Allegations that colleges are bastions of liberalism are not new. The reality is its always been impossible to peg higher education writ large across the United States into any one ideological corner, when it comes to individual faculty members or institutions. Still, during the Depression, Republicans used to ask each other How do you get to Washington, D.C.? to which the answer was, You go to Harvard and turn left.

Max Yergan, an African American professor at City College of New York, was hired in 1937 only to be fired in 1941 after complaints that he expressed liberal and progressive views. He was among those ensnared when the New York State Legislature in 1940 launched an investigation into the political beliefs of professors in New York City, and more than 50 faculty and staff members at the City College of New York resigned or were terminated as a result. Historian Carol Smith called this purge of people based on their personal beliefs a "dress rehearsal for McCarthyism."

During the Cold War, conservatives routinely saw colleges and universities as hotbeds of Communism. Many faculty members were required to sign loyalty oaths to the United States, and some 100 faculty were terminated due to their alleged sympathy towards Communism. The concepts of academic freedom and free speech turned out to be such a poor defense for professors who were caught in the crosshairs of investigators that Yeshiva University professor Ellen Schrecker titled her study of the McCarthy era No Ivory Tower.

In the 1960s, public concerns over civil rights, student conduct rules, Vietnam and Watergate led to regular campus protests that included demonstrations, building takeovers, strikes and the destruction of property. They also led to renewed charges of a liberal bias. Ronald Reagan launched his political career by using colleges as a political foil, particularly the Free Speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley. While running for his first term as governor of California, he criticized both the students and professors at Berkeley and vowed to crack down on protests. And a Gallup poll in the wake of the shootings at Kent State University in 1970 found that 58percent of Americans blamed the students for the deaths and injuries, while only 11percent blamed the National Guard.

What are the popular perceptions -- and the actual facts -- today? Extensive research has concluded that individual faculty members may be liberal but that the recent allegations of an institutional liberal bias are overstated at best or, more likely, just flat wrong. In 2017, a Princeton University Ph.D. candidate, David Austin Walsh, addressed those misperceptions directly in a Washington Post op-ed, concluding, Higher education actually skews conservative. While it is true that large numbers of professors -- particularly in the arts and humanities -- identify politically as liberal or radical, it is emphatically not the case that institutions of higher education themselves are radical or even necessarily especially liberal. In fact, thanks to the power of regents, trustees, alumni, donors and -- at public institutions -- state governments, some of the most powerful voices in campus politics are politically conservative.

But unfortunately, in todays extremely polarized environment where facts, evidence and analysis are devalued or simply ignored, perceptions matter. So what voters think or believe matters a great deal.

That is why the question of how voters perceive the political orientation of colleges and universities is important. Do they see higher ed institutions as ideological or nonpartisan -- as left-leaning organizations, middle of the road or conservative?

Rating Higher Eds Ideological Orientation

To answer this question, pollster David Winston inserted, at the request of the American Council on Education, a question into a regular survey he conducts of 1,000 registered voters asking them to rate the ideological orientation of colleges and universities. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate colleges on a scale of one to nine, where one meant very liberal and nine meant very conservative. If voters thought the ideology of colleges and universities was in the middle of the road or moderate, they would rate colleges as a five.

Over all, the average rating of colleges and universities from all voters was somewhat left of center, at 4.48. But the complete picture is more complex and nuanced. Voters are not monolithic, and different subgroups of voters have different impressions.

Younger voters (those aged 18 to 34) gave colleges an average rating of 5.5 and are the subgroup that think colleges the most conservative. This group includes, of course, people who have had the most recent personal experience with higher education institutions. Other groups that think colleges and universities lean to the right include Hispanics (5.28) and African Americans (5.25). Voters with a high school degree or less (4.96), Democrats (4.91) and liberals (4.88) view colleges and universities as closer to the center.

By contrast, other subgroups of voters think colleges are very liberal places. Seniors (age 65 and above) rated colleges as 3.60 and see them as more liberal than any other subgroup. Other voters who believe colleges tilt in a liberal direction include conservatives (3.85), voters with some college (4.07), high-income households (4.20), whites (4.24), independents (4.25) and those with bachelors degrees (4.35).

At one level, this is not surprising. Groups that historically lean to the left politically see colleges and universities as institutions that are more conservative than they are. Indeed, during the 1960s student protests, one of the most common critiques people leveled at colleges was that they were impersonal, conservative institutions that did not care about individuals. Meanwhile, the subgroups of voters that tend to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum have long believed colleges are very liberal.

Again, its not that simple. On that same one-to-nine scale, voters over all rate their own political views as 5.53 -- significantly more conservative than where voters locate higher education institutions. In short, American voters over all, when asked to rate their own political views, choose a distinctly center-right position. When they look at colleges and universities, they rate them as center-left institutions. In short, a majority of American voters see higher education institutions as being significantly more liberal than they are.

When voters are asked to rate their own views relative to political actors, the very liberal senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont gets a 3.69 rating, congressional Democrats in general are at 4.18 and congressional Republicans score a 6.50.

Put another way: average voters (at 5.53) believe that their own political views are ideologically closer to congressional Republicans (6.50) than they are to colleges and universities (4.48). Similarly, voters believe that the ideological orientation of colleges and universities is closer to Bernie Sanders (3.69) than it is to voters themselves.

Interestingly, voters gave an ideological rating of 5.46 to corporations -- almost exactly where they place their own political views.

A Reinforcing Feedback Loop

In this hyperpoliticized era, voters will interpret events in ways that reinforce their world view. Especially given the rise of social media, with its tendency to reinforce messages for like-minded individuals, its hard to convince anyone to consider a different interpretation to a sincerely held belief.

Political polarization plays into this, as well. Those with a college degree are to a growing extent likely to vote for Democrats. Those without a college degree are favoring Republicans more and more, a sea change from the era when Democrats were more a part of the working class and Republicans more the party of business owners. But in a world where one set of voters watches MSNBC and another set sticks to Fox News, the public perception of all industries and organizations increasingly includes a reinforcing feedback loop.

Conservatives attacks on the alleged liberal bias of colleges, and mandates like the Trump administrations Free Speech Executive Order giving the U.S. Department of Education the authority to investigate alleged suppression of speech on campuses, are, sadly, some of the results. This is bad public policy, but good politics.

This is a particular problem for colleges and universities because their core values -- academic freedom and institutional autonomy -- depend on widely shared respect for what colleges do and how they do it. Higher education needs -- and deserves -- broad support from across the political and partisan spectrum.

Higher education has been viewed as liberal or unpatriotic in the past. But that didnt stop our institutions from becoming this nations greatest engines of economic and social mobility, not to mention the envy of the world and places that the globes most talented students and scholars have wanted to be. But as Americans increasingly divide individuals and institutions into on my side and not on my side categories -- and simply tune out those with whom they dont agree -- we need to redouble our efforts to show all Americans that colleges and universities are a public good, not an ideological weapon.

Read the original post:

The importance of how voters perceive the political orientation of colleges and universities (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

British Columbia came into 2020 in good shape. Its economy was forecast to lead the country in growth, the provincial budget was in surplus, and the debt was small. Its no wonder there were already rumours of the New Democratic Party government calling an early election, aiming to turn its minority into a majority.

Then the pandemic hit. The first COVID-19 death in Canada was in North Vancouver, but the government took steps that contained outbreaks. The province, with a third of the population of Ontario, has recorded one-12th the number of virus deaths. And unlike many other provincial and federal politicians, B.C. Premier John Horgan never commandeered the microphone. He stepped back and let the experts do the talking. Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry has been the voice of B.C.'s pandemic response, supported, rather than upstaged, by Health Minister Adrian Dix.

