Category Archives: Freedom

The 2021 session was disappointing for a number of reasons, but the Legislature rejecting a $6 million grant to develop early-learning initiatives for children might have been the lowest point.

That money would have helped communities build and fund preschool programs in accordance with local needs and values. But Republicans were bullied by the Idaho Freedom Foundation into voting against the grant, which had been secured by our U.S. senators under the Trump administration. Because of this, Idaho remains one of four states that doesnt offer public pre-K.

Now the IFFs Idaho Freedom Action group has launched a smear campaign against us for voting in support of early childhood education, saying we were pushing critical race theory on Idaho children. What dangerous nonsense.

Investigation after investigation proves CRT isnt being taught in our schools at any level. And yet, that false narrative continues to be pushed by the IFF and its legislative puppets in order to defund and undermine public education in Idaho, causing serious damage to our local communities, educators, and children.

This malicious lie also just distracts us from addressing the real issues impacting Idahoans, like underfunded schools and a lack of accessible child care options.

For many, pre-K serves as a form of day care for children while parents are at work. It also helps children develop a number of critical skills, like literacy, that better prepare them for success in kindergarten. Had we accepted the $6 million grant, it would have greatly benefitted young working families, as well as our economy by allowing parents to enter or stay in the workforce.

But one lawmaker made it clear in his debate he had no interest in voting for a bill that made it easier or more convenient for mothers to come out of the home.

Voting to accept that grant was a no-brainer, and it would have been a major investment in our most precious resource: our children. That money would have actually been the second distribution from the federal Preschool Development Grants Program. We accepted the first $6 million in 2020, and saw great success in our local communities. Both of our districts have early learning collaboratives the Kendrick-Julietta and Pocatello-Chubbuck preschools that directly benefited.

If given the opportunity, wed continue to vote in favor of it, and wont stop fighting for quality public education at every level, particularly for our youngest learners. As elected officials, we represent the people of Idaho, not the interests of extremist groups trying to destroy our state, like the IFF. No amount of bullying or intimidation will ever change that.

Go here to see the original:

We represent Idaho, not the Idaho Freedom Foundation - Idaho EdNews

AUSTIN, Tex. Creating is a special way to let others in. 26-year-old Jonah Dillon has gravitated towards art expression for as long as he can remember.

A lot of the time Im inspired by the things around me," Dillon said.

His years of work are captured inside a portfolio that lives inside his closet, but his current specialty is happening just outside his room.

Jonahs medium wasnt always paint.

Drawing filled a space in his heart for a long time.

I used to be able to draw and stuff with my hands for most of my life until after high school," Dillon said. "Now I cant use my arms as much as I used to be able to. I didnt draw for a while, I didnt do anything artistic because I couldnt draw and I didnt know what to do.

Art can provide a feeling of freedom freedoms that for Dillon, dwindled over time.

My condition it like gets progressively just gets worse and worse," Dillon said.

Instead of focusing on what he didnt have, he thought about what he did have; his artistic mind and his motorized wheelchair.

About three years ago I just decided to try it. Me and my grandma went to hobby lobby and bought twelve dollars' worth of supplies. Like tempera paint and poster board," Dillon said.

Jonah has muscular dystrophy. Through the help of friends, nurses and of course his wheels, his artistic freedom hasnt hindered.

People seem to really like the paintings more when they know how they were created," Dillon said. Theyre a lot cooler than I ever thought they would be. You shouldnt let things you cant control, prevent you from doing what you want.

It's simply transformed over time.

Anyone can create art even if they dont know how or need to find a new way," Dillon said.

To check out Dillion's work and to look into purchasing some of his art. you can head to his website.

Originally posted here:

Texas artist proves nothing can stop you from finding your creative freedom - The Denver Channel

On Sunday the Canadian police finally cleared away anti-vaccine demonstrators who had been blocking the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, a key commercial route that normally carries more than $300 million a day in international trade. Other bridges are still closed, and part of Ottawa, the Canadian capital, is still occupied.

The diffidence of Canadian authorities in the face of these disruptions has been startling to American eyes. Also startling, although not actually surprising, has been the embrace of economic vandalism and intimidation by much of the U.S. right especially by people who ranted against demonstrations in favor of racial justice. What were getting here is an object lesson in what some people really mean when they talk about law and order.

Lets talk about what has been happening in Canada and why I call it vandalism.

The Freedom Convoy has been marketed as a backlash by truckers angry about Covid-19 vaccination mandates. In reality, there dont seem to have been many truckers among the protesters at the bridge (about 90 percent of Canadian truckers are vaccinated). Last week a Bloomberg reporter saw only three semis among the vehicles blocking the Ambassador Bridge, which were mainly pickup trucks and private cars; photos taken Saturday also show very few commercial trucks.

The Teamsters union, which represents many truckers on both sides of the border, has denounced the blockade.

So this isnt a grass-roots trucker uprising. Its more like a slow-motion Jan. 6, a disruption caused by a relatively small number of activists, many of them right-wing extremists. At their peak, the demonstrations in Ottawa reportedly involved only around 8,000 people, while numbers at other locations have been much smaller.

Despite their lack of numbers, however, the protesters have been inflicting a remarkable amount of economic damage. The U.S. and Canadian economies are very closely integrated. In particular, North American manufacturing, especially but not only in the auto industry, relies on a constant flow of parts between factories on both sides of the border. As a result, the disruption of that flow has hobbled industry, forcing production cuts and even factory shutdowns.

The closure of the Ambassador Bridge also imposed large indirect costs, as trucks were diverted to roundabout routes and forced to wait in long lines at alternative bridges.

Any attempt to put a number on the economic costs of the blockade is tricky and speculative. However, its not hard to come up with numbers like $300 million or more per day; combine that with the disruption of Ottawa, and the trucker protests may already have inflicted a couple of billion dollars in economic damage.

Thats an interesting number, because its roughly comparable to insurance industry estimates of total losses associated with the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the killing of George Floyd protests that seem to have involved more than 15 million people.

