Category Archives: Liberal

As we all know, white evangelicals are convinced that their religious liberties are under attack from liberals and atheists. But are they really? Political scientists Ryan Burge and Paul Djupe looked at survey data to find out:

[Among] white evangelical Protestants, we found that 60 percent believed that atheists would not allow them First Amendment rights and liberties. More specifically, we asked whether they believed atheists would prevent them from being able to hold rallies, teach, speak freely, and run for public office. Similarly, 58 percent believed Democrats in Congress would not allow them to exercise these liberties if they were in power.

Is this true? The authors go to a second survey to find out, but it has different questions and different groups of respondents and doesnt really address the question. Nonetheless they try to tease out an answer, and unsurprisingly the answer is no. Most atheists and Democrats are pretty tolerant of basic religious liberties even if they really, really hate evangelicals. Conversely, evangelicals who hate atheists are pretty intolerant of their religious liberties:

Conservative Christians believe their rights are in peril partly because thats what theyre hearing, quite explicitly, from conservative media, religious elites, partisan commentators and some politicians, including the president. The survey evidence suggests another reason, too. Their fear comes from an inverted golden rule: Expect from others what you would do unto them. White evangelical Protestants express low levels of tolerance for atheists, which leads them to expect intolerance from atheists in return. That perception surely bolsters their support for Trump. They believe their freedom depends on keeping Trump and his party in power.

Id add to this that its all unfolding against a background in which the biggest real-world fights are over abortion and contraceptives and cake decorators. Conservative Christians believe that their freedom to refuse these services is also a basic religious liberty, and theres no question that liberals are pretty determined to take those particular liberties away. Given that, its a short step to believe that liberals might someday decide to remove their rights to hold rallies, teach, speak freely, and run for public office.

In any case, this is something Ive written about occasionally: its impossible to understand evangelicals and their support for Donald Trump without first understanding just how frightened they are of the steady liberal march toward secular hegemony. They consider the aughts and teens to have been a nearly complete disaster, capped by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling forcing states to recognize gay marriage. Many prominent evangelical leaders literally gave up after that, and the ones that didnt had little hope for the future.

Then, suddenly, Donald Trump showed up and promised them everything they wanted. In short order he became their Joan of Arc, rallying them back to a fight he assured them they could win as long as he was on their side. And rhetorically, at least, he delivered. The fight was back on.

Its not clear to me that theres much we can do about this. We cant do anything about the inverted golden rule, and were certainly not going to stop fighting for gay rights or reproductive rights. That leaves only a more concerted effort to assure evangelicals that they have nothing to fear regarding things like teaching, speaking, and holding rallies. And even thats a tough nut when evangelicals can look to other countries and see that, in fact, those rights have occasionally been circumscribed to some degree. This may seem like a pretty small and distant issue, but I assure you that Fox News and talk radio report on every single example no matter how small, and they keep it front and center forever and ever.

Understanding your opponents is usually useful because it provides some guidance about how best to respond. In this case Im not sure it does, but its still good to know on the off chance that it might be helpful. Evangelicals are not generally engaged in faux outrage. They are truly scared silly that liberals will steadily and unrelentingly dismantle their rights if they ever get in power again. Just look what happened the last time.

See the article here:

White Evangelicals Are Terrified That Liberals Want to Extinguish Their Rights - Mother Jones

The Ontario governments effort to eliminate its projected $9-billion deficit is a grim struggle that involves unpopular service changes, wage restraint and general penny-pinching. Imagine if there was one change that would cut that deficit nearly in half without raising taxes or taking away any services.

As it turns out, there is. Have you heard about the Ontario Electricity Rebate? Thats the one where the government subsidizes everyones power bills, so that we can all pretend that the cost of power is lower. The bill for this act of self-deception is expected to be $4 billion this year. Thats a heck of a way to spend money the government doesnt have.

The PC government did not invent what was called the Fair Hydro Plan, but it has taken what is probably the worst policy of the former Liberal government and given it a brand new name. Same stupid content, though.

The Liberals, after years of merrily committing to high-priced power deals, finally realized that the cost of electricity had gotten to a number far, far higher than the public was prepared to accept. The government reacted like it was holding a live wire. At first, if offered to eliminate the eight per cent sales tax on power bills. Then it cut 25 per cent from the cost of the bill.

In an attempt to keep all of this borrowing from appearing on the governments own books, it created a separate entity to stack up the debt. The Liberals had by that time developed advanced expertise in making billions of dollars disappear. The idea was that the debt would build up, but future power users would have to pay it all back with interest, later on. That boomerang effect would have made future power bills wildly unaffordable, but that would be a problem for another government.

When the PCs took over in 2018, they found themselves in a difficult spot. The Liberals fake power prices had become the new normal. Restoring sanity to power bills would have made the PCs the villains who drove power bills through the roof. If that wasnt problem enough, the PCs had railed against high power costs in opposition, campaigned on affordability and promised to cut power bills by an additional 12 per cent. Thats a promise the government has not yet kept and, one can only hope, never will.

So, the government now finds itself in the same position as a person standing on a land mine. As long as it doesnt make a move, everything will be fine.

The government has made a few modest improvements to the ridiculous power situation. Cancelling unneeded wind and solar contracts will help lower future costs a bit. As well, starting Nov. 1, power bills were amended to make the cost of electricity clearer.

