Public needs to help get government back on track – Fairfield Daily Republic

What kind of government or political actions affect your economic well-being?

This will be a brief review of some highlights. Or lowlights more accurately. Primarily, how the Democratic Party establishment has placed partisanship over public well-being. Party above country, so to speak. Making every effort to prevent the creation of a functional government. Deferring the proposed benefits of change as long as possible.

If they keep it up they may be able to put off tax reform benefits for a full year. Its a shameful show of pure partisanship at the expense of the American people. The solution is to get rid of these anti-American politicians, either by recall or by replacing them with representatives who will put the country and the American people above party and partisanship.

Where are our taxes and borrowed money going? To welfare for noncitizens and citizens, alike. Welfare that acts as a demotivator why work when you dont have to? The primary cause has been that we have failed to provide necessary skills. The result has been violent inner cities and a huge cost in dollars more importantly in lost opportunity and lives. We are giving people fish instead of teaching them to fish.

The cost of dependence in dollars is far less important than the cost of lost human productivity and the great loss of self-worth through achievement. So, what needs to be done to have an effective government? To create environments and systems that give every person in our country an equal chance to succeed? How about a year of national service for every individual? Provide the basic skills that individuals lack. Reform schools that ignore achievement and install systems that only reward achievement. Teach kids. And if current teachers cant or wont teach, replace them with teachers whowill.

Benefit programs such as pension plans and health programs are supposed to pay for themselves, so that there is no risk that promised benefits can be assured. In California, it is the norm for the budgets of government at all levels to be made up of up to 80 personal personnel costs. State mandates are primarily responsible: requirement to be a part of an inflated pension system that is driving cities and counties to bankruptcy. Local governments cannot withdraw without paying outrageous penalties. Unfunded liabilities hang over the heads of the public.

Here are some facts and history of why we are in such deep trouble:

So what can be done to get back on track?

Elect responsible representatives at all levels. Get rid of professional politicians by creating term limits and reducing politicians benefits. Right-to-work states have accomplished some of these things. Give public organizations an economical option for shedding unbearable public pension costs without excessive penalties.

There are pathways to economic health and reasonable costs of government. The public has to become aware that they are in jeopardy and become involved. Make the changes needed.

These are not pie-in-the-sky options. They do require involvement and courage on the part of the public. The public (you and me) can change government oppression through the use of the initiative process. Difficult but possible. Its up to us.

Murray Bass of Suisun City can be reached at 720-5139 or [emailprotected].

See more here:

Public needs to help get government back on track - Fairfield Daily Republic

UK’s student union rebukes officer for Israeli embassy plot – The Electronic Intifada (blog)

Michael Deas Lobby Watch 3 March 2017

Undercover footage of NUS vice president Richard Brooks showed him plotting to overthrow elected union president Malia Bouattia because of her role as a Palestine solidarity campaigner.

A senior officer in Britains National Union of Students has been censured for his role in a pro-Israel propaganda scandal.

Earlier this week, the unions executive council voted that Richard Brooks had violated democratic procedures of accountability. Brooks, a vice president with the union, featured in Januarys Al Jazeera documentary on Britains pro-Israel lobby.

Undercover footage showed Brooks plotting to oust Malia Bouattia, the unions overall president and a supporter of Palestinian rights. Brooks made his comments to a reporter, who had been posing as a youth activist with connections to Israels embassy in London.

In a motion that council members said passed by 15 votes to 13 on Monday, the union said it was unacceptable for a vice president to discuss the undermining of a democratically elected officer with a student introduced by an embassy and therefore by a foreign government.

The union represents more than 7 million students in the UK. According to its rulebook, a censure is a rebuke short of a full no-confidence vote at a union conference which could remove an officer from their position.

In a separate motion that passed by 16 votes to 13, the union executive reaffirmed its support for the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and condemned recent participation by some elected union officers in propaganda trips to Israel.

Shakira Martin, another vice-president, went on a trip to Israel organized by the Union of Jewish Students in January.

The Union of Jewish Students is a pro-Israel organization that receives funding from the Israeli government.

A statement signed by Palestinian student groups said such trips serve to whitewash Israeli crimes and decades-long oppression of our people and give a one-sided, pro-apartheid vision of our reality here in Palestine.

Martins attendance on the trip was surprising given that she had previously stated her support for peace and justice in Palestine and for the BDS movement.

Angela Alexander, womens officer for the National Union of Students Scotland, joined the same trip. And Richard Brooks was shown discussing having participated in a previous trip in the Al Jazeera documentary.

The motion passed on Monday asserts that international solidarity with a people should be rooted in a principled position of respect for human rights and dignity and against oppression and should not be swayed by full-expense-paid trips.

Martin is the unions vice president for further education. More than 200 further education students signed a letter condemning her attendance on the trip.

The National Union of Students has held a position in support of the BDS movement for several years. More than 25 individual student unions at universities across the UK have also voted to support BDS.

BDS campaigns have persuaded a number of universities to cancel contracts with companies that are complicit with Israeli violations of international law such as Eden Springs, G4S and Veolia, which sold its Israeli business as a result of a years-long BDS campaign.

Shelly Asquith, another of the unions vice presidents, said she was pleased that the unions support for the BDS movement had been reaffirmed.

At a time when students rights to organize on this issue are increasingly being undermined through programs such as the Prevent agenda, it feels particularly important to re-assert our position, Asquith told The Electronic Intifada.

Prevent is a British government program ostensibly designed to stop young people from becoming involved in terrorism. Since it was introduced to British schools and universities, police have deemed the reading of literature sympathetic to the Palestinians as evidence of holding terrorist-like views.

The UK government, universities and pro-Israel groups are currently seeking to restrict freedom of speech in order to protect Israel from criticism.

Last week, management at both the University College London and the University of Central Lancashire withdrew permission for events planned for Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual series of events held by the Palestine solidarity movement.

