Category Archives: Liberal

Students from Galloway Residence pose with Niedfeldt Residences old homecoming banner before trading it for their flag. Courtesy | Seth Ramm

It is my intention to prove once and for all that Hillsdales male dormitory raid culture is necessary for a liberal arts education. I would like to begin by saying (keep your shirts on Simpsonites), that inter-dormitory rivalries are at the heart of student culture and campus will be worse off if raids and the events leading up to them are done away with for good.

Hillsdale College boasts one of the most unique academic experiences in America, and it is fitting that the student culture is just as unique. Though to some, the time-honored traditions of flag stealing, petty pranks, and meeting on the quad to beat each other senseless with foam-insulated PVC may seem childish and unnecessary, I would argue that behind this apparent childishness is hiding a complex and positive culture that fosters community and improves the spirit of campus.

There are many things more harrowing than your first few nights on campus (asking someone on a dining hall date, for instance), but being alone in a strange place filled with strangers is a difficult adjustment. This was the beginning of my freshman year, 2019. Like most others in my dormitory, I went to Welcome Party. I spent about an hour making small talk and participating in something that vaguely resembled dancing. It was not until I returned to the dormitory that the night got interesting.

I was informed that some nefarious actors had crept their way into Galloway Residence, my dormitory, and absconded with all our pillows. Every. Single. One. Left in their place was a cryptic notean apparent riddle that would reveal the location of our wayward pillows. Within five minutes, there were 20 to 30 people crammed wall to wall in the first-floor lobby of Galloway, all desperate to decipher the note and retrieve our pillows. I dont remember how long we spent racking our brains, consulting with upperclassmen, and trying to apply what little knowledge of Hillsdale we had to solving the problem.

We eventually did find our pillowssoaked in perfume and stuffed in contractor bags on the carpeted floor of the Olds Residence lobbybut most importantly, we found friends. That night, a simple prank brought the freshman residents together for a unique and unforgettable night.

It wasnt long after the pillow theft that I was introduced to raid culture. Simpson had of course engaged in their customary saber rattling the first week back on campus. Everyone knew that something was going to happen, but exactly when and what was a mystery.

That all changed on a dreary Friday night.

When word broke that a legion of Simpsonites was expected to march on Galloway, the night was transformed. Galloway men went to general quarters. Guys armed themselves with raid weapons stashed in various storage closets and rooms. The situation room was filled to the brim with Resident Assistants and upperclassmen analyzing intelligence and creating a defensive strategy. Someone was blaring John Williams Duel of the Fates from a speaker. The mood was electric.

Having no weapons of my own, I volunteered to join then-junior Philip Andrews on a reconnaissance mission to Simpson. Feeling like two spies sent on a death-defying, top secret mission, we stealthily approached Simpson, concealing ourselves in the bushes by the Searle Center. Though the headlights of passing cars illuminated our pasty faces, we somehow observed Simpson unseen. Even as the rain began to fall, we remained at our post, looking for anything that could confirm that Simpson was in fact preparing an attack. Though I believe that night did not end in a climactic battle (my memory could be wrong), just the threat of a Simpson raid created an unforgettable night.

It is fitting to conclude this defense of raid culture with a discussion of what happens when foam swords clash, when flags are stolen, when glory is earned, and when legends are made. The world of raiding is a curious one, filled with traditions, pageantry, and unwritten rules (which may not always be followed, but thats a subject for a whole other article). At least one opinion article has been written deriding such momentous displays of gallantry and courage as The Battle of Kappa Lawn and Land Battle. I was among those who valiantly took part in Land Battle last year. I was one of those whose behavior was considered by some to be childish, outrageous, uncouth, and (most heart wrenchingly) unbecoming of a potential future life partner. Allow me to condemn these slanders as untrue, unfounded, uninformed, unsubstantiated, unaccommodating, unadulterated, and above all false.

Yes, in the simplest, most elementary terms, Land Battle is simply a bunch of college men meeting to pummel one another with baby-proofed plumbing. But it is simultaneously so much more. There is a nearly universal thread that ties men together. It is a desire for competition, for glory earned. Its a desire to overcome overwhelming odds and achieve greatness.

To steal a term from the class Great Books I, men want kleosthe ancient Greek word meaning your renown or glory. Even in a simulated, controlled, low-stakes scenario like Land Battle, there exists kleos. There is a reason why movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones resonate almost universally with boys. Boys innately crave adventure. Boys want to be Indiana Jones; they want to be Luke Skywalker.

In a political climate where boys are told from kindergarten that they should behave more like the girls, to be quiet and studious, and to sit down and dont fidget, Hillsdale is a refreshing alternative. It is a place where boys are ablefor at least one nightto participate in an exercise of the masculinity that society is trying desperately to extinguish.

I can guarantee that I have never felt more alive than I did when I returned to my dormitory after Land Battle. It was already well past midnight and I had a calculus quiz in the morning, but I didnt care. I stayed up for hours after the event, reveling in what had happened.

The memory of that night will forever be in my consciousness. It is an experience unlike any other, and I believe it would be a disservice to the current and future freshmen of Hillsdale if they are never able to experience it.

Nick Treglia is a sophomore studying applied mathematics.

Read more:

Liberal arts in action: Release the raids - Hillsdale Collegian

On Monday, U.S. News & World Report released its annual ranking of the best colleges in the country, from large research universities to small liberal arts schools.

U.S. News calculates its ranking based on six categories which are each weighted differently: student outcomes (40%), faculty resources (20%), expert opinion (20%), financial resources (10%), student excellence (7%) and alumni giving (3%).

