Category Archives: Liberal

Opponents of Critical Race Theory attend a packed Loudoun County School board meeting in Ashburn, Va., June 22, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

A long report from Politico out this morning reveals that the ongoing discontent over critical race theory in public schools isnt confined to conservative or right-leaning parents. In reality, parents across the political spectrum have a host of complaints about whats going on in public schools these days, including the recent push for including CRTs controversial tenets and arguments in public-school curricula.

Here are a few key details from the piece:

On the national level, Democrats have insisted that the brush fires over critical race theory which has become a political punching bag even for unrelated equity initiatives are largely the work of right-wing activists who willfully misrepresent what it means, and they blame Fox News for fanning parents anger.

Thats another right-wing conspiracy. This is totally made up by Donald Trump and [Republican candidate for governor] Glenn Youngkin, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe said in June.

I dont think we would think that educating the youth and next and future leaders of the country on systemic racism is indoctrination, said White House press secretary Jen Psaki in May.

But those Democrats appear to be underestimating parents anger in places where critical race theory is top of mind. Objections to new equity plans are not the sole province of conservatives but extend to many moderate and independent voters, according to POLITICO interviews with school board members, political operatives and activists in Democratic and left-leaning communities including the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; New Yorks Westchester County; Maricopa County covering Phoenix, Ariz.; and suburban Detroit.

These regions are hardly hotbeds of conservatism, yet what Politicodiscovered talking to experts and parents in these areas disrupts the hardened left-wing narrative about who exactly is getting so upset over CRT and what exactly upsets them so much about it.

One parent who lives outside Detroit told Politico she first began learning about CRT because her daughter had begun to argue that the police should be defunded and that the looting during Black Lives Matter protests was justified. She mother said she has voted Democrat but cant continue doing so in good faith and called her daughters views radical. Along with other parents, she started a group to confront the local school board about CRT in schools.

Over in Loudoun County, Virginia, where I grew up, six members of the local school board are facing recall elections and all of them are backed by the local Democratic Party. If CRT continues to be a major issue in the area, it could threaten the last few years of success that left-wing candidates have had in Loudoun, which has historically been a swing district.

In addition to complaints about curricula becoming too progressive, parents in the suburban areasPoliticostudied complained about drawn-out school closures and school boards that focus too closely on diversity. Another interesting anecdote from the piece:

Bion Bartning, a self-described independent and co-founder of Eos lip balm, became involved in the debate over critical race theory after his daughters private New York City elementary school began implementing changes that included telling students in a video to check each others words and actions for bias.

Thats the opposite of what you want to tell a 5-year-old, Bartning, who is of mixed race, said in an interview. I grew up with very liberal values, and believing in the goal where we judge each other by our character and not by the color of our skin.

According to Politico, parents are especially upset that their various complaints are being dismissed as just being anti-CRT, or, worse yet, that their opposition to CRT is being written off as merely not wanting students to learn about racism. As most good reporting has found since this controversy first arose, hardly anyone on the left or right is complaining about CRT because theyd prefer students not to learn about slavery, racism, or the history of racial conflict in the U.S.

And as this report shows, left-wing proponents of CRT will have to grapple with the fact that it isnt just conservatives who have a problem with their program.

Follow this link:

It Isnt Just Conservative Parents Opposing Critical Race Theory in Schools - National Review

Michael Douglas| Retired Opinion Page Editor

What could bring more summer fun, judicially speaking, than Clarence Thomas, arch conservative justice of the Supreme Court, joining with three liberal colleagues in a stinging dissent?

The moment arrived last month, as the court neared the end of its term, Thomas writing for the four, taking his usual allies to task for their sloppy overreach in a case involving a class action, credit reports and the separation of powers. This case did not attract big headlines. The Thomas dissent did get at something problematic with the courts conservative majority.

Sergio Ramirez set out to buy a car. He went to the dealership, agreed to a price and waited for the credit check. The salesman returned to say the deal was off. Ramirez learned his name matched one on a federal government watch list of terrorists, drug traffickers and other criminals.

The dealership used TransUnion to conduct its credit checks. Ramirez sued the credit reporting company, arguing it violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. It turned out he was one of many such victims of mistaken identity. So, he filed a class action, eventually representing more than 8,000 consumers.

More: Congress considers credit-reporting overhaul, including putting government in charge of scores

The class prevailed at trial, a jury awarding in excess of $60 million, including punitive damages. TransUnion appealed. A federal appeals court trimmed the award yet firmly sided with Ramirez, citing the companys reckless handling of the information.

Which leads to the Supreme Court. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh viewed things differently. He drew a line, separating members of the class, between those like Ramirez who saw the misinformation shared with a third party and those who did not face such exposure.

Kavanaugh concluded that the former, roughly 1,850 consumers, suffered real, or concrete, harm. He added that the rest, around 6,300, were not injured, the unshared credit reports no more than if someone wrote a defamatory letter and then stored it in her desk drawer.

No concrete harm, no standing, he summed up.

By standing, Kavanaugh means the ability of an individual to file a lawsuit in federal court. To gain entry, a person must show an injury in fact. In short, he held that the 6,300 had no cause to sue.

Sound reasonable? After all, that credit report wrongly marking you as a terrorist remained tucked away, right?