The PCs have also scrapped the Liberals hocus-pocus accounting and moved the cost of the power subsidy onto the provinces books, a move recommended by the auditor-general. That makes the cost transparent and prevents the boomerang effect on future power users, but its not all good news. The electricity subsidy is now paid by taxpayers, instead. While there is obviously an enormous overlap between power users and taxpayers, this changes power bills from a consumption base to an income base. Higher income earners now pay for their own power and part of someone elses. Those in lower tax brackets can turn on the lights knowing that part of the cost will be subsidized by the person up the street.

Now, one could argue that there is value in turning power bills into a social program that protects lower-income people from high power rates. It would be an argument of modest merit, were it not for the fact that there already is such a scheme in place. The Ontario Electricity Support Program reduces bills by up to $75 a month for users with household income of less than $28,000. Some help is still available to households earning as much as $52,000. The support program, another brainstorm from the Kathleen Wynne era, costs $172 million a year.

The PCs didnt create this mess, but they own it now. The Doug Ford government could continue to spend billions of dollars to subsidize people who can easily afford to pay their power bills, or they could ask Ontarians if theyd rather see the money spent on preserving services. Thats an easy question to answer, but someone needs to ask it, soon.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and former Ontario PC candidate. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com

Read more here:

Randall Denley: The Liberals screwed up hydro in Ontario and now Doug Ford has to clean up the mess - National Post

GUWAHATI: A press note of Assams directorate of information and public relations issued on July 27, 1965 on then Congress chief minister Bimala Prasad Chalihas clarification of his position on infiltration and deportation of Pakistanis (of East Pakistan and now Bangladesh) quotes him saying that 1,80,000 victims of religious persecution had infiltrated into Assam as refugees between 1964 and 1965. In the press note of more than half a century old of the three-time chief minister (from 1957 to 1970) show that Indias policy to shelter oppressed minorities of Bangladesh has been in existence since Partition. Chaliha states that even after Partition there was no restriction on the movement of the citizens from one country to the other but Assams premier then Gopinath Bordoloi, who became the states first chief minister after Independence, wanted to impose restrictions on this free cross-border movement but the then central government (of Jawarharlal Nehru) believed that such step would put the minorities in East Pakistan in disadvantage. It was only in October 1952 that the system of passport and visa was introduced. Even then, instructions were issued to take a very liberal attitude in the matter of issuing passports and visas. Late Gopinath Bordoloi, who was the premier of Assam at the time of partition of the country felt the necessity of imposing restrictions on the movement of the people from one country to the other. The Government of India, however, felt that as these restrictions were intended to be reciprocal measures, the minorities in East Pakistan were likely to be put to a disadvantage by this measure of restriction. It is on this consideration that the Government of India preferred to follow a liberal policy, Chaliha had stated. Chaliha in his statement also had lashed out at Pakistan for seeking to play a paternal role over minorities in India. It is highly regrettable that the Government of Pakistan has never appreciated our genuine feelings and efforts for safeguarding the interest of the minorities in this country. The paternal role which they seek to assume over the minorities in India is not only presumptuous but is also extremely ridiculous, Chaliha stated. He then went on to tell Pakistan how it was oppressing its minorities. On the contrary, what consideration has been weighing with Pakistan in squeezing out the minorities from their country? Apart from the large numbers of refugees who migrated to India from Pakistan earlier, the influx of nearly 1,80,000 refugees belonging to the different religious groups from East Pakistan to Assam during the period from January 1964 to January 1965 is a clear evidence of the oppressive treatment meted out to the minority communities in Pakistan, he stated. So far as the minorities in the State of Assam are concerned, I can boldly say that they are quite happy and secure. If the Government of Pakistan continues to indulge in mischievous propaganda with a view to undermining the secular policy of the Government of India while deliberately concealing their lapses in providing securities to the minorities, they will be only harming both the countries. I wish the Government of Pakistan could see reasons and refrain from such malicious propaganda, he added.

Read more from the original source:

'India liberal with non-Muslim infiltrators from Bangladesh since Independence' - Times of India

Legislating the removal of salmon aquaculture from Canadas oceans represents an excessive approach to resolving environmental issues that are already being managed through robust, science-based federal and provincial regulations. Liberal Govt. 2016

CommentaryBy Fabian Dawson

Justin Trudeau has been accused of being two-faced.

But we already knew that, since he donned a brown face to a party some years ago.

Its his about-face on sustainable salmon farming in Canada that needs to be of concern now.

Four years ago, the Trudeau-led Liberal party armed with a huge majority in Parliament, decreed there is no reason to shut down open-net salmon farming in Canada.

Legislating the removal of salmon aquaculture from Canadas oceans represents an excessive approach to resolving environmental issues that are already being managed through robust, science-based federal and provincial regulations, it said.

In British Columbia, the only province under federal regulation where reporting has been taking place for the past five years, evidence is available that demonstrates that the degree of impact does not warrant the removal of an entire industry from the marine environment, particularly when the socio-economic implications of such a removal are considered.

Removing salmon aquaculture from the marine environment would threaten thousands of jobs, most of them located in rural, remote and coastal areas hard-hit by downturns in other resource industries.

This was in response to a petition by the anti-ocean salmon farming lobby which was presented in Parliament by Nova Scotia MP, Bernadette Jordan, who is now Canadas new Minister of Fisheries.

Four years later, the same Trudeau-led Liberal party, this time desperate for votes to shore up its falling popularity in B.C.s urban areas, reversed its decree and made an election campaign pledge to phase out ocean net pen salmon farming in British Columbia by 2025.