Riding a wave of popularity, Mr. Horgan seized the moment in September and called an early vote, a year ahead of schedule. Oct. 24 is the official election day, but seven days of advance voting are already under way.

Story continues below advertisement

The script of this pandemic election features an interesting role reversal: The incumbent NDP are running as the provinces prudent stewards of the status quo, while the BC Liberals are trying to get noticed with immodest promises.

Mr. Horgan is running above all on his governments record. The centre-left NDP platform mostly promises a steady hand on the wheel. The centre-right BC Liberals, who have long billed themselves as fiscally conservative and the NDP as spendthrifts, have as their signature platform promise a plan to gut provincial revenues by temporarily axing the provincial sales tax.

Its an irresponsible proposal, and badly targeted to boot. The PST is budgeted to bring in $6.8-billion in 2020-21 12 per cent of the provinces total revenue. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson, desperate to gain traction with voters, has promised to scrap the PST for a year, and then peg at 3 per cent the following year rather than the current 7 per cent. The pitch definitely got attention. That doesnt change the fact its the wrong idea at the wrong time.

Mr. Wilkinson bills it as pandemic economic recovery medicine, but too many beneficiaries will be people who dont need government help. A targeted plan to support low-income or jobless British Columbians makes sense; borrowing more than $10-billion to finance a tax cut, whose benefits will flow to anyone and everyone regardless of income, makes no sense at all.

The political appeal of this deficit-boosting tax cut is obvious. Who doesnt want a tax cut? But in the face of a pandemic recession that has caused government spending to rise and revenues to fall, its hard to see the economic or fiscal logic.

The NDPs competing proposal, worth $1.5-billion, is a one-time grant of $1,000 to lower- and middle-income households, or $500 to individuals. It should also raise eyebrows, but at least its far less costly and more targeted than the Liberal scheme, and it fits in the NDPs overall plan of only modest increases in spending over the next few years. Beyond that, the NDPs main spending plan is for continued investments in child care, building on their $10 a day program. The Liberals, seeing the success of the policy, have copied it.

One stark divide between the parties is B.C.'s other epidemic, the opioids overdose crisis. The NDP promise more work on harm reduction, policies this page endorses, while the Liberals instead promise to focus on addiction treatment. There is no perfect plan to address this tragedy, but the NDPs is better and more complete.

Story continues below advertisement

The biggest immediate issue that faces the winner, outside the pandemic, is in neither main partys platform: the cash bonfire at the Site C hydroelectric dam. The Liberals recklessly pushed the megaproject ahead in the mid-2010s and the NDP reluctantly kept it going. The unfinished dam abuts a geotechnical morass and is in danger of becoming an ever more expensive liability.

On the unusually quiet pandemic campaign trail, Mr. Wilkinsons leadership has at times been unsteady, from ill-conceived promises to poor handling of issues with some candidates. Incumbency can sometimes be a disadvantage in politics, but not this time around for the NDP. On the whole, they have governed well and in particular during the pandemic. Thats why Mr. Horgans main pitch to voters is a promise of more of the same.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read the original post:

In B.C.s pandemic election, the Liberals and NDP have reversed roles - The Globe and Mail

A large Trump rally faced a group of Black Lives Matter counter protesters in a diverse southwest Kansas community last month. The raucous but peaceful confrontations that followed shed a light on the hopes and fears driving competing visions for Americas future in the November general election.

A cool breeze blew through Light Park, situated prominently along the main drag in Liberal on a late summer Saturday evening.

The wind was a welcome respite from a warm, sunny day in Seward County but offered no relief from heated conversations as opposing groups faced off in the normally quiet park.

Lucy Myers stood back from the two crowds there were more than 500 supporters joining in a Pop Up 4 Trump parade and rally and about 25 supporters of the local Black Lives Matter movement protesting the show of support for the president.

It was a window into the anxieties and loyalties gripping the nation as Novembers presidential election between Republican incumbent Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden nears.

Myers placed her arm around her elementary-aged daughter Jordyn as she leaned in close to explain what was happening.

There are other people who dont believe the same way, and thats fine, she said.

When asked if she supports one political side or the other, Myers said thats not why shes here.

Those are my beliefs; those arent her beliefs, she said, looking down at her daughter. Im just here to facilitate and show her everything.

As a Trump defender and BLM supporter squared off, the young girl said the arguing made her nervous.

After reassuring her daughter, Myers said she feels its important for her to see both sides.

I just wanted her to see the atmosphere, she explained.

She looked down and said, Letting you see it through neutral eyes lets you decide.

The Pop Up 4 Trump event held in Liberal began with a parade that started at the Rock Island Depot and proceeded to Light Park. Onlookers Ashleigh Hall and her daughter, Kyleigh, watched the hundreds of President Donald Trumps supporters who were on hand, in addition to about two dozen Black Lives Matter activists.

Laura Tawater a huge smile on her face held up her phone to record Seward County Commissioner C.J. Wettstein giving a stump speech from the bed of a red pickup truck.

As the event organizer and Kansas GOP vice-chairwoman for the 1st Congressional District, shes pleased the Pop Up 4 Trump campaign has made its way across the state, east to west.

Liberal was the first community, though, where it has faced an organized protest, Tawater said.

Usually what we do is just pop up, and its a magnet, she said.

The demographics of Liberal stand in contrast to the state as a whole. Non-Hispanic white people make up only 28% of the communitys population but 75% of the people statewide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 62% of the citys population is Hispanic or Latino, while 6% is Black.

Yet its also a place where identities span multiple categories. About 55% of Liberals residents identified as white in a 2019 survey.

While Biden leads in polls among Hispanics nationally, Trump is winning at least a third of them, and some political observers say their votes could be pivotal in a close election. So, it wasnt surprising to see an SUV sporting a Latinos for Trump sign cruising down Kansas Avenue in the parade alongside four-wheelers and massive flags.

While Tawaters group sells Republican T-shirts, hats and signs, she said the movement is about more than the merchandise.

Were really trying to get out the vote, she said. We have voter registrations. Were talking about President Trump and his accomplishments, and also were highlighting the state and local candidates too. Its the connections were making with people.

Tawater sees her mission as more crucial than ever.

This is a do-or-die election, she said. Freedom versus communism. We feel like its life or death. We feel like were on the verge of losing our country.

She said Republicans fear the Democratic Party is moving toward communism as it links itself to social and racial justice groups.

We have to get Trump reelected, because well keep our liberty, our constitution, she said.

Ashleigh Hall watched Wettstein intently while she wrapped her arms around her daughter Kyleigh. She shares Tawaters fears.

I feel if Trump loses, its going to turn into a communist country, she said. You get a certain amount of food, you cant do this and you cant do that. Its supposed to be a free country.

Another Trump supporter, Joseph Gentry who stretched out on his motorcycle while he watched the BLM group and occasionally revved its engine to drown out protesters chants said his support for Trump is largely based on economics.

Trump has done so much, he said. Hes helped me stay working. When Obama was in office, the oil fields shut down. Trump got the oil fields back up and running, and I needed it.

Gentry said he worries a Biden win will lead to a recession.

Then well become communist, he said. Yet pointing to the protesters, Gentry said the right to protest is an important one. But it only underscored the importance of a Trump win in November.

Im glad they are out here and they are protesting what they feel, he said. Were out here protesting what we feel. Its our right. And with communism, we will not have that.

Hundreds of President Donald Trumps supporters were on hand for the Pop Up 4 Trump event, along with about two dozen Black Lives Matter activists. Having Trump partisans in close contact with backers of racial equality has proved explosive in some cities across America, but this event was constrained.

Earlier in the evening, a group of friends gathered on a sidewalk as the Trump train vehicles bedecked with flags and Trump signs made its way north from the old depot.

