Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Lately it has become more alarmingly frightening as to what is happening in our country. At 71, I wouldnt have dreamed of seeing what Im seeing, even ten or fifteen years ago, let alone forty or fifty years ago. It is saddening and angering to think what my children and grandchildren will be faced with as a result of the conduct and decisions that have been made in recent years. It is frightening to think that the values and character of some of our fellow Americans could decline so far from those Christian and American values that have made America a bastion of freedom and the greatest nation on earth.

How did we get to this point? How can parents explain to their children that its OK for boys to use the girls bathroom, or for girls to be in the Boy Scouts? How do we justify the fairness in over-powering males competing against females from the insane notion that the male identifies as a female? How do we justify as parents and Christians that its OK for our schools to be teaching our adolescent children sex practices or gender preferences?

I remember the racial strife and ugliness of the hatred of racism in the 50s and 60s. I remember the words of Dr. King and the wisdom of his words on the content of character over the color of skin. How have we gotten to the point now where color trumps character, values and abilities? How, after two and a half centuries as a nation, have we become the antithesis of his words? How can organizations and individuals speak the vile hatred of telling children that because they were born white, they are inherently racist? How do parents explain to their children the justification of even espousing such hateful and racist philosophy?

Growing up I remember being told by my parents, my school teachers, my Sunday School teachers, my coaches, my scout leaders that if youre honest and have a good heart and you work hard, you have a good chance of living a good life. You reap what you sew was a biblical reminder for life. Now, we are pounded daily by the media and press and some politicians with the lie that everyone should have the same outcome, the same result, regardless of how much effort one puts into a goal. How does a parent tell their child, that even though their child worked hard and gave 100 % effort on a project, but others did not, that everyone will receive the same reward regardless?

When viewing the carnage and lawlessness of the rioters in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and other cities in America, how do we explain to our youth that those criminals will go unpunished because the politicians justified and allowed such violence, but our youth are expected to obey the law? How do we go about teaching our children that they are expected to follow the rules and obey the law, while watching criminals go free and even get rewarded for their actions and crimes? How do we help our children to understand that we are a sovereign nation under a rule of law, and a constitution that is the envy of all free nation on planet earth? How can we do that when we have politicians who are allowing millions of foreign citizens to illegally cross our borders and reap as many if not more benefits than that of American citizens? How do we explain to our children why its OK to despise police officers but admire gangsters, law breakers and criminals?

Many folks my age remember learning about the concepts of spending and saving. Even as children we were taught that you can spend some, but you have to save some too. Spending more than you make leads to disaster. How have our politicians gotten to where we are now, with a $30 trillion dollar deficit. How have we allowed our politicians to turn us from the most economically responsible nation on earth into the most bankrupt debtor nation? What will our grandchildren ask years from now when they will live the life of American paupers because of our current fiscal irresponsibility?

It is becoming more and more difficult for American citizens and parents to find the truth in what is being shown on television news, newspapers and other sources of information. TV news stations have their agenda that is now linked to their political preference rather than in reporting the news, the facts, the truth. Newspapers pay for Associated Press articles that are strewn with misinformation, deceit, and threads of socialist-driven ideologies. The internet is filled with slants on the truth and the dissemination of philosophical and political propaganda. So where are parents and citizens to go that they might help their children to understand the realities and truths of what is happening to us as a people, as a nation?

What has happened to our faith as Christians in America? Why have we allowed that God be taken out of schools, out of court houses out of sporting events? How can we explain to our children that its OK to pray at the dinner table or at bedtime, but pretty much nowhere else? How can we expect for God to watch over us when we have allowed Him to be taken out of most everything in daily public life?

I think maybe that our American forefathers are looking down on their descendants with sadness and disdain for what has become of our country. Even members of the more recent greatest generation would be appalled at what we have allowed ourselves to become. Im sure they would be disheartened to know what condition America is now in! I hope, I pray for the sake of generations to come, that reversing this downward spiral is not too late!

Read more from the original source:

What has happened to us in America | Journal-news | journal-news.net - Martinsburg Journal

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

The further we go out into the future . . . the more we see the influence of the choices that we make today. K. Hayhoe, climate scientist

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The extreme heat were suffering through is not just a single, exceptional weather event. This is our new reality. Across the West, temperature records have been smashed, lives have been lost, utilities stretched to the limit, and the livelihoods of people, farmers in particular, who are dependent on the weather, are at risk.

In February 2020, provincial government released the report, Albertas Climate Future, which was prepared by climate scientists, that shows our province is warming faster than other parts of the world. It stated; Projected changes will profoundly impact Albertas natural environment, and have the potential to affect agriculture, infrastructure, and natural resources, as well as the health and welfare of Albertans.

Is the dire situation, predicted in this report, and which were now experiencing, finally enough to change the minds of those Strathcona County councillors who have willingly supported the destruction of prime farmland and natural areas? Areas that will become more precious as severe heat becomes the norm.

Council cannot continue to operate in a vacuum, deaf to the greater climate crisis. Attitudes like those voiced by Ward 4 Coun. Bill Tonita who claims theres lots of land out here so destroying prime farmland is of little consequence is just not acceptable. Even more outrageous was his bizarre suggestion that a huge development like Bremner will somehow minimize our impact on the environment. New developments, including Cambrian, will tax limited resources even further.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Its long past time for Strathcona County council to start thinking on a much larger scale, to recognize that we are all part of something bigger. Councillors are elected to act as stewards, responsible for protecting the interests of Strathcona County residents. That duty of stewardship extends to protecting the countys valuable natural resources and proving that we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Since these questions cannot be asked in council chambers, Ill ask councillors here:

How do you justify supporting the destruction of farmland and natural areas and putting water sources at risk? Do you believe that Strathcona County can operate in isolation and ignore its global responsibility to protect the rare resources we are so fortunate to have in this county? Are you willing to gamble with the futures of our children and grandchildren? Are you willing to be remembered as someone who ignored science and squandered what is irreplaceable when you might have made the right choice instead? And are you willing to gamble that voters will agree with you?

Lois Gordon, Bremner

I appreciate Braids overview of Albertas financial situation and how it poses some headwinds for Jason Kenny as he prepares for the next election while grappling with various political problems.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I would suggest, however, that the greatest impediment for Kenny to win the next election, is himself.

There are multiple reasons why Kenny has the lowest approval rating of all the premiers in Canada, most of which lead back to his actions.

A time of crisis usually lays bare a leaders motivation and competency. Kennys lack of transparency on the issue of the environment and coal mining; questionable tactics involving agreements with our doctors who were risking their lives during the height of the pandemic; and of course, the double standards regarding social gatherings and travel exhibited by those who drafted the restrictions, all are part of a pattern that strikes me as self-serving and high handed.

As a citizen of Alberta, the provinces fiscal situation is not my greatest concern, it is whether I trust the Premier to act in the best interest of all of us, and not just those in office.

Douglas Campbell, Sherwood Park

To local MP Garnett Genuis,

In your latest mail-out, your three defining issues to confront include, and I quote, in part: There have been more attacks on Canadas freedom of speech in the last three years.

As a recent resident of your constituency (previously from BC), the only other party I have ever heard utter this same complaint is the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), led by Rod Taylor, who resided in the same town as us, Smithers BC. Coincidently, their main platforms are very similar to yours. That is, the family as defined in traditional terms (male and female) which excludes same-sex marriages, extreme financial restraint, a shyness for social programs, and an abhorrence of homosexuality, to name a few.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But back to the matter of free speech. Im a senior who has enjoyed a life-long environment of democracy in this country. I know of no other country that has a level of permissiveness when it comes to expressing ones ideas. Yes, there have been times when some people have crossed this line, most notable in my mind being the Holocaust denier James Keegstra, coincidently also from Alberta.

What puzzles me, then, if freedom of speech in Canada is one of your three main concerns as our MP, specifically to what topic or subject do you feel that people are being muzzled? Because, I cant think of anything that as a member of parliament or anyone else, for that matter, that you couldnt say in public or in parliament.

