Liberalism is facing its greatest crisis in decades, in part because western governments have failed to uphold their values and Donald Trump has damaged the wests moral authority, according to a new Lowy Institute paper.

The scathing assessment, published on Wednesday, is accompanied by a call for countries including Australia to work towards a more inclusive order driven by a common imperative in meeting 21st-century challenges such as climate change, pandemic disease and global poverty.

Dr Bobo Lo, a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney and a former deputy head of mission at the Australian embassy in Moscow, writes that the coronavirus pandemic has thrown a harsh spotlight on the state of global governance.

Faced with the greatest emergency since the second world war, nations have regressed into narrow self-interest, Lo writes in the paper titled Global Order in the Shadow of the Coronavirus: China, Russia, and the West.

The concept of a rules-based international order has been stripped of meaning, while liberalism faces its greatest crisis in decades.

The actions of Donald Trump, in particular, have undermined transatlantic unity, damaged the moral authority of the west and weakened global governance

Lo argues that even though western leaders blame global disorder on an increasingly assertive China and disruptive Russia, the principal threat lies closer to home because governments have failed to live up to the values underpinning a liberal international order.

This failure, he says, has been compounded by inept policymaking and internal divisions.

The actions of Donald Trump, in particular, have undermined transatlantic unity, damaged the moral authority of the west and weakened global governance.

The paper portrays Trump as openly contemptuous of norms under the rules-based order but it also cites the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W Bush as the most notorious instance of Washington deciding it would not be bound by supranational rules.

In recent years, it says, the US has moved to withdraw from major accords such as the Paris climate agreement and trashed deals the US initiated such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear agreement giving Beijing and Moscow all the justification they need to indulge in their own considerable sense of self-entitlement.

In setting out the case that liberalism is retreating around the world, the paper cites the rise of illiberal democracy in European Union member states Hungary and Poland and the increasing strain on international agreements as some countries abuse or withdraw from them.

Lo, a former head of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House in London, says authoritarian regimes have become more numerous and repressive, with Xi Jinpings China and Vladimir Putins Russia just the most conspicuous examples of a larger trend.

His paper emphasises that with the world in the midst of the worst crisis of international leadership since the 1930s, the issue is not simply Trump but a collective failure that cuts across continents and systems of governance.

The very notion of moral authority is imperilled. Truth has become almost entirely subjective, giving way to narratives. The old cold war confrontation between capitalism and communism may have gone, but in its place are new ideological conflicts, both internationally and within nations.

Lo accuses western policymakers and thinkers of being in denial about the values, norms and institutions of liberalism being in crisis wrongly believing that normal service can be restored with adjustments, such as a change of US president, more transatlantic unity, getting tough on China, and accommodation with Russia.

Lo instead calls for a fundamental rethinking of global governance, with the future being a more inclusive and flexible order. America will remain the leading power in the world for at least the next decade, he says, but US global leadership in its post-cold war form is over.

The paper suggests multilateral organisations will become more important and governments should build their capacity, starting with the chronically under-resourced World Health Organization.

It argues the evolution of global governance will bring greater input from middle-level powers, such as Australia, and smaller states, while also featuring greater involvement of business, civil society organisations and private individuals.

Governments should also be receptive to new regional and global mechanisms, leading eventually to a network of interlocking structures that helps us tackle key priorities, be it climate change, security in the AsiaPacific and Europe, or addressing the infrastructure deficit in Eurasia and Africa.

Sounding the alarm over stalled action to deal with the climate crisis, the paper says the economic downturn prompted by the pandemic had led to misguided moves to drop or weaken carbon emission and other environmental standards when nothing could be more short-sighted.

Lo argues while coronavirus is seen as the most immediate peril facing humanity, the threat of climate change is even larger and more devastating in its consequences both now and in the longer term.

Yet most governments (not least Australia) have ignored, denied, or minimised its importance; made half-hearted and wholly inadequate commitments to cut carbon emissions; played for time they do not have; and shifted responsibility onto others.

Go here to read the rest:

Liberalism is facing a crisis and it's a cop-out to blame China and Russia, analyst claims - The Guardian

Although struggling recently to cope with the global COVID-19 pandemic, universities have long been important institutions not only in the West but internationally.

How long? No direct link exists between todays universities and either the Academy of Plato or the Lyceum of Aristotle. Instead, the origins of the modern university lie in the medieval period.

The term universitas itself seems to have been coined in Italy, in connection with the establishment of what is still known today as the University of Bologna. Focused initially on civil and canon law and featuring teachers recruited from the areas lay and ecclesiastical schools, Bologna is often considered the oldest continuously-functioning degree-granting institution of higher education in the western world. Its official seal features not only its name and the traditional year of its founding (1088) but the motto Alma mater studiorum (Nourishing mother of studies) and, of course, we still use the phrase alma mater in connection with schooling to this day.

Basic studies at Bologna and at subsequent medieval universities focused initially on the arts, and specifically upon the threefold Trivium from which we derive our word trivial of rhetoric, grammar and dialectic (or logic). Thereafter followed the quadrivium of astronomy, arithmetic, geometry and music. Together, these were regarded as the seven liberal arts liberal because mastery of them was thought to equip a person to be free. But the real glory of the medieval university came in the specialized higher studies of medicine, theology and law by which was intended both civil law and ecclesiastical or canon law.

The overtly religious character of the second oldest Western university, the University of Paris, is clearer than that of Bologna. Perhaps already in the sixth century, monks and nuns taught classes in so-called monastic schools or cathedral schools. Founded in 1150, the University of Paris appears to have grown directly out of the cathedral school of Notre Dame, and it was officially recognized by Pope Innocent III in 1215. For many generations, it has also been called the Sorbonne, which is, strictly speaking, the name of its medieval theological college.

The oldest institution of higher learning in what is today the English-speaking world is the University of Oxford. Its founding date is unclear teaching in Oxford is attested at least as early as 1096 perhaps because there wasnt a single, specific founding. But when, in 1167, King Henry II banned English students from attendance at the University of Paris because of his war with Louis VII of France, Oxford really took off. Its Latin motto, visible on its arms or seal, is the opening words of Psalm 27, Dominus Illuminatio Mea (The Lord is my light).

In the midst of violent altercations between students and ordinary citizens in Oxford, though town and gown frictions were common wherever medieval universities were established, and often still are a number of faculty and students found refuge in Cambridge, where Englands second-oldest university was founded in 1209. Astonishingly, Oxford and Cambridge became so powerful that no additional English universities were permitted to compete with them or even to exist until the early 19th century. The University of St. Andrews was established in 1413 but St. Andrews is a city in Scotland.

The oldest institution of higher education in the United States was founded in 1636 and named after an English-born Cambridge-trained minister named John Harvard (1607-1638) who had been serving in the Colonies and whose will bequeathed half of his money and his entire library to the newly-founded school. Newtowne, Massachusetts, accordingly (and ambitiously) changed its name to Cambridge. In its early years, Harvard College served principally to train Unitarian and Congregational clergymen.

Yale University, founded in 1701, was also intended to train Congregational ministers; initially, its curriculum focused entirely on theology and the biblical languages (such as Latin, Greek and Hebrew). Its seal still reflects its roots, with the motto Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth) displayed beneath a book bearing the Hebrew words Urim ve-Tummim (roughly Lights and Perfections). Like Harvard, Yale has an important divinity school.

Established by Presbyterians in 1746, Princeton University was, once again, initially created to train men for the ministry. And still today, the very influential Princeton Theological Seminary autonomous but closely related, having been founded by the Universitys eighth president in 1812 sits nearby.

Some question whether religiously oriented colleges and universities are fully legitimate. For most of the history of higher education, however, there was no other kind.

Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYUs Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify.org, chairs interpreterfoundation.org, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson, and speaks only for himself.

See more here:

How trivia, alma mater, liberal arts and religion are tied to the medieval roots of modern higher educa - Deseret News

Today is the Islamic festival of Bakra Eid where thousands of cattle, goats and buffaloes specifically are slaughtered by pious Muslims as an offering to Allah. For the entire duration of the festival and the build-up to it, you probably did not read any preachy articles from the Left media or even the righteous Liberals who during every Hindu festival, tell Hindus what they should or should not do to uphold the collective morality of the country.

From preaching to save milk during Mahashivratri to saving the water bodies during Ganesh Chaturthi, to caring about pollution on Diwali to talking about saving water on Holi Hindus have seen it all. In fact, recently Holi was equated withterrorismand fake story aboutsemen filled balloonswas propagated. Media and the celebs are pushing the bar higher every year.

