a migration of the holy from the church to the state.

The atomization that is a result of liberal individualism empowers the state at the expense of other obligations such as church or family. Garsten says a religion is liberal if it also offers refuge from its leaders. It allows the individual deference to ones own conscience. This is all well and good as far as it goes, but as John Henry Newman pointed out, conscience has to be properly understood. Conscience is the divine voice that tells us right from wrong. When we substitute our own judgment for that of religious authority, it must be after serious thought and study. It is far too easy for I am following my conscience to mask I am doing what I want, not what God wants. This is why Newman opposed religious liberalism, because it all too easily moves from seeking and doing Gods will to simply doing what the individual wants, honoring the self instead of honoring God.

One sees the rejection of Gods will in Lockes very intolerant Letter Concerning Toleration. Locke maintains, in what might be the fundamental doctrine of theological liberalism, that every man is orthodox to himself and care of the soul belongs to himself. Locke turns religion from a belief that is acted out in community to a private, interior disposition. Whats more, Locke defines the ends of society as life, liberty, and indolency of the body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like. A crude acquisitiveness becomes the foundation of society. Locke then argues that a religion that undermines the foundations of society cannot be tolerated. It turns out any religion that gets in the way of self-indulgence is suspect. Locke denies the transcendent in the name of economic productivity.

Garsten implicitly accepts Lockes intolerant toleration. In his response essay, he approvingly cites Benjamin Constants nineteenth-century warning about the Catholic churchs threat to liberty. One recalls that Locke explicitly exempts Catholics from religious toleration. Garsten does, however, support the Supreme Courts offering of refuge to the Amish in the Wisconsin v. Yoder case. Garsten perhaps unwittingly proves the critics point: hes willing to tolerate religions as long as they are cute, cuddly, and harmless. Any church that represents a threat to the liberal order is not to be tolerated. This is similar to Americans who, in the wake of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, were supportive of religious liberty legislation when they thought it was Native Americans who would benefit. As soon as evangelical Christians sought support under the same laws, the tolerant became decidedly intolerant. Religious liberty for Garsten and many liberals is a limited good, only offered to those religions that accept their subservient place.

One could also point to Lockes low estimation of marriage and his description of the family in largely transactional terms. Or one might mention John Stuart Mills condemnation of the despotism of custom. It seems like undercutting religion, family, and tradition are not just the work of illusory demons, but actual agendas of foundational liberals. In liberalism, all commitments are provisional except the commitment to oneself.

Garsten also addresses Tocquevilles famous concern regarding the tyranny of the majority. Tocqueville, argues Garsten, sought a guarantee against such a tyranny. By guarantee he meant some institution or authority with the power to protect against the sovereign majority. Garsten cites here Tocquevilles defense of association. But association is not a formal institution; its a habit of the people. Tocquevilles central concern is that the love of equality which is the dominant ethos of democracy will give rise to individualism and a lack of concern for public things. Tocqueville may have been a liberal, but he was a moderate liberal. He recognized that democracy taken unalloyed would succumb to despotism. The alteration of family and religion that Tocqueville feared democracy might bring about would leave the individual adrift in the world. The art of association that Tocqueville praises in Americans is derivative of their religious and familial commitments. Without such commitments the centralized state would have to step in as the only recognized instrument of collective action, reducing the people to a herd of timid, individuated sheep.

Its a bit unfair to conflate Tocquevilles critique of democracy with a critique of liberalism. Still, while the two are not synonymous, in the modern world they are close cousins. The point here is that liberal democracy relies on habits and mores (Tocquevilles word) that it itself struggles to maintain. Count me as all in favor of liberal institutionalism. I happen to think that Madisonian democracy, heavily indebted to liberal assumptions, is about as fine an institutional order as mankind has developed. Still, liberalism cannot rely on mere institutionalism. It must appeal to non-liberal authorities such as religion and family to sustain the liberal regime. Further note Tocquevilles commitment to local government as a bulwark against centralization. It is hard to imagine a sustained commitment to local government amongst a people who have no loyalty to a particular place. An unreflective devotion to individual mobility weakens such a loyalty.

Garsten is convinced, however, that those defending non-liberal politics in a liberal era are merely tilting at windmills. Indeed, he goes so far as to suggest that it is the liberals who believe in the natural sociability of man, while it is liberalisms critics who are the true individualists. After all, it is the liberals, Garsten says, who think that left to their own devices people will naturally form a vibrant civil society. It is the critics of liberalism, he claims, who must be the individualists because they think there must be some active participation by cultural authorities, including government, in order for humans to engage in communal activity.

Here Garsten claims too much. There are natural processes that nevertheless need cultivation. It is natural for the cilantro to rise every spring in my garden, but if I do nothing it can get pushed out by weeds. If not picked regularly cilantro goes to seed, now becoming coriander. Cultures, almost by definition, need cultivation. There needs to be positive activity on the part of the citizenry and social institutions to maintain the vibrancy of associational life. Garsten seems to overlook the laws pedagogical function.