Justice Thomas hardly holds back in his astonishment, noting how his colleagues have upset decades of court precedent. He describes their approach as remarkable in both its novelty and effects.

As his dissent makes clear, this isnt what Congress intended in crafting the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Lawmakers, along with the president, required credit reporting companies to follow procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, to send, when a consumer requests, the complete credit report and to inform consumers of their legal rights and how to dispute the misinformation.

Thomas highlights how TransUnion fell short on these measures in violation of the law. He notes that before Ramirez, the company faced trial on similar grounds. It lost and then didnt bother to make improvements.

Most important, Congress established a legal right for consumers to take such poor performers to court. This goes to the core of the congressional job. Lawmakers understood the true risk of injury to consumers in flawed information surfacing in a credit report, whether it landed with a third party or not.

Thomas stresses: But even setting aside everything already mentioned the Constitutions text, history, precedent, financial harm, libel, the risk of publication and actual disclosure to a third party one need only tap common sense to know that receiving a letter identifying you as a potential drug trafficker or terrorist is harmful.

He adds that is especially so when the subject is a credit report, the entire purpose of which is to demonstrate that a person can be trusted.

So, much is at stake for consumers, just as Congress conceived, and now the court majority has substituted its judgment for that of elected representatives. It has invited judges to challenge lawmakers about what harm is concrete, tipping the balance of power toward the judiciary.

This isnt just about an absence of common sense or failing to grasp the significance of credit reports. The Thomas dissent rings: What happened to judicial modesty? Now doubts gather around other laws in which Congress has established a right for sue, not to mention the narrowing of class actions going forward.

Of course, Justice Thomas hasnt always been so restrained. On the final day of the courts term, he joined in the ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act, the second time a conservative majority has eroded a key provision of the landmark legislation. It has done so though Congress renewed the law in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. That, too, is judicial arrogance.

Douglas is a retired Beacon Journal editorial page editor. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com.

Read the original post:

What happened to judicial modesty? Justice Clarence Thomas wants to know - Akron Beacon Journal

By Mike Baker

Judi Forbes, a small business owner and retired bank manager, will stand as the Liberal candidate in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock in the next federal election.

The local Liberal association announced on July 14 that Forbes had successfully completed the nomination application process and has been acclaimed as the partys candidate.

The next federal election is set to take place on or before Oct. 16, 2023.

Forbes and her family have lived within the Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock region for the past 10 years, residing in Beaverton. In a release to media last week, the Liberal association described her as a passionate volunteer who is dedicated to helping others. Forbes currently serves as board chair of a nursing home within the riding, treasurer of the Brock Board of Trade and chairs the Brock Tourism Advisory Committee.

She represented the party in the 2019 federal election, receiving 17,067 votes, good enough for 26 per cent of the local vote. She finished second behind sitting Conservative MP Jamie Schmale.

With a little over two years to go before the next federal election, Forbes says she intends to spend that time wisely and connect with area residents to build on the foundations she believes the party established in the local riding in 2019.

The most pressing concern for her, however, is ensuring communities across the riding remain strong and recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I am a lot like many others in this riding. I work hard and I care for my family, my friends and my community, Forbes said. I have been affected, as many here have been, by this pandemic and I will work hard to bring to the residents of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock the kind of progress we have seen in neighbouring ridings.

She added, I will fight for the support needed for all communities in this riding to recover better and stronger.

See the original post:

Forbes to stand for Liberals once again in upcoming federal election - Haliburton County Echo

Hand-wringing about the plight of migrants crossing the Channel and Mediterranean by boat -and angry words about their treatment - will only go so far. What would liberal progressives actually like to see done?

Much of the world is on fire: Syria remains in the throes of a years-long civil war, Ethiopia is close to embarking on one, just months after its prime minister was awarded a Nobel prize, Afghanistan faces a new Taliban era, and famine, persecution and civil strife force millions of people across the globe to seek sanctuary elsewhere.

Many of those people entirely understandably look to the relative peace and stability of Europe and the UK for refuge. And despite the huge obstacles in their way the safe routes here have all been blocked are prepared to make the dangerous journey to our shores.

In both the UK and Europe, a fixation with the daily arrival of boats, across the Channel and the Med, excites the anger of many and the compassion of others. Neither response seems to be proving particularly helpful in finding a solution.

The reaction of many European countries has been to turn to populists and to try to further close their borders. That is the response of home secretary Priti Patel and the Conservative government of which she is part, too.

Despite us being on the western fringe of the European continent and getting just a trickle of asylum seekers relative to other countries, our government has been keen to use some of the worlds most vulnerable as an easy source of political credit, vowing to make it even harder to seek respite in the UK, despite asylum being a fundamental right recognised in international law.

Patel might be offering nothing in the way of insight or in compassion but all too often the liberal response to the issue of refugees is no better, warmer words aside.

It is easy to say we dont want asylum seekers drowning off our shores, or living in squalid and unsafe conditions in detention centres, and certainly that people should not be shipped to Australian-style prison islands.

But when it comes to saying what we actually want to happen, those of us of a socially democratic persuasion often have less to say and thats because the issue itself is often quite a difficult one. What is it we actually think we should do for the worlds refugees?

