Select Page ::

Duterte, Focused on Drug Users in Philippines, Ignored Rise of ISIS – New York Times

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Duterte, Focused on Drug Users in Philippines, Ignored Rise of ISIS
New York Times
The government has largely been in denial about the growth of ISIS and affiliated groups, said Zachary M. Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington who specializes in Southeast Asian security issues. Duterte has been preoccupied ...
Philippines: Duterte focused on drugs, ignored rise of IS analystAsian Correspondent
The warning from Marawi for regional securityThe Straits Times
US Special Forces Help Philippines Fight Islamic MilitantsBloomberg
Rappler -BusinessWorld Online Edition
all 482 news articles »

Here is the original post:

Duterte, Focused on Drug Users in Philippines, Ignored Rise of ISIS - New York Times

War on drugs: Raw sewage testing shows drop in meth use across WA – Perth Now

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

NEW figures show methamphetamine use has plunged across WA, providing the first real evidence that the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on combating the drug is paying off.

Tests in April that measured the concentration of the meth in raw sewage showed that consumption in Perth had almost halved since September when usage was at its peak.

It was also the best result since testing for meth in wastewater began two years ago, showing consumption had fallen about 25 per cent on the average recorded in the 2015-16 financial year when West Australians consumed about 2.1 tonnes of the drug.

Consumption is now estimated to have fallen by more than half a tonne.

The trend downwards in the past three test periods is obviously pleasing, but the sobering reality is WA still has a projected annual meth habit of 1.54 tonnes, with an estimated street value of just over $1.5 billion, State Crime Acting Assistant Commissioner Pryce Scanlan said.

No one is immune to this drug and it is still having a significant impact on the community.

While the sudden fall has been cautiously welcomed, it comes after a huge investment by the State and Federal governments to help tackle the supply and demand of the drug.

Mr Scanlan said WA Police had made unprecedented efforts to target meth dealers in the past two years, setting up dedicated meth teams within the organised crime squad which had helped seize almost 900kg of the drug.

From a policing perspective we have had considerable success, in tandem with our Federal partners, in interrupting supply, and in 2015-16 and 2016-17 we have so far intercepted approximately 890kg of meth headed for our streets, he said.

It could be that the major trafficking syndicates may not be viewing WA as such a soft target after those losses.

And the theory that WAs mining boom and the high disposable incomes it created contributed to our high rate of meth use in the past could, if true, be working in reverse with the end of the boom.

Since 2015, significant government funding had also been poured into education to warn users about the dangers of meth and money for rehabilitation facilities had also been boosted.

The downward trend in WA mirrored the results of a recent national survey that showed meth use around the country had been steadily falling.

The National Household Drug Survey, released this month, showed the number of Australians who admitted using meth had fallen from 2.1 per cent in 2013 to 1.4 per cent last year.

Although no new State-based figures were available, WA is still believed to be the biggest user of any State, running at almost twice the national average.

The survey also found that respondents now considered meth to be the most addictive drug on the illicit market and the drug most likely to cause serious harm to users, overtaking heroin.

Of the regional centres tested for meth, Bunbury had the biggest fall, which helped it shed its tag as the meth capital of WA.

That tag has now shifted to Kalgoorlie which has also recorded significant falls.

The rate of meth use per 1000 people in Bunbury in September was 50 per cent higher than in the Perth metro area. Bunbury was still higher than Perth in April, but consumption had more than halved.

Kalgoorlie mayor John Bowler said that though the meth capital title was obviously unwanted, his community would be pleased to see drug use overall had come down.

While it is a title we obviously do not want ... the use is coming down pretty clearly, so we take that as a positive, he said.

Police Minister Michelle Roberts said that while the local results were encouraging, tackling the meth scourge would remain a top priority for her party.

The McGowan Government wont be taking its foot off the pedal when it comes to tackling the devastation meth causes in our community, she said.

We have laws before Parliament which give life jail sentences for meth traffickers and were boosting police efforts to seize more of the drug before it hits our streets, by introducing a meth border force.

Shadow police minster Peter Katsambanis also welcomed the results which he said were a credit to the former Barnett governments commitment to tackling the meth problem.

I call on the Government to continue these initiatives to make sure our community continues to see improvements in relation to this insidious drug, he said.

Police for the first time in April also tested for the presence of meth at 11 remote Aboriginal communities, finding it was present in all, but only in low levels.

Continued here:

War on drugs: Raw sewage testing shows drop in meth use across WA - Perth Now

iDice: The latest gambling craze – newsBTC

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

iDice is the first mobile blockchain based gambling app. The company has got the reputation worldwide as one of the most played blockchain casinos in the world, and is growing faster as a blockchain game. The company has already paid out Ethereum of worth more than $250,000 with zero spending on marketing; however, in view of the funds required to cover its growing user demand, iDice has announced its much awaited crowdsale on June 16th 2017. The crowdsale is to continue for 14 days, ending by June 30th. The funds raised from this crowdsale will also be used for mobile development of app, as a next step.

IDice to Go One Step ahead- Launching the worlds first mobile blockchain gambling app

For beginners, iDice beta release, launched two months ago, has been successful to raise around $200,000 in player profit, without any marketing or promotion. Jordon Wong, who is the founder and CEO of the company, has planned to integrate iDice platform with IOS and Android devices. According to him, though the platform has won a great attention as well as positive feedback in the market, but there is still a huge room for improvements and due to this, a lot of pressure is on the team. Now iDice is thinking about the big picture and planning to go one step ahead in the market by launching the first mobile blockchain gambling app in the world.

Unlocking the Potential of Untapped Mobile Market

The team at iDice has smartly discovered that gambling Dapp market is not exploiting a huge and still untapped mobile phone users market. We dont have any great cross-platform app at the moment. Therefore, iDice considers it a great opportunity to pioneer and showcase its superior platform.

The Platform Adhering to Safety

It is not surprising to know that iDice is the most secured blockchain based gambling platform. It doesnt ask users to sign up for an account or deposit any funds, making itself absolutely hacker-proof. The users just transfer their funds from the personal wallets directly to iDice smart contracts and then its all coded. Above all, iDice source code is auditable by third parties. Users can even see this online.

The Future

It is predicted that Ethereum is going to dominate bitcoin in next three years, leading to faster growth of Ethereum smart contract technology at the moment, which is making iDice sort of platforms profitable. More than 50 percent of cryptocurrency transactions in the world are based on gambling. Every day, bitcoins of around $1.8 billion worth are being exchanged, implying that at least $900 million worth of bitcoins are gambled every day. Since there are just 3 key gambling sites and the fact that majority of transactions are being done through these only, iDice holds very high expectations both from the iDice team as well as potential investors.

Read the original:

iDice: The latest gambling craze - newsBTC

Pennsylvania off-site gambling a threat to Atlantic City? – New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

In this April 15, 2015, file photo,Resorts Casino Hotel Internet gambling lounge. (AP Photo/Wayne Parry, File)

Pennsylvania is considering the expansion of slots and internet gambling by placing machines in bars and restaurants. Atlantic Citys long-awaited turnaround seems to have started. Is this a new threat for AC?

Gaming expert Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business Magazine, says there is plenty of opposition in that state from Pennsylvania casinos.

I doubt if you will see all of this stuff (in Pennsylvania) get to the governors desk. It is going to be changed markedly if it even reaches it.

The (Pennsylvania) House has passed a bill that was very different from the bill that the state Senate passed. So what you are seeing stipulated in the House bill, and in the state Senate bill in Pennsylvania, for that matter, will change markedly. We really have to see what the final version of the bill is and whether the governor will sign it.

Gros says that further expansion into bars and restaurants would be questionable.

But we are not talking about any new casino. So I think that is not going to impact Atlantic City that greatly any more.

Gros also suggests that this internet gambling expansion could actually benefit both states.

If New Jersey and Pennsylvania should create a compact allowing them to share players, that would be very good for the market.

There is already a deal between Nevada and Delaware for their online gaming.

Basically it is where youre gambling from, the taxes will go to that state.

Pennsylvania needs revenue, so Harrisburg is considering this.

Joe Cutter is the afternoon news anchor on New Jersey 101.5.

More here:

Pennsylvania off-site gambling a threat to Atlantic City? - New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Gambling industry bets hung parliament will lead to tougher action on fixed-odds terminals – Telegraph.co.uk

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

The UK's hung Parliament is more likely to mean an aggressive cut to the size of stakes allowed on gambling machines - a move that could hit revenues across the industry, experts have said.

Punters can bet up to 100 a time on fixed odds betting terminals, known as FOBTs, but MPs had been considering whether to reduce this level as part of a wider triennial review ofthe gambling industry by government.

The terminals havebeen dubbed the "crack cocaine"of the gambling industryand both Labour and the Liberal Democrats stated in their manifestos an intention to slash the size ofbet a gambler could make at one time on a FOBT to 2.

This level could see some of the UK's biggest bookmakers lose hundreds of millions in pounds of revenue on the changes, according to analysis from Barclays.

The Conservative Party did not state a preference for limiting the size of stakes on FOBTs, but the Democratic Unionist Party, upon which it must now depend for votes, has previously indicated its opposition to gambling terminals.

Analysts at Barclays said the make-up of the new Parliament meant the "probability of a maximum stakes being cut to 2 has increased", something likely to worry investors.

Read the original here:

Gambling industry bets hung parliament will lead to tougher action on fixed-odds terminals - Telegraph.co.uk

Statewide teen program tackles gambling addiction – 89.3 KPCC

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

For ten years, coordinators of an after-school anti-gambling program have been growing the number of students they reach in an effort to stop problem gambling and teach students money management skills.

