Category Archives: Liberal

Gentrification

The tech industry, Airbnb and luxury developments are taking over traditionally working-class neighborhoods, driving up real estate and pushing out less-well-heeled neighbors such as teachers, artists and old-time residents with immigrant roots. Case in point: Moderncondominiums, cafes serving avocado toast, and yoga studios are replacing bodegas, taquerias and rent-controlled apartments in the Mission District, which has long been a working-class neighborhood for the Latino community. The same thing is happening in Chinatown, the Bay View, the Excelsior.

The tech industry, Airbnb and luxury developments are taking over traditionally working-class neighborhoods, driving up real estate and pushing out less-well-heeled neighbors such as teachers,

Tech is filled with progressives who value left-leaning ideals. But the industry as a whole doesn't earn an "A" in liberalism as it's notoriously sexist. A 2015 Chronicle analysis of the Bay Areas "top 15 publicly traded tech firms by workforce shows that only a handful have a significant number of female managers reporting directly to the CEO." less

Tech is filled with progressives who value left-leaning ideals. But the industry as a whole doesn't earn an "A" in liberalism as it's notoriously sexist. A 2015 Chronicle ... more

Ever-widening income gap

Ever-widening income gap

Income equality has long been a liberal value, but these days left-leaning San Francisco is better known for its income inequality. A 2016 report from the Brookings Institution found

Anti-union ride-sharing services

The city's cab situation has issues and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft have made getting around the city much easier and provided economic opportunities and flexible jobs for many. But these companies tend to be anti-union and anti-worker, not your typical liberal ideas.

Anti-union ride-sharing services

The city's cab situation has issues and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft have made getting around the city much easier and provided economic opportunities and flexible

Building high-density cities is undoubtedly a liberal mantra as it's thought packing people into the cities and leaving the countryside pristine is better for the environment. But the many new residential buildings will mainly be inhabited by the wealthy. According to a January 2017 report from Paragon real estate, of the 80,000 new units in the pipeline in S.F., 9,000 are designated as affordable housing "but many of those are in the long-term Candlestick-Hunters Point and Treasure Island projects." less

Building high-density cities is undoubtedly a liberal mantra as it's thought packing people into the cities and leaving the countryside pristine is better for the environment. But the ... more

Public education has long been a liberal value, and Democratic politicians typically favor funding public schools over a voucher system. But in San Francisco, many parents don't send

Tech shuttles offering private transit

Corporate buses replace thousands of cars as they shuttle tech workers between San Francisco and the mega-campuses of tech giants such as Apple, Google, Facebook. But some argue these private shuttles promote gentrification and are a symbol of the city's ever-widening income gap. With dark, tinted windows, the sleek buses roll around town like limousines, only picking up well-paid workers who some would argue are moving into cherished neighborhoods and squeezing out long-time, less-affluent residents.

Tech shuttles offering private transit

Corporate buses replace thousands of cars as they shuttle tech workers between San Francisco and the mega-campuses of tech giants such as Apple, Google, Facebook. But some

Nimbyism

Some might say nimbyisma "not in my own backyard" attitude toward development of any sort whether it's a cell tower or low-income housing development or live music venueis killing SF's liberal image. The photo above shows a parking lot at the Forest Hill Christian Church on Laguna Honda Boulevard on Nov. 15, 2016. Residents were unhappy with a proposed plan to build 150 units of affordable senior housing on the site.

Nimbyism

Some might say nimbyisma "not in my own backyard" attitude toward development of any sort whether it's a cell tower or low-income housing development or live music venueis killing SF's liberal

Homelessness unsolved

Homelessness unsolved

Housing for all? Not in SF, where the the high home prices are entirely unaffordable to a full-time restaurant working and only affordable to .39 percent of teachers. Housing prices are even

You can smoke it, but good luck growing it legally. "Sacramento accepted about 70 applications for commercial cultivation licenses this year," said David Downs, the San Francisco Chronicle's pot reporter."SF has accepted zero and banned commercial growers in certain zones." less

You can smoke it, but good luck growing it legally. "Sacramento accepted about 70 applications for commercial cultivation licenses this year," said David Downs, the San Francisco ... more

S.F. is less segregated with far fewer areas of concentrated poverty, affluence and race than metro areas such as Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis, according to research from the University of Minnesota. But any San Franciscan knows that segregation still exists and certain neighborhoods don't reflect the city's overall diversity.