This comparison will no doubt surprise those who get their news from right-wing media, which portrayed B.L.M. as an orgy of arson and looting. I still receive mail from people who believe that much of New York City was reduced to smoking rubble. In fact, the demonstrations were remarkably nonviolent; vandalism happened in a few cases, but it was relatively rare, and the damage was small considering the huge size of the protests.

By contrast, causing economic damage was and is what the Canadian protests are all about because blocking essential flows of goods, threatening peoples livelihoods, is every bit as destructive as smashing a store window. And unlike, say, a strike aimed at a particular company, this damage fell indiscriminately on anyone who had the misfortune to rely on unobstructed trade.

And to what end? The B.L.M. demonstrations were a reaction to police killings of innocent people; whats going on in Canada is, on its face, about rejecting public health measures intended to save lives. Of course, even that is mainly an excuse: What its really about is an attempt to exploit pandemic weariness to boost the usual culture-war agenda.

As you might expect, the U.S. right is loving it. People who portrayed peaceful protests against police killings as an existential threat are delighted by the spectacle of right-wing activists breaking the law and destroying wealth. Fox News has devoted many hours to fawning coverage of the blockades and occupations. Senator Rand Paul, who called B.L.M. activists a crazed mob, called for Canada-style protests to clog up cities in the United States, specifically saying that he hoped to see truckers disrupt the Super Bowl (they didnt).

I assume that the reopening of the Ambassador Bridge is the beginning of a broader crackdown on destructive protests. But I hope we wont forget this moment and in particular that we remember it the next time a politician or media figure talks about law and order.

Recent events have confirmed what many suspected: The right is perfectly fine, indeed enthusiastic, about illegal actions and disorder as long as they serve right-wing ends.

Read more from the original source:

Opinion | When Freedom Means the Right to Destroy - The New York Times

Breadcrumb Trail Links

CSIS did warn the Trudeau government of the presence of 'extremist elements' within the trucker protest in January. Whether the report on this was read and absorbed is another matter.

Publishing date:

Pity Canadas intelligence agencies!

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

Yes, I just wrote that. As a 32-year veteran of both CSE and CSIS, I must admit to a little sensitivity when I come across accusations of intelligence failure hurled at our protectors. Not that I am trying to claim that we are perfect: no one is. It is just that this notion that every bad turn of events originated in lousy intelligence-gathering wears a little thin after a while. And is usually wrong.

Intelligence agencies, however, are their own worst enemies. They say little, if anything, to the general public about what they do and why they do it. As a consequence, when things go south and they remain tight-lipped, the door is open for all and sundry to point fingers in their direction and blame them for all kinds of bad things.

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

Take the Freedom Convoy and its dogs breakfast of hangers-on in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada. Some national security experts immediately labelled this an intelligence failure, pointing in the specific direction of CSIS.

It turns out that these experts were wrong. Completely wrong.

Canadians should realize two things about intelligence in our country. One is that as soon as you leave the inner sanctum of spydom, you lose access to what is being collected and what is being shared. I left CSIS in 2015 and even though I have a current Top Secret security clearance I have absolutely no idea what CSIS is currently up to. As a consequence, for me or anyone to call what transpired in Ottawa a failure by CSIS is arrogance and hubris of the highest order.

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

The other is that intelligence agencies are highly constrained by what they can and cannot collect. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a high level of protection from intrusion into our thoughts and activities as it should. If CSIS had been investigating the actions of a legitimate protest movement without due cause (reasonable suspicion), it would have been acting illegally.

In the end, however, CSIS did warn the Trudeau government of the presence of extremist elements in the Freedom Convoy in January through a report issued by ITAC the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (which gets most of its intelligence from CSIS). In other words, the government did receive the best intelligence available before the proverbial hit the fan. How in heavens name does this constitute a failure? Quite the contrary; the women and men at CSIS did exactly what Canadians expect from them.

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

As an aside, some think CSIS is not taking far-right extremism seriously enough. Again, wrong. In my days there (2001-2015) the Number One terrorism threat we monitored was, no surprise, the Islamist variety. I do know, however, that the Service has devoted significant resources to the far right, a move in the correct direction (although the jihadis still constitute the greatest global threat).

What may have happened in January was something that occurs all too frequently in our land: the intelligence was ignored or not given enough credence. I saw this on far too many occasions in my career and this speaks to Canadas poor intelligence culture (unlike that of our allies, the United Kingdom, U.S. and even Australia). To mix metaphors, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him read your intelligence. We at uOttawa PDI National/Cyber security are trying to change this mindset through our courses and events.

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

The lessons here? CSIS and other agencies are hard at work trying to collect, process, analyze and disseminate intelligence on current issues to senior government clients. Some clients get it and are avid users, others not so much. While CSIS is not perfect, the notion that it was asleep at the wheel is as of yet unfounded and any claims it was need to be backed up by concrete data (likely not forthcoming anytime soon) not speculation by national security experts.

Phil Gurski is a Distinguished Fellow in National Security at uOttawa. He worked as a foreign intelligence analyst at CSE from 1983 to 2001 and as a strategic terrorism analyst at CSIS from 2001 to 2015.

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

Sign up to receive daily headline news from Ottawa Citizen, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Ottawa Citizen Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

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.

Follow this link:

Gurski: Canadas spies were right about the Freedom Convoy - Ottawa Citizen

Article content

Another slow-roll Freedom Convoy made its way through Kingston on Monday afternoon.

Participants met at the Highway 38 and Highway 401 carpool parking lot and travelled as a group to Highway 15. They then headed south toward Highway 2.

Sgt. Steve Koopman said Kingston Police were aware of the public assembly, but at that point it was just that. He said they were causing minimal impact to traffic and were not blocking any public infrastructure.

He did not wish to disclose their location or direction of travel to avoid confrontation.

The convoy, moving at the same speed as regular traffic but repeatedly honking their horns, reached the front of City Hall at about 2 p.m. and continued along Ontario Street. There were no counter-protesters to be seen at about 3:30 p.m., just many families walking in the area.