The program, called Betting on Our Future, is hostingparticipants from throughout California at their annual, three-day conference in Anaheim starting on Monday.

We know that young people arent necessarily the primary problem in problem gambling, but theyre affected by it in their families and their communities, said Jim Kooler, who administers the program as head of the California Friday Night Live Partnership at the Tulare County Office of Education.

Problem gambling affects about 10 percent of teenagers and 4 percent of adults in the state, according to state officials. Kooler said its a much bigger problem when you think about the ripple effects.

You may have a young person who has a family member, a parent who is gambling, and theres no money for rent, theres no money for food, and theyre affected by it as well, Kooler said.

The goal of the program is to help students learn how bets at school, online games, and financial risk-taking like high-interest loans can feed gambling tendencies while helping them identify the skills needs to engage in healthy gambling defined as that which is under control. Organizers say the program reinforces leadership skills, community problem solving, and civics lessons by pushing students to find out how prevalent a problem is in their school and neighborhoods.

Taking part in the program helped some of the teens see the harmful side of everyday behavior at their school, students said.

My friends like to play basketball or sports and like, play for money, said eleventh grader Breanna Martin, who took part in the program at Citrus Valley High School in Redlands. And they sometimes end up losing a lot and getting into fights over it.

Her school and 28 other sites across the state, including ones in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Anaheim, received grants that paid for video production equipment. Students met during lunch, after school, or on weekends to learn about problem gambling and to plan and shoot a short video about the effects of gambling addiction.

It was the first year Martin's school took part in Betting on Our Future.

Next year it would be interesting to get a little more in depth as to what exactly is going on at our school, said Pam Martin, a teacher at school who advises the group and who is Breannas mother. We heard about dice throwing and cards and whatnot, but maybe looking at it a little deeper and possibly trying to track down some these kids that are in trouble, in order to help them.

The videos produced at this and 28 other sites will compete at the Betting on Our Future annual conference in Anaheim this week. The videos are about 30 seconds long each and all have an anti-gambling messages.

Read the rest here:

Statewide teen program tackles gambling addiction - 89.3 KPCC

BtoBet supports Eastern Europe gambling market to stay ahead of the competition – CalvinAyre.com

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

During the Russian Gaming Week in Moscow, the multinational iGaming software provider BtoBet has met Sports betting and Casino licensees wishing to develop their business on regulated markets, and speed up revenues and operations in the evolving Eastern European regulatory framework.

The picture for gambling throughout Eastern Europe and Eurasia is quite complex. Many countries are gradually regulating the industry and operators need to be farsighted, quick and grasp the opportunity offered by the next-generation technology to run the evolution of the market and maximise their profit when the regulation will allow them to move to online and mobile.

BtoBets multi-jurisdiction platform compliant with strictly regulated market, respecting the local requirements and integrated with 2,000 games and casino games allows a quick and easy incorporation of any third party supplier. Once integrated, the iGaming content can benefit from BtoBets Artificial intelligence and Recommendation engine to handle opportunities of growth. Through the companys advanced tools East-European licensees can:

Collect data Monitor players behavior Understand their preferences Provide them with tailor-made offers

Anticipating BtoBets participation in the upcoming Eastern Gaming shows CEEGC in Budapest and BEGE Expo in Sofia CEO Kostandina Zafirovska commented:

East European player are showing a growing interest in online gaming and eSports competitions. As a consequence, todays bettors in this area are shifting from traditional sports to cybersports, preferring mobile and desktop to shops. In the next months, BtoBet will attend other important shows in Eastern Europe to display tothe local operators how BtoBets advanced Sportsbook and Casino solutions, can help them to expand their business safely towards mobile and online.

To discover more about the East European market, download the Industry Report CIS -Eastern Europe, Gaming or cybersport betting? Opportunities and strategies.

About BtoBet

BtoBet is a pioneer in new technologies for iGaming operators and the betting industry by using technological intelligence as its main base for its products. It offers unique, customizable, secure and flexible cloud-based systems delivering unprecedented capabilities to drive sportsbook and iGaming business. BtoBets technical team of the company is in Skopje and has an ever growing team of developers. BtoBets dynamic Sportsbook team operates from Rome, whilst Malta hosts the commercial and marketing center. Visit our site on: http://www.btobet.com

comments

BtoBet supports Eastern Europe gambling market to stay ahead of the competition - CalvinAyre.com

Majority of Americans Remain Supportive of Euthanasia – Gallup

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As right-to-die legislation is under debate in many states, 73% of U.S. adults say a doctor should be allowed to end a terminally ill patient's life by painless means if the patient requests it. This is in line with the 69% to 70% Gallup has recorded since 2013, but much higher than support for euthanasia before 1990.

These data come from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-7. Last month, the Nevada state senate voted narrowly to advance legislation that would allow terminally ill patients in the state the option to end their lives. Maine's House of Representatives rejected similar legislation that same week, however, after it barely passed in the state Senate.

According to the Death with Dignity National Center, five states and the District of Columbia currently have "death with dignity" statutes that "allow mentally competent adult state residents who have a terminal illness with a confirmed prognosis of having six or fewer months to live to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their inevitable, imminent death." The District of Columbia, however, could be barred from funding its recently passed law under President Donald Trump's proposed budget.

Support for euthanasia is nearly double what it was when Gallup first polled on the question in 1947, when 37% said it should be allowed by law. By 1973, a slim majority of 53% supported it. Since 1990, solid majorities of Americans have expressed support for euthanasia, ranging from 64% to 75%.

Smaller Majorities of Weekly Churchgoers, Conservatives Support Euthanasia

Gallup has found that people's views on the subject often differ based on their religious and political persuasions. A slim majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) support allowing a doctor to end a terminally ill patient's life through painless means upon request, whereas nearly nine in 10 adults who rarely if ever go to church say this should be allowed (87%).

The issue is somewhat less divisive among party and ideological groups. About nine in 10 liberals (89%) support euthanasia, compared with 79% of moderates and 60% of conservatives. Also, 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents as well as 67% of Republicans and Republican leaners say euthanasia should be allowed.

Support for Euthanasia, by Group

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it?

Support for Doctor-Assisted Suicide Now Similar to That for Euthanasia

Since 1996, Gallup has asked a separate question about a practice related to euthanasia -- whether doctors should be allowed to assist a terminally ill patient living in severe pain "to commit suicide if the patient requests it." Currently, 67% say doctors should be allowed to do so. This is on the higher end of what Gallup has measured historically. Consistent majorities have expressed support for doctor-assisted suicide in Gallup's trend since the question was first asked in the late 1990s. The low point was 51% in 2013.

Americans have historically responded less favorably to the "doctor-assisted suicide" question than to the euthanasia item, but the gap has diminished in recent years. From 1996 through 2013, an average of 58% supported doctor-assisted suicide, while 69% supported euthanasia. Since then, the averages are 65% and 70%, respectively. The diminished gap could be a result of greater exposure to the issue as some states have passed "death with dignity" laws. Additionally, Americans have recently expressed more liberal views on a variety of issues.

It should be noted that, for many "death with dignity" advocates, semantics are important. According to the American Public Health Association, "Medical and legal experts have recognized that the term 'suicide' or 'assisted suicide' is inappropriate when discussing the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to seek medications that he or she could consume to bring about a peaceful and dignified death." Americans, too, may see less of a distinction between euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide than they have in the past.

Views on Moral Acceptability of Doctor-Assisted Suicide

Since 2001, Gallup has measured Americans' views on the moral acceptability of doctor-assisted suicide along with more than a dozen other issues.

In the latest poll, 57% of Americans say doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable -- the highest, by one percentage point, in Gallup's trend.

With 67% of Americans saying doctors should be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in committing suicide but 57% saying it is morally acceptable, some segment of the public thinks it should be legal even though they do not find it a morally acceptable practice.

Bottom Line

In the past year, death with dignity legislation has gone into effect in two states, California and Colorado, and legislation has been passed in the District of Columbia. Though the movement appears to have stalled at least temporarily with legislative roadblocks in Maine and Nevada, Americans' support for the practice remains high.

While Gallup has found that solid majorities support euthanasia in recent decades, the current level of support is on the high end of this trend.

Americans' views on euthanasia have evolved, generally becoming more liberal, and could shift further as states continue to debate a suffering patient's right to die. But support for euthanasia has not been a steady, upward climb; unique cases like those of Terri Schiavo and, more recently, Brittany Maynard, have influenced the national conversation. For the time being, more than two-thirds of national adults continue to support euthanasia -- with majorities in favor even among the least supportive groups, such as weekly churchgoers.

Historical data are available in Gallup Analytics.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-7, 2017, with a random sample of 1,011 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For results based on the half-sample of 518 national adults who were asked about euthanasia and the half sample of 493 national adults who were asked about doctor-assisted suicide, the margin of sampling error is 5 percentage points. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View survey methodology, complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

The rest is here:

Majority of Americans Remain Supportive of Euthanasia - Gallup

New Morgan animal shelter director wants to curb euthanasia … – The Decatur Daily

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

In a bid to increase pet adoptions and reduce euthanasia rates at Morgan County Animal Control, newly hired Director Darren Tucker has expanded adoption hours to include Saturday.

Tucker said the shelter took in 108 dogs and 103 cats during his first month on the job. It surrendered 17 cats and 12 dogs to rescue groups and adopted out another three cats and five dogs to new homes.

It also euthanized 42 dogs and 66 cats, he said. Noting that some animals are not adoptable for health reasons and that the shelter has limited space and resources, Tucker called euthanasia at the public shelter a necessary evil.