And MP Genuis, as I said previously, please be very specific in your examples because other than outright slander, lies or demeaning a particular group of people or nationality of people, I cant think of anything where I feel more freedom of speech is required in this country.

Brian Burrill, Sherwood Park

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the rest here:

Letters to the Editor - Friday, July 9 - Sherwood Park News

While talking with Wyoming historian Phil Roberts about my forthcoming book on politics in the West, I was startled when he said, Ive been studying the Wyoming Constitution for years. Yet Im starting to revise my opinion of it. Its actually more progressive than we think.

I told Phil to stop putting Jim Beam in his coffee.

Intrigued, I explored his premise. Not only did I agree with Roberts but discovered that like Wyoming, four other states had written or rewritten their constitutions in 1889: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Idaho. These 89ers, as I call them, infused progressive ideas into their founding documents.

Their vision was both Republican in party and republican in philosophy, no mean feat in that era of clashing ideals and aspirations. The delegates were generally conservative; they respected tradition and free enterprise while recognizing that the Gilded Age had given too much to too few. As a result, egalitarianism and pragmatism were the bywords.

These constitutions were modestly populist, suspicious of corporations, wildly pro-agriculture, enthusiastic about commonweal republican virtues and mostly pro-suffrage. While narrowly inclusive by modern standards excluding American Indians, Asian Americans and Mormons these constitutions were considered a model of amplitude by 19th-century benchmarks. They curtailed child labor and instead promoted affordable public education. They looked out for the working stiff and clamped down on railroads and irrigation companies to prevent monopolies. The secret ballot found favor shortly after statehood. Over the years, the 89ers accepted the odd duck and unconventional: Hutterites, Mennonites, syncretic New Age communes, white supremacists, doomsday cults and Jewish colonies. The five constitutions enshrined an explicitly central-planning concept significant in arid states: state ownership of running water.

Heres the paradox of the matter: The republicanism of the 89er constitutions bears little resemblance to present-day Republicanism, yet the two are often conflated. The 89ers all began as part of the 1861 Dakota Territory, and this new addition to the nation exuded small r republican ideals, necessarily differentiated from the big R Republican party.

As historian Jon Lauck wrote in Prairie Republic: The Political Culture of Dakota Territory, 1879-1889 (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2010), The republicanism I find to be a powerful current in Dakota Territory relates the political ideology with roots in ancient Greece and Rome and early modern Italy and England. If you were unfamiliar with what republicanism meant in 1861, Lauck continued, think of the general political principles of Thomas Jefferson, not the specific platform of Ronald Reagan.

In short, the historical values of inclusivity in these states constitutions do not square with the values of the current political narrative.

Another fallacy in the political story line is that the Great Plains and Northern Rockies have always been largely Republican (Montana excepted), pro business and conservative.

When I asked retired U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican, about this perceived GOP dominance, he balked. Well, we can forget that notion. The longest-serving U.S. Senator in Wyoming history was a Democrat, Joseph OMahoney. He was in office for over 20 years, Simpson said. Look at Ed Herschler [another Democrat and the] only three-term governor we had. And he was just what we needed. We do not have a history of being a Republican-only state.

Historian Marshall Damgaard possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of the Great Plains political past, particularly his native South Dakota. He summed up the states narrative this way: Many people, even South Dakota residents, perceive that this state has, politically, always been a dependable (read: boring) conservative bastion. The historical record screams otherwise.

A 2019 Gallup poll identified all of the 89er states as highly conservative, with Wyoming and South Dakota among the most conservative states in the nation. In 2020, all the 89ers voted for Donald Trump, with Wyoming leading the nation at 70.4% to the incumbent.

Irate citizens wave copies of their states constitutions at public meetings, declaring them ignored repositories of unerring and selectively conservative wisdom. Such displays are common in movement conservatism. The trend has been around since the Great Depression, gained momentum with Barry Goldwater around 1964 and took off under the neoliberal economic policies of the Reagan era. It advocated for minimal government, corporations and individualism and against welfare, regulation and unions. Later, anti-abortion, gun rights and a chauvinistic American exceptionalism became part of the platform. This version of conservatism, however, does not reflect these states founding documents. Nor did it find solid footing in the Great Plains and Northern Rockies until the late 20th century.

To understand this turn, we need to move beyond political labels. In 1889, liberal was a term of esteem, regardless of political affiliation. In the tradition of Edmund Burke, liberal was synonymous for generous and, up to a point, inclusive. Defending the idea of womens suffrage, at the Wyoming constitutional convention, John Hoyt asked for the support of a body of men so intelligent, so high minded, so liberal as those who compose this convention.

Conservative carried some of the same connotations as todays meaning. It meant cautious or prudent and encouraged following historical or judicial precedent. Henry B. Blackwell, co-founder of the national Republican Party and an advocate for womens suffrage, spoke to the Montana constitutional convention. He pitched a very simple and conservative proposition. Give women the vote. Why? Because it embraced the principles of equality found in the U.S. Constitution. Conservative did not mean, however, anti-government, either federal or state. It did not mean exclusivity. Unlike liberal, conservative could infer negativity. Democrat James W. Reid told his fellow delegates at the Idaho convention that the press saw him as overly conservative and thus a mossback, or in other words, a stuck-up-to-the hubs feudalist.

Republicans took progressive stances on a range of issues debated at the 1889 conventions, and they did not turn away from the progressive label an umbrella term for anyone hoping to make economic or social progress. Loyalty mattered. Party schisms notwithstanding, the GOP of the Great Plains and Northern Rockies had not drifted far from the party of Lincoln. Members were unionists, first and foremost; many of the 89er conventioneers had either served in the Union Army or had relatives who had. The GOP craved state autonomy and wanted to run its own affairs, but, given the memory of the Civil War, delegates were suspicious of extreme state sovereignty. This rejection of radical states rights theory made them relatively progressive by modern standards. The Republicans of the 89er era gave credence to security, especially relating to safety and stability. They were attached to the business community and wanted minimal taxation, but accepted taxes as necessary for proper governance. They subscribed to the gold standard and advocated for protective tariffs to safeguard domestic industry and investment. But they werent so besotted with the bottom line as to ignore the darker sides of the Gilded Ages laissez faire economic policies. Two years before, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, subjecting rail roads to federal regulation. In 1890, Congress further restricted monopolies with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The GOP of most Western territories had progressive opinions about labor, womens rights and religion. They censured indentured servitude and child labor while protecting workers. In Montana, delegates expanded liability law in favor of injured workers. Womens suffrage sparked some of the most passionate debate. The delegates attitudes were inconsistent when it came to other forms of inclusivity, especially concerning equal treatment for American Indians and religious freedom. Their take on religion seems progressive but was traditional. Chalk part of this up to the Enabling Act of 1889, the federal legislation that made these states possible. The Enabling Act mandated that a perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured. Freedom of worship has deep roots in American history. While faiths besides Christianity were acceptable in the abstract, Christian sects proved problematic. South Dakota wrestled with anti-Catholic prejudice. The Idaho convention had a donnybrook over Mormonism.

If a core tenant of modern conservatism has been limited government, then these states face charges of ideological treason. The 1889 conventioneers did not subscribe to the adage that government is best when it governs least. They understood the potentials of state government and expanded its powers, passed laws that encouraged growth and beefed up their bills of rights. In 1889, a period of economic, demographic and social upheaval, change wasnt about to be kept in a cage. Idaho Falls has had a city-owned electric utility since 1900. North Dakota has the only government-owned general service bank in the nation. The legislature in Bismarck established the Bank of North Dakota in 1919 to promote agriculture and commerce.

If one definition of socialism is government control of the means of production, then the Bank of North Dakota is Exhibit A. In 1932, North Dakota passed an anti-corporation farm law that still stands. In 1932, voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House. Out of 242 counties in the 89er states, only four voted against Roosevelt. North Dakota gave him a clean sweep. In 1980, South Dakota bought a failing railroad.