They laughed and waved, eager to show their support for the president.

We love Trump, Karen Seibel said. Look at what hes done for this country. He loves America.

She was quick to voice disdain for other politicians, questioning their truthfulness compared with Trumps.

He lies less, Seibel said. And, I think he only lies to us when he needs to.

Her sister Donna Moody chimed in.

No, he doesnt lie, she said with a chuckle. He just doesnt tell it all.

Chris Wells jumped in and said she likes Trump because hes got guts and has an ornery streak.

But her husband, Greg Wells, said the upcoming election is about more than just admiration for Trump. Like Tawater, he fears what a Democratic president would mean for the nation.

You know what the Democrats are wanting to do? Greg Wells said. The Democrats want to get rid of everything. We need government. We need policemen. Trumps been good for the United States, and he had to fight everybody to get here, and hes still fighting.

Chris Wells said Americans will lose their rights if Trump isnt reelected.

In that sense, Seibel said the election is about securing rights for future generations.

Im old, she said. It wont matter to me, but it will matter to my grandchildren.

The most unfortunate part about the state of the U.S. government, Greg Wells said, is the politicians seeming inability to cross the aisle for the good of the people. He suggested term limits as a solution.

We have too much civil unrest because of the parties, Greg Wells said. Theyre not playing together. Its not the way its supposed to be. We put them up there, those people up there, to take care of us.

Seibel added, You forget who youre doing it for.

BLM supporter Abi Rivas said shes ready for her government to remember her.

Wearing a feather headpiece and a Mexican flag wrapped around her shoulders, she chanted Black Lives Matter with her fist in the air.

Just like the Trump supporters, Rivas said the upcoming election is important to her, too, as a visible brown person in this country.

I live in fear every day that some person is going to attack me because of my skin color, she said.

Or some person is going to attack my dad because of his skin color, because of his status in this country. Its important for me to be here because it represents not only me, but Black people, Mexican, Asians, South Asians. Im here to speak for people who cant physically be here, Rivas said.

Listing off the names Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, 18-year-old Jernell Martinez said the BLM movement goes beyond skin color.

When I was standing and going back and forth with a man, I said we were standing with white kids, white people who are dying at the hands of the police, she said. Its not just Black lives.

Its for all of our lives. But they kept thinking were just saying Black lives. We talk about all lives.

Martinez said she also speaks out for her loved ones, including her grandfather, who she said was killed after being deported to Mexico. Its all for equality, Shatarrika Ross added. Ross said it was worrisome to see children joining in the Trump rally.

I feel like thats wrong, to take the innocence of a child away, to just tell them to be a certain way instead of giving them that option to choose, she said. These babies dont know whats going on. There are some who are just taught like that, and its sad.

For Rivas, her concerns go beyond race.

Its about how the futures going to be for all of us, she said. I just turned 18. This is my future.

Although she couldnt vote in 2016, Rivas said she was devastated when Trump was elected.

I was very heartbroken, and I was in fear every day, she said. If Trump gets elected again, I feel like society is going to feel white people have more power.

While she said Biden isnt exactly who shed envisioned as a Democratic nominee, his election would be the first step toward change.

Its going to push a lot of minorities, especially a lot of young minorities, to be like, I need to voice my opinion. I need to change this country to be something even better, Rivas said.

And while Republicans worry about the spread of communism, Rivas said its not on her agenda.

A lot of us are fighting communists, she said. None of us want a communist country. Theres a variety of people who are Democrats. No one wants a country where people have to share everything.

Despite her worries about a Biden presidency, Tawater said she wants people to stay optimistic.

If we can keep people gathering up like this, people are happy, she said. People are excited. They love their country.

But at the same time, Tawater said she sees whats possible on the horizon.

I think in a fair election, Trump will win by a landslide, she said. Were just bracing. I think the left wing of America just wont accept a second term. And I think all hells gonna break loose.

And if Biden wins?

Its just going to get really bad, Tawater said.

Martinez said her fight for justice likely wont end with either Trump or Biden in office.

Ill fight till the day I die, like my ancestors, she said. Ill always sit there and fight for people. Its not going to stop me. Whoever wins, it dont matter. If things are still the same, then Im still fighting.

And even if the election doesnt go the way she wants, Martinez said shell still hope for change.

Thats all you can do hope, Ross replied.

A version of this article appears in the Fall 2020 issue of The Journal, a publication of the Kansas Leadership Center. To learn more about KLC, visit http://kansasleadershipcenter.org. Order your copy of the magazine at the KLC Store or subscribe to the print edition.

Sign up for email updates about The Journals content.

Visit link:

What happened when Trump backers and Black Lives Matters protesters met in Liberal - The Journal at the Kansas Leadership Center

OTTAWA -- The federal government appears to be drawing a line in the sand with the opposition parties ongoing attempts to revive the WE Charity controversy, by stating that passage of a Conservative motion to create a new anti-corruption committee would raise serious questions about whether the House of Commons still has confidence in the government.

While the government has yet to confirm outright if they are viewing this proposal and the vote on it as a matter of confidence, in a letter to his opposition counterparts Government House Leader Pablo Rodriguez said that if opposition MPs agree on the need for a new probe, it would have implications for the confidence in the Liberal minority government.

The Conservative proposal is blatantly partisan. It is designed to paralyze the government. If passed, the proposal will raise serious questions about whether the House of Commons continues to have confidence in the government, Rodriguez wrote.

Rodriguez later told reporters that the motion is clearly an indication that the Conservatives have no confidence in what the government is doing, and further, would result in governments focus and time taken away from the ongoing fight against COVID-19 if the demands within the motion are to be met, such as having Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testify.

We think that its extremely irresponsible on behalf of the Conservatives, he said, but when asked outright if the Liberals would be willing to trigger an election, his response was well see.

Rodriguez is hopeful that ongoing talks with the Bloc Quebecois and NDP will result in common ground being found. Maybe we can agree on something.

Conservative House Leader Gerard Deltell is calling this claim simply ridiculous.

That you are even entertaining such speculation demonstrates to meas it would to all Canadiansthe desperate ends to which the Liberal government will go to further its coverup of a very troubling scandal which reeks of corruption, Deltell continued in a rebuttal letter send Monday afternoon.

Your government must acknowledge that it no longer enjoys a majority in the House of Commons and that it will, accordingly, begin to accept the legitimate and necessary exercise of parliamentary scrutiny without resorting to election threats, obfuscation and misdirection whenever you face the prospect of not getting your own way, Deltell said.

Meanwhile, in new disclosures both the Liberals and WE Charity are looking to satisfy opposition demands for more documentation in relation to the now months-long controversy surrounding a cancelled student summer grant program.

Tuesday will be the Conservatives first opposition day of the session, and Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole and his caucus have given notice they may be looking to force a vote on a proposal to create a new larger-than-usual parliamentary anti-corruption committee. The committee would take over investigating the WE Charity controversy as well as other lines of inquiry into alleged Liberal scandals and potential conflicts of interest.

This proposal includes a request for the same trove of documents the Liberals, WE Charity, and the public service are being asked to disclose at the House of Commons ethics and finance committees, where Liberal filibusters are underway to delay the votes on those motions.

The proposal is one of three motions the Conservatives could advance on Tuesday and OToole is set to reveal the direction theyve decided to head during a 9 a.m. press conference Tuesday morning.

A confidence vote on this motion means that, if it is defeated, the government could fall and Canadians could be thrust into a snap election in the middle of a pandemic.

The backing of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois is needed in order to give the Conservatives the majority of votes needed over the minority Liberal government to pass this proposal.

Asked about the prospect of making the vote a confidence matter, NDP MP Charlie Angus told reporters Monday that it would be completely irresponsible to call an election right now, not only because of COVID-19, but because as a result Parliament will not be able to reconvene for months.

