Category Archives: Liberal

Who am I? is a question which taxes and unites us all. Pretty much every day, whether tacitly or explicitly, were forced to confront and assert what kind of person we are. Will we wipe that seat clean? Can we put our phone away during bedtime? If no one is watching, are we invisible?

That being so, itd make sense for us to cut others some slack when we encounter them grappling with that same overriding issue. That we often dont helps explain why the world is not exactly bursting with empathy, safety and security.

Last Monday, Gareth Southgate announced that he had been unable to persuade Wilfried Zaha to play football for England, rather than Cte dIvoire. Zaha was born in Abidjan, but after emigrating with his family aged 8, grew up in Croydon and represented his new country at under-19, under-21 and full level, before repatriating himself.

Southgates reputation is as a mensch, so it is difficult to fathom why he brought the matter up at all: Zaha represented his native country in the recent Africa Cup of Nations, so his affiliation is not a live issue. But, seeing as he did, it was fair to anticipate a comment along the lines of: I went to see Wilf because I rate him. Im disappointed, but of course I respect and understand his decision, so wish him all the best.

But what he in fact said was: If you dont feel that internal 100% passion for England, then Im not sure its for me to sell that to you. It should be your desire to do it the inherent desire of wanting to play for your country is the most important thing. Jermain Defoe is a classic example. His whole life has been a desire to play for England from Under-16s all the way through. I dont think if youd approached him to play for someone else hed have done it. Thats where I was with it too I didnt get capped until I was 25 and I had no interest in playing for anyone else. Im English and proud to be English and I think part of your identity as a national team has to be pride in the shirt. So, for me, the commitment has to come from the player.

This was somewhat odd. No one asked him to sell anything he approached Zaha, not the other around and Zaha has indicated his desire to play for his country, it just isnt the one that Southgate seems to think it should be. Jermain Defoe, meanwhile, is a classic example of certainty in a hypothetical situation and inadvertently imposing upon it the appalling good Negro-bad Negro narrative, while failing to notice that wait for it it is possible for two people who have the same skin colour to have different experiences of life.

This is not to criticise Southgates pride in who he is. But his international career has nothing in common with Zahas, and he has no right referencing it to make something that is not about him about him, nor to analogise his own situation to one that is different. It really ought to be obvious that Zahas identity is not linear, and that his decision to represent the country of his birth is not cause to imply that he is not English, has no pride in being English, and takes no pride in the two caps he worked his arse off to win. That Southgate did is insulting; that he made their conversation public is incendiary.

The following day, Danny Mills, a former England defender, delivered his opinion on talkSPORT, saying: Ultimately hes taken the easier option, and thought Well, I might get a few more caps and I might get to play in a few more tournaments because my chances with England are going to be limited. Gareth just means that he wants people to fight for the shirt and if you dont get in you dont get in I probably done 30-odd squads and never got any game time; sat in the stands, sat on the bench. But you still turned up every single time in that hope that you might get a chance and take it.

Let's break this down as though its a serious footballing argument. At 24, Zaha is nearing the perfect coalescence of athleticism and understanding. Just this weekend, he ravaged the champions-elect, and over the course of this season, has developed from talent into player. There is no reason to think him not good enough to get into a poor and shallow England squad indeed, that is why Southgate approached him. Also,lets say Mills is right, and Zaha wants to win more caps and play in more tournaments: this would be because hes a footballer, and footballers play football.

Similarly, the notion that playing for Cte dIvoire constitutes an easier option is also not exactly a fact. When called up by England, players generally recline at Georges Park with its underwater treadmills and pubic hair straighteners, then compete at Wembley Stadium; when called up by Cte dIvoire, players generally schlep to West Africa, then compete at not Wembley Stadium. Just last week, Zaha was playing in a game against Senegal that was abandoned following a pitch invasion. In no sense is that easier.

The reality, though, is that this is not a footballing issue at all. Taking issue with a young black man seeking to advance his career turning ambition into immorality illustrates why our society is so unequal. Though there is a mobility myth in the United Kingdom which asserts that everything is open to everyone, the reality is different. Groups who are historically disadvantaged, whether on grounds of race, class, sex or sexuality, must wait patiently for the removal of obstacles precluding their advancement, and even thereafter, are expected to know their place and always, always be grateful.

As such, it is unsurprising that Mills next gambit is to suggest that Zaha would not be prepared to fight for the shirt. This, wittingly or otherwise recasts a slur levelled at immigrants for centuries: they are unreliable and potentially insubordinate. A version of this sensibility was prevalent in football for many years in 1991, Ron Noades, then chairman of Crystal Palace, commented that The black players at this club lend the side a lot of skill and flair, but you also need white players in there to balance things up and give the team some brains and some common sense and there was also a belief that players of colour responded badly to adverse climate and circumstances.