However, Israeli Apartheid Week events organized students at both universities are still taking place, as are events at more than 30 other campuses across the UK.

More than 200 people attended an opening event for Israeli Apartheid Week in London on Tuesday. The event featured Farid Esack, a South African academic and anti-apartheid activist and Aja Monet, a spoken word artist and human rights advocate from the US.

Attempts to stifle pro-Palestine activism represent a serious attack on freedom of speech. But they are simply failing to deter students from taking principled action in support of Palestinians and their struggle for liberation.

I suggest sending (undercover) students on these trips to document what Israel tells them while there. Let's see just what Israeli propaganda is being given to these students.

not a good strategy - we're pretty good at figuring out who's genuine and who isn't, especially if their trip is being subsidized.

Like the Al Jazeera reporter on The Lobby?

and one thought that the labor party was pro Justice siding with the oppressed Palestinian people

See the original post:

UK's student union rebukes officer for Israeli embassy plot - The Electronic Intifada (blog)

Phillipines Policemen Falsify Evidence in Duterte’s War on Drugs: Human Rights Watch – Newsweek

Police in the Philippines are falsifying evidence to justify war on drugs killings that have caused more than 7,000 deaths of mostly poor Filipinos, according to a new Human Rights Watch report. President Rodrigo Duterte has been accused of crimes against humanity for the deaths, and the human rights organization urged the United Nations to create an independent, international investigation into the killings.

The 117-page report found the Philippine National Police have been carrying out extrajudicial killings, claiming self defense. They planted guns, spent ammunition, and drug packets on their victims bodies to implicate them in drug activities, according to the rights group.

Dutertes war on drugs is meant to target drug pushers or drug lords, but human rights charitiesincluding Amnesty Internationalsay those affected either had low-paying jobs or were unemployed and living in poor areas in big cities.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The war lost momentum in January when South Korean businessman Jee Ick- joo was murdered by rogue policemen and Duterte decided to halt the extrajudicial killings. Now, despite concern from international organizations, Duterte is committed to renewing the war on drugs.

At the groundbreaking ceremony for the Cebu-Cordova Link Expressway in Cordova town, Cebu on Thursday, Duterte announced that he is committed to stopping drugs.

This means there will be more killings because (criminals) really fight back. It won't end tomorrow, he said , according t o national newspaper PhilStar.

In the same speech, Duterte warned 6,000 policemen that he knew they were involved in the drugs trade. You will die. Either you kill me or I kill you,the president said. Duterte told his police chief Ronald de la Rosa that he could restart his war on drugs as before, on the condition the policemen he used had integrity.

Dutertes drug war is a widespread, systematic attack directed against any civilian population, says Dr. Pauline Eadie, an assistant professor of social sciences at Nottingham University. Technically it is a crime against humanity. These killings are often cited as self-defense but that is just not credible. The police are at the very least complicit in these killings, and they have the remit to operate without sanction.

She adds that although drug dealers cause users misery, it is not OK to ignore the rules of law when dealing with the problem. The answer to the problem is [dealing with] widespread poverty. Large sections of the community see Dutertes war as a necessary evil.

Edward Sentorias, a jobless father of three, was framed by the police, according to Human Rights Watch. A close relative saw the policeman place a gun and some sachets by Sentoriass body. I went back to where I was, and was totally shocked, the relative said. I couldnt even complain. If we go complain, what is our chance against the authorities?

Link:

Phillipines Policemen Falsify Evidence in Duterte's War on Drugs: Human Rights Watch - Newsweek

This Church Is Running An Unconventional Resistance Against … – Huffington Post

The darkness made it difficult to photograph the blood-splattered pavement.

Since crime scene investigators had not yet arrived, the dozen or so photojournalists were able to shoot close-ups of the body that laid face down, curled up in the fetal position. As the herd of photographers inched forward, repositioning themselves to find more light, Brother Jun Santiago retreated. He wanted to capture the scene from a distance.

Im trying to get out of the brutality, he said. I want to capture the stench, the smell of the crime scene. The night is so powerful. The darkness is so powerful. Right now people are sleeping and they dont know whats happening.

Brother Jun is talking about the war on drugs in the Philippines, where more than 7,500 alleged drug addicts and pushers have been killed since president Rodrigo Duterte took office eight months ago.

Since December, Santiago has been documenting the nightly killings with local and foreign journalists on the graveyard shift in Manila to bring attention to the victims, mostly low-level drug offenders from urban poor communities. At night, hes a photographer. During the day, he attends mass and fulfills his religious duties at the National Shrine of Our Mother of Perpetual Help in Manila, also known as the Baclaran Church.

With little else but a camera, Santiago has quietly led an unconventional resistance movement within the Catholic Church against the governments war on drugs, although he would say hes just a man of faith taking photos to help his community. While the hierarchy of the Church hesitated to speak out against the killings for seven months as thousands were killed, Santiago helped fill the void with his images.

Just before Christmas, his photos were blown up and displayed outside Baclaran Church along with the work of other photojournalists. The exhibit made national headlines, sparking intrigue and outrage. For many churchgoers, it was an introduction to the cruel truth of a brutal and lawless war.

It was a unique way of exposing reality, said Father Carlos Ronquillo, the rector of the Baclaran. The power of images is something that I think can be harnessed if we as a church want to engage people to think deeply about whats happening. Not only through words. Not only through preaching.

Santiagos position in the church allows him to be more involved in the community. Priests are generally too tied down with official duties to be as active in the daily lives of their parishioners. As a result, the flexibility has given Santiago room to establish a more comprehensive outreach program for victims and their families.