I can't see the prime minister being that reckless so our message to the Liberals is just calm down. We have work to do, work with us, Angus said.

Also speaking with reporters on Monday, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said that the Conservatives will not relent, and questioned why the Liberals appear willing to make this vote a confidence matter.

Setting up a committee is not a matter of confidence, no government in Canadian history has been brought down because an opposition motion passed to set up a committee, he said.

The Conservatives will take any steps necessary within our parliamentary system to get at the truth, he said, adding that the government needs to get out of the way and let committees do their work.

On this point, the government agrees.

Rodriguez is doubling down on his proposal that there be a new special committee focused solely on COVID-19 spending, where its possible tangents of these Conservative-alleged scandals could be evaluated, but other committees could be freed up to do other studies.

He has shared with the opposition House leaders a proposal for this new committee, which could dig deeper into all aspects of the billions of dollars the Liberals have spent over the last seven months in an effort to keep Canadians, businesses and the health care system afloat amid the ongoing global health crisis.

The Conservative anti-corruption proposal would see the committee be chaired by the Conservatives, whereas the Liberals are proposing one of their MPs would have the top seat at the suggested committee.

Deltell called the counterproposal to establish this Liberal-chaired COVID-19 spending committee simply not acceptable, stating that its mandate is overly broad and would overlap with work underway at existing committees. His letter also went on to take issue with the way the Liberals are characterizing the oppositions handling of the entire affair, and accused the government of gaslighting Parliament.

Further, the Liberals have also disclosed a pre-existing list of 125 paid speaking engagements Trudeau had conducted between 2006 and 2013, before he became Liberal leader, that were organized through Speaker Spotlight, the organization that also co-ordinated Trudeau family speaking engagements with WE.

According to the documents, Trudeau made more than $1.3 million for speaking at these events, which range from appearances at association and corporate events, to speeches at universities.

Speaker Spotlight has confirmed the accuracy of the events and fees listed, Rodriguez said in his letter. While this list was presented as a proactive disclosure, the information has been available for years after the Liberals released it years ago. Alongside the speaking information, the government has issued new letters relating to the complaints of inappropriate redactions and information from who at the Privy Council Office knew what and when, in relation to the WE deal.

Since House of Commons committees got back up and running following Augusts prorogation, the opposition parties have put forward motions summoning troves of new documents related to the WE Charity controversy, and have balked at redactions made by government departments to the thousands of pages of documents already disclosed.

Among the additional information the opposition is asking for: more details on the speaking fee arrangements Trudeau, his wife, brother and mother had with WE Charity; and a series of emails, documents, notes and other records from the Prime Ministers Office and the Privy Council Office regarding prorogation.

The Liberals have offered up the public servants to explain the redactions theyve made, but have stated that the House ethics committee asking private citizensthe family members of the prime minister to provide personal financial information would be severely abusing its authority by doing so.

Rodriguez said that in normal times its a heavy lift for governments to produce the amount of documents the opposition have requested, but now with so many public servants working from home due to the pandemic, such sweeping document production motions with extremely tight timelines would be impossible to complete.

In an effort to compromise, Angus said hed be willing to remove some of the document requests that would double up or re-confirm aspects of the story related to Trudeaus family.

We have to finish this study, said Angus.

On Monday morning, WE Charity also released a new series of documents and information that was requested by MPs during testimony given by the organization at the House Finance Committee during its hearings on the controversy prior to prorogation.

Reacting to the new disclosure, prior to having studied its contents, Poilievre said he wont be thrown off his pursuit for transparency and answers from the government and the embattled charity.

Make no mistake, this old tactic of releasing a bunch of irrelevant documents that don't answer the questions while covering up the documents that matter will not suffice, he said. They can release five million irrelevant documents that will not distract us.

The documents detail more information about Sophie Gregoire Trudeaus eight speaking engagements at WE Day events between February 2012 and March 2020. She was paid a one-time speaking fee of $1,500 in 2012, which was disclosed by the organization back in July. At the time, WE said she was paid $1,400 but the Prime Ministers Office later clarified the exact amount.

Total expenses reimbursed for these events, including hotel stays, car services, and flights, add up to $23,940.76. Gregoire Trudeau also received $240 in gifts from the organization during this time. The prime ministers Chief of Staff Katie Telford, during her testimony to the finance committee in July, stated that the ethics commissioner approved Gregoire Trudeaus work with the organization, including the wellness podcast she hosts under its banner, and the reimbursement of expenses.

The documents also highlight that former finance minister Bill Morneau was not given a physical invoice for the $41,000 paid back to WE Charity for travel expenses incurred by him and his family in 2017. The documents also indicate that the $41,000 figure would be on the high end of the estimated costs incurred. Morneau resigned from cabinet after revealing this payment during testimony at the House finance committee this summer.

As well, the new documents show that WE Charity co-founders Craig and Marc Kielburger had conversations with several cabinet ministers over the last two years on a range of topics, but in terms of the student grant program between April 17 and July 7, one or both of the brothers engaged in 65 conference calls with top public servants related to the contract.

After having been fed one story, then another when caught out, and now yet another one in WEs latest disclosure, parliamentarians need to ensure that the truth does not, actually, constitute a fourth version of events, Deltell said in his letter.

Over the course of the controversy the Liberals and WE Charity have argued that the suggestion to outsource the $912-million student grant program came from the non-partisan public service, though Trudeau has conceded that he should have recused himself from the decision-making table given he and his familys past ties to the charity.

The federal conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is still investigating Trudeaus involvement in the affair.

With files from CTV News Sarah Turnbull

See the original post here:

Liberals, WE make disclosures as chance of confidence vote heats up on the Hill - CTV News

Labor and the Greens cannot quite believe it.

The Canberra Liberals are struggling to comprehend it.

The ACT election result is a striking rejection of the conservative pitch to govern Canberra.

The Liberals knew the task of winning government in the ACT was massive they had failed in their last five attempts, and had plenty of time to digest those results.

None expected this attempt would fail quite like it did.

It was hoped the result would at least be close. 2016 was close, and this time they hoped it would be even closer.

But from the minute the first dump of votes dropped in the reliably Liberal-leaning seat of Brindabella, it was clear something had gone terribly wrong.

The Liberals were going backwards. And it didn't get much better from there.

Before the result was even conceded, the Liberals were spinning the outcome.

"We know that a number of swing voters were concerned about changing the government during a pandemic despite having strong concerns about the direction of Labor and the Greens," read an early statement sent to reporters.

The pandemic was to blame. How could they compete, when Andrew Barr dominated the airwaves for most of the year, guiding the ACT through rolling disasters?

And with the economy slipping into recession, who would vote to change the government?

There is absolutely a level of truth to that theory. Labor agrees Barr's pitch has largely revolved around that very message.

But the Liberal leader must also take some responsibility.

The Liberal campaign was simultaneously simple, and somewhat confused.

Alistair Coe wanted the election to be a referendum on the cost of living. He wanted voters to think of their wallets, and little else.

His policies were shamelessly populist a rates freeze and a big slice off the cost of car rego would save the average family about $1,800, he promised.

And it wouldn't come at any cost. He would make up the revenue through population growth, and deliver better government services in areas like health and education.

It seems the voters did not buy it.

He deliberately left questions unanswered. How would his "growing the pie" theory actually work, particularly amidst a national recession?

How would he seemingly do more with less?

And instead of delivering detail, he opted for stunts. Boris Johnson-style gimmicks for the cameras, like literally freezing a rates bill, and smashing a cardboard wall reading 'cost of living'.