The very same celebrities and media go completely silent during any Islamic festivals. Well, not completely silent. They wish the Muslims of India and of the entire world. Hope that peace prevails and that all of the rest of us learn the principles of sacrifice, brotherhood and devotion from the Islamic festival.

But have you ever wondered how would the media and these very liberals who hold sanctimonious placards at the drop of a hat react if Eid was a Hindu festival? What if everything else was constant the festival, the Qurbani et al and just the religion had changed? Would the Liberals still be talking about peace and brotherhood? Or would their reaction be completely different?

Here are 10 images that show how the Liberals would have reacted had Eid been a Hindu festival:

What would PETA and Prashant Bhushan be doing if Eid was a Hindu festival? Surely, running to the court.

And Bengal?

When there is a scope for Hindu shaming, Swara Bhaskar would surely not be left far behind.

If Eid was a Hindu festival, Barkha Dutt would surely be interviewing Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM.

If the Liberals had the chance to shame Hindus on a festival where Hindus went around slaughtering thousands of animals, it would be quite a surprise if the media and their favourite Hinduphobes would not have branded Hindus are terrorists.

And, of course, the portal that turned Holi in a terrorist attack with children being the terrorist would have gone hammer and tongs against the Hindus.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation would have condemned Hindu Nationalists and passed a resolution to ban the festival.

And, of course, no Hindu shaming event would be complete till the secularist would invoke Jinnah and justify the partition See? This is why Muslims did not want to live with Hindus! Ram Guha would certainly be the best person to give a whole new meaning to the Shaheen Bagh slogan Jinnah wali Azadi.

Disclaimer: I wish Happy Eid to everyone! This article is just to show how the liberal crowd is as bigoted as people they brand as bigots, and how their preaching and disdain are reserved for only one community. I wish no ill will to anyone or wish to offend any sensibilities, except theliberal kind.

Read more:

If Bakra Eid was a Hindu festival: 10 images that tell the tale of how liberal media and celebs would have reacted - OpIndia

Colleges routinelyassessfacultyresearch, but few have thought carefully aboutwhythey want faculty to engage in research. They should.

For 35 years, I was a student, postdoc and faculty member at top universities and research institutes, where doing science was at the top of the job description. Seven years ago, I switched gears and joined a new liberal arts college.

Founded by Yale University and the National University of Singapore (NUS), Yale-NUS College has an enrolment of just 1,000 students. We have heavy teaching loads, few on-site research labs, modest start-up funds and no graduate programmes. We also have the most talented, interesting, globally diverse student body I have ever known.For me, this isample compensation for theinabilityto conduct research in the ways I have been used to.

For colleagues who are not yet tenured, itcan bea different matter. Over and above the anxieties experienced by junior faculty everywhere, uncertainties arise from our organisational structure (tenure decisions have to be approved by the provosts of both parent universities as well as by Yale-NUS itself) and our short history.

As in mostAmericaninstitutions, our faculty are assessed on their teaching, service and research, the latter evaluated on the basis of publications and letters from outside reviewers.Thesecriteria are almost universal; differences among institutions lie largely in where to set the bar. At Yale-NUS College, we have askedourselves how much research we can expect. Of what quality and impact?What criteriadowe use to evaluate these things? I suspect we are as far from a consensusnow as we were seven years ago, when we opened our doors.

The problem is that we have been asking the wrong questions. What we should have asked first iswhydo we want faculty to do research? There is more than one possible answer, but most of them imply the need for assessment criteriathat aredifferent from those typically used.

For academia as a whole, the advancement of human knowledge is a primary mission. For private universities at the top of the research pyramid, it is arguably their single most important purpose. For colleges such as mine, though, the reason we exist is to offer the bestundergraduateeducation we can. If we evaluate faculty research solely on how much it expands human knowledge, we lose sight of other benefits that are more important to our mission.

First of all, providingfaculty with theopportunity to do researchis simply what we have to do to recruit the best educators we can.Second, research improves the classroom experience of students, since faculty who are engaged in research are more likely to be attuned to new developments and unresolved questions in their disciplines. Third, research-active faculty are a model for students, showcasing the excitement about intellectual work. Fourth, faculty research provides opportunities for students to engage in research themselves, an especially powerful form of experiential learning. Fifth, faculty who share their research passions in an accessible manner, reaching colleagues and students outside their own discipline, enrich the intellectual culture of the college beyond their own classrooms.

Many institutions recognise these benefits of research but treat them as incidental. Mentoring students in a research project, for example, might count as supplemental teaching. Giving an accessible public lecture might be seen as a form of service to the college. Neither, however, is considered when assessing research.

This may sound like amereaccounting issue, but it can create incentives that are antithetical to the mission of the institution. If a college assesses research entirely in terms of publication metrics and impact, it should not be surprised that faculty are preoccupied with meeting those expectations, at the expense of communicating their interests in a broad and accessible manner.An emphasis on research productivity can also incentivise faculty to limit student involvement in research, or to spend inadequate time on mentoringand training students who are involved.

If colleges were to consider seriously the reasons why they want faculty to do research, many would realise that their promotion and tenure standards are poorly aligned with thosereasons. There are a couple of options for realignment. One is to down-weight research in assessments and add to the teaching and service components the kinds of research-associated activities that the college now realises it has undervalued. This option has the advantage of retaining the research assessment criteria that the college has always used.

However, down-weighting research could be anathema to institutions that use equal weights for research and teaching as a way of signalling that both are valued.A more palatable solution would be to continue to give the same high weight to research but to redefine how it is assessed. Colleges should explicitly include under the research umbrellaallthe research-related activities and behaviours that they deem relevant to their missions.

It is too easy for colleges to default to publications and peer assessments as the sole criterionfor assessing the contributions of faculty research.Focusing debate on where to set the baronlymakes sense if you want high jumpers. Most colleges need a track and field team.

Neil Clarke is an associate professor (science) at Yale-NUS College.

Original post:

Should research really be part of the job description at liberal arts colleges? - Times Higher Education (THE)

I am pleased to see that this newspaper continues to print letters from different opinions, although in my opinion, you seem to favor those with a conservative point of view.

Perhaps its just that more conservative people write in. If thats the case, I urge my fellow liberal readers to express yourselves, loud and clear, now more than ever. Our democratic republic is in danger, and it is our duty as citizens to speak up and take action before America succumbs to the fascist elements now in power.

Great Neck has a long and proud history of progressive activism, going back over fifty years to the Civil Rights era. Where are all the progressive people of Great Neck in 2020? Dont stay silent. Now more than ever, its time to take action!

I am on the executive board of Reach Out America, a grassroots progressive non-profit organization thatwas founded over 15years ago by two of Great Necks well known political activists, Shirley Romaine and Fran Reid.

We advocate for human rights, the environment, the social safety net, and world peace. We present monthly speakers on timely topics of interest (meetings will resume in September, online for the time being).

In this time of turmoil across America, I urge interested readers to join this worthwhile organization and make your voice heard.

For more information, please visit our website athttps://www.reachout-america.com/and join us to work for meaningful change on both a local and a national level. We are also on Facebook, athttps://www.facebook.com/ReachOutAmerica.LI/.

Nina K. Gordon

Great Neck

View original post here:

Readers Write: Now is the time for liberal readers to speak up - Opinions - The Island Now

There really are no true friends in politics.

At the centre of this maelstrom is the Prime Ministers Office, led by Katie Telford, who also appeared before the finance committee on Thursday. Tension is said to exist between PMO and Morneaus office over the latters insistence to appoint Tiff Macklem (over Telfords preference, Carolyn Wilkins) as governor of the Bank of Canada.

It is the chief of staffs job to keep her boss out of trouble when it comes to conflicts of interest, yet this is the third occasion that Trudeau has been subject to an investigation by the ethics commissioner on Telfords watch.

It seems inconceivable that the Liberal Party will go into the next election with the same slate of senior staff and ministers that have blundered so often and left the party at the mercy of their opponents.

The WE affair is convoluted at one level. Was WE really the only organization that could administer the program? But its essence is simple do voters believe Trudeaus account, that nothing untoward happened and the government simply approved a volunteer program recommended by the public service; or the Oppositions contention that a cash-strapped charity with close links to the prime minister and finance minister was bailed out by the government.