For the first time, U.S. News considered student debt in their ranking. The student outcomes category now takes into account the average amount of accumulated federal loan debt among full-time undergraduate borrowers at graduation and the percentage of full-time undergraduates in a graduating class who borrowed federal loans.

This year's top liberal arts colleges all boast small classroom sizes, including top-ranking Williams College, where 75% of classes have fewer than 20 students and just 3% of classes have 50 or more students.

Getting into one of these schools isn't easy. Admitted students boast strong high school records and high standardized test scores. However, many of these prestigious liberal arts schools have higher acceptance rates than similarly top-ranking universities.

For instance, while the top-ranked national university, Princeton, accepts just 6% of students, Williams accepts closer to 13% of applicants. Wellesley College, which tied for fourth place on U.S. News' ranking of liberal arts schools, has an acceptance rate of 22%.

The top-ranking liberal arts colleges also tended to score better than the top-ranked national universities on comparative measures of social mobility, that are designed to represent a school's likelihood of helping students improve their circumstances by considering the graduation rates and post-graduation performances of students who qualify for federal Pell Grants.

Here are the top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. News and what it takes to get in.

Williams College

Denis Tangney Jr | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 85%

Acceptance rate: 13%

Amherst College

Source: Amherst College

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 88%

Acceptance rate: 11%

Swarthmore College

aimintang | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1380-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 87%

Acceptance rate: 9%

Pomona College

Ted Soqui | Corbis | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1390-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 93%

Acceptance rate: 7%

Wellesley College

David L Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1360-1530

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 79%

Acceptance rate: 22%

Don't miss:

Read this article:

The top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. Newsand what it takes to get in - CNBC

The bill designed to keep the financial wheels of the provincial government churning is not yet a done deal, but the Opposition partiesand two Independent MHAshavescored a partial victory in the process, one that seeminglyquietsany chatter about an imminent provincial election.

Debate continues this week in the House of Assemblyon the Liberals'interim supply bill,which allows government money to keep flowing, ahead of a formal budget being passed.

For example, the billwould include funds to ensure workers are paid and the province to meet other financial obligations.

Late Tuesday night, the PCs, NDP andtwo Independent MHAsscored a political victory by passing an amendment making the interim supply bill for two months, instead of the three months the Liberals wanted.

"I think we simply demonstrated to the government that they can't do any old thing they want to do and we kept them to a sense of fiscal discipline," PC Leader Ches Crosbie said Wednesday afternoon.

Finance MinisterSiobhan Coadysaid "she didn't understandthe logic" of endorsing a 60-day bill. She said it took 57 days to pass a budget in 2018.

"I'd rather have more than less [time]," Coady added.

The PCs and NDPhad originally balked at the three-month proposal.

"We've been accommodating within reason but to be asking for threemonths right now is overreaching,"Crosbie said earlier this week. "Three months is a large blank cheque."

That measuredoesn't mean the entire interim supply bill has passed because other parts of the legislation must be voted on individually.

But the Tuesday night voteon the amendment underscores that the Liberal minority government needs votes from across the aislesin order to get bills passed.

Coady has said a budget will be presented on Sept. 30. The interim supply bill must be approved before that.

Budgets are usually announced in the spring, but the pandemic disrupted that financial schedule, and in March the Opposition parties supported a six-month $4.6-billion interim supply bill.

The NDPhad expressed concerns thata three-month supply bill would give the Liberals an opportunity to call a general election this fall.

On Wednesday, Crosbiepointedly said his party is not looking to potentially help bring down the government on a confidence vote related to the budget.

"They have plenty of time, the budget will pass[Coady]tells us in the House that there's going to be nothing in it that we canobject to, I'll take her on face value on that." he said.

"There won't be an issue passing the budget. There will not be an election, they will have plenty of money to pay the bills."

On Tuesday, before the vote on the bill's amendment, bothCoady and PC MHAand finance critic Tony Wakehamsaid neither party wants an election right now.

The supply bill was debated for a few hours on Wednesday morning and will continue this week.

Read more from CBC Newfoundland and Labrador

See the rest here:

Opposition parties, Independents shave month off Liberals' spending bill - CBC.ca

The Southern Chiefs' Organization is calling the Manitoba government dishonourable in the way it treats vulnerable children in the province.

Southern Chiefs' OrganizationGrand Chief Jerry Danielssays Brian Pallister's Progressive Conservative government isattempting to present legislation that would prevent the government from being liable for taking hundreds of millions of dollarsintended for children in care.

Through the Children's Special Allowance, the federal government gives roughly $455 to $530 for each child in careto government child and family services agencies each month.

Beginning in 2010, Manitoba'sNDPgovernment began forcing the agencies to remit the money given, saying the province was paying for the maintenance of children in care and the money was therefore owed to them.

Thatmoney was put into general revenue. If agencies refused to remit it, the government withheld 20 per cent of the operating funds it gave the agency.

Daniels, who spoke at a press conference Wednesday alongsideManitoba Liberal Leader Dougald Lamontin the city's West End,says that between1999 and 2016, the NDP government diverted approximately $250 million. Since 2016, the PCs have diverted more than$100 million, Daniels and Lamont claimed.

The clawback prompted sixIndigenous child and family services agencies to suethe Manitoba government in 2018, but the SCO and Manitoba Liberals say the government has includedtwo provisions in its budget bill that would effectively end the lawsuit.

One clauseseeks to shield the province from being held responsible for clawing back the money earmarked for kids in care.

"Our children's resources are being stolen and Pallister is wanting to legislate himself out of being accountable for it,"Daniels said, calling the provisions in the budget bill"get-out-of-jail-free" clauses designed to shield the Tories.

