Category Archives: Freedom

Miami University will honor Oscar-nominated, motion film producer and director Reginald Hudlin with the Freedom Summer of 64 Award at 7 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 7 for his contributions in bringing the Black image to screen.

Each year, the university gives the award to a distinguished leader who has inspired the nation to advance civil rights and social justice. It was created in honor of the legacy left behind by the Freedom Summer activists and the three men who lost their lives due to their activism. Past recipients include radio talk-show host Joe Madison, former president of the League of Women Voters Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, Mt. Zion United Methodist Church, NBA executive and basketball icon Wayne Embry and his spouse Terri Embry and former U.S. Representative John Lewis.

Following the award ceremony, Miami University will start its inaugural Freedom Film Festival at 7 p.m. The week-long film festival will be held in Leonard Theatre, Peabody Hall, Nov. 8-12. There will be a brief introduction to each film, the screening and then a facilitated discussion about it. The following films will be featured:

Visit link:

Miami bestows Freedom Summer Award on film producer and director - Oxford Observer

A committee formed after a University of Ottawa professor's controversial use of the N-word during class recommends the school "affirm the need to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression."

The committee, led by former judge Michel Bastarache,issued its report Thursday and stated its members are"against the exclusion of words, works or ideas in the context of respectful academic presentations and discussions."

They also said doing so can "compromise the dissemination of knowledge."

Last fall,Verushka Lieutenant-Duval, a part-time professor at the university, was suspended after a student complained she had used the N-wordduring an art and gender class.

Lieutenant-Duvallater said sheused the word as an example of a word a community has reclaimed, and did not intend to hurt people or provoke controversy.Shetaught again last spring, but did not return this fall.

Following the incident, many students called on the school to develop a zero-tolerance policy on the use of the N-word, while agroup of 34 professors acrossvarious departments signed a letter of support for their colleague.

The university then created the committee, led by Bastarache,to look at what couldbe learned from the incident.

Ultimately, the committee concluded the U of O should "unequivocally reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression." It said members of the community need to be assured of the university's support when "their right to free expression is at stake."

The committee consulted faculty, staff and students for its report. During the consultation, several professors reported being the subject of "outrageous attacks by students simply for having expressed their opinion."

The report includesseveral other recommendationsincluding the establishment of a standing committee to review and implement policies on the matter.

Thatcommittee would have the authority to receive complaints from faculty members and any member of the university, conduct "in-depth reviews of the situation at the university," and write an annual report on "complaints received and processed."

The report labelled the university's current complaint system as "poorly known and ill suited to dealing with situations involving academic freedom and freedom of expression."

Italso recommended the university create a plan to "fight racism and discrimination" and establish a diversity and inclusion training program.

The report did say there is no consensus at the university, or at universities across Canada, when it comes to defining academic freedom and freedom of expression.

However, it said the university needs to define the concept and professorsshould receive training as a "preventative approach."

University president Jacques Frmontresponded to the report, saying it gives the institution a guide to deal with these situations moving forward and "to do better."

"Academic freedom and freedom of expression are crucial to any university in Canada, including the University of Ottawa," he told CBC.

Frmont said that freedom will coincide with the "decolonization, anti-racism, equality, diversity and inclusion" work on campus.

"I think the best we can do is aim at the change of culture so that students and their professors have respectful exchanges from both directions," he said.

When it comes to implementing the committee's recommendations,Frmontsaid his staff are discussing the report,but some of the proposals "are already in the making."

The committee only serves an advisory role, andFrmontwould not commit to banning the use of the N-word in school.

Josiane N'tchoreret-Mbiamany, amember of the Black Student Leaders Association at the University of Ottawasaid the report left her in "utter and complete shock."

"The academic freedom argument that they're using just feels like an excuse [that masks] the real problem, which is systematic racism," saidN'tchoreret-Mbiamany.

N'tchoreret-Mbiamanysaid that for her and many other students, there is no context or instance in which the N-word should be said.

"It's literally Black trauma being on display," she said.

What the university also fails to understand, N'tchoreret-Mbiamanyadded, are the power dynamics in a class setting between student and professor.