Feeling threatened by a well-funded anti-salmon farming group, that targeted its MP candidates, the Liberal party abandoned its vows to over 7,000 livelihoods in BCs salmon farming communities.

The collective data used by the Liberals for their 2016 decision remains true until today there is no credible scientific evidence to link declines in Pacific salmon stocks at a population level to salmon farming on B.C.s coasts and the consensus tells us that done responsibly, salmon farming does not have a negative impact on wild salmon populations.

Jordan, the new Fisheries Minister, has yet to say anything publicly about her new mandate.

But her predecessor, Jonathan Wilkinson managed this the campaign promise reflects a precautionary approach to a divisive issue in B.C

Translated, science be damned because the naysayers are promising more votes.

It is obvious that the Liberal-switch on aquaculture is a victory for the public relations and activist fear-mongering campaigns and not for the sustainable harvest of our oceans for a planet in need.

Money that flowed from serial entrepreneurs seeking new ways to make more profits with government handouts, was used to create and perpetuate a climate of public skepticism and opposition to salmon farming in B.C. oceans.

Digital assets, like twitter-bot accounts with Arabic sounding names repeating discredited anti-aquaculture tropes, were built to push the precautionary principle in the political realm.

The Trudeau-led Liberals fell for this sham.

You should not.

As we enter a new decade, read the below and you will see why the about-face by the Trudeau-led Liberals is all about votes first, not about science first.

RESPONSE TO PETITION NO.: 421-00589DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2016Serge Cormier Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

The Government of Canada agrees that aquaculture must be conducted in a sustainable manner, reducing environmental impacts, mitigating the impacts that do occur, and minimizing interactions with wild populations and their habitat as much as possible.

However, the Government of Canada is not prepared to legislate the removal of caged salmon from our oceans at this time.

The Canadian aquaculture industry operates under some of the strictest regulations in the world, implemented federally and provincially, to minimize risk to the environment. All aquaculture operations are subject to frequent monitoring to ensure high standards of environmental performance.

Canadas regulatory regime in the aquaculture sector, much like that of terrestrial farming, is underpinned by the best scientific research and analysis available to provide assurance that the environmental effects of aquaculture can be well managed and the industry conducted in a sustainable manner.

In addition to regulation, the Canadian aquaculture sector is required to report to federal and provincial governments regarding its activities. Under the federal Aquaculture Activities Regulations (AAR), for example, industry has numerous reporting requirements, including notifying Fisheries and Oceans Canada prior to any drug or pesticide treatments as well as any mortality events that might have occurred in wild populations following these treatments, and annual reporting on reasons for and use of these therapeutants. Aquaculture operators are also required to conduct benthic monitoring to assess impact on the environment, and report on mitigation measures they have undertaken to reduce serious harm to wild populations and their habitats.

All aquaculture operators must implement high standards for escape prevention and report any escapes that have occurred.

In British Columbia, the only province under federal regulation where reporting has been taking place for the past five years, evidence is available that demonstrates that the degree of impact does not warrant the removal of an entire industry from the marine environment, particularly when the socio-economic implications of such a removal are considered.

Removing salmon aquaculture from the marine environment would threaten thousands of jobs, most of them located in rural, remote and coastal areas hard-hit by downturns in other resource industries.

More than 50 First Nations are involved in aquaculture, providing stable, full-time employment for Indigenous youth which enables them to stay in their communities.

Moreover, numerous studies conducted in Canada and elsewhere have shown that land-based recirculating systems have very limited and uncertain operational and financial viability. Higher costs associated with infrastructure, energy and labour costs greatly compromise any benefits and threaten the long-term viability of land-based operations when faced with external shocks, such as depressed salmon values or increased costs for energy and feed.

The marginal economic nature of land-based aquaculture production systems would render operators unable to compete with the lower production costs of salmon reared in net pens in Norway, Chile, Scotland and elsewhere.

The objective of the Government of Canada is to establish a rigorous regulatory regime that supports aquaculture development and protects the aquatic ecosystem. When it comes to how salmon are produced, the Government of Canada establishes environmental standards that must be met by all technologies and will not prescribe the best technological approach as that would stifle innovation.

The Government of Canadas technology-neutral stance fosters the evolution of a broad spectrum of innovative technologies and approaches to fulfil the strict standards set out in robust, science-based regulations.

This approach is critical in maintaining our competitiveness on international markets, preserving and expanding employment in Canada, and further enhancing the sustainable development of an important food-producing sector for the benefit of all Canadians.

Legislating the removal of salmon aquaculture from Canadas oceans represents an excessive approach to resolving environmental issues that are already being managed through robust, science-based federal and provincial regulations.

Photo illustration by SeaWestNews

Follow this link:

The salmon farming flip-flop by the Liberals in four years - SeaWestNews

MARX famously wrote that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. But sometimes, even an encore leaves many people dumbstruck.

Most commentators who fill up the opinion pages of the national media of record are touting the failure of the British Labour Party in the recent elections as a portent of the disaster that would await the Democrats should they nominate Bernie Sanders or Sanders-lite to run against President Donald Trump. That, they believe, would be the farce that Jeremy Corbyns loss portends.

But there are a few thoughtful heads, wiser thinkers, in the media who better understand historys often more subtle messages.

For Gerald Seib, the executive Washington editor of the Wall Street Journal and his colleague Stephen Fidler, a British veteran of the Financial Times and Reuters, the victory of Boris Johnson recalls another parallel: the electoral victory of Trump.

And they find many signs that the parallels are overflowing with meaning and that they count as more than just interesting coincidences.

