Category Archives: Liberal

|

Posted: May 13, 2017 12:01 AM

Civilization has been aptly called a thin crust over a volcano. (Liberals) are constantly picking at that crust. -- Thomas Sowell

After Hollywood jackass Jimmy Kimmel was criticized for exploiting his sons illness to push his political agenda and incorrectly insinuating that surgeries for newborns werent covered before Obamacare, he did a follow-up on the subject where he said, I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health care. It was insensitive, it was offensive, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

Drop dead, Jimmy Kimmel, you colossal ass.

This is a great example of what may be the most annoying, dishonest thing that liberals habitually do.

Jimmy Kimmel favors a certain political policy. Its one that has been a disaster for tens of millions of Americans, including a lot of children.

Jimmy Kimmel could have said, Obamacare may not be perfect and it may have been sold with a lot of lies, but I believe its worth it for everyone else to pay more so the small percentage of the population with pre-existing conditions and no insurance can be covered. That pitch may not be a political winner, but at least it would be an honest argument.

Instead, Kimmel is essentially arguing that ONLY people who agree with him care about the healthcare of children and the rest of us want children to die.

This sort of rhetoric has become commonplace on the Left and its not just dishonest, its evil. Its bad for the country. It could even potentially split the country apart one day because we wont be able to continue to live with each other. In fact, weve already reached the point where Californias threats to secede are being met with cries of faster please, what can we do to help? from millions of conservatives.

Yes, it may currently give liberals some small temporary political advantage to claim that everyone who doesnt support gay marriage hates gays, everyone who doesnt think rape culture exists supports rape, that everyone who doesnt back free birth control for women hates them, everyone who wants to stop illegal immigration hates Latinos and that everyone who doesnt want to tear down Confederate statues hates black Americans, but it also injects pure poison into our culture.

If you believe someone doesnt want kids to have healthcare, hates gays, hates women, hates minorities and wants more rapes to happen, you will probably detest that person. However, liberals seldom consider that the reverse of this is also true. You will also probably detest people who falsely accuse you of not wanting kids to have healthcare, hating gays, hating women, hating minorities and wanting more rapes to happen. In the Palestinian territories or Syria, there might be significant numbers of people who believe many of those aforementioned beliefs. In America, there are very few. What this means is that there are large numbers of people liberals have inspired hatred towards via falsehoods and also large numbers of people whove grown to abhor liberals after being targeted by their lies.

Put another way, liberals are CREATING an America where its natural to HATE people of differing political views. Not disagree with, HATE.

My initial reaction to hearing Jimmy Kimmels, I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health care, comment was thinking that Id enjoy punching him in his smug face.I have no doubt that vast numbers of people that liberals dishonestly call racists, misogynists and homophobes feel exactly the same way. Of course, its one thing to feel that way and its another to actually do it or suggest others do it as many liberals do. We have left-wingers rioting in the streets to stop people they disagree with from speaking at colleges and publicly encouraging each other to physically attack Nazis, while accusing pretty much everyone who doesnt toe the liberal line of being a Nazi.

Weve gotten to the point where someone as inoffensive as Betsy DeVos cant even give a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University without gaggles of idiots screaming and booing. If those liberals cant even show a modicum of courtesy for Betsy DeVos at a commencement speech, how do they work with people they disagree with? How do they go to church with them? How do they date? How do they share the same space? If the answer is, They cant do any of those things, then how do we ultimately share the same country?

I have a left-wing acquaintance who is still endlessly complaining about Hillary Clinton getting coverage from the very liberal mainstream media that was too negative for his taste. When I noted that Hillary may have gotten some harsh coverage at times, but Trumps coverage was much worse, I was told in so many words that, Yes, but Trump deserved it. Similarly, have you noticed that liberals dont seem to accept and respect the fact that conservatives found Obama just as loathsome as they find Trump?

Its the liberal mentality that says, People who disagree with us on anything are racist, sexist, homophobic and evil. Therefore, we dont have to treat them fairly. Therefore, their concerns are irrelevant. Therefore, its acceptable to lie about them, take away their rights or even use the IRS or legal system to mistreat them. Therefore, they dont matter. At all.

