OnlinePokerReport.com | Report: Massachusetts Online Gambling Likely To Get Green Light From Special Commission OnlinePokerReport.com A special commission in Massachusetts is poised to recommend an omnibus approach to regulation of the online gambling industry, according to Statehouse News Service, which could pave the way for iGaming in the state. |
Visit link:
Some Tough Question to Ask
To come to a decision regarding euthanasia, you can ask your veterinarian some of the following questions:
Can you tell me if my cat is suffering? What kinds of treatments are available? What would the cost be? What might treatment accomplish? Can I expect a cure, alleviation of pain or prolongation of life? What kind of care will I need to provide at home?
Even though your veterinarian will answer as many of your questions as possible, ultimately the decision rests with you. A few questions you might ask yourself:
What is my cats quality of life? Is he comfortable and happy? With treatment, will his quality of life improve or worsen? How much longer can I reasonably expect my cat to live?
Its a difficult decision, but the choice to give your cat the good death is often the most humane.
How can you possibly go on living without your catthe beloved best friend with whom youve shared your life for the past 10 or 15 years? That is one of the challenging and possibly unanswerable questions that loving and conscientious cat owners must ponder when their veterinarian suggests that they might want to consider euthanasia.
The Good Death
The term euthanasia is derived from two Greek wordseu, which means good, and thanatos, which means death. In a report published in 2001, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) defined this good death as follows: Euthanasia is the act of inducing humane death in an animal. It is our responsibility as veterinarians and human beings to ensure that if an animals life is to be taken, it is done with the highest degree of respect, and with an emphasis on making the death as painless and distress-free as possible.
All cat owners should know the facts about euthanasia, which is a very complicated issue, says Fred Scott, DVM, PhD, former director of Cornell Universitys Feline Health Center. We all want to spare our animals as much suffering as possible, and in situations where a cat is seriously ill and in pain and weve run out of treatment alternatives, the euthanasia option can be very helpful. But its always both a blessing and a cursea blessing that we can do it in order to relieve an animals suffering, but a curse in that we have to make the decision.
The Preliminaries
In most cases, there is a sound and genuinely humane reason for considering the procedure. The cat may have a chronic, progressive, recurrent disease for which all treatment options have been exhausted. It may be experiencing end-stage organ failure that, after an indefinite period of pain and suffering, will inevitably be fatal. It has developed a neurologic condition that makes it extremely difficult to care for. Or it has been hit by a car and injured beyond repair.
Although a veterinarian may point out that an injury or disease condition would justify euthanasia, the owners authorization for the procedure is always required. (Dr. Scott advises that cats should always be microchipped or wearing ID tags so that their owners can be reached in case the animal does wander away from home and suffer a life-threatening accident.)
After signing the authorization, the owner can usually elect whether to be present during the procedure, to view the cats remains afterward or to bid farewell to the animal before the procedure is begun. I always prefer to offer owners as many options as possible, says Dr. Scott. If they want to be present during the procedure, I have no problem with that.
"If there are children involved, I strongly suggest that parents discuss it with them beforehand. Avoid using euphemisms such as putting to sleep, because such terms can be very confusing to youngsters. If you let them know exactly whats going on and why, then its fine if the whole family is present. Unless a severely traumatized animal is involved, euthanasia is almost always an elective procedure, so the family can prepare for it together ahead of time.
Also prior to the procedure, owners are usually asked about the animals remains. The owners may want to take the euthanized animals body home with them and personally see to its cremation or burial, or they may choose to have the veterinary clinic make the arrangements. Either way, if cremation is chosen, owners can opt to have the ashes returned to them.
The Procedure
Euthanasia is usually done by a veterinarian; in some cases, it may be performed by a trained technician under the veterinarians supervision. The procedure involves a lethal injection of a barbiturate anesthetic (sodium pentobarbitol), which, according to the AVMA, has the ability to induce loss of consciousness and death without causing the pet any pain, distress, anxiety or apprehension. Sodium pentobarbitol is known to act rapidly and reliably. Some vets may give the patient a mild sedative prior to administering the lethal injection.
The drug overdose will quickly cause the animals heartbeat to slow down and stop. Its blood circulation will cease, its brain will stop functioning and it will stop breathing. In virtually all cases, the pet will lose consciousness and simply drift peacefully and painlessly away within a very short time, a matter of seconds, says Dr. Scott.
Concluding Business
Veterinarians are typically very sensitive to the emotional needs of owners following euthanasia. Most veterinarians would prefer euthanasia to take place at a quiet time of day in the clinic, Dr.Scott explains, so that they can allow the owner to be in the room and take as much time with their cat as needed after the procedure. And the owner, who is grieving, wont have to exit through a busy waiting room. In this regard, most veterinarians are as adaptable and compassionate as possible.
Regarding the payment of fees by grieving owners for a euthanasia procedure, Dr. Scott explains: Although the procedure itself is reasonably priced, it cannot be done for free. But veterinarians will try to handle this in as sensitive a way as possible.
The death of a beloved cat is never easy. Grief, regret, anger, uncertainty, sadness and/or a feeling of emptiness may accompany the loss. But remember to allow yourself time to grieve. A new cat will not replace your deceased pet in your affections or your heart, but can eventually help ease the pain of the loss. Adopting a needy pet can also be a loving tribute to your beloved cat.
View post:
Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 5:35 pm Press Release: Right To Life
Belgian Doctor Advocate for Culture of Death Descends on New Zealand
MEDIA RELEASE JUNE 3 2017
Right to Life believes that the community should be wary of doctors who are prepared to kill their patients as a treatment option.A pro euthanasia group has sought the urgent help of retired Belgium Professor Jan Bernheim to address meetings Right to Life believes have been hurriedly arranged in New Zealand to promote the Belgium model of euthanasia. Right to Life believes that the community should be concerned that this speaking tour is disrespectful of our Parliamentary democracy. It is thought that the presence of this advocate for a culture of death is intended to undermine the medical profession in New Zealand and to influence the Parliamentary Health Select Committee which is, at this time finalizing its report to Parliament. The pro-death group is well aware that 77 per cent of the 21,435 submissions are strongly opposed to the law being changed to allow the strong to kill the weak. This opposition is also reflected in the 1,800 oral submissions. We believe that it is his intention to attempt to generate public support for the Belgian model of euthanasia, in opposition to the anticipated report of the Committee.
The community should be aware that Professor Bernheim is in violation of the ethics of the medical profession which he swore to uphold at the time of his graduation, specifically to have the utmost respect for life. The World Medical Association in 2013 declared;
Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.
This professor claims that New Zealand should follow the Belgium model of euthanasia. There are two studies from the Flanders region of Belgium that display a rampant disregard for the law. In 2007, a study found that 32 percent of assisted deaths were performed without any request and that 47 percent of all assisted deaths were not reported. (See footnote 1) A further study in 2013 revealed that two percent of all deaths were hastened without an explicit request and that 40 percent of hastened deaths were not reported. There has been in Belgium a 500 percent increase in euthanasia in 10 years.
Arguments for euthanasia are founded on terminally ill patients being in intolerable pain. The lie to this is given by the fact that people in Belgium have been killed by a doctor in Belgium for diagnoses that include; depression, fatigue, autism and anorexia.
Assisting in suicide and homicide are serious crimes in the Crimes Act under which laws are in place for the protection of the most vulnerable ,members of our community, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill. We change these laws at our peril.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life
Footnote 1 Physician-assisted deaths under the euthanasia law in Belgium: a population-based survey. Chambaere K, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L CMAJ. 2010 Jun 15; 182(9):895-901. [PubMed] [Ref list]
Further Reference
Scoop Media
The rest is here:
Belgian Doctor Euthanasia Advocate Descends on NZ - Scoop.co.nz (press release)
New Yorks supreme court began weighing up arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide this week, so it was no surprise that the New York Times reported the euthanasia death in British Columbia of an expatriate New Yorker.
What was surprising, writes bioethicist Franklin Miller, of Weill Cornell Medical College, was the tone, spread and length of the feature. Published on May 25, a photo of John Shields, the dead man, took up a quarter of the front page, and there were five full pages of text and images inside the newspaper.