S.F. is less segregated with far fewer areas of concentrated poverty, affluence and race than metro areas such as Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis, according to

Cars are parked in the lot at the Forest Hill Christian Church on Laguna Honda Boulevard in San Francisco, Calif. on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2016.

Cars are parked in the lot at the Forest Hill Christian Church on Laguna Honda Boulevard in San Francisco, Calif. on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2016.

Ways San Francisco is less liberal than we think we are

San Francisco likes to think of itself as a left-leaning, open-minded, free-thinking, equal-rights type of town.

We're pro-choice and pro-environment. We issued the United States' first same-sex marriage licenses. We're fighting to hold onto our sanctuary city status.

We go to Burning Man, host S&M festivals and don't bat an eye when a naked person walks down the street. A mere 9 percent of our population voted for President Donald Trump.

In fact, the City by the Bay is often viewed as the most liberal city in America, but anyone who lives here knows some of our ways don't align with our liberal image. When it comes to income inequality, education, and even our bars' closing times, we don't entirely live up to our blue ideas.

LATEST TRENDING VIDEOS: Story continues below

We looked at some ways San Francisco might not quite be living up to its liberal reputation and featured them in the slideshow above.

Of course, the term "liberal" has different meanings for different people.

In other words, this story and the examples are up for debate and you're free to disagree or agree and add your own perspective. After all, freedom of speech is a liberal value.

Read the original post:

Ways San Francisco is less liberal than we think we are - SFGate

The Garden City Buffalo Softball team was able to snap its four-game losing streak on Tuesday by dominating the Liberal Redskins in a road Western Athletic Conference doubleheader.

In Game one, the Buffaloes scored 14 runs on 14 hits while pitcher Abbie Dart only allowed two Liberal runs on two hits. Ryleigh Whitehurst of Garden City went 4-for-5 from the plate with two doubles and 2 RBIs.

In the nightcap, the Buffaloes were more dominant and scored 19 runs, 12 of which came in the first inning. The game was called after three innings. Garden City combined for 33 runs in the two games.

Abbie Dart also was able to get the win for the second game, after pitching a three-inning no hitter. Six Buffaloes finished the second game with two or more RBIs, which included Erykah Foster, Kaci Finch, Abbie Dart, Taylor Terpstra, Whitehurst and Morgan Cabral finished with three RBIs each.

The wins came after the Buffaloes had dropped four in a row, a first for Garden City coach Trina Moquett who had never lost four in a row in her head coaching career.

We wanted to get those (four) losses off our back, said Moquett about the four game losing streak. I told my team not to worry about the past.

Moquett seemed optimistic about the team being able to win both games on the road.

These wins are important and can propel us forward for the rest of the season, Moquett said. Its a good thing for our confidence going forward.

The Buffaloes look to keep the offensive hot streak going on Friday when they host Colby at Tangeman Sports Complex with the first pitch, weather permitting, set for 3 p.m.

Game 1

Garden City 027 000 5 14 14 1

Liberal 000 002 0 2 5 3

WPGarden City (Dart), LP Liberal (Chaloupek). 2B Garden City (Foster 2, Finch 3, Long, Nordby, Whitehurst 2, Terpstra), Liberal (Tatum). RBI Garden City (Foster 2, Finch 3, Long, Nordby, Whitehurst 2, Terpstra), Liberal (Tatum 2). LOBGarden City 9, Liberal 2.

Game 2

Garden City (12)70 19 13 0

Liberal 000 0 0 4

WP Garden City (A. Dart), LP Liberal (Chaloupek). 2B Garden City (Cabral, A. Dart 2). 3B Garden City (A. Dart). RBI Garden City (Foster 2, Finch 2, A. Dart 2, Cabral 3, H. Dart, Whitehurst 3, Terpstra 2). LOB Garden City 2, Liberal 1.

Read the original here:

Buffs softball rolls Liberal in sweep - The Garden City Telegram

Liberals are calling it "resistance recess," but Republicans are guardedly hoping that the rowdy town hall meetings they're facing back home represent a harmless burst of left-wing activism triggered by President Trump, instead of a real warning sign for the GOP in 2018.

"The resistance movement is real, growing, and becoming an electoral force," MoveOn.org's Katherine Werner claimed in an email to supporters Monday night, pointing ahead of Tuesday's special congressional election in Georgia.

"We saw this last week when a Democratic upstart came within a narrow margin of upsetting a Republican in a special election in a deep-red Kansas district," she wrote. "And we see it in the surprisingly strong showing of John [sic] Ossoff, who is making a run at Newt Gingrich's old House seat in Georgia in a special election tomorrow to replace Trump's secretary of Health and Human Services, the architect of the attempted repeal of the [Affordable Care Act]."