Seib and Fidlers article, UK Vote Shows Remake of Conservatism, argues that we have entered a new era, engaging new constituencies, realignments, philosophiesand policies: Boris Johnsons big election victory this week drove another nail into the coffin of the brand of conservative politics Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher first rode to power four decades ago [The] movement in the West now has become markedly more populist and nationalist, and appeals to a distinctly more working-class constituency. Fiscal restraint, once a cardinal tenet of conservatism, matters less; rewriting the rules that have governed the global economy matters more.

The article portrays a right-anchored movement in the process of shifting towards a narrow, more insular, protectionist nationalism, spurning globalism, unrestrained by fiscal austerity and market dogma and courting the working class with promises of change and contempt for liberal elites.

Both [Tump and Johnson] capitalised on blue-collar and middle-class resentment of the financial and political elites

Like Thatcher and Reagan in the past, Trump and Johnson are now prominent figureheads of this new conservatism but rising stars are in, or share, power in Hungary, Italy and Poland.

Even outside Europe, Indias Narendra Modi, Japans Shinzo Abe, Brazils Jair Bolsonaro and Chiles Sebastian Pinera embrace many features of the new conservatism.

Seib and Fidler are perceptive in seeing Trump and Johnson as more than an aberration, a fleeting mutation of corporate Republicanism and market-crazed conservatism.

They point to their opportunistic playing to a base of petty-bourgeois and working-class voters who have been bled by the ruling classs global restructuring and crushed by its finale, the collapse of 2007-9: Both capitalised on blue-collar and middle-class resentment of the financial and political elites, who, in such voters views, were oblivious to the way global economic trends were cutting against workers in the heartland.

Brexit was the symbol of those grievances in Britain; in the US, trade relations with China and Mexico were the symbols Mr Trump used.

Seib and Fidler note that Trump and Johnson juiced their policy offers with promises of freer public spending to address middle- and working-class voters anger over the sacrifices they had been forced to make since the financial crash

Johnson, they contend, was stealing the traditional clothes of the left-wing Labour Party, promising spending on the nations public health services, schools, policing and infrastructure.

Trump, defying a pillar of 20th-century conservatism, has overseen a rise of the US federal budget deficit to roughly a trillion dollars annually, but can do so because low interest rates make such borrowing less painful. Mr Johnson has relaxed the purse strings with a similar advantage.

The Seib-Fidler thesis is that, since the collapse of 2007-9, some on the right have drawn lessons and constructed a new political approach, turning away from internationalism, globalism, austerity and unfettered markets.

They are shrewdly and opportunistically marketing this turn as relief for a damaged, dissatisfied and angry working class and petty bourgeoisie.

Of course, there remain conservatives still wedded to the market-fundamentalist, globalist approach of Reagan/Thatcher what many have called, for better or worse, globalisation and neoliberalism but the new conservatism is clearly on the rise.

Liberals will cry that Seib and Fidler have downplayed the role of xenophobia in the appeal of the new conservatives and the Johnson vote.

No doubt racism and anti-immigrant sentiment play a role. But the Ipsos Mori polls show that while around 40 per cent of voters thought that immigration was the most important issue facing voters during the 2016 Brexit referendum, that number was down to around 10 per cent before the recent election.

Ironically, while the Reagan/Thatcher consensus swept over the political world in the last 30 or more years, it has now nested firmly in social democracy and political liberalism; the victory over Keynesian fiscal interventionism by the third-way converts and the New Democrats makes them, now, the most committed defenders of free markets, international institutions, balanced budgets, austerity, and unprotected, de-centred labour markets.

Where the new conservatives revamped their views in the wake of the 2007-9 crisis, most liberals and social democrats stood pat

Because the centre-left parties of the advanced capitalist countries so readily accepted and embraced the market-fetishist ideology of the late 20th century, they are now boxed into a corner rigidly defending the very philosophy that brought great harm to working people, a philosophy now increasingly in the rear-view mirror of the new conservatives.

Where the new conservatives revamped their views in the wake of the 2007-9 crisis, most liberals and social democrats stood pat, keeping the same cards they were dealt by the Reagan/Thatcher revolution.

As voters turn against the old consensus that brought economic chaos unseen since the Great Depression, they seek change wherever they can find it.

In the US, they thought they could find it by electing Barack Obama. That choice proved to be ill-founded, further entrenching elite rule and austerity (sequestration). Consequently, Trump got a chance.

Establishment Democrats (corporate Democrats) believe that Trump, too, will fail. Of course they are right there are only empty promises and fake solutions in the new conservatism.

But the Democratic Party leaders are foolish if they think that Trumps failure will bring an exodus back to a Democratic Party serving up Reagan/Thatcher-lite, a party chained to corporate-first, trickle-down economics, to fiscal austerity, to a desiccated welfare state, to making the market the final arbiter of all economic decisions.

Clearly, the Democratic Party leadership prefers to attack Trump for his lack of fidelity to presidential mythology or through contrived fables like RussiaGate, while avoiding real policy changes that would win over an electorate thirsting for change.

The results will likely be disastrous for those in need of urgent solutions. But party bosses would rather see Trump win than surrender their staunch defence of capital uber alles.

Similarly, the legacy of Thatcher, conveyed through the past leadership of Tony Blair, is so firmly rooted in the Labour Party that many of its leading figures would rather have seen insurgent Corbyn lose than surrender that legacy.

Progressives should seriously weigh whether centre-left parties, even rebranded social-democratic parties, offer or will convincingly press a programme that addresses the carnage inflicted by an increasingly dysfunctional capitalism and that could draw working people from the false hope offered by the new conservatism.