In front of City Hall, a line of about eight Kingston Police vehicles were parallel parked, watching the convoy drive past.

Original post:

Slow-roll 'Freedom Convoy' travelling through Kingston - The Kingston Whig-Standard

HAMILTON MTN News has continuing coverage on the "Freedom Convoys" that have been protesting COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Canada and the US.

We have been covering the story from near the border and on Sunday the rallies came through the Missoula and Bitterroot valleys.

There were about 50 vehicles decorated with American, Canadian, and political flags at the K-Mart parking lot in Hamilton as well as signs saying "we love truckers" and supporting those truckers as they rally against mandates.

Hannah Hislop/MTN News

The point of all of this is just freedom of choice," said event organizer David Bethman. "We don't care if people get the vaccine or don't get the vaccine. That's a personal decision.

On Sunday a crowded parking lot was filled with decorated pickup trucks and big rigs protesting COVID-19 mandates.

We're all just hard-working Americans and Canadians and we just we just want to get rid of the mandate, said Montana trucker Steve Smith.

The rally was in reaction to vaccine requirements for truckers to work across the northern border with supporters expressing mixed emotions and explaining why they came out to participate.

Hannah Hislop/MTN News

I don't like people sitting here telling me what to do, how to do it, said retired trucker Bobby Tucker.

Elated, happy you know, it's it's a good feeling, added Enrique Cruz a trucker from Hamilton.

Cruz added that he came out to support what he calls a brotherhood, "you know so we can come together for this we can come together for a lot more, said Cruz.

They werent alone; along the route to Missoula, supporters on the side of the road waved and cheered.

Continue reading here:

Bitterroot 'rallies' with Freedom Convoy in protest of COVID mandates - KPAX-TV

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Revere Payments announced that it is proud to become the official payments processor of CPAC and the American Conservative Union. Revere is a brand wholly owned and operated by commerce and payments platform Metrics Global.

At Revere Payments, we believe in the freedom to do business, not cancel culture, said Metrics Global founder and CEO Wendy Kinney. Everyday we partner with clients to eliminate their risk of being deplatformed or restricted by financial institutions taking political stances. Law abiding business owners should never have to wonder whether they will be discriminated against and shut down because of their political beliefs, she continued. We provide white glove service to process transactions with state of the art technology to protect sensitive data and prevent fraudwhether you are conservative, liberal, neither, and everything in between.

We are calling CPAC 2022 Awake Not Woke, and there is no more appropriate partner for payments processing than Revere Payments, said Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union. CPAC is standing up for conservative activists and their right to assemble, celebrate America, and raise much-needed funds for candidates and causes they support. Revere Payments is a key partner in our efforts, and ensures that we will be fully operational, even when the woke mob comes after us.

Revere Payments provides its clients with online payment solutions, in-store point-of-sale solutions, and event-based solutions. They are partnering with clients across the United States to mitigate political risk. They process credit, debit, and bank-to-bank transactions securely. Revere Payments parent company is Metrics Global, a long-established commerce and payments platform.

For more information about Revere Payments, visit: http://www.ReverePayments.com.

Read this article:

Pro-Freedom Revere Payments Proudly Becomes the Official Payments Processor of CPAC - Business Wire

When Hungarians go to the polls in April, liberal democracy will be on the ballotand not only in Hungary. Former US President Donald Trump is promoting the populist prime minister, Viktor Orban. Tucker Carlson, Fox News most-watched on-air personality, has travelled to Budapest to promote Orbans brand of ethnic nationalism. Nonetheless, Orban is facing his most serious challenge since returning to power in 2010.

Hungarys normally fractious opposition has finally united behind a single candidate: Peter Marki-Zay, the conservative mayor of Hodmezovasarhely, a small, rural town in the centre of the country. A devout Christian with seven children, Marki-Zay is running on a pro-European, pro-rule-of-law, anti-corruption platform. He describes himself as everything that Viktor Orban pretends to be.

Orban, now 58, was a reform-minded firebrand 30 years ago. But over the past decade, he has transformed Hungary into an illiberal democracy where only his voice represents the people. During his first term as prime minister in 19982002, Orban shepherded Hungary into NATO and the European Union. But after being defeated in 2002, he vowed never again to risk an electoral loss. Ditching his former pro-Europe, pro-democracy agenda, he embraced the politics of ethno-nationalism and anti-globalist grievance.

Upon returning to office in 2010 with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, Orban rewrote Hungarys constitution and election laws to entrench himself in power. His party, Fidesz, soon controlled the countrys media and judiciaryincluding the Constitutional Court. And Orban and his cronies became very rich.

In gearing up for this years election, Orban has held rallies accusing the EU of attempting to seize Hungary from the hands of the Virgin Mary, to cast it at the feet of Brussels. Yet despite his rants and flagrant violations of EU rules and values, Hungary remains a member of the bloc. The EUs convoluted bureaucracy simply wasnt built to handle an autocrat like Orban. It lacks any mechanism to bring him to heel, largely because he has been able to rely on Polands own illiberal government to veto any action taken against him.

As a Hungarian by birth, this years election is personal for me. I was six years old in 1955 when I opened the door of our Budapest apartment and faced three men in workers overalls. We came about the gas meter, one lied. Get your mother. I called out my mothers name, returned to my room and didnt see her (or my father, who was already imprisoned) for almost two years. My parents, the last independent journalists in Soviet-controlled Hungary, were convicted of espionage and sentenced to long prison terms.

Even by Cold War standards, the jailing of a couple with two small children was sufficiently shocking to merit front-page coverage in the New York Times. Fortunately, my parents were freed 18 months later, just in time to cover the October 1956 Hungarian uprising. But that years revolution was brutally crushed by Soviet tanks and troops, inaugurating an occupation that would last until 1989. Budapest, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed in his second inaugural address in January 1957, is no longer merely the name of a city; henceforth it is a new and shining symbol of mans yearning to be free.