I loathe liberalism, but I dont hate liberals. I would not be okay with lying about them, preventing them from speaking at universities or attacking them because of their political views. I think a lot of liberals are deeply misguided and put their emotions above logic and the good of the country, but I dont think most of them are evil. Unfortunately, many liberals dont afford conservatives that same courtesy and one day, that may split the country because what brings us together as a nation is becoming smaller than the liberal hatred that is dividing us.

Original post:

The Liberal Lie So Big It May One Day Split the Country - Townhall

Some twenty years ago, Paul Berman and Eric Alterman were friends and contemporaries in New Yorks liberal media scene Alterman a media critic, author, and MSNBC commentator, and Berman a leading New Republic intellectual and author of the influential 2003 book Terror and Liberalism.

The two men split ideologically over the great trauma of the 2000s-era Democratic Party and the country: Iraq. Alterman opposed the war, Berman wrote in support. Now, in a kind of dark coda, they are the central players in an ugly drama playing out in public to a captivated New York media and literary world.

On Monday, Berman published an account in Tablet claiming that a well-known professor at one of the New York colleges, who is also a columnist at a liberal magazine a very thinly veiled description of Alterman approached him after a panel event at Manhattans 92nd Street Y and told Berman he had in his possession Bermans erotic correspondence. Alterman denies mentioning the correspondence.

In Bermans words, the unnamed professor wrote in a series of emails afterward that he wanted Berman to write a self-denunciation in the style of Augustine or Alexander Hamilton or he would release the correspondence (Alterman denies threatening to release the correspondence). The professor wrote to Berman that the public confession would be a good career move since Berman was best known to the world for having pimped George Bushs disastrous war.

Alterman confirmed to BuzzFeed News that he is the subject of Bermans story, though he disputed some of the account and said that his messages did not amount to blackmail, as Berman calls it in the story.

The emails in question were not written for the purpose of blackmail as Paul well knows, Alterman said in an email to BuzzFeed News on Thursday. They arose from a deeply personal matter between us. Paul omits all the relevant details because they reflect so poorly on his character.

According to a person familiar with the matter, Tablet knew of the personal issue but chose to not include it in the story.

We fully stand by the story, Alana Newhouse, Tablets editor-in-chief, said in an email. Berman did not return requests for comment.

The messy situation between the two liberal luminaries is a strange cap to the battle that split the Democratic Party and shaped the current political sphere on the left. Alterman, 57, a longtime liberal critic, was an early skeptical voice decrying the medias role in the Iraq War. Berman, in his late 60s and a defining liberal hawk, wrote in support of the war, which in recent years has seen him ostracized from much of the left.

In the late 1990s through early 2000s, Berman and Alterman were a part of a monthly discussion group with intellectuals like Hendrik Hertzberg and Michael Massing, according to one member of their social circle. Over wine, the group would talk about the issues of the day. But the Iraq War, this source said, ultimately resulted in the end of some friendships.

Berman and Alterman have sparred publicly on other topics. In 2006, both took to the American Prospect to argue about Altermans intellectual mentor, journalist I.F. Stone. The disagreement appeared amicable. Berman writes his criticism of Alterman with all due respect and honest affection and says his counterpart offers some wise and nuanced comments and I honor him for these comments. As Alterman writes, I have been friends with Paul for over decade. For longer than that, I have been an admirer of his work and an informal student of his method.

On Tuesday, when asked about Bermans story, Alterman sent BuzzFeed News a statement which appeared to deny his involvement in the entire situation.

Yes, I saw the piece. I feel sorry for Paul, who was once a close friend of mine. I would never blackmail anybody if thats your question, he wrote in an email. I have my doubts about all of it. But other than that, I prefer to stay out of this as the whole thing saddens me, and especially for Pauls sake, I hope it dies down.

Berman did not respond to inquiries about his thinly anonymized allegation or the motivations for it, but one writer watching the situation suggested it was a pre-emptive strike.

If you happen to have a public outlet, one strategic possibility is to put out the fact that this is happening, said Ben Wittes, a writer who has researched cybersecurity and the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, where Berman also has written. By putting it out there, you provide a significant disincentive from releasing the material.