When the old politics is thoroughly discredited, a new politics is in order. The new politics should be constructed around the path to socialism, the only road that takes working people away from betrayal and demagoguery.

See the article here:

Conservatives have adapted to new realities that liberals don't understand - but the left must try to - Morning Star Online

Robert Bridge

Increasingly open to astrology, magic and sorcery while happy to virtue signal on behalf of any PC-saturated issue, the entire millenial generation seems wholly unequipped to face the daunting challenges of adulthood.

They may not know how to change a flat tire, cook a simple meal or stop living in their parents' basement, but Millennials the tech-savvy demographic typically born between the years 1981 to the early 2000s seem increasingly preoccupied with subjects of a less practical nature ever since graduating from college.

Whether it is symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, some kind of New Age mysticism or perhaps spending four long years studying impractical liberal arts courses, its hard to say. But many people are looking to empower themselves with alternative techniques once ridiculed as sheer quackery.

This week, for example, NBC published a lengthy essay that celebrated the rise of interest in astrology in an insecure world.

In the midst of this physical, political and emotional turmoil, astrology offers us a sense of purpose, wrote Tanya Ghahremani. It provides reasons for why the world is spinning as well as hope that it will be less nauseating tomorrow.

I was always under the impression that the world is spinning due to the so-called cosmic Big Bang theory, mixed up with a generous amount of gravitational pull and so on. But never mind. Ghahremani, discussing the feminist roots of astrology, postulates that the stargazing pseudoscience empowers women to take more control over their future; it encourages us to learn more about ourselves and go confidently in the direction that makes the most sense for our well-being.

Other similar stories of an esoteric, occultist nature have enjoyed a heavy press of late. In October, just in time for Halloween, the media was hyping a revived interest in witchcraft. The technology website Wired, for example, in a radical departure from its usual computer-oriented ware, reported on a coven of witches who collectively tried toplace Donald J. Trump in a magical straitjacket. Amid the prerequisite burning of candles and other voodoo rituals, the members recited an incantation that ended with the collective scream, Youre fired! Probably not the best material for a Stephen King novel, but it certainly puts a new twist on the term witch hunt.

Even the New York Times could not resist hopping on its broomstick for a joyride.

Real witches are roaming among us, and theyre seemingly everywhere, gushed the paper of historical record.

It went on to quote Helen Berger, a sociologist at Brandeis University: Were in a period of great transitionand for many of these young people, this spirituality is speaking to them.

Publishers Weekly summed up this rekindled interest in spirituality, not to be confused in any way with religion, as the season of the witch.

Personally speaking, I understand this interest in the more mystical side of life. There is a great allure to those unseen forces we do not comprehend yet seem within the realm of plausibility. After all, the Salem Witch Trials occurred precisely due to this feeling among many people that maybe there really is something behind all this mystical talk.

There is an unsettling, underlying theme, however, that weaves itself through the above-mentioned articles, and perhaps the reader has already noticed it. That theme involves the current political battle raging in the United States. For all of the breathless talk about witch covens, magical spells and incantations, this purported rise among Millennials in mysticism and spiritualism seems to be, partially at least, a cheap political statement against Donald Trump because the Liberals do not like the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

This speaks volumes about the mindset of the Millennial generation, which has been raised on an unhealthy diet of liberal radicalism and political correctness gone stark-raving mad. Because a president was elected that they didn't like, they now believe that the summoning ofmystical forces will change things. This is an act of desperation, and attests to the type of education many of these young adults are receiving at some detached, tree-lined college where queer and gender studies, for example, oftentimes substitutes for the time-honored classics of Western philosophy and history. Meanwhile, the study of science only seems to have merit when it confirms their exceedingly warped worldview. For example, that there are some 13 gender types to choose from, or that the planet and all of its life forms are about to succumb to man-made climate change.

None of this bodes well for the future of mankind. How will these coddled individuals, who grew up - but never quite matured - inside a protective bubble of ignorance inherit a world overloaded with problems, and topped off with nuclear weapons? I suppose they will just continue to adjust to a world they were not prepared for by reciting magical spells and consulting astrological charts.

Well, we saw how well that worked with the so-called Robert Mueller III Prayer Candles, designed to light the way to finding proof of collusion between Trump and the Russians. Then there was the disastrous prediction that Kamala Harris was destined for the White House because she was born on the exact full moon in Aries. Maybe someday Harris will enjoy better political success, but as for now her political star has magnificently crashed.

Perhaps the best takeaway for the more liberal-minded Millennials is to remember that what you learn in a classroom and what you experience in the real world are two completely different things. The higher institutes of learning would do well to remind their students of that difference, while allowing for a climate of frank and open discussion on all subjects. Even if the subjects bring discomfort, which is the way the real world works. No amount of magical spells or charms will change that.

@Robert_Bridge

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Continue reading here:

Millennials are turning to magic & astrology for empowerment because liberal ideology failed them - RT

Advertisement

On New Years Day 2000, Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan challenged his classic Liberal colleagues to save the soul of liberalism. People need something they aspire to and fight for, he wrote. If the liberal ideal is not there, there will be a void and other ideas will supplant it.

Twenty years later, Buchanans fears seem premonitory. The contempt for liberalism grows at both ends of the ideological spectrum the nationalist right and the progressive left. Non-liberal ideas and attitudes have infiltrated the mainstream, rejecting not only market liberalism, but even more fundamental principles, such as respect for the autonomy and dignity of the individual. At one extreme, we see the resurgence of white nationalism; on the other, the renunciation of the principles of the first amendment.

