Monthly Archives: June 2024

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. As a Penn State student, Chloe Connor, a 2022 Paterno Fellow and Schreyer Scholar alumna, took advantage of the many resources within the College of the Liberal Arts to build a successful career in public health and health law.

Connor graduated with a bachelor of science degree in psychology and triple minors in global health, biology, and bioethics and medical humanities. Her varied interests and exploration of different paths helped her discover what careers she wanted to pursue.

Theres an illusion that everybody takes a direct path with their academics, but actually, you figure out what you like during the entire process, Connor said. I entered Penn State pursuing a bachelor of arts degree in psychology and originally wanted to be a neuropsychologist, but I found through my science classes that I was even more interested in empirical research work and the intersection of public health, law and bioethics. It looks like I had such a plan, but I really looked at so many different fields and broadened out. Within my interests, I could go into academia or industry thanks to my background and time at the University. The College of the Liberal Arts gave me flexibility.

Connor, a Bucks County native, explained that her minors impacted her career, too. She wanted to pursue multiple fields of study, and she said her liberal arts education allowed her to branch out and explore those fields.

My minors were very influential for the career I was going toward and tied in with the value of a liberal arts education, even when they were not liberal arts minors, Connor said. My major was incredibly helpful because it gave me the flexibility to do other minors and explore other fields. Also, the liberal arts courses really allowed me to explore and specialize in niche topics.

Of her minors, Connor explained that the bioethics and medical humanities minor stood out due to its unique studies and specialty to her future career.

Bioethics was at first an abstract, philosophical topic to me but really became the forefront of my career, Connor said. The niche of health law and bioethics is a discipline that many people come to later in life, but Penn States Bioethics program provided a valuable opportunity to explore my interests and future career options in this field even before I graduated undergrad. This gave me focus when seeking jobs after I graduated and made me more competitive in law school applications.

Connor said her passion for bioethics has led her to pursue a career in public health and health law. After graduating from Penn State, she studied in the United Kingdom as a Fulbright Fellow and earned a masters degree in public health from the University of Southampton in southern England. In 2025, she will attend Harvard Law School.

Read this article:

Liberal Arts alumna finds post-graduation success through bioethics program - Penn State University

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Go here to see the original:

Voters in long-time Liberal B.C. riding react to Tories' byelection win in Toronto - News-Press Now

Labour leader Keir Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey had what looked like a political strategy meeting when they were sitting together in Westminster Abbey for the Coronation of King Charles. This produced what appears to be a tacit agreement between the two parties to campaign against the Conservatives but not against each other.

A tacit agreement makes a great deal of sense in 2024. In the 2019 general election, the Liberal Democrats came second to the Conservatives in 80 seats and second to Labour in only nine seats. They werent much of a threat to Labour. If we look at the 11 seats won by the Liberal Democrats last time, the Conservatives were in second place in seven of them, with Labour second in none. Labour was not much of a threat to them either.

Want more election coverage from The Conversations academic experts? Over the coming weeks, well bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and well fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

But how is this arrangement affected by the surge in support for Reform? We can examine this by looking at the electoral battleground using two scenarios.

The first looks at a plausible swing to Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the absence of a Reform surge. The second looks at what might happen given that Nigel Farages party is now neck and neck with the Conservatives in voting intentions according to a recent YouGov poll.

Scenario one is a plausible sequence of events relating to Labour and Liberal Democrat seat gains across the regions of the country in the absence of a Reform surge. It lists the number of marginal seats in which Labour and the Liberal Democrats came second in 2019, and are therefore in the strongest position to defeat the Conservatives in 2024. In this scenario, a marginal seat is defined as the Conservative winner having a lead of 10% or less in the vote over their rivals.

In total, Labour was in second place in 56 of these marginal seat, and the Liberal Democrats in 15. When it comes to comparisons by regions, Labour dominated in the East Midlands, the north-east, the north-west, Scotland, Wales, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside. An electoral pact in these regions would be of little use to either party. But there are prospects for a deal in the east of England, London, the south-east and the south-west.