Some Liberals are already wondering if perhaps, at a time of such uncertainty, voters wanted strong and sensible leadership not a hardhat and a Liberal-branded mallet.

Coe will have to answer some tough questions from colleagues if he wants his grip on the Liberal leadership to hold.

This is undoubtedly a good result for Labor, but the party should not get too carried away.

As of late last night, their primary vote across the ACT had actually slipped just slightly down 0.1% on the 2016 result.

Their success came through the fall in the Liberal vote, and the surging Green vote.

Perhaps the centre is shifting while Labor gained from the Liberals, it lost in equal measure to the Greens.

And while the Labor vote has soared in the southern electorate of Brindabella, it fell even further in the north in Yerrabi.

The results are much less nuanced for the Greens. It is nothing but success.

Despite running a remarkably low profile campaign, the party has delivered one of its best results.

Opting to do away with roadside corflutes, and forever struggling to be heard in the media over the noise of the two major parties, the Greens silently succeeded.

It will leave many Labor strategists scratching their heads, wondering where it came from.

With at least three seats in the next assembly, and the possibility of five or six, the next ACT Government will have a much Greener tinge.

Amidst the celebrations, there should be at least some reflection.

The time will come when the ACT wants to change its government. The sentiment will only build.

The voters simply decided that even if change is needed, this Canberra Liberals team was not the change they wanted.

The steady Labor vote says while the electorate is satisfied with its government, it is not handing out a roaring endorsement.

While the cost of living campaign run by the Liberals did not deliver the success they expected, many voters did respond to the message.

There is plenty of room for improvement in areas like health and education.

The electorate expects to see an expanded Canberra Hospital, and trams running to Woden.

And it will want support, as the economy recovers from a heavy blow.

In 2024, the bar will be higher. Labor will be asking for nearly three decades in office.

The new ACT Government has quite a task ahead.

Originally posted here:

After 20 years, the ACT election was the Liberals' to lose what went so wrong? - ABC News

For many, that frustration with liberal culture is a more powerful unifying force than any problems with Mr. Trump. There are a lot of conservative people who are put off by the outrage that Trump spews, but also by the reaction against Trump, Mr. Nadler continued. Theres an audience to assemble there.

The idea for the Babylon Bee was born of a frustration with the anemic realm of conservative comedy. Mr. Dillon, an entrepreneur who bought the site in 2018, was a fan of The Onion, and was gratified to see a similar wry tone applied by the religious right. He felt that conservatives often took themselves too seriously, and with satire they could take a closer look at their own hypocrisies and double standards. The site positioned itself as a cultural outsider from the start Babylon refers to the idea of exile, feeling politically homeless. The site was launched without outside funding by its founder Adam Ford and now runs primarily on advertising, though it also sells branded merchandise.

To the Babylon Bees leadership, there has never been a more important moment for satire. Political humor, the editors said, can often reveal the truths that get lost amid the spin and bias of so-called real news sites. One of Mr. Manns guiding principles, which he shares often with staff, is a quote from the critic G.K. Chesterton: Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle.

We wanted to communicate to a culture that it feels like no longer believes in truth, Mr. Mann said.

Their devotion to truth, Mr. Mann explained, means the Bee will continue to swipe at both political parties. We are one hundred percent committed to making fun of Trump, he said, but he does not buy into the idea that Mr. Trump is exceptionally bad.

If we make a joke about Trump being bad, its already been done a million times by the late night shows, he said. When people find the Babylon Bee they go, Hey this comedy makes fun of everybody, but its a little harder on the left, and when it makes fun of the right its not hateful. People can tell its loving humor.

Some media researchers believe that this willingness to mock both parties rarer in a climate where many mainstream comedic voices see the president as a disastrous leader, not a situation where jibes should be evenly distributed might be an important element to comedic success.

Read more:

What The Babylon Bee Thinks Is So Funny About Liberals - The New York Times

Photo Illustration by Alex Cochran

SALT LAKE CITY (Deseret News) When Facebook on Wednesday said it would temporarily reduce distribution of an article that could potentially damage Joe Bidens campaign, conservatives who have long sought to prove that the company is biased against them thought theyd found not just a smoking gun, but a five-alarm blaze.

Facebook said that a New York Post article about the Democratic presidential nominee and son Hunter Bidens dealings with Ukraine required fact-checking in accordance with new policies designed to stop the spread of misinformation.

But Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, among other Facebook critics, said the restriction was blatant censorship.

This is BigTech control of news and speech, nationwide, in real time all in an attempt to control an election, Hawley tweeted.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson also recently accused Facebook of bias after the company flagged a video about the origins of COVID-19 as misinformation.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE.

Read the original here:

Facebook, bias and the battle over conservative and liberal content on social media - East Idaho News

It was a hug that quickly cast a shadow over Dianne Feinsteins long career in the U.S. Senate.

The California Democrat embraced Republican Lindsey Graham at the close of confirmation hearings Thursday for President Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, publicly thanking the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman for a job well done.

This has been one of the best set of hearings that Ive participated in, Feinstein said.

Calls from liberal activists for her ouster from Democratic leadership were swift, unequivocal and relentless.

Its time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, which opposes conservative nominees to the courts. If she wont, her colleagues need to intervene.

Eli Zupnick, the spokesman for Fix Our Senate, said: Sen. Feinstein is absolutely wrong about what is happening in the Senate and in her committee.

Zupnick said in a statement that Republicans were trying to jam Barretts nomination through the Senate and that it should not be treated as a legitimate confirmation process.

The angry response was not a knee-jerk reaction to an off-the-cuff moment between two longtime senators, but the result of a slow-burning frustration among leading liberal advocates that Feinstein, the panels top Democrat, is no longer the right fit for the job.

Supreme Court confirmation battles have gone from bipartisan Senate fare to bare-knuckle brawls as Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, mounted an aggressive Trump-era campaign to transform the judiciary with conservative judges.

Trump has been able to install more than 200 judges on the federal bench and is now poised to seat his third justice on the Supreme Court.

Barrett is being rushed to confirmation before the Nov. 3 election to replace the late liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a shift that would lock in a 6-3 conservative court majority for years to come. Rulings on abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare and other major issues are in sight.

Fallon said in a statement that Democrats can no longer be led on the Judiciary Committee by someone who treats the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves.

Feinstein, 87, has been taking it from all sides during Barretts nomination process.

Republicans attacked the senator for questioning Barretts Roman Catholic faith three years ago when the then-Notre Dame Law School professor was undergoing confirmation proceedings for the 7th District U.S. Court of Appeals.

Newsletter

Unparalleled coverage of an unprecedented election.

Get our Essential Politics newsletter for exclusive reporting from our journalists from Washington to the campaign trail.

Enter Email Address

Sign Me Up

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

At the time, Feinstein said Barretts opposition to abortion must be rooted in her religion and questioned if it would influence her rulings on the bench, saying the dogma lives loudly in you.

It became a rallying point this week for Republicans defending Barretts faith, so much so that Graham praised the judge as an unashamedly pro-life nominee who could be a role model to other conservative women.

Feinstein avoided the trap and was careful during her questioning of Barrett not to probe her faith. Democrats were determined to avoid a repeat of the 2017 hearing.

But as other Democratic senators seized the spotlight, using the four days of hearings to lob attacks at Trump and his court nominee, Feinstein often took a more diplomatic approach. At one point she declared herself impressed with Barretts handling of questions. Liberal eyes rolled.

Despite the complaints, Democrats have Feinstein to thank for a few key moments during the process.

It was Feinstein who drew a notable non-answer from Barrett when asked if she agreed with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, her mentor, that the Voting Rights Act perpetuated racial entitlement.

And Barrett gave Feinstein a similar non-answer when asked if she agreed with other conservatives who argue that Medicare, the healthcare program for older Americans, is unconstitutional.