One can look to college campuses as an example. I suspect that my campus is not unlike other campuses across the United States. As I noted in passing here at FPR in my review of Jonathan Haidts new book, my campus has seen many clubs wither and die over the last decade or so as students are more likely to stay in their dorm rooms staring at screens rather than joining History Club, hanging out with other business majors in the Business Club, or attending the weekly Intervarsity praise and worship. Tocqueville noted that democracy contains many preconditions that pull people apart, encouraging them to withdraw from public life. Governments role here might simply to be to get out of the way. Anyone who tries to run a private social service organization, for example, knows the myriad levels of paperwork it takes to operate such a charitable service, to say nothing of the constant threat of lawsuit in our litigious age. Also, as government steps in and does many of the jobs once done by fraternal organizations, it isnt surprising that such organizations have dwindled. In order for communities to remain vital they have to have work to do. The more the government says, No, thats our job, the less vigorous are the Tocquevillian associations. Witness jurisdictions in which Catholic Charities has been driven out of adoption facilitation because it is being forced to choose between its deeply held convictions on marriage or facilitating adoptions for same-sex couples. Similarly, locales vary as to how friendly they are to private education or homeschooling. Government can set conditions in which associations are more likely to thrive.

Richard Rorty once said that he was a freeloading atheist. Given four thousand years of Judeo-Christian morality, Rorty felt we could indulge his atheism without fear of return to the brutal morality of pagan Greece and Rome. History might be proving him wrong. Garsten, it seems, may be a freeloading liberal. Because there is such a strong tradition, at least in the United States, of associational activity, much of it religiously driven, we no longer need to actively cultivate communal virtues. Once again, history may be proving this assumption wrong. And as Ross Douthat quips, if you dislike the religious right, wait until you meet the post-religious right.

I feel I am being too hard on Garsten. His article is an intriguing attempt to articulate a novel grounding for liberal commitments. Most provocative is his recognition that we may need refuge from private economic power along with public power. Garsten explicitly acknowledges that progress always comes with loss, and that loss is not equally shared. Such is the case with globalization, for example. There are winners in the era of open trade that began in earnest in the early 1990s. But there are also losers. Garsten implies that the disruption caused by economic globalization may be the source of some of the illiberalism of our era, and these victims need some space of refuge. In this sense Garsten avoids the idealism that sometimes infects liberalisms most ardent defenders, the notion that more openness and free markets are the solution to every problem. Liberalism must take into account and leave some space for non-liberalism.

The older I get the more I find political labels a bit tiresome. I do not wish to associate myself with those who are principled no labels folks. Labels do carry some useful information. We cannot entirely escape them. Still, younger me was very concerned about which camp this or that thinker was in. I had the same attitude toward myself. Am I with the West Coast Straussians or the East Coast Straussians? Am I a natural rights thinker or do I share Burkes and MacIntyres skepticism toward natural rights in favor of a more narrative approach to politics? Am I a realist, a neo-conservative, or a liberal internationalist? Am I a free-market capitalist or a communitarian skeptic toward untrammeled capitalism? I no longer think in such terms. Am I a liberal? I dont think so, but I share many liberal commitments. As noted above, I do think that Madisonian constitutionalism is about as fine a governmental arrangement as we can realistically devise. Like Madison, I think we must take self-interest into account when framing a government. I am a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln, sharing Lincolns devotion to the Declaration of Independence and the natural rights and natural equality it professes. In my book on Lincoln I approvingly describe him as a liberal statesman. I also have a basic commitment to the free market on both practical and principled grounds. I often wish that liberalisms contemporary critics would recognize the truths and considerable successes of liberal ideas and liberal regimes.

At the same time, as the above discussion of those like Locke and Mill indicates, I essentially reject liberalisms anthropology. Part of that rejection is religious. I am with Newman that liberal theology inaccurately describes man, God, and the relationship between the two, including their relationship with Gods Church here on Earth. I am with Irving Kristol in giving two cheers to capitalism, but not three. The tendency of liberal capitalism is to value all things only by their economic value. Despite its good fruits, liberalisms dedication to individualism and acquisition does tend to erode necessary pre-political institutions such as family and church, both ordained by God for mans good. There are goods worth defending, such as the family or Gods creation, that might necessitate mandating economic inefficiencies. Unlike some who favor such pro-family or pro-creation (Im with Wendell Berry in eschewing the term environmental) policies, I forthrightly acknowledge that such policies might make us poorer with all the attendant costs. But just like in our individual lives, sometimes we must make economic sacrifices for higher goals. I do wish liberalisms most ardent contemporary defenders would recognize the ill effects of an undiluted liberalism.