Follow this link:

How Two Prominent Liberal Writers' Feud Spilled Out To The Public - BuzzFeed News

CSU graduates prepare to walk the stage and receive their diplomas during commencement at the Lory Student Center on Saturday, May 14, 2016. Students in the schools of Art, Art History, Dance and Music received their degrees in the ceremony.(Photo: Austin Humphreys/The Coloradoan)Buy Photo

When Michael Cooley graduates this weekend, he'll leave Colorado State University with a degree in philosophy.

Cooley took every philosophy class that Front Range Community College offered during the course of earning his associatedegree. He then explored the possibility of continuing to study philosophy at CSU.

"But then, in the back of my mind, I was like, 'Well I don't want to work retail or Starbucks for the rest of my life,'" he said. "That's what I had heard."

However, through research, he said he found data to suggest philosophy majors have successful careers, and he decided to stay the course. After he graduates, he'll attend the University College of London, with an emphasis in philosophy, politics and economics. Ultimately, he wants to shape health care public policy.

Cooley is the type of student colleges hope to attract to their liberal arts programs many of which have faced a nationwide decline in recent years.

Robert Townsend heads the Washington office of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The academy launched a project called the Humanities Indicator to track data about the number of humanities degrees conferred each year.

They've noticed a lull in recent years nationwide, and Townsend said he's heard from concerned liberal arts educators across the country.

"There are a lot of department chairs that I've been talking to who are thinking hard about how they might attract students and bring them into the classroom," Townsend said. "There's a recognition that they're finding it more difficult to get students even into the intro level courses, which have traditionally served as a gateway or an entry point to attract students into majors."

CSU administrators are among those examining how to better market the College of Liberal Arts to students who are increasingly told to shy away from "useless" majors in favor of degrees with clear paths to profitable careers, such as engineering and business.

Despite more students graduating from the College of Liberal Arts than any other college at CSU last year, its growth has slowed considerably. There were 1,556 liberal arts majors last year at CSU, compared to 647 engineering majors.

However, enrollment in the College of Engineering has grown 79 percent over the last decade and 43 percent over the last five years. The Warner College of Natural Resources has grown 80 percent the last decade and 46 percent over the past five years.

College of Liberal Arts enrollment hasgrown by 8percent the last decade and has decreased by 6 percent over the past five years. The College of Health and Human Sciences showed similar declines in thelast five years.

At CSU, the response to a decline in liberal arts majors has taken shape in several forms.

The College of Liberal Arts has created a position for a full-time recruitment officer to better communicate the value of a liberal arts degree to teenagers trying to pick what they want to study.

The idea there is to help the students get better information about what the advantages of a liberal arts degree are, both in terms of career-oriented things and also in terms of personal satisfaction, said Benjamin Withers, dean of the college.

Withers said hes working with department chairs and faculty to make sure they clearly articulate to students the skills theyre learning beyond the content matter of the class.

Individual departments within the college are taking action as well. Matt Mackenzie, an associate professor of philosophy, said this semester he created a PowerPoint that helps himpresent to introductory classes the benefits of a philosophy major.

He talks often to prospective students and their parents to explain the skills the students learn in a liberal arts major will benefit them when they enter the job market.

Employers tend not to care whether you know about 17th century French poetry or Ancient Greek philosophy, but they do care if you can think critically and independently, write clearly, communicate clearly, he said.

He provides examples of high-profile figures with philosophy backgrounds, such as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Briar andcomedian Stephen Colbert.

He also provides examples of career paths that might not seem obvious at first, including government, business, law and even medicine. Mackenzie pointed to a 2015 op-ed in the Washington Post by a Harvard Medical School professor who argued that liberal arts majors give students multidisciplinary skills that make them well suited for the job market.

And then, of course, there's the question of money.

Mackenzie cited PayScale, a website that compiles salary data about various college majors. Although the salary of a liberal arts major will likely not compete with, say, that of a petroleum engineer, Mackenzie said liberal arts majors can still find well-paid jobs.

From my personal perspective, the last few years have really highlighted the deep need that we have to be producing and sustaining informed, critical and engaged citizens, Mackenzie said.The historical and current mission of the liberal arts is to do those things, and we want people to pay the bills and pay the rent and have middle class salaries.