One thing we should stop doing is pretending that every refugee crisis in the world is the direct fault of the UK it is neither a true argument nor a politically winning one.

The UK clearly holds some responsibility for the rise of ISIS across Iraq and Syria, and should recognise that. Similarly, we have a broader colonial legacy that has done a lot of harm across much of the world. But equating that with the UK being the cause of the worlds miseries itself removes the agency from the people of the affected countries: when Bashar al-Assad murders his own civilians, he is the person who should be held accountable for that. We should not act as if those of us in liberal democracies are the only people on the planet with agency.

Leaving that point aside, we are left to the practicalities: in a world where millions of people are displaced by persecution, war, natural disasters or famines, what do we do? One step is to make sure we join up our thinking on different border crossings the UK does not exist in isolation versus the rest of the world.

Countries on the eastern and southern borders of the EU have closed many of the relatively safe (land-based) border crossings used by those who would seek asylum. The result is desperate people trying to cross the Mediterranean landing them in the same countries battling to keep them out.

Part of those border countries antagonism to refugees is the unwillingness of the EU to fully commit to fairly sharing the burden of hosting refugees. In theory. people accepted as legitimate asylum seekers should be distributed across EU nations, and there is financial support available to arrival countries from those further away.

In practice, such measures always come a day late and a dollar short, meaning that anti-asylum politicians all too often are propelled to political power in the affected countries. The result is a vicious cycle: the inflow of refugees becomes visible because people have to highlight the death and danger it involves.That keeps the issue high up the news agenda, which leads to calls for political action, and so on and so forth. Even if the current tactics cut the number of asylum seekers by 80%, their increased visibility produces a toxic political mix.

This Mediterranean crisis fuels, in turn, the crossings of the Channel with few options in Europe and hostile political environments in so many countries, the UK becomes an incredibly attractive option for those with the resources to reach it, not least because many more people speak English than other European languages, and want that head start towards integration.

As we, like the EU, have closed off most safe and legitimate routes to claiming asylum, boats become the option of last resort. And once again, the harsh approach fails on its own terms keeping the crossings in the headlines, with all the divisiveness that entails, while helping almost no-one.

The current approach fails on its own terms. Going harsher would do the same it would simply incentivise media coverage of the issue, both from right wing papers highlighting that even these new draconian measures got missed and people slipped through, and from activists trying to expose what would, from experience, surely be grim and dangerous conditions, if asylum seekers were kept offshore somewhere, for instance.

Some of us might think the right thing to do is to just drop restrictions or quotas altogether, and say that anyone found to be a genuine refugee always a tricky thing to define, but lets park that for today would be welcome to seek asylum in the UK. This would certainly feel morally admirable, but it may not prove either politically or practically sustainable.

The main problem is that the world is so chaotic and dangerous now that there are huge number of people seeking asylum almost all of them living in poorer countries. UN statistics suggest there are more than 25 million refugees around the world, alongside a further 50 million people displaced within their own country.

More than 80% of those people are in developing world countries richer nations do far, far less than their fair share here. Turkey alone, for example, has more than 3.6 million refugees despite having a population only slightly higher than the UKs.

A wave of several hundred thousand skilled immigrants from eastern Europe in the 2000s prompted a political backlash that created the Brexit movement. An influx of millions of refugees would risk political consequences even more dire assuming it ever got approved as a proposal in the first place. And that's not even to consider the damage it could do to countries suddenly denuded of much of their populations.

A sincere effort to do more as a good global citizen while also making asylum a smaller political issue would have to be a compromise. People do not spend thousands of pounds often all the money they have in the world and risk the lives of their children for fun or out of spite. They do it because they have no other choices. Giving people safer and better choices is the way to end the Mediterranean and Channel boat crises.

The government repeatedly says it wants people to take legitimate routes to seek asylum in the UK essentially asking people in camps in Turkey or elsewhere to apply for UK entry from there. This would be a safer and fairer option, if only it were a real one: an unfairness of entry by boat is that it is an option only open to relatively rich, middle-class asylum seekers. Poorer families cant even afford it.

The issue with the legitimate channels is people know their odds of success are astronomically low, because we take so few people from them. Instead of a trickle of a few thousand people, we should take hundreds of thousands. If we manage to make the terms fair, and let people work as they come, that could be increased over time if there was a lack of political backlash.

We pride ourselves often undeservedly on being a nation that believes in fair play, and yet as it stands we have set up a game for refugees where it is impossible to win without cheating, and then we condemn the cheaters who actually get here. Un-rigging the rules of the game might just be able to please everyone.

Finally, we have to remember to stand for what we believe, and to have and try to win the argument. If we have politicians that believe in the moral and ethical case for asylum, they should make that case, rather than dodging the issue or trying to deflect it.

Part of why we have ended up with a hostile environment is that almost no politicians challenged it. If we want to be a global Britain, and a good global citizen, we should help our neighbours when they are in need. We can hope otherwise, but one day we might need that help in turn, too we dont want to be forced to hope that other people are kinder than we managed to be.

More:

What is the liberal response to the migrant crisis? - The New European

As they search for a sense of purpose, there are some within the party who have begun to think about alliances with Labour, formal or otherwise, in an attempt to bolster the forces of centre-left unionism after years of seemingly endless retreat.