Feinsteins office declined further comment, but pointed to a statement she issued about the hearing.

Judiciary Committee Democrats had one goal this week: to show whats at stake under a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court and we did that, Feinstein said. We showed that Judge Barrett has a long history of opposing the Affordable Care Act and Roe [vs.] Wade and represents the vote to overturn both.

But those moments may be forgotten for the one that is now being remembered all the more notable because it happened during the COVID-19 crisis, with neither senator wearing a mask. It was the hug.

Read the original:

Feinstein slammed by liberals over Amy Coney Barrett hearing - Los Angeles Times

Back during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, Sen. Marco Rubio talked about student loan debt hed run up while in college and law school. Notable about his recollections is that he indicated the debt was a past tense concept.

Well, of course.

When youre part of a political system that doles out trillions each year, money finds you. Always, always, always. It doesnt always find you directly, but find you it does. If your son, daughter, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father or mother is a senator, youll not so coincidentally find that all manner of interesting and remunerative work and investment opportunities come your way.

Hunter Biden is a symptom of the above truth. The New York Post ran a report about some e-mails Biden sent that confirm whats long been known: to influence the doings of his powerful father, various businesses and countries directed substantial funds to the powerful fathers son. If Hunter Biden were Hunter Smith, merely the son of a Delaware lawyer, he would not have enjoyed pay from Ukrainian energy firms and Chinese investment funds. Money found him because of his father. Its all a waste of words so obvious is it.

Which brings us to Twitter TWTR . By now most everyone knows that Twitter chose to block the sharing of the Post article which further confirmed what everyone with a pulse knew about Joe Bidens son. As a shareholder in Twitter, its decision was bothersome to me. More on that in a bit.

Even more bothersome has been the reaction to Twitter among conservatives. One conservative editorial observed that it was the right call for Republicans to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. It seems conservatives now believe that what they deem dishonest and abusive assaults on ideas by private companies are now a federal matter. How things have changed on the right. For the worse.

Up front, Twitter is not a public forum. Though its nominally open to all comers, Twitter, like any business, implicitly or explicitly reserves the right to refuse service or use to anyone. So while its disappointing that the site would disallow the sharing of the Posts enhanced revelation about Biden, thats its right.

Its similarly the right of Amazon AMZN to spike a movie by conservative theorist Shelby Steele, as is it the right of Google GOOG to fiddle with searches for the Great Barrington Declaration. About the latter, I was in Great Barrington for the writing and signing of it by eminent doctors. I support its conclusions wholeheartedly.

At the same time, I support the right of private businesses to do as they wish with what is their property. The reality is that the decisions made by Twitter, Amazon and Google are economic ones. They seem mistaken to me, and perhaps threaten their long-term viability. But what a business does with its property isnt something for politicians to question. This is something conservatives used to believe.

They believed it because they believed in property rights first and foremost, but also because they recognized any political meddling with businesses invites quite a bit more of it. If conservatives are going to haul Jack Dorsey before Congress to explain his companys decision to allegedly protect Hunter Biden, wont liberal politicians soon enough be calling Jeff Bezos before Congress to explain Amazon having had the temerity to meet the needs of customers in ways they never imagined? Oh wait, liberal politicians have already done this. Which is also the point. Do conservatives feel comfortable increasingly mimicking their reliably emotional counterparts on the left?

Dont conservatives also dislike affirmative action, or forced outcomes? Are they now of the view that Google doesnt play fair with its search technology, so government must step in to require more conservative lean in its searches? Is the next step that Amazon and other producers of content will have to prove to Republicans that theyre creating sufficient pro-market and pro-family content? Will Twitter soon be required to detail its efforts to push conservative commentary into the feeds of readers?

Some will say the questions are simplistic, but then so has been the conservative freakout over the companies mentioned. If they want to slant their content, searches and feeds to favor the liberal point of view, thats their right.

At the same time, its the right of conservatives to take their eyeballs elsewhere. Which in the past is what conservatives would have said. If a business is offending its users, the slights represent a market opportunity. Wasnt Fox News a market response to news reporting that was heavily left leaning? Readers know the answer.

The same answer should apply to Twitter, Amazon and Google. If theyre favoring the left, theyre making an economic decision that potentially imperils their long-term viability. So rather than Republicans cheered on by conservatives using the threat of government force to allegedly achieve affirmative treatment from technologists who swing left, why not let markets sort things out?

Read more:

Conservative Critiques Of Twitter Sound Very Left-Wing Liberal - Forbes

In trying to make sense of the prime ministers decision to prorogue Parliament back in August, derailing the committee investigations into the WE Charity scandal always seemed like a plausible explanation.

But after witnessing the governments desperate attempts to prevent those committees from resuming their work, it now seems like an inescapable conclusion.

On Thursday, the finance committee was bogged down by 11 hours of filibuster from Liberal members trying to block a Conservative motion to lift some of the redactions in over 5,000 pages of documents pertaining to the scandal that the government released in August (coincidentally, right around the time Parliament was prorogued).

And then, Friday, the committee hearings were cancelled altogether.

Story continues below advertisement

Meanwhile, the ethics committee was subjected to the same delay tactics from Liberal members as the committee was trying to debate a motion concerning records from the agency that had arranged speaking engagements for Trudeau family members at various WE Charity events.

The Liberals defence of these tactics is to try and portray this scandal as old news and a distraction from more pressing matters. Thats rather disingenuous.

Again, had Parliament not been prorogued, these committees could have continued their investigations perhaps they might even have concluded much of that work by now given that were now about two months removed from the decision to prorogue.

This past Tuesday in the House of Commons, Trudeau suggested that this matter is closed as far as his government is concerned, and that instead it will remain focused on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

As the prime minister put it, We are entirely focused on this second wave of COVID-19. We will continue to stay focused on what we need to do to support Canadians facing a very difficult time right now.

The needless five-week delay caused by prorogation is hard to square with the notion of a government laser-focused on the pandemic and its rather hypocritical to be complaining of wasted time while simultaneously deploying filibuster tactics. Furthermore, that focus hasnt prevented the government from devoting attention to other issues (like its plans to ban single-use plastic, for example).

And even if one accepts the premise that the government is preoccupied with the pandemic response, the work of the finance and ethics committees or even the special anti-corruption committee proposed by the opposition doesnt have to interfere with that response.

Moreover, though, the WE Charity scandal is very much relevant to the question of the Liberals handling of the pandemic and what kind of economic response there needs to be from Ottawa.

This whole controversy arose because the Liberals were convinced that a $900-million Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program was a necessary part of that economic response and that this program could only be administered by WE Charity, which of course had many close ties to the government.

Story continues below advertisement

Not long after it was announced, the CSSG arrangement was abandoned and its unclear whether the government still believes such a program is necessary.

So trying to understand the governments decision-making process when it comes to pandemic response, and what else might be motivating those decisions, seems like a very relevant and important undertaking at the moment.

As much as its in the Liberals vested interest to have everyone to forget about and move on from this scandal, we dont yet have all the answers here. Were it not for prorogation and these other delay tactics, we might actually be a step closer to finally moving on from this.

The government, though, continues to act like it has something to hide. Just because Canadians expect the government to be taking this pandemic seriously doesnt give the Liberals a free pass on this matter.

Rob Breakenridge is host of Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.

2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

See the original post:

COMMENTARY: The Liberals are being disingenuous in their push to end WE Charity investigations - Global News

In January, in what now seems like a bygone age, the writer George Packer delivered a memorable speech, The Enemies of Writing, for the honor of winning the Hitchens Prize. Why is a career like that of Christopher Hitchens not only unlikely but almost unimaginable? Packer asked. Put another way: Why is the current atmosphere inhospitable to it? What are the enemies of writing today?

