The Sakharov Walk of Freedom consists of 43 ceramic-based tiles arranged on the Solidarno Esplanade outside the European Parliament in Brussels, with short texts inscribed on them in English about all the Sakharov Prize laureates. The Walk will link the European Parliament Atrium visitors facilities with the Solidarno Esplanade and the Parliamentarium museum.

The tiles will be arranged chronologically, starting with the inauguration tile and then going from 1988, when the Sakharov Prize was first awarded, in a circle towards 2019.

Address by Sakharov Prize laureate Lorent Saleh

The inauguration ceremony will be opened with a speech by European Parliament President David Sassoli, followed by a statement from Sakharov Prize laureate Lorent Saleh, who received the prize in 2017 as part of the democratic opposition of Venezuela. This will be followed by the unveiling of the inauguration tile, photo opportunities and a walk through the tiles by invited guests and VIPs.

Book an interview

You can book an interview with Mr Saleh by sending an email to viktor.almqvist@europarl.europa.eu and eliana.dritsas@europarl.europa.eu by Wednesday 4 December at 17.00 at the latest. Please note that requests will be confirmed only on Friday 6 December, not earlier.

WHEN: Tuesday 10 December, 14.30 -15.00.

WHERE: If there is good weather, the whole ceremony will take place outside on the Solidarno Esplanade. If the weather is bad, the speeches will be held inside the Atrium visitors facilities, with the rest of the inauguration ceremony taking place outside.

European Parliament media accreditation rules.

Background

The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is awarded each year by the European Parliament. It was set up in 1988 to honour individuals and organisations defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is named in honour of Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov and the prize money is 50 000 euros.

The 2019 edition of the prize has been awarded to Uyghur economist and human rights defender Ilham Tohti, currently serving a life sentence in China on separatism-related charges.

More:

Sakharov Walk of Freedom: inauguration ceremony | News - EU News

The estuary where church and state intertwine has been largely dominated in the past seven years by concerns about religious liberty. When President Barack Obama's administration added contraception to the list of medicines insurance plans were required to cover, and allowed only a narrow exemption for churches but not for religiously affiliated institutions like colleges or hospitals, the U.S. bishops decided that here was a hill on which they were prepared to fight.

The decision to fight the so-called contraception mandate was a strange one in many regards. Twenty-eight states already had a similar mandate. A late 2000 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ordered all employers who covered prescription drugs in their health insurance plans to also cover contraception, and the incoming administration of President George W. Bush took no action to overturn that rule. But the bishops did not like Obama, the original exemption was terribly narrow, and the bishops cried foul. A subsequent accommodation did not satisfy the religious liberty zealots; court cases continued: Hobby Lobby, a "Christian corporation," won its case at the Supreme Court objecting to the mandate. The bishops announced an annual "Fortnight for Freedom," subsequently shrunk to a week. The Knights of Columbus went all in. Liberals started putting the words religious liberty in scare quotes, and conservatives decided that a sincerely held religious belief should be a kind of trump card to escape federal regulation.

Into this fray comes Steven Waldman, whose book, Sacred Liberty: America's Long, Bloody, and Ongoing Struggle for Religious Freedom, seeks to bring some perspective and sanity back to discussions of religious liberty. And, on the whole, he achieves his aim: Reminding liberals that religious liberty really is a good thing and something to cherish, and reminding conservatives that none of the First Amendment rights are absolute.

Waldman's book is historical and chronological. History is almost always an anecdote to hysteria, and it serves that end here. He catalogues the long list of abuses against religious liberty, starting with the 13 colonies. In only Rhode Island and Pennsylvania was religious liberty valued, although other colonies experimented with varying degrees of toleration. That toleration rarely extended to Roman Catholics, most of whom were denied the franchise or worse in colonial America. Waldman's treatment of the role of religion in shaping the attitudes of the Founding Fathers is limited but fair. Unlike many historians, he notes that the founding generation was not nearly as religious as we might assume, citing one estimate that only 17% of Americans were regular church attendees in 1776. In the footnotes, he acknowledges that we must be careful here, as many churches only reported full members, and membership often required more than just showing up on Sunday morning.

James Madison gets an entire chapter of his own, as he should on this subject. He led the opposition in Virginia to a bill providing for public support of teachers of Christianity. Against him stood such luminaries as Patrick Henry, George Washington and John Marshall. Waldman draws on the notes Madison used when speaking against the bill, interspersing the quotes with brief explanations, honing down on the essential argument on those notes: "True question not Is Rel, neces.? Are Rellis Estabts Neccsy, For Religion? No." As is sadly typical of most historians, Waldman repeats the words of founders and does not seem to recognize the implicit anti-Catholic bias at work, for example, when Madison wrote in his "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" that "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."When you read someone from the founding generation bemoaning "superstition, bigotry and persecution, he is not talking about Protestant bigotry or Jewish superstition. A thing is almost always defined in part by its opposite in the mind of a person or a people, and the opposite of civil and religious freedom for the founding fathers was autocratic and Catholic rule.

Waldman is an admirer of Madison, so he does not recognize how offensive to Christian theology is the idea that "a multiplicity of sects" is a good thing. Jesus famously prayed that "all may be one." And, in Madison's time, the commitment to ecumenism was more than a century in the future. Nor does Waldman recognize how Madison's a-theological approach was a key step in the secularization of society. The interplay of social and cultural forces that lead to secularism are complex, and Brad S. Gregory's magisterial book, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, is better than any other in delineating those forces. Waldman would have benefited from consulting it.

Waldman regains the reader's favor a few pages on when he writes, "Anytime someone writes, 'The Founding Father believed ...' The rest of the sentence is almost certainly untrue. There was no unitary Founding Fathers position. They had diverse views and motivations." Amen, I say, Amen.

He captures a key and usually overlooked aspect of this era when he focuses on the argument put forward by Sen. Samuel Livermore, who represented New Hampshire in Congress. He robustly supported the First Amendment's religion clauses and wanted language that prevented the federal government from touching religion. This was similar to Madison's desire that the government "take no cognizance of religion." But the two men wanted the same amendment for different reasons. Madison, on principle, wanted all government disentangled from religious affairs. Livermore wanted the federal government kept out of religious affairs so that state governments could continue to maintain establishments if they wished. The Granite State would prevent Jews from holding office until 1876.

Turning to the Second Great Awakening, Waldman again employs language that shows his interest is not religion, but religious influence on politics. "The biggest winners in this new free market of religion were Methodists and Baptists. The number of Methodist churches grew from 65 in 1776 to 13,302 in 1850, while Baptist churches increased from 471 in 1784 to 7,920 in 1848." The employment of market analogies is ancient: Augustine once called Christ a merchant of grace. But, given the emergence of capitalism in the late 18th and early 19th century, a market analogy wears a different aspect. Waldman's thesis, that religious freedom is good for both church and state, sits unevenly with the recognition that while he is documenting the trajectory of religious liberty in American history, he is overlooking the seeds of secularization that were being sown at the same time.

I shall pick up this review on Wednesday.

[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.]

Editor's note:Don't miss out on Michael Sean Winters' latest.Sign upand we'll let you know when he publishes newDistinctly Catholiccolumns.

Read more:

Book on US religious freedom starts with the Founders but forgets seeds of secularism - National Catholic Reporter

File Photo: Journalist Jon Qwelane, 8 April 2008 Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA Journalist Jon Qwelane speaks during the SA Human Rights Commission's ruling in Johannesburg, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 that it could not find any wrong doing his alleged use of the word "coconut". Qwelane called Talk Radion 702's Yusuf Abramjee and Kieno Kammies, "coconuts" when they recently objected to the Forum for Black Journalists' racial exclusivity. They lodged a complaint saying it was discriminatory and hurtful. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

First published by GroundUp

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the Jon Qwelane case removes the concept of hurt from South Africas hate speech laws. It affirms freedom of expression.

Espousing and fostering hatred is the antithesis of South Africas Constitutional order, but freedom of expression is vital to and indeed the lifeblood of a democratic society. So begins a 46-page judgment penned by Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Mahomed Navsa (with four judges concurring) which has got tongues wagging.

Before them was an appeal by columnist and former Ugandan ambassador Jon Qwelane who ten years ago penned an offensive column in which he sided with former Zimababwean President Robert Mugabes anti-gay stance, calling for a revision of laws which allow same-sex marriages because at this rate, how soon before some idiot demands to marry an animal.

The SA Human Rights Commission took action against him, saying he was advocating hatred against gay people, relying on section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda).

Qwelane launched his own application, attacking the Constitutionality of Pepuda saying its provisions were vague and overbroad.

The matters were consolidated and heard by Judge Seun Moshidi who, after hearing evidence from the Commission, the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Psychological Society of South Africa, ruled against Qwelena, finding that his column was hurtful, harmful, incited harm and propagated hate and amounted to hate speech. Judge Moshidi ordered Qwelane to publish a prominent apology.

Aggrieved, Qwelane persisted with his attack on Pepuda in the SCA an appeal Judge Navsa described as bringing into focus the tension between hate speech and freedom of expression.