While the Liberal Democrats have suffered as the importance of the independence debate has increased in Scottish politics over the last two decades, the main beneficiaries have been the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Independence supporters voting en masse for the SNP, while the unionist vote is split between three parties, means they dominate the first-past-the-post constituency vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

For many, the Scottish Conservatives, particularly under Ruth Davidson, have emerged as the main unionist champion and this saw them overtake Labour to become the second party in Scottish politics.

It is not ridiculous to suppose that this trend will continue with elections eventually turning into a binary choice between the Independence Party and the Union Party.

Labour is still strong enough to mount a decent attempt to stop this possible future from becoming reality, but they have a struggle on their hands. So wouldnt the Liberal Democrats be better off trying to help Labour or going the whole hog and throwing in their lot with Anas Sarwar?

Rennie has now expressed the rather optimistic hope that Scotland is moving beyond the nationalism years, adding that there is a responsibility on ourselves and Labour to really step up and make sure there is a dynamism behind that progressive, centre/centre-left place in Scottish politics that is pro-UK, outward-looking, international, compassionate. All that needs to have greater energy behind it in order to convince people that it is worth it, he added.

He recognised that the Conservatives and SNP are now feeding off each other, saying the Conservatives are the main recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Thats why the SNP put the Tories on their leaflets more than the SNP and vice versa.

But the Liberal Democrats do have a role in Scottish politics beyond critiquing the policies of other unionist parties, backing Labour or being the best-placed party to defeat the SNP.

And that is as champions of liberalism, a philosophy that Russias dictatorial president Vladimir Putin declared to be obsolete in 2019. A liberal tenet is the simple truth that we are all individuals, an idea which some particularly right-wing liberals wrongly interpret to mean there is no such thing as society, but which also forms the basis for important principles of equality and human rights.

In a Scotland in which two great tribes are forming, one unionist, the other nationalist, there is a danger that we begin to forget that whatever flag we regard as our own or political beliefs we espouse, the connections we share as individual people are far greater than all such divisions combined. Even if the Liberal Democratss fate is to forever be a minority party, they would do well to remain and be a constant reminder of our shared humanity.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read more:

Why the Liberal Democrats still have an important part to play in Scottish politics Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Thank god for the Canadian Senate.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Senate held up the Trudeau governments obnoxious, anti-democratic Bill C-10 long enough that the legislation to regulate personal posts on the Internet failed to become law.

The bill was still on the order paper when Parliament rose for the summer. That means its still alive and debate on it in the upper chamber will quickly resume should Parliament resume in September.

However, if an election is called before the House and Senate return, Bill C-10 will die a well-deserved death.

What wont die, though, is the Liberals desire to limit Canadians freedom and crown themselves or their appointees the final arbiters of what is and is not acceptable to put on the Internet in Canada.

Bizarrely, the Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save free expression they have to limit it. And they believe this mission is so urgent, completing the passage of C-10 and its sister bill, C-36, will almost surely be one of their first tasks when Parliament resumes (unless they fail to win re-election, of course).

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Back in the spring, when Canadians and pundits began complaining that C-10 was an outrageous and unwarranted assault on free speech, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scoffed at such accusations. He labelled them fringe thinking.

Steven Guilbeault testified at the Commons Heritage committee that a very high proportion of Canadians are asking the government to step in. Clear majorities in English and French Canada wanted government to step in and prevent harmful speech, he insisted. (Never once did the minister define what kind of speech was harmful.)

A briefing paper prepared by his office in early June got a bit of closure to the answer. Legal but offensive social media comments were intimidating valuable voices and causing them not to engage in discussions of important issues.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

The conclusion of Guilbeaults staffers: Harsh online comments are preventing a truly democratic debate. They are undermining Canadian democracy, so even if posts are legal, the government needs the power to remove offensive comments from the Internet.

Offensive to whom, though?

See what I mean? The Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save democracy and free speech, they have to tightly regulate what Canadians get to say online.

Thats dangerous doublethink. And it proves the Liberals are intellectually unsuited for the task of protecting Charter rights.

Which do you think is a greater threat to democracy: repugnant statements online by individuals with no power to enforce their screeds or committees of bureaucrats and progressive politicians sitting in judgement over what can and cannot be posted?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As if C-10 were not enough to prove the Liberals understand nothing about free speech, consider that just before Parliament rose the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-36, an act that would reinstate the Canadian Human Rights Commissions (CHRC) power to conduct hate-speech witch hunts.

The commission had so abused its power before by going after individuals who challenged political correctness, that the Harper government stripped the CHRC of what were known as Section 13 powers.

Now the Liberals not only want to restore the commissions power, they want to beef it up with threats of up to $70,000 fines for any individual Canadian suspected of posting statements that promote detestation or vilification.

Posts could be instantly ordered removed and suspected offenders could be placed under house arrest, even if there is no evidence a criminal act has been committed.

And while the Liberals claim all this has broad public support, under questioning from Ontario Conservative MP Alex Ruff, Guilbeaults staff was forced to admit that of the hundreds of letters and emails they had received on C-10, not a single one supported the bill.