2019 Conservative Seats with a 10% Lead over Labour/Lib Dems

If we look at the case of London in the chart, then given the increase in support for the two parties in the polls, they have a good chance of winning in all seven of the seats where they are in second place. To clarify, Labour came second in the marginal seats of Chingford and Wood Green, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, and in Kensington in the 2019 election. The Liberal Democrats came second in Carshalton and Wallington, the City of Westminster, and in Wimbledon.

All seven seats are ripe to be taken by the two parties but the chances of this happening are increased by a tacit agreement in which Labour puts up a token candidate in the potential Liberal Democrat wins and the Liberal Democrats do the same in the potential Labour wins. This tacit agreement should be kept secret of course otherwise it would be weaponised by the Conservatives.

The assumption that marginal seats are defined as Conservative seats with a lead of up to 10% ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 2019 has been overturned by the rise in support for the Reform party. Seats with what were once considered healthy majorities are at risk.

In the last election, Nigel Farage withdrew Reform candidates (then standing under the banner of the Brexit Party) from Conservative seats with strong Brexit supporting MPs and fielded only 275 candidates altogether. This means that the party was not a real threat to the Tories in 2019.

This year, however, Reform is standing candidates in the vast majority of constituencies, making the Tories much more vulnerable. The YouGov poll which put Reform in the lead shows that 32% of 2019 Conservative voters have now switched to Reform. Only 6% of Labour voters have switched to Reform and only 3% of Liberal Democrats so the Reform surge has shifted the battleground significantly in favour of both parties.

In the second scenario, we assume that Labour and the Liberal Democrats threaten the Tories in seats won by the party with up to a 20% lead over their rivals.

In seats falling into this category, Labour was in second place in 117 seats and the Liberal Democrats in 29. Labour was still dominant in the East Midlands, the north-west, Scotland, Wales, the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside. However, the Liberal Democrats could do much better in the east, London, the south-east and the south-west.

If the two parties won all these seats, then Labour would have 321 seats and the Liberal Democrats 44 seats altogether as a result of adding them to the present total of their MPs in the Commons. That said, this figure ignores the effects of the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, both of which could contribute to Conservative losses. In practice, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats could do even better than this.

2019 Conservative Seats with a 20% Lead over over Labour/Lib Dems

These are just two scenarios, and so things could be different in reality. However, they highlight a unique feature of the current election. The centre-left has been divided since Labour replaced the Liberals as the main party of opposition in Britain after the first world war. This is the main reason why the Conservatives have been so successful in winning elections over the past century. The situation has now changed, with the centre-right divided. It is likely to have a devastating effect on the Conservatives on July 4.

Read the original post:

What would a Reform surge do to Labour and the Liberal Democrats? Two scenarios mapped - The Conversation

A state engaged in institutionalized assault on social freedom will produce only a cheap, counterfeit, and cosmetic form of democracy that becomes psychologically and politically unsustainable for the population. This is why the struggle for freedom against oppression, like Jim Crow segregation, almost always doubles as a struggle for voting rights, responsive democracy, and popular control over government.

Theres an old saying, commonly attributed to John Dewey, that the only cure to the ills of democracy is more democracy, and what we are suffering from today is not democracy but all the structural impediments to it, like gerrymandering, voter suppression, right-wing judicial activism, the filibuster, and the antiquated, anti-democratic, and manipulable Electoral College system. The system of anti-democracy, the GOPs bulging bag of tricks, thwarts our democracy and our freedom at the same time.

The struggle for democracy has always been a freedom struggle. When Bob Moses and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee went farm-to-farm and door-to-door in Jim Crow Mississippi in the early 1960s, registering voters in the face of every form of brutal violence and intimidation, they coined the expression one man, one vote, which became not only the aspirational statement of moral and political equality at the heart of the civil rights movements beloved community, but the radical equation that transformed the Supreme Courts equal protection jurisprudence in the Warren courtand which, of course, has grown to become one person, one vote, as Moses said it would. This belief in the freedom and equality of every man and, eventually, every woman remains the commanding impulse of progressive liberalism in America: the determination that every person, every voice, must count and count equally, which is why the next great wave of liberal democracy will insist on ranked-choice voting and other forms of proportional representation to replace winner-take-all elections and empower the whole electorate.