The Constitution, it was argued, guarantees the rights of freedom of expression except if it is propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Pepuda, however, extends the prohibited grounds to race, gender, sex pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, birth, HIV/Aids status or any other ground where discrimination based on that other ground causes or perpetuates systematic disadvantage, undermines human dignity, or adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a persons rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to discrimination.

Judge Navsa said the Constitutional test was objective a primary assessment of whether the expression complained of comprised advocacy of hatred based on one of the prohibited grounds and then a further assessment of whether it constituted incitement to cause harm (our emphasis).

Pepuda, on the other hand, demanded consideration of whether a person had published or communicated the words based on one of the broad prohibited grounds and whether they could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to be hurtful, harmful, or propagate hatred.

Judge Navsa said: The difficulty in dealing with the standard set in Pepuda in relation to the constitutional standard is the former is barely intelligible. He said the provisions were so vague the average person would not be able to use the act as a guide for his or her conduct.

The use of the word hurt for example, required a test of subjective emotions and feelings which did not equate with causing harm or incitement to harm.

One could say that pronouncements by agnostics and atheists, that the clergy and people of faith believe in fairytales could be hurtful to those targeted?

Daily human interaction produces a multitude of instances where hurtful words are uttered and to prohibit this is going too far.

The judge quoted law professor Pierre De Vos who had labelled Pepuda as absurdly broad in a vibrant democracy which respects difference and diversity.

Some of us remember all to well how the apartheid government tried to censor our thoughts and our speech, De Vos noted.

Judge Navsa said he accepted that harm need not necessarily be physical but could be psychological but the impact had to be more than just hurtful in the dictionary sense.

One must be careful not to stifle the views of those who speak out of genuine conviction and who do not fall within the Constitutional limitations, he said.

Unsurprisingly no counsel could point to any decision or regulation in any comparable democratic system which equates with, or even comes close to, the low threshold in Pepuda, even assuming it is intelligible.

We can all agree that it is important to protect the dignity of all our citizens. Equally we must agree, given our history, that freedom of expression must also be prized. That does not mean that hate speech cannot be proscribed. But it must be tailored to comply with constitutional prescripts and must survive a justification analysis.

The legislature may well have wanted to regulate hate speech as broadly as possible, but it has not done so with the necessary precision, he said, ruling that the relevant section of Pepuda is unconstitutional and giving lawmakers 18 months to rectify it.

The Judge said: I am not unmindful of the threat to life and limb and psyche that members of the LGBTI community face. They must not be left without recourse.

He ordered that in the interim, Pepuda would read: No person may advocate hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

He said the interim measures would not apply retrospectively.

The fact that Qwelane had succeeded meant the ruling against him had to be set aside. But he had a last word for Qwelane who, he said, had given vent to his bigotry, was strident, provocative and unapologetic about it.

We were informed by his counsel that he is ailing. He had an iconic status and had fought hard against the divisions of the past. He might well want to consider that it is worth preserving that legacy by seeking rapprochement, even now. I urge him to do so.

We have to, in our beloved country, find a way in which to relate to each other more graciously. Differences of opinion are often laced with vitriol. We should be allowed to be firm in our convictions and to differ. What we are not free to do is infringe on the rights of others and we are certainly not free to inflict physical or psychological harm on others. DM

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

The rest is here:

Understanding the SCAs freedom of expression judgment - Daily Maverick

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out against free speech this week, suggesting the government can and should regulate what people say to keep society free.

Merkel, speaking at an event for the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Berlin, stumbled up the stairs before taking the podium and suggesting the government ban speech she considers extreme and decrying freedom of expression.

We have freedom of expression in our country, Merkel said. For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost.

But freedom of expression has its limits, she continued. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. The house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.

Of course, determining what speech violates the dignity of other people is not something politicians or anyone else should be deciding, especially in todays culture where liberals claim speech they disagree with is literally violence against them.

As Townhall noted, Germany passed a ban in 2018 that fined websites up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not removing hate speech from their platforms quickly enough. The outlet also suggested Merkels attempts to suppress free speech were an effort to silence criticsof Merkels open-door immigrationpolicies.

Indeed, if one is to talk about violating another persons dignity, then Merkels policies toward immigration would be a prime example. Recall that on New Years Eve in 2015, upwards of 1,000 men sexually assaulted women on the streets in Germany. In the aftermath of the mass assaults, one German mayor blamed the women for being sexually assaulted, and the German government pledged to crackdown on those who criticize Muslim immigrants who were accused of perpetrating the attacks.

The definition of hate speech and limitation thereof is not as clear cut as people may believe. This is why Americas First Amendment doesnt have a hate speech exception. What is considered hate speech today may not have been considered so one hundred years ago, and what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in even 10 years, if current social justice trends are any indication.

Yet Europe continues to enact hate-speech laws that rest on the subjective analysis of those in positions of authority (and the most easily offended among us). For example, one county in the United Kingdom made catcalls and pickup lines illegal by labeling them hate crimes. The definition of hate crime in that county was defined as, Incidents against womenthat are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

These kinds of definitions plague anti-hate speech laws, as they open them up for abuse from those seeking attention and victimhood status.

Go here to read the rest:

Angela Merkel Says 'Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,' Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free - The Daily Wire

New Delhi, Dec 2 () Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has responded to industrialist Rahul Bajaj's statement that India Inc was afraid of criticising the Narendra Modi government, saying spreading one's own impression "can hurt national interest" - a remark that drew sharp reactions on social media.

At The Economic Times' ET Awards event in Mumbai on Saturday evening, Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Group, had told Sitharaman, Home Minister Amit Shah and Railway Minister Piyush Goyal on dias that people are afraid of criticising the BJP government's policies and added that no one in the business community would speak about this issue.

Shah had responded to him saying there is "no need to fear about anything. The Narendra Modi government has been criticised continuously in media. But, if you are saying that there is such an environment, we need to work to improve this".

Bajaj found support in Biocon chairperson Kiran Mazumdar Shaw who said the government treated India Inc as "pariahs" and doesn't want to hear any criticism of the economy.

Soon after, Sitharaman tweeted a video of the ET event to say: "Home Minister @AmitShah answers on how issues raised by Shri. Rahul Bajaj were addressed. Questions/criticisms are heard and answered/addressed".

"Always a better way to seek an answer than spreading one's own impressions which, on gaining traction, can hurt national interest," she said.

Her remarks drew varied responses with the opposition Congress seizing on it to criticise the government.

Congress leader and former union minister Kapil Sibal said: "Rahul Bajaj only said: Industry fears to criticise government".

"Does national interest lie in praising you!," he tweeted.

Defending the government, Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri alleged there were fake narratives.

"That Mr Rahul Bajaj could stand up to Sh @AmitShah Ji's face, express himself freely & instigate others to join him clearly indicate that freedom of expression & democratic values are alive & flourishing in India. This is exactly what democracy is all about," he tweeted.

Minister of Railways and Commerce Piyush Goyal referred to Shah's response to Bajaj's remarks to say there is no fear.

"See Home Minister @amitshah respond to Rahul Bajaj's claim that people are afraid to express themselves. "After hearing your question I doubt anybody believes this claim that people are afraid," he tweeted.

A day before the ET event, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had stated that many industrialists have told him they lived in fear of harassment by government authorities.

Here is the original post:

FM on Bajaj's lack of freedom comment: Spreading one's own impression can hurt national interest - Business Insider India

OPEN border immigration from the EU will be impossible to end after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn claimed today.

The Labour leader also revealed he WILL vote in a second referendum despite his pledge to stay neutral, but suggested he won't tell the public which way he will cast his ballot.

1

He plans to negotiate a new much closer deal with Brussels, including staying in the Customs Union, which would be put up against staying in the bloc.

Mr Corbyn admitted that his agreement will include free movement despite Labour previously pledging it would be ditched after Brexit.

He told Sky: I don't think free movement totally could ever come to an end because of the relationship between families, between Britain and Europe, the needs of all of our services.

Asked whether Leavers would feel betrayed by him, he replied: I don't think they voted to have 40,000 nurse vacancies in Britain, I don't think they voted to lose all those European doctors.

We have to recognise the rights of those many EU nationals that have made their homes here and made a fantastic contribution to our country and actually helped us run our health service.

At the moment all of that is under threat because of the uncertainty. Our whole process will bring uncertainty to an end.

Senior Tory Ben Bradley fumed: This is yet another broken promise from Corbyn, showing you cant trust a word he says.

He used to promise freedom of movement would end, but now Labour wants uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, which would put more pressure on our public services.

Live Blog

ELECTION NEWS General Election 2019: Polls show Tory lead over Labour narrowing

TAKING BACK CONTROL Boris Johnson to unveil five-point blueprint to beef up UK's borders

JEZ POLLS BOOST Corbyn closes gap on Tories with less than two weeks until the election

NO JUSTICE Corbyn says not all terrorists should serve full sentences after latest attack

YOU FORGOT JEWS... Jeremy Corbyn leaves out Jews in list of minorities he vows to defend

CAR CRASH Motorists face misery under Corbyn plan to axe road upgrades to cut rail fares

DON HIS WAY Trump flies in to UK for Nato meeting - but won't have one-to-one with Boris

'MEN SAY DREADFUL THINGS' Farage slammed for defending Trump's 'grab em by the p***y' boast

Exclusive

WITCH-HUNT RANT Rail strike boss says he's a victim of a witch-hunt after Nazi jibe at Jew

Mr Corbyn said he wants to bring people together by negotiating a new deal with Brussels that protects manufacturing, industry, trade and jobs.