No support at all.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Toronto SUN, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of The Toronto Sun Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See original here:

GUNTER: The dangerous doublethink of the Liberal government's online censorship - Toronto Sun

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

Saturday, July 17, 2021 | 2 a.m.

Stephens: Gail, your last column reminded me that we share a peculiar obsession with obscure presidents: Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, his grandfather William Henry. I was a little disappointed that you had nothing to say about Chester Arthur. Was he too obscure to make the obscure list?Collins: Bret, this is why I love conversing with you. Breakfast followed by Chester Arthur.Stephens: Our readers can barely contain their excitement.Collins: So heres Chesters story. Theres a Republican National Convention in 1880. Very bitter, 36-ballots. Roscoe Conkling, the New York party boss, wants to bring back Ulysses Grant for a third term but finally James Garfield gets the nod. To make peace, the Garfield folks offered the vice presidency to Levi Morton, an accomplished businessman.Stephens: Conkling sounds like a name that belongs in a dirty limerick.Collins: But stay with me, Im almost done Boss Conkling is still sulking over Grant and tells Morton to turn it down. Then the Garfield people still looking for a New Yorker turn to Arthur, who almost faints with joy.The Garfield-Arthur ticket is elected, Garfield is assassinated and Arthur, who everybody thought of as a party hack, turned out to be a better president than expected.Now tell me, whence comes the Chester Arthur interest? Was he a long-ago term paper topic?Stephens: My father turned me on to the joys of the historical footnote, literal and figurative. The biggest thing Arthur did as president was sign the Pendleton Act, which was the first step in professionalizing the Civil Service and eliminating the spoils system. Approximately 138 years later, Donald Trump tried partially to reverse the Pendleton Act through an executive order, which is only the 138th worst thing he did as president. But fortunately Joe Biden reversed Trumps reversal, so the Arthur legacy lives on.Speaking of legacies, I was also struck by your comparison of Biden with John Quincy Adams. Care to elaborate?Collins: Bret, Im sure many Americans are amazed by how much our current president resembles John Quincy Adams. One of the great post-pandemic barroom conversation topics, hehehehe.Stephens: Yeah, I was in an Uber the other day and my driver spent the whole ride ranting that James Monroe gets all the credit for the Monroe Doctrine, when it was really John Quincys doing. We got to my destination just as the driver was getting rolling on the Adams-Ons Treaty of 1819, because far too few Americans realize that J.Q. also got Florida for the U.S.Collins: And really, its time for Biden to start being compared to somebody.John Quincy beat the ever-irrepressible Andrew Jackson in a complicated race that Jackson claimed he really won. As president, J.Q.s big priority was, as I mentioned last week ta-da! infrastructure.At this point I hope the Biden-Adams stories diverge because John Quincy just didnt do all that well in the job, and he lost reelection to Jackson, whose supporters showed their, um, spunk by crashing a White House party, spilling punch all over the floor and ruining the furniture.Stephens: Maybe they thought they were making America great again?Collins: But then Adams proved there really are third acts in American history. He went back home and won a seat in Congress, where he devoted much of his time to fighting against slavery. Died on the job, in the Capitol.OK, your turn which president would you compare Biden to?Stephens: Id argue that a better comparison for Biden is George H.W. Bush. Both were two-term vice presidents who served transformational figures; both were quintessential establishment types and instinctive centrists; both believed in the power of personal diplomacy; both were amusingly gaffe-prone, and both came from the kinder, gentler school of politics.I remember how liberals used to love to hate Bush Sr. A lot of proto-Trumpians, like Pat Buchanan, hated him, too. But I bet most Americans would love to have a president who could rally global support to win a war in the Middle East and quickly bring the troops home, help reunite Germany and bring the Cold War to a peaceful end, sign the Americans with Disabilities Act, support immigration reform and free trade, and work across the aisle on taxes and deficits.Bush the Elder was probably our best one-term president. Unless you want to make the case for James K. Polk .Collins: Ive been witness to a lot of very intense political debates about James Polk. Amazingly, all involving people who were totally sober.Stephens: Did I mention this other Uber driver who had strong feelings about our 11th presidents diplomacy in establishing the 49th parallel as our northwestern border?Collins: Pro-Polk argument was that he made five or so campaign promises big things, like annexing Texas and kept them all. Anti-Polk was: He annexed Texas for slavery!Stephens: I was always anti-Polk. As a kid in Mexico we were taught to venerate the Nios Hroes, the Mexican cadets who fought to the death against the American invaders at the Battle of Chapultepec. At some point, my dad had me read Abraham Lincolns Spot Resolution, in which Lincoln, who was then serving a single term in Congress, called out Polk on the flimsy pretext he used to declare war on Mexico. Basically, the declaration was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of its day. America would have been better off if Henry Clay had defeated Polk in the extremely close election of 1844.Collins: Have to admit when it comes to Polk my first thought is the story that, at age 17 he suffered from a bladder stone attack and had to have it removed without anesthetic.Stephens: Ouch.Collins: And Im interested in your Bush theory. But first, can I put in a little plug for Warren Harding?Stephens: That he was an underrated golfer?Collins: Harding regularly ranks in the bottom 10 of best-and-worst presidents, mainly because of political corruption. And in our recent, more frolicsome period of historical studies, weve heard quite a bit about extracurricular sex.One of my favorite stories was that during the presidential campaign, Harding was having a then-popular front porch candidacy in which he just sat in front of his house and chatted with visitors. At some point a neighbor woman walked by one with whom Harding had some history and Mrs. Harding ran out waving a broom at her.Stephens: And then there was that White House closet that Harding, er, graced with his presence. Though, when it comes to frolicking in high places, nothing beats Nelson Rockefellers final moments, when the former vice president I need to put this delicately was on his way to one kind of heaven when he arrived unexpectedly in another. Sorry, back to Warren Collins: Lately, Hardings gotten a lot of fans whove pointed out that he was, for his time, a big champion of civil rights and oversaw the first world arms limitation treaty.Stephens: International disarmament turned out to be a big mistake, since, as Walter Lippmann put it in 1943, it was tragically successful in disarming the nations that believed in disarmament.But Harding supported an anti-lynching bill, decried the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre and had generally a much better record on civil rights than Woodrow Wilson, his over-lauded predecessor who really should be ranked closer to the bottom of the ranking of presidents than near the top.Collins: Totally agree about W.W. Maybe we could start an anti-Woodrow fan club.Stephens: Speaking of presidents near the bottom, we havent mentioned Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon. They were always treated badly by historians, but time has a way of changing judgments. Hoover had a much better record of public service outside of his presidency than during his four ill-starred years in office; he was one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century.Collins: The work he and his wife did in China, trying to help the victims in the Boxer Rebellion, was stupendous. Best pre-president ever, maybe.Stephens: Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency and led the opening to China, though 50 years later its at least worth wondering whether the China policy was a mistake.Collins: OK, going on record as saying that was a good plan. Also Nixons outreach to Moscow. Also, ahem, wage and price controls. He was actually a pretty good president on some fronts not having to do with covering up illegal activities in his administration.Stephens: Bet your younger self would have been surprised that youd ever write those lines. Shame about that burglary.Collins: Its been so long now, most of the country has forgotten his awful red-baiting or that very weird Checkers speech. Which was, I guess, the most important American political reference to a cocker spaniel.Stephens: So heres the $6.40 question: In 20 or 30 years time, do you think historians might be any kinder to Trump than they are now?Collins: Nah. Worse, maybe. James Buchanan did fail to hold off the Civil War, but at least everybody thought he was a pleasant person.Stephens: Agreed. And in case it wasnt obvious, I made up the bits about the Uber drivers. Historical trivia is more fun when you can pretend that everyone likes it as we do.Gail Collins and Bret Stephens are columnists for The New York Times.