Dr Miller supports physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, but he found the gushing coverage alarming. He writes in the The Hastings Center blog:
It seems significant that the New York Timesan arbiter of culturedevoted an extraordinary amount of attention to a planned, physician-assisted death [PAS] and the rituals associated with it. There is a human interest story here, but the article had scant discussion of the ethical and policy issues raised by Canadas form of legalized medical assistance in dying. Presented to the readers, in lavish detail, as the Gift of Death, with a very appealing protagonist, this article romanticizes the death of John Shields. More importantly, I see it as describing, and prescribing, a model for the good death in North America today.
Dr Miller insists that PAS is not the only good death, but the coverage implies that it may be the best way to depart this world. Letting death happen, with the aid of palliative care, is no less good than making it happen, Dr Miller argues. We should beware of prescribing a particular form of death with dignity as a model for the end of life and not acknowledging other perspectives.
The article was not a model of the Timess new slogan discover the truth with us. As Miller points out, the article shed no light at all upon the ethical, medical and social complexities of Canadas new legislation for euthanasia, or medical assistance in dying (MAID), as it is called in Canada. Mr Shields, a former Catholic priest who found a new career as a union organiser in BC and, in retirement, as an environmental activist, was terminally ill, although he was not suffering unbearable pain. But he did fear becoming dependent. He fit the profile of most euthanasia patients: worried, white, and well-off. From the Timess account, it appears that the hospice doctors were not top-notch palliative care experts.
As in other portrayals of assisted dying, a cool, competent, compassionate doctor becomes a central figure in the narrative. In this case, she was a 48-year-old mother of two, Stefanie Green, who is so committed to euthanasia that she attended a conference in the Netherlands a month before it became legal. It seems relevant to coverage of Mr Shieldss death that she is also the founder of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers and has been involved in a quarrel with the BC government about insufficient compensation for euthanasia services. But nothing was mentioned about this in the article.
See original here:
BioEdge: Is euthanasia really the 'best' way to die? - BioEdge
David Shapiros smear of Jeff Sessions in a Chicago Tribune op-ed, suggesting that the attorney generalis a racist, is consistent with other failed partisan efforts to distort and delegitimize the former senators record on race and law enforcement. Apparently, Shapiro missed Sessionss confirmation hearing in which the same smears were attempted only to be refuted one by one by witnesses mostly black who actually know the facts and the man.
Shapiro asserts Sessionss directive to staff on criminal sentencing related to drug crimes is the latest in a series of attempts by the Attorney General to tear down protections for people of color. Mr. Shapiro seems to have forgotten that during the height of the crack epidemic ravaging the black community in the 80s, it was Congressman Charlie Rangel and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA), which established the 100-1 sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine. Were Rangel and other members of Congress racist?
Attorney General Sessions wasnt in the Senate at the time the ADAA passed, but he was in the Senate in 2010 and co-sponsored the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-to-powder ratio. If Sessions were a racist why reduce the crack-to-powder ratio, let alone co-sponsor the Fair Sentencing Act?
The rest of Shapiros piece is character assassination of the worst kind. As U.S. attorney for Alabama, Sessions successfully sought the death penalty for Klan members. He defended black voting rights. He hired blacks for prominent positions. As a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ive known and worked with Jeff Sessions for years and consider him the most principled and decent person in Washington, a man of the highest integrity.
Shapiros complaint seems to be that Attorney General Sessions is actually doing his job enforcing the law as Congress passed it. In contrast, former attorneys general Holder and Lynch, under the veil of prosecutorial discretion, failed to enforce the law. Select immigration and sentencing laws were simply ignored, virtually wholesale. Thats not the role of the attorney general, whether his name is Holder or Sessions. Such a sweeping use of prosecutorial discretion effectively nullifies or rewrites federal law. If drug laws need to be changed, Congress needs to change them. Holders and Lynchs actions were a plain derogation, if not usurpation, of legislative authority. That Attorney General Sessions is being criticized for restoring both the rule of law and the Justice Department to their proper roles is an indication of how debased respect for the rule of law has become.
Shapiro suggests blacks are disproportionately harmed by enforcement of drug-sentencing laws, but its other blacks who are disproportionately harmed by drug crimes. I live in inner-city Cleveland where the possession, sale, and trafficking of drugs arent victimless crimes. Nothing esoteric here. Neighborhoods decay, people sink into addiction, families are ripped apart, children are neglected, turf wars break out, and innocent people are destroyed. Clearly, there are good reasons why our current drug laws should be revised, but it takes a certain...mentality...to assert that those who enforce drug laws as written possess nefarious motives. And with the country in the grip of an opioid crisis that dwarfs the crack epidemic, a crisis that doesnt discriminate on the basis of race, uniform enforcement of the law is anything but racist.
Shapiro admits that there is no hard evidence of Sessionss racism, yet nonetheless accuses him of having a single-minded focus to attack people of color. Somewhere a Red Queen is smiling.
Jeff Sessions prioritizes the rule of law and the well-being of the victims of crime, not the well being of criminals. On the evidence, Jeff Sessions has a single-minded focus to act the way the attorney general of the United States is supposed to act. And Americans regardless of color are better off for that.
Read the original here:
Jeff Sessions & David Shapiro & the Rule of Law | National Review - National Review
So to be blunt and get straight to the point, addiction is a disease. That being said, recidivism concerning drug addicts should be viewed and treated differently compared to other criminals who re-offend.
If a crime has been committed and the only victims are the person battling addiction and the state, then realistically no actual crime has been committed. My taxes should not have to fund police salaries and the incarceration of non-violent inmates. I should be able to decide that my hard-earned tax dollars go towards rehabilitating addicts, in order to prevent recidivism among those suffering from addiction. Fewer tax dollars should be directed towards police and redirected to fire and rescue, and educational and training programs.
Violent crimes like assault, rape and murder are one thing, but drug possession, sales, petty theft and unpaid fines are a whole different category. I do not believe my (or anyones) tax dollars should be wasted to incarcerate the individuals suffering from addiction and those that have committed minor crimes. The main goal should be the prevention of recidivism in general, but especially regarding drug offenders who have committed victimless crimes. If we do not address the problems that surround addiction as well as addiction itself I say good luck finding a place to house the influx of inmates in a state with an overpopulation of inmates, and good luck trying to use tax dollars to cope with the problem instead of finding a legitimate solution.
Alexander Ingram
Winthrop
Continued here:
Spend tax dollars on addiction wisely - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel
In Cobb County, residents have many opportunities to speak before the Board of Commissioners, the Cobb and Marietta Boards of Education and at the six City Council meetings of Acworth, Austell, Kennesaw, Marietta, Powder Springs and Smyrna - not to mention the planning commissions and other boards of these governmental entities and many town hall meetings.
However, regulations vary on how much time Cobb residents are allowed to voice their opinions and whether they will receive a response. Public hearings on zoning matters are separate from the public comment portion. Speakers must sign up in advance and state their names and addresses.
In Austell, residents may speak near the beginning of the monthly meeting. In Marietta and before the Cobb Board of Commissioners, residents may speak during the twice-monthly meetings near the beginning and at the end. In Kennesaw and Smyrna, residents also may speak during the twice-monthly meetings but at the end. In Acworth and Powder Springs and before the Cobb and Marietta Boards of Education, residents may speak near the beginning of the twice-monthly meetings.
Except for the Cobb Board of Education, allotted times for each speaker are set - usually five minutes each. With the Cobb BOE, speakers do not know how much time they will be allowed - one time this year only one minute as determined by Board Chair David Chastain until school board member David Morgan made a motion to give each speaker one additional minute. Many comments concerned the unidentified North Cobb High student who made racial threats, Cobb school officials said one to two minutes was sufficient since a maximum of 15 speakers are allowed for 30 minutes. However, the Cobb BOE can allow 30 more minutes at the end of the meeting.
The lack of uniformity has frustrated some concerned citizens who want their voices heard. Some officials say they just want meetings to run smoother and quicker. What do you think Cobb County should do about public comment periods during government meetings?