Philosophy majors, according to PayScale, have a median early-career salary of $44,700. History majors have a median $42,200. Sociology majors have a median salary of $40,400.Humanities majors have a median salary of $40,900.

By comparison, a petroleum engineer starts out at $96,700 a year, according to PayScale.

However, the encouraging data comes mid-career for liberal arts majors, as their salaries climb. For example, the median mid-career pay for a philosophy major climbs above $80,000.

So, the task that falls to liberal arts educators now is to step up their marketing game. When they share career, salary and life satisfaction data with students, they become more convincing.

"I didn't start out as a salesperson for the liberal arts," Mackenzie said. "But, over time, talking to parents, students and prospective students and myself having to think about why I love the liberal arts and why I'm so passionate about teaching it I've actually become much more hopeful and positive about what liberal arts education can provide and should provide."

Communication studies: 193

Journalism and media communications: 155

Economics: 153

Criminology and criminal justice: 102

Interdisciplinaryliberal arts: 70

Source: Colorado State University

Read or Share this story: http://noconow.co/2qA1jLW

Link:

Liberal arts schools hope to boost waning interest in 'useless' majors - The Coloradoan

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans continue to express an increasingly liberal outlook on what is morally acceptable, as their views on 10 of 19 moral issues that Gallup measures are the most left-leaning or permissive they have been to date. The percentages of U.S. adults who believe birth control, divorce, sex between unmarried people, gay or lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, doctor-assisted suicide, pornography and polygamy are morally acceptable practices have tied record highs or set new ones this year. At the same time, record lows say the death penalty and medical testing on animals are morally acceptable.

These results are based on Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-7. Each year, Americans are asked to rate whether different practices are morally acceptable or morally wrong. Gallup first asked the question in 2001 about 13 issues, with additional items added in subsequent years.

The leftward movement in perceptions of what is morally acceptable has been ongoing, with Gallup also noting shifts in 2014 and 2015. Since then, there have been additional, albeit slight, changes in a more permissive direction. All of the new highs this year are one or two percentage points above previous highs.

On an absolute basis, Americans are most likely to view birth control, divorce and sex between unmarried people as morally acceptable. At least two-thirds say each of these is OK.

Americans are least likely to believe suicide, polygamy, cloning humans and extramarital affairs are permissible; fewer than one in five say these practices are morally acceptable.

The public is most divided on abortion and medical testing on animals. Currently, 43% of Americans say abortion is morally acceptable, and 49% say it is morally wrong. Meanwhile, 51% say medical testing on animals is OK, while 44% disagree.

Over Time, No Issues Show Movement Toward Conservative Positions

Of the 19 issues included in this year's poll, 13 show meaningful change in a liberal direction over time, regardless of whether they are currently at their high point in Gallup's trend. No issues show meaningful change toward more traditionally conservative positions compared with when Gallup first measured them. That leaves six issues for which there has essentially been no change over time.

Changes in Views of Issues as Morally Acceptable

Figures are percentages saying practice is morally acceptable

One of the six issues showing virtually no change is birth control. Opinions on this issue have been highly permissive since Gallup first asked about it in 2012, ranging between 89% and 91% finding it acceptable. The other five issues showing no change since Gallup first measured them are abortion, buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur, extramarital affairs, cloning animals, and gambling.

Some of the largest changes in opinion reflect a transformation in Americans' views about the institution of marriage and intimate relationships. Since the early 2000s, the percentage saying that gay or lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, sex between an unmarried man and woman, and divorce are morally acceptable have increased by double digits.

Gallup has previously shown that Americans in all age groups have adopted more liberal views on these issues over time, but the changes have been proportionately greater among older Americans. Older Americans today are more accepting of same-sex relations and sex between unmarried people than older Americans at the turn of the century were. Still, older Americans today are not as likely as younger Americans to hold permissive views on these issues.