In January, Santiago hired Dennis Febre, a human rights activist, to oversee the administrative side of the Baclarans extra-judicial killing (EJK) response program. The initiative provides a range of services for those affected by the drug war, including financial support for families, legal assistance, livelihood and employment programs, rehabilitation resources, and protection for those under threat. Febre is responsible for following up with the families of the victims Santiago documents at night. He also verifies cases of those who come to the church on their own for support.

The concrete actions we are doing are really non-political, said Febre. We respect [Duterte] as the president of the country, but at the same time the government needs to respect human rights.

Before the drug war, the Baclaran provided burial assistance of up to 5,000 pesos ($100) for families in need, but that hardly covers the full cost, which typically runs anywhere from 30,000 to 55,000 pesos.

The families have no time to grieve. Theyre always thinking of how to bury because the cost of the funeral services is too hard on them, said Santiago.

The church realized it needed to do more. By mid-February, the Baclaran had paid all the expenses for 56 families to bury their dead. Dozens more are on a waiting list. Costs are funded by donations from hundreds of thousands of devotees who flock to the church every week. The Baclaran is one of the most attended churches in the country.

This month, resistance within the Catholic Church has grown stronger. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines released a blistering statement on Feb. 5 condemning the presidents reign of terror. Two weeks later, thousands of Catholics marched in Manila against the spreading culture of violence. Condemnations of the drug war have become commonplace during mass in many parishes on Sundays, empowering more Catholics to speak out.

Still, Ronquillo, the superior at Baclaran, questions whether these developments are enough.

The main question is what is the impact? Were in a changed time. Theres been a certain alienation that has altered peoples receptivity to what the church is saying. We are in our convents, our churches and our schools, but we are not among the people generally, Ronquillo said.

Santiagos documentation and the Baclarans EJK program strike at the heart of that disconnect. While some Church leaders continue to remain quiet or offer ineffectual criticism through words at the pulpit, Santiagos approach has paved the way for a new church order that prioritizes actions over words.

Dutertes rhetoric sometimes makes that type of advocacy difficult to carry out. He has repeatedly lambasted the Church as the most hypocritical institution, even calling it full of shit as officials ramped up attacks against his anti-drugs campaign in January. When priests and bishops speak out against the crackdown, Duterte often accuses them of womanizing or being corrupt.

He hits below the belt, said Father Amado Picardal, who has criticized Duterte for decades dating back to his time as mayor of Davao in the countrys south.

In the beginning, fear and intimidation helped stifle opposition, according to Father Atilano Fajardo, public affairs ministry director of the Archdiocese of Manila.

While many within the Church withheld criticism at the outset of the drug war to give Duterte more time to prove himself, Fajardo chose to mobilize. Less than a month into Dutertes presidency, Fajardo launched a campaign against the drug war called Huwag Kang Papatay, which translates to thou shalt not kill. As one of the first priests to speak out, Fajardo disputes the idea that the Church hasnt done enough.

Its not true, said Fajardo, referring to criticisms that the Catholic Church didnt do anything for months. Go to the parishes. Get out of your subdivisions and see what the Church is doing.

Beyond condemnations of the drug war during homilies, Fajardo points to the many parishes that are also offering rehab services, trauma counseling, and refuge for drug users and victims families.

He acknowledges, however, that these efforts need to be accompanied by mass movements and actions.

It is that belief that drives Fajardo to keep organizing and Santiago to continue covering the night shift. Without them, the dead remain nameless and the bodies become mere statistics.

The people must say this is enough, Santiago pleaded. People must mobilize because the church cannot do it alone.

This article originally appeared on Quartz.

Read this article:

This Church Is Running An Unconventional Resistance Against ... - Huffington Post

UFC 209 odds, gambling guide – MMA Fighting

Welcome MMA bettors, speculators, and gambling lurkers! Were back at it again for another week of comprehensive gambling analysis from your friends at MMAFighting.com. This weekend is a little less exciting without Nurmagomedov vs. Ferguson, but we will valiantly trudge forward regardless.

For those of you who are new here or those who have forgotten, this aims to be an exhaustive preview of the fights, the odds, and my own personal breakdown of where you can find betting value. The number after the odds on each fighter is the probability of victory that those odds imply (so Woodley at +150 means he should win the fight 40 percent of the time). If you think he wins more often than the odds say, you should bet it because there's value in the line.

All stats come from FightMetric and all the odds are from Best Fight Odds. Net Value means how much money you would have made if you bet $100 on that fighter in every one of his/her fights that odds could be found for. Doubly as always, I'm trying to provide the most thorough guide I can for those who want to legally bet or who just enjoy following along. If you are a person who chooses to gamble, only do so legally, responsibly, and at your own risk.

Now with all that out of the way, lets go.

Breakdown

Tyron Woodley is a hyper-athletic wrestle boxer who focuses on a stripped down power punching game. The power punching is a legitimate strategy as Woodley is one of the hardest hitters in the division and quicker than just about everyone, allowing him to close distance and unexpectedly land his money shot, the right hand. Woodley also has a right kick equally as thudding as his right hand and he mixes the two effectively. Beyond that though, Woodley doesn't have much to speak of on the feet as far as variety, rarely using his left side at all. Being extremely reliant on his power side hasn't stopped him from being effective though as he has a myriad of feints which allow him to sneak in punches and he also does a good job of mixing up his speeds.

Woodleys secondary offense, and arguably his most potent, is his explosive wrestling game. On the feet, he pressures forward which allows him to work into the clinch where his physicality and head control allow him to grind with great effect. A former two-time All-American, Woodley still has the instincts and skill of a high level wrestler as well as a solid power double leg, but he isn't an especially great shot takedown threat. He is however, a phenomenal defensive wrestler and when he does secure takedowns, he's ferocious with his ground striking.

Stephen Thompson is an elite level striker whose game revolves around distance management and timing. He prefers to operate at the very end of striking ranging where he can land a variety of kicks and he uses excellent footwork and movement to maintain that range. When a fighter closes the distance on him, he lands punishing straight counter punches and then angles out well to reset.