"If the Pallister government believes they're right in taking the children's money, why does he not want the courts to decide?"

Unlike other bills, budget bills don't go before committees for public hearings, Lamont said, adding he is raising the issue now because the legislature is going back into session on Oct. 7.

"The Pallister PCs are using a budget bill to do an end-run around the courts," he added.

"The law is there to hold people to their word, and these measures set a terrible precedent."

Daniels and Lamont spoke on Wednesdayinfront of an Adele Avenue building, which was operated by the SouthernFirst Nations Network of Careas afacility for children in care until2019, when residents were evicted three months before the province introduceda bill in an effort to break its lease on the building.

The 20-year deal was signed in 2007under the NDP government to providean alternative to hotel placements of kids in care.

The province on Wednesday said it stepped in to help theSouthernFirst Nations Network of Care with the lease "at their request."

"They had signed an untendered, 20-year deal at a cost of $9.4 million and then determined the property would not meet their needs,"said a statement from Families Minister Heather Stefanson.

"The lease did not allow for an early termination, which meant a large portion of SFNNC's budget intended to support children and families was consumed by lease payments," the statement said, adding the government tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the least.

"If the lease is not terminated, it will cost the province another $6.5 million over the next 10 years, plus maintenance costs," she said.

"We believe that is a complete waste of taxpayer money, which is why we are taking steps to end the lease."

The SCO and Liberals said the provincial government ordered the eviction of the home in February of 2019, and that children at the home were forced out in the middle of the night.

Stefanson's statement called that "a shameful falsehood." Plans werein place for the transition of every child at the Adele home, and notice was provided ahead of time, Stefanson said.

As for requiring agencies remit the Children's Special Allowance back to the province, that is ahistorical practice of the previous NDP government, Stefanson said, noting the proposed legislation will change that.

Since April 2019, agencies have beenretaining the allowance, as well as receivingsingle-envelope funding from the province, which will provide more than$400 million to the authorities and their agencies in 2020-21 a $15-million increase compared to what they received before, Stefansonsaid.

View original post here:

Southern chiefs, Liberals accuse Manitoba government of withholding millions intended for kids in care - CBC.ca

TORONTO -- While on the campaign trail a year ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised that a re-elected Liberal government would plant two billion trees over the next 10 years. But so far, none of those trees have gone in the ground.

Some federally-funded trees have been planted in 2020, according to Natural Resources Minister Seamus ORegans office, but the two billion promise referred to brand-new trees, on top of the usual replanting efforts.

Ian Cameron, press secretary for ORegan, says that COVID-19 is the cause for the delay.

Our government provided $30 million to businesses in the forest sector to ensure that they could safely continue their planting activities during COVID-19, he said in a statement to CTV News. We are also planting hundreds of thousands of trees through the Infrastructure Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund. These have been our priority in the past several months, and we were successful in those efforts.

Building off these efforts, we remain fully committed to planting two billion trees, and we look forward to sharing more on that soon.

Trudeau first made the promise in September 2019, after he met with Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, and before he participated in a climate march in Montreal.

The two billion trees were pitched as an important part of the Liberals plan to fight climate change and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The partys platform specified that it would create 3,500 seasonal tree planting jobs, and that it was all part of a $3-billion commitment to better conserve and restore forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, wetlands, and coastal areas.

Nature isn't just part of our identity as Canadians, it's also a part of the solution to climate change and it's a solution we can start using today," Trudeau told reporters in September 2019.

"Trees are remarkable. They pull carbon out of the atmosphere. They are renewable and they're sustainable and, eventually, they even recycle themselves. All we have to do is plant the first one."

When the plan was announced, officials specified that this would be in addition to the roughly 600 million trees that are already planted across Canada each year.

In order to have two billion trees planted by 2030, the government shouldve been planting 200 million trees a year starting in 2020, which breaks down to 547,945 trees planted every single day.

If they start planting in 2021, itll take 608,828 trees planted every day to make the goal.

Read the original post:

Trudeau government hasn't started planting 2 billion trees promised in 2019 campaign - CTV News

Paul Wells: Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didn't cancel gravity, and that 'building back better' will, in fact, be hard work

Im grateful to the excellent Toronto Star columnist Heather Scoffield for noticing some fascinating comments Gerald Butts made on Monday.

Butts, of course, resigned in 2019 as Justin Trudeaus principal secretary and has been working since then as a consultant, climate-policy opinion leader and Twitter scold. He was a member of the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery, which spent the summer pushing hard on the build back better rhetoric that imagined the coronavirus pandemic as the dawn of a bold new green-energy future.

To say the least, excitement about a pandemic is counterintuitive. I started writing about the contradictions in June, when nameless Liberals were telling reporters, Itll be a good time to be a progressive government There are a lot of us who are dreaming big. I came back to the theme in August, when the PMO was setting Bill Morneau up as some kind of obstacle to their plans to build back better. And I wrote last week about the unsettling spectacle of Trudeau greeting Morneaus departure as, essentially, the end of history: We can choose to embrace bold new solutions to the challenges we face and refuse to be held back by old ways of thinking. As much as this pandemic is an unexpected challenge, it is also an unprecedented opportunity.

It was already clear last week that some of these considerations were starting to weigh, perhaps belatedly, on the Prime Minister and his advisors. Theres a sensitivity to being perceived to hijack the moment for a green recovery, a senior Liberal source told the CBCs David Cochrane. Boy, I sure hope there is.