If the Northern Rockies and Plains have always been conservative, explain this: from 1913 to 1989, Montana only elected one Republican to a seat in the U.S. Senate for a single term. At the turn of the 20th century these states, particularly in the Great Plains, voted for Republicans, Democrats, Populists, Socialists and Progressives. After World War II, the 89ers sent some of the most storied Democrats all centrists of the era to Washington: Mike Mansfield, Frank Church, and Gale McGee. In 1986, North Dakota sent Democrat Kent Conrad to Washington for a 26-year stint as U.S. senator. A similar pattern applies to governorships. Between 1945 and 2010, a healthy 26 out of 69 governors have been Democrats.

Economics played an outsized role in taking us where we are today. The 89er delegates laid the foundation for a series of single-driver extractive economies. They gave agriculture and mining every political and statutory advantage. State universities offered few urban-oriented classes in subjects like architecture. By focusing on utilitarian, commodity-oriented education, the delegates etched in stone the demise of the family farmer. Large-scale farming and mining techniques, better plant genetics and abandoning the mule for a John Deere all changes encouraged by land grant universities did not foster what Wendell Berry calls self-determining local economies. It killed them.

Delegates gave cities a bad deal. Cities were associated with industrial corruption and moral decline, charges which were sometimes accurate. Conventioneers restricted urban power, especially the ability to tax. Yet they overdid it. Even in 1889 cities were revenue and job creation machines. The delegates reliance on rural nostalgia for public policy led to problems. If your creation story and source of revenue continues to be rooted in extractives and agriculture, youre in for a struggle. Commodities live and die according to the forces of innovation. The folks on the producing end, whether miners, ranchers or farmers, end up victims when technological innovation dictates a smaller workforce.

Subsequently, all 89ers have made some effort in addressing this state of affairs. Some are doing better than others. In 1974, Wyoming started a mineral trust fund but then used the money as a moat to keep change out. If the bills are paid, why bother diversifying the economy or examining core beliefs? South Dakotas former Gov. Bill Janklow fundamentally altered the states economic landscape by changing banking laws in the 1980s. Sioux Falls became the credit card processing capital of the country. The rest of the state remains in thrall to commodity agriculture.

North Dakota has made a three-pronged attempt to reprioritize its values. After the 1997 Grand Forks flood, the state formed a partnership with the federal government that led Grand Forks to become a leading drone research center. It monetized proceeds from Bakken oil production by sticking revenues into the Legacy Fund, now worth $8.2 billion. Finally, Doug Burgum, now governor but also founder of Great Plains software, led by example. He showed how to leverage agriculture to foster information technology. The second-largest Microsoft campus is in Fargo. Yet outside of the cities and the counties of the Bakken shale, North Dakotas population declines.

Despite Idahos conservative reputation, historic struggles between Mormon and Gentile, contention between the timber and mining economy of the north versus the agricultural south, and other areas of conflict forced the state to hammer out a form of pluralism. While commodities are still critical, Idaho recognized that cities create economic vitality. Look at Boise. Its the only capital of the 89ers to harness its connections to the federal and state government to build an enviable economy. Boise is at the center of Idahos science and technology economy; semiconductors accounted for 69% of Idahos exports in 2019; double that of agriculture, mining, chemical and paper products exports combined.

This brings us to the outlier: Montana. It alone took the bull by the horns. For most of its existence, extractives drove Montanas economy and captured the legislature in Helena. The Anaconda Company didnt just produce copper; it had hundreds of subsidiaries in related industries. By 1930, it controlled eight Montana newspapers. It became a multinational corporation and owned the worlds largest copper mine in Chile. When the Chilean government nationalized the mine in 1971, Anaconda, already unsteady from weak prices, was doomed, although it took 10 years for the swan song. Its decline cost thousands of Montana jobs. This contributed to the decision to call a constitutional convention.

In 1972, Montana had enough confidence to rewrite its constitution, unafraid of losing its essential core. In doing so, it codified a court-ordered balancing of apportionment even if it did favor urban districts and eased restrictions on cities. Delegates reinforced equal protection, strengthened government transparency requirements and bolstered individual privacy rights. Yet, they were chary of extremes. While affirming the right to bear arms, the delegates refused to make gun registration or licensing unconstitutional. Nor did they declare abortion a violation of the constitution. But they were not so timid as to back away from preserving Montanas landscape. The constitutional rewrite acknowledged the fundamental value of nature as more than its commodities, obliging the state and citizens to maintain a clean and healthful environment. The 1972 constitution rekindled the flame of those egalitarian ideals set forth in Helena in 1889 by crafting a constitution that reflected transformations in the state and planned for the future.

Change is coming. In many ways, it is already here. To understand what aspects of these older values fit into our present context, we need to examine key narratives in agriculture, commodities, cities and their relationship to state and federal government.

This will not be easy, but other regions have undergone similar transitions. In 1849, Ohio produced more corn than any other state; most residents were farmers. By the early 1900s, most Ohio residents lived in urban areas and worked outside of agriculture. Realizing these changes, Ohio created multiple identities. Now it has four cities with over 250,000 people; it has 137 colleges and universities, including 14 four-year research universities and seven medical schools. It has 10 ports with access to the ocean. Its companies produced $112 billion worth of manufacturing goods in 2018. Hell, it even has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is still the 10th-largest corn producer.

The 89ers have to let go of commodities the way Pittsburgh let go of steel. Mills still pour steel within shouting distance of the confluence of the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio Rivers, although none within city limits. The Steelers still pack their stadium. Yet advanced manufacturing, healthcare and information technology drive the economy. Many people in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains are reluctant to see this happen, largely because they know nothing else. We have to invent our future. In the end, it is about the dignity of meaningful and rewarding employment.

This author champions a fundamentally conservative ideal: If people want economically viable, small to medium-sized communities, if they want stability and a societal model that permits the inclusion of responsible citizens of all stripes the values embodied in all these state constitutions then extractive industries must be seen as the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. When commodity extraction is perpetuated through political means as critical to the communitys existence, an economic roller coaster with social consequences, like rural population loss, is inevitable.

These states need a realistic conversation about what constitutes acceptable partnerships with government. The regions endorsement of Donald Trump highlights voters devotion to conservative values that, due to their lack of agility, are ineffective against the greater forces that threaten to topple them: technology, climate change, a pandemic and foreign economic competition to name a few.

Instead of Democrat or Republican, think about the values of 1889. Circa 2021, Republicans in these states embrace a scorched-earth policy toward government oversight. The 89er constitutional delegates were no fans of Washington, but they understood banishing it would lead to fiscal calamity. The current GOP stance on the role of government would be utterly alien to the signers of these state constitutions.

Lastly, integrity was a central 89er value. Its ultimate expression is in freedom of conscience. This ideal permitted people of all faiths and beliefs to live amid mountains and plains. There have been a few sorry exceptions, like Montanas 1918 Sedition Law. It criminalized any negative statement about the government. Repeal came three years later. Yet freedom of conscience has fallen out of favor. Trending to the apex is loyalty, which is morphing into its ugly stepchild, obedience. Whoever packaged loyalty and obedience and sold it as freedom may be a marketing genius, but it is authoritarianism the ultimate anti-89ers value in disguise. The 89er states remain unable to reckon their cultural identity, a rural exceptionalism linked to commodity production, rooted in republicanism, with the multicultural, pluralistic society of our future. This seemingly unreconcilable split must be resolved.

This article first appeared in the Summer 2021 issue of Montana The Magazine of Western History. Thank you to the magazine for allowing WyoFile to reprint here.

Read this article:

The surprising liberalism of Wyomings Constitution - WyoFile

In journalism you are taught to get the who, what, where, when, why and how. With so many avenues to get information in todays world I began thinking about those questions and a few things recently made me realize that for todays newspapers, the biggest question we need to answer is why?

At a recent meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission, there were several why questions broached. Why was the setback for permanent structures 20 feet? Why was the maximum height of a fence six feet?

Building Official Randy Adams could answer the who (previous board), the when (the 1980s) and most of the questions can be answered by looking at minutes except the why.