Like Southgate, Mills cannot help but juxtapose Zahas decadence with his own virtue, another classic motif of oppression. It is amazing that it needs saying, but there is nothing laudable about Mills not playing for any of the countries in which he was not born and for whom he was not eligible. But for those governed by competing and complementary concepts minorities especially identity is intricate and fluid. Moreover, people change as they get older, as their understanding of things deepens, and responsibility to pass that on dawns.

A facet of Millss England career on which he rather curiously does not expound is that Owen Hargreaves was among his team-mates; Hargreaves, born and raised in Canada before completing his footballing education in Germany, represented Wales at youth level and remains the only man to make his debut for England without having lived or played in the country. Did Mills ever express to him the view that he was only in the squad because Canada werent very good? Did he feel that he could rely on him to fight for the shirt? Has he ever told Andy Townsend, his sometime pundit-partner, that his caps for Ireland were won only because he wasnt good enough for England, and that his commitment was necessarily less as a consequence? And if not, why not? What might it possibly be about this particular case that exercises him so? If only there were a word to describe this apparent discrepancy!

Throughout history, dominant racial groups have taken it upon themselves to instruct others about who they are and what they should be. Not only do Mills and Southgate fail to acknowledge the crucial difference between Zahas experience and their own,but neither so much as mentions his Ivorian roots, let alone seeks to understand why they are important to him.

Which is not to say that I cannot understand their disappointment. When Daniel Welbeck opted to play for England rather than Ghana, as a supporter of Manchester United, sharer of the name Daniel and husband to a Ghanaian, I thought oh, thats a shame for the three seconds it took for me to realise that his deeply personal decisions are none of my fucking business.

But Southgate and Mills think differently, reflecting aprevalent attitude of an England that is inherently and palpably superior to the rest of the world. And we are seeing the fruits of this attitude in real time. Also last week, the Prime Minister gave notice to leave an organisation which has preserved peace in Europe for a generation, in the process threatening lives to achieve a better trade deal; a tabloid crowed about the 500m earmarked to be spent on bringing back blue passports, when health and education budgets are squeezed; a broadsheet columnist, born in 1960, advocated a return to imperial measurements which were phased out in 1965; and a former Home Secretary said that Britain had to be ready for war with a NATO ally.

This behaviour reflects an idealised, fetishisednational identity, based on nostalgia for things that people either cannot remember, or which never existed. Like all historically powerful nations, England Great Britain owes much of its status to subjugation of others. And though the worst of that is over, its vestiges remain in both overt discrimination and the myriad microaggressions with which people of colour are forced to contend on a daily basis of which the treatment of Zaha is but one example.

Continue reading here:

How did the word "liberal" become a political insult? - New Statesman

Liberal MP Nicola Di Iorio has apologized in the House of Commons for making what was described as "a suggestive and very inappropriate" comment during a committee meeting last month.

Di Iorio directed a stripper-related remark to British Columbia Conservative MP Dianne Watts.

The incident occurred on International Women's Day, March 8.

The Quebec Liberal says he is "profoundly sorry" for the comment.

He says he never meant to offend Watts.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to look into the matter.

Di Iorio and Watts were at a closed meeting on the public safety committee when he heard a colourful ring tone on her cellphone and asked: "Where's your pole to slide down on?"

Watts said in a statement afterwards that the remark "left me, staff, and other members of Parliament feeling very uncomfortable."

On Monday, Di Iorio rose in the Commons to apologize.

"Today in this House I wish to reassure the member, once again, that none of my words sought to embarrass or offend her." he said.

"Despite this, before all my colleagues here in the House of Commons I wish to reiterate my most sincere apology."

Watts thanked Di Iorio.

"I know that there have been times in all of our lives where we have done things we wish we hadn't, where we've said things that we wish we didn't and there have been times when we wished we could take back the words or the actions that have caused pain or hurt in others," she said.

"Moments like these are moments of opportunity, moments of teaching and moments of learning and if we can all learn lessons then we are well served."

See the original post:

Liberal apologizes in Commons for sexist remark at committee - CTV News

Monday's federal byelections are not expected to change the seat count in the House of Commons asall are being held in safe ridings for the Liberals and Conservatives.

But there are still things to watch for as voters cast ballots in five ridings across the country that willtestthe popularity of a midterm government and the impact of the ongoing Conservative and NDP leadership races.

The byelections are being held in OttawaVanierandMarkhamThornhillin Ontario, Calgary Midnapore, Calgary Heritage and in the riding of Saint-Laurent on the island of Montreal. They will fill the vacancies left by Mauril Blanger, John McCallum, Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper and Stphane Dion, respectively.

The two southern Calgary ridings have been Conservative strongholds since their creation the Liberals last won the area in 1968, when few people lived within the modern boundaries. The three other ridings have been safe Liberal seats for years.OttawaVanier, depending on how one defines the boundaries through history, has voted for the party in every election since 1887.