But asked whether he would vote for his own agreement in a second referendum or back remaining in the EU, he would only say: Youll have to wait and see.

Read the original:

Freedom of movement from the EU will be impossible to end after Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn claims - The Sun

INSIDE ISSUE 18.48 | Nov. 29, 2019

NEWS

By Lindsay Street, Statehouse correspondent | House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle are finding common ground in expressing frustration with the states utility regulators.

The S.C. Public Service Commission has drawn renewed scrutiny after a November staff directive that would create the cheapest solar rates in the nation, which solar industry advocates say would effectively ending new solar investment in the state. The directive isnt final yet.

Some lawmakers see the proposal, which would slash utilities reimbursement for solar field generation and keeping contracts to 10 years, as an affront to the unanimously-passed Energy Freedom Act in May.

The PSC decision shows they actually moved backward in regard to opening up solar markets to fair competition, Beaufort Republican Sen. Tom Davis told Statehouse Report. He was one of the lead advocates for the Energy Freedom Act.

There are at least two bills in the current 2019-2020 legislative session that seek changes on the commission:

Caskey

Its got to be a top priority to impose ethical restrictions so we can restore some confidence in the system but Im also at a point where we need to more seriously consider wholesale renovations of the system, Caskey said. In my mind, we made it clear in the Energy Freedom Act that South Carolina should be a state that has a balanced portfolio of power generation.

Caskey and others said more bills may be filed as the directive is finalized and lawmakers delve into the issue further. To be sure, the PSC has landed on the legislative radar. For Davis, though, he said he isnt sure any reform can fix what he says is broken.

The PSC is almost beyond the legislatures ability to cure, he said, adding he would advocate for complete system reform. We cant fix it because the very model is flawed whenever you have a PSC passing on what consumers pay.

Davis, who served as Gov. Mark Sanfords chief of staff, said he wants the market dictates the price and move the state toward a regional transmission organization, rather than a regulated monopoly. Regional transmission organizations, implemented in about half of the country, are independent nonprofits that nonprofits optimize supply direct to consumers from wholesale electric power. Read more.

In other S.C. news:

On protecting residents from lung cancer. New research from the American Lung Association says states like South Carolina need to do more to protect residents from lung cancer and aid in cancer-patient recovery. South Carolina ranks 36th in the nation for incidence of lung cancer, making its incidence of lung cancer above the national average. The state ranks 32nd for survival rates, mean those diagnosed with lung cancer in S.C. are less likely to survive than the national average. The nonprofit says state lawmakers need to support early lung screenings and protect health care access for those with pre-existing conditions. Read more.

ACLU hires new state director. The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina has hired Frank Knaack as its next executive director. He will come on board in January. He most recently led the Montana Innocence Project and prior to that he led the Alabama Appleseed Center. He also has held positions at the National ACLU and at ACLU affiliates in Virginia and Texas.

House budget writers release 2020 schedule. The budget schedule for the House Ways and Means Committee has been released. Budget subcommittee meetings begin Jan. 14 through Feb. 13. The deadline for proviso submittals is Jan. 31. The state Board of Economic Advisers estimate on revenues is due Feb. 15. Full committee budget deliberations are expected to begin Feb. 17 with House floor budget deliberations projected to start March 9.

Senate Education Committee to talk overhaul Dec. 12. The second full-committee hearing on a sweeping overhaul bill for public education will take place 2 p.m. Dec. 12 in room 308 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. Education Chair Greg Hembree, R-Horry, told Statehouse Report last week he is pushing the committee to give a favorable report for the bill originally passed by the House before the start of the 2020 legislative session Jan. 14. See agenda here.

Related: The committees education funding formula panel will meet 10 a.m. Dec. 4 in room room 308 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. Read the agenda.

Public hearings on judicial merit selections. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission will hold public hearings Dec. 2-4 at 9:30 a.m. in room 105 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds in Columbia. See the agenda here.

2020 candidate calendar

Throughout the campaign season, we are working to keep South Carolina informed of candidate events in the state. Have an event you want us to know about? Email us at 2020news@statehousereport.com.

Klobuchar makes 2-day swing in S.C. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar will attend events over two days in South Carolina:

Buttigieg makes 3-day swing in S.C. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg will attend five events over three days in South Carolina:

COMMENTARY

By Andy Brack, editor and publisher | The other day after a church meeting, someone commented, We need a free press now, more than ever.

Let that sink in.

Why would someone say that? Is it because he doesnt like the bombast of President Trump or she doesnt like the preening of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Is it because theyre worried about the legitimacy of what they read on Facebook, Twitter or the Internet?

More than likely, its any or all of those things but also something bigger: Trust. Americans, divided into warring factions of what they believe, increasingly have problems with trusting information that they receive from institutions in government as well as those that say whats going on in government.

We are living in a period of history where we have more information than ever, but its blurred by unrelenting negative talk, fake news, lies, misrepresentations, soundbites and incomplete information. We are so overloaded by information that we find it hard to sift through and process everything before the next assault hits.

So how can you manage too much information? Perhaps you can curb and diversify your media diet. Find multiple sources of information not just newsjunk put out by the tribe that spouts what you want to hear. If youre a Democrat, you might need to focus less on The New York Times and more on The Wall Street Journal. If you lean Republican, tune in occasionally to CBS or PBS instead of Fox.

Despite what some people believe, reporters do not exist to make up news. Reporters are objective and report what they see, hear and uncover.

Our democracy depends upon citizens having information about the activities of our government, and a press free from governmental control is essential to the functioning of our society, says Jay Bender, longtime legal counsel for the S.C. Press Association.

The reason there is a constitutional protection for freedom of the press is because the British crown censored information during colonial times, Bender said. Patriots during the American Revolution fought to be free of the shackles of royal rule, including its curbs on information.

Then, as now, more information is better than less. Attacking verifiable facts is counterproductive and anti-democratic.

The instinct of those in government today to attack the press and restrict the flow of information to the public is inconsistent with a government by the people and for the people, Bender said. A vigorous, free press is a wall between us and an autocracy, and must be defended for our democracy to survive.

Richard Whiting, executive editor of the Greenwood Index-Journal, suggests the misplaced chants of fake news or the press being an enemy of the people are trickling into our towns and counties.

Its not just mainstream media that is under attack, he said. Its the hometown newspaper that shares with its readers little Johnnys victory on the football field, Suzies volleyball win. Its the hometown paper that shares the story of a familys struggles as their child battles a life-threatening disease, or the family burned out by a house fire. Its the hometown paper that attends the school board, town council and county council meetings while Mom and Dad busy themselves with their lives, their childrens lives.

And the irony, he says, is that those very same people will shout and raise Cain How did this happen? Why didnt someone tell us? when a local, duly-elected governmental body votes to raise taxes or change zoning. Had they been paying attention by reading their local newspaper they might have acted upon solid information to create change, instead of grumbling and picking up the pieces later.

A free press is essential to our democracy, Whiting said. It serves the public by being the watchdog of government so people can go about their daily lives. But more than that, we are the communitys mirror, reflecting the good, the bad and the ugly as we provide essential news and information right along with the stuff that crowds refrigerators and gets tucked away in scrapbooks.

The free press is not your enemy. Her reporters keep America honest a lot more than her politicians do. Ask questions. Consume diverse information sources. Challenge your media comfort zone. To do less is to get sucked into what anti-democratic forces desire.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.

SPOTLIGHT

The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This weeks spotlighted underwriter is the South Carolina Hospital Association, the Palmetto States foremost advocate on healthcare issues affecting South Carolinians. The mission of SCHA is to support its members in addressing the healthcare needs of South Carolina through advocacy, education, networking and regulatory assistance.

Founded in 1921, the South Carolina Hospital Association is the leadership organization and principal advocate for the states hospitals and health care systems. Based in Columbia, SCHA works with its members to improve access, quality and cost-effectiveness of health care for all South Carolinians. The states hospitals and health care systems employ more than 70,000 persons statewide. SCHAs credo: We are stronger together than apart.

MY TURN

By Elliott Brack, republished with permission | Times were far different in the age of the Founding Fathers. They thought long and hard, and recognized that mankind wanted certain guarantees from government. What they came up with was to recognize certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They should have been pleased with that statement. It was an original idea. It appealed to people in the New World who were unhappy with their rights being trampled by what amounted to a foreign government, one at least an ocean away, which did not understand the new frontier called America.

Yet our young country-to-be was developing in what we look upon today as a relatively quiet and non-invasive time, when there was not the hubbub of constant activity we have today. The new atmosphere offered by our new government was exciting to these citizens of the new United States of America. They were joyfully independent now as a nation, and we suspect, almost giddy about being a new country with its own brand of government.

And what the forefathers eventually produced as our Bill of Rights contains certain liberties that we all cherish. However, life in todays world might need a little closer examination about what we may not realize we need.

Have you ever considered your right to privacy? Its no longer what it used to be since the arrival of a new form of communication. Now we are forever being invaded via the telephone and the Internet and all sorts of media with comments and advertising messages, and with unsolicited offers popping up for products we dont want. Most troublesome, we have learned, much of our most private information is collected by private companies and our government. It is readily available for the world to see on the Internet, mostly put there without our individual permission.