We try to cover as many board meetings in person (or via Zoom now) as we can because of the why? We can get a copy of the minutes that tells us what motions were made by city councils, county commissioners, fair board, school board and others. But to answer the why you have to be there in person to hear the discussion.

I cannot answer why the setbacks are where they are or what is magical about a 6-foot high fence (except somewhere someone said 6 feet because most municipalities have that maximum height). Had I been covering the meeting in which the setbacks were set I could answer the why.

Most minutes cover action by the boards or councils, they do not often cover the why? But everyone wants to know the why or they should.

Think of a young child. What is their favorite question thats right it is why? Why is that? Because we all have a curious nature to understand the things around us, why is the sky blue, why is grass green, why is the alphabet in the order it is in, why do I have to brush my teeth, why do I have go to bed early and on and on.

Most of us never lose that curious nature, including BAPC board members who were asking why last month.

With the why answered we would know the importance of the setbacks and the limit on fence height.

When you look at the hundreds of bills approved by the Wyoming Legislature this year, that prompts a lot of whys.

We were able to answer some of those.

When people go and look at the statute on the Slayer Rule, they will see that the Wyoming Legislature approved changes in 2021. It does not state why the change was made in the statute.

You can easily find the why in this newspaper as we chronicled the struggles of Mel and Darr Lea Walker and their hope that new legislation would prevent others from having to go through what they are with Mels daughters belongings after her death.

With boards, councils and commissions approving new fiscal year budgets, people can see the numbers and how they change, but newspapers answer why they change, why did revenue drop or increase, why are there more expenses in some departments.

This past Sunday we celebrated the 245th anniversary of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. What followed that declaration was the Revolutionary War and eventually our Constitution and our First Amendment granting freedom of speech, press and religion.

Freedom of the press, because our founding fathers understood it was important for journalists to be free to discover and most importantly to report the who, what, where, when, how and especially the why.

It matters what our government does, but it also matters why they do what they do.

Why? Because it holds them accountable and strives to ensure that the government remains (in the words of President Abraham Lincoln) of the people, by the people, for the people.

Also, because since the innocence of our youth we have been demanding why.

-- Karla Pomeroy

Read the original:

The News Editorial: It's all about the why - Northern Wyoming Daily News Worland Wyoming

Everyone has found pandemic restrictions frustrating. Few see them on the spectrum of state coercion tending inevitably towards the Gulag. But the hysterical minority is overly represented in the Conservative party. As a result, the language of political emancipation is misapplied to something that would, in a more rational setting, be discussed in terms of clinical outcome. With so many people vaccinated and so many businesses craving customers, it makes sense to adjust the risk calculus, but for Tory MPs to speak of a freedom day is pantomime.

They mean freedom from the face mask, asserting their own right to no longer care about Covid infections, while making it sound like freedom from the disease itself. This is the same reflex that wanted to celebrate Brexit with an independence day on the grounds that EU membership equated to colonisation by a foreign power. It is the familiar revving of ideological engines, racing through the rhetorical gears from metaphor to hyperbole to paranoid delusion and fantasies of joining the resistance in people whose only political struggle has been for selection to a safe Tory seat.

Boris Johnson is, as ever, torn between the need to associate himself with happy feelings of liberation and fear of taking responsibility for the consequences of a policy unmoored to evidence. The prime ministers public statements are often an exercise in self-persuasion. He only knows what he believes by trying it out on an audience. When he cautions against getting demob happy he is reminding himself that he cannot get Covid done, as he claimed he could with Brexit, although he is obviously bored with the pandemic plotline in the story he wants told about his leadership.

The next volume has chapter headings without meaningful contents. Britain will build back better and level up, bridging inequalities with infrastructure and jobs in low-carbon industries. There is a lot of blank space to be filled and technical policy is not Johnsons genre. Also, the whole thing has to pass through the editorial process of the Treasurys three-year spending review in the autumn.

The cabinet battle for finite resources will be the story of the autumn as departments put pressure on the chancellor, either by leaking tales of the dire consequences of underfunding or briefing that support has been promised as a way to make it so. Johnsons aversion to difficult choices and face-to-face confrontation will make him an absent arbitrator, spreading confusion where he should be dictating priorities.

It is possible that a coherent model for post-pandemic government will emerge from that tussle, but not likely. Instead, levelling up will continue to be a euphemism for pork-barrel politics, with funds that are nominally earmarked for the neediest towns deployed in constituencies where Tory MPs must repay the former Labour voters who switched sides.

There is nothing subtle about this process. The transactional character of the Conservative electoral offer has been explicit in recent local council and byelection contests. The message put out in Hartlepool and, less successfully, Batley and Spen, is that it pays to send a Tory MP to Westminster because that is where all the money is kept. That resonates with people who associate the physical degradation and social decay in their towns not with Johnsons Conservatives but with decades of local Labour incumbency. Sometimes the charge of complacency and neglect is earned, but it is perverse that Keir Starmers party should feel the backlash for council cuts made inevitable by George Osbornes austerity budgets.

There is something of the mafia protection racket about this dynamic. The Tories break things up and then saunter around the vandalised site, full of feigned sympathy and slippery charm steeped in menace, announcing that the way to avoid such distress in the future is to pay tribute to the Johnson syndicate. It is an effective system as long as the promise of protection is made good. That imperative sets Downing Street strategy more than any ideological conviction.

It also carries the risk of neglecting places that have been voting Conservative for much longer and with a different conception of what they get in return for that allegiance. When the safe seat of Chesham and Amersham was lost to the Liberal Democrats, party managers were quick to attribute the swing to specific grievances planning reform and the HS2 rail line. But in private, Tory MPs admit that a wider malaise was involved. Lifelong supporters of the party, many of whom voted remain in 2016 but had no hesitation in preferring Johnson and Theresa May to Jeremy Corbyn as candidates for prime minister, are uneasy about the aggressive and mercenary style of the government.

This is not (or not exclusively) resentment of fiscal transfers from affluent southern Tory heartlands to newly captured territories in the north. It is an accumulation of unease at the character of an administration that evokes the Wildean cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is the constant hum of petty sleaze, cronyism and a supercilious way with power that makes it hard for liberal-minded Tories to glean any civic pride from association with the ruling party.

That effect should not be overstated. Johnson is still a unique performer: part raconteur, part escapologist, talking his way out of troubles that would sink other leaders. But a consequence of that shtick is the growing gap between heroic language and grubby practice. It is the duality inherent in any failing ideological project that must keep cranking the rhetoric of abstract ideals higher to cover the stoop to ever shabbier methods. The support it generates is widely spread, but maybe also shallow; a popular consumer choice, lacking the connective tissue of shared and consistent beliefs.

The Tories are impatient to cry freedom from Covid, just as they were impatient to declare independence from Brussels, believing that they have been held back, with much pent-up governing to do. In reality, getting Brexit done, then riding out the pandemic has spared them the embarrassment of the empty page where the point of Boris Johnson has yet to be written.

Continued here:

Boris Johnson cries freedom to fill the void where his leadership should be - The Guardian

At first glance, the freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) conducted in the summer of 2023 mirrored previous U.S. actions taken to contest excessive maritime claims in the South China Sea. A U.S. Navy vessel sailed within twelve miles of Mischief Reef while conducting routine training maneuvers. However, in a departure from previous operations, the ship did not engage in man overboard drills as part of that training. It would have been odd to do so, since there were no humans aboard the vessel.

***

As this vignette suggests, the time has come for the U.S. Navy to pass the freedom of navigation mission set to unmanned systems. This shift would provide significant benefits, including substantial cost savings, a reduced risk to human life, increased flexibility in escalation dynamics, and an asymmetric answer to geographically advantaged peer competitors in distant oceans.

Moreover, using unmanned systems for FONOPs could help to establish the desired U.S. government precedent regarding these platforms and the law of the sea. The U.S. Navys proactive demonstration of unmanned system operation across the globe could clearly communicate expected norms regarding their usage under existing conventions and customary law.