Along comes Butts, who on Monday was addressing something called the Recovery Summit, an ambitious online virtual conference organized by some of the usual suspects, including the (Trudeauist) Canada2020 think tank in Ottawa and the (Clintonist) Center for American Progress in Washington.

Butts kicked off the proceedings by pouring industrial quantities of cold water on everyone.

Its important tounderstand and appreciate the level of anxiety that people are going through right now, he said. Conferences like this one were made by and for members of the progressive movement, he said. But in a clear warning to people who consider themselves members of that movement, he added, We depend on the support of the broad middle class and regular people. When we keep that support we form governments. And when we dont, we lose governments.

In an even clearer warning against the weird self-celebratory tone of some of the rhetoric from the government over the summer, he added:Its really important to emphasize what were doing and whom were doing it forrather than celebrate the fact that we are doing it.

I havent spoken to Butts since a few months before the SNC-Lavalin controversy wrecked his career in government, and I doubt he minds at all. So it was odd to hear him sounding warnings that resembled things Ive been writing for months. Its pure coincidence. It simply reflects the fact that to anyone with any distance from the government echo chamber, the Trudeau circles weirdly giddy triumphalism of recent months has got to sound jarring.

To put it diplomatically, I think that in any crisis situation, people will repurpose their pet projects as urgent and necessary responses to the crisis at hand, Butts said. And its vitally important that, when people are feeling as anxious as theyre feeling right now, we start the solutions from where they are and build up from there. And not arrive in the middle of their anxiety with a pre-existing solution that was developed and determined before the crisis thats arisen.

I know theres a widespread assumption that Butts never really left the Trudeau circle, that he remains the PMs puppeteer. I think thats farcical. Butts probably has an easier time getting Ben Chin to return a call than some of my colleagues do, but for the most part hes basically a sympathetic outsider whos watching the work of friends from a distance. His remarks amplify and consolidate things Dave Cochrane was already hearing from senior Liberals last week. Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didnt cancel gravity or smite the foes of progress, as they define progress, from the earth. When Parliament returns next week, it will still be a venue of measurable personal risk for its occupants, like any large room for the foreseeable future. It will still contain more MPs who arent Liberals than MPs who are. It will be watched by a population that is worried, defensive, and incapable of ignoring risk for the sake of a resounding slogan. It speaks well of the Liberals that they have spent the summer working some goofy rhetoric out of their systems before returning to the real world.

This doesnt mean the government shouldnt pursue reductions in carbon emissions. They ran on promises to do so. They set ambitious targets, having spectacularly missed easier targets in the past. They faced concerted opposition and won. Working to reduce carbon emissions is necessary work with broad public support.

But it will be work. The clear implication of the dreaming big and unprecedented opportunity talk was that Liberals, including the Prime Minister, were talking themselves into believing school was out. That a global calamity would somehow transform hard work into a party, disarm the political opposition and, once againthis is a particularly sturdy fantasy of life in Trudeau-land, as Jane Philpott and Bill Morneau could tell youdelegitimize internal dissent.

It isnt so. Meeting the Liberals own climate goals will be hard work that will feel like hard work, if they care to take it up. The necessary changes will impose costs that will feel like costs before they provide benefits that feel like benefits. The very nature of this crisis will make building back better anything but a cakewalk.

First, because 2020 hasnt wiped out the former world. Building back better became a slogan a decade ago after earthquakes in New Zealand erased a lot of existing infrastructure. COVID-19 has been more like a neutron bomb, interrupting livelihoods but leaving neighbourhoods intact. If I had to build a new rail link from scratch between Toronto and Montreal, I might build something fancy. But the old one is still there. That makes a difference.

Second, because theres little likelihood of a sustained, long-term recovery like the one that characterized Canadas economy for 30 years after World War II, a comparison that was briefly fashionablea few months ago with the build-back-better set. The recoverys likely to be pretty quick, to pick up steam only after a vaccine or effective treatment becomes widespread, and to last only about as long as it takes to return to the status quo ante. Its fantasy to imagine miracle growth lasting the rest of everyones lifetime will take away costs and tradeoffs.

So the Trudeau governments duty to meet its climate targets remains, and so does just about all the difficulty of meeting them. Which means a central question about this Prime Ministerdoes he rise to challenges, ever? also remains.

The rest is here:

Farewell to the Liberals easy green revolution - Maclean's

news, act-politics, canberra liberals, light rail, act election 2020

The Canberra Liberals want nothing more than to frame October's vote around cost-of-living pressures. But they could be risking a repeat of the last election by keeping light rail in play this campaign. In 2016, Labor won what was dubbed a referendum on light rail. The party was particularly successful in the Gungahlin-based seat of Yerrabi, where eight of Labor's top 10 booths were located. No surprises there - it was the primary beneficiary of Labor's blue ribbon election promise in light rail stage one. Chief Minister Andrew Barr would be more than happy to run another light rail election. For many, this fact makes the Liberals' refusal to back the city-to-Woden line particularly perplexing. They want to make the election about the cost of living, but by not committing to continuing the work on stage two of light rail, they could risk de-railing their message. The Liberals say they want to extend the network, but would decide what the next route should be after conducting an independent study. Transport spokeswoman Candice Burch says the party hears a lot of feedback that Belconnen to Airport should be the next leg. It means all the work done on the city-to-Woden line so far could be thrown down the drain, and construction timelines delayed significantly. Woden - and the seat of Murrumbidgee - will be a central battleground in the October election. The Liberals must pick up an extra member in that seat to have a chance of forming government. The Liberals' decision not to neutralise the light rail issue suggests they believe Woden residents will not vote based on the tram. It is true Woden cannot be seen through the same lens as Gungahlin. Unlike Gungahlin, it is a relatively strong area for the Liberals. It also has not had the same congestion issues crying out to be fixed as Gungahlin had in 2016. There are also real questions to be asked about the speed of light rail in Woden, with a journey predicted to take up to 30 minutes compared to 15 minutes on some express buses. The Liberals may have misjudged the public's support for light rail in 2016 when they pledged to ditch the project before. But at least voters knew what their party's policy was. There are very genuine questions about whether Woden would be the best next stage. A Belconnen line would be far less costly and complicated. And they have a genuine point when they say the government has lacked transparency. The problem for voters going into this election is they don't really know whether a Liberal government would extend the system at all. There have been no dollar announcements, and no real vision for their version of light rail. Just a commitment to do an independent analysis. And we all know "independent reports" from government are not always as independent as the name suggests.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc70nttdp4pl0lmt6cjgw.jpg/r3_265_5182_3191_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