Thus I think Patrick Deneen, whatever his faults, is correct that liberalism is at its worst when it is most itself. Tocquevilles wisdom is that liberal democracy needs to be ameliorated with remnants of pre-liberal, pre-democratic ideals. For example, democracies would benefit from maintaining the aristocratic dedication to beauty and building things of lasting value rather than simply valuing efficiency and economic use. A good liberalism is a humble, chastened liberalism.

Part of my rejection of labels is a rejection of formula. I distrust any preordained checklist that tells us what is in and what is out. When precisely should we adopt a liberal outlook and when should we reject it? I confess that I dont know. As I outline in my Lincoln book, one of Lincolns chief virtues is his prudence. Flannery OConner once stated that readers should not study literature like they are studying algebra; you are not solving for x. There isnt one right answer as to what a story or poem means. Much the same with politics. Politics is done by people, and thus it is messy and unpredictable. There is no political or philosophical quadratic formula. In this sense, I find value in Russell Kirks politics of prudence (see principle #4 or read this book) helpful on this account. When should equality give way to liberty, and vice versa? When is it socially beneficial for government to support religious life and when does such support slip into establishment, to the detriment both of church and state? When are appeals to popular opinion expressions of a healthy democratic spirit and when do they slide into demagoguery? These kinds of questions defy easy, fixed answers.

Those who are not liberals would be well served to prudentially consider those aspects of political life that liberalism gets right. If it is not a comprehensively sound doctrine, surely it gets some aspects of the human condition right. Such critics should avoid blaming every pathology of contemporary life on liberalism.

And when liberals critique their intellectual opponents, they can surely do better than accusing them of demonology. Reflexively branding any criticism of liberalism as authoritarianism or fascism is as lazy as it is incorrect.

Garstens piece succeeds in getting us to think about what liberalism is and what it is not, what liberalism does well and what it does poorly. It is important that people have some refuge from power. Human liberty is indeed a good. But liberty is the freedom to choose well, not just freedom from restraints. Liberalism provides some guidance as to what choose well means, but it is insufficient in that regard. Some recourse to non-liberal thought is needed to temper liberalisms individualism and excessive skepticism toward authority. If liberalism is at its worst when it is most itself, it is at its best when it gladly embraces guidance from other, stronger philosophies.

Image Credit: Thomas Seddon, Lhon visto desde Mont Parnasse, Britania (1853) via Picryl

See the article here:

Will No One Rid Me Of These Meddlesome -Isms: Thinking and Rethinking Liberalism - Front Porch Republic

The aims of education

Markets at play | Letter, April 24

Some continually agitate for market demand to be the chief consideration in higher curriculum. They have been at it for years now, pushing bean counters notions of the classical western liberal arts education that Gov. Ron DeSantis and others say they want, but really dont. Through history, adept and eager students would travel to distant universities to study with the widely known, best minds in their fields. Generally, those werent accounting or marketing classes. Some recent letters to the editor reminded me of University of South Florida professors I had 40 years ago. One, an English lit professor, was a frail old Englishman, white as an egg, with a brutalized, ratty, gamey cardigan sweater, the elbows worn through. He had a brown stain in his white beard from his pipe, which had an ever-present and long thread of drool swinging from its bowl. He began every class with some verse from one of the Romantic poets, or Kipling. Im sure he held forth just as readily with no audience at all. He was a treasure, but bean counters would not have approved. At 22, I realized Id learned nothing of Africa or its colonization by Europe by that age, so I took two courses on the subject from a wonderful professor, a small Igbo man from Nigeria, educated in English schools there. He spoke with a beautiful clipped accent, had a wonderful mind, was bemused by the United States, and he opened a new and wonderful part of the world to me. Again, bean counters wouldnt have approved.

Steve Douglas, St. Petersburg

Famous Tampa Bay trees | April 24

If old growth trees are valuable to a home sale, why are developers razing old growth trees? This is in context to an old home on a double lot bought a few months ago by a developer just a block from my home in Childs Park. They tore down the house (expected) and took out every single tree on that property. It was quite shocking to see the latter happen. That experience inspired me to wonder how we can get developers to value old growth trees. I never like to look to the government or more regulation to save us. I love to look at the market (that is, ourselves) to save us. So how do we (the markets demand) express that we value old growth trees? How do we make it so developers (the markets supply) start preserving and valuing these old growth trees? After musing over these questions the past months, I was so shocked to see a listing for the new house a block from my home pop up on Zillow. The house now sits on a sandy, concrete lot, but for sales purposes, its imagined in a rendering as surrounded by lush old growth trees that the developer cut down to build this very home.

Tara Hubbard, St. Petersburg

To tip or not to tip | Column, April 25

I had the privilege of a visit to several European countries a while back and was mildly shocked and pleasantly surprised when a waiter told me that tips are appreciated, but not expected since servers are paid a salary. This is something our country has generally resisted vehemently, claiming it would raise prices for customers. Well, seems to me it would balance out. The diner would save by not tipping, but pay more for the meal. I was a server, in my younger days. I know what it is to hope customers will come in, hope the cooks make an enjoyable meal and hope the customers like you. Our eateries need to treat their wait staff with the respect of a living wage and not like a dog begging for a bone.