A FONOPs Primer

In order to understand the future of FONOPs within the context of unmanned systems, one should first examine the genesis of the U.S. Navys freedom of navigation program, as well as the successes and challenges attributed to it by observers throughout its forty years of existence.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea codifies customary international legal concepts pertinent to maritime claims. As President Ronald Reagan outlined in his 1983 speech on oceans policy, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention.

Despite substantial commercial and government support for the convention, the U.S. Senate has not joined over 160 other countries in ratifying the 1982 law of the sea agreement. Initially, American opponents of ratification feared that the conventions provisions for the governance of deep-seabed mining would run counter to domestic interests. More recently, concerns including sovereignty issues and environmental restrictions have prevented the necessary Senate ratification vote from occurring. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama pushed aggressively for ratification, yet failed due to political opposition. And while the current administration has largely remained quiet on any renewed efforts, in 2007 then-Senator Joe Biden led an unsuccessful attempt to move forward with ratification as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Even without congressional ratification of the convention, legal experts cite enduring maritime law traditions that can create widely accepted customary rules without a specific requirement for binding international agreements. Based on this fundamental concept of customary international law, over the last four decades the U.S. freedom of navigation program has combined diplomatic efforts with at-sea operations across the globe, sailing or flying through excessive maritime claims to reinforce the American interpretation of customary maritime claims.

Through these operations, the U.S. government contests claims against allies and antagonists alike with a military presence in the disputed zone. Each year, a number of these excessive claims are contested. In Fiscal Year 2020, for instance, the Department of Defense challenged 28 separate excessive claims made by 19 different countries. Each challenge can represent a larger tempo of operations, as one listed maritime challenge may include multiple passages by U.S. assets throughout the year.

Proponents of FONOPs assert that the program deserves credit for the freedom of the global commons enjoyed by maritime shipping today, the continued expansion of global sea trade over the last forty years, and a normalization of maritime claims in line with convention standards. The 2016 Chinese refusal to recognize the arbitral tribunals decision regarding disputes in the South China Sea bolsters the case for U.S. FONOPs, highlighting the difficulty in enforcing the convention through purely diplomatic efforts at the international level.

FONOPs detractors, meanwhile, perceive the program as unnecessarily offensive in nature, emphasize the persistent threat of collision at sea with resulting escalation concerns, and question whether any behavioral changes can actually be attributed to military contestations.

Activity under the freedom of navigation program, which is approved and directed at the presidential level, has largely remained steady during recent administrations. This trend implies that American leadership values the program and supports the conclusion that FONOPs will remain a vital and visible part of U.S. national security policy going forward.

The Advantages of Unmanned Systems During FONOPs

While forty years have elapsed since FONOPs inception, the tools used to execute the mission in 2021 still resemble those used in 1981. Twenty-first century unmanned systems technology offers opportunities to mitigate past weaknesses and amplify current strengths. By saving money and reducing risk while providing a response to rapidly expanding adversarial fleets, the U.S. Navy can leverage unmanned FONOPs to breathe new life into the program during a vital period in its existence.

An Efficient Use of Assets

The Department of Defense can realize significant and much-needed cost savings by using unmanned platforms for the freedom of navigation mission set. The state-of-the-art Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer, a likely candidate for completing FONOPs in the twenty-first century, has an estimated unit cost of $1.8 billion versus approximately $35 million for a medium-sized unmanned system prototype. Beyond the reduced initial investment, experts estimate daily operating costs for the manned destroyer at $700,000 versus a $20,000 daily price tag for unmanned surface systems, such as the Sea Hunter. In a time of flat-line Department of Defense budgets and a stated Department of the Navy desire to focus further on unmanned systems, employing drone technology for these operations provides clear cost advantages while aligning with modernization efforts.

Besides monetary savings, the use of unmanned systems for these missions allows more-capable manned platforms to focus on those tasks that require different competences or a human touch. FONOPs fall neatly into the category of dull, dirty, and dangerous operations that best fit unmanned systems. An unmanned system can easily refute a challenged nations excessive maritime claim that requires prior permission for innocent transit by conducting an unannounced straight-line passage through disputed waters, freeing a manned vessel and its crew to conduct more in-depth operations elsewhere.

Robots Can Reduce Risk While Providing Flexibility

In the event of a miscalculation on either side during an unplanned encounter at sea involving unmanned assets, metal and electronics may incur damage, but no human life will be lost. As recent non-FONOP ship collisions have shown, when two large-tonnage vessels collide at sea, a tragic loss of life may result. By removing the potential for this loss of life from a collision in contested waters, the use of unmanned systems during FONOPs allows technology to accomplish a potentially dangerous mission with no requirement for physical human presence.

Beyond the inherent heartbreak involved, the loss of human life also has implications for escalation. A recent study examined the different emotions generated from the loss of an unmanned system versus a manned system, and its findings demonstrate de-escalation advantages from an unmanned loss. In simple terms, the destruction of an unmanned system does not generate the same visceral and escalatory response as the loss of a human life. This vital difference adds flexibility following a collision at sea or a hostile act during FONOPs. While unmanned systems do not negate the potential for an escalation spiral, their use provides de-escalation options to decision-makers that do not exist with manned platforms. As geopolitical tensions continue to grow, opportunities to decrease potential escalation spirals stemming from collisions during FONOPs should not be ignored.

An Asymmetric Response to Being Outnumbered

Much attention in recent years has focused on the impressive scope of Chinese shipbuilding capabilities. In the waters of the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy already finds itself outnumbered even more significantly so when one includes the tremendous size and coercive capabilities of the Chinese maritime militia. According to the 2020 annual Department of Defense report to Congress, China has built the largest navy in the world, comprising 350 ships compared to the U.S. Navys 293 ships. This disparity exists primarily in smaller hull classes, and further emphasizes the benefit of using lower-cost unmanned systems to even the numerical playing field. The maxim that quantity has a quality all its own will likely hold true in a dynamic twenty-first century battlespace. As recent budget submissions demonstrate, the U.S. Navy simply does not have the necessary capital to match adversary numbers at traditional major surface combatant shipbuilding costs.

Low-cost unmanned systems will facilitate the dispersion of the naval assets necessary to ensure the successful conduct of peacetime FONOPs, while also enabling the execution of the distributed maritime operations wartime concept. The deployment of unmanned systems to counter current asymmetry creates an achievable and efficient option to execute assigned missions, such as FONOPs, while countering increasing naval proliferation across the globe.

Concerns Addressed

The near-term extensive use of unmanned systems during FONOPs necessitates both prudent planning and measured operational execution. The U.S. government should establish a favorable precedent for the legal status of unmanned systems under existing conventions and enforce suitable repercussions for external interference with unmanned systems operating in accordance with customary international law.

Setting a Precedent

There is debate in legal circles over whether unmanned systems qualify as warships a classification advantageous to the execution of freedom of navigation missions. Unfortunately, any comprehensive solution to this complex question will likely suffer due to the frayed relationships in todays global environment, which make consensus difficult.

With this obstacle in mind, the best path forward for ensuring unmanned systems ability to conduct operations in accordance with accepted standards is through clear communication of intent and routine usage across the globe. Just as the U.S. government has relied on its interpretation of convention provisions to dictate its actions around the world and reinforce customary international law, a transparent and publicly accessible U.S. policy on unmanned system use on the seas could combine with at-sea operations to provide the necessary foundation for global acceptance.

Signaling Resolve During Unmanned FONOPs

Important questions also remain as to whether challenged nations will treat unmanned systems in accordance with the norms afforded to manned systems during FONOPs. Numerous instances already exist of nations capturing or destroying unmanned systems, including the shooting down of a U.S. Navy surveillance drone by Iran in 2019. In that case, media reporting indicated that Iranian forces specifically chose their target based on its unmanned nature in an attempt to avoid further escalation. If an adversary believes they can target unmanned systems without any retribution, effective unmanned system usage across all mission sets will suffer.