Medical testing on animals is another issue showing substantial change over the past 16 years, with the percentage finding it morally acceptable dropping from 65% in 2001 -- when it ranked among the most acceptable issues -- to 51% today. Unlike the shifts in attitudes about marriage, young adults are driving attitudinal changes on animal medical testing. Fifty-nine percent of Americans aged 50 and older believe medical testing on animals is morally acceptable, compared with 45% of those younger than 50.

Implications

Americans have adopted more permissive views on matters of morality than they held at the beginning of the 21st century. Much of this change was apparent a few years ago, but opinions continue to shift in a slightly more left-leaning direction. Some of this change reflects increased social tolerance, while some is attributable to generational changes. It would appear that U.S. opinions will continue on this path, as younger, more liberal generations replace older, more conservative ones in the U.S. population.

Not only is the more liberal outlook apparent in the perceived morality of issues, but it is also evident in the increasing percentage of Americans who describe themselves as liberal on social issues. Currently, about as many Americans say they are socially liberal as say they are socially conservative; in the past, conservatives outnumbered liberals by a significant margin.

And while more Americans still identify themselves as politically conservative than as politically liberal, that gap is shrinking as well.

Historical data are available in Gallup Analytics.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-7, 2017, with a random sample of 1,011 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View survey methodology, complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

Go here to see the original:

Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues | Gallup - Gallup

The potential for another Supreme Court vacancy coming open later this year appears to have liberals panicking.

Rumors of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement have swirled for months but recently reached a fever pitch inside the Beltway. Shortly after the presidential election in November, the Supreme Court shot down speculation that Kennedy would leave the high court this year. But Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, both Senate Judiciary Committee members, have said that they expect another vacancy this summer.

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, wrote an opinion piece this week urging, "Justice Kennedy, don't abandon your legacy."

"In the Trump era with a Senate confirmation process now subject to a simple majority vote, thanks to McConnell and Senate Republicans it is impossible to imagine any stronger or more able steward of Justice Kennedy's legacy than Kennedy himself," Wydra wrote. "Despite all the pressure and pointed rumors of his retirement, he surely realizes this.

"In the years ahead, Kennedy's influence over the nation's future will be more compelling than ever. In short, the Supreme Court is once again the Kennedy Court."

Wydra also wrote that Kennedy "might be more immune to retirement pressure than Trump and his supporters have bargained for," given Kennedy's unique position on the high court. With four conservatives and four liberals on the court, Kennedy often casts the deciding vote.

There are reasons to doubt the amplification of rumors about Kennedy's retirement. Roger Stone, a political operative who has advised President Trump, told prolific conspiracy theorist Alex Jones this month that Stone could report "authoritatively" that "the president has been informed of the coming resignation of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy."

Stone said the "frontrunner" to replace Kennedy was "clearly Neil Hartigan from the Western District of Pennsylvania" who Stone said was the runner-up to Justice Neil Gorsuch in the race to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. While there's a small chance Stone was referring to the former Democratic Illinois Attorney General Neil Hartigan, it's more likely he messed up the name of Judge Thomas Hardiman, a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge from Pennsylvania who appeared on Trump's Supreme Court short lists.

Ultimately, Kennedy is the only unimpeachable source on the timing and manner of his departure from the Supreme Court. If Kennedy decides how to leave the high court in the same fashion he rules on controversies, he will continue to keep court-watchers guessing.

But the calculus for liberals worried about another Supreme Court vacancy does not appear to have changed. While Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill opposed Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation, she outlined how Senate Democrats view future Supreme Court vacancies in comments to donors at a private fundraiser in March. In audio obtained by the Washington Examiner, the senator, who is up for re-election in 2018, sounded the alarm for liberals about the next vacancy.

"God forbid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, or [Anthony] Kennedy retires or [Stephen] Breyer has a stroke or is no longer able to serve. Then we're not talking about Scalia for Scalia, which is what Gorsuch is, we're talking about Scalia for somebody on the court who shares our values," McCaskill said at the private fundraiser. "And then all of a sudden the things I fought for with scars on my back to show for it in this state are in jeopardy."

Now that the Senate has lowered the threshold for confirming a Supreme Court justice to 51 votes, liberals such as McCaskill look poised to oppose Trump's lower court nominees at every turn. The Trump administration has already selected three individuals Judge Amul Thapar, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen and Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras from his Supreme Court short lists for federal appeals court positions, and liberals did not wait long to mount opposition.