At this point, the majority 57 per cent, according to Abacus think the Liberals used public money to reward their friends.

Trudeau may have persuaded those still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But there are fewer and fewer of those people.

Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith once claimed that all successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door.

This feels like a government that is starting to splinter and split.

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter: IvisonJ

Read the original post:

John Ivison: Whether Trudeau's testimony worked or not, the winds of change are blowing for Liberals - National Post

Former MP for Kingston and the Islands Ted Hsu has announced he too will be seeking the nomination for the provincial Liberals.

This comes just weeks after former MPP for the region, Sophie Kiwala, announced she would be running again after losing her seat to NDP MPP Ian Arthur in 2018.

She was one of many Liberal incumbents to lose their seats that election, with the party shrinking down to just seven elected members, one member shy of the Ontario legislatures official party status.

Although Hsu and Kiwala worked closely together, with Kiwala working in Hsus office while he was MP from 2011 to 2015, and Hsu working as her campaign manager in 2018, the two will now be running against each other for the provincial nomination for the 2022 election.

Story continues below advertisement

Hsu chose to leave federal politics before the 2015 election, making room for current MP Mark Gerretsen to take the seat.Now, Hsu wants to get back to centre stage in the political ring.

As my kids and their young friends have grown up and become aware of their world, they tell me how worried they are, Hsu said.

Trending Stories

I want to offer voters someone who has a proven record representing constituents, and also has experience working with scientists, climate researchers, economists, engineers and entrepreneurs, Hsu added.

Before getting into politics, Hsu worked in physics research for 10 years, then in the financial sector for nine years. In 2006, he became executive director of SWITCH, a local sustainable energy association, and also compiled Kingstons first longitudinal greenhouse gas inventory.

Hsu noted that he as MP, he served as the chair of the Ontario Liberal caucus and critic for three areas: economic development in Ontario, post-secondary education, and science and technology.

Story continues below advertisement

Since leaving politics, Hsu has been coaching robotics for local students and been involved in the local start-ups. He has also been serving as co-chair of the Kingston mayors task force on housing, and co-wrote the groups report.

Hsu believes that, with the current turbulence caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic, his varied experience, especially in the scientific, political and financial sectors, will be an asset to constituents in Kingston and the Islands.

The pandemic, with its harsh and unequal economic effects and tricky policy decisions, has reminded us how beneficial it is for our elected officials to be able to interact directly with scientists, economists and other experts and to understand them in detail, Hsu said.

2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

More:

Former MP announces bid for Liberal MPP nomination in Kingston and the Islands - Globalnews.ca

The voting has opened, and the future of what Roy Jenkins used to call the radical centre is about to be decided. Who will be the next Lib Dem leader? Acting co-leader and former Coalition cabinet minister the Right Honourable Sir Ed Davey, the bookies favourite? Or Layla Moran, the clean skin who only entered parliament in 2017, is the education spokesperson and the first (openly) pansexual member of the Commons? If Liberal Democrats were still deciding their leadership under the system that the old Liberal Party once used, with only MPs choosing, then Sir Ed Davey would by now be the person chosen to rebuild their fortunes. Davey has secured the nominations of five of the partys 11 MPs and, assuming hed vote for himself, would thus already be safely ensconced as the heir to Gladstone, HH Asquith, David Lloyd George, and Tim Farron.

As it happens Sir Ed also enjoys the majority of nominations among the wider party membership (around 60 per cent, or 1,870 if those who did so, from 330 parties) and a solid backing around the partys Establishment, including Jane Ashdown (widow of Paddy), Lord (Ming) Campbell, and Baroness (Sarah) Lunsford. The last two party leaders, Jo Swinson (who lost her own seat last year and prompted the leadership contest), and Sir Vince Cable are keeping schtum about their preferences, and no one mentions Sir Nick Clegg these days, maybe not even visiting his Facebook page.

But though the odds are on Ed, the partys 120,000 or so members are an independent-minded, sometimes cussed bunch capable of springing a surprise, and propelling the 37-year-old Ms Moran into the leadership, as when Chris Huhne (almost) beat Clegg in 2007 (an intriguing what if). Moran isnt as popular at Westminster as Davey, but has a respectable 40 per cent share of the nominations of party members.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Read the original here:

Who will win the Liberal Democrats leadership race? - The Independent

The fortified towers of the Mani in the Peloponnese, the four-fingered peninsula in Greece where Europe stops, are wild, grand and isolated.Unlike Patrick Leigh-Fermor, the travel writer who went to live (and die) among them, these symbols of strong, patriarchal clan power speak of closed societies, ruled for centuries by blood and gender. Today they lie abandoned and silent.

The Maniots, who built those towers, would relate to our changing world. Identity politics, nationalism and distrust of the other was, for them, the natural order of things.Like them, we are busy erecting towers. The architecture of the liberal world order, based on interdependence and mutual interest, is crumbling.

Despite the lessons of the 1930s, when fascism and totalitarianism led to collapse and conflict, we seem unable to work together, judging todays challenges too great, too risky. The world is too complex, too unpredictable.The organising principles for a stable and prosperous world, underpinned by tolerance and democracy, are being jettisoned and in their place is a growing void.

We dont have to look too far to see this playing out: Trumpism, Brexit, Turkey, Hungary and a European Union that is struggling to forge a coherent response to Covid-19. This disorientated international order is perfectly captured by the French term dboussol: a world whose compass is spinning.

Into this void has stepped first China and more recently Russia. The unipolar world greeted by many after the collapse of centrally planned economies in 1989 the end of history turned out to be a mirage.

Global hegemony by the US after the end of the Cold War, like any monopoly, was not a particularly healthy outcome. Certainly not with Donald Trump at the helm. Nowthe US flip flops between retreating from global leadership and squaring up to Chinas creeping imperialism, while cosying up to a roguish Russia. This is hardly a recipe for economic stability or peace.

The collapse of the Soviet Union lulled the West into a false sense of omnipotence. The hope that market forces would ineluctably lead to a corresponding loosening of political freedom in Russia and China is in tatters.

For China in particular the momentous events of 1989 were an emphatic warning which it has taken to heart: loosening the Communist Partys grip at home poses a mortal threat to its survival. The enemy for Beijing and Moscow was and remains liberalism. This is not a secret. It is a strategy.

Out of this realisation has emerged an approach adopted by both former communist adversaries increasingly in tandem: to create an alternative world order that actively undermines the liberal economic model and favours or at least does not oppose autocratic regimes that embrace capitalism.

This is not a coincidence. China and Russia now cooperate widely. The idea of re-creating a multipolar world was first discussed by the old communist adversaries in 1997, when Chinese President Jiang Zemin met his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin. Putin and Xi have taken it to the next level.

They are building a network of bespoke initiatives, institutions and regional organisations that will forge an alternative international coalition stretching from the Sea of Japan to the South Atlantic.

This accretion of soft power is backed by carefully military interventions, calculated to challenge (and rile) the west but not to provoke a conflict: Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, the South China Sea.Countries in the developing world with copious natural resources, strategic positions or both are being enticed with lucrative alternatives to the western patronage that defined the 20th century.

This assault on the liberal economic order is finding favour not just in the failed states of the Middle East, Africa or the favellas of South America. It is also garnering support among countries once solidly in the western fold: Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines. And strikingly it has also attracted the attention of Iran, where the theocratic mullahs are on the verge of signing a $400bn economic and security partnership with Beijings Godless communists.

The Belt and Road initiative, President Xi Jinpings signature project, is creating a vast network of client states often by pressuring poorer countries into accepting debt for equity swaps, which leave them in a debt trap.

Earlier this month Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI, said that China, now seen as Americas main military threat, is engaged in a whole-state effort to become the worlds only superpower.

Their methods are as follows:

Franklin Roosevelt defined the world order that rose from the ruins of World War II with this simple dictum: national well-being and international cooperation are two sides of the same coin.

Economic diseases Roosevelt wrote prophetically in his letter to the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, are highly communicable. It follows, therefore, that the economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbours, near and distant.Bretton Woods sought to end what then Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau called economic nationalism. That ethos now hangs by a thread.

Multiple shocks have accelerated this political and social introspection: the 2008 financial crisis; the uneven benefits of globalisation; the exodus of refugees from a fractured Middle East and failing states in Africa and Asia; and now the long-foretold pandemic wrapping itself around the globe, threatening yet another global economic downturn.