With that consideration in mind, clear policy guidance prior to the execution of unmanned system FONOPs can signal the resolve and set the expectations necessary to ensure successful operations. The U.S. government should credibly and consistently communicate that any actions taken to inhibit the navigation of these systems will be met with determination. Signaling could be accomplished via pre-negotiated international agreements or clear warning statements disseminated via the appropriate forum.

By credibly signaling resolve with respect to the execution of unmanned FONOPs, the U.S. government could provide escalation expectations and manage risk effectively. The same escalation options available for the loss of a manned asset would be available for the loss of an unmanned asset, but with additional and less-escalatory rungs to climb along the way. These additional escalation steps include using manned assets to accomplish the mission, or a proportional military response when merited. In practice, certain and likely most circumstances will lend themselves to unmanned systems usage while rare situations may require more traditional means of contestation.

Preventing Technology Loss

Another commonly mentioned concern is the potential loss of technology resulting from the loss of unmanned systems. In this scenario, an unmanned system taken captive by a rival nation results in the loss of sensitive technology or information. This drama has already played out in real time, as witnessed by the capture of a U.S. Navy oceanographic survey glider in 2016 and subsequent Chinese technological advances.

Before condemning unmanned systems for this fault, however, one should note that this problem is not unique to them. The 2001 emergency landing of a manned U.S. Navy EP-3 in Hainan, China, resulted in the loss of sensitive materials. Going back further, the capture of the USS Pueblo and its crew in 1968 by North Korean forces also infamously compromised classified information and hardware, including ten encryption machines and thousands of pages of top secret documents.

Notably, unmanned systems may experience a higher likelihood of attempted tampering or interference than traditional assets due to the same traits that contribute to their de-escalation advantages. Ensuring the protection of sensitive information lies not in eschewing the use of unmanned systems, but rather in ensuring fail-safe methods for destroying relevant data when in danger of exploitation. As with their manned counterparts, unmanned systems operations should be approached from a continuing perspective of potential exposure with mitigations in place to avoid technological theft.

While manned systems can resort to a human and an axe in attempts to destroy equipment, unmanned systems hardware needs to automatically revert to a zeroized, or unusable, state in case of distress. Initiation of this process can be triggered by a command from its home station, the shock from a significant collision, or an extended loss of communication with its handler, inhibiting the loss of critically sensitive information and exploitation of the hardware itself.

Perhaps unexpectedly, unmanned systems possess at least one advantage in this realm. Unmanned systems negate the adversarys ability to leverage human crews for nefarious purposes, such as the creation of damaging propaganda or the receipt of additional sensitive information via interrogation.

Unmanned Systems as the Platform of Choice for FONOPs

By properly executing a transition to unmanned system FONOPs, the United States can use technological advances to ensure a continuing ability to provide a legal order that will, among other things, facilitate peaceful international uses of the oceans. Properly leveraged, unmanned systems will execute this mission at a significant cost savings, with a reduction in risk, and at a scale needed in a twenty-first century defined by great-power competition.

Trevor Prouty is an active-duty Navy commander with more than 20 years of service. He is currently the Navy Fellow assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program.He has served in three helicopter aviation tours, most recently leading asquadron during the adoption of the MQ-8B Fire Scout, an unmannedhelicopter system.

The views expressed here do not represent those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or the U.S. government.

Image: U.S. Navy (Photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon Renfroe)

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Mission for Unmanned Systems - War on the Rocks

The modern iteration of the National Rifle Association as a political force opposed to any measure of gun safety was familiar to Fred Guttenberg even before his 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed along with 16 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February 2018.

The groups response to Parkland was the same as after 26 people, including 20 children, were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the same as after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, after Sutherland Springs, after Pulse Nightclub, amid gun violence that claims 100 lives a day in the US: the only solution to gun violence is more guns, everywhere. Or, to quote the NRAs longtime executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, following Sandy Hook: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The day after his daughter was killed, a distraught Guttenberg attempted to put words to the unfathomable at a vigil. My job is to protect my children, he said, voice cracking, and I sent my kid to school, where Jaime was supposed to be safe. When he returned home, the first thing Guttenberg said to friends and family was Im going to break the fucking gun lobby, he told the Guardian. Because I knew the NRA and I knew their influence.

The Price of Freedom, a new documentary on the history of the NRA and the toll of its mythology, reveals, in meticulous detail, the artifice and apparatus behind that influence. The searing 95-minute film, directed by Judd Ehrlich, surveys the National Rifle Associations evolution from its founding as a hunting sports club in 1871 to the most powerful gun lobbyist group in the country an insular and dogmatic organization, ruthless in its politicization of gun ownership and unyielding in its fantasy of guns as central to American identity. The NRAs figuring of gun culture as synonymous with Founding Fathers patriotism, and safety measures as antithetical to Americas founding principles, has become so saturated into the American populace, Ehrlich told the Guardian. And we have to understand that if we want to combat that.

It wasnt always this way; as the film explains, gun control is as much a part of Americas founding as the second amendment. Delaware banned firearms at election sites in 1776, for example; Louisiana prohibited concealed carry of firearms in 1813. The NRAs deification of the cowboy figure the lone ranger striding in with a gun to save the day, embodied by the former western star Ronald Reagan, the first president endorsed by the NRA is a fantasy of vigilante lawlessness. States across the country had, by the late 1800s, adopted gun safety measures that seem like political fantasies in 2021: regulation of gunpowder (Texas, 1839), compulsory registration of weapons (Illinois, 1885), bans on ownership for dangerous persons (Kansas, 1868), prohibition of firearms in churches and schools (Arizona, 1889).

With the input of historians and journalists who have covered the NRA for years, The Price of Freedom traces the metastasis of the NRAs absolutist rhetoric into legislation that has contributed to an epidemic of gun violence in the US far greater than any other developed nation. The film focuses on a little-known but extremely consequential leadership coup in 1977, when former president Harlon Carter, who changed the spelling of his name to evade attention for a murder committed when he was 17, ousted most of the organizations leadership at its annual convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. Carter, who held a sweeping and ravenous view of the second amendment, shifted the NRAs focus from hunting sports and environmental conservation the group supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 to political lobbying for gun rights, and positioned the NRA as a PR-savvy organization ready to amass power at moments of fear or unrest.

When you look at all those things and you think, what if this powerful organization had gone in a different direction, its hard not to conclude that we would be at a very different place in terms of how we talk about guns in this country, said Ehrlich. Take, for instance, the proliferation of so-called Stand Your Ground laws, which essentially allow citizens to shoot to kill at their own discretion a convenient loophole for racial bias, among many disastrous outcomes. The Price of Freedom draws a straight line from the politicization of gun ownership as a natural, fundamental right at least for white people, as the NRA had no issue limiting the second amendment when it was the Black Panthers accessing guns to video of Kyle Rittenhouse, a white teenager from Illinois, patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, in with an AR-15 in August 2020, acting as a vigilante unimpeded by police, even after he shot and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters. Guttenberg taped his interview for the film during the early afternoon of 6 January, as an armed mob of Trump supporters stormed the nations Capitol.

Guttenberg, who channeled his grief into activism for gun safety and the marginalization of the NRA, has been vocal about cracking its stranglehold on the status quo of no action in Washington. One of the brilliant things the NRA did was create this environment where as a country, we believe gun safety legislation can never pass through Washington DC this country cant do it, he said. Guttenberg is one of several figures in the film whose advocacy for commonsense gun safety legislation is rooted in losses to gun violence, including Representative Lucy McBath, whose 17-year-old son was shot by a white man after an argument over loud music; X Gonzalez, a founder of the March for Our Lives movement; and Gabby Giffords, the congresswoman from Arizona shot in the head during a meeting with constituents in 2011.

We have to break through that wall, Guttenberg said, pointing to the confirmation of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the first permanent director since 2015, and legislation for background checks as immediate priorities under the Biden administrations push for gun reform. And once you do, and lets do it with background checks, then its no longer a matter of whether or not you can or cant, its about whats possible. Listen, after my daughter was killed, we did what seemed impossible we got gun safety legislation passed in Florida. So it is no longer about not being able to do it, its about what more can we do.

