Category Archives: Freedom

Conservative hard-liners in the House are hoping to gut the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper whose analysis has recently bedeviled Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by amending a massive spending bill set to be debated later this week.

An amendment filed Monday by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) would eliminate the agencys Budget Analysis Division, cutting 89 jobs and $15 million of the CBOs proposed $48.5 million budget. A separate amendment filed by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would also eliminate the same division and specify that the CBO instead evaluate legislation by facilitating and assimilating scoring data compiled by four private think tanks the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Urban Institute.

Both Griffith and Meadows are members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, but complaints about the CBO have been widespread among Republicans in recent months after the agency found that various iterations of the partys health-care legislation would result in an increase of more than 20 million uninsured Americans over the coming decade. Critics have attacked the CBOs analysis and pointed to its projections on the Affordable Care Act as evidence that the office, now led by a Republican-selected director, cannot be trusted to accurately analyze complex legislation.

The criticism compelled the eight former directors of the CBO, which was created in 1974, to sign a letter Friday objecting to recent attacks on the integrity and professionalism of the agency and on the agencys role in the legislative process.

But conservatives say the CBOs scorekeeping function is best left to other outlets.

Theyre the one group that makes a weathermans 10-day forecast look accurate, said Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chairman, during a Monday appearance at the National Press Club. Theres plenty of think tanks that are out there. And so we ought to take a score from Heritage, from AEI, from Brookings, from the Urban Institute and bring them together for a composite score that would represent a very wide swath of think tanks and their abilities. We think thats a pragmatic way to use the private sector and yet let Congress depend on a score that is accurate.

The White House has also attacked the CBOs credibility as the health-care repeal effort has languished. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) at times has criticized the agencys health-care estimates, but he also defended it from attacks last month, telling reporters that its important that we have a referee.

It is important that we have a scorekeeper, he said. We can always complain about the nature of the score.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, slammed theamendments Monday. The CBO is a long-respected institution whose rigorous analysis and reports are critical resources for Congress as we consider legislation that affects the lives of the American people, he said. These attacks should be beneath Congress. They need to stop.

The amendments are being offered to a $790 billion spending bill that combines appropriations for the military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy and for Congress itself that is scheduled to come to the House floor for debate on Wednesday. The bill was largely written by Republicans and is not expected to garner support from Democrats, meaning that even if it passes the House, it is unlikely to emerge from the Senate intact. But the CBO provision could become subject to negotiations if it is adopted in the House.

Both amendments take advantage of a recent change to House rules pushed by Griffith that allows any member to target discrete programs or even individual employees for reduction or elimination. The provision, known as the Holman rule, was in effect from 1876 until 1983.

When someone gives you bad advice again and again, why would you trust them to help you make big decisions? Griffith said in a statement explaining his amendment. I believe Congress would be better served if CBO becomes an aggregator of predictions made by third-party public policy groups across the political spectrum, from left to center to right.

See the original post here:

Congressional Budget Office is Freedom Caucus's target in spending bill - Washington Post

Demonstrators outside Istanbuls courthouse, where 17 journalists are on trial. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Putting journalists on trial for doing their job, for informing the public or conveying opinion, is never acceptable. Like the canary in the mine, journalists can serve as an early alert to the erosion of the rights of every citizen. Where media freedom is curtailed other freedoms invariably follow. This may be stating the obvious, especially to those of us who enjoy the liberty and protection of democracy. But it is not an uncontested truth.

Freedom of the press is restricted wherever governments claim its exercise might run counter to political imperatives or what they define as national security. Itis a freedom enshrined in UN texts, but it is far from universally recognised as a basic right. It might be tolerated, but only within boundaries subject to whim, in jeopardy whenever those in power feel their interests might be threatened.

Totalitarian regimes (think North Korea) make no claim to upholding media freedom they dont even bother. But semi-dictatorships do pay lip service, at least formally. Regimes that claim to be democracies, and hold elections, often also work methodically to undermine the fundamental tenets of government by the people and for the people; essential pillars, like freedom of information, are gradually dismantled. Turkey today provides a strong example of just this pattern of behaviour.

On Monday, 17 journalists and executives of the independent newspaper Cumhuriyet were put on trial in Istanbul for no other reason than having done their jobs: for writing articles, publishing pictures, using social media, or even just making phone calls. Cumhuriyet is a flagship media organisation, Turkeys oldest daily, founded in 1924 shortly after Ataturk took power. It is the same age as the Republic and it is deeply committed to its founding promise of pluralism, minority rights, peace with the Kurds and investigating corruption; and it has been a harsh critic of Turkeys slide to autocracy in recent years.

It includes some of the best known and respected names in Turkish media, such as the columnist Kadri Gursel, the editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu, the cartoonist Musa Kart and the investigative reporter Ahmet Sik. On Monday they were all in court, charged with having links to various terrorist groups. They face prison sentences of up to 43 years. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, wants to crush this newspaper, just as he is ruthlessly stamping out dissent everywhere that he suspects it exists. Since last years failed coup attempt, 160 journalists have been detained across Turkey, and more than 150 media outlets shut down. At the Hamburg G20 earlier this month, Mr Erdoan warned that journalists also committed crimes and needed to be punished. No evidence has been produced against these journalists to suggest terrorist connections. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals.