Now is the time for all Liberals to take up Buchanans challenge: to save the soul of liberalism by taking over the Liberal ideal.

The first step is to name it. The liberal ideal is good society: a pluralistic and tolerant society in which intellectual and economic progress is the norm, and where individuals and communities thrive in a context of openness, peaceful and voluntary cooperation and respect mutual.

It is this liberal ideal that animated the American foundation, without doubt the first great liberal experience. This is why in his book The Conservative Sensibility, George Will writes that American conservatives are the guardians of this tradition. They seek, recalls Will, to preserve the founding principles, the obvious truth that all men are created equal and that the role of government is to guarantee the rights which flow from this truth. Wills conservatism, in other words, is a liberal conservatism that invites openness and the whirlwind and fluidity of modern life people, ideas and capital flowing here and there.

The second step is to remind ourselves and others that liberalism is the greatest achievement in the modern world. As Deirdre McCloskey argues in his trilogy Bourgeois virtues and his recent Why liberalism works, since 1776, liberalism has produced more and more free people, wave after wave, including, slaves, lower-class voters, mavericks, women, Catholics, Jews, Irish, unionists, colonialists, African Americans, immigrants, socialists, pacifists, women again, gays, people with disabilities, and especially the poor, most of whom were coming down

Liberalism, says McCloskey, is the mother of great enrichment the 3000% increase in material abundance over the past 250 years. Much more than pragmatic materialism, the Great Enrichment is a story about the highest values of liberalism. The dignity and respect of the ordinary person the person who offered his products to other ordinary people at a reasonable price was the catalyst that harnessed the creativity, ingenuity and productive capacity of humanity .

Combined with other liberal principles such as the rule of law, private property rights and the broad enjoyment of civil liberties, the liberal sensitivity of equality and dignity has left considerably improved conditions, a lifespan longer and more space for economic, scientific and cultural experimentation in its wake.

But to recover the liberal ideal, we must also take its detractors seriously. Contemporary critics of the left and the right will point out that Liberalisms stated commitment to equality before the law tends to favor those who already have power. Material abundance, they say, creates new forms of oppression. Patrick Deneen, for example, argues that far from liberating women, the global market has subjected us to much more inclusive slavery, leaving a degraded culture in its path.

Social scientists and liberal commentators are undoubtedly forming their counter arguments in their heads. No, we admit, we havent reached the liberal ideal yet, but with every step forward the abolition of slavery, civil rights, womens rights and gay rights movements the liberal ideal guided our steps. And while the market presents challenges, it also creates viable exit options for those looking to escape the grip of traditional expectations.

But if we Liberals leave this mental conversation, we will not succeed in meeting Buchanans challenge. Critics of liberalism throw a vision a vision of a society that is stable, controlled, just and certain. What is our response?

Liberals whether we identify ourselves as center-left, classic liberals or conservatives must rediscover the spirit of liberalism. We can do this, in part, by practice: by valuing the discourse on the snark of the echo chamber, the search for the truth on tribalism, the scholarship on partisanship. Along the way, we also need to draw attention to the wonders of liberalism the human fulfillment that is made possible whenever liberal principles have taken root wherever they have taken hold.

Most importantly, we must recognize that the Liberal project is incomplete. Working towards the liberal ideal towards a world that embraces openness and individual freedom and rejects nativism and authoritarianism from strong men is the most important work we can do. To paraphrase another Nobel laureate, F.A. Hayek, we must once again make building a liberal society an intellectual adventure; an act of courage.

Emily Chamlee-Wright is President of the Institute for Humane Studies.

Advertisement

Read more here:

Name and recover the liberal ideal - Orange County Register - Daily Gaming Worlld

I would not be averse to being described as centre-left, social democratic, liberal and moderate, but I am unable to agree with Vince Cable (The centre-left parties must work together more closely, 17 December) that Labours manifesto was advocating radical socialism.

Proposing to raise the level of public expenditure to around that of Germany or France is hardly revolutionary. Its promise of public ownership and control of railways and public utilities is modest in contrast to the commanding heights of the economy run by governments during the 1970s. Even the offer of free broadband is positively Wilsonian in its faith in the white heat of modern technology. Overall, its range of practical and costed measures to deal with the modern day manifestations of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness was firmly in the reformist tradition of Beveridge. Its intention to borrow at low interest rates in order to promote (green) industrial growth and full employment was essentially Keynesian.

On the other hand, when in office from 2010 to 2015, the Liberal Democrat party, pursuing its own Orange Book principles, shared responsibility for the imposition of neoliberal economic policies of austerity, in combination with the privatisation and fragmentation of public services.

As Cable was himself the minister who virtually gave away our Royal Mail to hedge funds and City institutions, he really needs to reflect on whether it is actually the Liberal Democrat rather than the Labour leadership that has made the radical departure from social democracy.Simon HinksBrighton

I agree with Vince Cable that excessive zealous Europeanism was a huge error in their campaigning and a grave disappointment.