Yet Republicans are split on how much the protests are manufactured by Democrats versus a sea change that could threaten GOP majorities.

"I think these are liberal activists," said National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Matt Gorman, as opposed to some uprising across party lines to protect Obamacare.

"Many are liberal activists who've been outraged since November," concurred NRCC national press secretary Jesse Hunt. "There isn't one single unifying issue that's motivating them, but rather a cluster of progressive pet issues."

ThinkProgress, for example, boasted that the issue of climate change has recently been used to make Republican congressional incumbents uncomfortable. "With many Americans breathing easier about their health care, other issues, such as environmental protection and climate action, rose in prominence," wrote the group's environmental reporter Mark Hand. Others cast the protests as mostly targeting the GOP plan to repeal Obamacare.

Some Republicans have used the prominent role played by left-wing organizations to downplay the spontaneity and significance of the protests. This includes Trump himself, who tweeted in February that the "so-called angry crowds" were in many cases "planned out by liberal activists."

Others have gone so far as to argue that the anti-Trump, anti-Republican demonstrations are substantially the creation of left-wing billionaire George Soros. Conservative media outlets have attempted to connect the dots between organizers of town hall protests and Soros-linked organizations.

But for Republicans, the protests are an eerie echo of the wave of anger Democrats faced seven years ago, when conservatives showed up to protest against Obamacare. Then, many liberals argued that the Tea Party was "Astroturf" manufactured outrage made to look like real grassroots activism funded by billionaires on the other side, such as the Koch brothers.

Organizations funded by the Kochs and others did help mobilize those outraged by President Obama's policies, but there was also genuine anger among conservative-leaning voters. Some of the voters upped their levels of political activity and helped Republicans win the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

Some of the closeness of today's races indicate the wave of outrage in 2017 may be at least partly real. Just as Democrats are now contesting congressional districts in Kansas and Georgia that were won by Trump last year, Republicans won a special election in Massachusetts in early 2010 to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy with a Republican who vowed to break the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority and serve as the 41st vote against Obamacare.

Republican operatives admit that they are hoping their party doesn't repeat the Democrats' mistakes. "I actually hope we lose the Georgia 6 race," said a GOP strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "It will wake up Trump and the Republican leadership to the white, hot Democratic anger."

Progressives packing town hall meetings hope to make centrist Republicans representing swing districts wary of repealing and replacing Obamacare, while conservative lawmakers with safe seats discover whether their constituents are more aligned with the House Freedom Caucus or Trump on the GOP leadership-backed healthcare legislation.

Several Republican members of Congress have been shouted down at their local meetings, and Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., required a police escort to leave an event. Some Republicans have argued the protests are too disruptive of actual constituent feedback, pushing them toward telephone town halls and other alternatives.

"As we've seen around the country, large, unstructured events tend to devolve into shouting matches," said David Pasch, communications director to Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., a lawmaker who represents a district won by Hillary Clinton. "Both sides compete with each over who can scream the loudest, while the people who are interested in an actual, productive dialogue are denied the opportunity to hear and be heard."

"He has hosted 130 tele-town halls during his time in Congress (that's more than once per month, on average) and he typically has at least 10,000 people participate live," Pasch added. "We find this is a much more effective way to engage a larger number of people, including those who aren't able to make it to an in-person event."

A spokesman for Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., says his boss is also looking at alternatives.

"The congresswoman has held two telephone town halls where she reached approximately 9,000 constituents and will hold more," said Jeff Marschner, Comstock's deputy chief of staff. "She and her staff have also met with hundreds of constituents at small group and individual meetings in our offices in Sterling, Winchester and on Capitol Hill."

"In addition, she has met with hundreds more constituents, as she has for the seven years she has been in office, by tirelessly visiting local businesses small and large, hospitals, universities, schools, community organizations, Chambers of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, non-profits, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and more," Marschner continued. "There is no one who is more ever present in the district listening to, learning from and meeting with her constituents."

Many Republicans decry the lack of civility among the protesters.

"Unfortunately, over the years town halls have disintegrated into shouting matches and have become unproductive," said Breanna Deutsch, communications director for Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash. "Instead Congressman Reichert believes small, in-person meetings are the best way to maintain open communication with his constituents and have productive conversations."

"The congressman has nearly 50 meetings and events scheduled over this two-week district work period and will meet with well over 200 constituents," she added. "He has consistently encouraged anyone who would like to meet with him to contact our office."