Leslie Phillips, Brooksville

Biden speaks on abortion | April 24

I write to express deep concern regarding President Joe Bidens public support for abortion, which starkly contradicts the Catholic Churchs teachings on the sanctity of life. Notably, the president made the sign of the cross in Tampa this week where he gave a speech in favor of abortion rights. This occurred within the Diocese of St. Petersburg, headed by Bishop Gregory Parkes, and was a gesture that has profound implications given the setting and his influential position.

The church teaches that abortion is a grave moral wrong. Canon law reserves excommunication for severe acts that threaten the churchs integrity and mislead the faithful. The presidents actions, particularly within the Diocese of St. Petersburg, arguably warrant such a response, not as a punitive measure but as a call to repentance and realignment with church doctrine. The bishop has the authority and the duty to address this significant pastoral challenge. The faithful look to him for guidance when prominent Catholics publicly challenge our core beliefs. This is a moment for decisive action that reaffirms the churchs stance on life and aids the presidents spiritual journey through the stark reminder of his obligations as a Catholic.

William E. Mills III, Sanford

Schools to revise cellphone rules | April 22

Why is it so taboo to bring up the delicate subject of extracting a phone from a student while in school? Cellphones and smartphones are primarily used as a social communication tool to share opinions, photos (mostly different profiles of the same individual), and to text and check on ones real time tracking of how well they are liked at any particular moment.

With all of the tasks required to monitor, share and respond, its unlikely that full focus on anything can realistically happen. Multitasking is a myth, and its disproven daily by contributing to auto and pedestrian accidents, bumping into someone or something while walking, or responding with the proverbial what did you say? when making an attempt to be human while passing one another.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

When cellphones started in the marketplace and became affordable for many, parents typically supported them as a tool for safety. As time went on and the Blackberry trended as the status symbol for students, it was to save the child from social embarrassment, no longer just a tool for safety.

Today, its boiled down to Android and Apple, with pretty much all the ability of a laptop computer with a primary function of keeping the user socially connected full time. With proof that no one has the ability to focus on two tasks concurrently, keeping phones locked up while a student is in school is a no brainer. If its imperative that a parent contact their child while in class, just call the school.

Darryl David, St. Petersburg

Schools to revise cellphone rules | April 22

Compare the cellphone to a laptop or tablet. All three are tools of our modern era. Proper training on how to use each appropriately is needed. Parental and school guidance and oversight is also needed to properly guide youth in the proper use of the device. Lets face it, there are a lot of questionable apps out there, and proper use of the device in school should contribute to learning or be there for emergencies. We need to accept that this technology is here to stay and proper use of it is more important training than trying to restrict it.

Daniel Reiniger, Safety Harbor

He adored Trump, and then rejected him. How? | April 24

Assuming Rich Logis transformation is for real, there are many of us who did not need to go through such a transformation in the first place.

Peter Throdahl, Clearwater Beach

Original post:

Why market demand doesn't capture the value of the liberal arts | Letters - Tampa Bay Times

Considering the rising cost of tuition at LMU and other universities nationwide coupled with the relatively low wages that students pursuing a degree in the liberal arts receive post-graduation begs the question: is pursuing a degree in the liberal arts "worth it?"

The short answer: its complicated.

The 2023-24 cost of undergraduate on-campus attendance was $84,132, according to previous Loyolan reporting on the estimated cost of attendance. Based on this figure, four years of undergraduate education at LMU without any financial aid or scholarships will be approximately $336,528.

The 2,127 students currently pursuing a degree in the liberal arts at LMU are on track to make less money than that of their peers pursuing a career in STEM fields, according to LMU's page on College Scorecard, a U.S. Department of Education platform that allows people to compare university outcomes.

According to College Scorecard, a student at LMU pursuing a bachelors degree in accounting and related services which is a major in the College of Business Administration (CBA) is estimated to make a median annual income of $91,902 within four years of graduating. On the other hand, students who receive a bachelors degree in political science and government which is a major in the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts (BCLA) are estimated to make a median annual income of $57,686 within four years of graduating from LMU.

A study done by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2023 found that someone with a bachelors degree earned 62% more than someone with a high school level of education.

We know that if you have a college degree, and if you apply yourself in college and have a few internship experiences, regardless of your major you will substantially have a higher income in life, said incoming BCLA Dean Richard Fox Ph.D., associate chair of political science.

Some advocates of the liberal arts say the beauty of a liberal arts education is that it doesnt prepare you for one specific thing,specified Graham Beattie, Ph.D., associate professor and associate chair of economics. In some ways that can be advantageous. Why do you get a liberal arts degree? It's because you're prepared for anything."