I was still a small child when we began our westward journey the following year. But I have remained immensely proud of the land we were forced to abandon. On 16 June 1989, I stood with 300,000 Hungarians in Budapests Heroes Square, for the reburial of those who had died in the failed revolution.

Moved to tears by the solemn ceremony, I still recall the final speaker, a skinny, bearded 26-year-old who declared, If we are determined enough, we can force the ruling [Communist] Party to face free elections. With those rousing words, the young Orban launched his political ascent. Within a few months, he had left Budapest to study at the University of Oxford on a grant from the American financier-philanthropist George Soros, whom Orban now routinely smears as an all-purpose scapegoat.

In 1995, while regional demagogues stoked a genocidal war in the Balkans, I chose my hometown as the place to wed the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was still in the midst of negotiating the end of that conflict. In his wedding toast, flanked by Hungarian President Arpad Goncz, my new husband said, With this marriage, I also welcome Hungary back into the European family of democracieswhere she belongs.

Richard and I had friendly relations with Orban during his first term, even hosting him for dinner in our home. Although he is not a murderous dictator in the manner of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he lacks deep convictions beyond amassing power for himself. His genius lies in stoking feelings of thwarted nationalism, assuring Hungarians that only he can defend them against a hostile, non-Christian world. I frequently heard the same language from Balkan warlords 25 years ago.

Hungary may no longer jail independent reporters, but Orbans regime has silenced critical voices in more subtle and equally effective ways, such as by withholding broadcast licences and consolidating news outlets into holding companies run by Orbans allies. The Soviet troops who once patrolled my neighbourhood are long gone. In Orban, however, Putin has an ally inside the EUeven as the Kremlin threatens Hungarys security from the east, in Ukraine.

Orban proved unfit to realise the promise he voiced in Heroes Square in 1989. When 90% of the media in Hungary is state-controlled, it is hard to call elections there free. Nonetheless, the choice this spring is not up to Trump or Carlson or even Orban; it is up to Hungarian voters.

Almost half a million Hungarians (out of a population of 10 million) have opted to emigrate since Orban assumed power. Now we, the Hungarian diaspora, have a special responsibility to make our voices heard, so that tomorrows Hungarians will not have to realise their potential elsewhere.

For the second time in my lifetime, Hungary has an opportunity to be a symbol of mans yearning to be free. But Hungarians must seize it while they still can.

Read more from the original source:

Hungary's freedom election | The Strategist - The Strategist

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Today on The Argument, whats our responsibility to Ukraine?

Im Jane Coaston. And this week, Im joined by two of my colleagues from Times Opinion, columnist Bret Stephens and editorial board member Farah Stockman. Brett and Farah both write about foreign policy, and theyve spent time reporting in Europe and the Middle East. Their reporting has given them pretty starkly different ideas about when the U.S. should bang down doors to defend democracy and when its better to butt out, which brings us to the topic of todays show, the crisis in Ukraine.

Tensions are mounting in Eastern Europe, where more than 100,000 Russian troops are deployed at Ukraines border.

In response, Ukraine is carrying out its own drills. Meanwhile, NATO forces are training in nearby Estonia.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said yesterday he believes Russian president Vladimir Putin has not made a final decision on whether or not to invade Ukraine.

Germany and the United States, together with our allies and partners, are working closely together to pursue diplomatic resolution to this situation.

Today, the eyes of the world are on the United States to see how we will respond. Will we stand strong in support of Ukraine, or will we sit passively on the sidelines?

Bret, its been a long time.

Hi, Jane.

Farah, its a pleasure.

Thanks for having me on.

And I think I speak for many Americans when I say, what is happening between Russia, the United States and Ukraine?

Just in basic terms, we see more than 100,000 Russian troops surrounding Ukraine. You see warships. Theyre encircling Ukraine. And either Putin wants hes going to invade or he wants us to think hes going to invade. And theres essentially been a war going on there on the border since 2014, when Putin annexed Crimea. And hes been taking little bites out of Ukraine ever since. I think Putin saw that his influence is waning, his ability to influence Ukraine in a political manner is going away, so now hes going to do it by brute force.

I think Russia is profoundly threatened by the fact that Ukraine, particularly under its new president, is consolidating its democracy, moving towards the West, becoming increasingly anti-Russian in its orientation. I mean, this is a pretty rank act of aggressive behavior to, first, eight years ago seize portions of sovereign Ukrainian territory, in wanton violation of international law, wage a war that has lasted now eight years, taken thousands of lives, involve the downing of a civilian jetliner people sometimes forget and now, massed 130,000 troops in a manner that Europe hasnt really seen probably since before the Second World War.

So Putin, I think, is eager to cast himself as a potential victim of NATO expansion. Everybody knows that the chances of Ukraine joining NATO are basically nil because NATO expands only by unanimous consent, and Germany has long made its opposition clear. NATOs a defensive alliance. People join NATO because theyre afraid of Russia, not because they want to threaten Russia.

How much does this have to do with the United States at all? How much is this about the United States role, and how much is it about, like, Russia believes that Ukraine will always be a Russian territory, despite independence efforts since 1917, and large swaths of the Ukraine say we are not?

This is a big deal. This could result in the biggest security challenge that Europe has seen in decades. And it has to do with us because we really we are the backbone of NATO. We are. Those are our allies there. And this is a test of US leadership. This is a test of the resolve of the West. China is looking at this. Putin wants to get Ukraine, just like China wants to get Taiwan. And theyre all looking to see what were going to do. It matters because were talking about the future of Europe. Were talking about where will Europe end, essentially, and Russia begin. Its about much more than Ukraine.

And we saw the other day that, after the West started threatening sanctions on Putin should he decide to invade, what did Putin do? He went to Beijing and he sat down with President Xi in China and sought his backing so that he can withstand Western sanctions with Chinese support. So we are kind of seeing a little bit of a replay of the Cold War rhetoric coming out of Bidens mouth, and the response its creating. To them, this is about whether the US is still the boss of the world and whether we can boss people around and tell them what to do in their own backyards.