ANALYSIS

September 17 2020 - 4:30AM

The Canberra Liberals want nothing more than to frame October's vote around cost-of-living pressures. But they could be risking a repeat of the last election by keeping light rail in play this campaign.

In 2016, Labor won what was dubbed a referendum on light rail. The party was particularly successful in the Gungahlin-based seat of Yerrabi, where eight of Labor's top 10 booths were located.

No surprises there - it was the primary beneficiary of Labor's blue ribbon election promise in light rail stage one. Chief Minister Andrew Barr would be more than happy to run another light rail election.

For many, this fact makes the Liberals' refusal to back the city-to-Woden line particularly perplexing.

They want to make the election about the cost of living, but by not committing to continuing the work on stage two of light rail, they could risk de-railing their message.

The Liberals say they want to extend the network, but would decide what the next route should be after conducting an independent study.

Transport spokeswoman Candice Burch says the party hears a lot of feedback that Belconnen to Airport should be the next leg. It means all the work done on the city-to-Woden line so far could be thrown down the drain, and construction timelines delayed significantly.

Woden - and the seat of Murrumbidgee - will be a central battleground in the October election. The Liberals must pick up an extra member in that seat to have a chance of forming government.

The Liberals' decision not to neutralise the light rail issue suggests they believe Woden residents will not vote based on the tram.

It is true Woden cannot be seen through the same lens as Gungahlin. Unlike Gungahlin, it is a relatively strong area for the Liberals. It also has not had the same congestion issues crying out to be fixed as Gungahlin had in 2016.

There are also real questions to be asked about the speed of light rail in Woden, with a journey predicted to take up to 30 minutes compared to 15 minutes on some express buses.

The Liberals may have misjudged the public's support for light rail in 2016 when they pledged to ditch the project before. But at least voters knew what their party's policy was.

There are very genuine questions about whether Woden would be the best next stage. A Belconnen line would be far less costly and complicated. And they have a genuine point when they say the government has lacked transparency.

The problem for voters going into this election is they don't really know whether a Liberal government would extend the system at all.

There have been no dollar announcements, and no real vision for their version of light rail.

Just a commitment to do an independent analysis. And we all know "independent reports" from government are not always as independent as the name suggests.

Read more from the original source:

The Liberals won't commit to Woden light rail, so will the 2016 election come back to haunt them? - The Canberra Times

This Supreme Court term belonged to John Roberts. The chief justice was in the majority in nearly every case. And he quite literally had the last word, as he wrote the opinion for the last two cases released this term, which dealt with President Trumps much sought-after financial records. The rulings were largely interpreted as a rebuke to Trump, and considering Roberts unexpectedly joined the liberals in several other cases this term, some have speculated that the conservative chief might be moving to the center.

But is Roberts actually becoming more liberal?

New data from Supreme Court researchers indicates that Roberts is firmly at the center of the court. According to this years Martin-Quinn scores, a prominent measure of the justices ideology, there is an 82 percent chance that Roberts was the median justice in the term that just wrapped. However, as the chart below shows, there is some uncertainty about where he actually falls or how much daylight exists between Robertss ideological position this term and the positions of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

But moving to the center of the court does not mean Roberts is becoming a liberal or even a centrist. Yes, he joined the liberals in several high-profile cases, and according to justice pairing data analyzed by Adam Feldman for SCOTUSBlog, he aligned with Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, more frequently than with fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. But many of the cases where Roberts sided with the liberals were limited in scope or temporary in effect. Roberts also helped push forward several long-held conservative goals including dramatically expanding the definition of religious liberty as the pivotal vote in many cases.

Roberts has long been perceived as a conservative, both ideologically and temperamentally a justice who would prefer to gradually chip away at liberal precedents rather than dispatching them with one swift blow. And on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, its not hard to see how that incrementalist sentiment combined with a fear of what would happen if the court moved too quickly out of the mainstream might lead Roberts to some unexpected places and deliver some unwelcome losses to the conservative legal movement. But that doesnt mean hes changing in any fundamental way, or that he wont continue to quietly steer the court in a conservative direction. People seem to see Roberts moving to the center of the court and assume that hes becoming more liberal, said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. I would read it a different way that the court is moving to the right.

The idea that Roberts is becoming more liberal didnt come out of nowhere. Over the past few years, his ideological position on the court as measured by the Martin-Quinn scores has inched toward the center. In 2005, when he joined the court, he was basically indistinguishable ideologically from Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed around the same time. Now, however, Alito is probably the second most conservative justice on the court, while Roberts is the fifth most conservative.