Having a degree in a liberal arts field could offer career flexibility that is not always available to someone pursuing a degree in a specific field despite those people making more money post-graduation.

People from liberal arts degrees work pretty evenly across the economy, said Beattie. I can steer myself over time into wherever is good for what I'm interested in in my geographical area [and at a] particular time. Whereas someone with a very specific qualification-oriented degree wouldn't have that ability.

Arik Greenberg, Ph.D., professor in interreligious dialogue, believes that while an education is highly valuable in todays world, he doubts if the cost of education is justified.

Education is always a good thing, but is the cost justifying the education? asked Greenberg. [If it costs $336,528] for an undergraduate higher education, is that worth what you're going to [make] when you get out of this degree program? I would say it's highly questionable.

Greenberg recalls his time in graduate school and working in construction, maintenance and janitorial services to foot the bill of his education. He says if he had pursued a career in plumbing or electrical he would be making a better living than he is right now, as a non-tenured professor at LMU.

I know I would not be happy doing that because I'm an activist; I'm a public intellectual; I want to have an impact on society and on young minds. That's my life's dream; that's my life's goal. I would not be happy just turning a wrench or swinging a hammer, said Greenberg.

Mia Gutierrez, a sophomore political science major, says she feels like she needs to stay on a career path that will make her money, despite having interest in exploring other areas of political science that may pay less.

I think that the tuition is getting out of hand [given] the workforce, especially because of how difficult it is to get a job, said Gutierrez. I feel like I have to stick to the path where I make the most money I need a job where I can pay off my college loans.

Despite projected low post-graduation wages for students pursuing a liberal arts degree, the demand for college has not decreased dramatically, meaning colleges can continue to raise prices without fear oflower enrollment.

So, why can colleges continue to charge as much as theydo?

College, particularly at a private institution like LMU, is expensive for a number of reasons. College is a labor-intensive production process, according to Beattie. Particularly at a school like LMU where class sizes are small, the amount of faculty that need to be hired in order to offer the education that LMU offers is quite high.

According to previous Loyolan reporting, $261 million of LMUs total expenses was dedicated to salaries, othercompensation [and] employee benefits in the 2022 fiscal year.

A 2023 studydone by the Public Policy Institute of Californiafound that someone with a bachelors degree earned 62% more than someone with a high school level of education.

Beattie also highlights that there is a competition between universities to offer a quality experience to their students, through a nice campus and facilities.

If you think of what you are buying with your tuition, you're buying a bundle of things. You're buying a lot of faculty hours which are expensive staff hours, which are generally not as expensive but still a lot of labor, and then you're buying access to this campus, which is [the] fanciest place in a high real estate cost area, said Beattie.

Both Beattie and Greenberg agree that students pursuing a degree at a liberal arts institution should be aware of the potential economic trade-offs that come with pursuing a liberal arts degree, but it should not deter anyone from that path.

If you want to do a liberal arts degree, go ahead and do a liberal arts degree, as long as you are not going into it misinformed about economics, said Beattie. If you go into it saying, 'Yes, I know this isn't the highest return, but this is still what I want to do,' then who is anyone to tell you that's not something you should do?

When Greenbergs students approach him about going into a career in academia, he wants them to consider if it is the only thing they could possibly be happy doing as a career, due to the low salaries many non-tenured professors receive.

I don't want to dissuade students from going into higher education, but I want them to go into it with their eyes fully open to the risks and the fact that they may take a decade before they ever even get gainful employment, said Greenberg.

Greenberg and Fox believe that education particularly a liberal arts education creates critical thinkers that bring immense value to not only their careers but to the world around them.

We see all these studies increasing saying they are looking for people who can think. I can teach anyone to code, but I need someone who can think creatively and critically, said Fox. I still firmly believe that students should pursue what excites them to do, and if they do that ... it will work out for them.

I think all education is valuable, said Greenberg. I'd do it all over again, because I think education makes a more well-rounded, educated and involved [population].

Read the original post:

Is a $330000 liberal arts education still 'worth it?' - Los Angeles Loyolan

OPINION:

For decades, liberals have dismissed any claim that they collude on their message. But for those same decades, it has been clear that members of the liberal intelligentsia often parrot the same talking points on a given topic across every medium.

So-called journalists with mainstream media outlets have guffawed when critics point out that the lefty talking heads are all on the same page. Some go so far as to mock those who make the claims, saying, What, you think we have weekly meetings?

It turns out that despite all the denials, they actually do have weekly meetings.

Picture this: Every Friday, a Zoom window pops up, and its showtime for the Anti-Trump Avengers, helmed by Norman Eisen, a man who has seen more of the inside of a courtroom (even if just on TV) than most people have seen of their own kitchens.

Mr. Eisen, who cut his teeth in the Obama administration and now moonlights as a legal pundit for CNN, plays host to the merry band of Trump critics. Politico spilled the tea during the weekly gossip sessions, where, rumor has it, participants fine-tuned their disdain for all things Trump with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker.