Europe is well ahead of our country in this area. The European Union countries have General Data Protection regulations, setting rules and standards of what companies can do with data. These countries generally give individuals more rights to privacy than the United States does.

Another element Europe thought of is the Right to be forgotten, that is, having public information about an individual expressed online and stay there forever.

The right of privacy is an element of various legal traditions to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national Constitutions mention the right to privacy.

With Europe tightening what Internet storage companies can do with information, it is beginning to create some momentum about these issues in the United States.

The concept of privacy uses a theory of natural rights. Even as far back as when Louis Brandeis was on the Supreme Court, (1916-1939), his work is often cited as the first explicit declaration of a right to privacy in the USA. Both Brandeis and Earl Warren wrote of the right to be let alone, focusing on protecting individuals. Brandeis had earlier even written that the government (was) identified .as a potential privacy invader.

That sounds like Brandeis could foresee the future!

Perhaps, someday in our country, when the United States returns to a more normal news cycle, without constant Twitter manipulations by a president, the issue of a right to privacy may become more significant to modern everyday life. The forefathers would probably approve of some restrictions on the technologies we have developed.

Elliott Brack, a Georgia journalist for more than 60 years, is editor and publisher of GwinnettForum.com. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.

FEEDBACK

To the editor:

Great column today on the first South Carolina Thanksgiving. My wife is a native of Beaufort and we lived there for several years and the area is full of history. Because of the great people, restaurants and marketing in Charleston, it gets all the publicity, however. The Beaufort area is overlooked and that is a shame.

South Carolina has much history to study and I fear our schools do not teach South Carolina history the way we learned it more than 50 years ago in school. With the huge number of todays state residents that have moved here from other states and countries, there is no better time to study our South Carolina history. If challenged, I could probably still name all of our 46 counties because we learned them in school.

Andy Sullivan, Honea Path, S.C.

We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. But youve got to provide us with contact information so we can verify your letters. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.

MYSTERY PHOTO

Heres an interesting brick building in Charleston County. What and where is it? Send your best guess to feedback@statehousereport.com. And dont forget to include your name and the town in which you live.

Our Nov. 22 image, Field art, shouldnt have been tough if you live in Newberry. (Heck, we gave everyone a clue with Newberry as the S.C. Encyclopedia entry last week!)

Yet only one photo sleuth the always-curious George Graf of Palmyra, Va., tracked down the story behind the image, which pays tribute to the former Indian mascot of Newberry College.

Somehow, Graf figured out the marker was located on the campus of Newberry College on Cheek Street near the Darrow House parking lot. And then his curiosity got the better of him. So he called the Newberry Museum and connected with a local historian who shared this story:

Back in the early 20th century, Newberry organized a baseball team and needed uniforms. Just so happened that the red uniforms were on sale at the time. After donning the uniforms, someone remarked about them looking like redskin Indians. So, Newberry College adopted the team nickname of Newberry Indians which stuck until around 2005 when the name was changed to Wolves.

The college reportedly changed the name after the NCAA deemed the use of Indians as hostile and abusive, Graf shared.

S.C. Encyclopedia | Patriot Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was born in Charleston on February 14, 1746, to Charles Pinckney, a lawyer and member of the provincial council, and Elizabeth Lucas, who helped introduce indigo cultivation in South Carolina. In 1753 Pinckney accompanied his family to London, where his father served as the colonys agent until 1758. Young Pinckney received private tutoring before entering the prestigious Westminster School in 1761. Three years later he matriculated at both Christ Church College, Oxford, and at the Middle Temple, the London legal training ground. While at Oxford he attended lectures by the famed legal scholar Sir William Blackstone and listened to debates in the House of Commons pertaining to the American colonies. Pinckney was admitted to the English Bar in January 1769. Following a tour of Europe, he returned to South Carolina, where he began a successful legal practice.

Pinckney entered public service in 1769 with election to the Commons House of Assembly, where he represented St. Johns Colleton Parish during the remainder of royal rule. Pinckney also served in the local militia, eventually attaining the rank of colonel. In 1773 he was made attorney general for the judicial districts of Camden, Cheraws, and Georgetown. That same year, on September 28, he married Sarah Middleton, daughter of the wealthy and well-connected Henry Middleton. The marriage produced four children.

Through this marriage Pinckney became closely affiliated with some of the provinces leading radicals in Americas contest with Great Britain, such as Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge, and William Henry Drayton. By early 1775 Pinckney was a member of all the important revolutionary committees, from which he advocated aggressive measures, including stealing royal arms from the Statehouse, penning inflammatory epistles to backcountry inhabitants, and planning the defense of Charleston against a possible British attack. At the same time, Pinckney served in the extralegal Provincial Congress, where he assisted in creating and training a rebel army and chaired the committee responsible for drafting a temporary frame of government for the province.

Once hostilities erupted with Britain, Pinckney switched his role as a politician to that of a soldier. Appointed commander of the First Regiment of South Carolina troops, he assisted in the successful defense of Charleston at the Battle of Sullivans Island in June 1776. When the British moved north following this defeat, Pinckney followed to serve as an aide-de-camp to General George Washington. He participated in the battles of Brandywine and Germantown before rejoining the southern army to command a regiment in the expedition to East Florida and at the siege of Savannah.

During the defense of Charleston he commanded Fort Moultrie and made a futile attempt to convince General Benjamin Lincoln, commander of the southern army, to defend the capital at all costs. When Charleston fell, the British placed Pinckney under house arrest and made a hapless attempt to lure him away from the American cause. The British later sent Pinckney to Philadelphia, where he was exchanged in 1782. He rejoined the southern army but saw no further action. Pinckneys first wife, Sarah Middleton, died in 1784, and he married Mary Stead in 1786.

Following the war, Pinckney devoted his efforts toward rebuilding his law practice and his rice plantations. In 1787 he served as a delegate to the constitutional convention, where he ardently and ably defended the exporting and slaveholding interests of southern planters. A staunch Federalist, Pinckney was important in South Carolinas ratification of the federal Constitution in 1788. He later helped draft the states 1790 constitution.

Over the next several years Pinckney rejected President Washingtons numerous offers to serve in federal officeas commander of the army, as associate justice of the Supreme Court, as secretary of war, and as secretary of stateexplaining that he needed to remain at home to restore his fortune. However, in 1796 Pinckney accepted Washingtons offer to serve as minister to France. The next year President John Adams appointed him as one of three commissioners to negotiate a treaty with the French government. When French diplomats demanded a bribe from their American counterparts to facilitate discussions, Pinckney is credited as having exclaimed no! no! Not a sixpense and urged his government to raise millions for defence but not one cent for tribute. In 1798 President Adams, anticipating war with France, appointed Pinckney commander of the southern department of the United States Army. He was discharged from military service in 1800.

Pinckney returned to politics in the election of 1800 as the Federalist Partys vice-presidential candidate. In 1804 and 1808 he was the Federalist candidate for president, but realizing that he had little chance of winning, he never actively campaigned. Instead, Pinckney devoted the remainder of his life to agricultural experiments (he was a member of the South Carolina Agricultural Society) and civic service. He helped establish South Carolina College in 1801 and served on its first board of trustees.

He also busied himself as president of numerous organizations, including the South Carolina Jockey Club, the Society for the Relief of Widows and Orphans of South Carolina, the Charleston Bible Society, the Charleston Library Society, the South Carolina Society of the Cincinnati, and the national Society of the Cincinnati. Near the end of his life Pinckney campaigned against dueling in South Carolina. He died in Charleston on August 16, 1825, and was buried in the cemetery of St. Michaels Church.

Excerpted from an entry by Keith Krawczynski. This entry may not have been updated since 2006. To read more about this or 2,000 other entries about South Carolina, check out The South Carolina Encyclopedia, published in 2006 by USC Press. (Information used by permission.)

Statehouse Report, founded in 2001 as a weekly legislative forecast that informs readers about what is going to happen in South Carolina politics and policy, is provided to you at no charge every Friday.

Now you can get a copy of editor and publisher Andy Bracks We Can Do Better, South Carolina! ($14.99) as a paperback or as a Kindle book ($7.99). . The book of essays offers incisive commentaries by editor and publisher Andy Brack on the American South, the common good, vexing problems for the Palmetto State and interesting South Carolina leaders.

See the original post here:

11/29, full issue: Regulating regulators; Freedom of the press; Right to privacy - Statehouse Report

I disagree with those who think saving America means supporting Trump in 2020. Whether its Trump or one of the Democrats who is elected will make very little difference; movement away from freedom will continue as government spending and regulations continue to increase. The Democrats may not be as harsh on innocent immigrants or as dishonestly opposed to free trade but they will favor more taxes on the productive. The Republicans may drag their feet on socializing medicine and providing free education for all but they will provide more pork for their cronies.

Trumps economic policies (tariffs followed by subsidies to counteract their effects, tax cuts with no decrease in spending, tariffs without recognizing trade wars as lose/lose and trade as win/win) are destructive of freedom, hence anti-American. His implicit foreign policy (denigrating allies while treating dictators, terrorists and theocrats as moral) encourages our enemies and is also anti-American. His pretense of opposition to socialism while saying he will provide health care for all is a blatant contradiction.