Republicans have split on their reactions to the raucous town halls. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., faced a hostile audience last week, challenging him on Trump, Planned Parenthood funding and solar energy. Flake nevertheless tweeted out an image of the meeting and thanked attendees saying, "This is what democracy looks like!"

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was panned after a town hall appearance in which he seemed to deny the taxpayers paid his congressional salary because he was privately wealthy.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., rebuked Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for seeming reluctant to face audiences that will "heckle and scream." Rubio supporters say he was specifically describing events dominated by liberal activists.

Recent history doesn't give much of a clue as to whether the protests are a real sign of trouble for the GOP. While the Tea Party is one precedent for the town hall protests, demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker failed to presage his defeat in the recall election or his bid for a second term. Antiwar activism against President George W. Bush did not have much electoral impact until 2006, the final midterm elections of his presidency.

One factor that likely isn't helping is Trump's approval rating. It sits at 42.4 percent, according to the current RealClearPolitics average, indicating significant opposition to the president.

See the original post here:

Republicans dismiss 'liberal activists' behind angry town hall protests - Washington Examiner

The owner of the Evening Standard hailed the appointment of Osborne as his new editor because he was a liberal in tune with liberal London. This term is the most flexible of them all. Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters

With politics in a state of bewildering flux, three terms recur that attempt to make sense of it all. The complacent application of these terms ispartly responsible for Brexit, and coulddelay the formation of a formidable opposition to a seemingly dominant Conservative party.

The terms give the impression of assertive precision when in fact they are dangerously misleading. And as the dysfunctional Labour party suffers yetanother identity crisis and the Conservatives obsession with Europe moves towards an energy-sapping denouement, the terms will become even more widespread.

British politics urgently needs an injection of precision rather than shallow waffle

The terms are liberal, centre ground and modernisation. The last of these led the country towards Brexit. When David Cameron became leader of the Conservative partyin 2005 he declared he was a moderniser. The self-description was widely accepted, not least by much of the media.

But if modern means moving a party on from the past, Cameron should have made a big move on Europe, that being the issue which brought down twoConservative prime ministers. Instead, he made social liberalism his test of modernisation. And as one of hisfirst acts, he withdrew his party fromthe centre-right grouping in the European parliament, an act of aggression opposed by the man he defeated forthe leadership, David Davis.

Such was the allure of the term andthe hunger in parts of the media fora Conservative revival that Cameronbecamea moderniser while failing to modernise his party on the issue that had nearly killed it.

In some respects Theresa May is more of a moderniser. She claims to recognise the good that government can do, and puts the case for an industrial strategy and for intervention in some markets near revolutionary moves in a party conditioned to regard the state as often a malevolent force. Yet May is opposed by those in her party, and other parties, who regard themselves as modern and on the centre ground.

Recently BBC Radio 4 ran a programme that posed the question Canthe Centre Hold? It raised important questions about what the centre might learn from the rise of the outsiders. It also worked on the assumption that some of its dazzling interviewees were on the centre ground. Tony Blair and George Osborne were interviewed, as ifit was a given that they are rooted inthe centre. But is either of them on this ill-defined terrain?

I agree with them in their opposition to Brexit, but I doubt if this places any of us on the so-called centre. Blair wants to overturn the referendum and has powerful arguments for doing so. Osborne is critical of the focus the government places on immigration, and he too puts a strong case for the economy being the pivotal issue. But in their defiance of what happened in the referendum, they are arguably challenging the centre.

In addition, as chancellor, Osbornes economic policies were well to the rightof most interpretations of the centre. Similarly, Blair defends the war in Iraq and is an advocate for possible military intervention in other parts of the volatile region. I understand that he has no choice but to defend the Iraq invasion, and that must lead to a wider advocacy of risky force, but this is not necessarily where the centre lies.

The issue of Europe triggers alliances between senior figures in parties, with some sensing an historic realignment of the centre ground. But there is nothing new in Europe producing such coalitions. During the 1975 referendum on Britains membership of the then European Economic Community, Labours Roy Jenkins campaigned with the former Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, and the Liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe. Labours Tony Benn and Michael Foot danced with Enoch Powell. Unsurprisingly Blair, Osborne, and MPs Nick Clegg, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry unite over Europe. On this issue they have clear and coherent arguments. But does the clarity apply more widely?