The margins in the 2015 federal election in these five seats were wide, ranging from McCallum's 23-point win in MarkhamThornhillto Kenney's 44-point victory in Calgary Midnapore.

There have been no polls published for any of the five byelections. Regional numbers from national polls provide little indicationthe incumbent parties are in any danger of losing their seats.

But national polls which might sample 10 or fewer people from a given riding can only say so much. However, fundraising data from 2016, the most recent available numbers from Elections Canada, also suggestthe incumbent parties are well-positioned to hold on to their seats.

Based on those donations to the national parties reported with postal code information (which largely includes only contributions of $200 or more), the Conservatives raised the most money in 2016 in both Calgary Heritage and Calgary Midnapore, while the Liberals were the fundraising kings in MarkhamThornhill, OttawaVanier and Saint-Laurent.

Data compiled by David McKie. (Natalie Holdway)

In all five of these ridings, the incumbent party raised at least 63 per cent of all contributions from at least 55 per cent of all contributors.

In Calgary Heritage, the Conservatives raised $140,800 compared to $48,700 for the Liberals, while in Calgary Midnapore the Conservatives took in $81,200 to $23,300 for the Liberals. The New Democrats raised just $5,350 in Calgary Heritage and $4,400 in Calgary Midnapore.

The Liberals raised $230,550 in OttawaVanier against $90,600 for the Tories and $19,900 for the NDP. In MarkhamThornhill, the Liberal edge was $52,400 to $28,600 for the Conservatives and just $2,400 for the NDP.

In Saint-Laurent, the Liberals took in $27,300, while the Conservatives raised $8,900, the Bloc Qubcois$3,200 and the NDP $1,100.

The prospects of an upset in these five seats are dim. If any of the seats change hands, the defeated party will have serious questions to askabout what went wrong.

But in the more likely scenario where the Liberals hold their three seats and the Conservatives retain their two, the results will nevertheless answer some lingering political questions and whether the parties show an increase or decrease in supportmay tell us something about where these parties are headed in the future.

The Liberals will be looking to see if the bruising nomination battles in MarkhamThornhill and St-Laurent, in which the party faced charges that it was interfering in favour of preferred candidates, will have any impact on their support.

The results in MarkhamThornhill may provide a clue as to the Liberals' support in the election-decidingGreater Toronto Area, while recent gains in Calgary will be tested in Kenney's and Harper's former ridings.

The New Democrats, who did no better than 19 per cent in any of these five ridings in 2015, will be looking to avoid their catastrophic results in last year's Medicine HatCardstonWarner byelection, in which the party took just one per cent of the vote in thesouthern Alberta riding and finished in fourth place behind the Christian Heritage Party.

Another poor showing could give the NDP's ongoing leadership race extra urgency particularly if the Liberals repeat the byelectiongains they made at the expense of the New Democrats in 2016.

The Conservative leadership race, meanwhile, is entering its final stages and the candidates' rhetoric has been heating up. The byelection results could provide some indication as to whether the extra attention is paying dividends, as well as providing some clarity to the disagreeing opinion polls that put the Conservatives either ahead of the Liberals or well back of their 2015 showing.

Answers will come after 9:30 p.m. ET on Monday, when the polls in the five ridings close and the vote counting begins.

Follow this link:

Midterm byelections to test Liberal government and leaderless opposition parties - CBC.ca

SEOUL South Korean human rights lawyer Moon Jae-in won the liberal Democratic Party primary vote on Monday, setting him on course to become the next president and perhaps take a softer line on North Korea.

Moon has been leading in opinion polls ahead of the May 9 election to succeed impeached Park Geun-hye, who was dismissed last month over a corruption scandal involving family-run conglomerates, or chaebol.

If elected, Moon, 64, is expected to soften South Korea's policy toward North Korea, possibly delay deployment of a U.S. anti-missile defense system that has enraged China and get tough on corporate criminals, including chaebol bosses.

"I will do everything I have to do to look after the failing standard of people's living, revive the economy and resurrect national security that's been riddled with holes," Moon told an enthusiastic party crowd in his acceptance speech.

In a major policy statement in March, Moon said there was no choice but to recognize Kim Jong Un as the leader of reclusive North Korea and deal with him.

North and South Korea are technically still at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. The North, heavily sanctioned for missile and nuclear tests in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, regularly threatens to destroy the South and its main ally, the United States.

"We cant deny that the ruler of the North Korean people is Kim Jong Un. We have no choice but to recognize Kim Jong Un as a counterpart, whether we put pressure and impose sanctions on North Korea or hold dialogue," Moon said.

Such an approach may clash with the United States where President Donald Trump has pressed China to do more to rein in the North, and said it may have to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs on its own if needs be.

Moon has also vowed to end the practice of pardoning convicted corporate criminals and to break up the cozy relationship between big business and the government.