Send comments to communitynews@ajc.com. Submissions may be edited for length and may be published in print and/or online.
DeKalb County Sheriff Jeff Mann pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of indecency and obstruction after he allegedly exposed himself in a public park and ran from Atlanta police. He appeared in Atlanta Municipal Court for a brief hearing to enter his plea. His trial is scheduled for July 7.
In the meantime, residents of DeKalb County are torn about what should be done about Mann. Some assert as a law enforcement official, he should be held to higher standard and resign his post or be fired. Others maintain what Mann did was a victimless crime and although he showed bad judgement, he should be forgiven and the county should move on.
Last week, we asked readers their opinion. Here are some responses:
His conduct certainly falls into conduct unbecoming as the DeKalb sheriff. There doesnt appear to be any doubt that he ran after an officer identified himself as police. If it was a deputy booked for the same thing what would he have done? It wouldnt be a one week suspension with pay I dare say. He is entitled to due process on the misdemeanor charges, but that isnt the question. How can his deputies continue to have any respect for him? It is another disgrace to DeKalb County. I predict he will be removed from office if he doesnt resign which he should do. Dennis Caniglia
Sheriff Jeff Mann should resign. He is a leader and as such he should held to the highest of standards. Would Sheriff Mann tolerate this type of behavior from one of his deputies? If the people of Dekalb County accept substandard and deviant behavior from the sheriff, can they expect better from others in and out of government? The sheriff should resign immediately. Freddie M. Edenfield
This was a victimless crime. I am of the opinion that we should all move past it. His embarrassment has been enough to pay for what he did. Warren Bice
I think he should resign because one he did not use good judgment. You go to a public park and expose yourself, knowing you are public figure elected to serve and protect the citizens of Dekalb County. It shows that he has other problems that he needs to address before he can lead a major department. Richard Taylor
The sheriffs indiscretion was a victimless crime. He is a good man. The county should move past this incident. Let it go! Catherine Carter
There should be no question on what should be done to Jeff Mann. An elected official caught by law enforcement breaking the law in such a lewd manner. Who knows how many times he has done this? Thankfully he got caught! Victimless? No, the law enforcement officer who caught him was the victim! FIRE HIM!!!! Cherie Gibson
I think Sheriff Mann has already paid a high enough price for the incident in Piedmont Park. This was, in my opinion, a victimless crime for which he has already suffered very public humiliation. I dont know what led him to expose himself to the officer but I find it very sad that a man of his education and career success should feel a need to do so. He has already suspended himself from work and to his credit has not tried to deny his mistake or blame others. I hope that he will seek help to understand why he placed himself in such a self-destructive situation. However, I dont believe that his actions disqualify him from performing his duties as Dekalb Sheriff in the meantime. Let us show some compassion for this man. Judith Mozley
He is a negative example to his employees and the community. This incident shows that Sheriff Mann is a pervert. Imagine what is going on inside the job site. I suggest that he resign and be prosecuted. Donaldo Whyte
He is a grown man who knew bloody well what he was doing and why he was there. He is a disgrace to the county and ought to be fired. I would feel the same way about a female official who was caught soliciting for prostitution. Susan Harte
We were upset when we saw the article about DeKalb Sheriff Jeff Mann was arrested because he ran away from the Atlanta police officer. Yes, Sheriff Mann ran away and that was wrong, but the officer made an issue that could have been handled in a better way. Sheriff Jeff Mann has been a dedicated officer in his years that he has served in the law enforcement in DeKalb County. He has been involved in public service to so many organizations. He should be allowed to continue his service as DeKalb County sheriff. Josiah V. Benator
It is my opinion that Sheriff Mann should be fired for breaking the law by exposing himself in public and then fleeing a law enforcement officer. Furthermore, I believe that he should get the maximum penalty for those offenses. While Sheriff Manns sexual preferences/delights are his business, he chose to break the law that he was voted to uphold by the people of DeKalb Countynot only one law, but two laws. Rose Casey
The better question: When does a lapse in judgement, during which nobody was maimed, murdered, or harmed in any way, warrant an investigation or a resignation? Answer: It doesnt! How many of you clamoring for the sheriff to resign can HONESTLY say that you have never done something that, in retrospect, you wished you hadnt? Answer: Crickets.
Time to stop being so judgmental and MOVE ON and focus our energy on the REAL criminals and their crimes and the havoc they cause locally as well as nationally. I applaud Sheriff Mann for the self-imposed suspension that exceeds the Code of Conducts recommended discipline for a first time offense. Clara Black DeLay
Read the original:
At Issue: Should Cobb County consider uniform public comment rules? - Atlanta Journal Constitution
Veteran stage actor and play director Darryl Maximilian Robinson, who received a 2015 / 2016 Elate Season Ticket Holder Award Nomination as Best Actor for his performance as the debonair, but aging, leading man Ernest in Tad Mosel's "Impromptu" as part of the Elate staging of four one-acts entitled "Just 4 Fun," returns to the stage of the Lincoln Stegman Theatre of North Hollywood to play District Attorney Flint, a prosecutor deeply involved in the case of "The People of The State of New York vs. Karen Andre" in The Emmanuel Lutheran Actors Theatre Ensemble - ELATE revival of Russian-American author and playwright Ayn Rand's 1935 classic Broadway courtroom drama "Night Of January 16th."
Mr. Robinson, a Chicago Joseph Jefferson Citation Award Winner as Outstanding Actor In A Principal Role In A Play ( for his performance as Sam Semela in Athol Fugard's "Master Harold...And The Boys" ), and who for 15 years served as The Founder, Artistic Director and Producer of the multiracial, non-Equity professional, classical and contemporary chamber theatre, The Excaliber Shakespeare Company of Chicago, has played numerous roles in courtroom dramas during the course of his 43-season stage career including: The Angry Man in Director / Producer Ray Hayman's 1980 staging of The At Random Players' production of C. B. Gilford's "The Jury Room" presented at Chicago's McCormick Inn; The Professor in Director Jonathan Wilson's 1998 staging of The Pegasus Players' Jeff Citation Award-winning world premiere production of Robert Myers' "The Lynching of Leo Frank" performed at Chicago's O'Rourke Center For The Performing Arts; and The Reverend Sykes in Director Diedra Celeste Miranda's 2011 staging of The Glendale Centre Theatre's five-time Stage Scene L A "Scenie" Award-winning production of playwright Christopher Sergel's adaptation of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird." However, Ayn Rand's "Night Of January 16th" marks the first time Mr. Robinson has appeared as a lawyer onstage since he played the role of Sir Thomas More, the condemned Lord Chancellor of England, in Director John Grassilli's 1984 staging of The University Players' revival production of Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons" presented at Benton Hall Theatre of The University of Missouri-St. Louis ( UMSL).
Co-Produced by long-time ELATE Members Norma Burgess and Deb Sadlouskos, Ayn Rand's "Night Of January 16th" reunites Mr. Robinson with his "Impromptu" director Jeff Zimmer. A multiple Emmy Award-nominated television producer ( noted for his work on such programs nas "The Doctors" and "America's Funniest Home Videos" ), Mr. Zimmer will stage Rand's 82-year-old Broadway success "Night" in modern dress attire, and add a few touches to make the piece resemble a slightly more recent "Trial of The Century."
This includes casting several talented actresses in roles traditionally played by males including: Gerrie Wilkowski as Judge Heath; Therese Hawes as the writing expert, Chandler; and Lisa Cicchetti as the medical examiner, Dr. Kirkland. Mr. Robinson's District Attorney Flint prosecutes his case opposite experienced actress and Co-Producer Ms. Burgess as Defense Attorney Stevens, the legal counsel of accused murder suspect Karen Andre. The pivotal role of The Defendant Andre is played by Erin Cote', who earned a 2015 / 2016 Elate Season Ticket Holder Award Nomination as Best Actress for her performance as Jane in Elate playwright Stan Brown's "Ride Share," another of the four one-acts of "Just 4 Fun". MR. Brown, who won two 2015 / 2016 Elate Season Ticket Holder Awards for Best Actor and Best Director ( shared with Mr. Zimmer ) for his work in "Ride Share" as part of "Just 4 Fun," appears in the revival production of "Night," as the multimillionaire and philanthropist, John Graham Whitfield.