Originally posted here:

Don't Be Fooled By Liberalism's Modesty - The New Republic

Its a true testament to the power of voter anger that the day of reckoning finally came for the Liberals in my riding of TorontoSt. Pauls.

After 30 long years of Liberal dominance in this midtown ridingeven when the Liberals did poorly nationallyConservative Don Stewart squeaked through with a 600-vote win.

Longtime St. Pauls MP Carolyn Bennett held the riding federally for 26 years during which she showed that she cared little about the lowly constituents she was supposed to overseeappearing at safe photo ops in between jetting off to conferences and meetings and sending out glossy newsletters as if to prove she was working for us.

I have been fond of saying that one could run one of my dachsies in St. Pauls and they would win as long as they were Liberal.

But Mondays results sent a clear message that voters are fed up with the Justin Trudeau government (propped up by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh).

It wasnt just the Conservative win but the number of people who came out to vote43% of eligible voters, tremendous for a byelection.

Anger certainly got people off of their couches to vote.

Not even the steady procession of Liberal cabinet ministers, jetted into the riding as if they were superstars, could save Leslie Church, the Liberal candidate parachuted into the riding.

I especially loved the constant appearance of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, Churchs former boss, tone deafly painting Conservatives as she did on election day as cruel, cold and small.

But we had a strong message for the tired Liberal government.

We told them were absolutely fed up with their arrogance, elitism and disconnect from the needs of the grassroots voter.

The days of lazy voters who vote by rote based on empty promises and name recognition are over.

Although byelections are the perfect time to tell government what one thinks, the St. Pauls voters were clearly not ready for any sort of change in 2009 when I ran for the provincial Conservatives shortly after I married my wifeas the partys first openly gay candidate.

It was clear at the doors back then that under former Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty (followed by Kathleen Wynne) they had not yet seen what was to come in the way of fiscal madness, woke school board policies and scandals aplenty.

But it happened. And for years after, St. Pauls voters continued to exhibit the best definition of insanitynamely doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Not this time.

We told them we are sick of what theyre doing to the country, and in this case, Canadas largest city, with their unchecked immigration, lax security policies and their hug-a-thug approach to rising crime.

We told them we are done with their simple-minded approach to propping up drug addicts by coddling their habit and leaving them to lie in a drug-infused stupor in our public parks and on our city sidewalks.

We see that being woke is the best recipe for going broke.

We told them their unchecked spending and demonization of those who work hard for their money and invest wiselymost recently with their capital gains tax hikeswill only drive more investors from Canada.

In fact, a few days ago I met an Israeli-born investor who told me he visited Toronto two weeks ago and could not believe its decline. He advised the company for which he works not to invest in the city because of it.

And for the ridings largely Jewish population, the past nine months have been a huge wake-up call.

Weve watched Trudeau and most of his Cabinet ministers turn a blind eye to the violence and ever-increasing Jew hatred on the streets of our major cities.

Weve seen Trudeau take his sweet time calling out major antisemitic incidents, if at all.

Weve seen some members of the Liberal caucussuch as Salma Zahid and Iqra Khalidopenly declare their Israel hatred on social media. Few members of Trudeaus caucus have declared their support for Canadas Jewish communities.

Even Jewish MP Yaara Saks, from a largely Jewish Toronto riding, has hewed to the Liberal party line, leading us to realize the party has no moral compass whatsoever.

For those of us whove been in the media for years, were fed up (and in my case downright disgusted) with the Liberal MSM which has consistently propped up the Trudeau government as quid pro quo for its bailouts.

Even Monday, when it was clear the election was neck and neck, they only showed clips of Church and Trudeau as if no other candidates existed.

They all deserve to be called out too.

It has indeed been a rude awakening for those, who unlike me, saw the writing on the wall more than a decade ago.

But at least the tide is turning.

This major upset shows, at least I pray it is so, that there is hope for Canada yet.

A two-time investigative reporting award winner and nine-time winner of the Toronto Suns Readers Choice award for news writer, Sue-Ann Levy made her name for advocating the poor, the homeless, the elderly in long-term care and others without a voice and for fighting against the striking rise in anti-Semitism and the BDS movement across Canada.