Read the original post:

A conversation between a liberal and a conservative: Our favorite presidents you've never heard of - Las Vegas Sun

The late great Charles Krauthammer once wrote, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

I would like to update this axiom to 2021.

Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are killers.

Over the last 18 months, the free thinkers who dared question nonsensical masking or lockdowns were labeled everything from selfish grandma killers to ignorant Neanderthals.

Keep in mind, these morally superior name-callers were the same liberals who cheered and celebrated when then-President Donald Trump contracted the coronavirus.

One of former President Barack Obamas ex-staffers, Zara Rahim, wrote in a since-deleted tweet, Its been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years but I hope he dies.

When Sen. Rand Paul was attacked by his Kentucky neighbor in 2017 and left with a punctured lung and six broken ribs, MSNBCs Kasie Hunt relished the headline and said on-air that it was one of my favorite stories.

Recently when a man was killed in a race car crash in Georgia, blue checkmark and failed radio talk show host Tom Leykis wrote, One less Trump supporter!

But sure, Republicans are the venom-filled villains.

In fact, Neanderthal nation is wreaking so much havoc on social media with their disinformation about COVID-19 that Big Brother Biden is getting involved.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki proudly informed reporters last week that the administration is flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.

Lets hope colluding with Big Tech in order to suppress opposing opinions doesnt interfere with President Bidens grueling ice cream schedule.

On Friday afternoon, a member of the Biden Fan Club asked the president what his message was for platforms like Facebook.

Joe replied, Theyre killing people. The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and theyre killing people.

Behind hair smelling and plagiarism, Biden is best known for his hyperbolic rhetoric.

Everything Joe Biden talks about, with the exception of Amtrak, is the worst thing since the Civil War.

This new liberal mantra sparked some hilarity on social media.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald reposted an old tweet from March 2020 in which Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., urged his followers, Stop wearing face masks. #coronavirus.

Greenwald asked the obvious follow-up question: I wonder how many people Eric Swalwell literally killed with this tweet?

The iconoclastic author also reposted an old story from the Daily Kos, an online progressive media hub. The article focused on Vice President Kamala Harris old comments regarding her vaccine hesitancy.

In September of 2020, Harris said on CNN, I would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump because theres very little that we can trust that comes out of Donald Trumps mouth.

Does Joe Biden want to condemn Kamala Harris for killing people?

MSNBC host Joy Reid once tweeted that, the fact that Pfizer was not part of Operation Warp Speed and took no Trump government funding makes me feel better about their vaccine. Just speaking for myself, I wouldnt go near anything that Trump or his politicized FDA had anything to do with.