Other performers featured in ELATE'S revival of "Night January 16th" include: Rod French as the elderly night watchman, Mr. Hutchins; Judith Miller as the Swedish housekeeper, Magda Svenson; Tom Reilly as the private investigator, Homer Van Fleet; Terry Bratcher as Police Inspector Sweeney, Tim Aberdeen as accountant Siegurd Jungquist, Mr. Zimmer in the blended roles of The Bailiff and The Court Clerk; and ELATE newcomer Lauren Waites as Nancy Lee Faulker, beautiful young widow of murder victim Bjorn Faulkner, and only daughter of John Graham Whitfield. The role of love-smitten gangster Lawrence "Guts" Regan ( a part that revitalized the stage and screen acting career of Hollywood Legend Walter Pidgeon during the original 1935 Broadway production ) will be played in this new revival by Elate audience favorite Tony Cicchetti.
The ELATE revival will be staging Ayn Rand's final, 1968 definitive version of her script, and utilize the device that made it a hit in 1935 on Broadway: At every performance audience members will be asked to participate as Jury Members and, by their verdict, determine one of two endings of the play!
Performances of ELATE's revival of Ayn Rand'S "NIGHT OF JANUARY 16th" will take place Saturday June 3rd at 8pm., Sunday June 4th at 2pm., Saturday June 10th at 8 pm., Sunday June 11th at 4pm., Saturday June 17th at 8pm., and Sunday June 18th at 2pm. All performances are onstage at The Lincoln Stegman Theatre, 6020 Radford Ave., North Hollywood, CA. 91606. For Tickets and Reservations Information as well as to request special "Jury Box" ( premium view ) seats call ELATE at ( 818 ) 509-0882.
Excerpt from:
Elate's Revival of Ayn Rand's NIGHT OF JANUARY 16TH Opens 6/3 - Broadway World
Ayn Rand valued Aristotles philosophy and developed her own philosophy of reason called Objectivism. Aristotles philosophy adhered to the logic of A is A, but Alfred Korzybski took is away. Frank R Wallace replaced it all with Neo-Tech Objectivism.
Frank R Wallace quoted Ayn Rand saying save me from the Radians. Ayn Rand was her self repulsed by the cult-ish obsession coming from Objectivists at that time.
Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was an inspiration to Frank R Wallace. Ayn Rands influence on early versions of Neo-Tech Power is obvious. Wallace showed great admiration for Objectivism, particularly Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged.
Neo-Tech sought to convert that rigid dogmatic cult following of Ayn Rand into a highly leveraged force of intelligence and influence.
Wallace once suggested that Ayn Rands character John Galt had influential powers probably beyond realistic possibility. Ayn Rand claimed that her heros revealed the reality of man. Ayn Rands Objectivism seems to have provided no such real life hero (that I am aware of). Wallaces Neo-Tech later went on to describe The Greatest Discovery Ever! and the wpgsh phenomenon of societal influence.
In fact, reading Ayn Rands early fiction, you can clearly see a natural dislike of reality that Rand seems to have imbued. Cuts from The Fountainhead show Howard Roarke as almost schizophrenic in his lack of mindfulness. I seem to remember the character even claiming he was incapable of love. He clearly seemed that way in the cut edits that never made it into the published version of The Fountainhead. Neo-Tech approaches human experience from a very different angle. Neo-Techs evolution rises from research into the history of love, with human happiness as being the primary goal. This was not clearly expressed in Ayn Rands writings. Perhaps it would have been her next novel.
I believe Ayn Rands Objectivism cleared a path for Neo-Tech to evolve for providing the human side of the hard facts of reality.
What differences are there between Neo-Tech and Objectivism?
Objectivism used 5 classifications of philosophy. Here they are with Objectivism keyword for each category in the brackets.
Im going to call them Objectivism Metaphysics (Reality), Objectivism Epistemology (Reason), Objectivism Politics (Capitalism), Objectivism Aesthetics (never defined), and Objectivism Ethics (self-interest).
Neo-Techs definitions for Neo-Tech Metaphysics (Business), Neo-Tech Epistemology (Neo-Think), Neo-Tech Politics (Free competition), Neo-Tech Ethics (Value production), and Neo-Tech Aesthetics (Value reflection).
Perhaps Frank R Wallace and Ayn Rand would have come to rather narrow agreements in a personal discussion. Wallace would certainly have seen far and wide. Ayn Rand might have slapped his face.
Neo-Tech broadens the reach of Objectivism, both philosophically, and commercially.
Similarities between Neo-Tech and Objectivism
Both Neo-Tech and Objectivism posit the primacy of existence to consciousness. In easier language that simply means that reality exists before consciousness has a place to exist. Platonic mysticism and Kant would argue that consciousness is primary, that reality is seated within this thing we call consciousness. Both Neo-Tech and Objectivism strongly disagree.
Nathan Shaw has begun a site on Neo-Tech history, Neo-Tech Publishing, and The Neo-Tech Discovery and Nouveau-Tech . Nathan has also created an Life Direction and Career Development Workshop program online at Life Direction
Photo By PIRO4D from Pixabay
Read the rest here:
Neo-Tech Views On Ayn Rand and Objectivism | Good Herald - Good Herald
Almost all money comes into this world out of thin air, writes MPA Hankey. Photograph: Sukree Sukplang/Reuters
Tory politicians now frequently accuse Labour of believing in the existence of a magic money tree that will enable a Labour government to pay for it (Front page, 3 June). They hope that none of us will remember that in its 2014 Q1 Quarterly Bulletin the Bank of England published a graphic and explicit account of the facts of money: almost all money comes into this world out of thin air, conjured into existence by the book-keeping act in which whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrowers bank account, thereby creating new money. This had for very many years been well understood by bankers, but for some reason most of them had been too shy to admit such facts outside a small circle of consenting adults.
The secret of political understanding is that most accusations hide guilty secrets. In this case the money tree is by no means a fantasy: it is the very real tree of quantitative easing, a tree that has dropped billions of pounds of new money into banks and financial institutions. The resulting inflation of asset values has allowed the few to become obscenely wealthy while the Tories have increased the national debt by nearly 800bn since 2010.
Meanwhile, what needs to be done and what Labour says must be done, cannot be done because of austerity. For now the money tree operates to Tory advantage. The question on Thursday is, who owns it and what should it properly do? MPA Hankey Northmoor, West Oxfordshire
Austerity, the Tories tell us, is a tough road. The implication is that austerity will rebuild the economy, giving us once again the level of services that existed before. However, the first seven years of austerity have almost doubled the debt they were supposed to eradicate. Sowhy would anyone believe that a further eight years of the same will do any more towards that end? The real reason for austerity is an Ayn Rand-esque assault on the public sector.
In an Ayn Rand society, there would be no public sector and no taxes. If you want to drive your car, you pay to use the road; if you want an education for your child, you pay for it; a public health service would be inconceivable.
It works out extremely well for those who can already pay for everything they want they do so while enjoying even lower taxes. For everyone else its a nightmare. To see a past Ayn Rand society, look at Victorian Britain, with its extremes of wealth and poverty, and actual starvation. To see a future one, check out any of many dystopian sci-fi movies, where the rich live in fortified palaces, protected by private armies and police forces, and everyone else fights forsurvival in a living hell outside.
The creeping privatisation of prisons, schools, the NHS and so much more is work in progress. Austerity is about completing and normalising this and getting us used to the privation and exploitation that come with it. Dr Stephen Riley Bruton, Somerset
In last Wednesdays live BBC televised debate, home secretary Amber Rudd accused Jeremy Corbyn, of relying on the fairytale money tree that would be needed to honour the spending pledges in Labours election manifesto.
The real elephant in the British fiscal coffers room, which the Tories strenuously refuse to see, is huge income inequality, appropriation of insane chunks of wealth by the top 1% and systematic public underinvestment due to relatively low direct income tax rates for the highest earners.