View all posts

Read more here:

LEVY: St. Paul's voters were fed up with Liberal arrogance and elitism - True North

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the former government scientist, has been on something of a media spree in recent weeks, and liberal and conservative media outlets have used very different tones to cover his appearances.

Dr. Fauci, who was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the public face of the countrys fight against Covid, is promoting a new memoir, On Call, that includes an account of his time in government under former President Donald J. Trump. This month he also testified before Congress in a contentious hearing about the origins of the coronavirus.

Progressive publications have praised Dr. Fauci, quoting extensively from his book and taking the opportunity to criticize Mr. Trump for his policies on Covid.

Conservative outlets have largely ignored Dr. Faucis book and focused more on his testimony in Congress. They painted Dr. Fauci as a villain and falsely accused him of helping start the pandemic. The coverage also highlighted an intense divide over the supposed origins of the coronavirus; a 2023 poll by Quinnipiac University showed that more Republicans than Democrats believe it originated from a lab leak.

Heres how some of those outlets have covered Dr. Fauci in recent days:

Throughout the pandemic, Democrats viewed Dr. Fauci as a hero and the vanguard of the scientific communitys dissent against Mr. Trump, who supported opening businesses and schools before vaccines were available and railed against wearing masks.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Original post:

How Faucis Book Has Been Covered by Liberal and Conservative Media - The New York Times

Israeli airstrikes on Gaza continue. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)

By Benay Blend

Most tribal people have origin stories that explain how they arrived at a specific place. Countries, too, tell such tales but theirs are very different. For both Israeli and American historians, the past is tailored to fit into a positive trajectory filtering out parts that that cast dispersion on state actors.

For example, mainstream history of the United States begins with the American Revolution, an event, the story goes, that initiated the countrys experiment with democracy. There is no mention of enslaved people who built the South; no allusion to Native people who were murdered and displaced in order to make room for Western expansion; no mention of immigrants who found that the streets were not made of gold, that is, if they survived the horrendous voyage from Europe.

Israel, too, has its origin myths. Their story begins with immigrants who arrived fresh from the Holocaust in Europe, and who quickly turned a vacant land into a thriving garden. Like the Americans, who slaughtered Natives who stood in the way of progress, Israel has its own version of Manifest Destiny, simply change the Indigenous population to Palestinians who in the Zionist version of history did not exist.

This trope runs throughout the writing of liberal Zionists. As Ilan Papp observes, not much has changed in Israel since October 7. In The Righteous Fury of the Israeli Left, he explains that liberal Zionists, mainly through the newspaper Haaretz but also with the support of liberal Zionists around the world loyally stand behind Israels actions.

At this point in history, Papp concludes, there is no middle ground between support for the liberation movement and those who are against it. There is no way of supporting the liberal occupier, the progressive ethnic cleanser and the leftist genocider.

Nevertheless, those astute enough to know that the wind is no longer blowing in their direction have triedand failed miserablyto straddle all sides of the October 7 question. For example, Thomas L. Friedman in his recent piece in the New York Times appears at first glance to have moved on from his staunch Zionist position to offer a critique of Israels current policy.

The Israel we knew is gone, Friedman writes, and todays Israel is in existential danger. In this sentence alone he expresses so much of what is wrong with the Zionist position. Assuming that Israel was founded as a liberal democracy, Friedman dismisses the Israel that some of us know as the perpetrator of the Nakba.

Moreover, he implies that the problem lies solely with Netanyahu and his far-right henchmen who alone have brought Israel to this point. If only he could be replaced with a pragmatic centrist government that can lead [Israel] out of this multifaceted crisis then all would be well again for the entity.

Trying to convince his readers that Netanyahu and his government are the problem distracts from the real issue of settler colonialism and genocide.

Friedmans solution is to end the war in Gaza, so as to restore Israels global moral standing, despite its ongoing genocide against the Palestinians which has resulted at this point in 37,598 dead, 86,032 wounded, and 11,000 missing under the rubble created by US-funded bombs.

Nowhere in this piece does Friedman express concern for the suffering of Palestinians, for which he predictably blames Hamas. Up to now, the real history of Jews and Palestinians, he concludes, going back to the early 20th century, has been: war, timeout, war, timeout, war, timeout, war, timeout. And the real difference is what each side did in the timeouts.