But for me it started with the crass T-shirts declaiming Bollocks to Brexit worn delightedly by their new tranche of MEPs. I am an ardent remainer and, if that ship has now sailed, this party needs to row back from such divisive messaging. I voted for the Lib Dems in the European elections because they had an unapologetic and stalwart remain stance, but I fear it went horribly wrong with the very idea of revoking article 50 and cancelling Brexit. Added to which, Jo Swinsons arrogant position of who she would or would not do a coalition deal with. Judith A DanielsCobholm, Norfolk

It was probably about time we had the ritual call for a party of nice, civilised people. Up pops Vince Cable, right on schedule. As Liberals know from their fraught experience, there is a crucial distinction between working together and the enfeeblement of a distinctive Liberal party by narrowing its electoral opportunities, and that the first-past-the-post electoral system exacts a high price for any fragmentation of a worthy appeal. Vince Cable acknowledges this truth, but glosses over any renewed campaign to change the system.

The consequences of the recent election are not just unfair to specific political parties but, even more so, they traduce the electors. The Brexiters have repeated incessantly that the 52% to 48% vote at the referendum is a democratic authority for Brexit. How can they now claim that a 43% vote for the Conservatives gives them the authority to force Brexit through?Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

What a silly column by Simon Jenkins (The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December). If the Liberal Democrats had not won seats like Twickenham, Richmond Park, Kingston and Bath, who on earth does he think would have won them?

When a long-term Conservative government was defeated in 1997, their defeat was partly brought about by a series of Lib Dem byelection wins and the 28 gains made by the Lib Dems from the Tories in that general election (as well as a result of Labour members choosing someone with greater appeal to the electorate than Jeremy Corbyn).

It is arrogant to assume that if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, all of their voters would prefer Labour irrespective of Labours leader and programme. Who else would have solidly stood in support of our membership of the EU?Lord RennardLiberal Democrat, House of Lords

Simon Jenkins correctly recognises the problem of progressive disunity. Since 1945 regressives have only won a majority of the vote at one general election, yet have led 60% of UK governments in that time. However, his diagnosis represents the kind of domineering tribalism that has prevailed in progressive circles and serves us badly. It rejects the diversity of opinion that exists in Britain and compels the disunity to continue.

With Labour and the Lib Dems conducting leadership elections at the same time, there is an opportunity to lay foundations for a winning progressive realignment ahead of the next election. Two Lib Dem leadership candidates (Daisy Cooper and Layla Moran) already indicate they would steer the Lib Dems in an even more progressive direction (as occurred under Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown). Far from preventing a progressive victory as Jenkins holds, the Lib Dems could make a significant contribution. Of the 30 seats the Lib Dems are currently best placed to gain on a uniform swing, 26 are fights versus the Conservatives. Only two are versus Labour.

Progressive voters are already ahead of the parties, with many hundreds of thousands having voted tactically last Thursday and, in the process, they restrained significantly the size of the Conservatives majority. It is time the progressive parties caught up and stopped discarding the pluralistic and cooperative values we say we uphold.Paul PettingerCouncil member of the Social Liberal Forum

Simon Jenkins suggests that the Lib Dems should disband to give Labour a clear run. Here are the results for Cheltenham: Con 48%, LD 46%, Lab 5%, Monster Raving Loony 1%.

Perhaps Labour and the Loonies should shut up shop? I suppose Labour can celebrate the fact that they didnt come last.Nick ChiplenCheltenham, Gloucestershire

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

See the rest here:

The Liberal Democrats place in progressive politics - The Guardian

DumpsterFire45s cyberhandle pretty much gives it away.

In other words, he explains, hes just like the typical Trump supporter that he comes across in his everyday life except for one thing: Hes a fiscally conservative and socially liberal Democrat.

From there, DumpsterFire45 launched into a viral tweetstorm based on seven insights he has gleaned on the ground rather than, say, in a roadside diner with a cable-news camera in MAGA country.

Heres a breakdown:

1. The talking points are all-pervasive: Decades of faux and talk radio in combination with conservative social media have ingrained right wing talking points into even casual viewers. Its everywhere. On every TV at the doctors office. In every gym. On every radio. Everywhere.

2. Right-wing views are rarely questioned in public: Even the folks that are starting to (only just now) realize that something is wrong about Individual-1 are actively shamed if they question [President Trumps] actions openly.

3. Potential Democratic voters are swayed culturally: Im sorry. I dont like it either and I wish it wasnt so. But if everyone around you is claiming that the dems are out to destroy the country ... its a goddamn stretch just to vote blue. And if done, will mostly be done in secret to avoid ridicule.

4. Its still about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: They cant get past it. These folks are so radicalized against Obama, he is literally seen as a usurper and foreign agent that took the presidency with the help of the deep state (Hillary) and tried to bring down democracy.

5. Those willing to change must be convinced: We want them and we need them. If crossing over will result in more shame folks will stay where they are. We can teach them all about embracing progressive values after we get em. ... Wars are won one battle at a time. We need to take any victory we can get.

6. Democrats need to embrace reality: Im uninsured right now and its scary. I cant afford the [Affordable Care Acts] marketplace and Im cash-n-carry at the doctors office. I want a progressive. Badly. But if a centrist gets the nomination Im all in. This is about democracy.

7. Maybe its better we dont get our top pick: Twitter is not our country, and we have to accept that. Not everyone has the same understandings we do and we all still need each other to stay intact as a democracy. Vote for the dem that can win and encourage/help others to do the same.

DumpsterFire45s thread rapidly drew tens of thousands of likes, shares and comments, most of them, like this one, cheering his observations:

To be fair, when it comes to grabbing media attention, the I-am-the-exception formula seems to work on both sides of the aisle.

Just ask Bryan Dean Wright, the prolific Im a Democrat, but ... guy, who, as you can see from this tweet, appears to be a regular on Fox News.