Besides configuring the fiscal revenue space (together with other direct/indirect taxes, insurance contributions and government borrowing), we would like to point to another, much neglected, redistributive function that progressive income tax should serve in a rich, albeit highly polarised and divided advanced economy such as the UK.
Instead on focusing on the absolute income tax contribution, in our research we have developed a novel and holistic index which tracks the ratio of the effective income tax rate per income group divided by the percentage of total personal wealth (alternatively, one may use the percentage of national income) owned by the same income group.
Under this metric, we show that the bottom 99% pays in relative terms at least 10 times (1,000%) more tax than the top 1%.
From the social justice perspective the money tree will blossom when the richest 1% will pay a higher and fairer income tax rate. Professor John Hatgioannides Faculty of Finance, Cass Business School, City, University of London Dr Marika Karanassou School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary, University of London
In your editorial on the general election (3 June) you mention Labours economic reputation. It is a myth that a Conservative government is better for the economy. In the last 25 years, the only time there has been a budget surplus was under a Labour government. The recovery since the financial crash has been the slowest in 300 years. Why? Because the Conservatives imposed austerity rather than increasing productivity.
Currently, the profit of large companies accrues to the shareholders at the expense of investing in the company and improving productivity. Long-term gain is sacrificed for short-term profit. The chief of Unilever tells Nils Pratley (21 May) that he could easily manufacture a higher share price by cutting jobs, factories and research. Graveyards are full of companies that have been cutting costs
In Germany it has been found that including employees on the board of a company improves productivity. It is in the interest of employees for their company to succeed. But the Conservatives recently decided not to take this simple step: one example, among many, of their economic weakness.
Instead of improving productivity, the government is relying on consumer debt to fuel economic growth. This is not wise or sustainable. Consumer debt in the US led to the last financial crash.
Labours economic policies focus on how to lessen the likelihood of consumer debt and how to support companies to improve productivity. A Labour government is essential for the economic wellbeing of the country. Jean Lally Little Hayfield, Derbyshire
Philip Inmans article (Double edge of debt, 1 June) rightly notes that Britains credit habit is returning, despite a decrease in consumer confidence.
AtNational Debtline we see the human cost of this with a huge rise in contact from people who are struggling to pay their household bills, council tax, rent arrears, water and utilities. The effects of being in debt on mental and physical health have been well documented. While credit can be a valuable tool, equally we need to look again at households using credit as a way of keeping their heads above water. There are better protections, too, for people in debt that could be explored, such as enhanced rules on enforcement by bailiffs.
As politicians seek the publics support, we urge them to be thoughtful about how the increasing gap between wages and prices affects people struggling to make ends meet, and to focus on addressing underlying causes and possible remedies. Joanna Elson Chief executive of the Money Advice Trust, the charity that runs National Debtline
There isnt a magic money tree, says Theresa May. That perverse branch of financial services, the tax avoidance industry, is a veritable forest of magic money trees, the rich fruit of which is harvested by those who need it least. Denis Ahern Stanford-le-Hope, Essex
Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters
Read more here:
Make the magic money tree work for everyone, not just the rich - The Guardian
In its zeal to trot out the most mendacious humans alive to defend the president and his policies, the Trump administration has recently turned to Mick Mulvaney. A haircut in search of a decent suit, Mulvaney serves as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Before that, he was known mostly to political junkies as a backbench Tea Party congressman from South Carolina.
Now that he works for Donald Trump, Mulvaney is quickly becoming the latest in a long line of exhibits for how completely the Republican Party has turned itself over to charlatans who spent their youth sleeping through math class.
About 10 days ago, Mulvaney stood in front of the White House press corps and the nation to defend the presidents draconian budget with a $2 trillion counting error at its heart. Last week having apparently not embarrassed himself enough, he resurfaced with an interview at the Washington Examiner to take potshots at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for reaching conclusions he does not like about his work.
It is important to note that Mulvaney did not challenge the budget officeon the merits of its work, such as its score of the American Health Care Act recently passed by the House of Representatives. What he did instead is cast doubt on the motives of the people who work for and run the office, hinting without providing a lick of evidence that they are a bunch of partisans out to sandbag a Republican administration.
Mulvaney explicitly took issue with the budget offices assertion that the AHCAs $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid will result in fewer people having health coverage throughMedicaid. Those of us familiar with the concept of cause and effect might think this obvious. But not Mulvaney. Since kicking off the rolls Medicaid users, who tend to be poorand old andhave disabilities, makes the GOP look like Ebenezer Scrooges meaner cousin, he deflected by suggesting it is no longer feasible to think of the Congressional Budget Office as a nonpartisan organization.
He went on to feed conservative paranoia by suggesting that the person in charge of scoring the AHCA had also scored Hillary Clintons health care plan in the early 1990s and the Affordable Care Act early in the Obama administration, with the clear implication that the AHCAs bad score was the result of liberal sabotage. (For what its worth, the budget offices score of the ACA was fairly accurate, while its unfavorable scoreof the so-called Hillarycare proposal helped sink that plan in Congress.)
The clear message is this: The anti-Trumpian swamp or the deep state, or whatever Trumps most fervent supporters are calling Washington these days, is lying to make the AHCA and the administration look bad.
In dismissing facts and figures as out of hand, Mulvaney is staying true to his roots as a member of the Tea Party and the House Freedom Caucus, having aligned himself with both when he entered Congress after the 2010 election. He was one of the congressmen who, in 2013, dismissed the warnings of virtually every economist and financial wonk about the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling as arrant nonsense and fearmongering. This led to a government shutdown and the nations near default on its debt, a potentially catastrophic blow to the worlds economy.
The intransigence of Mulvaney and his fellow Tea Partiers for a while led to theirbeingforced to the sidelines by the Republican leadership in the House. Instead, former Speaker John Boehner and later his replacement Paul Ryan started making deals with Democrats on the debt ceiling. That was fine in terms of at least keeping the government open and functioning andnot ending up incatastrophe for the millions of people who depend on it for their livelihoods and health care.
But now, with Tea Party true believers like Mulvaney holding high positions in the administration, the groups nonsense that could be intermittently checked during the Obama era has invaded the executive branch. And it has a president who is extremely malleable, who is inclined by his nature toward cruelty and who, like Mulvaney, is happy to blow up the public trust in political institutions in order to serve his own partisan ends, no matter how divorced from reality they may be.
Add to that the GOPs control of Congress that has allowed both the House and Senate caucuses to unleash their inner Ayn Rand, and you have a very dangerous moment in American history, as last weeks pullout from the Paris climate accordby the president shows. The Tea Party itself might have seemed beaten for a couple of years. But its intransigence and know-nothingism is now driving the car and could steer the entire country off a cliff.
The rest is here:
Mick Mulvaney's snake oil: A blend of bad science, bad math and really bad politics - Salon
Americans now live in a political environment dominated by extremes.
One burgeoning faction, looking through red tinted lenses, seeks "freedom from." Another, looking through blue tinted lenses, seeks "access to." A fading faction, looking through clear lenses, fears all will become tinted.
The grassroots conservative movement sees national government as the great enemy and seeks freedom from oppressive taxation and regulation, while the grassroots liberal movement sees national government as the great provider and seeks access to expanded government succor.
No representative democracy can survive for long with either extreme in power. Indeed, our founding fathers, whom Providence blessed with the uncanny collective ability to see through clear lenses during the stressful birthing of our nation, designed the U.S. Constitution to force balance among extremes. They put in place checks and balances, deliberately gave different roles and representation to the House and Senate, limited the power of the federal government, and mitigated the power of the majority through the first 10 Amendments.
Regrettably, those willing and able to peer through clear lenses to protect us from extremism are fading away. Red and blue tint has seeped into most of our institutions and the processes by which our leaders are chosen. Even judges, the intended ultimate stronghold of clear-seeing patriots, are now chosen based on their tinted views of the law. Our Constitutions intent for balance is largely ignored.
The founders also intended for this Providence favored nation to be steeped in virtue. The growing and intense hatred of conservatives for liberals and vice versa Americans all shows America's virtue is fading, too.