Samsung Group leader Jay Y. Lee is on trial on charges including bribery in return for favors to the conglomerate that has led to the arrest of ousted president Park.

Moon had the backing of 40 percent of the people in a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, a double digit advantage over Ahn Cheol-soo of the new centrist People's Party.

The two face little in the way of a significant challenge from conservatives, who have 14 percent combined public support according to the Gallup Poll, or the far left.

(Reporting by Jack Kim and Ju-min Park; Editing by Nick Macfie)

HONG KONG/BEIJING China is steadfastly opposed to the deployment of advanced U.S. anti-missile radars in South Korea because it does not know whether the defenses, intended for North Korean missiles, are capable of tracking and countering Beijing's own nuclear program, experts say.

UNITED NATIONS U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will chair a United Nations Security Council meeting on North Korea on April 28 to discuss how the body can combat Pyongyang's banned nuclear and missile programs, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said on Monday.

Link:

South Korean liberal wins party primary, poised to become president - Reuters

Malcolm Turnbull told the Victorian Liberal partys state council meeting he rejected the populism of Bill Shorten. Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP

The Liberal party must govern from the sensible centre and reject populist or reactionary politics, Malcolm Turnbull has said.

In comments to the partys Victorian state council meeting in Melbourne on Saturday, Turnbull invoked Australias longest-serving prime minister, Robert Menzies, as the model for centrist Liberal governments.

The comments give comfort to moderate Liberal MPs and send a message that the party cannot be ruled only by the conservative wing.

However, it is unclear the extent to which Turnbull believes the party already occupies the sensible centre or if the speech is designed to mark a new course for his government, which inherited its positions on marriage equality and climate change from his conservative predecessor, Tony Abbott.

[Menzies] knew that the future was in the sensible centre of Australian politics not reactionary, but Liberal, proudly Liberal, Turnbull said.

But above all you build from the centre, bringing people together and that is our commitment.

In further comments from the speech reported by the Sunday Telegraph, Turnbull is said to have urged the party to reject populism and the authoritarianism of both [the] left and right.

We reject the populism of Bill Shorten just as Menzies rejected populism in his era.

Labor argues that Turnbulls government is controlled by the conservative wing, as Turnbull has ruled out an emissions intensity scheme, a market mechanism to fight climate change, and has backed a national plebiscite to legalise equal marriage rather than hold a free vote, despite the Senate blocking the plebiscite plan.

This week the Turnbull attempted unsuccessfully to amend laws prohibiting racially discriminatory speech by replacing the prohibitions on offending, insulting or humiliating speech with a ban on speech that harasses people based on race.

Labor argues the reform puts the government out of step with mainstream multicultural Australia, and even the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, has said that the pursuit reforming section 18C should not be a priority for the government.

On Sunday Liberal MP Tim Wilson spoke approvingly of Turnbulls speech, which he said gave a clear Liberal vision for the 21st century: that we are defined by our values, but govern through the mainstream, sensible centre.

The prime minister has clearly rejected reactionary politics that leaves us to merely slow the harmful Labor/Greens vision for Australia, he told Guardian Australia.

Our enduring commitment to freedom comes from our trust in Australians, families and communities over Canberra.

In comments to Guardian Australia in December Liberal senator, Dean Smith, a marriage equality advocate, has argued can reflect Australians conservative instincts without being reactionary, because Australians can embrace change on their own terms and in their own time when the case for change is made.

Anyone that says to me, or advocates, that they want time to stand still or to go back into time I treat with great caution, he said.

The rest is here:

Liberal party must be sensible centrists not 'reactionary', Malcolm ... - The Guardian

Glenn Beck, who once opined that marriage equality would lead to social destruction, has changed his mind on LGBT equality. Riaz Patel, his new gay BFF, insists the transformation is sincere.

The unlikely metamorphosis of Glenn Beck from nutty right-wing conspiracy-monger to rational-seeming defender of American democracyand opponent of all things Donald Trumphas crossed over into a new frontier.

The 53-year-old multimedia firebrand and self-described catastrophistwho shocked and possibly alienated his dwindling fan-base three months ago by forming an anti-Trump alliance with lefty satirist Samantha Beeis these days spending quality time with a Pakistani-born, politically liberal, gay, Muslim television producer.

Riaz Patelwho also happens to be the parent, with his British-born husband, of an 11-month old girl conceived by artificial insemination and carried to term by a Mexican surrogateis the Emmy-nominated principal of Axial Entertainment, a successful Los Angeles-based production company responsible for such reality TV shows as LifetimesHow to Look Good Nakedand VH1sI Heart Nick Carter, among more than a dozen other projects.

Patel used to fear and loathe Becks divisive hype.

I did use the expression White Devil, Patel told The Daily Beast, because I honestly thought he was hateful, angry news personified. I thought he is absolutely partly responsible for this culture of madness and chaos and rage all the time that we have right now.