"Lower court nominees today can become Supreme Court nominees tomorrow," Wydra said.

Read this article:

Rumors of Supreme Court vacancy spark liberal panic - Washington Examiner

A Halifax-area Liberal candidate might have overstated a campaign promise this week.

Brendan Maguireposted a video on Facebook saying he had a commitment from the premier's office that a Liberal government would work with the cityto clean up a former salvage yard in Harrietsfield that has polluted area groundwater.

"What that plan looks like right now, I don't know.But I can tell you that this is huge news for the community," Maguire, who is running for re-election in Halifax Atlantic, saidin the video.

"This is huge news. This is 20 years in the making."

Maguire goes on to say the city has also committedto work with the province to clean up the area, known as the RDM Recycling site.

Problem is, there doesn't appear to be any such commitment from the city.

A spokesperson for Halifax Mayor Mike Savage told CBC News the Liberals contacted the mayor's office earlier this week about the subject, but there is no formal arrangement.

"They made a quick call to the mayor's office Wednesday looking to see if we were interested," said Shaune MacKinlay.

"There has been no formal discussion."

A statement to CBC News from the Liberals said they would seek further meetings with the city following the election.

"The people of Harrietsfield have been dealing with this contamination for too long. Our government was the first government to take action in addressing this issue by moving to install water-filtration systems for the homes most directly impacted by contamination from the former RDM site," the statement said.

In his video, Maguire notes that he made good on his last round of campaign commitments, including a new school for the areaand active transportation trails. He goes on to say if he's re-elected, the cleanup would be the first thing he works on.

"It will be gone. That is a commitment."

Maguire's political opponents were critical of the way he presented the plan, suggesting he was blurring the lines between a government and campaign-style announcement.

"People are now wondering whether Maguire was playing games with the residents of Harrietsfield and tried to use this emotional issue to his political advantage," said a statement from the Tories.

NDP Leader Gary Burrillsaid his party, if elected, wouldfind asolution to the problem that's been plaguing the ruralHalifax-area community.

"The people ofHarrietsfieldneed action, not some more rhetoric," he said in an email.

Read more here:

Liberal promise to clean contaminated site overstates city's support - CBC.ca

Wichita Eagle

Plane filled with cocaine seized at Liberal airport Wichita Eagle The Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security discovered Wednesday that a suspicious aircraft would be landing at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport later in the day, according to a statement released by the KBI. Airplane, Cocaine Seized at Liberal Airport - KSAL.comKSAL all 6 news articles »

Read more here:

Plane filled with cocaine seized at Liberal airport - Wichita Eagle

Some men, when they retire, take up fishing, others golf. Not I. Perhaps decades of watching deer romp through my garden subliminally planted the notion. Or binge-watching The Rifleman reruns on Saturday mornings. Whatever the reason, I surprised my 64-year-old liberal self recently when I realized I wanted to try a new pastime: shooting.

I learned something quickly: There are not many left-of-center gun owners. The connection between guns, God and conservatism remains a bit of a mystery to me, and as I found at my first NRA convention balancing on only one leg of that triad can be stressful.

What better place to shop for your first rifle than among the 15 acres of guns and materiel that recently occupied a corner of downtown Atlanta for three days? I know the NRAs reputation, but I went to the convention with an open mind, prepared to have my stereotypical notions challenged, and hoping to connect with gun owners who feel, as I do, that its high time the organization returned to its roots as a group promoting gun safety, training and responsible ownership. Id heard, encouragingly, that 90% of NRA members support universal background checks.

Indeed, the attendees were a more diverse group than Id expected, with the notable exception of race. Amid the three Bs beards, baseball caps and bellies there were cute elderly couples walking the exhibit floor hand in hand; mother/daughter pairs; even entire families. I met a teacher from Indiana pulling her young son in a small wagon through the cavernous exhibit hall.

As we chatted, I asked how she related, as both a teacher and a mother of a young boy, to the recent San Bernardino school shooting, where a teacher and an 8-year boy were shot to death.