All this, essentially, because of greed.
Ayn Rand schooled us about greed in her 1957 epic work Atlas Shrugged. Looters and moochers she called them, the profiteering businesses and non-productive masses who thrive off the accomplishments of productive citizens and siphon off their opportunities for prosperity.
A great irony for grassroots conservatives is that they may become the victims in this political environment, not the grassroots liberals who portray themselves as victims. The freedom dogma attractive to so many sounds good, but if established will primarily benefit the profiteers who fund the tinted foundations and advocacy groups spreading this creed. Big business profits would soar exponentially more than livable wages and broad prosperity.
On the moocher side, we already see government unable to sustain Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs at current levels, much less at the expanded programmatic and funding levels desired by grassroots liberals.
Government's role is not to benefit either looters or moochers, but to bring competing politics into balance so as to determine the appropriate level of taxation and regulation needed to sustain the national defense, commerce, homeland security, and public safety while providing adequate support for the general welfare. Representative democracy expects the push and pull of politics, but relies on clear-eyed patriots of good will from all sides who will come together to provide balanced government.
Sadly, there is no mood for compromise between the red and the blue, nor much good will. A nation cannot be indivisible and under God, or debt free, without both.
Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Meridian crawfolk@gmail.com.
Read more:
American politics declining into profiteers vs. moochers - Meridian Star
Bill Crawford, Special to the American 7:47 a.m. CT June 4, 2017
Bill Crawford(Photo: Special to Hattiesburg American)Buy Photo
Americans now live in a political environment dominated by extremes.
One burgeoning faction, looking through red-tinted lenses, seeks "freedom from." Another, looking through blue-tinted lenses, seeks "access to." A fading faction, looking through clear lenses, fears all will become tinted.
The grassroots conservative movement sees national government as the great enemy and seeks freedom from oppressive taxation and regulation, while the grassroots liberal movement sees national government as the great provider and seeks access to expanded government succor.
No representative democracy can survive for long with either extreme in power. Indeed, our founding fathers, whom Providence blessed with the uncanny collective ability to see through clear lenses during the stressful birthing of our nation, designed the U.S. Constitution to force balance among extremes. They put in place checks and balances, deliberately gave different roles and representation to the House and Senate, limited the power of the federal government, and mitigated the power of the majority through the first 10 amendments.
More: Crawford: Health care not priority for Mississippi
Regrettably, those willing and able to peer through clear lenses to protect us from extremism are fading away. Red and blue tint has seeped into most of our institutions and the processes by which our leaders are chosen. Even judges, the intended ultimate stronghold of clear-seeing patriots, are now chosen based on their tinted views of the law. Our Constitutions intent for balance is largely ignored.
The founders also intended for this Providence-favored nation to be steeped in virtue. The growing and intense hatred of conservatives for liberals and vice versa Americans all shows America's virtue is fading, too.
All this, essentially, because of greed.
More: Crawford: Closed stores impact local economy
Ayn Rand schooled us about greed in her 1957 epic work Atlas Shrugged. Looters and moochers she called them, the profiteering businesses and non-productive masses who thrive off the accomplishments of productive citizens and siphon off their opportunities for prosperity.
A great irony for grassroots conservatives is that they may become the victims in this political environment, not the grassroots liberals who portray themselves as victims. The freedom dogma attractive to so many sounds good, but if established will primarily benefit the profiteers who fund the tinted foundations and advocacy groups spreading this creed. Big business profits would soar exponentially more than livable wages and broad prosperity.
On the moocher side, we already see government unable to sustain Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs at current levels, much less at the expanded programmatic and funding levels desired by grassroots liberals.
More: Mississippi back on bottom in senior health rankings
Government's role is not to benefit either looters or moochers, but to bring competing politics into balance so as to determine the appropriate level of taxation and regulation needed to sustain the national defense, commerce, homeland security and public safety, while providing adequate support for the general welfare. Representative democracy expects the push and pull of politics, but relies on clear-eyed patriots of good will from all sides who will come together to provide balanced government.
Sadly, there is no mood for compromise between the red and the blue, nor much good will. A nation cannot be indivisible and under God, or debt free, without both.
Bill Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Meridian. Contact him at crawfolk@gmail.com.
Read or Share this story: http://hatne.ws/2sDxnve
Originally posted here:
Crawford: American politics declining into profiteers vs. moochers - Hattiesburg American
Hundreds of thousands of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accidents occur each year; it is rare for victims to just walk away after the crash.
Here are four fatal ATV crashes that occurred this weekend alone that illustrate that danger.
As summer kicks off, national ATV Safety Week is a good opportunity to remind riders of the Golden Rules from the ATV Safety Institute in order to ensure a more enjoyable off-road experience.
Remember too, as fun as a child may have on this type of vehicle, ATVs are not toys; they are powerful and potentially dangerous vehicles.
There are no federal laws regarding ATV use. Each state chooses whether or not to set any requirements, and theres no single rule which all 50 U.S. states have in common. Some states, such as Illinois, has the least stringent guidelines for riding ATVs with no restrictions on age, helmet use or number of passengers, and no required safety certification. However, the Consumer Federation of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that no one under 16 ride an ATV. Safely operating an ATV requires the driver to make quick decisions, such as speeding up or slowing down in response to changes in the environment. Kids are unlikely to be able to make these choices or have the skills to react to obstacles such as a pond.
For a summary of ATV laws by states, clickhere.
Mark Bello has practiced law for 40 years. He is currently the CEO and General Counsel of Lawsuit Financial Corporation, a pro-justice lawsuit funding company, and the author of the legal thriller Betrayal of Faith available on major online book store sites.
See the rest here:
Remember the Golden Rules During ATV Safety Week - Legal Examiner
Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron (C) speaks as Nick Clegg MP (R) and Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park Sarah Olney look on during a rally at the Shiraz Mirza Community Hall on June 1, 2017 in Kingston upon Thames, England. Leon NealGetty Images
Its a cold evening in April, and a loud bang has just stopped a huddle of political canvassers in South London. He shut the door in my face, says Richard Phillips, a 62-year-old retired advertising executive campaigning for the Liberal Democrats party in the constituency of Vauxhall. I suppose they wont be voting for us, he says to George Turner, the Liberal Democrats candidate for Vauxhall who is attempting to take the seat from the local MP. The group moves on, to bang on more doors and hand out more leaflets.
Doors have been slamming across the U.K. over the past six weeks as voters are presented with yet another set of political pitches on their stoops before the snap general election on June 8, called by Prime Minister Theresa May a little less than two months ago. It's the third vote in three years here, after the general election of 2015 that delivered David Cameron a parliamentary majority and last year's 'Brexit' referendum that forced his resignation.
May launched the election as a bid to boost her mandate in the upcoming negotiations to leave the E.U., and many expected Britain's future outside the political and economic bloc to be the focus of the race. On the face of it, this seemed like good news for the Liberal Democrats Britain's third party, created in 1988 as a center-left alternative to the two largest parties. Having been all but wiped out in the 2015 election, the "Lib Dems" plotted a comeback built on the support of anti-Brexit voters. The "Lib Dems" launched a manifesto calling for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal, where voters can either accept the deal or choose to remain in the E.U. something both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and May's Conservative Party, or "Tories," have ruled out.
Promising a do-over on "Brexit" should logically have been a popular pitch the 16 million Remainers number five million more than the Tories total vote share in 2015, and nearly 7 million more than Labours. A vast center-ground remains unaccounted for as the countrys biggest parties become more polarized, tilting their messages further left and right on the political spectrum. The election was called because of Brexit, would-be MP George Turner tells TIME. In many ways this is a single issue vote."
But polls suggest the Liberal Democrats will gain barely any seats at all on June 8. Analysts predict that they will struggle to win back its seats in rural, Euroskeptic areas, especially in South West England. [The result] is going to be patchy, Tony Travers, an elections expert at the London School of Economics, tells TIME. The Liberal Democrats set their stall so strongly against Brexit and in favor of another referendum, have got virtually nowhere with it. Betting on Brexit is looking like a bust.