"I've actually had to remove myself from a class because one of my professors signed the letter in which they believe that they should [be able to] use the N-word," she said. "I didn't feel safe."

In a statement released Thursday afternoon, the university's student union executive committee said many of the report's recommendations "fall grossly short of our expectations."

"At a first glance, the UOSU Executive Committee are disappointed with what we have seen so far," it said. "Of all parties to this report, academics should be fully aware of the fact that words matter."

More here:

Committee backs right to freedom of expression after Ottawa prof uses N-word - CBC.ca

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: This story has been updated to remove one individual who was incorrectly identified as a plaintiff but instead is an individual who had provided a declaration to the court.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) Gov. Noem invited them to live here and now, they are suing her.

Two plaintiffs in a lawsuit about Pierre Capitol Christmas decorations and first amendment violations said in court papers that they moved to South Dakota for more personal freedom.

Chad Dollick moved from California to South Dakota in 2020 seeking more personal freedom for my family.

Luke Robertson moved from Maine in 2020, for the same reason as Dollick, according to court documents.

The two individuals said they are members of a group called Blue State Refugees, according to court documents. The lawsuit describes Blue State Refugees as an unincorporated association ofSouth Dakotans who moved to the state from other parts of the United States seeking greater individual freedom. Blue State Refugees brings this action on behalf of itself and its approximately 30 members.

They had tried to apply to the state for a permit to protest against mandated COVID-19 vaccinations at the Pierre Capitol during the upcoming special session on Nov. 8 and 9. But according to their lawsuit, they were denied a permit because only one event assembly is allowed per day and the Christmas decorating was considered an event for each day from Nov. 1 through Jan. 1.

Noem has been touting the freedom in South Dakota for more than a year as way to attract new residents and visitors.

Back in late August of 2020, Noem wrote this in her weekly Friday column in response to protests in Seattle and Kenosha, Wisconsin : It doesnt have to be this way, especially not in the United States of America. To those tired of living in these cities, if you want a better home to raise your children, grow your business, and live your life in peace, I encourage you to come to South Dakota. Here, we respect freedom. We breathe fresh air. And we love our country, Noem wrote in the final paragraph.

Ironically, the individuals who filed the lawsuit want to protest against mandated vaccinations, something Noem has been against since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. And she has cited personal responsibility and freedom of choices as key pieces of her response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 21, Noem said in response to possible vaccine passport requirements: I encourage all South Dakotans to get vaccinated against COVID-19, but we are not going to mandate any such activity. And we are not going to restrict South Dakotans exercise of their freedoms with un-American policies like vaccine passports. In our state, Under God, the people rule. And that is how we will operate for as long as I am governor.

Read more here:

Blue State Refugees say in court papers they came to South Dakota for freedom - KELOLAND.com

November 05, 2021

RED SPRINGS Commissioners here extended the towns sewer line rehabilitation project to more streets and were told of the towns clean audit during a regular meeting Tuesday.

The sewer rehab project is funded by a $1,988,741 grant from the N.C. Department of Environmental Qualitys Division of Water Infrastructure.

The project has been bid out and a construction grant awarded for $1,158,837.50, Town Manager David Ashburn said in a public hearing held at the meeting.

Ashburn said there were remaining funds left to rebuild or replace sewer lines on Malpass Avenue, and Saratoga, Taylor, Oak, Grantham, Haywood, Jackson, McMillan, and Church streets.

No members of the public spoke for or against the action during the public hearing. Commissioners approved adding those streets to the scope of the project.

Resolution concerning Red Springs Rescue Squad

In other matters, commissioners also approved an obligor resolution to execute the contract between the town and Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation to secure the Red Springs Rescue Squads building and property. The board previously voted to move forward with the loan, but a formal resolution was approved Tuesday.

As part of the resolution to secure the Rescue Squad building and land on West Fourth Avenue, the town must pay $114,734 with a down payment of $15,000. The loan amount of $99,734 includes $5,592 in closing costs and a 1% interest rate over an eight year period. The towns annual payment computes to just under $13,000, Ashburn said.

Town audit results

Commissioners also heard good news concerning the towns 2020-21 fiscal year audit from Lee Grissom, of S. Preston Douglas and Associates.