Some participants in the various contemporary battles argue that there is a much wider bond. They are liberals taking on the authoritarians. Recently the New Statesman published a striking cover with the question: Who will speak for liberal Britain? The owner of the London Evening Standard, Evgeny Lebedev, hailed the appointment of Osborne as his new editor because the former chancellor was a liberal in tunewith liberal London.

This term is the most flexible of them all. Virtually everyone I know describes themselves as liberal. Yet some are on the right, espousing a small state in which people are set free from big government, and some are on the left, seeing it as a way of liberating people.

This imprecision is exemplified by the career of Davis, now the Brexit secretary. In 2008 he resigned as shadow home secretary because he suspected Cameron and Osborne did not share his liberal convictions in opposing measures such as detaining suspects without charge for up to 90 days. The PM who first tried to instigate the measure was the leading member of the liberal elite, Blair. Davis, who fought a byelection over this crusade, is now the lead minister taking the UK out of the EU, a move passionately opposed by liberals.

To add to the confusion, when theoutgoing editor of the Evening Standard,Sarah Sands, was asked to defend the papers support for the Tories at a point when the capital was moving towards Labour, she argued thatthe partisan endorsement was because the paper was liberal.

This all matters because British politics urgently needs an injection of precision rather than shallow waffle. Globalisation is happening and will continue to happen, but how to harness the opportunities and protect communities from some of the destabilising consequences?

There are related debates about howgovernments can help those navigating an increasingly fractured world of work, and how they pay for and organise modern public services. The answers are demanding and complex, and will differ depending on ideological perspectives. For now, when anyone declares the solutions need to be modern, liberal and on the centre ground, we may nod in assent but should then wonder what they mean.

See the original post:

The hidden threat of a liberal centre-ground moderniser - The Guardian

NewsBusters (blog)

Honeymoon from Hell: The Liberal Media vs. President Trump NewsBusters (blog) Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration. For this study, MRC analysts ... and more »

Originally posted here:

Honeymoon from Hell: The Liberal Media vs. President Trump - NewsBusters (blog)

Liberals and cultural-Marxists love to pat themselves on the back as being at the forefront of social justice activism. They arrogantly view themselves as the summum bonum; in their eyes they are Solomonic; they and they only know what is best for women, blacks and children. And if you have any doubt, just ask them.

The problem with the liberal view of self is that its tantamount to one looking into a trick mirror. Nothing you see is real.

Liberals are for freedom of speech as long as it is speech that supports what they want to hear. If you are former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, David Horowitz, or Heather Mac Donald, liberal professors and students stage violent protests to prevent their speaking on campus. Liberal professors and students did their best to have Vanderbilt University professor Dr. Carol M. Swain fired for daring to share her personal conservative views on her personal Facebook page. Their reason was that her thoughts were not consistent with what the thought police at Vanderbilt stood for.

Liberals love to talk about women not being paid the same as men. It is at the top of their talking-points lists come every election. But thats all it is, a talking point, because the reality of that specific claim is quite different.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., when not claiming she is some part Native American, is blathering on about equal pay for women. Fox News, The Blaze, the Free Beacon, Breitbart, and the New York Post, among many others, reported that Liz Minnie Feather was noticeably silent on Equal Pay Day, April 4. As the New York Post put it: The likely cause of her silence was news that shes a hypocrite. The paper noted that Warren didnt even issue a tweet to mark Equal Pay Day.

It is an easy search to find countless instances of Warren railing about equal pay for equal work. She was quoted as saying: In the year 2016, at a time with self-driving cars and computers that sit on your wrist, women still make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes. (See: Why Elizabeth Warren Didnt Stand Up For Equal Pay, New York Post, April 6, 2017.)

Warren was silent because it was revealed that women on her staff earned just 71 percent of what their male counterparts earned.

The bastion of liberal journalism, the Huffington Post, raced to Warrens defense. In an attempt to set the record straight, Huffington Post wrote that the median salary for women on her staff since she was elected in 2012 was $44,108 and for men it was $43,348. That would be true, if it were the case. But the Huffington Post outed themselves as numbers manipulators; and the 71 percent figure other media quoted was in fact accurate.

Huffington Post stated that the analyses of all of the other news outlets that reported Warren hypocrisy only included people who had been employed by Warrens office the entire year, which excluded, among others, Warrens highest paid staffer a woman making $170,000. Apparently, if the top two or three women make more than men, the fact that other staff women earn less than men should be ignored.

Let me point out that the news outlets that reported Warrens hypocrisy were outlets of the highest regard. I should also point out that there were no retractions issued.