Two years ago, it looked as if the Lib Dems had hit rock bottom. The party went from holding 48 parliamentary seats to just eight after the 2015 election, as younger and left-leaning voters punished the party for the five years it spent in coalition government with the Conservative Party. The Lib Dems were seen to have reneged on key promises, most infamously a pledge to stand in the way of tuition fees for higher education that was dropped under pressure by their Conservative partners.
The party was enthusiastically anti-Brexit in the referendum campaign, and defeat appeared to galvanize it in opposition. Under new leader Tim Farron, the party rode an anti-Brexit strategy to success in December in a local election in the London constituency of Richmond. More than 100,000 people joined the party in the wake of the referendum, among them Rachel Johnson, a prominent journalist and sister of vocal Leave campaigner Boris Johnson , now Foreign Minister. Speaking to a Brexit convention on May 12 in London, Johnson said, to loud cheers from the Remain-leaning audience, she became a Liberal Democrat because the party was offering voters a second look at whatever deal there is.
Some 600 pro-European candidates also flocked to the Lib Dem ranks; people like George Turner. His key rival in Vauxhall an urban constituency of about 73,000 people is Kate Hoey, a former Labour Party cabinet minister who was among the most vocal Brexiteers. Hoey even joined former far-right leader Nigel Farage on the campaign trail. Turner, by contrast is a British-Croatian national who voted to remain in the E.U. Almost 8 in 10 of his potential constituents did, too one of the highest shares against Brexit in the country.
And yet the polls have consistently given the Liberal Democrats between 7 and 10% of the vote which will likely give them roughly the same result as last time around.
In many ways, it's not their fault. A handful of political upsets, which includes a terrorist attack in Manchester and another assault at London's Borough Market five days before the vote, has tilted a one-issue vote into a traditional race focused more on domestic issues such as social services, security, austerity and the countrys creaking health provider, the National Health Service (NHS). Prime Minister May, who was initially predicted to win in a landslide, saw her unassailable 20-point lead against Labour narrow to around five points at the end of May due to a pledge to make people pay more of the costs of social care, which was branded the 'dementia tax.' Some are predicting a hung Parliament or a small majority for the Tories.
But the apparent shift in voting intentions has not translated to votes for the Liberal Democrats. Those who have Brexit buyers remorse seem more likely to vote for Labour who, unlike the Liberal Democrats, have a better chance of winning and have positioned themselves as slightly less pro-Brexit than the Tories. Some say there just isnt room for a third party to make much difference. The Tories are getting 30% of Remain voters and will win about two thirds of leave voters, while the plurality of Remain voters will go for Labour, Philip Cowley, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University in London tells TIME.
Even the most senior Liberal Democrats concede that many Brits feel the Brexit question has been answered, no matter how they voted in 2016. Much as I'd like to think there's an army of 48% of the British electorate ready to rise up as one and say that they're all Liberal Democrats now, former leader Nick Clegg tells TIME, the truth of course is there are many people who, in keeping with a very sort of pragmatic British spirit, are saying oh well, we must now move on and make the best of it.
Theres also a sense that two years is not quite enough to spend in the wilderness, especially among younger voters who feel the Lib Dems did not do enough to resist the Tory agenda while in government. According to a Y ou Gov poll for the Sunday Times , nearly three-quarters of people between the ages of 18 to 24 will vote Labour no doubt buoyed by the partys popular policy pledges of increased taxes on companies and the abolishment of college fees. The damage done to the Liberal Democrats by the years in the coalition are going to take more than one Parliament to repair, Travers says.
The object for Liberal Democrats, then, is to use this election to build a platform for the future not just on Brexit, but on other campaign pledges pitched at young, metropolitan voters, like marijuana legalization and cleaner air standards. This isnt an election when the Liberal Democrats will be sweeping to power, Lib Dems strategist Mark Pack says. It is important to play the long game in some sense.
But some see more radical changes coming, once this election is over. One senior party figure, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely, told TIME that a new movement needs to rise from the ashes of the snap election, much like the En Marche! movement which Emmanuel Macron rode to the French presidency. "I am not saying electoral packs; I'm not saying progressive alliances," says the senior figure. "They will be minor and on the edges, but something which brings those who hold broadly progressive views together and which above all, appeals to those beyond the political parties."
First, though, comes this election. The Liberal Democrats are still hoping to spring a surprise in Vauxhall, where Turner is campaigning hard to overturn Hoey's majority of 12,000. Bookmakers don't favor a shock, though Hoey is 1/7 to retain the seat, according to local media .
If she does, it will be because of voters like Georgie Darroch. The 31-year-old conservationist voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2010, and to Remain in 2016, but is now leaning towards voting Labour in Thursday's vote. The referendum has polarized the country, she says, and she wants to vote for a party that will foster national unity. I dont necessarily think going back on the [referendum] vote is going to be the best. I think we should be pushing for meaningful change.
Here is the original post:
The Liberal Democrats Bet on a Brexit Election. It Hasn't Paid Off - TIME
Conscious of all the hot takes about its alleged liberal bias, ESPN contracted a research firm last month to survey its audience about any political tilt in its programming. The results from the study should be considered a win for the sports channel.
Approximately two-thirds (64%) of respondents who took the survey indicated that ESPN had found the right chemistrybetweensports news and political issues, while only 30% claimed to have detected a political bias.
Of those who sawa bias, 30% percent actually believed that ESPN expressed a conservative viewpoint.
Viewers who identified themselves as strong conservatives ranked ESPN at 7.2 using a 1-10 scale, according to the survey. Liberals gave ESPN a 7.0 ranking. A score of 8.0 was considered highly rated.
In a press release touting the results of the survey, ESPNs vice president of consumer insights Bary Blyn neglected to mention that of the viewers who saw a bias, 63% said that the sports channel swung too far to the left.
These answers certainly do not determinethat a good portionof ESPNs audience senses a liberal bias, as sportingnews.com suggested. Sporting News Michael McCarthy, who astutely noted that ESPNs press release omitted the liberal bias statistic, was quick to write that the survey in fact showed asubset of respondents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe the network leans to the left politically. Buried later in McCarthys piece, the sports writer acknowledges that this subset of respondents only made up less than 2out of 10 surveyed a mere 19% percent of the total.
For all the histrionicsover ESPNs alleged liberal bias, the sports channels main audience doesnt seem to mind.
Visit link:
Actually, most ESPN viewers don't think it has a liberal bias - Salon ... - Salon
Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays.
Evergreen State College descended into chaos last month after Bret Weinstein, a professor there, objected to a planned Day of Absence event where white students and faculty were encouraged to leave campus. The protests against Weinstein for his alleged racism were so vociferous that campus police told him they could not ensure his safety on campus. In addition, threats have forced the cancellation of classes at Evergreen State on several occasions over the past week.
Earlier this year, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos were unable to speak at Middlebury College and the University of California Berkeley after violence erupted in response to their planned appearances on those campuses.
By now, youve probably seen news accounts of the Weinstein, Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos incidents. But heres a story youre far less likely to have heard of: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a Princeton professor, gave a speech late last month at Hampshire College in which she was highly critical of President Donald Trump. After the content of her speech hit national news outlets, Taylor received threats that led her to cancel several other speaking engagements, including one on a college campus, out of concern for her own safety.
And yet theres been little of the news coverage or outrage from free speech advocates that these other incidents received.
Why? There are several possible reasons, which I will discuss in greater detail below. But among other things, there may be a double standard at work: Many of the conservative media outlets that extensively covered the Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos controversies suddenly seem a whole lot quieter when the attacks on free speech are coming from the right.
This apparent double standard is unacceptable. Support for free speech should not be a partisan issue. We all depend on the right to free speech to express our views whatever those views may be, and wherever we may fall on the political spectrum. Too often, however, support for free speech breaks down along political lines, with people expressing outrage when one of their own is silenced while remaining conspicuously silent when the shoe is on the other foot.
At a time when our collective willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints seems to be at a nadir, it is more critical than ever that all of us speak out against censorship and intimidation regardless of the identity of the speakers or the censors.