The town is on the right track internally, Grissom said. The staff did a good job and Im seeing continuous improvement.

The towns general fund increased by $284,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30. The town also has the highest fund balance in the last six years. It also has twice the Local Government Commissions minimum needed in cash reserves.

The towns cash flow was reported at $3.3 million, which also is its highest in six years.

The only area of improvement would be the water fund, Grissom said.

Though the water fund saw benefits of federal and state funding, with about $3.4 million in grant funding passing through, the operating income needs to increase, Grissom said.

The debt-service ratio for the water/sewer fund also was an area of concern.

He encouraged the town to consider reallocating expenses or raising rates.

This is nothing new to the town of Red Springs, he said. This has kind of been the story for the last several fiscal years.

Red Springs has about $20 million in fixed assets and $10 million in long-term debt. Some debt is associated with the water treatment plant project and depreciation of assets.

Forty percent of the debt is related to employee pension, retirement and sick time, Grissom said.

Ashburn said the water treatment plant should be online in the next week and that the town will see cost savings and efficiency by using the new facility. He hopes with the towns work to improve the water system, leaks can be prevented.

The town is collecting just under 95% of property taxes, which is the highest in the last six years. The towns collection rate was 92%-94% from 2016 to 2020. The state average is 98%-99%, Grissom said.

This is something that Robeson County municipalities struggle with, Grissom said.

The town also turned its audit into the LGC in September, before its due date in October, Ashburn said.

Thank you to the Finance department for all the hard work that you do to keep us moving in the right direction, said Mayor Pro Tem Chris Edmonds.

Mayor Edward Henderson said the audit was the one of the best the town has seen. He also said it is the result of hard work, sacrifices and professionals doing a professional job.

Holiday observances

The town offices will be closed for Veterans Day on Nov. 13; Thanksgiving on Nov. 25 and 26; Christmas on Dec. 24, 27 and 28; and New Years Eve on Dec. 31.

A Christmas tree lighting event will take place on Dec. 4 at 6 p.m. at Martin Luther King Jr. Park.

The Red Springs Christmas Celebration on Main Street will take place Dec. 11 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and the Christmas parade will be held at 3 p.m. To participate in the parade, call the Red Springs Chamber of Commerce at 910-843-5441.

The Red Springs and Northern Railroad Foundation is seeking volunteers for a Christmas train ride event, anyone interested in getting involved can contact Tim Parnell at 910-237-1836.

Ashburn said the town is decking the halls early this year because of the amount of decorations it plans to put out. Residents and motorists can expect to see Christmas decorations soon, he said.

My hope is that we can continue to move this town and push it forward, Henderson said.

View post:

Representatives Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Bob Good elected to the Board of the House Freedom Caucus - The Robesonian

A Turning Point supporter holds a sign in protest of vaccine mandates Friday, Oct. 22, 2021 during the LSU chapter Turning Point Freedom Rally on the Parade Ground at LSUs campus.

On Friday, Oct. 22, protestors took to campus to speak out against the universitys vaccine mandate.

The Freedom Rally was organized by Turning Point USA, a non-profit right-wing organization that promotes conservative values at high schools and colleges. Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point, has continuously made misleading claims regarding COVID-19; he has claimed hydroxychloroquine is a 100% effective"cure against the virus and comparedvaccine mandates in schools to medical apartheid on Fox News.

Recently, Kirk has focused on advocating against school-wide vaccine mandates.

October 21 and 22 were supposed to be fall break, but after Hurricane Ida these days became virtual make-up days. Still, campus was emptier than usual, making it the perfect time for Turning Point to promote their political agenda. It was a fitting decision of Turning Point to hold a protest on a college campus on a day where virtually no one was there to oppose them.

American flags, religious phrases and home of the brave signs made appearances. Many Twitter users also pointed out that in a video of the protest, a protestor wearing a cape of the Louisiana state flag was seen throwing up the white power hand symbol.

There were signs reading My Body My Choice," suggesting that vaccine mandates are a violation of bodily autonomy and that businesses, workplaces and educational institutions should not mandate that people are vaccinated against COVID-19.