In this way, not only does Friedman rewrite Israeli history, leaving out the Nakba from his version of its origin story; he also does not acknowledge the daily Nakbas that Palestinians have endured during the so-called timeouts that he suggests were part of a cycle of violence that in reality consisted of 76 years of siege.

Several years ago there was a sign that appeared at demonstrations here in Albuquerque, New Mexico where I live: Stop the 30 billion. Restore humanity to Israelas if it was that simple, as if Israeli feelings were more important that the suffering of Palestinians. That sign encapsulates everything that is askew in the thinking of liberal Zionists, including, in addition to the obvious, the implication that Israel ever was a moral citadel that could be restored by anything less that the dismantling of the Zionist regime.

Israel has always promoted comforting counterimages, observes Steve France, fairy tales, in effect about its moral impeccability. The effect is to impugn critics motives and displace factual specifics with loud and emotional affirmation of values such as tolerance, [and] diversity all to get away with unspeakable and unspoken of crimes.

France concludes that Israel today has finally destroyed any hope that it will evolve toward honest history, or true democracy, diversity, or tolerance. If Israels version of its past is defunct, exposed as the fraud it has always been, what is to take its place?

In Dismantling the Violent Discourse if the State of Israel: On Zionism, Palestinian Liberation, and the Power of Language, Ramzy Baroud and Romana Rubeo explain that utilizing positive language to frame horrific historical events is a core element in the historical discourses of colonialism and neocolonialism.

Their article concludes with the need for Palestinians to challenge the Zionist discourse and eventually claim their own narrative as part of their ongoing struggle for liberation and, ultimately, decolonization.

In this version, Israeli trauma from World War II can be cited as an explanation for their behavior in 1948 and afterward, but not as an excuse, as it is so often used. Though generational trauma exists, in this case it is used to reverse Israels role to that of victim rather than a settler colonial state, following in the footsteps of their benefactor, the United States.

In an interview with Pluto Press, Baroud reiterates that no one is more qualified to speak for Palestinians, but Palestinians themselves, especially the refugees amongst them those who have paid the heaviest price for Israeli atrocities, and whose collective identity is shaped by seven decades of a relentless fight for freedom.

Baroud understands quite well, having grown up in Nuseirat camp. Although his homeplace has been the site of relentless massacres, he also wants to stress that his was a life that was fully lived, memories that cannot be forgotten, and a future of freedom and dignity that is waiting to take shape.

Will the liberal and credible media accompany this transformation and change gear to embrace our narrative? asks Jejan Helu, once a pioneer in the Palestinian National struggle and womens liberation movement. Will the Palestinian narrative find Safe Haven at last?

Through a new generation of Palestinian resisters, hers is a question that at long last is finding an answer.

Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words: Situated Knowledge in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Read the original post:

Gaza Genocide: Origin Stories, Liberal Zionists, and the Need for a Palestine-Centered Narrative - Palestine Chronicle

Loss of Toronto-St. Pauls should trigger reflection by Trudeau, MP Patrick Weiler says

A British Columbian Liberal MP is reacting to the loss of a party seat on the other side of Canada by saying it was a message that is "hard to ignore"for the prime minister.

I think that this is the kind of result that warrants serious reflection on by the prime minister, it's that plain and simple, said West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country MP, Patrick Weiler, of the byelection result which saw the inner-city Toronto-St. Pauls riding fall from Liberal hands for the first time since 1993.

I dont think theres a way of sugarcoating that result, said Weiler.

Toronto is an area that has long been a Liberal stronghold for good reason, and I dont think theres any way of taking that result and not taking that as a clear message.

In Vancouver on Tuesday morning, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted to the news the previously safe seat of Toronto-St. Pauls had fallen to the Conservative Party, whose candidate Don Stewart secured a 590-vote lead over Liberal Leslie Church in the preliminary count overnight, by saying it was not the result we wanted,but made no mention of his job security in comments at an event with no reporter questions.

Herepeated previous Liberal Party talking points, saying he heard peoples concerns and frustrations.