But the 43-year-old Patel, a U.S. citizen who arrived here from Karachi as a baby with his parents and two older sisters escaping political pandemonium in Pakistan, had a change of heart after meeting Beck last July and engaging in hundreds of hours of conversation with him since then.

The bicoastal Patelwho is negotiating to accept an editor-at-large role brainstorming ideas for shows while making films for The Blazes sister web site, GlennBeck.comvisits Becks suburban Dallas studios nearly every week to discuss possible projects, has made 15 appearances on Becks radio and television shows, and in February trekked to Thailand with him to film a piece about an organization that fights child sex-slavery.

The simpatico is shocking, Patel said about his interactions with Beck. But Patel, who has lost liberal friends over his new collaboration, added: Im a bridge, not a defectorIm nobodys pawn Im not a Stockholm Syndrome guy who loves my captor.

Beck, meanwhile, was not available for comment. Well leave this to Riaz, said his New York publicist, Davidson Goldin.

Patel, who grew up in the suburbs of Baltimore with his surgeon-father and real estate entrepreneur-mother, double-majored at the University of Pennsylvania in psychology and literature and graduated with academic honors while pursuing a demanding pre-med program.

Patel is not unaware of the doubts that some have raised about Becks latest attempt to rebrand himself as a reasonable man.

Indeed, last September, a certain degree of skepticism greeted Beckwho had previously accused racist President Obama of harboring a deep-seated hatred of white people, and the first lady of being a monsterwhen he launched a series of remorseful mainstream media appearances with an Op-Ed in theNew York Timesurging empathy for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

A longtime Beck associate opined at the time that Becks apparent transformation is about a pattern of reinvention and cycle of apology and offenseI think hes up to his sixth apology cycle now, where hes onto the mainstream media when theyre supporting him, and then he realizes hes going to get burned, and he runs away from them. Hes basically flailing.

In an email to The Daily Beast, Patel wrote: Gosh I hope it doesnt seem like Im just willing to overlook anything damaging for a show.I still need to look at myself in the mirror every eveningand thats the biggest thing for me.

As a result of his friendship with Beck, however,I have caught myself recently a bunch of times in a double-standard when it comes to the right vs. the left, Patel wrote. Im saying a lot of this because I was forced to step COMPLETELY out of my comfort zoneand by doing so, realized the other side isnt always who I thought they wereWho is to say what is right or the right interpretation.I just want to share with you my personal experiencewhat I have seen and felt with my own eyes.Thats all.

In an interview, Patel said: I believe hes sincereWe can move forward both personally and professionally when I can tell him, This is what I see. This is what I fear. This is my concern. And if he can address all that while maintaining eye contact, were done.

This, despite Becks inflammatory attacks on progressives and Muslims, two groups to which Patel belongs and historically two of Becks most reviled scapegoats.

More recently, on Thursday, during his syndicated morning radio show simulcast Becks The Blaze web site, he compared the abortion services provided by Planned Parenthoodunfavorablyto the diabolical experiments that Josef Mengele performed on Jewish victims at Auschwitz.

Mengele hadgoodintentions, Beck declared, conflating the notorious SS doctor with Planned Parenthood and Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of first-degree murder in 2013 in the deaths of three infants born alive during the procedures. Mengele would sit there and tell you Well, Im trying to improve the human race.

Patel, who attributes some of Becks wackier and more offensive statements to the pitfalls of filling three hours of unscripted radio every morning, said he continues to disagree with much of Becks rabble-rousing rhetoric,yet sees his surprising new friend as willing to listen and maybe even reformable.

For instance, Beck has been a defender of same-sex marriage at least since December 2012, when he argued on his show,The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage; Beck added that the legal solemnization of gay relationships doesnt pick my pocket or break my leg.

Beck, a Mormon convert, was not always so enlightened. In one of his previous incarnations, he speculated that same-sex marriage would destroy essential social and religious institutions and inevitably lead to legalized polygamy.

He also cozied up to a rogues gallery of politicians and pastors who promoted anti-LBGTQ policies and rhetoric, including James Dobson, John Hagee, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

But by December 2013, he was publicly supporting campaign group GLAAD in their opposition toRussias official anti-gay bigotry. I will stand with GLAAD against Russias hetero-fascism, he declared on CNN.

I am now realizing that I was essentially uninformed when I say I hated Glenn Beck for who he was, Patel said. If I was really being honest, I dont think I ever watched one of his shows. A lot of it was coming from this perception of him and my sense of what are the things he doesnt like about me. I was pretty obnoxious in my opinions. That being said, there are things he should be held accountable for, and I do believe has done wrong.

Patel said he readItIsAbout Islamat Becks urging, and came away both impressed and troubled.

His opinions about Islam are very informed, but I think the framing is a bit off, and when were looking at it, hes learning my point of view, Patel said. The tone, I felt, was a little alarmist, not an attack. But Glenn calls himself a catastrophist.