Hollywood liberals are still apoplectic, trying to smear President Trump with fallacious accusations of sexual assault. But these same people champion Roman Polanski, who drugged, brutally raped and sodomized a 13-year old little girl. After destroying the little girls childhood, Polanski used his wealth and connections to flee the country. To compound matters, now, after nearly 44 years, Polanski magnanimously says he will return to America if his crimes are forgiven, because of some alleged agreement his attorneys had worked out with the judge immediately after the rape.

Liberal womens rights groups support Bill Clinton, the most prolific example of spousal abuse in modern politics.

Leonardo DiCaprio travels the world in luxurious private jets and is shuttled from venue to venue in limousines, but lectures you and me on the environment and the myth of climate change.

DiCaprio knows exactly how you and I should live, but he excludes his palatial mansions in Palms Springs, New York and Malibu.

Liberals talk about the need for qualified teachers, which is code speak for more Marxists in the classrooms. They purpose to accomplish this even as the major educational centers are doing away with teacher literacy tests because they are deemed racist. (See: N.Y. Dropping Teacher Literacy Test Amid Claims of Racism, FoxNews.com, March 13, 2017.)

If you are a thinking person with a modicum of sanity, why, or perhaps better asked, how could you support, believe, and/or follow liberals?

Media wishing to interview Mychal Massie, please contact media@wnd.com.

More here:

ON CAPITOL HILL - WND.com

Big Liberal Democrat beasts from the coalition government are preparing for a return to Westminster, contesting overwhelmingly Remain-voting seats in London and fighting for its traditional base in the South-west.

Sir Vince Cable has confirmed he will stand in Twickenham, Ed Davey will stand again in his old Surbiton seat, and Sir Simon Hughes will re-contest Southwark.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said the party has been preparing for a snap election since last June, and will make opposition to Brexit the standout issue of the seven-week campaign, a strategy that has already brought them huge success in the Richmond Park by-election, in which the party defeated Zac Goldsmith.

This election is your chance to change the direction of our country, MrFarron said. If you want to avoid a disastrous hard Brexit, if you want to keep Britain in the single market, if you want a Britain that is open, tolerant and united, this is your chance. Only the Liberal Democrats can prevent a Conservative majority.

A party spokesperson said more than 1,500 people had joined the party in the hour after the election was called.

The 2015 election was devastating to the Liberal Democrats, reducing it from 57 MPs to eight, with its traditionally left-leaning voters punishing it for enabling Tory policies under David Camerons government.

The partys other base in the South-west did not, in general, vote to remain in the EU, but Tim Farron has been canvassing hard in Cornwall and Devon in preparation for next months local elections, and internal party polling is said to be encouraging.

Since the Brexit vote the party has won several local council by-elections via overwhelming swings against bothLabour and the Conservatives, on occasion by upwards of 20 per cent. The party has gained 33 council seats since the May 2016 local elections, many of them in the South-west, where Ukip has lost seven seats, Labour has lost 13 and the Tories 21.

Research by the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe shows there are 17 Remain-backing Conservative constituencies where the Liberal Democrats currently lie in second place.

But a third of Britons have said they do not know who Tim Farron is, and Labour MPs have thus far given every indication of making much of Mr Farrons recent comments last year that the party would be open to re-entering into coalition with the Conservatives, a decision that proved near fatal last time around.

More:

General Election 2017: Big Liberal Democrat beasts poised for fightback - The Independent

One Conservative MP who cannot be pleased with Theresa Mays decision to call an early election is Tania Mathias, the Member for Twickenham, who won the seat by defeating Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat cabinet minister, two years ago.

Now Sir Vince has announced that he would like to fight the seat again, and he hopes to repeat the success of Sarah Olney, who won the neighbouring Richmond Park on an anti-Brexit platform in a by-election last year.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, sees the general election as a huge opportunity to mobilise the 48 per cent who voted to remain in the EU in the referendum and to scrape his party off the floor where it ended up in 2015. There is no doubt that the party will improve on its 8 per cent share of the vote and eight MPs (now nine with Olney), but by how much? And is it possible that the party could break through to challenge Labour as the main opposition?

There are good reasons for thinking the Lib Dems could do very well good enough to persuade Sir Vince to return to the fray at the age of 73:

The Lib Dems have adopted a clear position of opposing Brexit and trying to do anything to frustrate it, including demanding a second referendum on the terms of the exit deal. This does not appeal to all of the 48 per cent who voted to Remain. Opinion polls suggest that about half of Remainers accept the referendum vote and want the Government to get on with it, but 22 per cent of voters think that the referendum decision ought to be reversed.