Whos on the guest list? Imagine a Zoom Brady Bunch grid filled with the likes of political gadflies Bill Kristol and George Conway (whose opposition to Donald Trump could probably power a small city), and sprinkled with academic heft from Harvards very own Laurence Tribe.

Theyre also joined by John Dean, a right-hand man for President Richard Nixon who knows a thing or two about presidential scandals, and cable news legal eagles Andrew Weissmann and Jeffrey Toobin, who are no strangers to stirring the pot (Mr. Toobin is, of course, very hands-on).

Their mission involves dissecting the former presidents latest legal dramas with the zeal of teenagers debating the merits of their favorite pop stars. But instead of BTS vs. One Direction, its constitutional law and courtroom maneuvers. The gatherings apparently fuel their fiery appearances across the media landscape, giving talking points a whole new meaning.

Mr. Conway might write a think piece for The Atlantic one moment and then pop up on MSNBC to discuss the same ideas, while Mr. Weissmann dives even deeper on his podcast, ambitiously titled Prosecuting Donald Trump.

Mr. Toobin, fresh from a Zoom mishap thats too NSFW to recount here, is back on CNN, casting doubt on the success of any case against Mr. Trump led by the DA in Fulton County, Georgia because if youre going to go big, why not aim for presidential controversy?

And as if this superhero team-up werent star-studded enough, cameo appearances by The Washington Posts Jennifer Rubin and CNNs Karen Agnifilo add even more sparkle to the galaxy of legal minds getting their story straight.

The Politico bombshell came a week after a journalist with National Public Radio about as liberal a news outlet as you can find, which also happens to be funded by you, the taxpayer ripped NPR for its endless liberal bent.

In a piece on Bari Weiss online news site, The Free Press, headlined Ive Been at NPR For 25 Years. Heres How We Lost Americas Trust, Mr. Berliner said that among NPRs Washington editorial staff, there are no Republicans.

When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasnt hostile, Mr. Berliner wrote. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference.

I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues, he wrote. But the messages were of the oh wow, thats weird variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.

In his piece, Mr. Berliner said that NPR has been plagued by a group think thats really clustered around very selective, progressive views that dont allow enough air, enough spaciousness to consider all kinds of perspectives.

After his piece emerged, the liberal media lost their minds. Mr. Berliner, an award-winning business editor and reporter, was promptly suspended and then resigned amid the furor.

And there you have it: A week later, Politico reported that liberals across the media spectrum really do get together to coordinate their talking points, which they then spout on a host of outlets.

Who knew?

Actually, we did. We all knew. Its pretty obvious.

Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on X @josephcurl.

Visit link:

Liberal pundits really do have weekly meetings to 'shape' message on Trump - Washington Times

Hungary is an independent conservative island in the European progressive liberal ocean, it is a constitutional state where everyone can freely express their opinion, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC), which is taking place in Hungary on April 25-26.

For the third consecutive year, Budapest is hosting a gathering of radical right-wing politiciansand pundits.

The participants include Dutch politician Geert Wilders (PVV), Santiago Abascal, Chairman of the Spanish party VOX, former Slovenian prime minister Janez Jansa anda number of Trumpist Republicans.

The accreditation of many foreign and local media outlets was rejected, and they were encouraged instead to follow the event via a live stream. Organisers informed journalists thatthe conference is a "no woke zone," and that coverage would be possible at "future events when and if your organisation becomes significantly less woke".

The conference was organised by the state-funded organization Center for Fundamental Rights. Its head Miklos Szantho, in his opening address, said the aim of CPAC Hungary is no less than to organise a global coalition of anti-globalist forces.

He said the conference in 2023 had been about deepening cooperation on the right, and this year was about springing into action. We must drain the swamp in Brussels in June and in Washington in November, he added.

An inglorious period of Western civilisation could be brought to an end this year, by replacing the world built on progressive-liberal hegemony with a sovereignist one, Orban said after taking the stage.

According to Hungarys strongman, the progressive-liberal world order had failed as it had only brought about wars and discord, economic collapse and chaos. The leaders emerging from that world order were "unfit for the task, heap error upon error, and end up walking into their doom", he said.

The liberals are already sensing the danger and a change could mean their downfall, which is why they are doing everything to maintain power. As in 2019, Hungarys nationalist leader is hoping for a breakthrough of radical right-wing parties at the EP elections and the victory of Republican candidate Donald Trump in November's US presidential election.

Orban accused liberal progressive" governments of employing tactics many of his critics say he had used himself to silence critics,

Theyuse government agencies against us, or as my American friends would say, "weaponize state institutions".

"This happens to us Hungarians constantly in Brussels. This is what is happening to President Trump in America, and we encourage him to fight for his own truth not only in the elections but also in the courts."