Mr Erdoan may seem impervious to external pressure, but Europe could shout louder. As one of the defendants, Kadri Gursel, told the court on Monday: I am not here because I knowingly and willingly helped a terrorist organisation, but because Iam an independent, questioning and critical journalist. Its not too late for retreat, even as the country lurches ever more towards dictatorship: the journalists must be set free. The Guardian stands in solidarity withCumhuriyet.

See the original post:

The Guardian view on Turkish press freedom: standing up for democracy - The Guardian

GENEVA After months of violence and anti-government protests, Venezuela is approaching the political precipice. President Nicols Maduros push toward autocratic rule culminates on July 30, with the planned election of a constituent assembly to rewrite the countrys constitution. And while there is still time to change course, the path back toward democracy is quickly fading from view.

In May, when Maduro announced his plan to establish a constituent assembly, he presented it as a way to restore confidence in his government, which has struggled to recover from economic decline amid collapsing oil prices. But as the vote has drawn closer, it has become clear that Maduros intent has always been to consolidate his power, and impose on Venezuelas 31 million people an authoritarian, pseudo-socialist system. By rigging the vote with handpicked candidates, the president appears willing to use any means to maintain power.

The world got a taste of Maduros true aims earlier this month. On July 5, government- backed paramilitary forces, in collusion with the National Guard, attacked the opposition-controlled National Assembly. For six hours, politicians and employees were held at gunpoint; one hostage, Assembly President Julio Borges, described the siege as evidence of the countrys descent into complete anarchy.

That brazen assault preceded a national referendum, organized by opposition parties, to gauge support for Maduros plan to redraft the constitution. If the prevailing sentiment wasnt clear to the president before the July 16 plebiscite, it was after: more than seven million people participated, with an astonishing 98% rejecting the proposal a clear repudiation of Maduros government.

To carry out the plebiscite, Mesa de la Unidad Democrtica (MUD), the oppositions umbrella organization, activated a network of voting centers, operating with full transparency, in just a few days. And by holding the referendum, MUD has managed, with one vote, to do what Maduro has failed to do during his entire presidency: unite the country.

In contrast to government-organized electoral initiatives, every Venezuelan, regardless of political affiliation, was invited to participate and express their views. For those of us who observed the voting, it was a reminder that, while Venezuela is currently being mismanaged, the public remains prepared to fight for their country and its democratic institutions.

MUDs referendum set the stage for the crisis that will come to a head this week. Opposition groups and protesters are boycotting the constituent assembly election, but the consolidation of presidential power that Maduro is seeking will not be the only issue on their minds. Protesters are also calling on the government to release political prisoners, uphold the current constitution, and establish a government of national unity to restore economic and political stability.

Given the stakes, it is no surprise that the Maduro government immediately sought to discredit the July 16 referendum. Votes were still being counted when the head of the National Electoral Council, Tibisay Lucena, dismissed the process as invalid and legally irrelevant.

But just as the attack on the National Assembly failed to quell public anger, so, too, will the governments dismissal of the referendums results. Venezuelans preferred option is to move ahead peacefully, along the lines proposed last year by the Vatican, which called for early presidential elections, a more autonomous parliament, and other measures. For its part, the National Assembly has already begun to put together a precise roadmap for implementing similar demands endorsed in the July 16 referendum.

Moreover, Maduro faces mounting pressure to cancel the constituent assembly election. Colombia, France, Spain, the European Union, and the United States have called on him to back down, and US President Donald Trump has threatened new sanctions if the voting goes ahead. The solidarity is welcome, but it will not be enough to alter the current trajectory. More regional pressure is needed and quickly if further violent disorder is to be averted.

The regime can still stop Venezuelas downward spiral, and Venezuelans have shown clearly that they are determined to fight for their countrys future. To ensure a return to democracy in Venezuela, the international community must stand up as well.

Link:

Venezuela's Freedom Fighters - Project Syndicate

Its probably safe to say that philosophy is to psychology as the body of a beer is to its head. That being true, then we live in an age in which its fashionable to swim in the foam bubbles of psychology. And thats true because people are fascinated with the subconscious, which has the unpredictability and energy of an untied balloon: In the context of the daily routine of modern life the subconscious adds excitement.

For example, the subconscious is unpredictable and energetic when it answers Socrates very conscious observation that to know the good is to do the good with now wait just one minute ... not always.

But psychology doesnt answer the larger questions of philosophy. For Americans, a large philosophical question is the scope of freedom; Americans love freedom.

Freedom in America has been defined as the freedom to conform to ones religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom from colonialism, freedom of choice.

Today, the reigning definition of freedom in America is found in economics: the freedom of choice in the marketplace, the freedom to choose among a variety of products. Other concepts of freedom are not as discussed because over the last 17 years theres been a psychological tension between freedom and security: greater freedom, less security; greater security, less freedom.

This tension is not new in America the 1950s Red Scare, McCarthy hearings and Cold War represented a time when Americans reduced the scope of their freedoms to consumerism. Americans in the 1950s referred to each other as hollow man and hollow woman of the consumerist age; Richard Nixon was the hollow man of the 1960 presidential election.