Ironically, it was Islam and catastrophe that brought them together. Patel, wearing traditional Pakistani garb, was attending a wedding in Orlando, Fla., the weekend last June when ISIS-inspired terrorist Omar Mateen, the American-born son of Muslim Afghan parents, shot more than 100 revelers and killed 49 at the gay Orlando nightclub Pulse.

Worrying that the massacre would provoke a nationwide wave of Islamophobia, Patela secular Muslimreached out to various television news outlets to explain that Mateens atrocity had nothing to do with the tenets of Islam, and to represent Muslims and their faith in a positive, non-threatening light.

He managed to get bookings on CNNappearing on Don Lemon and Brooke Baldwins showsand on blond bomb-thrower Tomi Lahrens rantfest on TheBlaze.

WHERE DID HE SAY THIS? AND DID HE SAY IT? THIE QUOTE DOESNT MAKE SENSE AT THE END I could go out and do a horrible act of violence in the name of Tomi, and then suddenly you are left to defend it. If people go and do these kinds of horrible, heinous things in the name of my religionand I have literally nothing to do with itis it my responsibility now? If I literally said everyone from South Dakota should be blamed for something horrible committed by a South Dakotan, are you responsible, Tomi?

Patel was so impassioned, eloquent and composed that a member of Lahrens production staff recommended him as the perfect guest for Becks evening television program. The following month, he was Becks sole guest for an hour.

Wouldnt it be crazy if the solution to all of these problems was as simple as humbling yourself and saying, OK, let me listen? Beck told Patel as the two sat opposite each other in overstuffed chairs and tentatively felt each other out.

I think youre absolutely right, Patel said. I believe you can create a better America with four chairs. Literally. Thats all you need. Three people having a conversation. Not two. At some point youll disagree and someone will walk away. You need three for a dynamic. And a fourth person has to listen.

Thus, with Patel shrewdly engaging Beck in decidedly Beck-like language, was the beginning, apparently, of a beautiful friendship.

But what if Beck backslides and reverts to form in his longtime role as a divisive demagogue?

Some days hes happy, some days hes sad, some days hes angry, and people are tuning in to watch that person, Patel said. Maybe he had a rough night and hes more edgy. Some days he is more angry. I dont think hell ever walk the walk every day. But to me, thats where his heart is.

Read more here:

Meet Riaz Patel, The Gay Liberal Muslim Who Is Glenn Becks New BFF - Daily Beast

Till 1991, decades of central planning, licence raj and big government had crushed the confidence of Indian youth in their ability to compete globally. Liberalisation changed all that. India integrated into the global economy, started modernising, and its national income shot up. No longer was it necessary to wait for ones relatives settled abroad to bring in tiny blocks of imported cheese. No longer was it necessary to apply for permissions in triplicate to get foreign exchange.

But something was amiss. For whatever reason, no one was stepping forward to claim credit for this Big Bang reform. No leader told us why liberalisation is good. And the many failures of basic governance continued, unabated. Two things stood out in particular: low levels of freedom and high levels of corruption.

Even today, nearly 70 years after independence, India ranks close to the bottom of the world in all global indicators of freedom and justice. And we have a Censor Board, we have laws about matters that should be within the purview of religion, and our governments directly manage or fund religious bodies and events.

As far as corruption is concerned, my stint in the IAS since 1982 showed me that Indias politicians were hopelessly corrupt and that corruption always started from the top. I was getting sick of serving under these despicable leaders.

In 1998 i decided to look for a political solution. Joining mainstream parties was not an option because of their involvement in corruption. What i was looking for was a liberal party that would fight for a small but strong government, for free markets and for equality of opportunity (not equal outcomes). It would form a government that undertakes a limited role of defence, security and justice. Such a government would have very little discretion in regulating peoples social preferences or economic affairs except to the extent they physically harm others. Such a government would never be allowed to use taxpayers money to operate businesses such as Air India or Ashok hotel.

Since the reforms needed for this to happen would require controlling the central government, this party would have to be national (as opposed to regional).

After an initial failed discussion with a few liberals about forming such a party, i resigned from the IAS in 2001 and moved to Australia to learn about modern governance and to continue my search for a liberal party. The key was to find leaders to take this forward. In a book that i wrote in 2008 to outline policies that such a party would implement, i invited liberals to form a team. This team grew bigger and we launched the Swarna Bharat Party in 2013. A huge task lay ahead.

SBP offers the vision of a golden India, an India that would lead the world in freedom and wealth, an India capable of competing with the best in every field. An SBP government would perform core functions (which current governments do not much care for) and leave the people alone to live their lives in a manner consistent with their beliefs (or lack thereof). It goes without saying that an SBP government would treat everyone equally under the law, not divide them on the basis of religion, caste, language or class.