For a sense of what Packer meant, consider that in 2007 Hitchens wrote and Vanity Fair published an essay titled, Why Women Arent Funny. It was outlandish, but also learned, and maybe not entirely serious. Imagine that ever running today, in Vanity Fair or any other mainstream publication. Or take another Hitchens column from the same year, in which he called Islam simultaneously the ideology of insurgent violence and of certain inflexible dictatorships. Try finding a line like that today in Slate, where it first appeared.

What these examples show, and what Packer brilliantly captures in his speech, is what might be called the encroachment of the unsayable. Its an encroachment that, in its modern form, began with the Ayatollah Khomeinis 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie for the publication of The Satanic Verses, which was deemed blasphemous. In short order, the world got to see who in the liberal world really had the courage of liberalisms supposedly deepest convictions.

Since that episode which resulted in nearly a decade of hiding for Rushdie, the killing of his novels Japanese translator and the shooting of his Norwegian publisher there have been all-too-many similar moments: the slaying of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the Danish cartoon affair in 2005-06, the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, and, last week, the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty by a Chechen refugee, according to authorities, for the sin of showing his students two caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad as part of a lesson on free speech.

As in all the other instances, the immediate reaction has been heartbreak, defiance, solidarity followed, typically, by a quiet moral concession. Often, this takes the form of a yes-but response in which the crime is condemned while also viewed as an answer to a provocation that is itself indefensible.

After the Rushdie incident, former President Jimmy Carter published an op-ed in The Times that called Khomeinis death sentence abhorrent but added that Rushdies book is a direct insult to those millions of Muslims whose sacred beliefs have been violated. After PEN American Center chose to honor Charlie Hebdo for its Freedom of Expression Courage Award, some members of PEN America protested the choice because the slain cartoonists had poked fun at the beliefs of a marginalized, embattled and victimized minority.

The upshot of these controversies has been a kind of default to a middle position that goes roughly as follows: Fanatics shouldnt kill people, and writers and artists shouldnt needlessly offend fanatics. Its a compromise that is fatal to liberalism. It reintroduces a concept of blasphemy into the liberal social order. It gives the prospectively insulted a de facto veto over what other people might say. It accustoms the public to an ever-narrower range of permissible speech and acceptable thought.

And, as Packer notes, it slowly but surely turns writers, editors and publishers into cowards. Notice, for instance, that I have just described the suspect in Patys murder as a Chechen. Why? Because its accurate enough, and its not worth dealing with the choice and precision of a single adjective.

It isnt entirely clear whether theres a causal connection between the way so many Western liberals have tried to dance around the subject of religious fanaticism and other encroachments on socially acceptable speech. But the two have moved in tandem, with equally destructive results. Our compromised liberalism has left a generation of writers weighing their every word for fear that a wrong one could wreck their professional lives. The result is safer, but also more timid; more correct, but also less interesting. It is simultaneously bad for those who write, and boring for those who read. It is as deadly an enemy of writing as has ever been devised.

In his speech, Packer notes that good writing is essential to democracy, and one dies with the other. The corollary to this thought is that the more some ideas become undiscussable, the more some things become unsayable, the more difficult it becomes to write well. We are killing democracy one weak verb, blurred analogy and deleted sentence at a time.

I should be more precise. When I say we, I dont mean normal people who havent been trained in the art of never saying what they really think. I mean those of us who are supposed to be the gatekeepers of what was once a robust and confident liberal culture that believed in the value of clear expression and bold argument. This is a culture that has been losing its nerve for 30 years. As we go, so does the rest of democracy.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read the original post:

The Encroachment of the Unsayable - The New York Times

The leader of the B.C. Conservative party believes the B.C. Liberals are worried because his party's platform is resonating with voters during the provincial election campaign.

On Saturday (Oct. 17), the B.C. Liberal Party called on B.C. Conservative Leader Trevor Bolin to answer for how he, as a business owner, handled a case of sexual harassment among his employees in 2018.

The incident ultimately resulted in Bolin firing the employee who complained about the sexual harassment, which WorkSafeBC called a discriminatory action in retaliation for her complaint.

The Liberals called on Bolin to publicly address his actions in a mass email sent to supporters and media, with a WorkSafeBC report attached (the report can be read below this story).

Bolin responded to the allegations during a campaign stop in Kamloops on Saturday.

"You know what, it's the B.C. Liberals trying to find anything they can because they're concerned we're resonating with voters, so the easiest thing they can do is find something that happened at one of my stores and release that," said Bolin, who is running for MLA in the riding of Peace River North and also sits as a city councillor in Fort St. John.

His B.C. Conservatives are fielding candidates in 19 of the provinces 87 ridings, including Dennis Giesbrecht in Kamloops-North Thompson. General voting day is Oct. 24.

In January 2018, the fired employee complained to the store's general manager that her supervisor had sexually harassed her, stating in a vulgar manner that he wanted to have sex with her, and previously telling her that he was willing to pay to do so, according to the complaint.

A meeting between the employee, store owner Bolin and the store's general manager did not resolve the matter, with scheduling conflicts standing in the way of changing shifts so the two employees did not have to work together.

After that meeting, the employee said she felt "completely unprotected and that nothing would be done."

As a result, the employee contacted the RCMP on the matter and, a week later, she was called in for a meeting with Bolin and the store's general manager. There, she was fired.

The employee insists she was fired because of the complaint, while Bolin claims the worker was fired due to her "hostility and insubordination within the restaurant."

"I let her go for actually yelling at the general manager across the store," Bolin told KTW.

In an emailed response to the B.C. Liberals email, Bolin said the woman's claims of wrongful dismissal are not true. But WorkSafeBC accepted the fired worker's complaint and that Bolin took "prohibited discriminatory action under the [Workers Compensation Act] in terminating the worker."

It also said Bolin, as the woman's employer, "[failed] to follow their own bullying and harassment policy."

Bolin said he regrets that the report was distributed by the Liberals during the campaign.

"It's unfortunate that they rolled this out and are making the families relive this after almost three years, he said. It doesn't belong in politics, it belongs in business.

With incidents of sexism and misogyny making headlines on the campaign trail, Bolin was asked by KTW how voters can trust he would be able to deal with similar issues in his own party, should they arise.

"We've now doubled those recommendations that [WorkSafeBC] has. We've also started an open door policy, right to me as the owner, he said. If they go to the general manager or manager and don't get the results they want, they can freely then come to me and ensure it's investigated at an owner level and not a manager level, which that one was.

Bolin claimed the incident was "the first and last issue any of my stores have had, noting he employs more than 150 workers at different establishments.

WorkSafeBC report BC Conservative leader by ChristopherFoulds on Scribd

See the original post here:

B.C. Conservative leader says B.C. Liberal leak of WorkSafeBC report shows party is worried - Kamloops This Week

Donald Trump is now back on the road, holding rallies in battleground states. These events, with people behind the president wearing masks but most others not, look awfully irresponsible to most of us some polls show that as many as 92 percent of Americans typically wear masks when they go out.

Trumpworld sees these things differently. Mike Pence articulated the view in the vice-presidential debate. Were about freedom and respecting the freedom of the American people, Mr. Pence said. The topic at hand was the Sept. 26 super-spreader event in the Rose Garden to introduce Amy Coney Barrett as the presidents nominee for the Supreme Court and how the administration can expect Americans to follow safety guidelines that it has often ignored.

Kamala Harris countered that lying to the American people about the severity of the virus hardly counts as respect.

It was a pretty good riposte, but she fixed on the wrong word. She could have delivered a far more devastating response if shed focused on the right word, one that the Democrats have not employed over the past several months.