But the 1950s narrow conception of freedom gave way to the larger one of the 1960s, reconstituting the psychology of freedom in the American.

Original post:

Americans' conception of freedom changes - LancasterOnline

Chloe Frazer in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy Photo: Sony Interactive Entertainment

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, out August 22, is looking like a promising way to eat up the last bit of summer. Dispensing with series lead Nathan Drake, this expansion to last years stunning Uncharted 4 focuses on fortune hunter Chloe Frazer and mercenary Nadine Ross, two side characters from the series now given center stage. The gameplay is still Uncharted youll scale a lot of cliffs, swing on a lot of ropes, and shoot a lot of generic bad guys but the change in characters creates a new feel to the series. Nadine and Chloe are more wary of each other, but also more droll and biting than earnest bro Nathan Drake ever was.

The section I played is more ambitious than anything in Uncharted 4, taking that games Jeep-driving exploration sequence and wildly expanding it. Youre given a huge open space in western India with three different forts to explore and numerous things to distract you along the way. It feels like a small open-world game you can even climb a tower to get a lay of the land and your main objectives plopped down on a map but done with Naughty Dogs combination of tight gameplay and stunning performances. The amount of meaning the actors and animators are able to get through the subtle shifts in facial expressions continues to impress especially when compared to the still-wooden performances you see in the majority of video games.

After playing through a 30-minute section of the game, I talked with lead designer on Lost Legacy, James Cooper, about Naughty Dogs approach to telling stories.

When you actually sit down to write the story, I imagine you sketch out the broad narrative arc. But when it comes down to specific sections of the game, how do you divide the beats between Heres the story we need to tell and Heres the set piece and the gameplay we need? Its a very collaborative environment. We dont do one thing without the other. One of the unique aspects about the studio that really makes Uncharted work is that we always approach things with the story in mind when were designing the gameplay elements, and were always thinking about the gameplay when were writing the story.

The two go hand in hand throughout. In regard to [the segment you just played] being very explorative and player-driven, thats actually one of the biggest challenges. Were trying to tell a linear story in a nonlinear environment. We had to break down a number of things: How does that work? How do we design around that? How do we build these spaces? There are aspects of the story that will play out linearly irrespective of the choices that the player makes whether they go to fort A, B, or C first. We still try and make that linear narrative work. We still have the arc that you would expect from a story crafted like that.

And certain things will happen depending on the player choices they make. Some aspects of the story, you may or may not experience. We talked a little bit about the side quests, so to speak, in this space as well, and players may never see anything of that unless they go looking for it.

What did you learn about telling stories in Uncharted 4that you brought to this game? We have an expression that we use in the studio, Keeping it on the stick. Which is a high-level goal that we have: trying to keep as much of the story in gameplay as we can. We were doing more of that in The Last of Us, and in Uncharted 4 particularly, with things like optional conversations, where the player can learn more about the world or engage more with certain characters. Like, do we need to tell a particular moment as a cinematic, or can we keep that in gameplay? Whenever were in set pieces, were trying to keep the gameplay as much under the player control as we can, so that you can really feel like youre playing this experience.

Whats the decision process like when you choose to go to a cut scene over staying in the game? It tends to be for when we need the more subtle emotional cues, when we really want to frame certain shots and tell certain poignant stories. One thing that we also find works really well is using cinematics as a pacing tool. We have a lot of players who will play through and want to experience as much of the story as they can, and a lot of players just want to play purely for the story like they dont care about the gameplay. We use cinematics to layer in whats happening with the characters. What are they feeling right now? What are their goals? What are their motivations? How do we keep the story moving along? What are the revelations were trying to get at in this beat?

Again, that was something thats been a huge challenge in this section because its so player- directed. Because were really handing the reins over to the player a lot more. How do we still retain what players expect from an Uncharted game in terms of pacing while enabling a certain level of player agency?

The dialogue still has that sharpness of Uncharted 4. Do you have a writer that specializes in those back-and-forth moments? And what is that writing process like? So, Shaun Escayg and Josh [Scherr] are the two writers Shaun is the creative director as well. Those two guys have worked very closely together in terms of setting out the high-level arcs for these characters and the story, and then really building in the minute-to-minute dialogue through the game. So everything is informed by those high-level goals. And we take that into where we have gameplay spaces to make that work.

So its like, Okay, the player is going to be driving for a moment here. So this is a chance for them to talk a little bit. Yeah, and typically particularly during the gameplay parts, because the player might be driving for 5 minutes; they might be driving for 15 minutes; we really dont know theres a lot of dialogue that we have written that some players are just never going to hear. This is like, the sixth interview weve done today and Im still hearing things in this that Ive never heard before. Thats why Ill be laughing at the same time youll be laughing, because I hadnt heard that little bit of rapport between the two characters its great.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

A good spot by The Daily Show.

The outmoded application still has millions of fans.

So many drunk tacos. So little time.

Talking with Naughty Dog about creating a great story and a great game at the same time.

Now theres a tweet.

The passenger said when he got into the car there was an intoxicated woman in the passenger seat who performed oral sex on the driver.

A very weird Twitter drama between the TSA and United Airlines.

The latest food trend involves spearing your burger on your soda.

His now-deleted content includes several tweets praising Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

In a world where a company notorious for hoarding cash spends a ton on an ad.