This collapse in trust is contagious. But it is not new. Even before Trump, the US was tiring of its hegemonic role as the leader of a liberal international order. Trump was pushing at an open door.

The retreat of the liberal spirit poses a danger to our well-being as free citizens. But it also makes it much harder to tackle the common problems we face. This requires the free exchange of ideas. Surely we have learnt this much from the pandemic.

The only power on earth that has the reach and the power, for the foreseeable, future to corral countries into renewing their vows to a liberal, tolerant, stable world order is the United States.Should he win in November and its a big if, given Trumps propensity for mischief one of Joe Bidens first acts should be to convene a meeting of the worlds principal democracies to do just that.

View post:

The retreat of the liberal spirit - TheArticle

OTTAWA A timeline of events regarding the Canada Student Service Grant program, based on public documents, events and statements from cabinet ministers, government officials, and WE Charity:

March 6, 2020: WE Charity staff prepare a concept paper on service learning for public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada.

April 5: Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talk over the phone about how to help students whose summer job and volunteer opportunities were vanishing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Finance Department officials are tasked with considering options the next morning.

April 7: Small Business Minister Mary Ng and WE co-founder Craig Kielburger have an introductory phone call in which Ng asks WE to send what it calls a "pre-established proposal" to help young people launch businesses.

April 7 or 8: Morneau's office contacts the WE organization, among other groups, to get their input on potential programs. Morneau says the call was on April 7 while WE says it was April 8.

April 9: WE Charity sends the unsolicited proposal for a youth business program to Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Ng, Morneau and Trudeau's office. The price tag is between $6 million and $14 million to provide digital programming and $500 grants, plus "incentive funds," for 8,000 students.

April 16: ESDC officials mention WE in the context of the student program in an email discussion with Finance officials.

April 18: Morneau's officials raise the idea of partnering with a non-profit, or for-profit group to administer the program. (ESDC officials suggest the same day that WE might be an option.) Morneau said it was the first time he was involved in any talk about WE and the grant program.

April 19: Wernick contacts Craig Kielburger. WE says the call was to discuss launching a youth service program in the summer and that Wernick asks Kielburger to develop a proposal to fulfil that objective. During the call, Wernick learns of the April 9 proposal for a youth business program and Kielburger agrees to send both proposals.

April 20: Morneau's office contacts WE to ask about its ability to deliver a volunteer program. An official's record of the call notes "WE Charity will re-work their 10-week summer program proposal to fully meet the policy objective of national service and increase their current placements of 8,000 to double."

April 21: Morneau approves going with an outside organization to run the volunteer program, but no specific group is chosen.

WE's youth entrepreneurship program proposal is included in annex nine of a briefing package about a student aid program that goes to the Prime Minister's Office, chief of staff Katie Telford later tells the finance committee. The proposal is declined.

April 22: Trudeau announces a $9-billion package of student aid, including the outline of a volunteer program paying students up to $5,000 toward education costs, based on the number of hours they volunteer. WE sends Wernick an updated proposal to reflect the announcement. The message is forwarded to Chagger, Ng and Morneau.

April 26: Morneau speaks with WE co-founder Craig Kielburger, but told the finance committee neither of them talked about the Canada Student Service Grant program. Craig Kielburger later tells the committee he only brought up the youth business proposal, not the grant program.

April 27: Volunteer Canada, a charity that promotes volunteering and helps organizations use volunteers well, meets Chagger and raises concerns about paying students hourly rates below minimum wage and calling it volunteering.

May 4: WE sends a third proposal to ESDC, this time with more details and specific to the grant program. Finance official Michelle Kovacevic, who was working on the program, told the finance committee she received it May 7.

May 5: Chagger goes to a special COVID-19 cabinet committee with the recommendation to go with WE for the program. Neither Morneau nor Trudeau is at the meeting.

The same day, a member of the Prime Minister's Office policy team speaks with WE as part of stakeholder consultation, but then directs the organization to ESDC.

WE begins incurring eligible expenses.

May 8: Trudeau finds out that WE is being recommended to run the student-volunteer program hours before a cabinet meeting. He later tells the finance committee that he pulled the item from the agenda and sent it back to the public service for more due diligence because of how the deal could be perceived.

May 21: The public service comes back to Trudeau, he tells the finance committee. The recommendation to go with WE doesn't change.

May 22: Cabinet, including Trudeau and Morneau, approved handing the reins of the program to WE.

May 23: The public service officially begins negotiating a contribution agreement with WE, which would have paid up to $43.5 million in fees to the group.

May 25 to June 3: In a series of meetings with Volunteer Canada, WE suggests the target for placements through the program had gone from 20,000 to 100,000.

June 12: WE co-founder Marc Kielburger says in a video chat with youth leaders that he heard from Trudeau's office about getting involved in the volunteer program the day after it was announced by the prime minister. He later backtracks, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the Prime Minister's Office.

June 23: WE Charity Foundation signs a contribution agreement with the federal government. WE signatories include Scott Baker, named as president of the one-year-old foundation and executive director of WE Charity, and chief financial officer Victor Li. Chagger signs for the government.

June 25: Trudeau unveils more details about student aid. A government release notes that WE will administer the student-volunteer program.

June 26: Facing questions about WE, Trudeau says the non-partisan public service made the recommendation, and the government accepted it: "As the public service dug into it, they came back with only one organization that was capable of networking and organizing and delivering this program on the scale that we needed it, and that was the WE program."

July 3: Citing the ongoing controversy, WE and the Liberals announce a parting of ways and the federal government takes control of the program. Ethics commissioner Mario Dion tells Conservative and NDP ethics critics in separate letters he will examine Trudeau's role in the awarding of the agreement because of the prime minister's close ties to the group.

July 9: WE says it has paid Trudeau's mother Margaret about $250,000 for 28 speaking appearances at WE-related events between 2016 and 2020. His brother Alexandre was been paid $32,000 for eight events, and Trudeau's wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau received $1,400 in 2012 for a single appearance. The organization says Trudeau himself has never been paid by the charity or its for-profit arm.

July 13: Trudeau apologizes for not recusing himself from discussions about WE over his family's longtime involvement with the organization. Morneau also issues an apology.

July 16: Dion says he will investigate Morneau's actions in the affair. Chagger testifies at the finance committee, saying Trudeau's office didn't direct her to go with WE.

July 21: Ian Shugart, clerk of the Privy Council, tells the Commons finance committee there is no evidence to suggest Trudeau spoke with WE before the organization was awarded the deal to run the student-volunteer program.

July 22: Morneau tells the finance committee he just repaid over $41,000 to WE for travel expenses the organization footed for the minister and his family. The Opposition Conservatives call for Morneau to resign.

Trudeau's office says he and Telford have agreed to testify before the committee with a date and time to be set.

The House of Commons ethics committee also calls on Trudeau to testify, and votes to seek copies of records for Trudeau and his family's speaking appearances dating back years. Six opposition members outvote five Liberals to have that committee start its own investigation.

July 23: Conservatives and New Democrats ask Dion to launch a new probe of Morneau over his travel expenses.

July 27: A copy of the contribution agreement with WE Charity Foundation is filed with the finance committee. It lays out the details of the program, including a provision for a maximum contribution of $543.53 million $500 million for grants, and $43.53 million to WE.

July 28: Craig and Marc Kielburger testify over four hours of sometimes testy interactions with MPs on the finance committee. The co-founders of WE Charity say their history and experience, not ties to Liberal cabinet ministers, landed the group the deal to run the volunteer program. They add they would have never agreed to take part in the program had they known it could jeopardize the work the WE organization has done over 25 years.

They also say WE estimated the cost of the program to be between $200 million and $300 million.

July 29: The Conservatives call on the federal ethics czar to widen his probe of Trudeau to include travel expenses WE covered in addition to speaking fees for his mother, wife and brother. Dion sends letters to the Tories and NDP saying he is expanding his probe of Morneau to look into the $41,000 in WE-sponsored travel.

July 30: In a rare event, Trudeau testifies before the House of Commons finance committee and lays out when he first learned about WE's involvement in the Canada Student Service Grant program. He says WE Charity didn't receive any preferential treatment in the process. He also says it is now unlikely the grants will be rolled out. Telford also appears before the committee.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2020.

Read the rest here:

A timeline of the controversy around WE, the Liberals and a student program - Kamloops This Week

Andrew John Furey says he wants to be able to look his children in the eyes and tell them he did everything he could to help Newfoundland and Labrador navigate through troubled waters.