The rest of Thompson's game is built to keep him in the zone he wants to operate in. He's a strong clinch fighter with good footwork and leverage and the ability to disengage quickly. He's also a very strong defensive wrestler as his distance management and angles make it really difficult to get a clean look at taking him down. Thompson is a better version of Lyoto Machida: a high level karateka and kickboxer, but one who isn't as single-minded in his desire to counterstrike which allows him to throw at a good pace and win rounds much more decisively.

When these two first fought, Thompson was lucky to walk away with a draw, winning the tight rounds but suffering the force of Woodleys predatory offense in the others and that dynamic likely remains the same here. Thompsons offense is built to score points and win rounds much more effectively than Woodleys. Woodleys offense is built to win fights in violent fashion.

The question for this fight is who will make the biggest adjustments from their first contest? Woodley barely used his wrestling at all in their first encounter and the one time he did take Thompson down, he delivered serious punishment. On the other hand, Thompson threw much less volume than he normally does and, if he can be more aware of the power punching of Woodley, looks to have an edge here. Ultimately, this fight is razor close one. Im picking Thompson to win because, in the aggregate, I think he will win more fights by virtue of consistent offense. That being said, Woodley is the more dangerous finisher and hes being undervalued at the books right now. I suggest betting Woodley at any plus number. Also, Woodley-Thompson ends in a draw is +5500 which implies a less than 2% probability of occurring. Considering the dynamic of the fight (Woodley having more potent offense, Thompson winning more rounds) that seems like it is far more likely to occur and thus I also think a small bet on Fight Goes to a Draw is decent value.

Breakdown

Lando Vannata is the new darling of UFC fans and with good reason. He is a legitimate prospect with a funky, forward thinking game backed up by a lot of talent. Hes the product of years of Brandon Gibson training and hes the purest example of that lineage of fighter. He has excellent footwork and timing for a guy so young in his career and he operates a flashy, off kilter attack that causes a lot of problems for his opponents. Hes got serious power and operates at an extremely high pace. That pace also makes him hittable but his defense is pretty solid and mitigates a lot of the worst of it. Vannata is also is a decent wrestler when the occasion calls for it but mostly he prefers his fluid striking offense.

David Teymur is also a hot shot prospect with a striking background, being very accomplished on the European Muay Thai circuit. He prefers to work at long range, firing off a sharp jab and thudding kicks. He follows these up with a powerful straight left hand that can turn off the lights his opponents. He is also an excellent defensive wrestler, sporting a perfect takedown defense so far in the UFC. When opponents fail to take him down, they often wind up in the clinch where he frames well and throws good elbows. His biggest weakness is his defense though and his hittability is cause for concern against a banger like Vannata.

This is a banger of a fight between a clean, traditional striker and a dervish of creativity. The question becomes who can impose their game plan on the other. I dont expect either fighter to be able to run away with this one, but ultimately I do think Vannatas range of offense is the difference here. He can compete (and win) against Teymur at range and his unpredictability gives him a slight edge there and his wrestling and timing give him a viable secondary option to win the fight. The pick is Vannata by KO late in the fight, but that being said, the odds here are a mile off and Teymur is worth a bet at this rate.

Breakdown

Rashad Evans hasnt fought in almost a year due to medical problems but now hes back and making his middleweight debut against. Dan Kelly. Evans is an explosive athlete, light on his feet, with accurate, powerful combinations when he chooses to throw. That caveat is important though because Evans often will sit back doing nothing, losing rounds to inferior fighters strictly on the basis of not putting actual offense together.

Evans best skill set is his wrestling. A former D-1 collegiate wrestler, Evans can finish a variety of takedowns with authority but he does his best work off a blast double leg. Once on top, he has excellent control and can pound opponents out with aggression. Hes also an excellent defensive wrestler but hes not much a submission artist, having attempted none despite his many years in the promotion.

Dan Kelly is a judoka by trade and a good one, having competed in the Olympics four separate times. Hes also an acceptable striker, especially on the counter. Hes slow and plodding though and his body is shop worn from years as a high-level athlete.

Evans is a former champion and a guy who, when at his best, could be competitive against almost anyone in the world. The problem is, Evans hasnt looked anything close to his best in years and at this point it seems like hes on his way out of the fight game. Kelly is surging but hes also almost 40 and not close to the level of competitor Evans was. Honestly, I have no idea whats going to happen here. Im picking Evans by decision, but theres no confidence in anything and thus no bet.

Breakdown

Alistair Overeem is looking to rebound from his loss to current heavyweight champion Stipe Miocic by taking on Mark Hunt in a matchup between former K-1 World Grand Prix champions. Overeem is still one of the most athletic heavyweights on the planet and that athleticism is backed by a deep well of knowledge and technique. Lately, he has opted to use a stick and move game plan where he can employ power strikes at opportunities of his choosing. His grappling is a fall back option for him and a very dangerous one at that. Hes punishing from top position and a sneaky good submission threat.

Mark Hunt is old for the division at 42, but despite his age and physique, hes still a fairly good athlete. Hunt is almost entirely a striker and hes one of the best in the division. He has an excellent understanding rhythm and he uses that to set up his power punches, particularly his left hand which can end anyones night in a hurry. Outside of striking, Hunt is a good defensive wrestler and surprisingly good on top when he winds up there. Hes also shored up a lot of his submission defense liabilities.

This is a close fight between two very high-level strikers past their primes. Overeem has more tools in the box, but Hunts focused striking game figures to give Overeem and his suspect chin a lot of problems. If Overeem can maintain a focused game plan of staying either all the way out or clinching, he should win. But thats a tough task against a crafty striker like Hunt. I think Hunt eventually lands the left hand that puts Overeem in a bad spot and from there its academic. The pick is Hunt by KO, and I like a bet on him as well.