Pauls neighbors in Los Angeles are considering filing a lawsuit against the young star for stunts like lighting a giant fire in his swimming pool.

Everybody is making the same dumb joke about Trumps new communications director.

Anthony Scaramucci doesnt seem concerned about all his old tweets.

Musk is a good executive. But hes a world-class carnival barker.

Sean Spicer, the most meme-able White House employee besides the president, departs.

But it still doesnt know who Fancy Bear is.

While Uber tries to go it alone, Lyft continues to try to partner up.

In recent weeks, numerous women have come forward with accusations of gross sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the industry.

View post:

Balancing Freedom and Storytelling in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy - New York Magazine

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Opinion contributor Published 2:58 p.m. ET July 24, 2017 | Updated 7:26 a.m. ET July 25, 2017

Protest in Chicago in June 2017.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

What is the health care debate all about? Freedom. Specifically two different conceptions of freedom.

One is freedom to buy what you want. In this view, the country is a collection of 325 million individuals, and freedom is everyone pursuing their lives without interference. The other is freedom from worry. It views America as a community, and freedom is knowing you can get help when you are sick and in need.

The difference is illustrated by one of my late patients, DotAhern, whohad chronic myelogenous leukemia. She was kept alive and continued to actively work as a substitute teacher in the public schools ofWorcester, Mass., by a medicine that cost tens of thousands of dollars every year. While comfortably middle class with a suburban house, she could not afford to pay for that medication out of her own salary.

Fortunately, her insurance paid. And her insurance premium was affordable. Why? Because other people were also buying health insurance, but they did not need tens of thousands of dollars in drugs or medical services.

Obamacare repeal fever: Obvious fixes, or a disastrous mess? Mastio & Lawrence

There is no way of sugarcoating it: The other people buying insurance were subsidizing Ms. Aherns care. Eventually, when they had an illness or accident requiring expensive medical care, thatin turn would be subsidized by still others. Ms. Aherns freedom to have health insurance at an affordable premium required other people to buy health insurance.

That is how all insurance works. Lots of people buy car, homeownersor flood insurance paying premiums but only a few people use the insurance in any given year. Those who dont file claims are subsidizing those who do.

But what if these other people said they wanted the freedom to buy health insurance that covered fewer services, and therefore had a lower premium?

House SpeakerPaul Ryan says the Republican approach is better forthese people: Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Or as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthyput it: Were taking steps toward a free and open marketplace where families can buy health insurance that works for them.

But if many people decide to buy insurance that covers less, then Ms. Ahern will have to pay more lots more for her insurance. And if this process continues, her premiums will eventually be unaffordable or, more precisely, there will be no insurance. She alone will be responsible for paying tens of thousands of dollars for the drugs thatkeep her alive and working.

The freedom Ryan and McCarthy laud isthe freedom of individuals to buy only what they want at that very moment, and not have to pay for rehabilitative services or maternity care or mental health care or dental care for children or Ms. Aherns expensive cancer drugs. Itmeans that older individuals and people who have cancer, Parkinsons diseaseor diabetes will be priced out and lose the freedom from fear that accompanies having health insurance.

Senate health bill: Don't throw momma from the Medicaid train

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The fundamental and inviolate law of health insurance is that the only way to ensure that a person with cancer or an older person who is at high risk of having heart disease or diabetes can have the freedom that comes with affordable health insurance is to require other Americans who are unlikely to use much health care to buy health insurance, too and not just insurance that covers the few services they will use. Freedom not to have health insurance for some necessarily, inescapably means the loss of freedom to have health insurance for others.

This requirement can be accomplished in two ways:We cankeepthe Obamacare approach ofrequiringeveryoneto buy health insurance and subsidizingthose with lower incomes so that they canafford the premiums. Or we can adopt the Medicare approach thegovernment providesall Americans with a minimum health insurance package and they canbuy coverage for additional services,such as drug coverage,at subsidized rates.

There are no other options that really work. Approaches that charge much more a penalty payment to people who dont buy insurance immediately are not sufficiently effective. Besides, paying a penalty for not buying insurance looks a lot like the Obamacare mandate Republicans deride.

The basic choice on health care reform is this: We can givefreedom to young healthy people to buy what they want and deny the Ms. Aherns of this country freedom from worry about whether theycan afford health insurance and get theirlifesaving drugs. Or, we can recognize that at some point in our lives, most of uswill be like Ms. Ahern we will contract an expensive illness and need other people to help us by keeping health insurance affordable.

Unless you are invincible, and will never get sick or in an accident and needa doctor or hospital, you too will need the help of others, and the freedom that comes with knowing you will be able to count on them and get the care you need.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist, a venture partner at Oak HC/FT and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, advised the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. His new book, Prescription for the Future: The Twelve Transformational Practices of Highly Effective Medical Organizations, was published last month.

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vTjScj

See the original post:

GOP health bill pits freedom of choice against freedom from fear - USA TODAY

Great public interest would trump his freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right that can be limited said Phephelaphi Dube director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights.

Overwhelming public interest overshadows his freedom of expression she said.

According to the Freedom of Expression Institute the question on whether or not doctor-patient confidentiality trumps freedom of expression is one that speaks to ethics.