Yet vaccine mandates have existed at the university long before the COVID-19 pandemic. The university's current vaccination requirements include a tetanus shot within the last decade, a meningitis shot since the age of 16 years or older and two doses of MMR shots.

When considering whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates are violations of personal freedom, like Turning Point claims, I think of the classic quote, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. The exact origins of this quote are uncertain, but versions of it have existed in American literature since the 19thcentury.

The data from medical professionals and the scientific community is clearCOVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in reducing the risk of COVID-19 and its associated symptoms. In other words, your decision to get vaccinated will directly affect how many humans live or die from COVID-19.

Skipping out on a COVID-19 vaccine when you are eligible to receive one is as close to being about personal freedom as drunk driving. A university mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccines is in the interest of public health, just like the laws that make drunk driving illegal.

The protest against the universitys vaccine mandate, which thankfully hardly anyone attended, was ill-informed. For the few who participated in the protest, I can only hope they are comfortable trusting their health with the political profiteers of Turning Point rather than scientists and epidemiologists.

Kathryn Craddock is a 21-year-old mass communication junior from Patterson.

Read the original here:

Opinion: The "Freedom Rally" protest against vaccine mandates was ill-informed - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

The Delta surge in Covid-19 seems to be receding. Thats good news, and not just because fewer people are dying. Fear of infection was one reason the economic recovery hit an air pocket in the third quarter. Resuming normal life will be a huge relief.

But the U.S. right is, in effect, trying to keep the pandemic going. We talk a lot about misinformation on social media, some of which surprise! appears to be the product of Russian disinformation. However, the role of the right-wing establishment has surely been far more important. Fox News serves up anti-vaccine messages almost every day. Republican governors have tried to ban vaccine mandates not just by local governments and school districts but by private businesses. Multiple Republican attorneys general have filed suit to stop federal vaccine mandates.

The expressed rationale for all this activity is that its about protecting freedom. In reality, while there are several reasons for vaccine resistance, politics is a significant driver of the agitation. A successful vaccination campaign could mean a successful Biden administration, and the right is determined to prevent that, no matter how many avoidable deaths result from vaccine sabotage. Its noteworthy that Fox has a very strict vaccination policy for its own employees.

Still, the case against vaccine mandates, however disingenuous, needs to be answered on the merits. Yet I at least have rarely seen the case against a right to refuse vaccination fully explained, even though you could hardly come up with a better example than Covid-19 vaccination if you wanted to design a hypothetical situation in which arguments for freedom of choice dont apply. And I think its worth spelling out exactly why.

First, personal choice is fine as long as your personal choices dont hurt other people. I may deplore the quality of your housekeeping, but its your own business; on the other hand, freedom doesnt include the right to dump garbage in the street.

And going unvaccinated during a pandemic does hurt other people which is why schools, in particular, have required vaccination against many diseases for generations. The unvaccinated are much more likely to contract the coronavirus, and hence potentially infect others, than those whove had their shots; theres also some evidence that even when vaccinated individuals become infected, theyre less likely to infect others than the unvaccinated.

Incidentally, the fact that breakthrough infections happen that some people get the virus despite being vaccinated actually strengthens the case for mandates, because it means that even those whove gotten their shots face some danger from those who refuse to follow suit.

And the harm done to others by rejecting vaccines goes beyond an increased risk of disease. The unvaccinated are far more likely than the vaccinated to require hospitalization, which means that they place stress on the health care system. They also impose financial costs on the general public, because given the prevalence of insurance both public and private, their hospital bills end up being largely covered by the rest of us.

Vaccination, then, should be considered a public duty, not a personal choice. But there would be a strong argument for public promotion of vaccines even if we were to somehow ignore the harm the unvaccinated impose on others and look only at the personal choice aspect. For this isnt an area in which individuals can be relied on to choose well.

Medicine, in case you havent noticed, is a complex and difficult subject. As a result, its an area where its a bad idea to leave people entirely to their own devices. The clamor for unproven treatments like taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin reminds us why we require that physicians be licensed and drugs be approved, rather than leaving it up to the public to decide whos qualified and which medication is safe and effective.