On May 20, professor Taylor gave the commencement address at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In it, she exhorted Hampshires graduating class to fight injustice, discussing many of her concerns with American society and referring to President Trump as a racist and sexist megalomaniac.
Several conservative media outlets, including Campus Reform and Fox News, reported on Taylors speech.
According to a statement released through her publisher on May 31, after the Fox report aired, Taylor received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails, some containing specific threats of violence, including murder. In Taylors own words:
I have been repeatedly called nigger, bitch, cunt, dyke, she-male, and coon a clear reminder that racial violence is closely aligned with gender and sexual violence. I have been threatened with lynching and having the bullet from a .44 Magnum put in my head.
As a result, Taylor canceled two planned appearances at Seattle Town Hall and the University of California San Diego for fear of my safety and my familys safety.
Sadly, Taylors case is just the latest in a string of incidents that paint a bleak picture of the state of free speech on college campuses and beyond. Rather than engage constructively with people who express controversial political or social views, the modus operandi today seems to be to react with threats of violence and protests so disruptive that they actually prevent the speaker from speaking a phenomenon known as the hecklers veto.
But as the New Republics Sarah Jones pointed out, there seems to be much less coverage of Taylors story than the stories of Weinstein, Murray, and others.
There are several possible explanations for this, none of which are mutually exclusive.
First, unlike the other incidents, the threats against Taylor appear to have come not from on campus but from the kind of internet trolls to whom we have all become perhaps too inured. People seem to be more surprised when the threats and vitriol come from within an institution of higher education, where one would theoretically expect people to support the expression of a wide range of ideas, and to respond with ad rem rather than ad hominem arguments.
Second, as Jones noted, Taylor canceled the speaking engagements herself, rather than being disinvited or prevented from speaking in the same way as Murray et al. placing this incident outside of the disinvitation season phenomenon that has garnered media attention over the past few years.
But finally, we cannot discount the possibility that there is also a double standard at play.
Much of the recent intolerance of campus speech has come from the left, and has been widely covered by conservative media outlets under the guise of a concern for the state of free speech on campus. Why, then, do these same outlets remain comparatively quiet when the intolerance for speech is coming from the right? Free speech is free speech, and if you believe that the right to openly express controversial political opinions is important, you should be as concerned about Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylors right to free speech as you were about Charles Murrays or Ann Coulters and vice versa.
I have worked as a free speech advocate for more than 12 years now. In that time, it seems as if the extent to which we insulate ourselves from opposing viewpoints, and demonize the people who hold them, has increased dramatically. Admittedly, this is just my sense of things, but it is a sense I have heard echoed repeatedly by colleagues, friends, family, and virtually anyone with whom I discuss the work I do. It feels as though we have reached a point where many of us, from across the political spectrum, recognize that this is a problem but it feels insurmountable, and we dont quite know what to do about it.
If you feel this way, start being a role model now. If you disagree with professor Taylors remarks about President Trump but are horrified by the threats made against her, send her a note of support. Share one of the few reports about her story with friends who might not otherwise see it, and let them know what you think. Similarly, if you disagree with Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College but are appalled that police cant ensure his safety on campus simply because he expressed his views, send him a note of support. Be a vocal supporter of the right to free speech not only when you agree with the speaker, but also especially when you disagree with the speaker.
Beyond that, be a model of constructive engagement. One of my favorite sayings, from a book of Jewish ethical teachings called Pirkei Avot, says, Who is wise? The one who learns from every person. Talk to people with whom you disagree. Ask them about what they believe. Really listen to what they have to say. Tell them about what you believe. In my experience, many people are hungry for these kinds of thoughtful encounters but have ceased to believe they are possible. Show them otherwise.
Samantha Harris is vice president of policy research for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
First Person is Vox's home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.
Follow this link:
Charles Murray gets attacked? Outrage! A liberal professor gets threatened? Silence. - Vox
ESPN has cleared itself of not growing too liberal. But for the conservatives who dont buy that, heres Hank Williams Jr.!
In purportedly unrelated announcements, the Worldwide Leader announced on Monday that 1) an ESPN-commissioned research group found that ESPN is getting it right in mixing political and sports coverage, in addition to finding the proportion of people who see a political slant in ESPNs coverage is not growing, and 2) the network is rehiring Williams, the conservative firebrand.
Well start with item 2. Williams is bringing All His Rowdy Friends back to Monday Night Football for the first time since 2011. The country singer had participated in the Monday night broadcasts since 1989, playing versions of a song that would always feature, Are you ready for some football?
ESPN pulled the broadcast staple six years ago, after he went on Fox News to compare a meeting of then-President Obama and then-Rep. House Speaker John Boehner to a meeting between Adolf Hitler andIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In response to ESPN pulling the song for one week, Williams was enraged: After reading hundreds of emails, I have made MY decision, he wrote on Oct. 6, 2011. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. Its been a great run.
Six years, a new White House regime and a rumbling that ESPN is too liberal later, the two sides are finding common ground. Williams is back in the spotlight with a company that is trying to disprove that liberal politics have anything to do with declining ratings and subsequent layoffs.
Beyond rehiring a polarizing personality, ESPN composed a public relations piece Monday that highlighted findings from a May 3-7 survey that studied a perceived liberal bias. The full survey results from Langer Research Associates of New York were not made available, but ESPN promoted the discovery that 64 percent of respondents think Bristol is getting it right in walking the politics/sports tightrope. Ten percent had no opinion, while 8 percent wanted more politics in broadcasts.
A network that fired noted conservative meme-purveyor Curt Schilling emphasized italics and all that 30 percent actually believe ESPN expresses a conservative viewpoint.
The most important takeaway for ESPN, though, is that both Republicans and Democrats rated the network highly. On a scale to 10, Republicans gave the Worldwide Leader a 7.1 (up .5 from October) and Democrats rated ESPN as a 7.0.
Read more:
ESPN going all-out to prove it's not actually liberal - New York Post
Sacramento Bee | California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... Sacramento Bee Conservative Move, a company started by U.S. congressional candidate Paul Chabot, aims to get more conservatives to move to Texas. California too liberal of a state for you? 'Conservative Move' takes ... |
Excerpt from:
California too liberal? Here's a solution: Move to Texas | The ... - Sacramento Bee
The federal contractor, who was charged by the Department of Justice for stealing classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) and leaking it to a media outlet, is apro-Iran liberal activist who believes being white is terrorism.
According to the resurfaced social media accounts of Reality Leigh Winner,who was arrested on Saturday over leaking classified information to The Interceptand reportedly confessed the wrongdoing, the 25-year-old didnt hide her contempt for President Trump or her country, and repeated far-left talking points.
On Twitter,she tweeted at rapper Kanye West suggesting he should make a shirtstating that being white is terrorism, despite being a white woman herself.
Just like other far-left Twitter warriors, Winner had a habit of replying to Trumps tweets and trying to mock him. She called the President the orange fascist.
The most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the white house, she wrote, in reply to Trumps tweet about the travel ban.
In another shocking revelation, the NSA leakerexpressed support for Iran, saying she would support the Islamic country if the President, who she described as Tangerine in Chief, declares war.
According to the FBI warrant, Winner was an active duty member of the U.S. Air Force and held a Top Secret clearance.
There are many Americans protesting US govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you! Winner tweeted at Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of Islamic Republic of Iran.
Winner was arrested by the FBI on Saturday after she printed out classified information containing national defense information from an intelligence community agency and then unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet, according to the DOJ.
As a federal contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, the leakerhad top security clearance that allowed her to access classified information.
The leaked information was allegedly the basis for a June 5 article on The Interceptshowing Russian hacking attempts into U.S. voting software leading up to the election.
Following herarrest, Winnerconfessed to printing the classified documents and sendingthem over to the media outlet.
In other posts on Twitter and Facebook, Winner ticked all the relevant boxes when it comes to being a left-wing activist, showing her support for Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, fighting against climate change, and accusing Trump of colliding with Russia.
Continue reading here:
Revealed: NSA Leaker Is Pro-Iran Liberal Activist Who Says 'Being White Is Terrorism' - Heat Street