Amanda Cooper (+100/50%) vs. Cynthia Calvillo (-120/55%)

Cooper is a quick paced striker with good footwork who also has an active submission game off of her back. Calvillo is a good athlete with strong wrestling and excellent positional control on the ground. This is a two outcome fight: either Cooper keeps it standing and wins with volume or Calvillo takes her down and wins through grappling. Calvillo is coming in on short notice here but she is the more physical, powerful fighter and she can likely get the fight to the floor, take the back, and finish it. The pick is Calvillo but she is making her UFC debut so you should pass on betting this.

Marcin Tybura (-160/62%) vs. Luis Henrique (+140/42%)

Tybura is a well-rounded fighter who keeps a high pace on the feet, throwing powerful punches and kicks. Hes even better as a top position grappler and hes a good enough wrestler to get the fight to the ground more often than not. Henrique is a jiu-jitsu player at heart but one with power and an explosive takedown game to back it up. On top, he is punishing and a solid submission hunter. Henrique is the youngest fighter in the heavyweight division and hes athletic enough to expect big improvements between fights for him. This fight is tougher to call than usual, but I think Tyburas more advanced, voluminous striking will carry the day. The pick is Tybura by late TKO.

Mirsad Bektic (-800/89%) vs. Darren Elkins (+550/15%)

Bektic is probably the best prospect in MMA at the moment. He is a blend of athleticism, power, and skill that portends greatness and future title contention. He is sharp on the feet and works in combination but he really excels in explosive takedowns and vicious ground and pound. Elkins is one of the best examples of a grinder in MMA. He can do everything but what he wants to do is stifle his opponents offense with clinches, takedowns, and control. Straight up, the odds are off here. Bektic is going to win but Elkins is the kind of durable, rugged fighter than can upend the rise of overconfident prospects in a hurry. I wont suggest betting on Elkins because its likely a losing bet but there is some value in his line. All that said, I think Bektic marches on, winning a dominant decision and betting Bektic by decision at -105 is actually a very attractive option.

Iuri Alcantara (-105/51%) vs. Luke Sanders (-115/53%)

Alcantara is a well-rounded fighter who is super dynamic. He has power on the feet but his best skill is grappling where he has strong takedowns and excellent transitions into submissions. Sanders is a hot prospect who can also do a bit of everything, excels in transition, and is a dynamic finisher. Alcantara has a size advantage but Sanders is a bit more technical on the feet and five years younger. Also, Alcantara is known for cardio issues and Sanders is tough enough to survive any early onslaught and take the later rounds. The pick is Sanders by decision and I like him for a bet so long as he stays under -120.

Mark Godbeer (-150/60%) vs. Daniel Spitz (+130/43%)

Godbeer is a striker by trade who mixes punches and kicks but doesnt have much else to fall back on. Spitz is a large heavyweight who likes to operate at range behind his jab but does his best work as a grappler. That should be enough to win the day here against Godbeer who has shown an unfortunate combination of being both willing to grapple and not exceedingly good at it. The pick is Spitz by submission and while the first rule of MMA betting (dont gamble on low level heavyweight fights) would normally apply here, the idea that Godbeer is a 60% favorite almost makes me want to throw the rule book out the window.

Tyson Pedro (-145/59%) vs. Paul Craig (+125/44%)

Pedro is a big light heavyweight with some athletic promise. He throws sharp punches but mostly hes a grappler with good takedowns and heavy control and submissions. Craig is an aggressive, come forward fighter who fires off punch-kick combinations and isnt afraid to pull guard where he uses his long limbs to snake in submissions from his back. On the feet, Craigs volume might give him the edge but I expect Pedros physicality and wrestling to keep this fight on the ground. Craig is slick there but likely not slick enough to catch Pedro who excels with top pressure. The pick is Pedro by TKO late in the second round but I would pass on betting this.

Albert Morales (-130/57%) vs. Andre Soukhamthath (+110/48%)

Morales is young, athletic fighter, equal parts skill and aggression. He can counter slickly but is also prone to bursts of wild offense. He can also scramble well but his cardio is questionable. Soukhamthath is a striker who fights well at range behind his jab or in close with knees. This probably plays out as a striking match and in that case Morales power, speed, and volume will likely carry the day over the somewhat tepid Soukhamthath. The pick is Morales by KO in the middle of the fight, and if you want to bet this, I wouldnt do so but I also wouldnt blame you.

That's all folks. Enjoy the fights everyone and good luck to those who need it. If you've got any questions, feel free to hit me up on Twitter @JedKMeshew

(Editor's note: All of this advice is for entertainment purposes only.)

Read the original:

UFC 209 odds, gambling guide - MMA Fighting

Ontario doctors back out of euthanasia – BioEdge

Some Canadian doctors who agreed to carry out euthanasia have withdrawn their names only months after legalisation, according to the National Post. I cant tell you how many, but I can tell you that its enough that its been noted at a systemic level, says Dr Jeff Blackmer, of the Canadian Medical Association.

The figures are hard to obtain, but in Ontario, 24 doctors have removed their names permanently from a voluntary referral list of doctors who will help people die, and 30 have asked for a temporary hold. At the moment, there are 137 doctors in the province who have agreed to perform euthanasia.

Were seeing individuals, or groups of physicians who are participating and really feellike theyre alleviating pain, alleviating suffering, Dr Blackmer told the National Post. And then were seeing doctors who go through one experience and its just overwhelming, its too difficult, and those are the ones who say, take my name off the list. I cant do any more. Even if it is supposed to be a compassionate act, he says, it doesnt make the psychological impact of that final, very definitive act, any less than it would be for anybody.

Moral misgivings and emotional distress are two reasons why doctors might be reluctant. But another doctor interviewed by the National Post suggested that bureaucracy, social stigma, paperwork and legal ambiguity are more to blame. Phrases in the legislation like grievous and irremediable, enduring suffering and reasonably foreseeable can be interpreted in different ways.