In contrast to the liberal progressive world,supported by US financier George Soross open society, the sovereigntist world order will construct a "protected society", protecting the borders, and families.

The prime minister struck an optimistic tone, telling CPAC attendees: "Make America great again, make Europe great again! Go Donald Trump, go European sovereigntists!"

"Let's saddle up, put on our armour, head to the battlefield and begin the election battle!" he said.

On the first day of the conference, Orban held talks on the event's sidelines withJanza and former Australian premier Tony Abbott. The prime minister hosted a gala reception for 80 special foreign guests later in the evening.

In his speech,Jansa said there is no sovereigntywithoutborder control. The open border policy of the liberal-left aims to dismantle Western civilisations.

Numerous speakers at CPAC voiced their support for combating woke ideology, antisemitism, and "illegal" immigration. Tom van Grieken, leader of the Belgian Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), commended Hungary's commitment to freedom of speech and strongly condemned the recent shutdown of the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon) in Brussels.

The Belgian politician said Hungary is the centre of conservative resistance. Amihai Sikli, Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs, praised the flourishing relations between the two countries, emphasising that the Hungarian government is one of Israel's biggest supporters. He praised Budapest as "one of the safest capitals in Europe for Jews" and praised Hungary's "zero tolerance" onantisemitism.

See the original post here:

Orban: Hungary is island in the European progressive liberal ocean - bne IntelliNews

The attempted shutdown of the National Conservatism Conference by police in Brussels made for a diverting spectacle. Staged at the centre of the European project, the flagrant attack on free speech and association was a piquant commentary on the bien pensant fancy that the European Union is redeeming the dark continent and refounding it on the basis of liberal values.

The local mayor who authorised the assault declared that the far right was not welcome in the city. Whether the conference can be described in these terms is questionable, but as he made the announcement parties that are undoubtedly from the far right were preparing to become a deciding force in the European Parliament after the elections in June. The meeting was resumed after the ban was condemned by the Belgian prime minister and overturned by the countrys top administrative court.

Yet this was not the only example of creeping authoritarianism. In a separate incident, the former Greek finance minister, left-wing political theorist and pro-Palestine speaker Yanis Varoufakis was prohibited from entering German territory and connecting with public meetings in Germany by video link. Throughout these episodes, the EU was silent.

Suspending freedom of expression for the sake of liberal values may seem a paradox, but it is not illogical. For latter-day hyper-liberals, free speech is useful only so long as it advances a progressive project. Confronted by criticism, they respond by trying to suppress debate. An ever-widening category of hate speech is deployed against any discourse deemed offensive or a risk to public safety.

The canonical liberal John Stuart Mill is often invoked against censorship of this sort, and it is true that in On Liberty (1859) he argued that free speech must include the freedom to cause offence. But when, in the same essay, he argued that the value of freedom lay in collective well-being or utility, he specified that it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Free speech had little value if it served reactionary ends.

Select and enter your email address

Your email address

Like many other 19th-century liberals, Mill feared the rise of democratic government because he believed it meant empowering an ignorant and tyrannical majority. Time and again, he vilified the torpid masses who were content with traditional ways of living.

At present, however, it is the masses that are preserving liberal freedoms. Nicola Sturgeons dominance of Scottish politics came to an abrupt end with gender self-ID, which is rejected by most voters because it undermines the liberty of women to have their own safe spaces. The resounding defeat of Leo Varadkars referenda on family life has stalled and possibly stymied Irelands draconian hate speech bill. Both leaders were toppled by resistance to the imposition of progressive values on majorities that do not share them. The most effective defence against tyranny is not an ever multiplying panoply of rights, which activist judges interpret in accordance with the ruling ideology, but a functioning democracy.

The fundamental threat to freedom in the West comes not from Marxism, postmodernism or even the increasing sway of autocratic regimes in boardrooms and universities, but from within liberalism. From being an empirical philosophy, open in principle to learning from experience, it has become a self-referential world-view that screens out forbidden truths. With the closing of the liberal mind, critical thinking has become the recitation of a secular catechism, an exercise designed to banish other modes of thought.

At bottom, the liberal assault on free speech is a bid for unchecked power. By shifting the locus of decision from democratic deliberation to legal procedures, progressives aim to insulate their cultish programmes from contestation and accountability. The politicisation of law and the hollowing out of politics go hand in hand.

The high point of this strategy may have been the ruling earlier this month by the Council of Europes Strasbourg Court that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) mandates a right to protection from the adverse effects of global warming. Unsurprisingly, the social and economic costs of climate justice were excluded from consideration. The ruling can only strengthen the case for the UKs withdrawal from the ECHR and the Council of Europe, already compelling after decades of judicial overreach. It is telling that, less than a fortnight after the court issued its judgment, the Scottish government abandoned its 2030 net zero target.