So you have to wonder why anyone would consider it a good idea when Floridas surgeon general urged people to downplay medical advice on vaccines and rely on their intuition and sensibilities.

Finally, the most contentious area in this whole argument involves vaccine and mask requirements for schools. And in this area, opponents of mandates arent making decisions for themselves theyre making decisions for their children, who have rights of their own and arent simply their parents property.

Now, U.S. law and tradition give parents a great deal of leeway, especially when religious beliefs are involved, but not absolute power over their childrens lives. Adults cant choose to deny their children basic education; they cant turn down lifesaving medical treatment. Thats why we have longstanding vaccine mandates for many childhood diseases. And the same logic applies to Covid-19.

Again, I dont know how many people really believe that vaccine requirements are an attack on freedom. But in any case, its important to understand that freedom is no reason to block a potential medical miracle.

The rest is here:

Opinion | No, Vaccine Mandates Arent an Attack on Freedom - The New York Times

FULL STORY: Taylor becomes rushing sensation to propel Freedom past Liberty

Freedom 28, Liberty 13 Rapid Recap

Freedom High Schools football team took what it wanted in the second half.

What it wanted was a rivalry victory and city championship.

The Patriots, ranked No. 2 by lehighvalleylive.com, scored 21 unanswered points and defeated Liberty 28-13 on Saturday afternoon at Bethlehem Area School District Stadium.

Turning point: Freedom trailed 13-7 at halftime, but only needed six plays to go 59 yards for a score on the opening possession of the third quarter. Quarterback Brian Taylor avoided a sack and tossed a 24-yard TD to Ethan Neidig. Kicker Zeyad Ragabs PAT put the Patriots ahead 14-13 with 9:24 on the clock.

Liberty punted on the ensuing possession and Freedom marched right back down the field, going 64 yards in nine plays. Taylor capped the series with a 7-yard rushing TD to go ahead 21-13.

Top performers: Taylor completed 9 of 17 passes for 109 yards and a score. He also rushed for 87 yards and three scores on 14 carries.

Deante Crawford had 154 yards on 33 carries for Freedom.

Liberty tailback Kyndred Wright had 14 carries for 85 yards and a touchdown. Karim Brice returned a punt 75 yards for a Hurricanes touchdown.

What it means: Freedom, which won the city title by virtue of its wins over Liberty and Bethlehem Catholic, finished the regular season with an 8-2 record. The Patriots will host Easton as the third seed in the District 11 Class 6A tournament.

Liberty, which won its season opener, closed the fall with a 1-9 mark.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to lehighvalleylive.com.

Kyle Craig may be reached at kcraig@lehighvalleylive.com.

View post:

Freedom football rules 2nd half to beat Liberty, claim city title - lehighvalleylive.com

When Nathan Law boarded a London-bound plane in Hong Kong in the summer of 2020, he knew it might be for the last time.

After years of eroding freedoms in Hong Kong, China had just passed a wide-ranging National Security Law that criminalised anything that could vaguely be considered an act of secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion with foreign forces in the territory. As one of Hong Kongs most prominent pro-democracy activists, Law knew he could be targeted. But even he has been surprised by the speed with which the law has been used to crack down on anyone who doesnt toe the line. Journalists, entrepreneurs, judges and academics have all been prosecuted.

For Law, who was granted political asylum in the UK in April 2021, its been difficult to observe from afar. Youre literally witnessing Hong Kong civil society, with decades of foundation, collapse.

Bespectacled in a pressed white shirt with a grandfather collar, Law couldnt look less like the troublemaking radical of Beijings warnings. We spoke on the same day the 28-year-olds new book, Freedom: How We Lose it and How We Fight Back, is released in the UK. He was soft-spoken and polite, though passionate in his arguments.

Born in the Chinese city of Shenzhen, Law moved with his family to Hong Kong when he was six years old. The family was blue collar, he says. His father was a builder, his mother a street cleaner. They didnt discuss politics at home. It wasnt until 2010, when the Chinese writer and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize, that Law began to question what he was being taught. The morning after the prize was announced, the principal of his pro-Beijing secondary school made an announcement at a school assembly denouncing the award. It really triggered my curiosity, he said. Law began reading Lius work and researching democracy. It really opened up a gate for me.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Green Times A weekly round-up of The New Statesman's climate, environment and sustainability content.