In this case SAMA has indicated that patient information is confidential even after the patient has passed on. From that perspective we would argue that the doctor is bound by his profession not to disclose sensitive patient details said FXIs spokesperson Tusi Fokane.

According to the Health Professions' Council of SA a doctor can circumvent his oath to respect doctor-patient confidentiality in respect of a deceased patient only if he has the written consent of the next-of-kin or of the executor of the deceased's estate

- TimesLIVE

READ MORE:

View post:

Mandela book author's freedom of expression rights may be trumped by 'overwhelming' public interest say experts - Times LIVE

The health-care clusterfudge continues. Senator John McCain has brain cancer. President Trump throws another public tantrum. Russia, Russia, Russia.

That about covers the Big Political Headlines of the week. Now for something really sexy: the creeping assault on the Freedom of Information Act.

The GOP Health-Care Bill's Byrd Rule Dilemma

Stop right there! No clicking over to that Tucker Carlson YouTube rant. This is another one of those ticky-tacky, below-the-radar issues that may sound like a nonprescription substitute for Ambien but is, practically speaking, super importantespecially in the Age of Trump.

FOIA is what enables regular people to pester powerful federal agencies into handing over information about what theyve been up to. FOIAs website calls it the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Though a tad grandiose, that characterization is pretty much accurate. And never has such a tool been quite so vital as with the current White House, which has adopted a policy of unabashedly lying about pretty much everything.

Its hardly surprising then that government accountability groups balked when, in early April, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling directed multiple agencies under his committees jurisdiction to start classifying all communications with the committee as official congressional records not subject to FOIA.

Probably best to back up a tick: FOIA applies only to executive agency records. Congressional records are a different creature entirely (as are presidential records), enjoying greater privacy protections. But not every document that has been created by or sent to Congress qualifies as a congressional record.

There has to be an expression of intent by Congress to treat a particular record or group of records as something that is a congressional recordthat it belongs to Congress and is only being given to an agency for a specific purpose, explained Lee Steven, assistant vice president with Cause of Action Institute, a pro-transparency, anti-big government nonprofit. What the courts have in the past said is that you cant put a blanket, before-the-fact designation on such a broad category. As such, Steven told me, Hensarlings directive is an egregious, possibly illegal case of overreach.

Hensarlings letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wound up in the press for all to peruse. The chairman indeed appears intent on sweeping all agency communications with his committee out of the public eye. (I reached out to multiple Republican Finance staffers about this. No one responded.) This would include not just memos to or from the committee or documents generated by an agency in response to a committee request. Hensarling also wants to reclassify pre-existing agency records that are compiled and sent over to the Hill for any reason.

Basically, if anyone at an agency is interacting with the finance committee in any way, Hensarling wants to make sure that you cant find out any details about it.

You can see how this might not be great in terms of promoting government accountability.

In early May, 21 good-government groups sent an open letter to Hensarling, asking him to rescind his directive. CoAI took it a step farther, issuing a FOIA request to the Department of Justicewhich oversees FOIA compliance for all agenciesfor any interaction the department may have had with the Finance Committee on this issue. The Department of Justice has so far ignored that request, prompting CoAI to file a lawsuit aimed at goosing it to comply.

To clarify: CoAI is not some lefty resistance group looking to make life hard for a Republican administration or Congress. It is generally considered a conservative organization. (The liberal Media Matters huffed in 2015 when CoAI was annoying the Obama White House: The group has received funding from the Koch brothers' financial network, and its [now former] executive director worked for Charles Koch and for the House Oversight Committee under Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.)

So to review: What you have here is a conservative group suing a conservative Justice Department for ignoring a FOIA request concerning a conservative House chairmans efforts to kneecap FOIA.

Even my head hurts at this point.

Steven clarifies that CoAIs suit against the Justice Department, for which oral arguments begin next month, may not have an initial impact on Hensarlings directive. (Where the case ultimately goes will depend on whether DoJ hands over the requested communicationsor maybe cites Hensarlings directive as an excuse not to; what those communications say; whether the White House was involved; and so on.) This is sort of a first step, said Steven.

But make no mistake: The ultimate goal is to stop lawmakers from undercutting one of the key tools the public has for keeping an eye on its government.

Were not saying that the idea of congressional records is completely off base. Not at all, stressed Steven. But this directive, as written, is way too broad.

This is in no way to suggest Hensarling is the only lawmaker looking for a little extra cover. CoAI has a near identical suit already making its way through the courts, stemming from a squabble it got into with the Obama-era IRSs dealings with Congresss Joint Committee on Taxation. The JCT basically did the same thing as what Hensarling is doing here, with respect to the IRS, said Steven. The ruling on that case, he noted, should provide a good indication of how this one will fare.

Its as inevitable as Trumps next Twit-fit: Those in power dislike the public nosing around in their business and are forever looking to shield themselves from scrutiny. But when that happens, the public needs to push back. Hard. No matter which team is in charge. And no matter how unsexy the details of the battle may be.

See the rest here:

The War on the Freedom of Information Act - The Atlantic

Less than 24 hours after Washington celebrated Independence Day, in the midst of a two-week stretch of round-the-clock discussions on healthcare reform and the GOP agenda, Rep. Mark Meadows drove up to the White House to talk strategy.