Furey is one of two people who could become the fourteenth premier of Newfoundland and Labrador should he win the leadership race for the Liberal Party.

Furey was born in St. Johns and resides in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's with his wife Allison and their three children.

The Furey name is well-known in Newfoundland and Labrador political circles. George Furey, his father, is the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, while his uncle Chuck Furey was an MHA and provincial cabinet minister, serving from 1985 to 2000.

Furey says he looks up to his father, but adds his grandmother Mary Furey had a profound impact on his life.

She left a relationship with eight children under her arm in the middle of the night, figuratively, and took ... the boys to Mount Cashel, the girls to Belvedere. Family was so important to her, she managed to keep that unit cohesive, said Furey.

Were talking about a single mom in the '50s in Newfoundland and Labrador; it couldnt have been easy. Somehow, she managed to keep the unit together as best she could and raise. I certainly stand on her shoulders every single day.

Furey says his familys good fortune and close connection to power gave him reason to want to give back to the province.

Ive been fortunate to grow up in a loving, nurturing family. My parents instilled in me from an early age the benefit of a solid education and the responsibility to use good fortunes to give back, said Furey.

Ive really taken example from my father, who as some may know grew up in Mount Cashel and fought his way to get an education, become a teacher, then return to law school, build a career for himself there, then enter public service. My family is filled with examples of people giving back to the community in large and small ways. Its really instilled in me that value to use the fortunes youve been provided to help others.

Furey has a bachelor of science and medical degree from Memorial University, where he is the director of orthopedic research. In 2015, he completed a diploma in organizational leadership from Oxford University.

"I dont intend to be a career politician for my entire life. Im parking my career right now and coming in to try and make a difference." Andrew Furey

Furey has been part of the board of directors of a number of companies both in and outside the province.

In 2010, Furey founded Team Broken Earth, a charity started after a devastating earthquake hit Haiti in 2010.

He joined the board of Sequence Bio in 2016, a bio-technology company seeking to collect genetic data in Newfoundland and Labrador, recently leaving the position.

Furey has a number of former board memberships for mining companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, including Alderon Iron Ore. Furey has also been on the board of Canada Fluorspar, which operates a mine in St. Lawrence.

Furey co-founded the Dollar a Day foundation with current Nalcor board of directors chair Brendan Paddick and musician Alan Doyle.

Furey says he would give up all existing board memberships should he be successful in the leadership race.

If Im successful, Ill leave those immediately, (although)theyre near and dear to my heart. said Furey, who also is on the board of directors of Medishare, a health-care volunteer provider group in the United States.

Furey says he recognizes how intertwined the business and political life of Newfoundland and Labrador can be, and says introducing an ethics officer is one step to ensure conflicts of interest are avoided.

Id also like to introduce an ethics officer to the executive and executive council. Newfoundland and Labrador is a small place. Everybody knows somebody whos involved in businesses along the way, said Furey.

We need that extra layer, that extra screen to ensure were making decisions, whether senior bureaucratic decisions or political decisions based on the right information thats being provided, in the most ethical and responsible way in the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Telegram offered a series of rapid-fire policy questions to determine where Furey stands on some of our provinces greatest issues, beginning with the challenge to distinguish himself from the politician he seeks to replace.

Here are his replies.

Premier Ball has done a remarkable job, given the circumstances. I think I bring a different approach. Were Liberals, we share the same ideology. Hes done a great job and I guess being different, um, I bring a different lens. Im not a career politician, I dont intend to be a career politician for my entire life. Im parking my career right now and coming in to try and make a difference. I guess were a little different in that respect.

I do recognize the fiscal challenges we face and how government has expanded over the years. I do realize we have to correct that. That correction needs to be done so that government is providing the services to the communities around our province in a responsible and balanced way. I recognize that theres tough decisions in there. But thats something were going to have to face collectively together moving forward.

Furey says the current attrition model for reducing the amount of public servants may not be his only approach.

I understand attrition has its limits. Of course, we still need the basic services and we need to look at the distribution throughout government programs. Im more interested in looking at a program triage to see- do a full, healthy review of what programs were delivering and what returns on investments were getting whether social or economic to see if were spending money on those programs in a responsible way.

First, we need to diversify the economy so that were not subject to massive commodity fluctuations. I think we can do that in a healthy and visionary way. Youve heard me talk before about the technology space and the arts and entertainment space and how we can grow those into thriving industries so we can provide a pipeline with respect to technology for young people so they know if they do their targeted education which well have to invest in (that) therell be an ecosystem to support them on the other end. Technology is geography independent, which is one of the challenges of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second piece to deal with the demographic issue is immigration. We need a more robust, healthy immigration target. We need to capitalize on immigrants wanting to come to Canada and stay and live here in N.L.

I think systemic racism is prevalent throughout our society and institutions. Its unfortunate, but I think it would be wrong to ignore that it exists. It doesnt just exist south of the border, it does exist here. I would never pretend to fully understand all the issues of racially suppressed people and Id like to listen to them, understand what their issues are. Itss the job of any leader to understand the barriers they face and try to have a better understanding of the issues and the feelings they have, and to use every tool available in the office to change that, to ensure that we have a public service and a legislature that reflects the diversity that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My primary focus is going to be ensure (the Muskrat Falls project) gets done in the most timely fashion, with the least amount of further cost overruns so that we can return the value of that project and that asset to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the best of our ability. With respect to Phase Two (Gull Island), the province is not in a fiscal or financial position right now to develop that project. Thats not to say it wont be done in the future or is totally off the table, but right now we need to get the first project done ... get it done in an efficient and effective manner so we can stabilize the ship with respect to the debt.

I think that the minimum wage should be tied to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). I think its important to have regular evaluations of the minimum wage. But I also realize that its a political football. I dont think it should be. I think this independent evaluation needs to do their job and take politics out of the minimum wage. I recognize even the regional politics involved in that. No one wants to be the last with respect to the minimum wage. One of the possible solutions is to work towards a harmonized approach with the (other) Atlantic provinces so that no one is last and were using all the tools available to us to provide a living wage and to help people rise out of poverty.

I think that donations to political parties need to be fully reviewed. That would be the first thing I would instruct the Liberal party president to do under my watch. Reviewed with action, of course.

I think taxes right now, as a general statement, are high enough. I think we can be doing better in insuring we review the metrics around the thresholds for some of the taxes with respect to small businesses. Ensuring that were providing an environment that allows them to grow and develop, Id have to get in and look at the books, but right now, my intent is not to make any drastic changes to income tax. I think were taxed high enough.

I think weve all learned the lesson that this province is big and diverse, but you can reach out fairly quickly and quasi in-person with Zoom and other means. I think thats a way that we can apply that technology, whether it be virtual care with medicine or in meetings, more regular meetings with the premier or executive throughout the province without having to assume the cost of travel. Its not going to replace everything altogether, but its a way (of using technology) to do more with less.

I think were positioned well for ocean-based aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador. There have been hiccups, theres no question, but were developing it. Its part of who we are. Ive seen firsthand how it can reinvigorate some of our rural communities in particular and lead to sustainable lives for families there. We just came from Harbour Breton and Bay DEspoir and to see the economic return to these communities is quite remarkable.

Frankly, patronage is never acceptable. Im committed to ensuring the best person for the job gets the job regardless of political stripe. I think Premier Ball made good moves in that direction with respect to the independent appointments process. I look forward to working with the clerk of the council to ensure that its a competence-based approach, not a political one, so were getting the best advice from the best people to make the best decisions.

We need to work with the framework thats there now and increase it with respect to ATIPP (Access to Information and Protection of Privacy). Thats up for renewal and Im committed to ensuring its the most open and transparent process available. Its a bit of a cultural shift occurring and its going to take time and I recognize that. People can expect an open, transparent and just government from me. One of the concrete examples would be the chief economic recovery officer who would provide regular updates on the economy from a non-political view, to give the hard goods on where the economy is,and where its going.

We need to change the culture of the House of Assembly so we can have healthy debate. There are bigger issues we all need to collectively face and debate in an open and respectful manner so we can come to the best conclusions for the people of the province. That involves a cultural shift in the House of Assembly and legislature. Premier Ball has done some good work, for example the all-party committee on the public health crisis. Symbolically building on those types of working groups can be beneficial in changing the culture and decorum of the House of Assembly.