But he also said he is hoping to reduce the shelters euthanasia rates by increasing adoptions and encouraging more county residents to spay and neuter their pets.

The shelter is now open from 9 to 11:30 a.m. each Saturday, starting this past weekend. Normally, the shelter, located in Hartselle, has been only open for adoptions 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Tucker said he is hopeful the expanded hours allow more people to visit the shelter, increasing the odds of pets getting adopted.

Were blessed to have a lot of no-kill shelters that come through here, but just to be perfectly honest, if you have two or three rescue groups that come through and then you have people who want to adopt a dog come through and that animal is still in the kennel, it doesnt look good, and you can only keep them for so long, he said.

Tucker is also planning an open house from 8:30 a.m. to noon July 29 to help raise awareness about the shelter and its animals which he said is the greatest challenge for the moment and to educate the public about the importance of vaccinations, the countys leash laws, and the need to spay and neuter pets.

A lot of people arent aware that in the county we have a leash law, he said.

While prices have not been solidified, the open house will feature reduced-cost adoptions, pending the results of fundraising efforts through the sale of T-shirts and animal-identification microchips.

Tucker said a local veterinarian technician is volunteering her services to microchip pets for a reduced cost of about $15 during the open house. The revenue will help reduce adoption costs, he said, and pet owners are asked to schedule microchipping in advance to ensure there are enough time slots.

Tucker said he is also taking pre-orders for T-shirts as part of a fundraiser to reduce adoption costs. Current adoption prices are $110 for a dog and $80 for a cat. That covers the cost of spaying and neutering, health checks and vaccinations.

May numbers at the shelter were up from March, when the shelter took in 65 dogs, 22 cats, turned over 24 to rescue groups and euthanized nine dogs and eight cats, according to County Commission Chairman Ray Long.

At Decatur Animal Services, Kennel Manager Kari Hallman said adoption rates and dropoffs generally increase this time of year, because of litter season and because kids are out of school for the summer and more likely to adopt.

The Decatur shelter took in 90 cats and 139 dogs in May. It euthanized 26 dogs, including 11 sick or injured and 15 feral dogs, and 60 cats, including 15 that were aggressive toward people or other animals, 28 sick or injured, 10 feral cats and seven at their owner's request.

For anyone looking to adopt an animal that might not otherwise find an owner, Hallman said adult dogs and cats, especially black ones, are at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting the eye of a potential new owner.

They dont even see them. They tend to walk by them and go to the brown dog, she said.

Additionally, dogs with any health problems are less likely to be adopted, she said.

No one wants high euthanasia rates, said Brian Lundberg, manager of Decatur Animal Services. I think the best answer is the most obvious, spay and neuter awareness, and actually practicing it.

Lundberg said most people do a good job at that, but we need everyone onboard to make real tangible progress.

New Morgan animal shelter director wants to curb euthanasia ... - The Decatur Daily

Claim Of ‘Religious’ Opposition To Euthanasia Debunked – Scoop NZ – Scoop.co.nz (press release)

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Monday, 12 June 2017, 9:55 am Press Release: Family First New Zealand

MEDIA RELEASE

10 June 2017

Claim Of Religious Opposition To Euthanasia Debunked

Family First NZ says that a full analysis of submissions made to the Inquiry on assisted suicide by the Care Alliance shows 77% opposition to any change in the law, but also conclusively rebuts the claims made by ACT MP David Seymour and other supporters of assisted suicide that opposition to euthanasia is driven by religious people only.

13,539 (82%) of the 16,411 submissions opposed to euthanasia contained no reference to religious arguments, while 1,535 used some, and just 1,337 relied mainly on religious arguments. Ironically, 208 submissions referred to religious reasoning in supporting euthanasia.

David Seymour is quick to demand the removal of blasphemy laws, but perhaps his real focus should be on getting his own facts straight and examining the real reasons for widespread opposition to assisted suicide, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

This includes the disability sector, senior citizens, human rights advocates, and concerns that poor people who dont have access to better healthcare could feel pressured to end their lives.

It is ironic that ex-MP Maryan street implied that a record 22,000 responses to her petition meant that it is time to legalise euthanasia. In fact, the message is clearly the exact opposite. New Zealanders want a conversation - but they are opposed to assisted suicide as the solution, says Mr McCoskrie.

David Seymour should pull the plug on his private members bill so that the important conversation around end-of-life care can happen.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Visit link:

Claim Of 'Religious' Opposition To Euthanasia Debunked - Scoop NZ - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

Trump & Ryan’s (Tryan’s) Co-Conspiracy in Moral Bankruptcy – The Good Men Project (blog)

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

This post is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent The Good Men Project.

I would just say that of course there needs to be a degree of independence between [the Department of Justice], FBI, and the White House and a line of communications established. The presidents new at this. Hes new to government, and so he probably wasnt steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. Hes just new to this.

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, stated this at a press conference in defense of President Donald Trumps hope that former FBI Director, James Comey, would suspend investigating fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, for possibly negotiating or colluding with the Russians prior to Trumps taking office.

Though all new presidents face a learning curve when moving into the Oval Office, Donald Trump knows virtually nothing about the functions and running of the federal government, and he seemingly lacks any desire to learn. He should have at least taken Gold Star father, Khizr Khans, impassionedoffer at the Democratic National Convention last summer to borrow his copy of the U.S. Constitution to understand the very basics of the job.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Having a very steep learning curve in understanding the selling of merchandise in a department store is one thing, but just [being] new to this in arguably the most powerful and impactful office on the planet is quite another.

I expect the surgeon who operates on my cataracts, and similarly, the president of my country to have a superior degree of competence, show a high standard of care, and continually update their knowledge base as additional information comes forward. Anything less places people at risk for severe injury and sets up the conditions for malpractice.

Paul Ryans attempted excuse for Trump this week, and, more generally in his spineless refusal to speak out against this presidents abusive and morally bankrupt antics in word and action begs the question: Why does Ryan support a president who he previously had serious doubts about during the primaries regarding Trumps temperament and ability to lead?

Both men agree on one primary assumption attributed to Thomas Jefferson: That government is best which governs least. Trump and Ryan (Tryan), however, take this to the extreme.

Tryans agenda centers on a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, including such tenets as reducing the size of the national government and granting more control to state and local governments; severely reducing or ending governmental regulations over the private sector; privatization of governmental services, industries, and institutions including education, health care, and social welfare; permanent incorporation of across-the-board non-progressive marginal federal and state tax rates; and possibly most importantly, market driven and unfettered free market economics.

One need simply look at Tryans attempts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act; to severely curtail environmental regulations on industry and, for example, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed to reduce the chances in the banking sector of repeating the disastrous policies leading to the last economic recession; to push for the privatization of social institutions such as education with the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the Department of Education; to pass a draconian so-called tax reform plan and a national budget that places billions more dollars into the pockets of the rich and super rich, while imposing increasingly greater hardships on the remainder of our people by taking away many of the safety nets and programs needed by deserving U.S.-Americans and countries in the form of aid.

Ayn Rand, who has become the intellectual center for the economic/political/social philosophy of Libertarianism, constructs a bifurcated world of one-dimensional characters in her novels. On one side, she presents the noble, rational, intelligent, creative, inventive, self-reliant heroes of industry, music and the arts, science, commerce, and banking who wage a noble battle for dignity, integrity, personal, and economic freedom, and for the profits of their labors within an unregulated free market Capitalist system.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface

On the other side, she portrays the looters represented by the followers, the led, the irrational, unintelligent, misguided, misinformed, the corrupt government bureaucrats who regulate and manipulate the economy to justify nationalizing the means of economic production, who confiscate personal property, who dole out welfare to the unentitled, the lazy, and in so doing, destroy personal incentive and motivation resulting in dependency. Welfare Ayn Rand terms unearned rewards, while she argues for a system of laissez-faire Capitalism separating economics and state.

Ayn Rand bristles against the notion of collectivism, of shared sacrifice and shared rewards. Rather, she argues that individuals are not and should not be their brothers and sisters keepers; that one must only do unto oneself; that one must walk only in ones own shoes and not attempt to know the other by metaphorically walking in anothers shoes; that personal happiness is paramount; and that ones greatest good is what is good for oneself rather than for the greatest number of people.

In other words, Ayn Rand paints a world in which the evil and misguided takers wage war against the noble and heroic makers.

Paul Ryan blamed men in the inner city on their real culture problem for their higher rates of unemployment during his appearance March 12, 2014 on Bill Bennetts Morning in America program:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Earlier, Ryan spoke in 2012 that:

Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. So were going to a majority of takers versus makers in America and that will be tough to come back from that. Theyll be dependent on the government for their livelihoods [rather] than themselves.

Ryan, who demanded personal family time as a major condition for taking over the House Speakership, consistently opposes legislation that would extend paid family leave benefits for new parents. For example, in 2009, he voted against the proposed Federal Employees Paid Parental Act.

Paul Ryan claimed that he read Ayn Rand growing up, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are, he told members of the Atlas Society, an organization devoted to Any Rand in a 2005 speech.

The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. He went on to say, And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface, but we must ask ourselves as individuals and as a nation, what do they really mean by and what are the costs of this alleged liberty and freedom?

We must, first, cut through the coded xenophobic, racialized, and classist language, for often when politicians use the words poor, welfare, inner city, food stamps, entitlements, bad neighborhoods, foreign, culture of poverty, they tap into many white peoples anxieties and past racist teachings of people of color.

Ayn Rand and by extension, Tryan would rather blame poverty within our communities and low achievement in our schools on the cultures of those suffering from the social inequities. This cultural deficit model detracts and undermines us from interrogating and truly addressing the enormousstructural inequities pervasive throughout our society, which these Libertarians would have us multiply if we were to follow their lead.