These are not easy times, and it's clear that I, and my entire Liberal team have much more work to do to deliver tangible, real progress that Canadians across the country can see and feel. Well never stop working and fighting to make sure that people have what they need to get through these tough times, he said.

Asked about Trudeaus next moves, given Toronto-St. Pauls has traditionally been at the heart of Liberal territory for the party, Weiler said there is an appetite for change among votersbut the exact type is tricky to define.

I would say it's hard to ignore that people are looking for change, he said, but didnt go much further, instead talking about what he characterized as change offered by the Conservative Party.

Its not as if Im having people walking to me to tell me theyre looking for the change that the Conservatives are offering, like sidelining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass unconstitutional criminal laws, or to reopen the abortion debate, or to attack minority rights. Im certainly not hearing from people that they want to abandon all action on fighting climate change or to cancel the carbon tax that doesnt even apply in B.C., and Im certainly not hearing from people that they want to raise taxes on home-buildingall things that the Conservative Party has put forward.

But, I am hearing from people that theyre looking for change, and if were not offering it, theyre going to look for it elsewhere.

On the potential of a new leader for the party, Weiler reiteratedthe result should trigger "reflection"on the part ofTrudeau.

I think this is the kind of result that warrants serious reflection by the prime minister, because [Toronto-St. Pauls] is a riding that we have no business losing, particularly given the effort thats been put into it, and particularly with a very compelling candidate," he said.

Pressed on what the unexpected result means for him,as the MP of a bellwether riding that has been held by the government of the day since 2008, Weiler said he will double down on trying to connect with constituents, and is advocating for issues they holdimportant.

[Toronto-St. Pauls] is a riding that should be a Liberal riding, and that's something we need to take account of right across the country," he said.

With an election due to be held in October next year at the latest, and the Liberal governmentdown in the polls since early 2022, and significantly behind the Conservatives since mid-2023, Weiler said the government hasa lot to do to get the work done, and the messaging across.

This isnt just a communications exercise, Im making sure were delivering and people are feeling that at the local level," he said. "So thats what Im taking from it, and I hope thats what folks across the country are taking from it as well.

View post:

Sea to Sky MP reacts to Liberal loss of Toronto heartland seat - Pique Newsmagazine

PublishedJune 26, 2024 11:50 AM EDT|UpdatedJune 26, 2024 11:50 AM EDT

Bill Maher isn't afraid to take a blowtorch to dumb liberal ideas.

Maher, who is very liberal, has become a prominent voice of reason on the left because he's actually willing to call out his own side.

He regularly criticizes liberals for pushing nonsense such as de-funding the police, not supporting Israel and has even taken an approach to guns you rarely see among liberals in 2024.

You might not agree with Maher on much, but you can't deny he's not afraid to call out his own side. That was on full display during an appearance at The Aspen Institute.

Maher said the following, in part, during his rant as he unloaded on liberals:

"Part of it the left has to own. They are aggressively anti-common sense. The Democrats keep running on this idea saying to the American people, 'You can't possibly think you can do worse than Donald Trump,' and they keep saying, 'Yes we can. Yes we can.' And I understand that. I do. I would never vote for Donald Trump and as I said, I think the Republicans are worse. You know, it's funny. When I talk to, you know, my friends around my age - 40 - they are always b*tiching to me about their kids who are in, like, their 20s and they're, like, super woke and they're driving their parents crazy and everything is like, 'You don't get it, mom! That's old thinking.' And I'm like, 'Don't get what? Abolish the police? Tear down statues of Lincoln? Maybe give communism another shot? Get rid of the Border Patrol? Get rid of capitalism? White supremacy has never been worse? Gender is always just a social construct? It's okay to have penises in the women's swimming pool? In women's prisons?' No, it's not that I'm old. It's that your ideas are stupid."

You can watch his full comments in the video linked here starting around 12:30, and make sure to let me know your thoughts at David.Hookstead@outkick.com.

Bill Maher tears apart stupid liberal ideas. (Photo by Noam Galai/Getty Images)

It's hard to argue with what Maher said as he rattled off stupid ideas. Is there any common sense person who thinks a wide open border, rampant crime, no cops to keep the public safe, trying to institute communism and other garbage like that is a good idea?