Twitter: @DavidMaherNL

RELATED:

Read more:

Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal leadership hopeful Andrew Furey's vision for the future, plus a glimpse at his past - The Telegram

One of their complaints is the lack of any specific regulator of litigation funders. One in Sydney, Richard Hill, was banned as an auditor for 12 months and owed $319,000 in taxes, according to records cited by Mr Falinski, who then asked a representative of the corporate regulator, Daniel Crennan, "if Bernie Madoff was still alive, could he be running a litigation funder in Australia?"

Liberal senator James Paterson is chairing the inquiry into litigation funding.Ben Rushton

"Not from jail," Mr Crennan said.

"I should say for the record that I think Bernie Madoff is still alive," Senator Paterson said.

If they can convince the government and Parliament to impose restrictions on litigation funders, possibly similar to managed investment schemes, Mr Falinski and Senator Paterson could become heroes to the business community.

First they will have to get through Senator Deborah O'Neill, a battle-hardened veteran of Labor politics. In public hearings this week, Senator O'Neill, who faces internal competition for her seat, asked questions and made comments designed to bolster the case for leaving the industry untouched.

When Mr Falinski questioned the credibility of one of her witnesses, a legal academic, she complained to Senator Paterson, who as chairman of the committee is theoretically meant to be neutral.

"You might be advised to ask one of your colleagues on the committee to make points of order that you yourself have not recently breached in this committee," he replied. "At least then you won't open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy."

Jason Falinski in the House of Representatives in 2018.Alex Ellinghausen

"I don't care if you call me a hypocrite," she said.

As five industry representatives there to give evidence watched, mute, Mr Falinski interjected: "But you didn't tell the truth."

Mr Falinski was referring to an insinuation by Senator O'Neill and labour law firm Slater & Gordon that the Liberals are operating on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce.

As if there wasn't enough tension during the session, loud noises that sounded like construction burst over the broadcast. No one knew where they originated from until Louise Pratt, a Labor senator from Perth, apologised for leaving her microphone on and said they came from a neighbour's property. Senator O'Neill burst out laughing.

Independent sources of funding to pay the dozens of lawyers, experts and others needed to conduct complex civil litigation emerged in 2001, driving the popularity of class actions for victims who had few other options.

As the new industry developed, a striking economic trend emerged. The people on whose behalf lawsuits are filed got 51 per cent of the financial settlements (almost none of the lawsuits are ruled on) when the cases were funded externally. When they weren't, they got 85 per cent, according to the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Unaware that he had been cited in the hearings until told by this journalist, Richard Hill said that litigation funders expect to receive about 2 times the value of their investments, which is not a big return given the risk of losing all their money.

"That's similar to other industries such as property development returns based on a rezoning of land," he said.

He said his temporary ban as an auditor and tax bill were misunderstandings about arcane areas of the law that had been resolved many years ago.

The latest class action is against Carnival Cruises over a COVID-19 outbreak on the Ruby Princess cruise ship, which infected 700 people, according to Shine Lawyers.

Slater & Gordon, Maurice Blackburn, Shine and 11 other companies recently launched an advertising campaign called "Keep Corporations Honest" to mobilise public opinion against any measures that would make class actions less lucrative. The campaign cites a lawsuit against US company Johnson & Johnson's faulty pelvic mesh, which was designed to stop urinary incontinence.

Shine Lawyers won the case in the Federal Court last year on behalf of thousands of Australian women. (Johnson & Johnson is appealing.) On Monday, the firm's head of litigation and loss recovery, Jan Saddler, made an impassioned speech about the threat to future victims of corporate malpractice from changes to the system.

"I really don't want us to tinker with a system that works well and have unintended consequences that (mean that) cases like the pelvic mesh case can't be run, won't be run, will be stymied in their prosecution in the future," she said.

"I understand that," Mr Falinski said. "I just want to ask: is that case funded by a litigation funder?"

Ms Saddler replied: "No."

See the original post here:

Rising Liberals jockey for position in fight over class actions - The Australian Financial Review

Posts circulated on social media attribute a quote onliberals and conservativesto the 26thPresident of the United States,Theodore Roosevelt. The quote, however, is falsely attributed to him.

Reuters Fact Check. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

The posts show a photograph of Roosevelt alongside text which reads:To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.The posts do not point to a sourceforthe quotation, nor a possible date.

Examples of the claim are visible here , here and here .

On social media, users have responded with conflicting reactions. Some haveconcurred with the sentiment(one posted:Goshthats dead on),while others have disputed theauthenticity of the quotation.

Reuters found no mention of this quote among those compiled by the Theodore Roosevelt Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated toperpetuatinghismemoryandideals( here ).

The quote did not appear among the list of notable quotations listed by the Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickinson State University, another organization working to preserveRoosevelts legacy ( here ).

In the past, the quotation has been attributed to other statesmen like Winston Churchill, ( here , here ).On other social media sites, the quotation has circulatedwith attribution to Roosevelt, as anonymous, or attributed to an unknown source since 2009( here ).

In 2013, BarryPopik, a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Yale Book of Quotations and the Dictionary of Modern Proverbs, found that the quote had been in print since about 2007 ( here ), as first reported byPolitifact( here ). Well after Roosevelts lifetime,Popiknotedin a blog entry.

Throughout the years,other fact-checkers have debunked this claim, ( here , here ).

False. The quote on liberals and conservatives attributed to Theodore Roosevelt is false.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here .

Link:

Fact check: False Theodore Roosevelt quote about liberals and conservatives - Reuters

ANDY HOLT, State Representative Published 1:20 p.m. CT July 28, 2020

In his monumental Fourth of July address at Mt. Rushmore, President Trump said: Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children."

I couldnt have said it better myself. Its difficult to witness the dangerous and lawless direction that some in our country have chosen to pursue over these last few weeks. Amidst the violent protests, the liberal mob wants to remove our statues, monuments, holidays - erasing our history. They want to change the National Anthem. They even will go as far as to burn the American flag. They want to get rid of statues and depictions of Christ. Its sickening, dangerous and patently un-American.

In a recent tweet, Joe Biden said his election would mean the transformation of America. Lets be clear - if the American people send Joe Biden to the White House, our nation will be transformed into a socialist country. Everything were seeing from the left is a part of their march toward socialism.

As a father of seven precious children, I am concerned about the country that we will be leaving to them if the radical mob continues down the path it is on unchecked.

The last thing we need in the U.S. Senate are weak-kneed Republicans, who lack the courage to stand up for whats right. How are they any different than the liberal mob when they side with them to remove our statues, to replace holidays like Columbus Day, and even to impeach our President? That is not what Tennesseans want; its not a representation of our values. The good people of our state want an unwavering true conservative representing them, a conservative who will stand against this nonsense and the progression towards socialism.

President Trump has endorsed Bill Hagerty not once, but twice, for the U.S. Senate - thats a far cry from being the establishment choice as some have claimed about Bill. The President can see establishment candidates a mile away, and he not only does not support them, he endorses their opponents - look to the Alabama U.S. Senate Race and Coach Tommy Tubervilles commanding win for clarity on that topic!

The President does not give his endorsement lightly, and after working closely with Bill Hagerty for years now - you know it holds water. I know Bill will stand firmly beside President Trump to implement his America First agenda and fight for the country we love that is far too close to slipping away.

Ive known Bill for over almost a decade, and he has also earned my endorsement. Bill Hagerty is a Christian, a fine husband and father, a dedicated public servant, and a freedom-loving patriot. In the Senate, he will work tirelessly to defend our conservative values from those trying to undermine them. Like me, he is gravely concerned with the direction of our country, and will not stay silent while the radical liberals attempt to destroy our country. As the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Bill has seen firsthand from neighboring regimes like China and North Korea what happens when we let socialism or, even worse, communism take control of our government systems. It leads to chaos, failed public policies and systemic oppression. Bill will stand with President Trump in ensuring that we never become a socialist country under his leadership.

Our values have never been more under attack than at this moment in history. We must have the courage to stand boldly for them and ensure that we elect Bill Hagerty to the U.S. Senate. No one will fight more persistently for our conservative way of life than my friend, Bill. He is a solid conservative, and I am proud to join President Trump in fully endorsing him for the U.S. Senate.

State Representative Andy Holt represents District 76 of Tennessee, which includes Weakley County, and part of Obion and Carroll Counties.

Read or Share this story: https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/2020/07/28/hagerty-conservative-who-stand-up-liberal-mob-opinion/5528967002/

Originally posted here:

Hagerty is a Conservative who will stand up to Liberal mob | Opinion - The Jackson Sun

A female politician has donned a garbage bag to call out what she says is the sexist "rubbish" women in politics are forced to put up with.