I would add to what Farah said, this is also about the future of freedom. I mean, the touchstone event in Vladimir Putins life as a young KGB agent was the collapse of Soviet power and control in Eastern Europe and Germany, where he was stationed. And theres a psychological element I think hes been looking to avenge what he sees as that historic and personal humiliation for a long time. But theres also, I think, an ideological component thats really important.

You know, in 1991, we had the sense that, in some way, there was a universal consensus, or near universal consensus, that liberal democratic governance was kind of the inevitable destination toward which every country was heading. Some of them quickly, some of them more slowly. But you now have a real ideological competition in the world between liberal democracies, which, lets face it, are not as attractive as they used to be, beset by all kinds of problems, doubts, fissures, partisanship, polarization, inequality, go down the list, and a kind of a model of what you might think of as efficient autocracy.

China, which, when it wants to build things, builds it with astonishing speed. Personalized power in Russia. And I think much of what is now happening is a challenge because the autocrats see an opening in Western weakness or division. But I would say at the core of this dilemma for us is the question of whether the liberal democratic model, which the United States has championed, for better or worse, and well or badly, since the end of World War II, is enfeebled. And theres a question as to whether it is going to remain at least the default aspiration of much of the world, or whether countries are going to look at China and say, well, you know, they make the trains run on time, as someone used to say.

You just made a Mussolini reference. And Im not going to go on a tangent about how Mussolini didnt actually make the trains run on time, and that is a historical myth.

I know he didnt make the trains run on time, but people said he made the trains run on time.

People did, people did. Bret, you wrote that the United States must restore the concept of the free world.

Yeah.

What is the free world?

As I defined it in that column a few weeks ago, the free world is an idea that countries that, to one degree or another, adhere to the values of democratic processes and liberal norms Im thinking about freedom of speech, rule of law, due process, presumption of innocence that those fundamental values in a deep way bind these countries together, and create expectations of solidarity and common interest that are important to maintain, not least because many of these countries tend to have the same enemies.

And we used to talk when I grew up in the 80s, the expression the free world was a common expression. It has gone into disuse. And I think when you have a challenge like Putins challenge to Ukraine, its worth restoring the concept. Its worth thinking that, even if we dont have legal treaty obligations to Ukraine, we have a certain set of moral obligations. And those moral obligations are important not simply for morality itself, but because as goes Ukraine, to some extent goes liberal democracy elsewhere in the world.

I mean, Im just having flashbacks of domino theory all over the place when Im hearing Bret talk. This is what got us on the path of Vietnam, right? We started off giving arms and having military advisors, and as soon as we knew it, were deep in a war. And we said it was a war over freedom and, you know, exactly like this, about ideas. But at the end of the day, when you look at how wars actually feel and the logic of wars, all of these things that we talk about tend to go away.

Look, I agree that democracy is the best system. I agree that capitalism is the best system. I think it would be great if everybody had freedom all over the world. My five-year-old daughter also wants a pony. Right? The question is not whether these things are desirable. The question is whether they are achievable, and whether they are achievable with us. Can we really spread democracy and ensure that every country in the world has democracy and freedom?

How do we stand up for those ideas in a way that doesnt overstretch us, that doesnt squander our limited resources in wars that are actually not to protect our own homeland? We have been blessed with two oceans and two pretty friendly and not so strong neighbors. And so thats the reason weve been able to run around the world doing things in Somalia and all kinds of places that actually dont have immediate national security interest for ourselves.

I was on the ground in Pakistan in 2001 when we started Operation Enduring Freedom after 9/11. And the people there joked it should have been called Operation Endure Our Freedom. They were just waiting for the bombs to drop on their heads. All the Iraqi families that were gunned down by, like, scared to death American soldiers because the car came too fast at the checkpoint and the soldiers thought they were terrorists, like, when you start these wars, it doesnt matter how many great, lofty goals you had.

At the end of the day, you know, wars are dirty, and theyre terrible ways to spread democracy, often, especially in countries we dont happen to know all that much about. We dont have the greatest track record right now of actually making democracies come to fruition in these countries. And we also, the other thing thats gone on, theres a big change, another big change in the world since the Cold War, is that the Global South has grown up. Theyre a lot wealthier. Theres a lot more educated people there. And theyre kind of tired of us wagging our fingers in their faces telling them how to run their countries.

We can be overbearing in the way that we help. And we can inadvertently do more harm than good. Weve proven that over and over again over the last 20 years.

I want to come back to the current crisis because I do want to stay on this point of what this all means for the future of liberal democracy such as we see it. The United States has deployed troops to Poland and Germany. Its repositioned troops from Germany to Romania. But theres not been any talk about troops going into an armed conflict. So Farah, what do you think we should do in Ukraine, or not do?

We have to stand with our allies and for our values, but we cant get overstretched. And so far, I think weve done a pretty good job. I hope that they end up convincing Putin not to invade. But what should be the future of Ukraine?

To me, I think Ukraine should be a bridge. It should be a bridge between Russia and the West. It should not be a NATO member. And if, as Bret just said, no one thinks its going to become a NATO member anytime soon, just say that. Theres worse things in the world than being a buffer state. Either Ukraine is going to be a buffer state or its going to be forcibly taken over by Russia. And I think thats the choice.

But based on polling that was done in December, Ukrainians support integration with the European Union by about 58 percent and integration with NATO by 54 percent. But Im curious, from the Ukrainian perspective, this seems like a lot of decisions being made over their heads. Where do their voices lie in this?

Bret, this is your chance.

Ah, OK, well.

To come in and talk about how we have to stand up for the Ukrainians.