A lot of these hard Remainers feel strongly about the EU and provide the Lib Dems with a ready-made core of activists and enthusiasts, including many defectors from Labour who are disillusioned with the official Oppositions cautious acceptance of Brexit.

Tim Farron: I can jolly well affect the result of the snap general election

The Lib Dems have a media and campaigning organisation as sleek and fast as a greyhound. It is so slick that journalists were commenting on it last week, saying it was better thanLabours leaden press operation. Yesterday, the contrast was illuminated in bright searchlights. Within minutes of Theresa Mays election announcement, a response from Tim Farron was emailed to journalists and Farron himself was interviewed moments later.

Jeremy Corbyns response wasnt slow it took 40 minutes to issue a statement and a bit longer for an interview but it was much slower than the Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems, despite being crushed in the last general election, still have a constituency-targeting organisation that is second to none. It did well in the Witney by-election before scoring a stunning success in Richmond Park. A general election is harder, but they have the machine that can focus on, say a dozen target seats.

The Lib Dems are likely to do well in the local elections on 4 May, which will mark the start of the five-week general election campaign. Local elections were held a month before June elections in 1983 and 1987, and were not a very good guide to the general elections that followed Labour and the Liberal/SDP Alliance did better in the local votes and the Conservatives did worse. But a big Lib Dem advance in their natural local government habitat, bouncing back from being punished for being part of the Tory coalition government, will give Farron momentum.

However, there are also reasons for thinking the Lib Dem advance might be limited:

For all the commentary about elections now being fought out on social media, TV remains the most important means by which most people know about politics. It is not just election broadcasts that are allocated by a formula based on the previous election and to a lesser extent on other elections and opinion polls but all broadcasters are under a legal obligation to balance their news coverage and programming generally. That means the Lib Dems are at a severe disadvantage, because they won just 8 per cent of the votes last time, and their current average in the opinion polls is still only 11 per cent.

Tim Farron: On May, Brexit Fallout and the Lib Dems' future

The Lib Dems are poised to win back a string of Conservative seats in south-west England, according to a strange report recently of alleged private Tory party polling. This sounds most improbable. If the Lib Dems are going to fight as the anti-Brexit party, the deeply Eurosceptic south-west seems a strange place to do it.

Many of the seats the Lib Dems lost in 2015 voted to leave the EU in the referendum (see Chris Hanretty's list here), and will be hard to win back. In strongly Remain constituencies in London, such as Twickenham, and in university towns, such as Labour Cambridge, the Lib Dems have their best hopes. But, if you study the list of Lib Dem target seats, there are not as many of them as Farron might hope.

Original post:

This is the truth about whether a Liberal Democrat resurgence in the upcoming general election is realistic - The Independent

And, in my view, contributes to the campus bubble

From the Department of the Obvious comes a recent research paper confirming what we already knew, law professors as a group are very liberal.

Paul Caron of Pepperdine Law School (aka TaxProf) highlights the research paper and commentary on it, bragging how BYU And Pepperdine Are The Most Ideologically Balanced Faculties Among The Top 50 Law Schools (2013).

The study is title The Legal Academys Ideological Uniformity (you can download it for free at the link). Here is the abstract:

We compare the ideological balance of the legal academy to the ideological balance of the legal profession. To do so, we match professors listed in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers and lawyers listed in the Martindale-Hubbell directory to a measure of political ideology based on political donations. We find that 15% of law professors, compared to 35% of lawyers, are conservative. After controlling for individual characteristics, however, this 20 percentage point ideological gap narrows to around 13 percentage points. We argue that this ideological uniformity marginalizes law professors, but that it may not be possible to improve the ideological balance of the legal academy without sacrificing other values.

Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western (who famously blogged under a pseudonym before he had tenure for fear of retribution by liberal law professors), summarizes the methodology at Volokh Conspiracy:

These findings are based upon an examination of reported political donations. While this is an admittedly imperfect measure of ideology, it does allow for comparisons across population groups. Moreover, reliance on political donations is less selective than one might think, as the authors report that more than 60 percent of law professors made reported political donations between 1979 and 2014.

Although the authors believe that other factors explain some of the split between the ideology of legal academics and legal practitioners, even after accounting for such factors, they find that law professors are significantly more liberal than lawyers generally.