The Price of Freedom points to the aftermath of Parkland as a turning point for the NRA the March for Our Lives movement sparked a strong public and corporate backlash to the group; the 2018 midterm elections brought candidates who ran on gun reform, including McBath and Crow, to Washington. Under public pressure, companies such as Dicks Sporting Goods stopped selling semi-automatic rifles and prohibited all sales to customers under age 21. The NRA faces financial crisis, internal revolt and potential dissolution after an investigation by the New York attorney generals office revealed corruption and fiscal malfeasance by its leadership, particularly LaPierre.

Whether or not the organization continues on, the NRAs cultivation of an entire community and identity around an extreme view of the second amendment will probably outlive it, casting a long shadow over American life. But Guttenberg echoed several figures in the film with an eye on changing what can seem impossibly entrenched. I have no choice but to remain hopeful and optimistic, he said. And when I go across the country and meet people in every community, even the communities where people say, ah, thats a gun community, everywhere I go, people actually believe that we can do more.

I dont hate the second amendment thats always been the big lie. I hate gun violence, said Guttenberg. So my hope is all based in the idea that everyone else hates gun violence, too. And if we can agree on that, then lets fix this together.

The rest is here:

We have to break through that wall: inside Americas battle for gun control - The Guardian

July 05, (THEWILL) The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit, asking the court to compel President Muhammadu Buhari to disclose spending details of the overdrafts and loans obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) since May 29, 2015, including the projects on which the overdrafts have been spent, and repayments of all overdrafts to date.

SERAP is also seeking an order to compel the President to explain and clarify whether the $25bn (N9.7trn) overdraft reportedly obtained from the CBN is within the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the government for 2020.

The suit followed SERAPs Freedom of Information (FoI) request to President Buhari, stating that: Disclosing details of overdrafts and repayments would enable Nigerians to hold the government to account for its fiscal management and ensure that public funds are not mismanaged or diverted.

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/559/2021 filed last week at the Federal High Court, Abuja, SERAP is also seeking: an order directing and compelling President Buhari to disclose details of overdrafts taken from the CBN by successive governments between 1999 and 2015.

SERAP claimed that: Secrecy and the lack of public scrutiny of the details of CBN overdrafts and repayments is antithetical to the public interest, the common good, the countrys international legal obligations, and a fundamental breach of constitutional oath of office.

Joined in the suit as respondents are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN; the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Zainab Ahmed; and the Governor of CBN, Godwin Emefiele.

SERAP is also arguing that: Ensuring transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would promote prudence in debt management, reduce any risks of corruption and mismanagement, and help the government to avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt.

According to SERAP: By the combined reading of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Freedom of Information Act, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, there are transparency obligations imposed on the government to disclose information to the public concerning details of CBN overdrafts, loans and repayments to date.

The Nigerian Constitution, Freedom of Information Act, and these treaties rest on the basic principle that citizens should have access to information regarding their governments activities.

The suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms Adelanke Aremo, read in part: Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts would also ensure that public funds are properly spent, reduce the level of public debt, and improve the ability of the government to invest in essential public goods and services, such as quality education, healthcare, and clean water.

It is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure public access to these services in order to lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would also improve the ability of the government to effectively respond to the COVID-19 crisis. This means that the government would not have to choose between saving lives or making debt payments.

The recent overdraft of $25.6bn (about N9.7trn) reportedly obtained from the CBN would appear to be above the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the Federal Government for 2020, that is, N3.9trn, prescribed by Section 38(2) of the CBN Act 2007. SERAP notes that five-percent of N3.9trn is N197bn.

While Section 38(1) of the CBN Act allows the Bank to grant overdrafts to the Federal Government to address any temporary deficiency of budget revenue, sub-section 2 provides that any outstanding overdraft shall not exceed five-percent of the previous years actual revenue of the Federal Government.

Similarly, Section 38(3) requires all overdrafts to be repaid as soon as possible and by the end of the financial year in which the overdrafts are granted.

The CBN is prohibited from granting any further overdrafts until all outstanding overdrafts have been fully repaid. Under the CBN Act, no repayment shall take the form of a promising note or such other promise to pay at a future date, treasury bills, bonds or other forms of security which is required to be underwritten by the Bank.

Similarly, the Fiscal Responsibility Act provides in section 41 that the government shall only borrow for capital expenditure and human development. Under the Act, the government shall ensure that the level of public debt as a proportion of national income is held at a sustainable level.

Section 44 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the government to specify the purpose of any borrowing, which must be applied towards capital expenditures, and to carry out cost-benefit analysis, including the economic and social benefits of any borrowing. Any borrowing should serve the public good, and be guided by human rights principles.

SERAP has consistently recommended to the Federal Government to reduce its level of borrowing and to look at other options of how to finance its budget, such as reducing the costs of governance, and addressing systemic and widespread corruption in ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) that have been documented by the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation.

Our requests are brought in the public interest, and in keeping with the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution; the Freedom of Information Act; the Fiscal Responsibility Act; the Central Bank Act; the Debt Management Office Act; and the countrys international legal obligations.

There is a statutory obligation on the respondents, being public officers in their respective public offices, to proactively keep, organize and maintain all information or records about CBN overdrafts, loans, and repayments in a manner that facilitates public access to such information or records.

Mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public duty in the performance in which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest.

Unless the reliefs sought by SERAP are granted, the respondents will not provide SERAP with the information requested and will continue to be in breach of their constitutional responsibilities and the countrys international legal obligations and commitments.

No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.

Read the original post:

SERAP Wants Court To Compel Disclosure On What Buhari Did With N9.7trn Overdrafts From CBN - thewillnigeria

Published: 7/4/2021 10:00:03 PM

Modified: 7/4/2021 10:00:05 PM

As summer comes into full swing in the Upper Valley and COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, it feels as though the nightmare of the pandemic is finally coming to a close. However, in a global sense, the effects of the pandemic are still crushing.

Prior to the pandemic, 1 in 9 people were hungry worldwide and 736 million people lived in extreme poverty, according to a 2018 World Health Organization report. Because of the pandemic, there has been a global reduction in job opportunities, lower wages, less access to health care assistance, difficulties transitioning to remote learning and food insecurity. All of these issues contribute to a rise in hunger and extreme poverty. Currently, the pandemic is slated to push 150 million more people into extreme poverty globally, reversing decades of progress.

So, not only has the already-staggering rate of global hunger and extreme poverty increased due to the pandemic, only 0.9% of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated. This means that the pandemic is not even close to over in these areas, and conditions are worsening for those living in these nations.

The presence of large unvaccinated populations also is a risk for everyone. We have already seen variants appearing, and variants will continue to do so until we reach a sufficient number of fully vaccinated people. This is why it is essential for Congress to support a coordinated COVAX initiative to globally distribute vaccines and create a plan to share the 553 million excess vaccinations that will be left over after every American is fully vaccinated.

Additionally, we need to urge our leaders to prioritize lifesaving aid in subsequent COVID-19 relief bills and in the fiscal 2022 appropriations bill for the State Department, USAID and other development agencies.

CLARISSE BROWN

Grantham

Professor Randall Balmers great op-ed column on our founders intent describes the logjam we are now in with some Supreme Court justices (Originalism and the Second Amendment, June 6). I believe that the original intent is clear, because they wrote it down.

It is in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And it is in the Constitution: We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If the current mass shootings are someones idea of domestic Tranquility, Id hate to see what chaos is. If unalienable Rights include freedom of and from religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof I wonder what the founders would think about laws based on some churches teaching that are not fair to everyone, or churches supported by town taxes (from the 19th century, now done away with), or the required Sunday closing of stores, etc. (which lasted into the 20th century, now done away with), or reproductive freedom and privacy of intimacy being debated again in the guise protection.