The authoritarian tone of his actions (his careless, stupid, easily proven untrue, and unretracted insults; his my way or the highway treatment of his appointees; his providing support for white nationalists; his stretching executive actions beyond constitutional limits) pave the way for dangerous authoritarians. Most fundamentally is his lack of respect for the rule of law in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular.

Unfortunately, the Democratic hopefuls nearly make Trump look good. They bemoan the few things that Trump almost got right. They criticize his withdrawal from the Paris green treaty, seeming to want to lower the life span and happiness of billions of people by enslaving the energy producers who make our planet more livable allegedly to avoid catastrophes that only a few scientists claim likely.

They criticize his minimal attack on ObamaCare (removing mandates) and jump on the socialist bandwagon proclaiming now is the time for Medicare for all. They decry his appointing a Secretary of Education who wants to reduce the federal governments role and then they promote free education for all. They denounce his tax cuts (particularly the lowering of corporate tax rates, which should be zero) and want equality by stealing the wealthys wealth.

Andrew Yang proposes a government payout to all workable only if all other payouts were abolished (i.e., no Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, government education, etc.).

Elizabeth Warren, most dangerous of the hopefuls, has plans for expanding every government program imagined and lacks only a funding plan and that leads to the only element of sanity among the Democrats: Joe Biden in the first debate questioned how the others plans could be funded and then, in the October debate, other hopefuls attacked Warren in particular on her conspicuously lacking funding plan.

No politician wants to limit government to protecting individual rights. It appears that the best we can hope for is that whichever party wins the presidency, the other wins Congress and slows down the attacks on freedom.

Robert Stubblefield

Aiken

View original post here:

Letter: Freedom will decrease as government grows | Opinions and Editorials - Aiken Standard

The Florence Freedom announced Wednesday the top five possible new names.

The organization announced in October that it may drop "Freedom" as its mascot, and asked fans to submit ideas for a replacement.

The top five responses, according to the team, are: GoGoettas, Fossil Jockeys, Yalls, Pop Flies, andNo Sox. Fans are able to cast their vote for their favorite possible new mascot at florencefreedom.com until December 11. The organization spent weeks sifting through the thousands of names submitted by the fans in the first round of the contest, a news release said. The top five were selected due to their uniqueness and connection to the area.

The club, which competes in the Frontier League, offered some explanations for the proposed new mascots:

GO-GOETTAS

Florence is here to take back Goetta for its rightful Northern Kentucky owners. Choosing the name Go-Goettas celebrates this wonderfully weird piece of Northern Kentucky food culture, while giving the team an aspirational mindset to shoot for.FOSSIL JOCKEYS

Rising from the marshy pits at Big Bone Lick are the Fossil Jockeys: a group of raucous prehistoric riders who choose the mightiest beasts as their modes of transportation.YALLS

Were the first and last professional baseball team in the south (depending on which way youre driving from), so well take it upon ourselves to be the symbol for Southern culture. Yalls as a name celebrates much more than a painted water tower, it celebrates who we are as Northern Kentuckians and Southerners, with Go Yalls as our rally cry.POP FLIES

Its no secret that we Northern Kentuckians love two things: pop and baseball. That's why we married those two concepts together as the Pop Fly, which is not only a common baseball term but a name for a fly who has an unquenchable sweet tooth.NO SOX

A nod to famous baseball names but with a Kentucky twist, the No Sox celebrates our relaxed, kick-up-your-feet kind of culture. Baseball and life are a little different down here in Florence, and the name No Sox lets everyone know theyre in for a unique experience.The newly named team will open the season and play its first regular season game on May 14, against the New Jersey Jackals.

-Staff report

Photo:UC Health Stadium in Florence

View post:

Florence Freedom Release Top Five Possible New Team Names - The River City News

Theres some backstory to the current Rudy Giuliani drama Id like to share.

After he left the mayoralty at the end of 2001 Giuliani made tens of millions of dollars on his reputation as Americas Mayor and a 9/11-based terrorism and security expert under the shingle Giuliani Partners. In the nature of things that rep was more valuable abroad than at home. He cashed in big time. That went on for about 15 years with a brief timeout for his failed 2008 presidential bid. He also had his own law firm Bracewell Giuliani, before leaving the firm to join Greenberg Traurig in 2016.

A few times, mostly as a reporter and once personally, I crossed paths with Rudys work. As Ive written before, very, very little of this is what could in any sense be called lawyering. Most of it seems to have been a mix of lobbying, influence-peddling, reputation-selling and high stakes bullying. Over these fifteen years Giuliani seems to have acculturated himself to a world suffused in both corruption and impunity. The stage was set for what came next. (Heres a 2016 Post piece about the history of the firm, which can generously be called dubious and opaque, and the reporters efforts to find out just what the firm did.)

In the nature of the things, by 2015 and 2016, the 9/11 juice, for lack of a better word, was getting thin. Donald Trumps election and his close association with Giuliani turbocharged Giulianis ability to make money abroad from mobsters, plutocrats, foreign governments, plutocrats closely allied to dictators. In the great majority of these cases, Giuliani was selling services he had no clear ability to provide. Either he subcontracted the work, the work was actually influence peddling or possibly there was no work at all. When he became the Presidents private lawyer his saleability skyrocketed.

When Trump was elected, Giuliani was 72 years old. Over the previous dozen-plus years he had made more than enough money to live in palatial comfort for life and set up his heirs in similar fashion. How much of that money he still had is entirely unclear to me. He pushed everything into overdrive.

Back in September, Josh Kovensky put together this map and list of all the countries Giuliani had visited for consulting work or other payments just since he signed on as Trumps private lawyer. He came up with nine: Armenia, Ukraine, Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel, Albania, France and Poland. Theres little reason to believe this list is complete. This is just what Josh could come up with based on published reports. Obviously, Giuliani is a private individual. He doesnt have to tell anyone where he goes or who he meets with.

According to Josh, Giuliani had been doing business in Ukraine long before Trumps ascent to power. Were now learning the full measure of his work there in the last two years. Theres what he did for Trump, which were learning a fair amount about. But as were learning at each stage in the process he was also trying to set up consulting deals with almost everyone whose path he crossed. As we know, these included oligarchs with notorious ties to organized crime, crooked pols, Ukrainian-American con-men. Even on the basis of what is currently known publicly its difficult to imagine him not facing extensive federal corruption charges. Its simply hard to play in the domain he was operating in without committing lots of felonies. And he doesnt seem to have been concerned about doing so.

Here is the original post:

How Rudy Lost his Mind and (Probably) His Freedom - TPM

Two male turkeys named Bread and Butter were chosen for the 2019 Presidential pardon (Credit: WhiteHouse.gov)

While an estimated 46 million turkeys will be taking center stage at Thanksgiving dinner tables around the US on November 28, 2019, two lucky birds will be happily cackling in retirement. On November 26, 2019, President Donald Trump used his executive powers to pardon North Carolina-born fowls "Bread" and "Butter" from the chopping block. The Presidential Turkeys will spend the rest of their lives with Peas and Carrots, last year's pardoned birds, at Gobblers Rest at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

"Virginia Tech has a long tradition of supporting the turkey industry through research and outreach, so it's fitting that the Presidential Turkeys becoming part of the Hokie Nation is a new tradition," said Rami Dalloul, a professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, in a statement.

As you may have guessed, Bread and Butter, whose names were picked by President Trump and first lady Melania from 15 pairs suggested by the National Turkey Federation, are no ordinary fowls. Selected for their majestic appearance and calm demeanor, the birds were specially raised for the occasion by Wellie Jackson and his family.

The Clinton, North Carolina farmer told reporters he trained the birds to get accustomed to cameras, lights, and dealing with people. "They also listened to music," he said. "They really like classic rock. The 45-pound Bread also enjoys drinking Cheerwine soda, listening to bluegrass music, and watching college basketball, while the heftier, 47-pound Butter is a big fan of sweet potato fries, bagpipes, and watching NASCAR.

The celebrity birds arrived in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2019, and spent two nights living it up in a luxury suite at the famous Willard Hotel, a block away from the White House. After posing for photographs at a press conference on November 25, 2019, the two made their way to the White House Rose Garden on November 26, 2019, for the official pardoning ceremony. Ending days of speculation, President Trump announced that Butter had won the popular vote for "National Thanksgiving Turkey" and would be the one receiving the presidential pardon. The decision did not seem to bother Bread, who got to enjoy the festivities without having to be on his best behavior.

The origin of this fun tradition is hazy. While some attribute it to President Harry Truman, the Truman library disputed it in 2003, writing: "The Library's staff has found no documents, speeches, newspaper clippings, photographs, or other contemporary records in our holdings which refer to Truman pardoning a turkey that he received as a gift in 1947, or at any other time during his Presidency. Truman sometimes indicated to reporters that the turkeys he received were destined for the family dinner table."

Others think President Abraham Lincoln freed the first turkey at the request of his 11-year-old son, Tad. However, the bird had been meant for Christmas dinner, not Thanksgiving. President John F. Kennedy is the first on record to let a Thanksgiving turkey go in 1963. "We'll just let this one grow," he said. Though he did not mention the word "pardon," the event was reported by the Los Angeles Times as a "Presidential pardon."