So-called social issues become wedge issues to attract people to a particular candidate. In the final analysis, though, when middle and working class people vote for these candidates, they essentially vote against their own economic self-interests.

Ragnar Danneskjld, Ayn Rands so-called moral crusading pirate and symbol for justice in Atlas Shrugged, quite tellingly expresses Ayn Rands true purpose when she puts these words in the pirates mouth:

Ive chosen a special mission of my own. Im after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of mens minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.

Hank Rearden, one of Ayn Rands righteous industrialists asks: What man.

Danneskjld replies:

Robin Hood.He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, Im the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Read the original:

Trump & Ryan's (Tryan's) Co-Conspiracy in Moral Bankruptcy - The Good Men Project (blog)

Trump’s Credibility Problem – National Review

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, Im not a crook. So said President Nixon.

What about President Trump?

Crook is a funny word. The armchair Nietzscheans out there will be warmed by the knowledge that crook over the years has described both a bishops crozier and an instrument of deceit crook meant trick in Middle English, but that noun sense of the word did not quite survive into modern English except for in the expression by hook or by crook, the first recorded use of which is found in a John Wycliffe tract from 1380.

The episcopal and criminal applications of crook both are straightforwardly metaphorical, hence the modern English crooked as well as the punchier bent, which has been used both to mean deviant (often as a synonym for homosexual) as well as corrupt: Mickey Spillane, whose literary output since the time of his death has been remarkable, wrote of the danger of a bent cop, two perfectly Spillanean syllables.

(Mickey Spillane was Ayn Rands favorite novelist not named Ayn Rand.)

Nixon seems to have been using crook to mean criminal. His famous Im not a crook declaration came during a controversy involving his personal finances, and the next sentence was: Ive earned everything Ive got. Merriam-Webster defines crook as a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices. If by crook we mean criminal, then President Trump is not that: He has been on the wrong side of the law on a few occasions, but those were civil rather than criminal matters, for instance his payment of a settlement in a federal housing-discrimination lawsuit. We settled the suit with zero with no admission of guilt, Trump insists.

No admission of guilt is not quite Im not a crook, but something closer to Al Gores pleading that no controlling legal authority prevented him from engaging in various questionable fundraising antics. As Charles Krauthammer wrote at the time: Controlling legal authority. Whatever other legacies Al Gore leaves behind between now and retirement, he forever bequeaths this newest weasel word to the lexicon of American political corruption.

The American Heritage dictionary defines crook as one who makes a living by dishonest methods. That sounds a bit more like Trump, who is inordinately proud of his own adventures in apple-stealing, boasting of his buying political favors from the likes of the Clintons: When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. Trump made clear that what he is talking about is quid pro quo political corruption: When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. The real-estate business is heavily regulated, from planning and zoning to labor rules. (That touches another Trump legal misadventure: a dispute over unpaid wages to the illegal immigrants who worked on Trump Tower.) A friendly decision from a local agency can be worth millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. So, is Trump a crook in the American Heritage sense? Yes, by his own description.

The president is ensnared in a mess of nested corruption claims: that he or members of his campaign had improper contact with shady Russians monkeying about with the U.S. presidential election and/or other foreign actors; that he pressured subordinates to show him political favoritism in investigating these claims; that he fired James Comey because the FBI director would not promise him favorable treatment; that these alleged actions constitute obstruction of justice or a similar serious offense.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that all of these claims end up being completely without merit. How should we go about investigating them?

It is impossible to get at that in a meaningful way without considering the unsettling question: What sort of man is the president of these United States? We know he is a habitual liar, one who tells obvious lies for no apparent reason, from claiming to own hotels that he does not own to boasting about having a romantic relationship with Carla Bruni, which never happened. (Trump is obviously a lunatic, Bruni explained.) He invented a series of imaginary friends to lie to the New York press about both his business and sexual careers. He has conducted both his private and public lives with consistent dishonesty and dishonor. He is not a man who can be taken at his word.

Conservatives used to care about that sort of thing: Bill Bennett built a literary empire on virtue, and Peggy Noonan wrote wistfully of a time When Character Was King. But even if we set aside any prissy moral considerations and put a purely Machiavellian eye on the situation, we have to conclude that having a man such as Trump as president and presumptive leader of the Republican party is an enormous problem for conservatives and for the country corporately. Allegations of petty corruption against Donald Trump cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because no mentally functioning and decently informed adult thinks that Donald Trump, of all people, is above that sort of thing. Quid pro quo patronage? Hes proud of it. Dishonesty? He boasts about it in a book published under his name. Question: If a young, attractive, blonde woman employed by the Trump Organization came forward claiming to be having an affair with the president, why wouldnt you believe her? Because Donald Trump isnt that kind of guy? Hes precisely that kind of guy thats the main reason anybody outside of New York ever knew his name in the first place.

Of course it is the case that Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are predisposed to believe the worst about the man. But the fact is that doing so is not obviously wrong or unreasonable. Trump apologists instinctively want to treat Democrats exaggeration and hysteria as contemptible scandal-mongering, but their defenses no hard evidence of collusion with the Putin regime! sound a lot like no controlling legal authority.

The question isnt whether the president is a crook. The question is: What kind of crook is he?

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

The rest is here:

Trump's Credibility Problem - National Review

How the Dark Web’s Dread Pirate Roberts Went Down – New York Times

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

New York Times

How the Dark Web's Dread Pirate Roberts Went Down
New York Times
He was fond of the same Ayn Rand quotes as other founders: The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me. He had his own version of a consigliere, in the form of Variety Jones. (Ulbricht's ex-girlfriend gets a lot of space ...

Read this article:

How the Dark Web's Dread Pirate Roberts Went Down - New York Times

Dynamics 365 A Familiar Minefield – SYS-CON Media (press release)

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

By Steve Mordue

Article Rating:

I was looking at a thread in the Dynamics MVP mail list the other day, and one of the comments was that it would be nice if Microsoft would actually slow down the pace of development for Dynamics 365.

For those that watch Dynamics 365, the pace of advancement can look pretty impressive, but they are beach bound surf watchers. For those of us that actually work with the product every day, we keep on eye on the water, apprehensive about what wave may come next, as we frantically strain to keep our head above the waterline of the features brought by the last waves. In the past few years the waves have been unrelenting.

I am not exactly sure who can be credited with this product transformation, but at some point there must have been a meeting of the Leadership team, where a decision was made, that if Microsoft is going to be a player in Business Solutions space, they have to aim their guns at Salesforce.com. The first assault by this previously sleeping team came when Dynamics CRM Online was pushed into the cloud and Atlas Shrugged. The landscape did not appear to shift at all, it was as if Microsoft had done nothing at all.

A couple of years ago the rumor mill was churning out reports of a possible acquisition of Salesforce by Microsoft. It made sense from the outside, if you cant beat em, buy em. My sources at the time said this was not true, it was just Benioff trying to boost his stock value, but it was interesting what happened next.

While Microsoft as a company is surely no mouse, Dynamics, in the real world of CRM competitiors, certainly was. Following whatever happened regarding an acquisition, somebody flipped a switch. Suddenly bales of spinach were being poured into Dynamics, and muscles started popping out all over the product. Many will credit Nadella, and his past Dynamics roots for the sudden commitment. But whether it was revenge for a spurned acquisition, or Nadella bubbling up his sense that Dynamics should be a key component of the Microsoft story, much larger guns were brought out and leveled at the 800 lb gorilla.

Up until this point, Salesforce had little to be concerned about and I can imagine that Dynamics was a footnote in their leadership meetings. Something to chuckle about as the tossed their coffee cups in the trash on their way out of the conference room. But now, Microsoft had leveled their biggest guns and taken some real shots, most missed. But a couple of these shots did graze Salesforce. The chuckling slowed.

Up until this point Salesforce had made many opportunistic acquisitions, all in reaction to customer needs. While Microsoft was no real threat yet, if Salesforce did not cover their flanks, they could be. Their acquisition strategy took a decided shift towards shoring up areas where Microsoft could potentially do some damage.

When I was a kid, and other kids parents were saying the best way to handle a bully was to avoid them, my Dad gave me some different advice. He said the best way to handle a big bully when he marched up to your face, was to haul off and punch him as hard as you could, immediately. It would be very simple to do, as he would never expect, or be prepared for little you, to do that. But, he added, dont stop there, climb up on top of him and keep punching, before he gets his wits and footing and pounds you to pulp. Dont stop punching him until a crowd forms and realizes what is happening. The other kids, who had also been terrorized by that bully, will be so impressed that they will rally around you. I said, Is it safe to let him up then?, and he said Nah, keep punching him. I would love to tell you that this actually happened, but truth be told, I avoided the bullies, just like all of my other chicken-ass friends.

In this coorneer, weighing in a 800 pounds, the reigning champion, Saaaalesfoooorce. And in this coorner, weighing in at 180 pounds, the contender, Microoosoooft Dynaaaamics. Ding. Here comes the referee with the rules of the fightThere are no rules. Ding Microsoft runs out out the middle of the ring, but Salesforce takes a wide circle around the ring, looking out at the crowd, smiling and saying this will be quick. Suddenly Microsoft swings a leg wide and crushes Salesforces ankle. Salesforce looks to the referee, who shrugs and says remember, there are no rules. What happens next? I guess well see, but it looks to me like Microsoft is taking my Dads advice.