HOWARD SHAFFER

Enfield

The University of Illinois is planning to heat its Urbana campus with a new, underground nuclear reactor with a fuel cartridge that lasts 20 years. The university is working with Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. to partially replace a coal-fired plant, seeking Department of Energy funding and preparing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application.

Dartmouth College has already rebuilt its hot-water circulating district heating system in anticipation of plans for a wood chip burning plant, now dropped. Dartmouth continues to burn 3.5 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil annually as it seeks a better energy source. The Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. reactor generates 15 megawatts of heat, approximately the demand from the Dartmouth campus.

ROBERT HARGRAVES

Hanover

The rest is here:

Forum, July 5: The pandemic is still threatening the entire globe - Valley News

Market News: FTSE 100 7,100 -64.03 -0.89% FTSE 250 22,895.36 -127.04 -0.55% FTSE AIM 1262.87 -2.47 0.20%

The FTSE 100 fell 0.89% on Tuesday as weaker economic data drove markets lower and stronger sterling weighed on overseas revenue earners. "European markets have slumped alongside US indices, which appear to be resurfacing from their extended weekend with a largely pessimistic tone," IG Group's Joshua Mahony says. Inflation concerns also appear to have gripped U.K. investors Tuesday after a report from the government's public spending watchdog cautioned that high public debt levels are more vulnerable than ever to rising interest rates, AJ Bell's Danni Hewson says. "Today has felt like an adjustment off the back of yesterday's 'freedom focused' boost," Ms. Hewson says.

Kinovo's FY 2021 Pretax Profit Dropped on Lower Revenue

Kinovo PLC reported Tuesday a significant decline in pretax profit for fiscal 2021 as a result of a Covid-19 driven fall in revenue, and said that it is confident about its future.

---

Microsaic Systems Says 1H Revenue Recovered

Microsaic Systems PLC said Tuesday that first-half revenue rose sharply and exceeded pre-pandemic levels after a change of business model in early 2021.

---

Mulberry to End Paris Lease Early, Return When International Tourism Recovers

Mulberry Group PLC said Tuesday that its wholly owned subsidiary in France has agreed to terminate the lease of its store in Paris and exit the property early for 13.2 million pounds ($18.3 million).

---

Mattioli Woods Expects to Report FY 2021 Profit in Line With Views

Mattioli Woods PLC said Tuesday that it expects to report profit in line with management expectations for the year ended May 31.

---

Globalworth Mulls Implications of Recent Change of Control

Globalworth Real Estate Investments Ltd. said on Tuesday that it was notified late on Monday by CPI Property Group SA and Aroundtown SA about a number of transactions related to their existing holding, which have resulted in Zakiono Enterprises Ltd. holding a total of 51.5% of shares in the company.

---

Building-Materials Distributor Lords Group to Raise GBP30 Mln in AIM Float

Lords Group Trading PLC, a distributor of building materials in the U.K., said Tuesday that it will raise 30 million pounds ($41.5 million) as part of its proposed initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

New Amsterdam Invest Raises EUR49.1 Mln in Amsterdam Listing

New Amsterdam Invest NV said Tuesday that it has listed on Euronext Amsterdam and raised funds in a placing with a total offer value of 49.1 million euros ($58.3 million).

---

Logistics Software Company Microlise Group Plans to Float on London's AIM

Microlise Group PLC said Tuesday that it plans to float on London's junior AIM market.

---

Kavango Resources Directors Invest GBP60,000 in Company

Kavango Resources PLC said Tuesday that directors Ben Turney and Mike Moles have invested a further 60,000 pounds ($83.070) in the company, taking total funds raised under a placing disclosed Monday to GBP2 million.

---

Oil Companies Are Ordered to Help Cover $7.2 Billion Cleanup Bill in Gulf of Mexico

Some of the world's largest oil companies have been ordered to pay part of a $7.2 billion tab to retire hundreds of aging wells in the Gulf of Mexico that they used to own, capping a case that legal experts say is a harbinger of future battles over cleanup costs.

---

CMO Group to Raise GBP27.3 Mln in London IPO

CMO Group PLC, an online building-materials retailer, said Tuesday that it plans to raise 27.3 million pounds ($37.8 million) at a valuation of GBP95 million, as part of its initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

TP Group Appoints David Lindsay as Interim CEO

TP Group PLC said Tuesday that it has appointed David Lindsay as interim chief executive officer with immediate effect.

Lloyd's of London Insurers Battle Back from Downturn

1254 GMT - Lloyd's of London insurers are acting to bounce back from an industry downturn, says J.P. Morgan Cazenove. While the Lloyd's sub-sector was one of the best-performing in European insurance between 2008 and 2017, it deteriorated after 2017 due to consecutive years of heavy catastrophe losses, casualty-related reserving concerns and the pandemic impact, JPM says. "There remains some uncertainties around casualty and cyber risks in particular, but we believe management teams are taking steps to address them," JPM analyst Ashik Musaddi says, upgrading Beazley and Hiscox to overweight from neutral. Still, it cuts Lancashire Holdings to neutral from overweight, saying it's more exposed to climate-change risks through higher catastrophe losses, as well as competition from third-party capital in reinsurance.

---

Ultra Electronics Update Reinforces Strong Balance Sheet an Asset

1134 GMT - Ultra Electronics' 1H underlying performance was strong and exceeded expectations with an order book ahead of last year, Jefferies says. Net debt at the end of May was GBP32 million helped by strong advance payments and lower-than-expected capital expenditure, the U.S. bank says. Although there is some benefit from capex and R&D being lower than expected, the programs on which the defense-equipment provider has secured work promised good order intake at some point, Jefferies says. The update largely reflects what was likely to unfold in fiscal 2021 and reinforces the view that the strong balance sheet is an asset, Jefferies says.

---

Sainsbury Sales Rise But It Needs to Keep Up Momentum

1100 GMT - J Sainsbury needs to stay on the ball despite a first-quarter sales boost and an increase in full-year profit guidance, AJ Bell says. Bell says the company is benefiting from continued online shopping after the pandemic, development of new delivery partnerships and price-cutting. That could increase potential takeover interest in the company and its rivals following a recommended $8.7 billion takeover bid for rival Wm. Morrison Supermarkets, the brokerage says. "A year into his tenure and Chief Executive Simon Thomas is sitting relatively pretty, but the supermarket sector is an extremely competitive and demanding one, so there's no room for complacency, particularly given the uncertainty over the direction Morrisons will take under its new ownership," Bell's investment director Russ Mould says. Shares gain 0.8%.

---

Land Securities, British Land Face Downgrades on Looming Costs, Jefferies Says

1044 GMT - The cost of doing business for Land Securities and British Land is rising, with earnings dependency on shops and retail and impending hits from decarbonizing costs, Jefferies says. Jefferies reduces its dividend forecasts for the two major British real-estate companies. Given looming business model impairments, which at their most extreme could significantly weaken these business, the U.S. bank cuts its ratings for British Land and Land Securities to hold from buy. Instead, Jefferies reiterates it buy rating on "beds, meds and sheds" real estate trusts, like Tritax Big Box, LXI REIT, Big Yellow and PRS. Shares in British Land are down 3.6% at 503.6 pence, and Land Securities is down 3.6% at 679.6 pence.

---

Purplebricks' New Pricing Model Should Build Up Share Price

1036 GMT - Online real estate agent Purplebricks is launching a new pricing model in July following trials in the north west of England, Peel Hunt says. Purplebricks' new money-back guarantee and simplified two-tier offer should support its medium-term 10% share ambition, which in turn is likely to result in 20% revenue growth a year and deliver significant upside to the current share price, the brokerage says. "As has been highlighted elsewhere, a lack of stock is a wider concern for the market, but the group is hopeful of an improving picture post the summer," Peel Hunt says, retaining its buy rating and target price of 120 pence.

Contact: London NewsPlus, Dow Jones Newswires; +44-20-7842-931

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

July 06, 2021 12:11 ET (16:11 GMT)

See more here:

FTSE 100 Slips on Weak Data and Inflationary Concerns - Morningstar.com