Can you understand why people might be concerned and say, maybe this isnt for me? says Dr James Downar, of Dying with Dignitys medical advisory council. He believes that doctors need to be supported and assured they arent going to be punished for acting in good faith.

He and others say the scarcity of doctors providing assisted deaths is putting serious pressure on the few who are.

Although Canadas euthanasia legislation is still only months old, it seems likely that its supporters will continue to press for further relaxation of safeguards so that participating doctors will have no reason to fear prosecution.

See the rest here:

Ontario doctors back out of euthanasia - BioEdge

MPs still divided on euthanasia, united on need for universal end of life care – YLE News

Not surprisingly, the issue of legalising euthanasia or mercy killing triggered high feelings among MPs on either side of the debate. The contentious initiative was launched back in November and attracted the required 50,000 signatures needed for MPs to debate it just four weeks later.

The divisive nature of the citizens initiative calling for legal euthanasia was obvious from the get-go.

"A fatal injection is a tool for veterinarians not for human care," declared Pivi Rsnen, ex-Christian Democratic Party chair.

National coalition Party MP Timo Heinonen countered her view, saying, "If I were in that kind of situation and these criteria were filled, then I would personally be ready for my death to be as easy and as good as possible."

Finnish government ministers generally avoid engaging in debates on issues that fall outside their purview, but this was not the case on Thursday, as Finns Party chair and Foreign Minister Timo Soini weighed in on the discussion.

"We are talking about legalising the murder of another person. [It's] not a little thing. Not a matter to be decided in a marketplace by 'ayes'. We are creating a Finnish culture of death. We should not do that," Soini charged.

Although there seemed to be little room for consensus on the substantive issue of euthanasia, MPs in the chamber all agreed that it is time for the authorities to ensure that people have access to proper end of life care, wherever they are in the country.

"This would already be a big thank you to the sponsors of the citizens initiative, if their work didnt go to waste," said Greens MP Heli Jrvinen.

Support for the idea of universal palliative care bridged party lines and was so powerful, that the government and the Social Affairs and Health Minister couldn't avoid paying attention.

"The best part of the initiative is that it has forced the Parliament to discuss this subject and also that palliative care is seen as genuinely being part of everyones right to a good life and death," noted Centre Party MP Annika Saarikko.

Parliaments Social Affairs and Health Committee will now have its hands full with the governments ambitious overhaul of social and health care services as well as decisions on access to euthanasia and expanding end of life care.

3.3.

3.3.

3.3.

3.3.

3.3.

3.3.

Here is the original post:

MPs still divided on euthanasia, united on need for universal end of life care - YLE News

‘Lopsided’ dog Picasso saved from euthanasia by rescue shelter – ITV News

A dog abandoned by a breeder because of his facial deformity, has been saved by a dog adoption service which rescues dogs on 'kill lists'.

Corgi pit bull mix Picasso and his brother Pablo were both rescued from an animal shelter where they were both on the euthanasia list.

They were dumped at the shelter after their breeder had difficulty selling them due to Picasso's lopsided face.

Sorry, this content isn't available on your device.

Luvable Dog Rescue, which takes in dogs on euthanasia lists at animal shelters, said they initially planned to take just Picasso but found out his brother Pablo was also due to be destroyed.

"We couldn't leave the brother behind so we said we would take him too", the centre said on its Instagram account.

The rescue centre said that the 10-month-olds are "VERY sweet and VERY goofy", and that Picasso, despite his looks, is a "happy and healthy" dog.

Last updated Sat 4 Mar 2017

See the original post here:

'Lopsided' dog Picasso saved from euthanasia by rescue shelter - ITV News

Pet Food Company Expands Recall for Products Contaminated with Deadly Euthanasia Drug – PEOPLE.com


PEOPLE.com
Pet Food Company Expands Recall for Products Contaminated with Deadly Euthanasia Drug
PEOPLE.com
Illinois pet food maker Evanger's Cat and Dog Food is expanding their voluntarily recall of products potentially contaminated with the euthanasia drug pentobarbital. In February, the company announced five dogs became sick and one died after eating ...
Evanger's Expands Recall Of Dog Food That Could Contain Euthanasia DrugsConsumerist

all 2 news articles »

Link:

Pet Food Company Expands Recall for Products Contaminated with Deadly Euthanasia Drug - PEOPLE.com

In places where it’s legal, how many people are ending their lives … – The Conversation AU

One paper reported that between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are legal.

The Victorian Parliament will consider a bill to legalise euthanasia in the second half of 2017. That follows the South Australian Parliaments decision to knock back a voluntary euthanasia bill late last year, and the issue has also cropped up in the run-up to the March 11 Western Australian election.

With the issue back in the headlines, federal Labors justice spokesperson, Clare O'Neil, told Q&A that in countries where the practice is legal, very, very small numbers of people use the laws.

Whether or not you agree with O'Neils statement depends largely on your interpretation of the subjective term very, very small, but there is a growing body of data available on how many people are using euthanasia or assisted dying laws in places such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada and some US states.

Many people use the terms assisted dying, assisted suicide and euthanasia interchangeably. But, technically, these phrases can have different meanings.

Assisted dying (sometimes also assisted death) is where the patient himself or herself ultimately takes the medication. Euthanasia, by contrast, is usually where the doctor administers the medication to the patient.

Assisted suicide includes people who are not terminally ill, but who are being helped to commit suicide, whereas assisted dying refers to people who are already dying. Some reports do not, however, distinguish between assisted dying and assisted suicide, and I will not distinguish them here.

In some jurisdictions, the word euthanasia is used to refer to both assisted dying/suicide (where the patient himself or herself takes the medication) and to euthanasia (where the doctor administers the medication to the patient). So euthanasia can sometimes be used as a broad term to cover a range of actions.