By now you are probably thinking, damn you Steve, you never seem to write about what your post title is. Sorry, I am not a writer, more of a rambling scribbler really, but I will get back to my title. So as the titans battle, jabbing and counter-punching with new features and capabilities, at an unrelenting pace, a price is being paid by other supporting participants in the battle: Customers and Partners.

Back when Henry Ford invented the automobile, (yes I am going there), he was the only game in town. Eventually he had some competition, in the form of other companies trying to replicate what he was doing. All of the sudden there were several companies making very similar cars, yet barely making a dent in Fords sales. Ford was an inventor, not an innovator. So the only chance to beat him, was to innovate on his original idea. Our cars work perfectly fine, but in order to beat Ford, what if we put a more powerful engine in them? The first pass at this was a bigger engine, nothing else, that should be enough. Suddenly new buyers were driving off cliffs. It seems that while the new engine provided a lot more power, the original brakes, which had worked perfectly fine up until then, were no longer adequate. Of course Ford did not sit on the sidelines, he started copying his new competition, with similar results. All of the sudden, cars became a pretty dangerous proposition. Every new powerful feature, broke things that had previously worked! Thus began this innovation circle: try and anticipate what might break, launch, and then scramble to fix what you did not anticipate, then repeat.

Okay, I hear you, I am getting to the point finally. Completely separate from the fact that partners and customers are struggling to keep up with the pace of change, and absorb and comprehend new capabilities, we also have the dilemma of unintended consequences. As a partner, you log into your customers tenant to tweak a workflow, something you have done a thousand times, and you cant update from picklists. What? Some new feature, added to the front of the car, caused the left rear turn signal to stop working. I can of course report something like this to Microsoft, and of course they will be all over it. But until then, the spinning world, has stopped. In the meantime, for things that I previously charged into doing without the need to even turn on my brain, I find myself tip-toeing down very familiar paths.

Maybe, in their zeal to slay the 800 lb gorilla, Microsoft actually went too fast? Maybe they need to put the brakes on the innovation pace and move more cautiously? Maybe they should check, and let us all catch up before they raise the bet? I can see the wisdom in that but I cannot shake my Dad saying Nah, keep punching.

The post Dynamics 365 A Familiar Minefield appeared first on Steve Mordue.

Read the original blog entry...

When a liberal power lawyer represents the Trump family, things can … – Washington Post

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Four decades ago, soon after a president of the United States interfered in an investigation of his actions, a young lawyer named Jamie Gorelick was assigned her first big case. Gorelick, raised in a liberal Long Island household, would defend Richard Nixon as he fought the governments efforts to control his White House papers.

The work was exhilarating. But there she was, an activist for womens rights working for a president she had fought against, a president her friends considered beyond the pale. When Nixon came to her firms office and offered to have his picture taken with the attorneys working on his case, Gorelick made herself scarce.

Four decades later, Gorelick, now one of Washingtons most prominent lawyers, once again represents famous clients who symbolize much of what she and her friends have spent their lives working against. When Gorelick signed up Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump the presidents close advisers, as well as his son-in-law and daughter as clients, she knew her friends might raise their collective eyebrows. She didnt know that some of them would call her a turncoat.

For generations, the premier D.C. lawyer-fixers were lions of the bar, permanent power players in a city where influence can vanish in a moment. Men such as Clark Clifford, A.B. Culvahouse Jr., Edward Bennett Williams, Howard Baker, Lloyd Cutler and Robert Strauss smoothly glided across the great divide, amassing thoroughly bipartisan client rosters.

But now Gorelick, one of the first women to join that elite club of lawyers, finds herself under attack for taking on a share of the Trump familys legal woes. Whether that reflects the cynicism and polarization of the times, or results from the particular antagonism between the Trumps and the city they promised to drain, the reaction has been painful.

In the most public slap, Hilary Rosen, a prominent Democratic strategist and lobbyist, tweeted, Hey Jamie Gorelick, youve just poured that Complicit perfume on yourself, a reference to a Saturday Night Live parody ad that imagined an Ivanka Trump-branded scent. (Rosen declined to elaborate on the tweet, saying only, It is what it is.)

Representing Jared and Ivanka is a case of pushing the ethical envelope, helping a wealthy family on the brink of using the presidency to further enrich themselves, said David Halperin, a speechwriter in the Clinton White House and former counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Gorelick is a Clinton supporter embracing the family that wanted to put Hillary Clinton in jail. People in Washington are all too willing to forgive that.

This being Washington, some of Gorelicks critics tuck their attacks behind the cloak of anonymity. Do you want to be seen as a fixer available to all or a fixer for principles you believe in? said a lawyer who has worked with Gorelick on campaigns since the Clinton and Gore era. One probably pays better than the other, but every step you take has consequences.

In a quintessentially D.C. move, some longtime friends of Gorelick contacted for this article offered complimentary comments about her on the record, and then, after asking if they could make other remarks without attribution, bashed their colleague to smithereens. Those people will not be quoted in this article, by name or anonymously, as one tiny bulwark against outright awfulness.

For the first time, Jamies getting irrational criticism from her fellow liberals, who think that if you represent anyone associated with the other side, you must be a Republican in hiding, said Alan Dershowitz, Gorelicks mentor at Harvard Law School and a friend ever since. Jamie is obviously a liberal Democrat, but this is not a betrayal. Jamie is being patriotic and heroic and consistent with the best traditions of the bar. We have to resist zealotry on both sides.

Ethically, Gorelick has every right to represent Kushner and his wife. The legal profession has celebrated attorneys who take on unpopular clients since the American Revolution. In 1770, when John Adams agreed to defend British soldiers who shot American rebels in the Boston Massacre, he invited a torrent of criticism. As he later wrote, defending the Soldiers procured me Anxiety and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life.

At 67, Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton, commands a breathtaking view of the city from her top-floor corner office at WilmerHale, the Pennsylvania Avenue NW firm where a gentle waterfall in the lobby greets power players whove found themselves in rough currents. She worked on Hillary Clintons campaign, vetting potential Cabinet members, and she was still mourning when she got a call from an old colleague, asking if she might take on the ethical questions about whether and how Kushner and his wife could work for Donald Trumps administration.

The questions seemed most interesting, Gorelick said. Whoever thinks theyre going to opine on the anti-nepotism law? And we are a very consciously bipartisan firm. However, I dont think we had anyone in the firm who was a supporter of Donald Trump.

She now also is advising Kushner as he navigates the media frenzy over the investigations into the Trump campaigns contacts with Russia.

Gorelick, a former head of the D.C. Bar, said she doesnt put my clients through a political litmus test. Indeed, people and businesses in serious trouble gravitate to her like flies to a light bulb. BP hired her after the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. She represented the Clinton Foundation against conservative gadfly Larry Klayman. The student loan industry brought her in to lobby against the Obama administrations drive to overhaul the business.

Through it all, she has continued her work for liberal causes.

When my clients hired me, they knew who I was, Gorelick said. She has kept Kushner and his wife informed as she continues to handle matters that push back against the Trump administration.

Gorelicks firm charges as much as $1,250 an hour for its top lawyers time, but among the clients she represents for free is Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant women who are fleeing from violence. Gorelick recently worked for Tahirih on a challenge against President Trumps plan to strip local governments of their ability to declare themselves sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.

I sent the brief to Ivanka and Jared just so they would know, this is what your lawyer is doing, Gorelick said.

Her clients were fine with the division between what Gorelick does in her day job and what she does as a political activist. Some of her friends, not so much. And that, Gorelick said, has been hurtful. Im not an advocate for the Trump administration; I take hard cases. She said representing members of the Trump family will not hinder her from working for the Democratic cause. She even hosted family and friends who came to Washington earlier this year to march against the new president.

The Trump administration has made people unusually uneasy, to say the least, she said.

The controversy surrounding Gorelicks decision comes as Washingtons legal industry still huge but in recent years facing severe financial challenges struggles to adapt to a thin-skinned president with a long history of using the courts to press grudges. As ever, D.C. lawyers are scrambling to make connections with the new administration, but this time, that effort has caused unusual tensions.

Holland & Knight, one of the citys largest firms, lost the head of its media practice group, Charles Tobin, when he jumped last week to another firm after 16 years because, he said, I was told in no uncertain terms that I could not sue this president. As an attorney who represents media clients in conflicts with the government, Tobin said he could no longer work at a firm that wanted to be in a position to help clients do business with the Trump administration and thought that being in an adversarial position with this president would hinder that ability.

Tobin, who will now co-chair the media practice at Ballard Spahr, said Holland & Knight had no such concerns about previous presidents. I sued President Obama, I sued President Bush, I represented journalists against other administrations without any problem, he said.

Paul Kiernan, executive partner at Holland & Knights Washington office, said in a statement that the firm has a long history of representing clients, including media clients, in matters adverse to governmental agencies and officials. ... Contrary to some recent reports, the firm has not adopted a policy limiting our work on specific types of engagements.

Another Washington firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius lost a client because the firm decided to represent Trump in his effort to comply with government ethics requirements.

Scott Wallace, a trustee of the Wallace Global Fund, a nonprofit that had spent about $400,000 on legal help from Morgan Lewis since 2011, said he terminated the funds relationship with the firm because by helping Trump handle potential conflicts of interest between his family business and his job as president, the firm had legitimized a complete non-solution that empowers and even encourages impeachable offenses.

The law firm declined to comment; a person familiar with Morgan Lewiss relationship with Wallace said the firms attorneys also helped Hillary Clinton vet her potential vice presidential candidates and continue to work for clients opposed to Trump policies.

The criticism of Gorelick is a symptom of the nations sharp political divisions, said Melvyn Fein, a sociologist at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. When you have more polarization in Washington than in a long, long time, the first reaction of many people is to double down, to insist on purity. Everybody gets so concerned about proving how pure they are that they eat their own, he said.