The easiest way to interpret that trend is simply to conclude that Roberts is becoming more liberal. After all, he wouldnt be the first Republican-appointed justice to move left over time. In perhaps the most dramatic example in modern Supreme Court history, a Nixon appointee, Justice Harry Blackmun, started off conservative but was the courts most liberal member by the time he retired in 1994.

Other factors could explain Robertss shift, though, starting with a limitation of the Martin-Quinn scores themselves. The scores are estimates produced by a model based on how the justices vote they are not a direct window into what the justices actually believe or whats motivating their votes. The scores also can shift as the composition of the court changes, and the court is still adjusting after the previous longtime swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, retired and was replaced in 2018 by Kavanaugh, who has so far proven to be much more reliably conservative.

[Related: The Supreme Courts Big Rulings Were Surprisingly Mainstream This Year]

Think about it this way: One justice has to be in the middle of the court. So when Kennedy retired and was replaced by a more conservative judge, someone else had to take his place in the center. In this case, that somebody was Roberts. It could be the case that Roberts is actually drifting left, said Tom Clark, a political science professor at Emory University. But it could also be an artifact of the statistical model trying to sort out what happens to the space when you add a new person. At this point, we dont know which one it is.

The model also retroactively updates justices scores for past years at the end of each term. The changes can be substantial with new justices, since the model has little data about their positions when they first join the court. Case in point: In last years Martin-Quinn data, Kennedy was deemed to be the most likely median justice in 2017 and Kavanaugh took the role in 2018, not Roberts. But with the addition of 2019 data, Roberts is now estimated to have actually been the likely median in both years. Thats partly because we now have a better understanding of how Kavanaugh tends to rule; it also reflects the a fairly high probability that Roberts was already the median justice in the 2017 term, because Kennedy hardly swung at all in his final year on the court.

[Related: John Roberts Will Probably Be The Supreme Courts Next Swing Justice]

Meanwhile, its also possible that Roberts just appears to be moving to the left because the kinds of cases that make it to the court are shifting. This effect is especially difficult to measure and the Martin-Quinn scores can only account for it in a limited way. But Clark said if the types of cases being brought before the court are changing, that could matter a lot to how liberal or conservative each justices rulings really are. Because it could be that the Trump administration and conservative legal advocates, emboldened by the solid slate of conservatives on the court, are simply pushing Roberts to move to the right faster than hes willing to go.

Take one high-profile case from this term, where the justices considered a Louisiana abortion restriction that was functionally identical to a Texas law the court had struck down in 2016. In the previous case, Kennedy who over the course of his career was ideologically unpredictable on a handful of high-salience issues, including the abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty voted with the liberals against the Texas law. This year, though, Roberts broke the tie, saying that while he still disagreed with the 2016 ruling, he felt he had to adhere to the precedent. That doesnt mean Robertss fundamental stance toward abortion changed, though. Instead, the change in the courts composition put him in a situation where institutional considerations like not wanting to overturn a recent precedent on an extremely hot-button issue four months before a presidential election may have trumped his own ideological preferences.

[Related: The Supreme Court Struck Down A Louisiana Abortion Law. Heres Where The Fight Could Head Next.]

Thats significant because in the vast majority of cases, Roberts appears to be basically as conservative as hes ever been. According to The Supreme Court Database, a clearinghouse for data about the court, the share of opinions where he voted in a conservative direction hasnt actually changed much in the past few years when Kennedys departure and the addition of Trumps more solidly conservative appointees gave Roberts an increasingly pivotal vote compared to his opinions between the 2005 and the 2017 terms. (This data is not yet available for the term that just ended.)

Share of Robertss votes that were coded as conservative, before and after the 2016 Supreme Court term

Pre-Trump includes case data for the 2005-2016 terms, while post-Trump covers the 2017 and 2018 terms. The 2016 term is counted as pre-Trump because it started before Trump was elected, but it ended in 2017. Close cases are defined as those in which the majority was four or five and the minority was three or four.

Source: The Supreme Court Database

In other words, Roberts is still very conservative. (For the record, so was Kennedy.) But several experts told us its possible that in Kennedys absence, Roberts may be increasingly willing to rule narrowly with the liberals in certain high-stakes cases. Part of his motivation is likely that as chief justice, he feels a responsibility to ensure that the court maintains its reputation as an even-handed institution.

This year was a perfect storm for a chief justice trying to keep the Supreme Court from being dragged into the muck of partisan politics, too. The country is deeply polarized, were heading into a presidential election, theres a pandemic, an economic crisis, significant social unrest, said Marin Levy, a professor at Duke Law who studies chief justices. This is a moment where its critical to someone like Roberts that the public maintain its faith in the court. And in fact, even though this terms docket was full of hot-button issues, the courts rulings were largely in step with public opinion, thanks in part to Robertss willingness to join the liberals.

[Related: Justice Kennedy Wasnt A Moderate]

So if Kennedys forays to the left were motivated by a couple of issues on which his views were more liberal than the rest of the conservative bloc, like gay rights and sometimes abortion, Robertss recent swings appear to be be driven by more strategic and even political considerations. Hes concerned about maintaining his own power and the power of the court, said Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. It was perhaps a sign of Robertss success that some of the biggest conservative victories this term mostly flew under the radar, such as when the conservatives continued to expand the circumstances under which religious schools can qualify for public funding, building on a case from 2017. Litman and others said that Roberts could follow a similar blueprint for eroding something like abortion rights in the future. Rather than overturning precedents outright, he might prefer to whittle away at abortion access by allowing states to pass a patchwork of restrictions, until landmark precedents on abortion eventually become functionally hollow.