"Can you hold on just a second?" he asked the Washington Examiner as he rolled down the window to speak to security. "I'm heading in the guard gate." He's a busy guy, and he was in the middle of phone interview as he pulled into the executive mansion.

"I'm going up to see Steve Bannon," he said, not to his interviewer but to one of the rings of security. "Thank you."

Most lawmakers had gone home for a week's recess, but Meadows stuck around for a while at least. He and his wife, Debbie, had to celebrate America's 241st birthday with friends, but he also had business to attend to.

Healthcare reform and the rest of the Republican legislative agenda evolve continuously, and as they have, Meadows has become a central figure and a chief influencer in a federal Washington run by President Trump.

He has arrived in this unaccustomed position after years cementing his standing as the consummate outsider. Meadows is in his third term as a member of the House of Representatives. He won North Carolina's drastically-redrawn 11th District after an eight-way Republican primary contest in 2012.

He has certainly made his presence felt more than ever before in the first six months of the Trump presidency. Despite his nearly constant smile and an aw-shucks demeanor being very different from Trump's jaw-jutting demeanor, Meadows resembles the president in unmistakeable ways. He has challenged the party's traditional leaders and bucked the establishment. He used to be a real estate broker, he pitches himself as a negotiator, and uses news media effectively to build his influence. Who does that remind you of? But it must be conceded that Meadows is an emollient character and considerably less pugnacious than his president.

He's been a thorn in the side of the GOP leadership for years. But despite this, he has now cultivated a fruitful relationship with the Trump administration and has established a rapport with House leadership cordial enough to give the Freedom Caucus, of which he is head, not just a seat at the table but real influence.

This is what its members have pined for since the group was formed. The caucus famously tangled with the GOP's House conference when it was led by Speaker John Boehner, especially over a push in 2013 to defund Obamacare. That effort was spearheaded by Meadows. But the arrival of Trump has changed everything and has pushed the Freedom Caucus to the negotiating table, where Meadows, the real estate executive, is in his comfort zone.

"Before, it was very easy to be against things, and just say, 'This is our position. This is where we're going to be,'" Meadows said in one of three interviews with the Washington Examiner. "If you just say, 'Well, this is our position. That's all we're going to support,' we have at best four years to make this all work. Maybe, at worst, two years, and so becoming so rigid in a unified government makes you miss opportunities.

"Here, we know every single time if we're going to be a conservative conference, the votes of the 36 House Freedom Caucus members, every one of them counts. It's important that we get it right, but it's also important that we don't frustrate some of our colleagues, which we have done in the past and that we might have even done last week. But it's important that we see that we're persuadable, and hopefully the whole healthcare debate showed both ends of the spectrum not persuadable, but persuadable."

Household name

The Freedom Caucus famously tangled with the GOP's House conference when it was led by Speaker John Boehner. (AP Photos)

The mild-mannered North Carolinian first gained attention, not to mention notoriety, for his repeated clashes with Boehner. He now regards his effort to oust Boehner by introducing a motion to "vacate the chair" as a "low point" and concedes that he was "naive." But he's changed since then. And in doing so, he has become a household name, at least inside Washington, during the healthcare fight, which he says was a "defining moment" for the caucus he leads. During that defining moment, Meadows was engulfed in the media crush that usually surrounds political A-listers or people drowning in scandal.

The healthcare fight was bruising for a caucus that wanted to get to "yes." When the caucus's opposition was at its peak, on March 21, Trump went to Capitol Hill for the House Republicans' weekly conference meeting and called out Meadows for the Freedom Caucus's recalcitrant opposition to the bill.

The president told GOP lawmakers that he could "come after" Meadows, but didn't think it would be necessary, which prompted Meadows to blush "sheepishly," according to a conservative aide. But Trump's jokey coercion backfired and instead of winning over or cajoling the Freedom Caucus into acquiescence, it stiffened members' opposition to the bill as 35 of the 38 members stood with their chairman.

"Anytime that you get called out by the president, it's not necessarily a good thing. I saw it as just the person he is where he's going to call me out and put that kind of pressure on me that would make most people wilt. I didn't take it personally," Meadows said, but "I felt unbelievable pressure. I think that what he doesn't realize is that the pressure I felt was already Herculean before he called me out, and then when he called me out, it was even greater."

Days later, just hours before the vote, when the American Health Care Act appeared to be on its deathbed, Meadows and the Freedom Caucus held an emotional meeting with Vice President Mike Pence at the Capitol Hill Club, a Republican hotspot next to the Republican National Committee.

To this day, Meadows has no clue how Pence found out where the group was meeting, or who let him know about it. "I was quickly looking for NSA intel to have gathered enough to let him know where we were meeting," Meadows said of the gathering. Pence made an "impassioned plea," and managed to swing more than a handful of votes to "yes," but not nearly enough. At least 18 members remained hard "nos."

"[Meadows] was literally in tears," said a Freedom Caucus member, "He felt the weight of that meeting, and he wanted so much to get to yes.'"

Less than two hours later, Trump and House leadership canceled the vote, and talks went on for the next 40 days, after which the bill passed with Freedom Caucus support on May 4. The final bill included the so-called MacArthur amendment, which Meadows negotiated with Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., to allow states to opt out of providing various health benefits in reduce the price of premiums.