People in politics need both principle and flexibility, Fein said. If youre a hired gun, youre being hired for your skill, not your principles. And thats a reasonable thing in this world, to hire yourself out for your skills. That doesnt preclude having principles.

Most objections to Gorelicks decision are less ethical than political. I know a number of people who have said that anything that helps Trump in any way is heretical to my values, said Ricki Seidman, a veteran of the Clinton White House and a strategic adviser to many Democratic politicians. But I dont think personalizing the polarization has any value. If you look at it just politically, then let [Kushner and Ivanka Trump] sink. But if you care about the country, look at what Mark Warner and others are doing to bring people together. Warner, the Democratic senator from Virginia, has worked closely with Republican Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.) to craft a bipartisan approach for the Senate Intelligence Committees investigation into connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Many lawyers, even those who have dedicated their careers to political causes, defend Gorelicks work with Kushner, if only because in legal circles, its gauche to judge lawyers by their clients.

It wouldnt occur to anyone to criticize someone who goes to work on behalf of indigent clients, said Judith Lichtman, a longtime friend of Gorelick and for many years president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. Im the purest girl around, but what I believe is pure is different from what somebody else does. Jamie is holding her principles near and dear, because she is always honest and ethical and she devotes herself not only to her paying clients, but to people who are unserved by the legal profession.

If youre at a mission-driven non-profit, you put your principles front and center, said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Womens Law Center. But in a major private law firm, there are different considerations. Theres a big difference between I wouldnt do that and She shouldnt.

Gorelicks only regret is that the political atmosphere has grown so fractious that the kind of bipartisanship that allows her to represent Kushner and still work on cases involving challenges to the Trump administration is now looked on with suspicion in some quarters.

She recalled her time on the 9/11 Commission, when 10 people appointed from both parties tried to determine why the attacks happened and what went wrong. Determined to come up with a unanimous report, the commission avoided nettlesome language.

We rejected calling what happened a clash of civilizations, Gorelick said. We rejected any notion of a war on Islam. That all came from what I would call the sensible middle. How are you ever going to get that in an environment where people insist on a kind of political purity?

She teared up, reached for a tissue, and, with her voice cracking, she added, It would be a travesty for this country to go down that road. I believe in the facts. I believe in the law. I believe if you follow that system, you will get to a fair result. I dont see that changing. Even now.

Read the original:

When a liberal power lawyer represents the Trump family, things can ... - Washington Post

Think Your Liberal Governor Will Protect You From Trumpcare? You’re Wrong. – Mother Jones

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

If the GOP health care bill passes, even progressive states could be forced into rolling back protections for preexisting conditions.

Patrick CaldwellJun. 12, 2017 6:00 AM

A Save Obamacare rally in Los Angeles, California on March 23, 2017.Ronen Tivony/ZUMA

When House Republicans passed a controversial health care bill that would allow states to opt out of Obamacares protections for people with preexisting conditions, some GOP lawmakers sought to assure voters that few states would actually take them up on the offer. Its very unlikely that any governor of any state will remove the preexisting conditions clause, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the House leadership team, told NPR. Thoseprotections, after all, areone of the most popular partsof the 2010 health care law;70 percent of Americans oppose the idea of letting states do away with them.

But in interviews withMother Jones, health care experts warn that Cole is wrong: If the GOP bill becomes law, many states will indeed eliminate preexisting-condition protections and/or at least some of Obamacares requirements that insurance planscovera range of standard treatments, including maternity care and mental health. And it wouldnt just be states that voted for President Donald Trump. Under the GOP bill, evenprogressive statesmight have to take drastic measures to prevent theirhealth insurance markets from exploding.

In order to win over hardcore conservatives in the House, Republican leadersadded an amendment to their Obamacare repeal legislationthat could have dramatic consequences. The amendment would allow any state to rewrite Obamacares essential health benefits. States could also end community rating, the requirement that insurance companies charge the same premiums in a given area without discriminating against folks with preexisting conditions. If a state waived community rating, insurance companies would still be required to sell insurance policies to sick people, but the insurers could charge whatever price theywanted.The likely result: Insurance would simply become unaffordable for people with expensive medical conditions.

Experts say stateswould likely face enormous pressure to adopt at least some of the waiver options. In part, that wouldarise from insurance companylobbying;the industry spent tens of millions lobbying at the federal level in 2016 alone.But the basic market dynamics created by the GOPbill would play a role as well,potentially creating an industrydeath spiral if states refuse to allow price discrimination based on health conditions. Insurers would be putting pressure on states, saying, We cant operate in this market. We wont participate at all unless you start rolling back these protections,' says says Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the liberal-leaningCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Insurance companies would face an immediate crunch if the Republican bill became law. The legislationends Obamacares individual mandate this year, removing a majorincentive for healthy people to buy insurance. The bill also reduces the amount of money the government offers in subsidies to help lower-income people pay their premiums. With less help fromthe government, healthy people would have even more reason not to buyinsurance.

Before Obamacare, state insurance markets were lightly regulated, with 47 states and the District of Columbia allowing insurers to charge sicker people higherrates. The reason was simple: Unless you compelled healthy people to buy insurance and spent money to help them afford their premiums, there was no way to make premiums affordable while also charging everyone the same rate. The GOPbill would make the math even more daunting, since it would repeal Obamacares individual mandatewhile still requiring companiesto sell insuranceto anyone who wants it.If insurers cant charge sick people more under the scenario, they will likely end up charging everyone more, which, in turn, would drive even more healthy people out of the market. That would drive premiums even higher, causing the market to become unsustainable.

Most carrierslooking at a market where you have to take all comers, and theres no mandate and theres much smaller subsidiesmost carriers are going to look at that bargain and say this is not a viable market for us unless the state takes up this waiver option, says Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute.

While insurance companies arent fans of many of the Republicans other proposed changes, the waiver options are the sort of policy that the industry has generally been asking for, notes Linda Blumberg,a senior fellow in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. They wanted fewer requirements on benefits. They wanted to design and tailor benefits to particular consumers as they did before. And they wanted to be able to do medical underwriting, Blumberg says. So these waivers would be popular with the core, the mass of the industry. Its how they did business before. Its how they see that they can keep their costs down.

So far, no governors haverushed forward to say theyd eagerly ditch preexisting-condition protections. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) briefly suggested he would take a look at the waiver options, but he immediately walked that back as a backlash began to brew. But even the governors currently saying they would never touch preexisting conditions might find themselves ina different position a few years down the line when insurance companies threaten to leave the state unless lawmakers change the rules and weaken regulations.

Its a Hobbesian bargain, Corlette explains. Either you are faced with major carriers leaving the market entirelywhich means that both healthy and sick people would lose coverageor taking up these waivers that would almost certainly mean that sicker people lose access to coverage. I think many state-level policymakers will look at that bargain and say, Well, I want at least some people to get coverage, and so well take up these waivers and give insurers some ability to protect themselves against the highest of high-cost enrollees.'

And it wont just be the insurance companies asking for these changes. Aspremiums rise, healthy people could also prove to be a powerful lobbying bloc. At any particular moment in time you have more healthy people living in your state than sick people, thats just the way of the world, Blumberg says. The shear numbers disparity could sway lawmakers otherwise inclined to helppeople with preexisting conditions. When youve got the bigger chunk of your population agitating in one direction because affordability has decreased, and youve got insurers moving in the same direction to reduce their risk and be able to sell more policies to more people, its a pretty powerful combined force, Blumberg says.

When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the GOPs bill last month, it estimated that half of Americanswould live in states that adopted a waiver to tinker with the definition of essential benefits. An additional one-sixth of the country would live in states that changed the preexisting-condition ban. The CBO projects that premiums across the country would at first rise much higher under the GOP bill than under current law20 percent higher in 2018, and then 5 percent higher in 2019. That trend would change as states begin implementing the waivers. Starting in 2020average premiums would depend in part on any waivers granted to states and on how those waivers were implemented and in part on what share of the funding available from the Patient and State Stability Fund was applied to premium reduction, the CBOs stated.

But the CBO only looked at the first decade of the laws existence. Every health expert Mother Jones contacted noted that the pressures on state markets will only grow as time goes by. The problem will become especially acute starting in 2026, when the state stability funda pot of money the bill would provide tostates to addressvarious problemstotally dries up.

You wouldnt see all these progressive states going after a waiver in year one, but within a couple of years after that I think you would, Blumberg says. The tension and frustration of consumers would start emerging quite quickly, so changes might happen in a year, or it might take a couple of years. But then youre really in a situation that is not going to make anybody happy.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Pope Francis is not a liberal – The Week Magazine

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Our free email newsletters

Two days ago I ordered for my living room a framed portrait of His Holiness Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome, Sovereign of Vatican City, and 226th Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. It is evidence of what strange times we are living in that my decision to hang the pope's picture, once a staple of dining rooms and parlors the world round, will be regarded by many of my fellow Catholics as a regrettable home dcor move at best.

I am not one of those ultramontantist Catholics who pretend that every word that falls from the papal lips is a piece of heaven-sent wisdom to be cherished, but I do believe that the pope is Christ's Vicar on Earth and that he deserves our affection every bit as much as he demands our obedience. We call him by the familiar title of "Papa" because he is our spiritual father; dumping on your father in public is not a good look.