Well, look, I mean, Farah has said a few things I really disagree with. Number one, we talk about how we dont want to be the ugly Americans, but here we are, two columnists for a prominent American paper, basically suggesting that, well, Ukraine ought to be a buffer state. I think Ukraine ought to be what Ukrainians want it to be. And thats the fundamental issue at stake here, which is that Vladimir Putin is signally unwilling to let Ukrainians decide their own future. And if we believe that the idea of democratic self-determination is impossible, then the suggestion that we ought to bargain away that fundamental Ukrainian right to decide by democratic majoritarian means where they see their future I think is almost like a kind of weird form of neo-imperialism.

And its easy to cherry pick examples from the past and look at places where American intervention went wrong. It certainly did go wrong in many places. But there are many places where it went right, and it made a huge difference in the lives of people. I mean, my mother was liberated from Nazi-occupied Europe by force of American arms. If you are South Korean and America certainly made many mistakes and actually committed crimes in the Korean War. Nonetheless, the reason why a member of the Kim dynasty is not your ruler has to do with an American intervention. The tragedy in Southeast Asia, the real tragedy began not when America intervened, its when America left.

So the shadow of the ugly American, I think, hangs over our heads very heavily. And to some extent, maybe its not a bad thing that we should be particularly conscious of the ways in which indeed, as you point out, we can be foolish, overbearing, overconfident and overstretched. But we shouldnt lose sight also of the fact that the world in which we live, in which there was an enclave in West Berlin, in which there was a free South Vietnam, in which now countries like Lithuania that lived under Soviet occupation for 50 years enjoy freedom because the United States chooses to exercise a vigilant role in global affairs.

But we cant separate that intervention from then leaving. Like, these interventions at some point may have been successful, and then theres the and then the United States left. And Im not sure how we can separate that.

Well, I mean, intervention is a big word, right? I mean, we intervene in all kinds of ways. And sometimes we intervene in foolish and catastrophic ways. But the great tragedies that I see befalling places like Afghanistan are the tragedies that are befalling it now. I mean, were talking about a million refugees already outside of Afghanistan and the prospect of mass hunger in that country because of our absence.

I only mention that to say that we have this idea and I think its a very American idea that once were out of town, its someone elses problem. And A, I dont think its someone elses problem. That problem tends to metastasize. But if were going to talk in moralistic terms, lets recall that many of the tragedies in the world unfold in our absence, not in our presence.

Dont get me wrong, I think we have done many good things in the world, and there are many good things that are worth doing. But I have seen us time and time again make a mess of things. What I want to say about Ukraine is not that I dont think we should sit down and bargain their future away. But I also dont think we should promise them that we can save them. We have made statements in the past.

The first Gulf War, we made a lot of statements supporting the Shia, telling them to rise up against Saddam Hussein. They rose up, and they were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. And they remember that. OK? In Syria, we made statements in support of the Syrian uprising against Assad. And what did we give them? MREs.

In the early days of Syria, I remember being on the phone so many times with people who were like, why arent the Americans giving us more support? Theres only so many insurgencies for democracy and freedom that we can realistically support around the world. We need to do a better job picking our battles. We really do, because we have to protect ourselves and our own democracy first, because we cannot help anyone else if we are in disarray. And guess what? Were in disarray right now. We really are.

Just to be clear, I dont think anybody is talking about American troops fighting in Ukraine. I certainly am not, and I probably I know I hold up the right wing of The New York Times editorial page. Lets just be clear about what were saying, which is not to deploy American forces anywhere in Ukraine, but maybe to do what we can to deter Russian aggression by arming Ukraine before Russia comes in.

Were doing that.

Well, no, were giving them aid in the form thats being counted in pounds, not tons. Its not massive aid. But your point, Farah, about pragmatism is totally well-taken. And I dont think anyone thinks that we shouldnt be anything except pragmatic.

We dont want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. What we want to do is provide a margin of deterrence against a potential invasion and give Ukrainians a fighting chance if they do invade, because if we dont do that, then the next target isnt going to be Kyiv. Its going to be Vilna or Warsaw or other places that are inside of NATO. And it means that the danger will be greater, not less.

Final point. You know, one of the arguments that I always made is that there was this odd confluence, oddly enough, between Barack Obamas foreign policy and Donald Trumps. They just came in very different-looking packages. Barack Obama loved to talk about the need for more nation-building at home. And Donald Trump actually picked up on that theme with America first.

I mean, theyre really actually very closely related, even if the means differed. And I would push back at the argument that the United States conducts foreign policy at the expense of domestic policy. Theres actually very little evidence. So the idea that were spending ourselves to death in places like Afghanistan or NATO when those priorities really belong at home I think is a misunderstanding of actually the relative balance of our budgetary attention.

I want to get in on this, because Bret, you were talking about holding up the right wing of The New York Times Opinion page, but

Ross might argue with me, but, you know.

Yes. But actually, Ross would argue with you on this point. Theres this weird confluence between the isolationist post-liberal right and a very specific swath of the very far left where its like America should have no influence because America sucks. And we actually saw an op-ed in The Times by Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, and Gladden Pappin saying that hawks are standing in the way of a new Republican Party.

Now, I objected on a couple of points, because I think that one of the problems that they see with hawkishness is that the liberal democracy or liberal values that we would be defending are values they dont like, including, quote, a virulent cultural libertinism that dissolves bonds of family and tradition, which I believe means gay people. But I think that theres a general hawkishness or however you want to interpret that is growing increasingly unpopular with Republicans. As someone who clearly believes that we should be taking a somewhat more muscular position, how do you respond?

Yeah, I mean it ought to tell the far left that if their arguments sound exactly like the far right, theres something the matter with them and vice versa. And it is part of what I was describing earlier, which is, I think, a broad ideological assault on the tenets of liberalism. Because youre absolutely right, regimes like Hungarys regime, not only is it against civil liberties when it comes to freedom of the press, but its also, in my view, militantly homophobic and frighteningly so.

The new right has become sympathetic to Putin, because he seems to be a good horse for them to ride in terms of the broad assault the idea of what a liberal democracy should stand for, which is precisely the right of individual human beings to pursue their own happiness and find their own future. And thats whats really under attack.