On the other side of that gate lay the road to activism. By the time he was a 21-year-old student, Law had become a household name across Hong Kong for leading the 2014 Yellow Umbrella Movement, a student protest calling for free elections in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory. Two years later, aged 23, he was elected a lawmaker, the youngest in Hong Kongs history. The celebrations didnt last long, however, as authorities soon disqualified him for altering his oath of office. In 2017, he was jailed for two months because of his role in the protests of 2014.

Now exiled from Hong Kong and cut off from speaking to his family and friends back home, Law has continued his activism from the other side of the world. These days, however, hes expanded his scope. While the dizzying backslide on freedom in Hong Kong is tied to its connection and proximity to China, Law insists that his home isnt unique.

He points to Hungary and Poland as two explicit examples of European countries where democracy is blatantly under attack. Yet, Law warns, the threat of authoritarianism isnt always obvious. While democracy can crumble quickly if not protected, it doesnt happen overnight. Authoritarianism can creep thats part of the problem. Even nations with the most firmly established institutions could see democratic norms eroded over time if there isnt a backlash.

Consider the case that has roiled British politics this week: a majority of MPs voted to overhaul the system that holds them to account after a Conservative MP, Owen Paterson, did not disclose he was paid by outside interests when lobbying ministers. (Following an unexpected wave of outrage and corruption accusations,the government has reversed course.) Are the UKs democratic freedoms under threat too?

Freedom is under threat everywhere, Law stated firmly. A mixture of complacency and lack of interest, he suggested, has meant that too many nations including the UK dont recognise a threat when its staring them in the face. Democracy is not only a electoral system, he pointed out. Its a series of values that we all treasure.

Chief among those values, he said, is the freedom of the press and the right to protest. Those are often the first rights to be stamped out by authoritarian regimes. Yet the loss of those rights is also, not coincidentally, least likely to sound the alarm with the wider public. Thats why, Law emphasised, attacks on the press and on protesters should serve as the first warning sign, and civilians should push back on any encroachment.

So what is the international communitys role in all of this? We need to see the rise of authoritarianism or the global democratic decline as a global crisis, Law said. He pointed to the Economist Intelligence Units democracy index, which in 2020 judged that less than 10 per cent of the worlds population lived in a true democracy, while more than a third of the world lived under authoritarian rule. Strengthening and expanding alliances that are bound by democratic values, and using those alliances to systematically counter China and other undemocratic regimes, is the only way to reverse that trend. Ultimately, he added, its up to those who live in free or mostly free societies to stop authoritarianism.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Law said. You are the beneficiary of it but youre also the guardians of it.

[Listen also: Hong Kong democracy after one year of the National Security Law]

Here is the original post:

Nathan Law: From Poland to the UK, freedom is under threat - New Statesman

The House Progressive Caucus has drawn scorn for its hardball tactic of holding up the bipartisan infrastructure bill in order to pressure moderate Democrats to support President Bidens larger climate and social policy initiatives. The liberals tactics, observed the New York Times last month, were reminiscent of those employed by the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members routinely threatened to withhold their bloc of votes unless Republican leaders met their demands.

The Freedom Caucus has cultivated a toxic reputation in Washington for its destructive predilections, issuing impossible and constantly changing demands with no clear goal except derailing legislation of almost any kind. The progressives critics turned the comparisons to the Freedom Caucus into a shorthand for their belief the liberal faction was acting irrationally. The complaints were especially loud from Never Trump Republicans who, having fled the GOP, saw in the far left the same kind of destructive purism that had wrecked their former party.

But the Progressive Caucus was not derailing anything, nor was it acting irrationally. Its position shrewdly exploited the fact that Democratic moderates, who had not committed to supporting any version of Bidens plan, had an unusually strong attachment to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, primarily by dint of the fact that it was bipartisan. On Monday, Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal announced that, having received assurances from Biden and the Senate about his plans prospects, all 94 members of her caucus would vote for the infrastructure bill.