Though President Ronald Reagan did mention "pardon" in 1987 when letting a turkey go, he was merely trying to deflect a question about a serious political matter. The tradition of adding a 'spare' turkey did, however, start that year, after a skittish bird named Liberty escaped during the pardoning ceremony.

Turkey pardoning was finally formalized by George H.W. Bush, during his first year as president. "Let me assure you, and this fine tom turkey, that he will not end up on anyone's dinner table, not this guy," he said in 1989. "He's granted a presidential pardon as of right now and allow him to live out his days on a children's farm not far from here." Since then, the event has become an annual White House ritual, one that is attended by family members, government officials, and the news media. In 2012, President Barack Obama added a fun twist by allowing residents to vote for "America's Next Top Turkey" on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

We wish Bread and Butter a long and happy retirement. As for the rest of the turkeys? All we can say is "Gobble Gobble!"

Happy Thanksgiving from the DOGOnews team. We are truly grateful for your love and support!

Excerpt from:

Pardoned Turkeys "Bread" And "Butter" Trot Away To Freedom - DOGOnews

Here are 10 thoughts on the Giants as they aim to snap their seven-game losing streak against the Packers on Sunday:

1. A few run plays in the Giants 19-14 loss to the Bears last Sunday were doomed from the start. As soon as running back Saquon Barkley got the ball, he was greeted by unblocked defenders. That raised the question of how much freedom rookie quarterback Daniel Jones has to change plays at the line of scrimmage.

The answer: Its complicated. An offensive player told The Athletic that most plays come with a built-in check. So if coach Pat Shurmur calls a run play, theres often an attached pass play that Jones can check to if he doesnt like the pre-snap look from the defense. But Jones doesnt have the ability to audible to any play in the playbook theres just the predetermined check.

There are also run-pass options (RPOs). These are post-snap reads where Jones decides to handoff to Barkley or keep the ball to...

Read the original here:

10 thoughts on the Giants: How much freedom does Daniel Jones have to change plays? - The Athletic

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, West and East Berliners came together to create a thriving techno scene that is still very much alive today. Capturing the history of the scene from 1989 to present day, No Photos On The Dancefloor is a unique and multifaceted exhibition featuring photographers and video artists that have experienced the techno scene in Berlin first hand. Each has created an exciting body of work, based on how they became immersed in the techno scene of Berlin. Co-curator of the exhibition, Heiko Hoffmann, answered our questions on the featured artists, his experience of the scene and looks back on the day the wall came down.

How did you go about selecting the artists you wanted to be featured in the exhibition?

This exhibition came about because a couple of years ago I did a smaller exhibition starting from a museum in Brazil and it travelled around South America and South East Asia. And this was just a couple of artists and the first artist Martin Eberle, a Berlin-based photographer, did a lot of architectural photos of the Berlin nightclubs in the 1990s and made a book about this called Temporary Spaces which came out in 2001 and then also by Sven Marquardt who was a bouncer at Berghain but has also been a photographer. He did a body of work taking photos of his colleagues at Berghain and then a couple of other people.

So, for this exhibition, No Photos On The Dancefloor, I selected 26 different photographers and video artists. It's not a history museum and it's not for documentary, it's an art museum. A key artist for example, Wolfgang Tillmans, who photographed the scene and the reason why I wanted to call it No Photos On The Dancefloor is because I was looking for something that made the Berlin nightlife scene different to club scenes in other parts of the world. All the photographers and all the artists included in this exhibition have something in common and that is that they are really part of the scene and have been part of the scene.

Read this next: A new book about Berlin's 90s techno scene

How were the images in the exhibition taken considering Berlin's strict no-photos policy?

This no-photo policy is really something that existed since the start of the 90s in Berlin, both to give a safe space to minorities or people who want to express themselves but also people who go to the clubs to lose themselves in the moment and lose themselves in the music without having that captured outside. So in that sense Berlin club culture is very different to club culture in Ibiza or in Miami.

Despite this title of No Photos On The Dancefloor, its a photography and video art exhibition, So it's not a view from the outside, it's not something voyeuristic. These photographers could make photos because they were part of this community and because they have had the allowance by the people who are throwing the parties or were running these clubs to take these photos and they also respect the values of this club culture.

See the original post:

"Experimentation and freedom": Inside the exhibition documenting the history of Berlin techno - Mixmag

The Daughters of the American Revolution -- made up of those who can trace their lineage to early Americans who contributed to the Revolutionary War effort -- once had the reputation of an over-the-hill social club, members of a local chapter admit.

"I think most people thought it was just a bunch of old ladies sitting around drinking tea and having cookies," said Jane Gregga, of Elk Grove Village, who has been a member of the Arlington Heights-based Eli Skinner chapter for 15 years. "But we really are a service organization."

Take their involvement earlier this month in a Stand Down event, where chapter members gave away 700 winter hats to homeless veterans. Many of the hats were handmade by the Daughters working on an assembly line of sewing machines during a recent meeting.

And three or four times a year they deliver carloads of cookies to veterans at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago.

But perhaps one of their biggest volunteer efforts in years is a current undertaking to place wreaths on the graves of all veterans and first responders in Elk Grove Cemetery, and an associated history project that will detail the life stories of all 300 or so people laid to rest in the historic cemetery.

It fits in well with the Daughters' stated goals: to encourage patriotism, preserve American history and promote the education of children.

"It's important that the memories of those that helped found our country and fight for our freedom are not forgotten," said Gregga, who is coordinating the project with chapter regent Mary Arvidson. "We want children to understand what freedom costs. To have an event like this at a cemetery with veterans from pretty much every war -- it's a great teaching opportunity."

Gregga suggested her local Daughters chapter -- which numbers 180 strong -- sponsor a local wreath-laying ceremony in conjunction with Wreaths Across America, which promotes similar events at cemeteries in all 50 states. This fall, she led an online campaign to collect donations for 50 some wreaths at $15 a piece.

What better place to host the ceremony than Elk Grove Cemetery, she thought, since it is the resting place of the local chapter's namesake, Eli Skinner, one of two Revolutionary War patriots buried there.

Skinner, who died in 1851 at the age of 90, enlisted in the Massachusetts militia at 14, and because of his young age, was given the task of playing the flutelike fife instrument as soldiers marched into battle. He didn't arrive in Elk Grove until the end of his life, settling in the area for its good farmland.

The other colonial-era veteran, Aaron Miner, was in the Connecticut militia, who died in 1849 at the age of 92.

He is the namesake of a local chapter of the Children of the American Revolution. Members of that group, with the Sons of the American Revolution and Elk Grove VFW Post 9284, will also be participating in the wreath-laying ceremony at noon Saturday, Dec. 14.

Local historians believe Skinner and Miner are the only two known Revolutionary War veterans buried in Cook County, which underscores the historical significance of their final resting place: a tiny cemetery of some 300 graves tucked in between a Nicor gas pipeline, Arlington Heights Road and the Jane Addams Tollway.

It's a history that has captured the attention of Arvidson, who -- as an outgrowth of the wreath-laying campaign -- decided to dig into online databases, library records and newspaper archives to find out as much as possible about all those buried there.

The graveyard, which dates to the 1830s, is a who's who of Elk Grove history -- with names like Busse and Cosman -- but little is known about many of the others buried there. Arvidson found obituaries for about 100 people but says she still has more work to do. She eventually hopes to give the Elk Grove Historical Society and the private association that maintains the cemetery a binder with a page about each person.

"The survival of that cemetery is a miracle in and of itself when you discover that little piece of land holds an incredible amount of history," she said.

Arvidson, a retired Navy master chief from Palatine, began scouring records to find how many of those buried served in the military and law enforcement, so the Daughters would know how many wreaths they needed.

Her search yielded about 50, including two unknown soldiers, who are unnamed. Arvidson believes they may be veterans of the Civil War or Spanish-American War.

They, like all the others, will receive special treatment during the Dec. 14 ceremony, when volunteers and any known descendants and relatives will mark the graves with the memorial evergreens.

"We'll say the name of person, and stop for a moment, so they are remembered," Arvidson said.

Go here to read the rest:

The cost of freedom: Daughters of the American Revolution honor local patriots - Chicago Daily Herald

The guides, who work for a nonprofit foundation, got so fed up with their working conditions that they voted to unionize in February. Their main demands: the ability to use microphones, to cancel tours during bad weather, and to call in sick without feeling they have to find their own replacements.

Whats more, their base pay $45 for a 90-minute public tour hasnt increased in 12 years, the guides said.

With the frigid New England winter approaching, improving their working conditions is an increasingly pressing matter. But as negotiations stretch into their ninth month, little progress has been made.

Unionization has been part of this country since the beginning, guides point out. Their union, the Bellringers Guild, is named for the workers association Paul Revere helped create in the mid-1700s when he was a bell ringer at the Old North Church.

How are we going to be talking about the Boston Tea Party and people overthrowing this oppressive authority without doing it ourselves? said Margaret Ann Brady, a 12-year guide who plays Mary Clapham, a widow who ran a boarding house near the Old State House.