Meadows was "worn down" during discussions "physically and mentally," a Freedom Caucus source recalls, thanks partly to nonstop calls to and from the White House and House Speaker Paul Ryan. There were many sleepless nights and a lot of work in the wee hours of the morning, Meadows says.

Once, days before the bill passed, an exhausted Meadows lamented to reporters outside the House chamber that it had been a long week, only to be reminded that it was only Monday.

Helping pass the bill was crucial to the Freedom Caucus. Many of its members, including Meadows, knew that others in the party conference said the group could never get to "yes."

"If we had not gotten to yes' in the end, that would have been a problem," Meadows said. "It was a defining moment [H]ad there not been a bill that was pulled on the Thursday or Friday, there would always have been the idea that the Freedom Caucus will cave in the end. But equally as important, had we not come around and provided the votes a few weeks later for 'yes,' there would have been the typical stereotype that they'll never get to 'yes.' "

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., a Freedom Caucus member, put it more bluntly. "For a caucus or a group, simply no' gets to be very, very dangerous in political terms," Sanford said. "You, at some point, have to find a way to get to yes.' Not on every bill, but certainly on some of them, cause if not, there's no reason to come your way from a negotiation standpoint and spend time with you. If it's just going to be no,' I'll go elsewhere."

Taking over

Rep. Mark Meadows took over as leader of the Freedom Caucus in December from Rep. Jim Jordan.

After years of being a leading figure in what was known on Capitol Hill as the "hell no" caucus, Meadows took over as leader in December from Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. The group had discussed making Jordan chairman for life, so it was a hard act to follow.

Jordan still commands respect, and he and Meadows describe each other as best friends, but the change in the caucus since Meadows took charge has been noticed on Capitol Hill and among members. Many argue that Jordan was a better fit for the Obama years but Meadows is right for today. Additionally, some members believe that without Meadows' negotiating, the bill would have failed.

Sanford said, "The personalities fit. Jim Jordan's background as a wrestler absolutely fit with his willingness to engage and tangle with the [Obama] administration. He's a fighter, and that's what the ring is all about.

"Mark is much more conciliatory. He's genteel. He's southern. He's cordial, and at times you can get more, certainly with this administration, with sweet rather than sour."

Meadows hardly disputes this, saying, "Do we have two different styles? Yeah. Jim was a two-time national champion wrestler, and I wasn't. I've gotta go to my strengths, and he can go to his."

Still, the Freedom Caucus is still regarded with skepticism months after it support the healthcare bill. Outsiders wonder whether the healthcare bill was a one-off or whether a readiness to compromise will also be apparent in negotiations over tax reform and other items on the GOP agenda.

"Only time will tell," said Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., another Trump ally. "I actually think all of us took a step, hopefully, forward ... in the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus, let's hope."

Not everyone agrees with Sanford. Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a former Freedom Caucus stalwart, said, "I don't think the organization is any different with Meadows than it is with Jordan. If Mark Meadows gets run over by a bus tomorrow, I don't think it changes the nature of the Freedom Caucus."

Whatever is the case, Meadows has become an ally of the White House. He has shown an ability to bridge the gap between the administration and his group of more than 30 conservatives lawmakers. He texts with Steve Bannon nearly every day, and keeps in regular contact with Marc Short, White House director of legislative affairs, Kellyanne Conway, and Reince Priebus. His warm relationship these senior lieutenants, and with the president, dates back to the campaign, during which he and his wife, Debbie, worked extensively for Trump.

After the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was leaked to the press, setting off scandalized and electorally dangerous discussion about Trump's treatment of women, Republicans of many stripes, especially those facing tough re-election battles, abandoned Trump. But Meadows and his wife stayed on board, literally and figuratively. Debbie Meadows boarded a "Women for Trump" bus with 10 other wives of congressmen, and defended the candidate. Trump and the White House have not forgotten this, and are unlikely ever to do so.

"We will always remember how tenacious and loyal Mark and Debbie Meadows were, especially after Oct. 7. They're definitely members of what we call the Oct. 8th coalition,'" said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, in an interview.

"In the final month, beginning with her boarding that bus in the face of a great deal of pressure to do otherwise tells you something about their tenacity and loyalty," Conway added.

The relationship between the White House and the Meadows couple goes a lot further than politics. In the middle of an interview at the Congressional Baseball Game in June, Conway stopped briefly to take a selfie with a Meadows staffer before the two bonded momentarily over Debbie's culinary skills.

"Guess what's in my bag in the car," Conway said to the staffer.

Staffer: "No way, what is it?!"

Conway: "Debbie Meadows' cookies! She sent me cookies the other day,"

Staffer: "Oh my God. Are you serious?!"

Conway: "Oh my God, the filled ones ... Here, we need to get a good picture."

Meadows knows his wife's cookies, saying the above exchange was about a fruit-filled variety, and that his wife has also been known to send those, and pound cakes, to friends and Capitol Police officers.

Meeting the press

President Trump brought many House Republicans to the Rose Garden to celebrate the passage of their bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. (Bloomberg Photo)

Given the relationship with Trump and the White House, it's no surprise that Meadows has seen his profile grow exponentially.