Original post:

Gun-toting, Wrangler-wearing, truck-driving red stater has a message for liberals, and its not what you might think - MarketWatch

A Liberal MP is denying allegations, broadcast on an Iranian-language television network, that he has worked with and accepted money from Iran's government.

"These accusations are absolutely false and unfounded," Majid Jowhari told CBC News in a written statement. "I strongly deny any accusations."

The allegations against the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill were made by freelance journalist Alireza Sassani on the program Window on the Homeland on the Iran-e-Farda network.

CBC News has not been able to independently verify Sassani's claims.

Sassani is described as a close collaborator of Masoud Molavi, an Iranian intelligence agent who defected and revealed details of Iranian influence operations overseas.

Molavi was shot dead on the streets of Istanbul on November 14. He had been granted asylum in Turkeyafter fleeing Iran and had set up a digital channel, BlackBox, which he used to broadcast revelations about corruption and wrongdoing within the Iranian regime.

The U.S. government blamed his assassination on Iran's intelligence services.

Describing Iranian government influence operations in other countries, Sassani said that "Masoud talked to me about someone by the name of Majid Jowhari. He's a member of the Parliament of Canada. He's from the Liberal Party, representing Richmond Hill.

"He said that Jowhari was in touch with some of the intelligence officers of Iran, and that he even visited the representatives of Taeb and Mojtaba Khamenei. He even received financial support from these people.

"Now he's been elected in Canada for a second time."

Hossein Taeb is the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) intelligence division. Mojtaba Khamenei is a son of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and is sometimes described as head of the Basij militia, a pro-regime force that is heavily involved in suppressing protests in Iran.

Since 2010, the IRGC has been a listed entity under Canada's Special Economic Measures Act. The law prohibits Canadians from engaging in any financial, service or goods-related transactionswith listed entities and individuals; Hossein Taebhimself is a listed individual under the law. Part of the IRGC is also listed as a terrorist group in Canada.

Mojtaba Khamenei has not been named as a listedindividual under the Special Economic Measures Act. He was, however, designated last month by the U.S. TreasuryDepartment "for representing the Supreme Leader in an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position aside from work in the office of his father," according to a press release. The assets of those designated by Treasury are blocked, and Americans are banned from dealing with them.

"The Supreme Leader has delegated a part of his leadership responsibilities to Mojataba Khamenei, who worked closely with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and also the Basij Resistance Force (Basij) to advance his father's destabilizing regional ambitions and oppressive domestic objectives," says the Treasury release.

Jowharisaid today that he's being singled out "without a shred of evidence ...

"Those who spread these slanderous and baseless accusations want to instigate hate and fear without providing a single fact to support it. We should stand together against this hateful behaviour."

The allegation is already drawing pointed political reaction, with Conservative Sen. Linda Frum calling for an investigation.

It's not the first time Jowhari has had to push back against claims that he is close to the regime in Iran.

Shortly after he was elected in 2015, he was heavily criticized for inviting three Iranian parliamentarians to visit him in his riding office. He also drew negative attention for some of his tweets including one he sent out during the wave of protests that shook Iran in December 2017.

Jowhari said he hoped the protesters would be able to demonstrate "with the support of their elected government".

Jowhari was condemned by many Iranian-Canadians for appearing to suggest that the regime was "elected"and that it was supporting protesters. In fact, government forces were suppressing the protests with considerable bloodshed.

Thomas Juneau researches Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Ottawa and is a former strategic analyst at the Department of National Defence.

Last year, he conducted a research project on the debate over whether Canada should re-establish ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a hugely controversial topic in the Iranian-Canadian community.

Advocates of re-engagement include both regime supportersand people who merely want to make it easier to visit family in Iran or send help to family members in the country.

"[Jowhari's] name did come up on a number of occasions. He was known inside the Liberal caucus as one of the main proponents of re-engagement with Iran a view that I agree with," he said."But he was viewed as being a bit too much of a proponent of that view and a bit too much with individuals associated with the Islamic Republic."

Juneau says many of those he spoke to who supported re-engagement were still reluctant to be seen associating with Jowhari, who had a "controversial history".

But he cautions that an allegation made by an "individual associated with a dead Iranian spy" falls far short of the evidence he would need to see to conclude that Jowhari crossed a line.

"To label an individual an asset of a foreign government is a very serious accusation, and it has to be made on the basis of clear information,"he said. "And we do not have we're not even close to having enough information publicly available to make that accusation toward that MP."

Shortly before the federal election in October, a email was widely distributed in the Richmond Hill riding drafted byLiberals who said they had come "to the regrettable conclusion that we simply could not vote for" Majid Jowhari.

The email quoted four prominent Liberals: former Ontario cabinet minister Reza Moridi, who represented the provincial riding of Richmond Hill for over a decade; Bryon Wilfert, who previously held the federal riding for the Liberal Party; Sarkis Assadourian, who represented the federal riding of Brampton Centre for the Liberals; and Richard Rupp, past president of the Richmond Hill federal Liberal riding association.

In their email, they state that their decision is "based on a review of the Liberal candidate's record and of various media reports regarding some of his activities over the past four years."

They did not give details on which aspects of Jowhari's record they took issue with.

"Team Jowhari" responded on the MP's Facebook page: "This communication represents the worst type of campaign tactics a non-specific note from a group who do not have the courage of their convictions to say what party and policies they do support but are prepared to say only what they don't support."

Link:

'False and unfounded': Liberal MP denies claims that he's worked with Iran - CBC.ca