Liberalism is the belief that we are born free and that freedom is the highest value. Liberalism is the idea that the common man is sovereign and the government is our servant. It is the belief that through their own free endeavours the people can achieve material (and for those so inclined, spiritual) prosperity: even greatness. And it is the belief that if anyone is left behind after putting his best foot forward then the government should top up such a persons income and lift him above dire poverty.

SBP is growing steadily. There is a small but growing group of young Indians, widely travelled, who understand that working together to increase liberty is pivotal to Indias success. But what about the other new parties that have found favour with the youth? Unfortunately, despite their good intentions, they are offering old wine (socialism and freebies) in a new bottle. One would hope they examine the proven benefits of liberty and reconsider their by now outdated approach.

Unlike in the UK or in the USA, the idea of liberty is skin deep in India. We have no counterpart of the 1215 Magna Carta or the 1689 Bill of Rights. We fought for independence from foreign rule, not so much to advance our personal economic, political and social liberties. Till today, our countrys conservative and socialist leadership operates on the premise that for Indians liberty does not matter.

The first stage will be to awaken the people. We will need to show them the enormous benefits of liberty and the real solutions to their problems, not the hype of Jan Lokpal or the magic of demonetisation. And it will be good enough initially if those who understand liberty step forward to contest elections. Winning will happen when its time comes.

I invite those interested in good governance to assess SBPs manifesto. Gokhale, Ambedkar and Rajaji were among Indias early liberals. Now it is time for a new generation of liberals to lead.

If this task is undertaken with persistence, the day will come when India votes for a liberal party. And then Indias reform journey and journey to freedom can finally begin.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Visit link:

For a liberal India: The country now has its first liberal party, the Swarna Bharat Party - Times of India (blog)

Liberals have wonderful intentions. Most of them believe that governmental force is the correct way to deal with social and economic problems. Force being an unhappy word, liberals seldom use it. They refer to laws and regulations. But if you fail to obey a law or regulation, youre punished. In almost every respect, government is force.

Recently, the government of Portland, Maine, decided that begging in the city streets, called panhandling, was a problem. Officials considered giving the panhandlers jobs, like cleaning up the city parks. Lets assume for a moment that such a law was enacted.

The city would exert two kinds of force: First, it requires residents to pay money, called taxation. Secondly, the city requires non-panhandlers to not be hired. Theres no choice about it. Only the people who enacted the law have the choice. Non-panhandlers may of course lobby the city to hire them as well.

Okay, city taxes bring in money. The panhandlers get some of it, and liberals feel good about their intentions. What happens next?

People who did not consider themselves panhandlers but are unemployed go to the streets and start begging. Carrying signs identifying them as genuine panhandlers, they let it be known they want city jobs, too. Panhandlers in other cities hear that Portland is where its at, and the city becomes inundated with panhandlers. Panhandlers who are paid less than what they consider living wages, which is most of them, continue panhandling anyway.

Emboldened by their entitlement as government beneficiaries, their begging becomes aggressive. Prosperous residents cant step outside without being accosted for money. Taxes are raised. Portland is no longer a pleasant place to live. The prosperous move elsewhere, the city deteriorates, and liberals wonder how government can straighten out the mess and still care for the poor panhandlers.

Portlands government would not allow such deterioration, and the law would probably not be enacted in the first place.

But what if the major recipients of governmental largess are unionized government workers? What if their pension plans have been raised to exorbitant levels because unions, supported by federal laws, are wealthy enough to pay substantial campaign gifts to legislators? I give you Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago, all of which have had liberal leaderships for decades and have lost significant populations.

I hazard the following generalizations:

One: The actual, long-term results of big-government policies are opposite to the intended results. Government policies that do not have unintended results are listed below. Despite Americas huge and often harmful government, the nation has thrived because it has done these vital tasks reasonably well:

Protect private property

Enforce contracts

Adjudicate lawsuits

Keep people from directly hurting others by force or fraud (the police power).

Two: Lobbying generally does not cause big government; it results from it.

Three: Heres how money can be transferred from rich to poor without government intrusion: Private organizations solicit money from the prosperous and pay most of it, probably with conditions, to the poor. The results are better than government could accomplish, with far lower costs.

The actual, long-term results of big-government policies are opposite to the intended results.

(Archie M. Richards Jr. of Concord wrote weekly newspaper columns on money matters. Write to him at archier71@gmail.com.)