Wow. There is so much disinformation and fear-mongering in that one tweet.

Dont be intimidated by condescending liberals with zero credibility.

Their ever-changing opinions are too inconsistent for debate so they have resorted to branding their political opponents as murderers and killers.

Americans have every right to voice their opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

No one should not be made to feel guilty for questioning mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns, mask-wearing or social media censorship.

Standing up against the intolerant majority does not make someone morally bankrupt or evil.

Disagreeing with Jen Psaki and defending freedom does not make you a killer.

It just makes you a conservative.

Listen to Grace Curleys radio show every weekday from noon to 3 p.m. on AM 680 WRKO.

Read the original here:

Curley: Condescending liberals have zero credibility - Boston Herald

Twitter is finding new ways to censor political opinion it is not fond of. After making biased censorship the norm on the platform, Twitter appears to have decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. The latest instance featured the controversy around the photograph of dead Reuters photojournalist Danish Siddiqui.

On the 16th of July, Twitter user Yosha (username @BlackDrug) shared the screenshot of a conversation on her account where she pointed out the hypocrisy of liberal intellectuals. She used the tweets of Stuti Mishra, journalist with The Independent, to point how liberals claimed that the photograph of Siddiquis corpse would hurt sentiments but do not think twice before using photographs of funeral pyres to score political points.

Yosha had used the following two screenshots in her tweet:

Initially, the screenshots were labelled sensitive media.

But on 18th July, Yosha was notified that her tweet violated Twitter rules against abuse and harassment. According to Twitter, Yosha engaged in targeted harassment. Consequently, her account has been locked for 12 hours.

But the Twitter censorship went beyond only Yoshas tweet. The platform is forcing people to remove tweets where they had quote-tweeted the above tweet by Yosha. On the 18th of July, this journalist had his account locked for the same.

As can be seen, the tweet did not contain any image and comprised only of four words. Twitter claimed that a tweet that did not contain any image violated rules against posting media depicting the moment of death of an individual. Perhaps, it was motivated by the images in Yoshas tweet but even makes little sense as the her tweet itself was said to violate abuse and harassment rules, not the rule related to dead body photographs.

The rules that this journalists account was claimed to violate is bizarre and exists from 2019. According to the rules, the platform may remove media that takes pleasure in the suffering of the deceased or laughs at or otherwise mocks the deceased.

But it is not clear how a tweet that does not contain any image would violate a rule specifically for tweets that contain images. This instance marks a great escalation in Twitter censorship. The platform has basically decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. Now, not only does the platform assist liberals gain a wider reach for their propaganda but they will silence others who expose their agenda. The censorship is as political as it gets.

Danish Siddiqui was killed by the Taliban during clashes with Afghanistan. Following his death, a photograph of his dead body began to circulate on social media. Journalists wanted people to not circulate the photograph because it was apparently disrespectful, after using photographs of funeral pyres for their politics. Twitter appears to have accommodated their interests by censoring those who exposed their hypocrisy.

It also further elucidates the fact that there are no rules anymore because they are applied selectively, based on the political preferences of the individual; which again marks a very dangerous turn of events.

Excerpt from:

Twitter censors tweets that exposed liberal hypocrisy over Danish Siddiquis photograph, calls it abuse and harassment - OpIndia

Text Size:A- A+

Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.

Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here:https://theprint.in/subscribe/

In July 2021, a cabinet reshuffle has given aroom for the most of the Indian statesin the central ministry. Will it, however, address the political and economic disparities that exist across Indian states?

The outcomes of the recent state assembly elections (Assam, Puducherry Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal) have prompted us to reconsider Indias current state of imbalance. Out of the 30 states and union territories with legislative assemblies (excluding Jammu and Kashmir, which has yet to hold an election), 19 are governed by the BJP and its allies, and 11 are led by non-BJP parties.

Figure 1: State and Union Territories with Legislative Assemblies in 2021

Non-BJP parties are ruling in the southern states, with the exception of Karnataka, following the state assembly elections in Tamil Nadu. The BJP and its allies, on the other hand, govern the majority of northern states. In terms of state assembly, the geographical mapping does imply a North-South division.

When the proportion of Members of Parliament who belong to the party or alliance at center in the total number of Members of Parliament in a given state is calculated (Number of Member of Parliaments from given state belong to party or alliance at centerTotal Number of Member of Parliaments in given state), this division becomes even more apparent. During the UPA era, the southern states had a significant number of MPs who were members of the ruling party or coalition at the centre. Following the 2014 Loksabha election, this share number of Members of Parliament in total number of Members of Parliament in given state has decreased. When state assemblies and member-of-parliament shares are combined together, southern states lose out in Indias central politics and negotiating leverage. This illustrates the Union of Indias political imbalance.

Aside from the political imbalance, India is also experiencing a regional income imbalance. In 2018-19, Bihar and Uttar Pradeshs per capita net state domestic product was 29668 Rs and 44421 Rs, respectively, while Kerala and Tamil Nadus was 148078 Rs and 142941 Rs. Its approximately tripled in value.