According to a peer-reviewed paper published last year in the respected journal JAMA:

Between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are legal. The frequency of these deaths increased after legalization Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalized, remain relatively rare, and primarily involve patients with cancer. Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices.

The authors of that paper said that 35,598 people died in Oregon in 2015. Of these deaths, 132, or 0.39%, were reported as physician-assisted suicides. The same paper said that in Washington in 2015 there were 166 reported cases of physician-assisted suicide (equating to 0.32% of all deaths in Washington in that year).

Interestingly, the same paper noted that US data show that:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide) The dominant motives are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy lifes activities.

The authors said that in officially reported Belgian cases, pain was the reason for euthanasia in about half of cases. Loss of dignity is mentioned as a reason for 61% of cases in the Netherlands and 52% in Belgium.

A 2016 Victorian parliamentary report has quoted from the UK Commission on Assisted Dying, which in turn referenced the work of John Griffiths, Heleen Weyers and Maurice Adams in their book Euthanasia and Law in Europe. The commission said:

There are no official data in Switzerland on the numbers of assisted suicides that take place each year, as the rate of assisted suicide is not collected centrally. Griffiths et al observe that there are approximately 62,000 deaths in Switzerland each year and academic studies suggest that between 0.3% and 0.4% of these are assisted suicides. This figure increases to 0.5% of all deaths if suicide tourism is included (assisted suicides that involve nonSwiss nationals).

Around 3.7% of deaths in the Netherlands in 2015 were due to euthanasia. The Netherlands regional euthanasia review committees reported that there were 5,516 deaths due to euthanasia in 2015. That is out of a total of around 147,000 - 148,000 deaths in the Netherlands that year.

This figure represents an increase of 4% of deaths due to euthanasia compared to 2014.

A 2012 paper published in The Lancet reported on the results of nationwide surveys on euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2010. The researchers said:

In 2002, the euthanasia act came into effect in the Netherlands, which was followed by a slight decrease in the euthanasia frequency In 2010, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 2.8% were the result of euthanasia. This rate is higher than the 1.7% in 2005, but comparable with those in 2001 and 1995.

Another Netherlands-based study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine reported in 2015 that:

Certainly, not all requests are granted; studies conducted between 1990 and 2011 report rates of granting requests between 32% and 45%.

A 2015 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine about euthanasia rates in the Flanders region of Belgium (the northern half of the country) noted:

The rate of euthanasia increased significantly between 2007 and 2013, from 1.9% to 4.6% of deaths.

It can be hard to put these rates in context, but what is clear is that euthanasia is by no means a leading cause of death in countries where it is legal. For example, Statistics Belgium said that for the year 2012, cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of death (28.8%), and cancer was the second most common cause of death (26%).

And in the Netherlands where 5,516 of deaths were due to euthanasia in 2015 more than 12,000 Dutch people died from the effects of dementia in 2014, approximately 10,000 Dutch people died from lung cancer and nearly 9,000 died from a heart attack. In 2013, 30% (about 42,000) of Dutch deaths were from cancer and 27% (about 38,000) of Dutch deaths were from cardiovascular disease.

If this article has raised issues for you or if youre concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 44.

Read the original here:

In places where it's legal, how many people are ending their lives ... - The Conversation AU

The Sessions Scandal Exposes the Racist Double Standard of Trump’s ‘Law and Order’ – AlterNet


AlterNet
The Sessions Scandal Exposes the Racist Double Standard of Trump's 'Law and Order'
AlterNet
Sessions is supposed to be the nation's head law enforcement official and he has spent the past couple of weeks openly licking his lips at the opportunity to crack down on petty, victimless crimes like marijuana possession, with the explicit goal of ...

and more »

Read more:

The Sessions Scandal Exposes the Racist Double Standard of Trump's 'Law and Order' - AlterNet

Museum collects stories to show vandalized gravestones are more than just toppled rock – Newsworks.org

Kate Fischer Glass came to America with her mother in 1880 when she was just 18, fleeing a hard life in Hungary. She had five children with her husband but lost one in infancy and raised the rest as a single mother after her young husband died too.

Bertha Grossman Reisman worked in her familys business, the Kensington Carpet Company, in the early 1900s. She met her husband there, and the couple opened a millinery store, where Bertha became known for finding the perfect hat for every customer.

The women never knew each other but their families became inextricably intertwined last weekend, when vandals toppled more than 150 headstones at the historic Mount Carmel Jewish Cemetery in Wissinoming, where both women are buried.

And now, both women are among the first whose stories are being collected by the National Museum of American Jewish History. The goal: To show that overturned grave markers are more than smashed granite and to humanize and honor the memories of those interred in the nearly 200-year-old cemetery.

These were not victimless crimes, museum CEO Ivy Barsky said. There are people and families who care about those graves and those legacies, and we wanted to make them three-dimensional for the museum audience, for those families, and maybe even for the perpetrators of those crimes so they understand who suffers because of this.

The museum is posting the stories online and welcomes submissions from loved ones of all those buried at Mount Carmel, regardless of whether their headstones were damaged, as well as families affected by the desecration that occurred last week at Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri.The project was created in the spirit of the museum's existing Its Your Story exhibit, in which visitors can document their life stories in recording booths.

At Mount Carmel, Glass gravestone was damaged, and Reismans was not. But Reismans great granddaughter Beth Kissileff wrote: If any in that place have been harmed, all have been.

Police have not determined who caused the damage, which a relative visiting Mount Carmel discovered Sunday morning. A $50,000 reward has been offered ($15,000 from Mayor Jim Kenney's office; $12,000, city Councilman Allan Domb; $10,000, the Anti-Defamation League; $10,000, an anonymous donor; and $3,000, the Fraternal Order of Police-Lodge 5) for tips leading the arrest and conviction of those responsible. Tipsters can call Northeast Detectives at (215) 686-3153 or -3154.