Read more here:

My Turn: The lessons of liberal cities - Concord Monitor

NewsBusters (blog)

Incurious Media Ignore Liberal Amy Schumer's Toxic Brand NewsBusters (blog) Amy Schumer's exit from the Barbie movie demands the kind of follow up questions reporters should ask. So why won't they? So Hollywood's preeminent ... and more »

Link:

Incurious Media Ignore Liberal Amy Schumer's Toxic Brand - NewsBusters (blog)

Description English: Illustration featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with ribbon banners that say Republicans and Democrats, along the republican elephant and democrat donkey. Date 29 July 2016 Source Own work Author VectorOpenStock (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Lent 1 April 2017 The Edge of Elfland Hudson, New Hampshire

Dear Readers,

My letter the other day about writing for Patheos Catholic has opened up some interesting lines of dialogue. Im certainly glad to have dispelled some rumors and gotten people paying attention, at least a little bit, to whats going on here at Patheos Catholic. Sadly, it seems that there are still more problems to air out. Chief among them is whether or not Patheos Catholic as a whole is liberal.

One of my favorite comments, which is on my post on the Patheos Catholic Facebook page, is:

No, your [sic] in it (my opinion) for Communism Patheos.You and your communist agenda!Shame on you..Why dont you go live in El Salvador.And disappear for while!

Now, the other commenters who are concerned about the liberalism of Patheos Catholic were not so enthusiastic. But they nevertheless feel there is a strong liberal bias on the channel. One commenter suggests that there are only about 20% of our bloggers who, are traditional conservative Catholics. That same commenter goes on to say, The other 80% are very liberal. Half of the time their columns have nothing to do with Catholicism or religion. These columns are just liberal rants that could be found on any secular leftwing site. He goes even further, suggesting, there is nothing Catholic (capital C) about many of posts. So this, I believe, is a prevailing opinion amongst a certain subset of Catholics concerning Patheos Catholic. They view the channel as 80% (or more) liberal/communist and non-Catholic, maybe even anti-Catholic. As a new Catholic myself, however, I just dont see it.

There are 59 blogs hosted on the Patheos Catholic Channel. If the one commenters estimations are correct, that means 47(.2) of the blogs are liberal and might at times be indistinguishable from an atheist or non-Catholic blog. Leaving only 12 (11.8) who are considered traditional, conservative Catholics. I asked for examples, but since the commenter has stopped reading most Patheos blogs none were forthcoming (though he has graciously offered to show one to me the next time he sees one). Now, I cant claim intimate knowledge with all 59 blogs and their writers at Patheos Catholic. But here are some with whom I am well acquainted:

Two key points about this list before I actually dig into what I think it means: 1. This is not, necessarily, a list of the best blogs on the channel. 2. It is simply a list of the blogs which I have personally read and/or whose authors I know to some extent. Now, what I can definitively say about this list is three things: 1. This list covers just over 42% of the blogs hosted by Patheos Catholic. 2. There is not a blog on this list that I think lacks a Catholic identity or whose content could easily appear on a non- or anti-Catholic blog without warranting any changes. 3. Every single one of these blogs is different. Some of them focus on politics or economics, others on apologetics (whether against atheists or anti-Catholic Christians), still others on what it means to be Catholic. Some are written by and about being Catholic converts while others still are written by cradle Catholics. Some talk about what it means to be gay and Catholic and others like to talk about literature and/or pop culture. Many, including my own, are some alma gam of many of these topics.

So, with my insider knowledge (also known as my ability to read and to have read these blogs) that leads me to believe none of them is anti-Catholic or that their content is essentially aCatholic, what is it that makes readers think the majority of us at Patheos Catholic are liberal? I can honestly only come up with one, maybe two, answersthough I think theyre likely related: Many of the authors who write about politics at Patheos Catholic do not come from a politically conservative point of view. What I think this largely means is that when Patheos Catholic writers do write about politics they dont write enough about abortion or they say things like: abortion isnt the only pro-life concern. Theres probably more to it than this. There are probably some who think Patheos Catholic is liberal because of many of our writers really like Pope Francis. And others dont think that the Latin Mass is the ultimate form of the liturgy (our Byzantine friends certainly find it funny when we Roman Rite Catholics talk about the traditional Latin Mass, as though we forgot the liturgy was first in Greek and Aramaic).

So, do many of us write about issues such as the Dakota Access Pipeline, the problems with Donald Trumps presidency, or why we ought to take in refugees? Sure. Is any of this non- or anti-Catholic? No. Is it even liberal? I would again say no. Catholicism defies the political lines of liberal and conservative. For Goodness sake, we have the corporal works of mercy, the preferential treatment of the poor alongside the belief that all life is sacred from conception to natural death. And while you may find the occasional card-carrying communist, youll also find card-carrying capitalists and if my time reading texts such as Rerum novarum has taught me anything, its that the fullness of Catholic Social Thought cannot be found in its entirety in either system.

Ill say this, too. If youre going to claim that were being liberal, then you need to back it up (and to remember that we are not a homogenous whole, as I pointed out in my previous letter). But dont use that we dont agree politically as an excuse to simply write us off as non-Catholics who ought to just be writing for atheist, liberal blogs. Were Catholics. Full stop.

Sincerely, David

Originally posted here:

Is Patheos Catholic Liberal? - Patheos (blog)