Of course not. Yet, we have politicians who brag about wanting to ban guns and also spread constant misinformation about the war between Hamas and Israel.

We have a sitting Supreme Court Justice - Ketanji Brown Jackson -who can't define what a woman is. We're truly living in a crazy time, and it deserves to be called out.

Props to Maher for, once again, speaking his mind against his own side. More people should do the same. Let me know what you think at David.Hookstead@outkick.com.

Go here to see the original:

Bill Maher Nukes Stupid Liberal Ideas During Incredible Rant: VIDEO - Outkick

Open this photo in gallery:

Liberal Party candidate Leslie Church, third from left, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speak to supporters at a campaign volunteer event in Toronto, on May 30.Arlyn McAdorey/The Canadian Press

The shocking result in the Toronto-St. Pauls by-election leaves the Liberals with only one question: should they lose the next election with Justin Trudeau as leader, or should they lose it led by someone else?

After an excruciatingly slow vote count over Monday night and into Tuesday morning, Conservative candidate Don Stewart snatched from the Liberals what used to be one of their safest seats, a riding in the heart of the Grit bastion of downtown Toronto, a riding that had withstood the tsunami of 2011, when veteran Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett held on even as the Liberals nationally suffered the worst result in the history of the party, being reduced to third place in the House of Commons.

To lose St. Pauls means the Liberals are at risk of an even worse fate in the next election. The message is stark: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau simply must stand down and let someone else lead the party, which now confronts electoral oblivion.

Except....

A new poll this week from the Angus Reid Institute asked respondents whether they would be more or less inclined to vote for a number of potential replacements for Mr. Trudeau, including Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Mlanie Joly. In a head-to-head comparison, respondents on balance said every candidate mentioned would make them even less likely to support the Liberals.

(The online survey of more than 3,000 adults was conducted in mid-June, with a comparative margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

There is no comfort for the Grits anywhere. They are deeply unpopular from sea to sea to sea, including in the urban cores that were once their final refuge. Taxes are too high, growth too low, interest rates too steep, mortgages and rent too burdensome.

It doesnt matter who leads them. The Canadian electorate wants them gone.

The Liberals clearly knew they were in trouble in a riding they had held for more than 30 years, a riding they simply could not afford to lose. So they pulled out all the stops. Mr. Trudeau and much of his cabinet and caucus campaigned in Toronto-St. Pauls during the by-election campaign. There were plenty of your-government-working-for you announcements.

The Tories claimed that the Liberal governments decision last week to designate Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization was an attempt to placate the relatively large Jewish vote in the riding. The Tories may have been right.

And the Grits employed rhetorical overkill equal to anything Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has employed. Ms. Freeland on Monday warned voters in St. Pauls that the Conservative alternative to her party is really cold and cruel and small. The alternative is cuts and austerity, not believing in ourselves as a country, not believing in our community and in our neighbours.

Ms. Freelands riding of University-Rosedale is right next door to Toronto-St Pauls. If St. Pauls is lost, then her riding is at risk. Downtown Montreal and Vancouver are at risk. Nothing is safe, anywhere.

But those who might replace Mr. Trudeau in hopes of preventing such a tidal wave must convince Liberal supporters that they could achieve a better result. Not a victory, mind you, just not a shellacking. Its a tall order.

The Tories also fought hard to win the by-election. Mr. Poilievre was door-knocking in the riding even before the writ had been issued. He knew what a victory here would mean. He must be elated to have pulled this off.

By-election votes are often protest votes. In the general election, whenever it comes, Toronto-St. Pauls may well revert back to the Liberals. The real fights, the fights that will decide the election, will be in dozens of seats in suburban Toronto and in the surrounding 905, named after the regions area code. That fight will be mirrored in Greater Vancouver and in other urban cores.

But this result suggests the Tories are well placed to win those fights. Toronto-St. Pauls has sent a stern message. The Liberal Party is at risk of being obliterated in the next election. And it doesnt matter who leads them.

Follow this link:

Opinion: Regardless of leader, the Liberals are at risk of a worse fate after Toronto-St. Paul's by-election - The Globe and Mail