Its impossible to know for certain if the progressive negotiating tactic worked. That would require knowing what Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin would have done had the infrastructure bill been signed right away. The progressives drew out Manchin and Sinema and seem to have coaxed them into committing to a defined amount of tax revenue theyre willing to pry from the wealthy, which can fund some version of Joe Bidens social program. Having gotten the crucial agreement on the revenue side, they can let negotiations on allocating the spending take more time. Their maneuver was a negotiating tactic to coax marginal improvements, not a tantrum, and it didnt destroy anything.

The assumption that the Democratic Partys left wing would act like the mirror image of the Republican Partys right wing may have seemed natural. But they turn out to have different strategic approaches to governing because the ideological environments that produce them are not parallel at all. The Democratic Partys left wing remains deeply invested in the success of government, while the Republican Partys right wing is becoming unmoored from any policy objective at all.

The House Freedom Caucus used to stage unpredictable revolts against legislation because its members were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of their party as the true conservatives. If conservatives activists started raising a fuss about any bill, however low profile or indisputably conservative, the Freedom Caucus would engage in a panicky stampede against it. While the pretext for Freedom Caucus revolts often touched on a policy theme like labeling a bill to keep the government open a big spending plan their goals rarely involved any legislative outcome. It was to win a game of musical chairs where some other Republican was sitting in the seat labeled sellout when the music stopped.

In the Trump era, the Caucuss only distinct ideological profile is a predilection for authoritarianism, violent rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and a willingness to cozy up to open white supremacists. Its leading members include the likes of Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorne, and Louie Gohmert.

Richard Hanania, a conservative political scientist, has a long, fascinating essay trying to explain conservatisms disinterest in policy achievements. Hananias main argument is built around the observation that Republicans watch and trust television news far more than Democrats, who rely more heavily on print media. Hanania uses the rights television addiction as a kind of synecdoche for its inability to sustain focus:

In his 2005 inaugural address, George W. Bush talked about democratizing other countries as a national calling, completely ignoring any domestic issue. A few years later, the Tea Party arose in opposition to bailouts, and conservative politicians started getting primaried for not being extreme enough in their support for small government and lower levels of spending. This was an era in which Republicans nominated for the Senate a guy who opposed the federal minimum wage, and another who opposed anti-discrimination laws. By the end of Obamas presidency, nobody cared about small government anymore, and they nominated Trump, whose signature issue was immigration, and who thought all the human rights stuff in foreign policy was stupid. Today, somehow, Republicans are fundraising off of opposition to vaccine mandates, something that hasnt ever been associated with the right.

This tendency expresses itself in what Hanania calls nondirectional lying. Rather than the ordinary puffery and salesmanship politicians use to sell their idea, Republicans frequently sell their views as the exact opposite of the real thing. He cites Josh Hawley, who ran ads claiming he would protect voters from discrimination based on preexisting conditions after having sued to eliminate Obamacare, which created those protections.

Hananias television-based theory seems inadequate to explain the conservative movements comfort with nondirectional lying. He cites, for instance, the ludicrous claim by Republicans like Ted Cruz that the conservative movement is the actual heir to the civil-rights movement, when in fact the conservative movement fought civil rights bitterly. But this absurd historical revisionism is not just a Fox News talking-head trope but an argument conservative intellectuals have made in complete seriousness in highbrow organs like National Review.

One could go just a few years farther back and recall how conservatives whipped themselves into a moralistic frenzy over the absolute civilizational necessity of having a president who abstained from extramarital affairs and did not ever lie, even about embarrassing personal matters. This, too, was seen as a big idea by the highbrow minds of the right. William Bennett, the former Reagan-era Education secretary, then seen as one of the movements most serious intellectuals, penned a series of tomes with portentous titles like The Moral Compass and The Death of Outrage, grounding the rights entire worldview in personal morality. Bennetts emergence as an enthusiastic defender of Donald Trump is barely even a surprise. In retrospect, the decade of moralistic preaching that defined conservative thought amounted to just another Fox News talking point.