This is not to say that I am not concerned about the well-being of the Church under Francis. So far from feeling sanguine, I believe that the Church is more than half a century into her worst climacteric since the Reformation, a period of doctrinal chaos and pastoral uncertainty comparable to the Arian crisis of the fourth century. I also maintain that this crisis is the direct result of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass, which I hope to see disappear in my lifetime and replaced with the old Roman Rite of St. Pius V in its ancient fullness. I am not, in other words, a happy-clappy liberal Catholic.

But neither is Pope Francis.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that both of his predecessors, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, had more of the saccharine "Spirit of Vatican II" about them than Francis has. The current pope is a hard-headed practical man, with no illusions about human nature. Nor is he much of an intellectual, though his environmental encyclical Laudato si' is one of the most important pieces of theological writing to have appeared in my lifetime.

His is a decidedly peasant spirituality of intense Marian devotion. He loathes pomposity with the fervor of his ascetic namesake, St. Francis of Assisi. While he is famous for not getting on well with mainstream traditionalists like me, the so-called rigorists and doctors of the law whom he has subjected to endless (and sometimes deserved) ridicule, he clearly has a soft spot for the much-maligned Society of St. Pius X, whose founder was shamefully and perhaps invalidly excommunicated by John Paul II. His gradual reintroduction of these battered and pious misfits into the wider life of the Church is the answer to many prayers.

Much of the opposition to Francis is ostensibly a response to another of his missions of mercy, namely his streamlining of the annulment process, and what some consider his loosey-goosey views about admitting Catholics who have been civilly divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. I agree that in the hands of unscrupulous bishops in Europe and parts of the United States Francis's earnest entreaties for pastoral understanding of difficult situations could be used to justify sacrilege. But I am also realistic. Outside the neoconservative diocesan enclave of Northern Virginia where many of the pope's American critics live, the reality on the ground in many parishes in this country already resembles their fever dreams. At the parish in rural Michigan where my family attended Mass when I was in middle school, the lector most Sundays was a divorced and remarried Freemason. No one attended confession. Virtually everyone receiving the sacraments did so illicitly, with the full encouragement of the pastor. The worst has already come to pass, yet the Church somehow survives, just as Our Lord promised St. Peter it would.

These concerns about sacramental discipline would also be more credible if they were not accompanied by a frenetic, omnidirectional antipathy to Francis the man. Ostensibly traditionalist Catholic journalists subject the pope's every utterance to a kind of graspingly paranoid scrutiny; the most innocuous line from a homily is taken as evidence of a sinister mission to undermine and ultimately destroy the Church. Meanwhile, an eager chorus of anonymous whisperers echo their delusional claims and flatter them for their keen faculties of observation.

Far and away the worst piece of Francis baiting I have encountered so far is The Political Pope: How Pope Francis Is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives, a new book by an American journalist called George Neumayr. Crude, feverish, vague, poorly written, full of tabloid speculation, and hysterical prejudices with no basis in Catholic doctrine, this thinly sourced fire-breathing manifesto is, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the most absurd books I have ever read. Set aside for a moment the ludicrous conceit of treating the affairs of the Church in the crudely reductive categories of American politics as interpreted by talk radio (is Tim Kaine really "the left"?); the whole idea of a layman writing a book-length attack on the pope is ridiculous on its face, no matter how subtle its method. What could be more loathsome in the mouth of a Catholic than to repeat slanders of His Holiness made by Rush Limbaugh, a four-times-married childless serial philanderer who believes abortion is a states-rights issue?

The painful but delicious truth is that it is Neumayr and his followers who must answer to the charge of liberalism. It is they who believe that the clichs of the Republican Party have a higher claim on their consciences than the words of popes and bishops and that the hideous sorcery of neoliberal economists invalidates the Church's immortal teachings about usury, the just wage, the maintenance of the poor, and our duties to be prudent stewards of God's creation. That old saw about the mote in thine own eye has never been more appropriate.

The rest is here:

Pope Francis is not a liberal - The Week Magazine

Pitts: Why would a privileged, white, liberal male say that? – The Columbian

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

A A

Leonard Pitts Jr.

Heres a good rule of thumb for aspiring comics. Whenever you are compelled to say, Hey, it was a joke, it probably wasnt. At the very least, it didnt land like one.

Bill Maher is an accomplished comic, not an aspiring one, but he deftly illustrated that rule recently on his HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher.

As youve surely heard, Maher was interviewing Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who invited him to come to Nebraska and work in the fields with us. Mahers riposte? Work in the fields? Senator, Im a house n-r.

Some people including Sasse laughed. Some groaned. Its a joke, said Maher with a dismissive wave of his hand.

A day later, he issued a statement proclaiming himself very sorry.

Which is well and good, but it doesnt answer the most vital question: Where did he get the idea that word was OK for him to say?

Yes, he has a constitutionally protected right to do so; thats not at issue.

One simply wonders where he got the notion he could get away with it. Maybe its the same place he got the notion he could get away with calling Sarah Palin a ct back in 2011?

Maher, of course, is just the latest high-profile comedic fail. Kathy Griffin is still smarting from the beating she took for a jarringly offensive picture of her holding up a prop meant to look like the bloody, severed head of Donald Trump.

But ugly as that joke was, it is of a different kind than Mahers transgression.

What he did is more of a piece with Stephen Colberts homophobic quip about Trumps mouth and Vladimir Putins man parts. Or his old Ching Chong Ding Dong routine, which offended many Asian Americans.

It calls to mind Seth MacFarlanes sexist We Saw Your Boobs song at the 2013 Oscars, which appalled many women. And Daniel Toshs 2012 joke about an audience member being raped.

We are not here to argue whether those men are or are not racist, sexist or homophobic. Thats immaterial.

No, we are here to deconstruct the sense of privileged, white, male, liberal entitlement that allows them to feel they can say and do such things in the first place.

Yes, humor is rude, comedy is shock and funny is whatever works on a given night.

Yes, satire is the art of undermining an asinine belief or behavior by magnifying or pretending to agree with it.

Yes, the business of laughter is the business of crossing that completely subjective, always moving line of decorum and propriety.

And yes, occasional failure is inevitable.

Ask Kathy Griffin.

But with all that duly conceded, imagine for a moment it was Rush Limbaugh who made Bill Mahers joke or Sean Hannity who sang Seth MacFarlanes song. The right wing is known for its hostility toward African-Americans and women, so the outrage would have been visceral, immediate and loud.

Many of us would have rightly decried jokes that bully and demean marginalized peoples.

Yet that fury feels muted or altogether absent when such jokes are told by the left-leaning likes of MacFarlane and Maher.

Lacking the right wings baggage of racial and gender hostility, they escape or expect to escape relatively unscathed.

But why? Because theyre on our side? Because theyre just joking?

Those of us who are marginalized and those who simply care may want to rethink that blank check forbearance, given that a smarmy white comic feels free to declare himself a house n-r.

If your ancestry traces to slavery, you might well ask: Is this guy laughing with us or at us? And thats the problem.

These days, its hard to tell.

Follow this link:

Pitts: Why would a privileged, white, liberal male say that? - The Columbian

Why Good Journalism is Liberal – San Diego Free Press

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

Credit: Paste Magazine

By Bill Adams

Mainstream news media has long been accused of having a liberal bias. Some studies have supported this belief. Liberal bias may be inherent in news journalism for reasons that arent flattering to conservatives.

Defining Liberal and Conservative.While political views are neither immutable nor binary, certain characteristics have remained relatively consistent. Broadly speaking, liberal policies support labor, equality and a strong social safety net, strong public institutions, progressive taxation, diplomacy and the avoidance of military conflict, and protection of the environment.

Conservatives emphasize protection of business interests, military strength, lower and flatter taxation, deregulation of the economy, and privatism. Even more generally, conservatives tend to emphasize trickle-down or supply-side economics and liberals in trickle-up or demand-side (or Keynesian) economics. Conservatism, in its definition, is conservation of the status quo. It tends toward preserving the existing economic and social hierarchy.

In contrast, the first definition of liberal in the Oxford Living Dictionary, means [w]illing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from ones own; open to new ideas. Liberalism is often focused on change to gain parity and rights for those who are disadvantaged by the existing hierarchy.

To begin with, Journalism particularly investigative or news journalism is the investigation, understanding, and dissemination of facts and information via news media. The First Amendment ensuring freedom of the press was intended to act as a check on power and was uniquely made to empower the general public.

Similarly, the definition of liberal, with its emphasis on respecting different opinions and being open to new ideas is essentially what freedom of the press is all about; and what makes freedom of the press a threat to conserving the entrenched powers. Thus, to the extent that liberal has generally aligned with equality and speaking truth to power, journalism is an inherently a liberal endeavor.

A Washington Post opinion piece supported the conclusion that more journalists tend to lean to the left politically than to the right, quoting retired Indiana University journalism professor David H. Weaver. (For a countervailing journalist tendency, see false balance.) The piece ventured several theories for liberal bias, ranging from the source of new journalist hiring (liberal Northeastern colleges) to the location of major media outlets in liberal cities. Most of these reasons could be categorized as extrinsic causes and assume that but for these influences, journalism would appear more politically neutral.

However, the article missed perhaps the most obvious and significant reason for journalisms appearance of liberal bias. Unlike the reasons ventured in the article, which likely have some merit, the most significant reason is intrinsic to journalism. The reason itself sounds biased: Good journalism and liberal/progressive values align more closely than do good journalism and conservative values. Good journalism is intrinsically a liberal endeavor.

The broad definition of journalism simply means the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business. This definition includes tabloid journalism as well as truth or fact-based journalism.

However, with the evolution of news journalism, the profession came to adopt various codes of ethics. Wikipedia notes that these codes tend to have the following principles in common: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability. Thus, the term good journalism is shorthand for journalism guided by journalistic ethics.