Suzanne Taylor, executive director of the Freedom Trail Foundation, which employs the guides, did not directly respond to questions regarding the unions complaints, but she said in a statement that the foundation has been and continues to negotiate with our employees in good faith in order to reach an agreement for an initial collective bargaining agreement. We respect their right to collectively bargain and to free speech as we continue to work towards an agreement.

The tour guides are part of a wave of workers who have reached out to Unite Here Local 26 on their own in recent years, said spokeswoman Tiffany Ten Eyck. Millennials and professionals are bringing new energy to a movement that used to be largely working class. Public support for unions is at a 15-year high, according to Gallup, bolstered by a string of high-profile strikes, including Unite Heres national Marriott strike of 2018 that resulted in historic gains for Boston hotel workers.

The 30-plus guides work year-round, taking visitors to 16 historic sites along the 2 -mile Freedom Trail, including Paul Reveres house and the site of the Boston Massacre. During peak times, there might be more than 14 tours a day, with groups ranging from as small as one or two people in the winter to 50 during the summer.

More than 4 million people tour the trail every year, according to the foundations website, and the numbers keep growing. This year, some 21 million people will visit Boston, up 1 million from last year, according to the Greater Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau. And as the size of the tours grow, so does the pressure on guides. And that includes straining their voices to be heard over the din of a noisy city.

Providing portable microphones would solve this, the guides say, but the foundation owns only four and is reluctant to let guides use them. The nonprofit says it takes away from the historical experience.

The idea is absurd because if [visitors] cant hear, that takes them out of the experience, said Emma Wiegand, who has been a guide for four years and portrays Lydia Mulliken, the fiancee of Samuel Prescott, a doctor who was part of Paul Reveres midnight ride.

The honking horns and Dunkin Donuts shops along the trail also arent historically accurate, the guides point out.

Many of the professionally trained guides have side jobs, but the Freedom Trail work is often their primary source of income. In addition to stagnant base pay, they say, discounted tickets also take a toll. Guides receive $2 for each full-price ticket sold on public tours after the first 10 people, but they get only $1 when guests buy reduced-price tickets.

Between April and October, Wiegand estimated, she has lost $407 from discounted tickets.

Guides are also calling for clearer policies for canceling tours when theres lightning or extreme cold or heat. When Tim Hoover started giving tours in 2009, he said, guides were allowed to cancel tours when the temperature dipped below 20 degrees. But they no longer have that discretion.

The foundation directors response: We try not to cancel tours.

Working outside in foul weather can also lead to people getting sick, and tour guides said they are expected to find their own replacements when they are ill. As if thats not hard enough, they said, they are also expected to be entertaining.

You have to walk through freezing rain and make jokes about Benjamin Franklin, said Anna Waldron, a former Freedom Trail tour guide who said management made her come into work when she couldnt find a substitute.

The foundation abides by the state sick time law, Taylor said, which forbids employers from requiring employees to find their own replacements.

The tour guides arent asking for much, said Local 26s Ten Eyck just consistent policies that will preserve their health and safety and its offensive that the Freedom Trail Foundation isnt being more responsive.

In the meantime, guides have used their expertise in history and entertainment to spread awareness about their contract fight. Over the summer, they handed out fliers reading: We cant wait to tell you about the enslaved man who spearheaded smallpox inoculation. . . . We would just prefer to not be sick while doing it.

The guides emphasized they wouldnt be doing this if they didnt love their jobs.

We want to make this the best possible workplace for everyone, Brady said. We want the foundation to succeed.

On a recent sunny day, guide Gabriel Graetz , who plays renowned Colonial-era painter John Singleton Copley, led a tour of 40 people through the centuries-old downtown streets.

Part of being in a living, breathing city is you might get run over, he said, ushering the group to the side of the footpath as a large truck drove onto Boston Common.

Tereza Jurikova , a coordinator of educational tours in Prague, was impressed with what she saw.

I admire the dedication and enthusiasm, she said of Graetz. It seems like the hardest tour guide job Ive encountered anywhere during my travels.

Maysoon Khan can be reached at maysoon.khan@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter at @maysoonkhann. Katie Johnston can be reached at kjohnston@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter at @ktkjohnston.

Go here to see the original:

Bostons Freedom Trail guides are staging their own rebellion - The Boston Globe

Last week, Israeli prosecutors charged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with three counts of corruption. At the core of the indictment is an accusation that Netanyahu accepted bribes in the form of positive press coverage (or more precisely, reduction in negative coverage). In exchange, Netanyahu allegedly advanced the interests of two powerful Israeli media organizations.

The unprecedented designation by prosecutors of press coverage as a currency for bribery has far-reaching implications on the freedom of the press, and could curtail journalists ability to report the truth.

For example, the morning after Netanyahus indictment, several prominent journalists and editors called for Netanyahus immediate resignation, thereby creating public pressure for his removal. If Netanyahu resigns, and one of those journalists later receives some sort of benefit from the new government, such as an exclusive interview, then according to last weeks precedent, that journalist could be exposed to charges of bribery.

Another challenge to freedom of the press that arose from last weeks indictment relates to journalists complex, multi-layer relations with their sources a process that certainly includes a lot of give and take. A journalists interaction with sources, including politicians, is now suddenly under scrutiny criminal scrutiny! With such restrictions, it is possible that many journalists headline-grabbing exposures, such as Watergate, would have not been uncovered.

There are those in Israel who dismiss this by arguing that the indictment has nothing to do with freedom of the press, but rather with Netanyahus corruption. For decades, alas, Israeli prosecutors and investigators sought to find wrongdoing by Netanyahu and his family. This is the best they could come up with, explained one commentator about the prime ministers indictment. Decades of searching for misconduct now resulting in such a bizarre charge could paradoxically be interpreted by some as a testament to Netanyahus integrity. Indeed, many around the world were quick to condemn the Israeli prosecutors action. For example, Mark Levin tweeted: Ive carefully reviewed these charges and theyre outrageous. This is an assault on freedom of the press and the investigation was corrupt.

But there is also another side to the story. Israel is a hub for global innovations: Turning air into water, saving lives through medical breakthroughs, generating cutting-edge ideas that alter long-held beliefs. In this realm, perhaps the revolutionary treatment of press coverage by Israeli prosecutors, who are revered around the legal world for their high professionalism, awakens the issue of the power of the press and brings it for debate in the global public square.

After all, the media shape peoples minds. Why should it not be held accountable? Should journalists and media outlets be investigated about what really motivates their coverage? For example, the BBC, which influences millions of British citizens, has long been perceived to have a positive bias toward the European Union (EU) and to give negative coverage to the Brexit campaign. It was then revealed that the BBC has allegedly been the recipient of millions of Euros from the EU. Similar realities exist with other news outlets around the world. Some are open about their bias and are even proud of it.

Decisions by journalists and editors can make or break the careers of politicians and influence the outcomes of elections. Nowhere is this more paramount than in the case of Netanyahu, who, along with his family, has been a subject of a smear campaign by the Israeli media for over 25 years now. The negative press has been so extreme that even Netanyahus arch-rival, Arab Joint List Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi, who was a close associate of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, came to Netanyahus defense in 2010. Tibi denounced what he labeled the inhuman treatment of Netanyahus wife. In an emotional speech from the podium of the Knesset, he stated: I will do whatever it takes to unseat you, but will never use attacks on your wife and family to do so.

With media outlets deploying their enormous power to achieve their objectives, such as to unseat Netanyahu or to reject Brexit, perhaps Israeli prosecutors taking the lid off the sanctity of the freedom of the press should not be brushed off so quickly.Granted, there are other problematic aspects of Netanyahus indictment, such as the allegation of selective enforcement (many politicians received positive coverage, but none were indictment). Alan Dershowitz, for example, argued earlier this year that to bring down a duly elected prime minister on the basis of an expansive and unprecedented application of a broad and expandable criminal statute, endangers democracy.

No matter what one thinks about the merits of the indictment, one thing is clear: A historic debate about the freedom of the press has been launched.

Gol Kalev analyzes trends in Zionism, Europe and global affairs. For more of his articles: europeandjerusalem.com.

Read the original post:

KALEV: Netanyahu's Indictment Could Be A Game-Changer For Freedom Of The Press - The Daily Wire

This year, for a brief moment in the history of Australian journalism, every significant news organisation in this country put its competitive instincts and its differences to one side and united as one voice to stand against an unacceptable step down the road to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism unchecked can lead to fascism. Fortunately in this country were a long way from that yet, but a study of history amply demonstrates how fascism begins. Freedom is usually eroded gradually. It might happen over years, even decades. Its loss is not necessarily felt day by day, but we will certainly know when its gone.

So far the Morrison government has resisted the industrys appeal for fundamental protections of a free and robust press to be enshrined in legislation at the very least not placing journalists above the law but enshrining in a practical and meaningful way their special place as a crucial pillar of democracy.

Perhaps the government is intending to wait us out, waiting for the issue to go away in the hope that most people in this country are so consumed by bread and butter issues, so consumed by their own lives and personal struggles and challenges, that they wont care enough, when the chips are down, to support something as abstract as the spirit of democracy or the spirit of freedom because you cant cash in the spirit of something at the bank, as you might a tax cut.