So its not a surprise to me that the American conservative crowd, which has echoes for me of Father Coughlin back in the 1930s, is banging the anti-war drums. And thats a force thats probably going to gain strength within the Republican Party. Its why, if you follow my column, you know that Im almost or perhaps even more uncomfortable with the Republican Party today than I am with the Democrats.

I do want to get back to the narrower question of Ukraine and talk a little bit about Bidens strategy. What is a good political outcome for Ukraine as the Biden administration sees it? Whats a win here for the Biden administration?

I think if Putin doesnt invade, I think thats an achievable goal. If he pulls his troops back and then Biden can claim a diplomatic win. I think just showing that NATO is standing strong. Showing Putin that by being aggressive, hes actually being counterproductive to his own goals. I think, just realistically, Putin is always going to mess with Ukraine. And whether its covert or overt or whatever, thats a reality.

And we need to get creative about how we push back. And we need to be smart. Im not saying leave the Ukrainians high and dry. But I do think, you know, Russia has a voice in the Security Council. Russias been at the table with us to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Theres a lot of places we need Russia and China, by the way. So to me, its a win to simply dial it back and get back to a place where the powers of the world can make things manageable.

Bret, what do you think? What will be a success here to you?

I largely agree with what Farah just said. And obviously nobody wants a violent outcome here. I have to say the Biden administration has exceeded my expectations in the way in which they have handled things so far. They have whipped NATO into shape, deploying troops to front-line NATO states, so far in relatively small numbers. But definitely as tripwires, its an important signal.

Biden, I think, did well in his meeting with the German Chancellor in insisting that Nord Stream 2 would be shut down in the event of an invasion. Giving Putin a clear sense that hes not, as I think Putin may have suspected, facing a weak, feckless and confused American administration that is going to kind of scamper out of Central Europe or Eastern Europe the way we did scamper out of Central Asia. So I think thats about right. I mean, if theres a face-saving solution for Putin, obviously we should seize it, right? Because its not in our interest to risk a kind of military confrontation on this scale.

Since you acknowledge that Ukraine is not going to be a NATO member anytime soon, why not give that to him?

Because I think its none of our business to give that to him.

What do you mean its none of our business? NATO is none of our business?

Its not our business to bind a future generation, say 25, 30 years from now, to whether its in the United States, a future American president, or future Ukrainian government to say, no, you will never ever join NATO. I mean, look

Promises are broken all the time.

But diplomats exist to come up with language that is appropriately ambiguous. But the main thing is Russian forces on the borders of Ukraine have to melt away and Ukrainian sovereignty has to be upheld. And then everything else is, in some ways, open to some kind of creative solution.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Were working on an episode right now about whether the left has ceded the idea of patriotism to the right and how much that matters. Its a big complicated question and I want to hear how you think about it. Would you call yourself a patriot? Whats the behavior or action that feels patriotic to you? And if you dont feel patriotic, whats standing in the way? Leave me a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

I want to ask both of you as journalists Im curious how you think that this potential conflict is being positioned to Americans. I remember being in high school when 9/11 took place. And that was the idea

See, I dont remember being in high school.

Oh.

I was. I am but a youth. And I remember that there was a lot of media coverage of how the Taliban treated women and the executions of women in soccer stadiums. And Laura Bush talked a lot about this. And Im aware that that was part of an ideological effort to get Americans on board with war in Afghanistan. And let me tell you, as a freshman in high school, it worked

Oh, yeah.

on me. I opposed the war. But I also was like, I dont know what to do with that. I dont know what to do with bad actors who are hurting innocent people. And part of me is very much of the we got to do something. That in times in history when we didnt do things, we look back on those moments that are like, why didnt we permit ships of Jews fleeing Europe to land? Why didnt we get involved in Rwanda earlier? Like, why didnt we do these things? But at the same time, Im like then we wound up in Afghanistan for 20 years. So this is complicated.

These are hard questions.

Right.

I lived for several years in Kenya, which I had a wonderful experience, but you would go and visit the Maasai and many of them still did female genital mutilation, right? What am I going to do? Its one of those youre a guest in this country. And the best thing you can do is give your example and moral support to those Kenyans who are standing up against the practice, right? But would it have made a difference? Were we going to send military to come over and overthrow the government because of this practice?

There are any number of interventions, but the very first has to be providing a model thats different a successful model thats different, and showing, hey, there is a different way and I hope you follow my way. But in order for the United States to lead the world into these values, you have to have followers. And you either get them to follow you by convincing them that your way is better or you get them to follow you at the end of a barrel of a gun.

And thats what we did in Pakistan. We forced them. We said youre either with us or against us. And Pakistan pretended to be on our side. But at the end of the day, they supported the Taliban and we all see the results here all these years later.

These are not easy questions. This is part of this is modernity, right? We talk about individual values. In a lot of parts of the world, they talk about communal values the rights of the family, the rights of a clan. You know, this gets really complicated when we boil it down to our ideas of what liberal values should be spread around the world.

And a lot of times the United States has hid behind the notion of a rules-based order or freedom were spreading freedom. But we get to determine, right, what we think freedom is or what we think the best way to spread those values are. A lot of your examples, Bret, of us doing it right happened a long time ago. I havent heard you give a recent example of us doing it right.

So what should we do in Ukraine? Its what were doing, right? But I think the question is, is there any amount of weaponry that we can give them that is going to stave off an attack from Putin if he decides to attack? And then to what extent are we morally responsible for the outcome?

I guess, again, Farah and I disagree about all kinds of things. You mentioned that weve had a lot of failures. And thats true. I mean, I guess were all a product of our generation. And from my generation, what I recall is that America actually stood up for freedom in Western Europe and won the Cold War. We stood up after dallying for some time, we stood up for the people of Bosnia and ended genocide in Bosnia, and did the same thing in Kosovo again.

And yes, by the way, there have been catastrophic misjudgments and a real question of whether the American government has the competence to get some of these large-scale interventions right. I mean, some of the abuses and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be legendary.