I understand, in schools, when your child is killed by someone who shoots, I understand that can be heartbreaking. But we are legal gun owners, were the ones who make the right choices.

As for protecting the innocent from those who dont? I think somebody in the school shouldve been armed and able to protect themselves, she said.

Another conventioneer scoffed at background checks. Even to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Whos to say whos mentally ill? This was a tough crowd.

Looks can be deceiving. No matter their age, gender or social class, every person I spoke with regurgitated the same NRA talking points: self-defense, guns-dont-kill/people-kill, and 2nd Amendment rights. Three of the sweetest little old ladies from Georgia youd ever want to meet explained that, as widows, they often drive alone on country roads. What if my car breaks down? one asked rhetorically? I need to be able to defend myself.

Is being attacked in your car a common event in rural Georgia? I asked.

Well, not as much as where youre from, Im sure, she said, not actually knowing where I was from, but pegging me for a city slicker. The women didnt believe me when I told them that, to my knowledge, such a crime was virtually unknown where I lived.

One common thread among the conventioneers I met was fear. Real, genuine fear. But thats no accident. Protecting yourself from crime, real and imagined, is what the NRA is all about. The NRAs America, unrecognizable to the vast majority of Americans except from television, is a very dangerous place. Lawlessness, crime and violence reign. Rioters rule the streets. Islamic terrorists are coming to your town. Unarmed women are rape bait. Unarmed men are cowards. It is twilight in America and no one is going to defend you. Except you.

At seminars I was told not to expose my home address on luggage tags, to set up a safe room in my house, to make sure my holstered weapon is so comfortable that that I never leave home without it, even to go out for milk, and to cover all accessible windows with bulletproof film. I learned that the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre was the fault of the school itself and the lyin dirtbag media.

Needing some air, I walked a few blocks downtown to observe a small rally held by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. Flanked by mothers holding photographs of their children killed by guns, Stephanie Stone, an African American woman from Atlanta, spoke movingly of the death five years ago of her 14-year-old son, shot three times in the head during a home intrusion robbery. Wait a second I had just seen a scary NRA video based on this very scenario! Except, of course, in the NRA version the lesson is that fewer gun restrictions, not more, would have prevented this horror. Afterwards, I expressed my condolences and asked Stone how she felt about the NRA essentially appropriating her tragic story for their own, opposite purposes.

I expected I wanted her to express the outrage that I felt, but I received no such satisfaction. She noted that several of the moms were gun owners themselves, and explained, Were just for some common-sense things such as waiting periods, universal background checks, an end to pawnshop sales. We have to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

Thinking about our conversation in full gun thefts in her neighborhood, the 18-year-old neighbor who recently bought an AK-47 I understood one reason for her surprisingly tempered response: The moms holding photographs of their slain children were likely the only people Id met all weekend who actually did live anywhere that even remotely resembled the NRAs dangerous America, and could legitimately view a gun in the home as a necessary protection.

The great, tragic irony is that the NRA, in supposedly solving a crisis that overwhelmingly doesnt exist for its members, is in fact contributing to the very real crises of inner-city gun violence that mothers like Stephanie Stone face every day.

I returned home with a new question: Can one be a responsible, guiltless gun owner who keeps up his skills at the range, or does the mere act of joining the gun culture and economy, of bringing another weapon or two off the assembly line, make me complicit?

Perhaps golfs a better hobby, after all.

William Alexander is working on a book about his indoctrination into Americas gun culture. His last piece for the Los Angeles Times was on correctly using vous and tu.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

The rest is here:

What happened when a 64-year-old liberal attended his first NRA convention - Los Angeles Times

When you consult books about Liberal and Liberal Democrat party history about the birth of our Internationalism, European Federalism and our thesis that stand-alone nationstates (and narrow nationalism) become more and more obsolete, you discover a surprising fact.

According to Michael Steeds chapter Liberal Tradition in Don MacIvers bundle The Liberal Democrats (from 1996), it was in the comprehensive policy survey The Liberal Way of 1934, that we stated that in future, narrow nationalist parties everywhere would face parties, the Liberals firmly among them, supporting the growing, factual interdependence as best policy basis. Philip Kerr, marquis of Lothian, said (1935): the only final remedy for war is a federation of nations. But personal guilt about having himself written the War Damages clause in the Versailles Treaty made Kerr become an advocate of appeasement to Germany, a Liberal dissident, until the Munich Agreement.