Hanania blames the movements reliance on nondirectional lying for its long-term inability to drive a policy agenda. In his analysis, the lefts willingness to stake its ground in relatively consistent (if, in Hananias view, lamentable) arguments for economic redistribution, favorable treatment of minorities, and so on has forfeited the cheap, easy wins conservatives get with their spinning wheel of daily outrages for the benefit of winning permanent social change.

The House Freedom Caucus is a perfect embodiment of the rights mentally peripatetic style. Today they are enraged about X, tomorrow it will be Y, the next day the opposite of X.

Jayapals faction, by contrast, is composed of serious legislators who are trying to help their party pass effective bills. Parallels between right and left have many uses, but attempting to understand the Progressive Caucus by way of the Freedom Caucus is a terrible error.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

See more here:

The House Progressive Caucus, Unlike the Freedom Caucus, Is Sane - New York Magazine

Over the last four centuries, a lot of traditions have become associated with the 5November. Fireworks. Bonfires. Burning Catholics in effigy. As a child it was one of my favourite times of the year. Even today I much prefer it to the Americanised Halloween rubbish we get now, and not just because Im an anti-papist who could never convincingly dress up as a sexy anything.

Over the last ten years, though, another tradition has attached itself to this date. A certain right-wing political blogger was an early adopter, back when the British left was still in the ascendancy and he could convincingly pretend he wasnt a member of the establishment. Since then the Guy Fawkes mask has become the symbol of left-wing anti-government protests far and wide, including hacktivists Anonymous and the Occupy Movement. Today the internet is seemingly full of comments like this one (which dates, strangely, from August):

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Green Times A weekly round-up of The New Statesman's climate, environment and sustainability content.

Right. No. This is utter bullshit, based not so much on a misreading of history as on a complete ignorance of it.

Guy Fawkes was many things, but one he emphatically wasnt was a freedom fighter. Fawkes had actually voluntarily fought for the Spanish empire in its Eighty Years War against Dutch independence hardly the action of someone who fights over-weening government power wherever they may find it.

The reason the Gunpowder Plotters decided to take down the government of King James I & VI was not because they were opposed to government oppression. The Plotters were kind of okay with a spot of government oppression, actually: they just thought that the oppressed Catholics should be the ones doing it.

To that end, they decided to blow up the House of Lords during the state opening of parliament. This would knock out the king and most of his ministers, and open the way for nine-year-old Princess Elizabeth to become puppet queen of a new Catholic regime, backed by the mighty Spanish Empire. (Incidentally, the fact they wanted to supplant the regime, not destroy it, makes Guido Fawkes a painfully good name for that libertarian blog.)

Fawkes wasnt even the plots leader: that was Robert Catesby. The only reason Fawkes himself is the one who became most associated with the plot is because he was the poor mug who got lumbered with the job of guarding the barrels. When the plot was discovered, he was the one forced to explain how it was he came to be shiftily loitering next to 20 barrels of gunpowder, holding a packet of matches.

The Gunpowder Plotters werent freedom fighters at all. They wanted to replace an oppressive Protestant regime with an oppressive Catholic one, and were willing to commit mass slaughter to do it. In other words, Guy Fawkes was a religious terrorist, and not even one of the most important ones. He was the Jacobean equivalent of one of the minor characters from Four Lions.

So how is it that he ended up as a symbol for those who think themselves freedom fighters? The Guy Fawkes mask is worn by a crusader against government oppression in Alan Moores 1980s comic strip V for Vendetta, so its tempting to blame him and his artist David Lloyd.

But that isnt very fair. In the comic, the character of V may be fighting the government; but hes also very clearly a terrorist, and his ideology is no less terrifying than that of the rather banal fascist regime hes fighting against. If anyones to blame its the people who filmed the graphic novel in 2006, completely missing Moores point and turning V into a heroic martyr for freedom.

At any rate, the result of all this is that weve ended up with a world that celebrates a semi-competent religious fundamentalist as a freedom fighter, and where people give moneyto big corporations to buy copies of his face.

Well done, anarchists. Well done on never reading a fucking book.

Read this article:

Guy Fawkes wasn't a freedom fighter. He was a religious terrorist, and not even one of the good ones - New Statesman