Right now, of course, Roberts is still the closest thing we have to a swing justice. But hes not really a wild card especially compared to Kennedy, who was genuinely unpredictable on a handful of issues, including abortion. Clark said a better description for Roberts might be the pivotal justice, or the person with the power to broker compromises between left and right, allowing him to determine the courts direction. That moniker is especially apt given that Roberts was so frequently in the majority this term. At SCOTUSBlog, Feldman suggested calling him the anchor justice for that reason. The fact that Roberts is chief justice gives him additional power when he votes with the majority, too: He gets to assign the opinion to a specific justice, and that can do a lot to shape the breadth and impact of the final ruling.

[Related: The Supreme Court Put DACAs Fate In The Hands Of Voters]

One thing does seem clear: Roberts is now by far the most powerful person on the Supreme Court. And he is not willing at least not yet to let his fellow conservatives veer sharply to the right. But his occasional votes with the liberals shouldnt obscure the fact that hes still a very conservative justice overall. As with Kennedy, the handful of times he swings to the left may come to define his career. And this term hes certainly proved that Trump and conservative legal advocates cant expect him to rubber-stamp any argument they lay at his feet. But when he does swing, it will likely be political and institutional factors, not a shift in his ideology, that guide his vote. And that means liberals really cant rely on him to rule their way in the future.

See the rest here:

Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesnt Mean Hes Becoming More Liberal. - FiveThirtyEight

Tim Wilson provided direct assistance to the Institute of Public Affairs and solicited endorsement for his looming 2016 Liberal preselection battle while in the office of human rights commissioner, previously secret correspondence shows.

A trove of internal emails, which Wilson fought to keep from being released, shows the now Liberal MP for Goldstein used his official human rights commission email account to help arrange an international speaker for a major IPA event, organise his own attendance at functions for IPA donors, and ask for a political endorsement from someone who approached him in his capacity as human rights commissioner.

Wilson told the Guardian the emails were utterly irrelevant and a non-story, saying his support of the IPA was publicly disclosed and well known throughout his term.

But the former human rights and disability discrimination commissioner Graeme Innes said the behaviour was clearly inappropriate and threatened the independence of the commission.

The correspondence ranges across Wilsons controversial tenure at the commission from 2014 to 2016, and was released through freedom of information laws to an anonymous applicant who requested exchanges between Wilsons work email account and addresses with the domains @ipa.org.au or @liberal.org.au.

In one email in 2014, Wilson used his commission email account to contact a mystery international speaker on behalf of the IPA, renewing a request that he attend a major IPA event.

The identity of the speaker is redacted in the documents, but, in earlier correspondence, Wilson praised his achievements, compared his record of success to that of Rupert Murdoch, and suggested he could top the News Corp chairmans speech to a 2013 IPA event.

You may recall, when I was previously at the Institute of Public Affairs and extended an invitation for you to come and speak in Australia, Wilson wrote on 26 October 2014.

Since then I have left the IPA. Our (now not so) new government appointed me Australias Human Rights Commissioner. Its an interesting role, especially because I now get to prosecute libertarian values within government. Needless to say the appointment attracted a lot of controversy.

Regardless, the IPA is still keen to have you speak in Australia if you are open to doing so? They asked if I could share your email. Would that be acceptable to you?

The speaker responded the next day, asking Wilson to make the appropriate email introductions.

Thanks for the update, and, yes, I would still be interested in speaking at IPA if we can coordinate things properly. Can you make the email intros?

The documents also show that in 2016, as Wilsons tenure reached its end, he used his official human rights commissioner email account to help prepare for his bid to become the Liberal member for Goldstein.

On 9 February, he received an email from an unidentified member of either the Liberal party or the IPA, who was trying to convince him to use provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act to target aboriginal activists who were being racist towards non-Aboriginal people.

In a reply six days later, Wilson did not engage with the racism claims and informed the individual that he had resigned from the Human Rights Commission.

He then asked for quotes and a picture to include in an endorsement brochure to help with his next adventure. Wilson was at the time preparing for the Goldstein preselection battle.

If you are prepared to help me in my next adventure Id appreciate a short and flattering quote for an endorsements brochure with an electronic pic sent to [redacted], Wilson wrote, using his Human Rights Commission email account. Up to you.

Wilsons request for an endorsement was sent on 15 February 2016, the day he announced his intention to resign from the commission. His resignation was not effective until 19 February.

A lengthy endorsement was then emailed back to Wilson in reply.

If you want me to condense them, let me know, or if you would like to edit them together, please feel free, the response said.

The Guardian has obtained Wilsons endorsement brochure, which contains quotes from more than 20 individuals. It is not clear who was involved in the February 2016 email exchange.

The documents also show Wilson, while commissioner and using his official email account, agreed to attend an IPA fundraising event on 4 June 2015 .

An unidentified IPA member sent him an email requesting his attendance.

Hi Tim, the email read. Were having a lunch for IPA donors and friendly journos in Sydney on Thursday it would be great if you are able to join us. Let me know. See invitation below.

Wilson replied: Hey mate, Ill be there.

In another exchange, an email is sent by a Liberal party official to Wilsons old IPA email account, requesting his attendance as a key note speaker at a lunchtime event for the Liberal party branch at Lorne in Victoria.

Your new position creates opportunities to raise issues onto a national level, the Liberal official said.

The email was forwarded from Wilsons IPA email account to his human rights commission account, where Wilson responded by suggesting the official contact the IPA for a speaker.

Thanks for your email. As Human Rights Commissioner I am unable to come and speak at fundraisers, Wilson wrote. You may want to contact [redacted] at the Institute of Public Affairs.