Both Chris Cooks history of the Liberals in 1900-76, and Robert Ingham & Duncan Bracks authoritative bundle Peace Reform & Liberation (PRL; 2001) tell that this interdependence makes collectivism better policy-idea was formulated in a phase of disintegration of the Liberal party (the split about the 1931 National Government; desertions to the National Liberals and Labour; loss of seats).

Sir Archibald Sinclair, who became party leader after the heavy 1935 election defeat, put our internationalism to immediate use, insisting on collective security and collective deal-making (as opposed to selective powernation deals like Munich), Reynolds & Hunter write in their chapter about 1929-55 in PRL (p. 222). Instead of Appeasement, Sinclair insisted on collective resistance to expansionist dictatorships, while Tory dissident Churchill pointed to Germanys rearmament.

Steed (in MacIver, Lib Dems, p. 56) says that the Liberals support for Federalism in Europe (Federal Union from 1938/9; European movement from 48), and Clement Davies early support for the federally structured ECSC of Robert Schuman, all derive directly from the Liberal Way stance. And from there it is a small step to the full-blown support for (and wanting to join in) the EEC by Grimond, Thorpe and later leaders.

Sinclair is the man who combined Liberal international collectivism with pleas for restoring a strong defense (saying other states should do the same, while joining the collective). The Sudeten crisis and Munich were roundly condemned by Sinclair (joined by Churchill); instead of asking the Benelux countries to join in (where the Social Liberal Dutch VDB was also pleading rearmament), Chamberlain only brought wavering France to Munich, where they amputated the also excluded democracy Czechoslovakia.

Both the thinking of The Liberal Way, and the pleas by both Sinclairs Liberals and the Dutch VDB for rearmament from 1935 onward are a precedent for the thinking of LibDems and D66 in these days. The 2009 and 2014 Euro-election victories by D66 in a Netherlands turning Eurosceptic shows that it may be an uphill struggle, but distinctiveness wins.

* Bernard Aris is a Dutch historian (university of Leiden), and Documentation assistant to the D66 parliamentary Party. He is a member of the Brussels/EU branch of the LibDems.

Read this article:

Our Liberal Internationalism, born in a period of party fragmentation, is now our uniting and unique selling point - Liberal Democrat Voice

The Liberal Democrats will earmark 1bn in the partys manifesto to tackle the historic injustice faced by people with mental ill health in an effort to cut waiting times and reduce the number of suicides, the partys health spokesperson has announced.

It comes after Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, revealed last week his party, if elected, would inject 6bn into health and social care services by increasing income tax by a penny for every worker.

In an attempt to rescue the NHS and social care the party will ring-fence 1bn of this fund for mental health services with a particular concentration on improving waiting times for young people and pregnant women suffering from mental ill health.

Norman Lamb, the partys health spokesperson, said the Lib Dems are committed to ending the historic injustice against people with mental ill health in Britain. Under the Conservative Government, services have been stretched to breaking point at a time when the prevalence of mental ill health appears to be rising, he said.

He continued: Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have outlined how thy will fund mental health services. Weve made it clear that our priorities will be funded from our ambitious plan to inject 6bn a year into the NHS with an additional penny on income tax.

We will invest in improving waiting time standards for mental health care in the NHS, end the scandalous use of force against people with mental ill health and prioritise the national action to dramatically reduce the number of people who take their own lives.

The announcement comes after Ms May pledged an extra 10,000 staff to work in NHS mental services but failed to elaborate on how the positions will be funded. On my first day in Downing Street last July, I described shortfalls in mental health services as one of the burning injustices in our country, Ms May said.

It is abundantly clear to me that the discriminatory use of a law passed more than three decades ago is a key part of the reason for this.

So today I am pledging to rip up the 1983 Act and introduce in its place a new law which finally confronts the discrimination and unnecessary detention that takes place too often.

See original here:

Liberal Democrats earmark 1bn to fight 'historic injustice' faced by people with mental ill health - The Independent