When Trump brought many House Republicans to the Rose Garden to celebrate the passage of their repeal and replace bill, Meadows stood prominently at the president's right shoulder next to Ryan and House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady.

In subsequent days, Meadows was hailed for his role. Breitbart, the pro-Trump website, ran a headline reading, "SPEAKER MEADOWS?"

A former House leadership aide described Meadows back in the Boehner days as someone with a penchant for saying completely contradictory things, no matter the issue, adding, "You never knew what to believe."

These days, Meadows keeps in touch with Ryan, often via text, and meets him weekly for lunch with Jordan, top members of the Tuesday Group, Republican Study Committee, and the House leadership.

"His outreach is certainly not being lost on me," Meadows said of Ryan. But their relationship isn't where it could be or where leadership would like it to be. "I wouldn't say [it's] good... it's tenuous and strained at times. It's much easier if you say yes and go along."

Meadows is well liked by House members, and counts most GOP conference and some Democrats as friends. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., a fellow member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says Meadows' "charm" and "humor" help the two find common ground.

"He listens, he's willing to learn, and he doesn't come necessarily with an ideological, a priori, view on an issue," Connolly said. "I can't ask more from a colleague than that."

Meadows greatly desires to be liked, colleagues say, and this can make him thin-skinned.

"He's very sensitive and takes criticism very harshly," a Freedom Caucus source said, pointing to Meadows getting worked up over Facebook comments from constituents and phoning them personally. "He is deeply hurt if people dislike him." Meadows doesn't deny it, but says he'd rather be "understood" than liked.

Meadows reportedly got down on his knees in front of Boehner in 2013 and apologized for leading the coup. Boehner spread the story in 2015, but a Meadows staffer says it's not true.

Meadows' approach couldn't be more different from that of the White Houses, which is hostile with the press and frequently decries reports it disagrees with as Fake News.

He has courted the press, and can often be found talking to reporters. The Freedom Caucus is a press-friendly group and has negotiated through the media, including recently when it wanted members to stay in Washington and work through the August recess.

"I love [the media]. I'll tell you what, I don't know if they like me, but I like them. I really do," Meadows said. "You got two options: You either don't talk to the press and the story is written, or you do talk to the press and the story is written. I try to give as much possible time as I can. We do think that it's important that we share our side of the story."

Meadows' approach couldn't be more different from that of the White House's, which is hostile with the press and frequently decries reports it disagrees with as "Fake News." Meadows doesn't criticize or buck the White House often, but breaks with it about the news media.

"I made a rule a long time ago," Meadows said, quoting an old adage. "You never make enemies with people who buy ink in barrels.

"My style is one that is less confrontational. [I] try to win people over with the argument more than arguing. So as I see it, it's just making sure that you present the best case that you can to the media and I think the larger story there is being able to interact with the media at times when you feel like they're not giving you a fair shake. You have to make sure that you call it out," he said. "But I've always found that I'm going to focus on the argument [rather] than trying to create a sense of fairness."

Reporters stake out Caucus dinners, held weekly on the second floor of the Rayburn House Office Building. The dinners used to be held at Tortilla Coast or Hunan Dynasty, both Capitol Hill locales, but were relocated due to structural deficiencies, specifically after Tortilla Coast's basement flooded and Hunan Dynasty caught fire in November.

Meadows' coziness with the press is reviled in other quarters of the GOP conference. Members of the Freedom Caucus are known for giving their cellphone members to reporters and being widely accessible.

"He leaks, and he likes the media a lot. Sometimes, it makes it difficult to work with him," a longtime colleague said, adding that the Freedom Caucus is a mirror image in that sense. "I think that maybe their desire to get on the media undermines their credibility with some of their colleagues."

But while Meadows' closeness with the press is bound to keep him in headlines, his real power is in the roughly 36 votes he can help sway, enough to derail or prop up legislation, and his closeness with a president who could make or break his future.

See more here:

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows takes a seat at the top table - Washington Examiner

The first trailer for the next CW Seed animated series,Freedom Fighters: The Ray, was released at San Diego Comic-Con, and it is shockingly dark. In a parallel world new to the CW's "Arrowverse," Earth X, the Nazis won World War II and their superteam, the New Reichsmen, rule America. That superteam? Nazi versions of the main trio of CW superheroes: The Flash, Arrow, and Supergirl.

The trailer centers on Ray, based on the reinvention of the character in Grant Morrison'sMultiversity, a member of the Freedom Fighters trying to take America back from the Nazis. It's brutal, violent, and altogether doesn't look like the Freedom Fighters have much of a chance -- the perfect setup for a season of stories.

The Ray will debut this fall on CW Seed. Check out the trailer below the official synopsis.

Raymond Ray Terrill was a reporter who discovered a group of government scientists working on a secret project to turn light into a weapon of mass destruction. But before he could report on his findings, the project head exposed Ray to a genetic light bomb. The bomb failed to kill him and instead gifted Ray with light-based powers. With these abilities, Ray realized he could go beyond reporting on injustice he could take action to help stop it. Calling himself The Ray, he was recruited by Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters to fight violence and oppression wherever it exists.

Original post:

Syfy - The CW's Freedom Fighters: The Ray SDCC trailer introduces ... - SYFY WIRE (blog)