The documents show Wilson also used the account to arrange attendance at a dinner for IPA donors following the launch of Peter Reiths book in Melbourne in November 2015.

Well probably also do a small dinner for donors afterwards, depending on who attends, an IPA member wrote to Wilson. Wed love to have you for that too if youre available.

Wilson replied: Sure. Done.

Innes, who was Australias disability discrimination commissioner until 2014, said the conduct was inappropriate and hurt the independence of the commission.

Innes has been critical of Wilson in the past, and was not replaced when his term ended in 2014, several months after Wilsons appointment.

It is inappropriate to use the position as a statutory officer to advance your political career because you are an officer of the Commonwealth. It is the same reason he had to resign as a commissioner before seeking endorsement, Innes told the Guardian.

It is also inappropriate to advance the causes of political organisations such as the IPA whilst in that role as it is not a function of the role nor a government or commission function.

Speaking generally, the former race discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane said it would not be appropriate for someone to use the office for political activities.

It would be seriously inappropriate, if not improper, for a member of the commission to have used their statutory office for partisan activity and political campaigning, he said.

Soutphommasane, who has a background with Labor, was at the commission at the same time as Wilson.

In response to Soutphommasanes comments, Wilson said it was good I didnt then.

He said he was proud of his support for human rights and groups like the IPA, which stood up for foundational freedoms. He said his support of the IPA was no secret.

My IPA membership was consistent throughout my entire time as Australias Human Rights Commissioner (including on my official bio) and as an MP so its kind of a non-story, Wilson said.

The commissions official biography states that Wilson was previously a policy director with the IPA.

Wilson also said he had done the honourable thing by resigning before seeking preselection to protect the non-partisan standing of the office. He said he would have been entitled to stay on as commissioner, take leave, and pursue partisan preselection without resigning, something he said had been confirmed by the former Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs.

So this is all pretty sad: what do you want me to do? Resign again? he said.

Wilson confirmed he had gone to the information commissioner to try to prevent the release of the documents.

But he said he had done so to toy with the applicant.

I absolutely exercised all my rights under the Act to make sure the applicant thought there was something salacious in these emails only to be disappointed that they were utterly irrelevant and theyd wasted their time, and sadly that of the hard-working people at the Australian Human Rights Commission, who had to compile and redact these documents.

The Human Rights Commission declined to comment when approached.

More here:

Tim Wilson helped IPA and solicited Liberal party endorsement while in human rights position - The Guardian

Jul 19, 2020

Pressures on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are increasing as a result of the WE scandal. Thats the ongoing controversy over a government decision made in late June to let the WE charity operate a $912-million student volunteering scheme on behalf of the government.

The Prime Minister, his wife Sophie Grgoire, and his mother Margaret have all been involved with WE, including making speaking appearances at its events. Sensing controversy, WE withdrew from the deal, and the government has been left with a lot of questions to answer.

Those are primarily being addressed by the Federal Ethics Commissioner. The House of Commons Ethics Committee has attempted to address the matter, but less successfully because Liberal Members of Parliament (MP) on the committee have filibustered its efforts during the past week.

Further issues of concern involving WE, the Trudeau family, and other members of the Liberal government have been revealed in recent days. Margaret Trudeau allegedly accepted $250,000 from WE to appear at its events. Alexandre Trudeau, the Prime Ministers brother, also allegedly accepted a lesser amount from the organization for similar reasons.

Minister of Finance Bill Morneau became part of the scandal recently when it was discovered that one of his daughters worked for WE on a contract basis, and another of his daughters had spoken at some of the organizations events.

Evidence has also surfaced that Minister of Natural Resources Seamus ORegan, who is a friend of the Prime Minister, had helped raise $400,000 for WE with Katie Telford, Trudeaus Chief of Staff.

On the surface, things dont look good politically in the Trudeau organization. However, opinion polls keep indicating that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party would be returned to office with a strong majority in the House of Commons if an election were held now. The Liberals were reduced to a minority of seats in the October 2019 election.

There are two reasons the Liberals could be benefiting from increased popularity. The first is money. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, they have spent a ton of it on emergency benefit payments, wage subsidies, and other programs to help Canadians get through the difficult economic situation the pandemic has caused. Bill Morneaus recent fiscal update to Parliament revealed a budget deficit of more than $400 billion and a national debt of more than $1 trillion.

Both are dubious firsts for Canada, after years of marveling at the public debts and deficits racked up by the U.S. government. Record debt and deficit aside, the government spending has been really popular and has been the defining component of the federal response to the pandemic.

Most of the difficult details of health and safety have been left to provincial and local authorities to manage. Its difficult to criticize a government that sends you a check.

The second reason is the border. During the past week, the Prime Minister confirmed that crossing between Canada and the United States will be restricted to essential traffic only. Essential means business and humanitarian reasons, not visiting friends or stocking up at Price Chopper.

Canadians have seen the stories about COVID-19 out of control in Texas and Florida but many have concluded that the entire lower 48 states are wholly consumed with COVID and chaos due to the administration in Washington, if their online comments to border-related news stories are any indication. In fact, upstate New York is no worse off than southern Ontario when it comes to COVID-19, and the situation is unlikely as severe in northern Maine or in the northern plains states either.

However, we live in a mobile society and people can, and will travel. Again, if online comments are any indication, the extended border closure has had a way of stoking Canadian nationalism and support for what the governments decision to keep the border closed. That could end up being a political dividend for Trudeau at a time when he needs one.

More here:

WE woes mount for Trudeau and Liberals, but pandemic spending and border closure could ease the trouble - North Country Public Radio