There is a lesson here for Labour. Behind the conservative public image his advisers have cultivated for campaigning purposes, Keir Starmer and his shadow cabinet seem curiously confident that history is on the side of progressives like themselves. The little we know of what they plan to do in office involves a further devolution of authority to institutions led by technocrats and lawyers. Behind the scenes, Tony Blair is promoting a model of governance in which democracy figures as an inconvenient afterthought.

The persisting influence of hyper-liberal extremism in professedly centrist parties invites a dangerous blowback. The spectres of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025 and Marine Le Pen entering the lyse Palace in 2027 loom. Politics is reasserting its primacy, while Labour marches resolutely into the past.

[See also: Dune: Part Two depicts a world of ceaseless struggle like our own]

This article appears in the 24 Apr 2024 issue of the New Statesman, The Age of Danger

Link:

The biggest threat to freedom in the West is liberalism itself - The New Statesman

National Public Radio's Editor for 25 years Uri Berliner has just spilled the beans revealing how the broadcast is totally liberal biased. NPR is under the Public Broadcasting System. About 17% of NPR's budget is federal government funded by tax payers. Berliner stated that NPR has become a liberal advocacy group that sought to topple President Trump. That race and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. That NPR's stance was that America is infested with systematic racism. Berliner stated the most damaging development at NPR is the absence of viewpoint diversity. Berliner found that in the NPR newsroom there were 87 Democrats to 0 Republicans. And he stated than an open-minded spirit no longer existed within NPR. NPR is really no different than other liberal biased news broadcasts and outlets like the NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. Our local AZ Daily Star is operated by the same liberal biased people as at NPR. All like minded clones of each other.

Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: NPR Editor Berliner reveals liberal bias of network - Arizona Daily Star

In its well-meaning effort to encourage the migration of international students to Canada, the Trudeau government is turning swaths of our postsecondary education system into a grift.

As a result, broad public support for immigration, the foundation stone of multicultural Canada, is eroding.

My colleague Marie Woolf has been investigating and reporting on the flood of international students there are now more than a million who have been coming into Canada in recent years. Many of these students get a sound education, land good jobs and eventually become valued Canadian citizens.

But others show up at so-called puppy mills: pop-up private colleges noticeably lacking in academic rigour or, for that matter, much in the way of classrooms or teachers.

They are here as much for the work permit as for an education, and to leverage that work into permanent-resident status. This is a reasonable hope, since the Liberals have vastly increased the number of permanent residents being admitted to this country, from 260,400 in 2014, to a projected 500,000 next year.

But not everyone lands a spot through the regular stream. And so many of these students make asylum claims.

This is so wrong.

There may be students who, after studying in Canada, fear persecution when they return to their home country. Maybe they are LGBTQ. Maybe they come from a country such as Haiti, where already grim conditions have become even worse.

But many are simply seeking to stay here while their claim works its way through a system that is already so overwhelmed some claimants are living in homeless shelters or on the street and it can take several years before the Immigration and Refugee Board reaches a final decision on an application.

The worst thing about all this? The Liberals immigration policies have accomplished the very opposite of what they intended: They have undermined support for immigration.

Poll after poll after poll reports that an increasing number of Canadians now believe there are too many immigrants coming into Canada. To cite just one example: An Environics Institute study showed that the share of the population who believe there are too many immigrants coming into Canada rose from only 27 per cent in 2022 to 41 per cent in 2023.

(The survey involved telephone interviews of 2,002 Canadians conducted Sept. 4-17, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

The federal government is moving, belatedly, to place caps on international-student migration. But we have entered the whack-a-mole phase of this government, in which each new policy seeks to correct for past failures.

Because Canadas aging society needed young workers, and because, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put it, diversity is our strength, the Liberals began ratcheting up the intake of both permanent residents and temporary foreign workers soon after they came into office. This was, in principle, the right thing to do.

But they went too far, too fast and with too few guardrails. The result was the worst housing crisis in the G7, as millions of newcomers competed with those already here for a place to call home.

To compensate, last weeks budget poured billions of dollars into supports for housing. But with the federal budget already deeply in the red, Chrystia Freeland had to find new revenue, so the Finance Minister hiked the tax on capital gains.

The increased taxes will further suppress productivity growth, and, as a TD Economics analysis of the budget observed, Canadas productivity has been abysmal.

Maybe the next budget will dedicate itself to improving productivity growth by cutting back on immigration. Nothing would surprise any more.

There is a final irony to all of this. Since the days of the Laurier government in the late 1800s, the Liberal Party has been the party that supported immigration and that immigrants supported.

But an online survey in December by Leger of 2,104 adults who arrived in Canada within the past 10 years (margin of error within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20) found that 4 in 10 newcomers believe Canada brings in too many immigrants.

The Conservatives are now as popular as the Liberals with newcomers. There would be a certain irony if the Liberal Partys wide-open immigration policies caused immigrant voters to contribute to its defeat.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion: The Liberals' immigration policies have accomplished the opposite of what was intended - The Globe and Mail