In the minute-long video, posted to Twitter, South Australian Liberal MP Nicolle Flint lists off a series of incidents she's endured since entering federal politics, including being targeted by a male stalker and having her campaign office defaced with "skank" and "prostitute".

She also criticises male commentator Mike Carlton who, during an episode of Q+A, tweeted that panellist and singer Jimmy Barnes had "shown great restraint by not leaping from his seat and strangling [Nicolle]".

But Ms Flint appears to have drawn the line on Sunday when another commentator, and ABC radio host, Peter Goers, wrote a column criticising the glossy brochures issued by MPs, at taxpayers' expense, to their constituents.

Mr Goers mentioned other South Australian Liberals, including "king of the open-necked shirt, David Basham", but reserved his most detailed observations for Ms Flint, her "pearl earrings and a pearly smile" and "vast wardrobe of blazers, coats and tight, black, ankle-freezing trousers and stiletto heels".

Wearing those very stilettos and black, ankle-freezing trousers, Ms Flint ends the video by posing the question: "So Mr Goers, what should a woman in politics wear?"

"How about a garbage bag to match your rubbish views," she says, while removing her black coat to reveal a grey bin bag cinched with a black belt.

Federal MPs are given tens of thousands of dollars each year, some of which can be used for printed material.

Almost immediately, her post drew praise from female politicians across the aisle, including Labor's Anika Wells who tweeted "I'm with Nicolle Flint".

"The standards expected of women politicians are garbage," she said.

"Be authentic but appeal widely. Be charming but don't try too hard. Confident, but modest ya know?"

Another Labor MP, Madeline King, also took to Twitter to declare: "I stand with Nicolle Flint," saying the kind of sexist rubbish she had copped belong "in the bin".

Loading

Women in politics have long complained about the double standards to which they are held particularly when it comes to appearance but many are reluctant to, or tired of speaking out about it.

Ms Flint is from the conservative wing of the Liberal Party, which is typically even more hesitant to discuss their experience as female MPs, fearing they'll either be defined by it, or raise eyebrows among often male-dominated pre-selection committees.

But the public examples of sexism in politics are endless.

From Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's "slut-shaming" defamation case against former senator David Leyonhjelm, to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott pointing out the "sex appeal" of then-candidate Fiona Scott and Liberal Don Randall accusing then-Democrat Cheryl Kernot of "having the morals of an alley cat".

Australia's first female prime minister Julia Gillard suffered years of negative commentary about the fit of her jackets, her hairstyle, the tone of her voice, even her decision to not have children.

One of her fiercest critics, right-wing commentator Alan Jones, suggested putting Ms Gillard into a "chaff bag" and throwing her out to sea and after the death of her father, claimed he had "died of shame".

Mr Jones also appeared at anti-carbon tax rallies outside Parliament House where protesters held up placards which read "Ditch the Witch" and "Bob Brown's bitch".

In the years since, the ranks of women in Parliament have been bolstered mainly on the Labor side which has helped shift the tone of debate but it has certainly has not settled it.

Ms Flint, who is 42, and Ms Wells, 34, are from different states and different parties, and sit on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but their intervention strongly suggests the next generation of women in politics won't cop such "sexist rubbish" silently.

Mr Goers has been contacted for comment.

View post:

Liberal MP Nicolle Flint wears a bin bag to call out 'sexist rubbish' after column describes her clothing choices - ABC News

With the 2021-22 school year scheduled to start in roughly six weeks, teachers are still awaiting confirmation of how learning will look in the age of COVID-19.

The Thames Valley District School Board issued an update on its website on Friday, saying it will be ready to welcome all students back to school with enhanced public health protocols, but is also preparing to provide a blend of in-school and at-home learning if required.

That same day, Education Minister Stephen Lecce said details about the plan to reopen schools would be coming next week. The province first announced in mid-June that it was looking at three potential options for the return to school.

There hasnt been much by way of direction through the month of July thats caused a lot of uncertainty, said Craig Smith, president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) for Thames Valley.

Story continues below advertisement

And I think teachers, like everyone else, recognize that reopening schools is a very big deal.

Speaking on The Morning Show with Devon Peacock, Smith says ETFO leadership has been in contact with the province and the Thames Valley local has been in contact with the Thames Valley District School Board and relaying members concerns to them.

In fairness to the board, its been a bit of a challenge. Yes, theyve had to create these three scenarios. But until we actually land on something thats approved by the ministry and one of the wildcards in this is any plan the boards present have to be approved by the ministry.

The safest thing would be for people to remain remotely teaching and students remotely learning but we know that thats hugely problematic and challenging for parents, and certainly is challenging as we move the economy forward to reopening. So, you know, I think were going to have to watch this very, very carefully.

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

Smith added that its safe to say that all teachers are nervous, but he expects that once plans are concrete, there will be teachers who, for various health reasons, are unable to be in school environments.

While the Doug Ford government is expected to release more details about its back-to-school plan this week, the Liberal Party of Ontario has issued its own plan.

Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca says the plan, dubbed the students in schools action plan, would cost $3.2 billion and result in 820 new classroom locations, 860 additional educators and 440 additional caretakers in London alone.

Its a big price tag but I think the consequences for both our kids and also for our economy, if we dont get this right, are pretty traumatic.

The Liberal Partys plan would involve seeing students return to school full-time but with physical distancing measures in place by way of cutting class sizes to 15, necessitating additional staffing, and conducting some classes in other public spaces like libraries and community centres, possibly even outdoors at the start of the school year.

Story continues below advertisement

My wife and I are raising two young girls, were going back into elementary school this coming September, Del Duca told Devon Peacock onThe Morning Show.

I think its shocking that we havent heard any real clear details by the government so far. But I didnt just want to criticize the government. I wanted to put forward a plan that said, Heres what we think it would look like in order to do this safely, which in turn helps us with our economic recovery.

Provincewide, the plan would involve hiring thousands of teachers across the province, but Del Duca believes there are enough qualified teachers to fill those roles.

In Ontario today, there are about 200,000 certified teachers who are members of the Ontario College of Teachers. In the public system, there are just about 125 to 126,000 teachers teaching in public schools. Theres therefore about 70 to 75,000 teachers who are certified who arent currently teaching. Some of them would be in private schools, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

But I believe out of that group with that cohort of teachers who are certified, we could find 15,000 elementary and 2,000 secondary teachers who have the certification, who are young enough to not be in any kind of vulnerable position given the pandemic that were dealing with.

with a file from Shawn Jeffords and Salmaan Farooqui of The Canadian Press.

2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Link:

London teachers await back-to-school plans from Ford government as Liberal Party releases its plan - Globalnews.ca

Christine Jardine suffered an intense grilling from talkRADIO's Wootton regarding whether the Lib Dem's acting leader had a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister. Ms Jardine stated that the next general election was about rebuilding for her party following a poor result in the 2019 contest.

Mr Wootton said: "With all the will in the world you must accept that Ed Davey is never going to be Prime Minister where as Keir Starmer has at least a chance."

The Lib Dem MP replied: "This is not a game, it is about what you believe in and I believe in things that are significantly different to the Labour Party."

The talkRADIO host asked: "Do you believe in Ed Davey as Prime Minister?"

Ms Jardine said: "I believe in Ed as the leader of the Liberal Democrats."

READ MORE:Kuenssberg warns Starmer sacking Long-Bailey to open 'bitter tensions'

Mr Wootton responded: "But you accept that he will never become Prime Minister?"

The Liberal Democrat said: "One should never say never but that is not our first aim as a position with 11 MPs.

"We are aiming to rebuild at the next general election."

Earlier this month theLiberal Democrats' acting leader suffered a backlash from BBC Breakfast viewers following his "irrelevant" interview on BBC Breakfast.

Some BBC Breakfast viewers took to Twitter to criticise the acting leader of the Lib Dems.

One Twitter user wrote: "Why does the BBC still insist on putting Ed Davey on TV?

"Is there a more irrelevant politician than that virtue signalling I love everybody, bloody Clown? They have 11 MPs and he promises the Earth to people.

"You can do when youll never have the power to give it. Waste of space."