More in-depth understanding of issues inevitably leads to more nuanced and complex views, or views that challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom. More often than not, a fuller understanding of an issue will tend to align with liberal values. Consider the following categories:

Profiles of individuals or groups of people: A fuller understanding of a person or group, particularly those who are undergoing great difficulty, will typically result in some level of compassion. Additionally, compassion can temper or replace previously held prejudice or resentment. Thus, good journalism, to the extent it evokes compassion and challenges conventional prejudices through greater understanding will appear to have a liberal bias.

Environment: Scientific data consistently supports the need to preserve and restore the environment. Environmental conservation has consistently been more a liberal cause than a conservative one. Thus, fact-based journalism on this topic will appear to have a liberal bias.

Business and the Economy: While conservatives tend to think of themselves as economic pragmatists, the economy tends to be a much more neutral proposition. The arguments for Keynesian economic policies and Friedman or Supply-side economics dont favor conservatives. Moreover, supply-side economic policies have a poor track record for balancing the national debt or balancing the budget. Regulations are another common target of conservatives. However, any serious discussion will acknowledge that regulations are also important to sustaining the economy, protecting competition, and preventing financial disasters. Thus, good journalism in topics of business and the economy should appear relatively neutral.

Sports: Perhaps the only topic in which reporting is generally deemed apolitical.

International Affairs and Conflict: Nationalism is a substantial part of most military conflicts. Nationalism, aka patriotism, most often comes from the conservative wing. At the same time, passivism has not proven to be a good defense against the military aggressions of other countries. Thus, journalism in this topic should appear relatively neutral. Nevertheless, decisions to engage in military conflict often involve behind the scene agendas that run contrary to the popular narrative. Additionally, the carnage and human toll of war undermine patriotic narratives of heroism and purity of purpose. These topics are central to reporting on military conflicts, and thus give the appearance of liberal bias.

Generally speaking, the liberal mainstream media has not had a liberal agenda dictated from its ownership or management more often the contrary has been true. This circumstance has changed somewhat as media outlets have attempted to emulate the success of Fox News by repositioning themselves as its liberal equivalent, e.g., MSNBC.

However, for the most part, mainstream media has attempted to adhere to journalistic ethics of objectivity, neutrality, and seeking truth. Reporting has been influenced by public opinion and the topics of interest of the period. For example, in the 1980s when media often focused on topics that remain at the core of conservative beliefs excess government spending (remember the $600 dollar toilet seats) or welfare cheats they were still accused of having a liberal bias.

However, the perceived liberal bias emanates as much from the nature of journalism as anything else. At the time, those stories were as much about speaking truth to power, and thus liberal, as current reporting is about Trumps excesses.

Thus, media entities which concern themselves with journalistic ethics, objectivity, and the pursuit of truth, will always appear to have a liberal bias.

If good journalism is inherently liberal, what is conservative journalism? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question because conservative journalism is not necessarily bad journalism. It can be sincere and high-level journalism, as in the case of the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Its just not investigative or news journalism. Its opinion and analysis. In these latter two publications, its not meant to be objective reporting any more than is Mother Jones or The Nation.

In almost all major conservative media outlets, the bias comes from on-high in the organization. All conservative bias in media is dictated from the top down. Objectivity is not part of the program.

Such media outlets come in different forms. There are the aforementioned conservative intellectual publications, which focus on opinion and analysis. Then there are populist and tabloid publications. The Murdoch (21st Century Fox and News Corp.) publications like Fox News and Wall Street Journal are particularly interesting. They pretend to be objective but adhere to a strict top-down conservative agenda. The opinion and commentary sections are obvious.

Less obvious is the news reporting, in which the bias is accomplished by filtering news that is reported so that it supports the conservative agenda. Fox is famous for its laughably false claim to be fair and balanced. The Wall Street Journal recently encountered internal dissension when management sought to influence the way its staff reported on Trump.

Fox News, in particular, has been extremely successful and profitable. It applies many of the strategies Rupert Murdoch learned in his Australian and British tabloid publications, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Murdoch, and his former Fox CEO Roger Ailes, recognized that these strategies could be successfully combined with a populist brand of conservatism by provoking white resentment and fears.

Thus, unlike the Weekly Standard and the National Review, Fox News seems less concerned with serving an ideology than with exploiting it for profit. The country and even the Republican Partys agenda have paid dearly for Murdochs exploitation of populist conservatism.

As for publications like Breitbart or radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones: no reasonable person goes to these outlets for news. They are ideological rallying sources.

Thus, in that conservative journalism intentionally as part of its program discards the journalistic ethical canons of objectivity and unvarnished truth, it is not journalism as we have come to expect from real news outlets.

Freedom of the press is a liberal value. It preserves the right to speak truth to power. It is the common citizens check on the powerful. Conservatives endeavor mightily to reframe their cause as that of the common citizen against the elites. But that unnatural distortion is never sustainable.

The current alliance of Republican billionaires and the white working class attacks educators and subject matter experts (elites), people of color, and immigrants; and thus is still an alliance of the more privileged against the less privileged. In the end analysis, conservatives always support the existing privileged class; and it is the purpose of the First Amendment to check abuses of power by that class.

In the current political climate, populist conservatism is open in its disdain for academics and scientists as intellectual elites, and racial and cultural sensitivity as political correctness, and compassion as bleeding heart liberalism. Thus, now more than ever, good journalism journalism that seeks truth and evokes understanding, tolerance, and compassion is inherently liberal.

Bill Adams is the founder and chief editor of UrbDeZine. He is also a partner in the San Diego law firm of Norton, Moore, & Adams, LLP. He has been involved with land use and urban renewal for nearly 25 years, both as a professional and as a personal passion. He currently sits on the Boards of San Diego Historic Streetcars, The San Diego Architectural Foundation, The Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, andThe Gaslamp Quarter Association Land Use Planning Committee.

Why Good Journalism is Liberal - San Diego Free Press

Pointing fingers in Point Douglas: NDP blames Liberals after signs disappear – CBC.ca

Posted on June 12, 2017 by Danzig

The provincial New Democratic Party has filed a complaint with both the Winnipeg Police Service and Elections Manitoba, allegingthe Liberals are behind the disappearance of hundreds of campaign signs.

In a letter to elections commissioner Bill Bowles, NDP secretary Keith Bellamywrote about BernadetteSmith's campaign officegetting a complaint from a constituent about his sign being stolen.

Osvaldo Pena told CBC he saw three people near his house taking an NDP sign he had perched on his front lawn Thursday evening.

He said he was driving with his grandson around 8:30 p.m. when he noticed three men standing on a sidewalk in front of his house. Pena said the men had about eight or nine NDP signs in their hands, so he decided to confront them.

"I told them I need it back." He said that's when the men told him he'd have to buy his sign if he wanted it back.

"I said what do you mean, that's mine. He said well, there's a place where they pay $2 for the small one and $5 for the big one. And Isaid yeah, but that one is mine!"

Pena said he then reported the incident to NDP campaign headquarters who then sent a staffer out to search for the men.

He said they found the men and one said he was getting paid to take the signs to 275 Selkirk Avenue. The Liberal Party's campaign office for Point Douglas is located at 271 Selkirk Avenue.

NDP secretary Keith Bellamy says the Bernadette Smith campaign has lost 'an extraordinary' number of signs. (CBC News)

In the NDP's letter to the elections commissioner, Bellamy wrote "Our campaign staff member approached the individual and the attached link to video was filmed during that conversation. In the video, the individual in question said that he is receiving $5 for every large sign and $2 for every small sign that he delivers to 271 Selkirk Ave., the address of the Liberal Party campaign office for Point Douglas."

Bellamy estimates the Smith campaign has lost as many 450 signs at a cost of approximately $6,000.

Liberal Party presidentPaul Braultissued a statement about the allegations Sunday night, saying "The Manitoba Liberal Party does not condone the theft of campaign signs and we have not engaged in this activity."

The Manitoba Liberal Party denied the allegations. (CBC News)

"We believe this allegation is [a] last ditch attempt by the NDP to sway voters that they have lost. This allegation isis precisely the kind of behaviour that we are working hard to change. Every day we hear how much people in this area want change and this is an example of the type of politics that the people of Point Douglas have grown weary of," the statement said.

Brault said as of Sunday evening, the party hadnot received official notification from the Manitoba commissioner of elections about a complaint. He encouraged anyone who witnesses the theft of any campaign materials to contact police.

The NDP say they've lost nearly $6,000 in campaigns signs in Point Douglas election. (CBC News)

A spokesperson for PC candidate JodiMoskalacknowledges her campaign has lost signs, but not in the numbers the NDP are alleging.

"The PC campaign in Point Douglas has received a record number of sign requests during the byelection and we have had to replace approximately 100 of those signs due to theft or vandalism. Theft of election signs is illegal, and goes against the spirit of a free and fair election process. We condemn any individual or group who partakes in that type of activity," said a Moskal campaign spokesperson.

Bellamy said the signs' disappearance has hurt the NDP's Point Douglas campaign.

"It could potentially create a perception that there is less support than may actually exist, but from the campaign perspective for us it's a significant cost when signs go missing. Certainly when they go missing by the hundreds,"Bellamytold CBC News.

"In my experience this is an extraordinary number of signs. I don't want to claim that the candidate or specific people are engineering this, but it certainly seems that when you are looking at numbers in the 450 range of signs going down, that there is some consistent if notco-ordinatedeffort,"Bellamysaid.

Continue reading here:

Pointing fingers in Point Douglas: NDP blames Liberals after signs disappear - CBC.ca

Select Page ::