So far the Coalition has resisted the industrys appeal for fundamental protections of a free and robust press

That is why we have to remain resolved to keep this campaign going, and not let it go, even after a few months, because those of us who have witnessed and experienced and reported on repression in other countries, some of them not too far from our own shores, understand the solid reality of democracy as well as the strength or weakness of its spirit. Some of our colleagues have paid the ultimate price for exposing abuses of democracy, and lost their lives.

Australias foreign minister, Marise Payne, recently chastised China on its human rights record, observing that countries that respect and promote their citizens rights at home tend also to be better international citizens.

I would add to that: countries that dont respect and promote their citizens rights at home are living in glass houses and have diminished their right to be taken seriously when they try to preach to neighbours from a high moral ground they have surrendered.

This also comes at a time when the spirit of freedom of information laws, if not the letter, is being abused and there are more allegations of corruption being investigated officially than ever before.

Theres another inconsistency that needs to be called out. This government is fond of saying, as it did in seeking to distance itself from the decisions by Australian federal police to raid the ABC and the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst that it cant interfere in police operational matters. Yet, in seeking to assuage the concerns of media companies and journalists after the raids, the attorney general, Christian Porter, promised that he would actually be prepared to become involved in the process to the extent of insisting on the director of public prosecutions getting his personal consent before seeking to prosecute a journalist.

Sorry Mr Porter, that is not reassuring. The judgements you might bring to bear will not be independent of the governments own self-interest, and we all know that self-interest of any stripe, political or otherwise, can be a powerful deterrent from doing the right thing. That is not understanding the spirit or the concept of free speech, nor materially guaranteeing free speech or a free press.

But we have to practice what we preach. Our work across the breadth of all media and all communities should speak for our integrity from the smallest story to the biggest. Individually and collectively. And if it doesnt that should make us uncomfortable, in the very least. Because if we are going to stand on our dignity and defend press freedom as a fundamental pillar of democracy, then we have to be sure that our actions are defensible, that we do what we say we do. And at the heart of the Walkley Foundations work is the protection and promotion of integrity in journalism.

There is one other issue I want to acknowledge tonight. In 2011 Walkley judges awarded a Walkley to Wikileaks, with Julian Assange as its editor, for its outstanding contribution to journalism. The judgement was not lightly made that Assange was acting as a journalist, applying new technology to penetrate the inner workings of government to reveal an avalanche of inconvenient truths in a global publishing coup. Those inconvenient truths were published far and wide in the mainstream media. As we sit here tonight, Julian Assange is moldering in a British prison awaiting extradition to the United States, where he may pay for their severe embarrassment with a life in prison. Again, this government could demonstrate its commitment to a free press by using its significant influence with its closest ally to gain his return to Australia.

Another challenge our industry faces is the trend towards the polarisation of our craft the attempts by some to paint us as either of the left or of the right which has to be resisted, because I firmly believe that for the vast bulk of us, that is not how we practise our trade. We do not arrive in the nurseries of journalism as budding ideologues of left or right, nor do the vast bulk of us become that way as we develop.

I absolutely reject the Roger Ailes view of the world, that if youre not on the right then you must be on the left.

For journalists to call out the powerful of any political colour for their abuses of power is not about ideology. It is simply journalists doing their job, practising their craft.

Adele Ferguson was not reflecting some personal ideological hatred of capitalism when she called out corrupt behaviour within our banking and financial sector, forcing a royal commission on a reluctant government. And nor were the whistleblowers who helped her being ideological. They saw a wrong and followed their conscience with great courage to reveal it, paying a heavy personal price in the process.

There was nothing ideological about Chris Masters determination to bring into the light of day serious and deeply disturbing allegations of war crimes by elite Australian military forces in Afghanistan, first in his book and then with Nick McKenzie in further sustained investigative reporting. It was strong, compelling journalism of integrity.

When Hedley Thomas gripped the world with his Teachers Pet podcast, forced the re-opening of the Lynette Dawson case, leading to the arrest of her husband, was he driven by ideology? Of course not.

Or when Anne Connolly forced another royal commission, into aged care, with her exposes of the sickening abuses within that industry?

Joanne McCarthy wasnt under instruction from some secret socialist cell or driven by a hatred of Christianity when she exposed the pattern of endemic sexual abuse and attempted cover-ups perpetrated from within the Catholic church in the Hunter region.

Kate McClymont wasnt acting as a servant of either the conservative right or the Labor left when she doggedly and courageously exposed the entrenched corrupt practices of Eddie Obeid.

Abuse of power is abuse of power, no matter who the abuser is. Corruption in this country is corruption, no matter who the corrupt are, no matter what their politics.

This is a time of serious challenge for our craft across a broad front, at a time when democratic societies like ours are losing their trust in institutions pretty much across the board. The integrity reflected in the work were about to celebrate tonight is our bulwark against that erosion of trust and a reminder not only to the citizens of this country, but importantly to ourselves, of what were capable of, and of what we aspire to be.

Thank you.

Kerry OBrien is a journalist, former editor and host of The 7.30 Report and Four Corners on the ABC, and chair of the Walkley Foundation. This is an edited version of his opening speech for the Walkley Awards for Excellence in Journalism in Sydney on Thursday

Go here to see the original:

This government must be held to account on press freedom. It's not to be taken lightly - The Guardian

November 28 2019, 12:01am,The Times

Richard Lloyd Parry

We in the West have no right to condemn the violence of protesters facing tyranny

We like our moral heroes to be cuddly, as well as brave, and for the first few months the democracy protesters of Hong Kong met both of these requirements. There were those immense peaceful processions in which dear old men with walking sticks marched alongside mums with pushchairs. There were the touchingly young and skinny leaders, such as Joshua Wong: earnest, bespectacled and well behaved. A million Davids stood up against the Goliath of the Chinese state and people around the world cheered until, in the past few weeks, it all started to turn nasty.

Banned by police from holding mass demonstrations, the wholesome family groups have yielded to a smaller corps of increasingly violent young protesters. They hide their faces behind masks and

Want to read more?

Subscribe now and get unlimited digital access on web and our smartphone and tablet apps, free for your first month.

Excerpt from:

Hong Kong: Sometimes you have to fight for freedom - The Times

When we think of Thanksgiving, we usually think of Pilgrims and Indians gathered for a harvest feast at Plymouth, but it was Abraham Lincoln who gave us Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

Prior to Lincoln, each state celebrated Thanksgiving on different dates according to the discretion of each states governor. In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, Lincoln issued a presidential proclamation for a national day of Thanksgiving.

After noting the many blessings of God in spite of the Civil War with all its suffering and severity, Lincoln wrote in his proclamation, No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

We must never take the blessings of God for granted. He holds every nation of every age accountable. We cannot descend into the chasms of corruption, deception, anger, prejudice, arrogance, greed and immorality and expect Gods blessings to remain upon us.

Jeremiah counseled, Thus says the Lord, Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood If you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself, declares the Lord, that this house will become a desolation. Did not your fathers eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and the needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me? declares the Lord (Jeremiah 22:3,5, 15-16).

Story continues below video

Thomas Jeffersons words are inscribed on the Northeast Portico of the Jefferson Memorial: Can the liberties of a nation be secured when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my nation when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

In an interview with Jeremiah Greever, Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoffer and If You Can Keep It, reflected on the failure of the German church to confront and oppose the rise of totalitarianism under Hitler. He referred to Alexis de Toquevilles assessment concerning America in 1835, Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.

As we enter the 2020 presidential election, it is important that we approach this Thanksgiving with humility, gratitude and prayer that as individuals and a nation we might fulfill Gods will in our treatment of one another and the nations of the earth.

(Bill Tinsley has served as pastor, church planter and missions executive. In 2009 he launched the Tinsley Center, LLC to promote authentic faith that changes lives. He lives in Fort Collins, Colorado, with his wife, Jackie. Email Bill at bill@tinsleycenter.com.A Thanksgiving Gift: Bill Tinsleys devotional book, Authentic Disciple: Sermon on the Mount free eBook on Amazon Nov. 26-30. Email bill@tinsleycenter.com.)

Continued here:

BILL TINSLEY: Be thankful for freedom, and use it wisely - New Castle News

Can you spot a Tory election lie?

Experts have blasted a Conservative Party claim that maintaining freedom of movement would cost the UK millions of pounds.

Writing on Twitter, university academics have contradicted a Tory claim that Corbyns plan to continue free movement with EU countries would cost the Department of Work and Pensions over 4 billion in extra benefit costs over the next 10 years.

Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics at Kings College London said the Tory claims were economically and statistically illiterate.

He said: The governments own analysis shows that EU migrants contribute much more than they claim in benefits and that reducing EU migration means higher taxes or lower public spending.

Meanwhile, Steve Peers, Professor of EU, Human Rights and World Trade Law at the University of Essex said:

Were back to Vote Leave style misleading and xenophobic claims about EU27 citizens and benefits.

Yesterday, we reported that Vote Leave director and Johnson enforcer Dominic Cummings was encouraging Tory activists to hammer a xenophobic, anti-immigration line on the doorstep.

Join the fightback against this scaremongering.

Go here to see the original:

Tory claim about the cost of freedom of movement "illiterate" and "xenophobic", say experts - Scram News