DON'T MISSBBC's Laura Kuenssberg warns hopes for Labour unity 'blown apart'[INSIGHT]Labour Party MOCKED as 'self-cannibalising' over Long-Bailey sacking[VIDEO]Labour Deputy Rayner involved in fierce bust up with Kay Burley[VIDEO]

Another tweeted: "Ed Davey whingeing about poverty in society, from that well known downtrodden derelict slum in London 'Surbiton'."

A third said: "Does anyone take any notice of Ed Davey?"

Another tweeted: "Terrible start to the day - Ed Davey on BBC."

A fifth wrote: "Sit down Ed you're irrelevant."

View original post here:

Liberal Democrats brutally mocked as own MP forced to admit Ed Davey unlikely to become PM - Daily Express

A viral Facebook post from conservative radio host Michael Berry claims President Teddy Roosevelt once said, To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

There is no evidence that Roosevelt ever said those words. No source for the quote can be found online, and Karen Sieber, a representative of the Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickinson State University, told The Dispatch Fact Check that the center has never come across the quote in its research into Roosevelt quotes. The Theodore Roosevelt Centers mission is preserving Roosevelt's legacy, and its staff is currently creating a digital library of all "Roosevelt-related documents, photographs, and ephemera, providing instant access via the internet in a well-organized, comprehensible manner.

We've never been able to verify that he ever said this, and consider it unlikely, said Sieber. We have catalogued a database of thousands of things he did say, with documentation to the origin of each, and this is not part of our verified list.

Dr. Stacy Cordery, a Roosevelt biographer and visiting distinguished historian at the Roosevelt Center, echoed Siebers comments: I believe [the quote] to be false. If Theodore Roosevelt ever said that, Ive never read it. It doesnt sound like him at all.

Without any documentation of the quote, it would seem that attribution of this quote to Roosevelt is incorrect.

If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email atfactcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please emailcorrections@thedispatch.com.

Read the original post:

Is a Viral Quote About Liberals and Conservatives Attributable to Teddy Roosevelt? - The Dispatch

For 2015, I would like to pick up an old campaign to take back the word liberal for the cause of human liberty. Or perhaps thats too ambitious. Perhaps it is enough for each of us to do our part not to keep conceding the use of this glorious word to the enemies of liberty. It does not belong to them. It belongs to us.

This is not a tedious argument over definitions; this is about the proper identification of a magnificent intellectual tradition. Liberalism is about human liberty and its gradual progress over the last 500 years. It is not about state control. In the coming year, Im determined to at least make my own language reflect this reality.

Yes, I know this is an old campaign. It was a cause pushed by F.A. Hayek, Leonard Read, Frank Chodorov, John T. Flynn, Milton Friedman, and countless others.

My favorite case is Ludwig von Mises. In 1927, he wrote a book called Liberalismus. It was an attempt to recast and update the intellectual foundations of the entire liberal movement. To his knowledge, this had not yet been done.

The greatness of the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the first World War, he wrote, consisted precisely in the fact that the social ideal after the realization of which the most eminent men were striving was free trade in a peaceful world of free nations. It was an age of unprecedented improvement in the standard of living for a rapidly increasing population. It was the age of liberalism.

But by the time the English edition of his book came out in 1962, he worried that the word liberal had been lost. The book appeared under the title The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth. Very soon after, he changed his mind again. He had decided not to give up the great word, not because he was spiteful or belligerent or did not understand that language evolves. He decided that the term could not be given up.

This usage is imperative, he wrote in 1966, because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.

Doesnt that just sum it up beautifully? The core conviction of liberalism was that society contained within itself the capacity for self-management. The social order was self-organized. We didnt need masters and slaves. Society did not need to be hierarchically organized. Everyone could have equal freedom. This was a radical idea, and it did indeed build the best of modernity as we know it.

Liberalism secured private property. It ended slavery. It brought equal freedom to women. It stopped wars of conquest. It broke down the class and caste systems. It freed speech. It stopped religious persecution. It opened economic opportunities for everyone. It cast moral disapproval on despotisms of all sorts.

It put the consumer in charge of production. It brought education, culture, leisure, and even luxury to the mass of men and women. It lengthened lives, brought down infant mortality, raised incomes, ended plagues and starvation, and ignited the fire of invention that gave humanity the ability to travel, communicate, and cooperate as never before and as one human family. It brought peace.

This is what liberalism did! How can we give up this word? We cannot. We will not.

It is because of liberalisms great achievements that the term itself became such a prize. We began to lose the word about 100 years ago, when the partisans of state power began to use the excuse of "liberalization" to push their agenda.

Gradually "liberalism" became about using public policy to create opportunities and improve the world, with the best of intentions. The statists' goals were the same as those of liberalism but the means they used to achieve their goals were completely antithetical and even dangerous to liberal ideals.

Matters became especially intense after the economic crash of 1929. Suddenly the market economy itself was on the hot seat and self-described liberals were forced to choose. Mostly they chose wrongly, and mainstream liberalism hooked up with big government and corporate statism. By the end of the New Deal, it was all over. The word had been stolen and came to mean the opposite of the original idea.

In the postwar period, there was a new coinage to describe people who opposed the political agenda of these new fake liberals. That word was conservative, which was a highly unfortunate term that literally means nothing other than to preserve, an impulse that breeds reactionary impulses. Within this new thing called conservatism, genuine liberals were supposed to find a home alongside warmongers, prohibitionists, religious authoritarians, and cultural fascists.

It was a bad mix.

All these years later, this new form of liberalism remains intact. It combines cultural snobbery with love of statist means and a devotion to imposing the civic religion at all costs and by any means. And yes, it can be annoying as hell. This is how it came to be that the word liberalism is so often said with a sneer, which you know if you have ever turned on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. And quite often, the right-wing attacks on liberalism are well deserved. But what does the right offer as an alternative? Not liberation but a new type of party control.

Given all these confusions, why not make another attempt to take back the word liberalism? Again, this is not an argument over the definition of a word. It is an argument about the proper means to build a great society. Is the goal of political life to maximize the degree of freedom that lives in the world, or is it to further tighten the realm of control and centrally plan our economic and cultural lives? This is the critical question.

The other advantage to using the word liberalism properly is that it provides an opportunity to bring up names like Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Frdric Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, plus the more modern tradition with Rand, Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek, plus the tens of thousands of people who long for liberty today in academia, business, punditry, and public life generally. Just using the old term in its proper way provides an opportunity for enlightenment.

Its true that liberalism of the old school had its problems. I have my own issues with the positions of the old liberals, and they include a general navet over democracy, too great a tolerance for the mythical night-watchman state, and some latent affection for colonialism.

The more important point is that genuine liberalism has continued to learn and grow and now finds a more consistent embodiment in what is often but awkwardly called libertarianism or market anarchism, both of which are rightly considered an extension of the old liberal intellectual project.

Still, even libertarians and anarcho-capitalists need to reattach themselves to the old word, otherwise their self-identifications become deracinated neologisms with no historical or broader meaning. Any intellectual project that is detached from history is finally doomed to become an idiosyncratic sect.

Lets just say what is true. Real liberalism lives. More than ever. It only needs to be named. Its something we can all do.

If you agree, there is a statement you can sign at LiberalismUnrelinquished.net.

This post originally appeared atLiberty.me.

Visit link:

Classical Liberalism: Take Back the Word Liberal ...

Liberal Studies, COE 1412

Preparing well-rounded future elementary school teachers.

An interdisciplinary program, Liberal Studies at CSUDH provides a broad-based, well-rounded education for students aspiring to become elementary and special education school teachers. The Liberal Studies degree from CSUDH provides an excellent entry into our Teacher Education and Special Education Programs so students can earn preliminary teaching credentials that are required by California public schools.

The Liberal Studies curriculum covers a broad spectrum of liberal arts and sciences to give future teachers a solid foundation of knowledge and ideas to use in diverse Multiple Subject classrooms.

CSUDH's Liberal Studies Program is designed to prepare future elementary school teachers for the challenges and rewards of teaching in our communities' highly diverse urban public schools.

Students pursue concentrated studies in an approved Option within the Liberal Studies Program. This allows them to add more specialized knowledge in a particular area to their well-rounded liberal education.

Students emerge from the Liberal Studies Program well prepared to pass the CSET (California Subject Examinations for Teachers) in order to enter Teacher Education or Special Education Programs and complete preliminary teaching credentials in order to teach in California public schools.

To learn more about this program, including how to apply, please contact the Liberal Studies Office at (310) 243-3832 or email lbs@csudh.edu.

Read more here:

Liberal Studies - California State University, Dominguez Hills