This chart from the study summarizes the findings by school:

Let me test this with my real world experience for Cornell. Yup, pretty much, though this bar might understate liberal leaning:

What is the impact of such a liberal skew? According to the authors of the study, it includes marginalizing law professors:

Nonetheless, the ideological tilt of the legal academy has potentially broad implications. For instance, because law professors are overwhelmingly liberal, groups of law professors advocating for liberal positions can easily be marginalized.

For example, after Jeff Sessions was nominated as Attorney General in 2016, over a thousand law professors signed a letter opposing his confirmation. This letter was criticized by some as simply representing the views of the left leaning legal academy (e.g., Huffman, 2017; Presser, 2017). To assess the these criticisms, we match the signatories of the letter to our sample of law professor ideology, and find that only 4% of the signatories that appear in our data are conservative. This raises the question of whether the reception to the letter would have been different had more conservative law professors signed the letter. Although we have no way to answer this question, the endeavor might have been given more credence had more conservative professors participated in the letter: observers might have been less likely to expect Republican-leaning law professors to oppose Sessions ideologically, thus making such criticisms more powerful and effective.

We argue that this example illustrates that the legal academys ideological uniformity limits its political credibility.

Adler notes additional implications:

One could extend this analysis to current controversies at state universities, such as proposed measures to curtail tenure or limit the activities of legal clinics and academic centers at state universities. Appeals to academic freedom are less convincing when the only ones in a position to benefit from such principles sit on one side of the aisle.

Writing in opposition to a proposed measure in North Carolina that would prohibit the University of North Carolina School of Laws Center for Civil Rights from engaging in litigation, Gene Nichol suggested the centers critics are nakedly ideological because they would have no problem with law school programs enlisting students in efforts to protect gun rights or religious liberty. He might be right, but how would we know? Its not as if UNCs law school has any such programs, or even a critical mass of right-leaning faculty members.

It would be interesting to compare law professor liberal leanings to other faculty group. I suspect there isnt much difference, and that law professor liberal leaning mirrors faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

At Cornell, you may recall,the student newspaper The Cornell Sun showed that 97% of faculty donations went to Democrats, and a College Fix study that 11 departments at Cornell have zero registered Republicans.

What is the result?

One result is intolerance in the student body. We have seen this nationwide, including at Cornell,For conservatives at Cornell University, high price for free speech.

Another result is students and faculty living in a bubble, which burst in the 2016 election big league:

Over 50 Cornellians gathered on Ho Plaza this afternoon for a cry in to mourn in the aftermath of Donald Trumps shocking presidential victory.

Braving the cold, wind and occasional rain, Cornellians sat in a circle to share stories and console each other, organizers encouraging attendees to gather closer together and include each other.

Standing with students at the cry-in and nearly in tears herself, campus activities coordinator Denice Cassaro called the elections results devastating.

I have no words, she said.

What is the answer to excessive liberalism in legal academia. I suspect that the answer from liberal professors would be that no answer is needed, things are just fine as they are.

Continued here:

From Dept of the Obvious: Liberal ideological uniformity marginalizes law professors - legal Insurrection (blog)

Life should be free at least according to Sue Barnhart (Resist taxes that pay for war, April 14). Barnhart states a love of paying taxes for free education, health care, housing and food. In other words, government provides everything: no cares, no worries, merely extend a hand and Big Brother is there to help.

Excuse me for the inability to equate love of paying taxes to all this free stuff. An apology for my limited intellect struggling with the juxtaposition of taxes and free.

She informs us over 50 percent of our taxes go to the military, funding wars and incurred debt. Last time I checked, half involves entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid). No wonder she wants everything else free; were outta money.

Other than her disingenuousness on budgetary items and convoluted logic equating free to taxes, she has a valid contention: She doesnt want her taxes funding wars. I respect her opinion, providing she respects mine.

How bout no money for welfare recipients who are able, but refuse, to work? No funds to sanctuary cities refusing to turn over illegal immigrants with criminal records?

Everyone has an issue with some budget item. Lets all write a note to the IRS when we pay our taxes explaining our adjusted liability.

Barnhart and other liberals can voluntarily give all the money they desire to the government for whatever cause they deem commendable. How many do? Good guess, folks.

Its classic liberal thought: Do as I say, not as I do.

Steve Bowers

Harrisburg

More Letters in the editor's mailbag articles

Mail letters to: Mailbag, 3500 Chad Drive, Eugene, OR 97408-7348

E-mail: rgletters@registerguard.com

See the article here:

Liberal hypocrisy: do as I say ... - The Register-Guard