The word I mean is freedom. One of the key authors of the Western concept of freedom is John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, he wrote that liberty (or freedom) means doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, as long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse or wrong.

Note the clause as long as what we do does not harm them. He tossed that in there almost as a given indeed, it is a given. This is a standard definition of freedom, more colloquially expressed in the adage Your freedom to do as you please with your fist ends where my jaw begins.

Now, conservatives revere Mill. But today, in the age of the pandemic, Mill and other conservative heroes like John Locke would be aghast at the way the American right wing bandies about the word freedom.

Freedom emphatically does not include the freedom to get someone else sick. It does not include the freedom to refuse to wear a mask in the grocery store, sneeze on someone in the produce section and give him the virus. Thats not freedom for the person who is sneezed upon. For that person, the first persons freedom means chains potential illness and even perhaps a death sentence. No society can function on that definition of freedom.

Joe Biden does a pretty good job of talking about this. At a recent town hall in Miami, he said: I view wearing this mask not so much protecting me, but as a patriotic responsibility. All the tough guys say, Oh, Im not wearing a mask, Im not afraid. Well, be afraid for your husband, your wife, your son, your daughter, your neighbor, your co-worker. Thats who youre protecting having this mask on, and it should be viewed as a patriotic duty, to protect those around you.

Thats good, but it could be much better if he directly rebutted this insane definition of freedom that todays right wing employs.

There are certain words in our political lexicon that belong to this side or the other. Fairness is a liberal word. You rarely hear conservatives talking about fairness. Growth is mostly a conservative word, sometimes the functional opposite of fairness in popular economic discourse, although liberals use it too, but often with a qualifier (balanced or equitable growth, for example).

Freedom belongs almost wholly to the right. They talk about it incessantly and insist on a link between economic freedom and political freedom, positing that the latter is impossible without the former. This was an animating principle of conservative economists in the 20th century like Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Its manifest silliness. To be sure, when they were writing, it was true of a place like the Soviet Union. But it is not true of Western democracies. If they were correct, the Scandinavian nations, statist on economic questions, would have jails filled with political prisoners. If they were correct, advanced democratic countries that elected left-leaning governments would experience a simultaneous crushing of political freedom. History shows little to no incidence of this.

And yet, the broad left in America has let all this go unchallenged for decades, to the point that todays right wing and it is important to call it that and not conservative, which it is not can defend spreading disease, potentially killing other people, as freedom. It is madness.

One thing Democrats in general arent very good at is defending their positions on the level of philosophical principle. This has happened because theyve been on the philosophical defensive since Ronald Reagan came along. Well, its high time they played some philosophical offense, especially on an issue, wearing masks, on which every poll shows broad majorities supporting their view.

Say this: Freedom means the freedom not to get infected by the idiot who refuses to mask up. Even John Stuart Mill would have agreed.

Here is the original post:

Theres a Word for Why We Wear Masks, and Liberals Should Say It - The New York Times

The Fifteen Percent is looking for a refrigerated truck to fulfill need

October 19, 2020 9:32 PM

Kate Kelley

Posted: October 19, 2020 9:32 PM

Updated: October 19, 2020 9:36 PM

LIBERAL, Mo. What started out as feeding a couple kids in her kitchen has quickly grown. Fast forward two and a half years later, and Kathy Millers mission of feeding the hungry is a full blown assembly line of neighbors feeding neighbors.

Its wonderful because I work very long hours and most of the time Im too tired to cook, so you guys have helped out a lot, said Crystal Bethel, one food recipient.

Each week, Miller dedicates three days to serving up free hot meals for the community. Volunteers help pack and deliver. For Kendra, who fought cancer, and her daughter, Brooke Bearden, who suffered a stroke, giving back in this way is important.

We knew how much it helped when I got done with the treatment, or she was going through therapy and just the long days, how much that warm meal meant to us, you know somebody bringing it to us. That was the main reason why we thought this is where we need to be, this is what we need to do, is minister with food, said Kendra Buzzard, one volunteer.

It just makes me feel good, you know to be able to help somebody else, expressed Valtazar Macias, another volunteer.

Miller is feeding around 90 people right now, though shes served well over a hundred before. The pandemic is making the need more apparent as people struggle to put food on the table. Miller added produce boxes onto her list of giving, expanding to Mindenmines.

We just drove down Main Street with some boxes to see whats going on over here and boy, were we surprised, were needed. Were needed there, said Miller.

Ozark Food Harvest in Springfield is willing to help with food donations, but in order to get it, she needs refrigerated transportation. Miller thought shed found the solution with a truck she picked up in Illinois, but the back of the door is just too small for what she needs.

When we got home, we took it to the shop to find out about getting that new door cut$5000 to $6000 that we just dont have, said Miller.

Now Miller is selling this truck, hoping to find something that works better for their needs. In the meantime, any donations or leads on something new are welcome.

That means the world to me. When somebody has something extra in this community and wants to give it to us because they know that we will be good stewards of that and will use that to feed people in their community, said Miller.

Miller is expanding her building, hoping to add on a spcae for more storage as The Fifteen Percent grows. She added that she has about a $6,000 budget for either a refrigerated trailer or truck.

PREVIOUS STORY: Dishing Up Kindness: Local couple feeds food insecure

More:

Non-profit aimed at feeding food insecure in Liberal expands - KoamNewsNow.com

Lucius Bryant 22

Staff Writer

At the end of my high school career, and the beginning of my college application process, I was tasked with determining the criteria I would consider ideal in my future place of education. I had not yet decided what I would devote my studies towards, but I had a feeling it would involve writing and the arts at some level. My advisor and I determined I would prosper most at a smaller college with an emphasis on liberal arts that was no farther than a short drive from home. Trinity was top of the list when it came to these criteria. The schools size would regulate average class numbers, ensuring that I would have a more personal relationship with my professors and fellow students. It had been a popular choice among alumni of my high school, and carried a positive context when brought up in conversation. The reputation of the school made me look forward to what was to come.

For the most part, I feel satisfied with how the school has met these expectations. I can still mention I am a student at Trinity in conversation to illicit inquiries of possible acquaintances I had made, or how the hockey team is performing, or if I had started any businesses with my peers; I still enjoy the implications of one day being a Trinity alum with my own stories.

Functionally, the school has let me down a bit. Most of the disappointment has come out of this semester, where the remote learning shoves a wrench in the intimacy of small classes and the rules of quarantine inhibit my ability to meet new people. On one hand, the pressure of being presentable at all times has been taken off my shoulders, while on the other I feel my self-discipline slipping as a result.

From what I have witnessed and inquired about from other students and faculty, I know this semester has been tough for most. It is clearly not everyones ideal situation, which is why I am skeptical when online learning is referred to as the future (mostly from those no longer associated with academia). If online learning were ideal, I have a feeling we would be witnessing a stark contrast in behavior in the students than what we have seen thus far. I believe the students, if the pressure of being restrained to a single location was less severe, would make it a point to avoid social gatherings, and the number of active cases would remain steady at a hopeful zero.

One of the perks of liberal arts is the necessity to take classes in several disciplines. Every school has its own version of this. Here, it is our General Education requirements. The upside to this system is the possibility to turn a student who is perhaps tunnel visioned on their path to becoming an engineer onto the writings of 20th century poets or the details of classical oil paintings and sculptures. Alas, no more than ever I have felt the pressure to focus on prioritizing the future when it comes to my education. The frustrations of quarantine have impacted both the patience required of students to be open to new ideas as well as of professors in order to expose these new ideas. There is less risk to be taken when the engineer sticks to his physics lectures and the art students to their studios. This is the unfortunate reality in which we currently exist.

Read more:

The Impact of Remote Learning on the Liberal Arts - The Trinity Tripod