At the same time, I worry about this belief that we are uniquely blundering, stupid, incompetent people who really need to just tend to our own house, which is a broken house, and let the rest of the world fend for itself. We dont have that option. Theres no U.N. waiting to rescue us from international or global anarchy in the event that the United States just folds up shop and says were going to tend to our own knitting for the next 20 years.

What are we not doing that we need to be doing?

So we are sending pounds were measuring in pounds the amount of military aid that we are sending to Ukraine. It should be measured in thousands of tons. There should be an airlift to Kyiv with various kinds of weapons that would make a Russian general think very hard about the costs of an invasion.

Step one, do everything we can to raise the prospective costs of a Russian military incursion. Step two, which is what Biden, to his great credit, is already doing, is beefing up Americas military presence and NATOs military presence in frontline states.

Step three, begin immediately taking actions against Putins inner circle, especially their financial means, as a way of showing that for the 100-odd people or 1,000-odd people however many it is who really rule Russia, a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a really bad bargain, because theyre not going to have their mansions in Belgravia, or in Monaco, or elsewhere in areas where the United States or NATO exercises a great deal of influence.

Here is the original post:

Opinion | This Is About the Future of Freedom: What Does America Owe Ukrainians? - The New York Times

By Maria Saporta

Its time to get out of the lawsuit business. So proclaimed several board members of the Atlanta Housing authority at a specially-called virtual meeting on Feb. 16 when the board approved a settlement agreement with the Integral Group and its development partners over 88 acres of land next to four mixed-income projects.

After years and years of protracted lawsuits and countersuits between Atlanta Housing and Integral, a proposed settlement was announced by Mayor Andre Dickens on Feb. 3, exactly one month after his inauguration.

Clearly, it felt like a new day for the city and Atlanta Housing. At long last, the authority would be able to direct its focus on developing affordable housing throughout the city rather than be saddled with the distractions of endless lawsuits.

AHA board member Kirk Rich (far left) argues against the Integral settlement at AHA board meeting back in February 2020. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

During the AHA board meeting, several members congratulated Dickens for being able to broker a settlement between the different parties.

Theres a new settlement proposal put forward by the new mayor of the city of Atlanta, Dr. Chris Edwards, the AH board chair said in his opening comments at the meeting. And I believe I speak for all of us when we say we want to be on board, supporting the mayor. As Ive said often., theres only one mayor at a time, and we should support his leadership. Because were all human all of us are not going to agree on all that goes into a decision. I believe that we all do agree that we want to get this behind us.

Fellow board member Robert Highsmith, an attorney, admitted that he would have lost a bet if someone had said a settlement agreement would be voted on within the first six weeks of Mayor Dickens term.

I want to thank you, Mayor. I might have lost that bet. Mr. Chairman, if you had told me that six weeks into the new administration, we would have a viable settlement of this litigation thats taken up so much of all of our time, said Highsmith, adding the agreement still needs to be approved by the courts and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. But we have a final executable document here that I think is going to get us there.

HUD celebrates 50th anniversary in Atlanta on Nov.4, 2015 at the Center for Civil and Human Rights. Left to right: Renee Glover, Egbert Perry, Shirley Franklin and Georgia Tech professor Danny Boston. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed welcomes then-HUD Secretary Julian Castro to Atlanta. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

Echoing those statements was Kirk Rich, a commercial real estate executive who serves as vice-chair of Atlanta Housings board.

After thanking the various parties who worked on the settlement agreement, Rich also singled out Mayor Dickens.

To your point Robert the courage and leadership as a new mayor to do this so rapidly will allow us to get back to business that we were appointed to do and that we as a city of Atlanta. Im very happy to be here tonight and be able to put this to a vote so we can move on.

While they were applauding Dickens, a stubborn truth remains. Most of the current members of the Atlanta Housing board have been in charge during a period when the agency did little to develop affordable housing in the city limits.

In fact, the authoritys development efforts came to a virtual standstill after former Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was able to push out former CEO Rene Glover in 2013. Several of the current board members were either appointed by Reed or are known to have had close ties to him.

Over the past eight-plus years, the authority has been sitting on more than 300 acres of undeveloped land while the city has been experiencing a dramatic decline in affordable housing.

Egbert Perry, founder and CEO of the Integral Group, in a conference room at his companys headquarters in 2017. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

One of Mayor Dickens top priorities has been to increase the availability of affordable housing in the city. And the Atlanta Housing authority is viewed as the key vehicle to build affordable housing especially on the lower-end of the income spectrum.

So, it would make sense for Dickens to be able to name his own team to Atlanta Housings board.

Unfortunately, it appears that former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms tied up most of the appointments before she left office.

The Atlanta Housing authority sent over the list of board appointments with the terms of the members. Two members are public housing residents who serve one-year terms. The others are all appointed by the mayor.

Chairman Edwards was given a retroactive five-year term. He had been serving as part of an expired term appointed by Bottoms, and his current term will expire on Sept. 2, 2024.

Bottoms appointed Rich to a five-year term expiring Nov. 4, 2024.

Bottoms also appointed Pat Dixon Jr. to serve until Sept. 21, 2025.

And Bottoms appointed Ten Traylor to a five-year term expiring June 1, 2026. By the way, Traylor abstained from voting for the settlement agreement without explaining why.

The seventh board member Highsmith is the only one whose term is expiring this year on Nov. 5. Highsmith was first appointed by Reed.

So, Dickens hands are tied when it comes to being able to set his own housing agenda through Atlanta Housing (AH).

That is unless AH board members do the right thing and submit their resignations to Mayor Dickens. They should give the mayor the freedom to accept their resignations or to keep them on board. At least they would be accountable to the current mayor and not to the two previous mayors.

As we proclaim its a new day for Atlanta Housing given the proposed settlement agreement with Integral, lets take it one step further. Let Dickens put his own team on the AHA board, and then it will really be a new day for affordable housing in Atlanta.

Go here to see the original:

Give Mayor Andre Dickens freedom to name his team to Atlanta Housings board - SaportaReport