Figure 2: Income and Political Division

(Data source: Reserve Bank of India: Handbook of statistics on Indian States, Election Commission of India)

The north-south divide is underlined by the spatial mapping of economic and political power. Political power is concentrated in the north, whereas income is concentrated in the south. The gap is becoming wider. This compels us to reconsider Economic Geography, a concept popularised by the World Development Report 2009. Density, distance, and division are the three fundamental elements of economic geography. This includes the human (human development elements including density, labour productivity), physical (elements related to market development, access), and political aspects of economic development. The population (density) is concentrated in northern India on the other hand south India has traditionally benefited from the efficiency of reaching the market due to its proximity to the coast and sea routes. Further south, states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have established good public transportation systems, reducing economic distances. The political divide between the North and the South, on the other hand, is widening. The imbalances in these three aspects can impose the challenges for policymakers.

Recent cabinet reshuffle has given a room for the most of the Indian states in the central ministry change. Uttar Pradesh got eight ministers, while Gujarat got six. Maharashtra (4), West Bengal (4), Bihar (3), Karnataka (3), Madhya Pradesh (2), Odisha (2), Assam (1), Himachal Pradesh (1), Uttarakhand (1), New Delhi (1), Rajasthan (1), Tamil Nadu (1), Jharkhand (1), Telengana (1), Tripura (1), Arunachal Pradesh (1), Arunachal Pradesh (1), and Manipur (1) all have representation in the Central Ministry. Will this, however, balance the current political and income regional disparity? This will be the most crucial question in Indian quasi federalism in the near future.

Vivek Sharadadevi Jadhav

Where are we, as a Nation, headed?

There never was, is or will be Utopia; we can only work towards one. I write this not singing paeans to the Chinese system nor for liberal democracy. I am just painting some scenes as we see it.

I am going back, briefly, to the evolution of Homo Sapiens to understand polity and society. From bands of nomads with and without pack leaders the human civilization has seen various forms of Governments Chieftains, Kings, Emperors, Fascists, Communists, Autocrats and finally democracy. Democracy can be safely termed as the most successful of the systems. Even with the localized conflicts and terrorism in the world today, post WWII era has been the least damaging of the systems. I am not going into details. You can read up on all this on the net, if interested.

Yet, liberal democracy holds different meanings for the various sections of the electorate. The economist sees in it free trade and globalization. A politician will see rule of law, free and fair elections, minority rights and such. The common man will see same-sex marriage, individual rights, wide choices etc. It is a complex system to say the least, especially in a divergent population, such as in India. Then there are always two sides to what a Nation does or does not do National and International.

In this circumstance how pervasive and successful can liberal democracies be?

According to Yuval Noah Harari, the real problem with democracy, good or bad, is that elections are all about what we feel and not about what we think. The politicians and the media by their utterances channelize our feelings. This reliance on feelings may be the undoing of liberal democracy in India and all over the world, which has even now degenerated into a puppet show controlled by emotional strings. The Governments, media and all other constitutional bodies are scared to tell the people to behave, lest the vote base is eroded. The results are all too evident in these Pandemic times!!!! Feelings are not a cosmic force and they surely do not reflect any free spirit. I wonder where democracy is without thoughts even though there is a danger lurking even there. Most of us, including a large section of the media, think they are thinking while in reality the thinking only results in rearranging prejudices. This is also evidenced in the opiniated writings of reporters, columnists and many experts.

China has found a mix of various systems to emerge strong economically and militarily. It follows a variation (single party in charge) of an autocratic system internally and liberal democracy internationally. In the medieval times in China and Mongolia regions, the invaders first laid claims to small portions of isolated villages before launching large scale offensives. In todays world the battlefield is actually the economic spectrum rather than geographical extent. The military posture such as posed by China, along the LAC and other parts of the world, is only a smoke screen. It is quietly biting into the economic pie of the world. China knows what it is doing. Its strength is that it can just go ahead and do what it wants. We may not know the exact internal situation in China. Yet, the only way China can now be contained is if its people are so unhappy that they revolt and the Chinese nation implodes. That may not be coming anytime soon as the political structure there reduces the possibility of any strong concerted uprising by Chinese citizens.

Democratic system definitely offers more freedom than Governments such as in China. The problem is that we as a Nation do not consider that increasing freedom also brings with it increased responsibilities. Looking for loop holes in the system for gains is not something that can be considered responsible. Neither is wearing a helmet only when confronted with the Traffic police. Citizens of democracies need to be more self disciplined than in any other system of governance.

Even in a democracy in many matters the Nation needs to speak in one voice. This cannot happen when every political outfit speaks at cross purposes with a parochial agenda on anything and everything. The media too needs to be consistent and true in its reporting. A Nation cannot be run by the judiciary, just because it is a democracy and anything and everything can be challenged in the courts.

Tailpiece: As Yuval Noah Harari says, Most of the problems we face today in liberal democracies are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living. In this sense, how is China different from a democracy except that in a democracy the ruling parties change periodically.

Col KL Viswanathan (Retd)

Also read: SubscriberWrites: After Covid disaster, new Modi Cabinet should primarily focus on rebuilding bridges

These pieces are being published as they have been received they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

Original post:

SubscriberWrites: Shortcomings of liberal democracy, and a look at the political imbalance in Cabinet reshuffle - ThePrint