Police have called the desecration "abominable" and "reprehensible" but haven't classified it as a hate crime.

Trump even suggested Tuesday the vandalism and recentbomb threats to Jewish community centers were a ploy to make "others look bad."

Still, plenty of others have blasted the cemetery vandalism as anti-Semitic. Volunteers of all faiths have flocked to the cemetery on the edge of the city to help restore it.

Its bringing out the absolute best in people, Barsky said. Our friends and strangers are responding in incredible ways.

At the museum Tuesday, at least one out-of-town visitor hadnt heard of the cemetery vandalism. Still, museum-goer June Park said he wasnt surprised, given the uptick in anti-Semitic and xenophobic hate groups and incidents that accompanied President Trumps campaign and inauguration.

We have Voldemort in charge, at this point in our history, said Park, 27, of Minnesota, referring to the villain in the Harry Potter series. Insanities are happening everywhere.

Katharine and Michael Bowlus, who stopped to tour the museum during a weekend trip from their home in Jacksonville, Florida, had heard news reports of Mount Carmels misfortune.

It is always shocking to read that Americans who espouse the love of freedom express their hatred for people they dont even know in such heartless and cruel ways, said Michael Bowlus, 61. Intolerance is becoming tolerable in our country, and that is the antithesis of the basis of our freedoms.

Link:

Museum collects stories to show vandalized gravestones are more than just toppled rock - Newsworks.org

Washington Post Op-ed: Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals are going to miss her. – Salt Lake Tribune

In electing Trump, the Republican base rejected laissez-faire economics in favor of economic nationalism. Full-fledged objectivism, the philosophy Rand invented, is an atheistic creed that calls for pure capitalism and a bare-bones government with no social spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare. It's never appeared on the national political scene without significant dilution. But there was plenty of diluted Rand on offer throughout the primary season: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz all espoused traditional Republican nostrums about reducing the role of government to unleash American prosperity.

Yet none of this could match Trump's full-throated roar to build a wall or his protectionist plans for American trade. In the general election, Trump sought out new voters and independents using arguments traditionally associated with Democrats: deploying the power of the state to protect workers and guarantee their livelihoods, even at the cost of trade agreements and long-standing international alliances. Trump's economic promises electrified rural working-class voters the same way Bernie Sanders excited urban socialists. Where Rand's influence has stood for years on the right for a hands-off approach to the economy, Trump's "America first" platform contradicts this premise by assuming that government policies can and should deliberately shape economic growth, up to and including punishing specific corporations. Likewise, his promise to craft trade policy in support of the American worker is the exact opposite of Rand's proclamation that "the essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade."

And there's little hope that Trump's closest confidants will reverse his decidedly anti-Randian course. The conservative Republicans who came to power with Trump in an almost accidental process may find they have to exchange certain ideals to stay close to him. True, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence have been able to breathe new life into Republican economic and social orthodoxies. For instance, in a nod to Pence's religious conservatism, Trump shows signs of reversing his earlier friendliness to gay rights. And his opposition to Obamacare dovetails with Ryan's long-held ambitions to shrink federal spending. Even so, there is little evidence that either Pence or Ryan would have survived a Republican primary battle against Trump or fared well in a national election; their fortunes are dependent on Trump's. And the president won by showing that the Republican base and swing voters have moved on from the traditional conservatism of Reagan and Rand.

What is rising on the right is not Randian fear of government but something far darker. It used to be that bright young things like Stephen Miller, the controversial White House aide, came up on Rand. In the 1960s, she inspired a rump movement of young conservatives determined to subvert the GOP establishment, drawing in future bigwigs such as Alan Greenspan. Her admirers were powerfully attracted to the insurgent presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, whom Rand publicly supported. They swooned when she talked about the ethics of capitalism, delegitimizing programs like Medicare and Medicaid as immoral. They thrilled to her attack on the draft and other conservative pieties. At national conferences, they asked each other, "Who is John Galt?" (a reference to her novel "Atlas Shrugged") and waved the black flag of anarchism, modified with a gold dollar sign.

Over time, most conservatives who stayed in politics outgrew these juvenile provocations or disavowed them. For example, Ryan moved swiftly to replace Rand with Thomas Aquinas when he was nominated in 2012 for vice president, claiming that the Catholic thinker was his primary inspiration (although it was copies of "Atlas Shrugged," not "Summa Theologiae," that he handed out to staffers). But former Randites retained her fiery hatred of government and planted it within the mainstream GOP. And it was Rand who had kindled their passions in the first place, making her the starting point for a generation of conservatives.

Now Rand is on the shelf, gathering dust with F.A. Hayek, Edmund Burke and other once-prominent conservative luminaries. It's no longer possible to provoke the elders by going on about John Galt. Indeed, many of the elders have by now used Randian references to name their yachts, investment companies and foundations.

Instead, young insurgent conservatives talk about "race realism ," argue that manipulated crime statistics mask growing social disorder and cast feminism as a plot against men. Instead of reading Rand, they take the "red pill", indulging in an emergent internet counter-culture that reveals the principles of liberalism rights, equality, tolerance to be dangerous myths. Beyond Breitbart.com, ideological energy on the right now courses through tiny blogs and websites of the Dark Enlightenment, the latter-day equivalent of Rand's Objectivist Newsletter and the many libertarian 'zines she inspired.

Once upon a time, professors tut-tutted when Rand spoke to overflow crowds on college campuses, where she lambasted left and right alike and claimed, improbably, that big business was America's persecuted minority. She delighted in skewering liberal audience members and occasionally turned her scorn on questioners. But this was soft stuff compared with the insults handed out by Milo Yiannopoulos and the uproar that has greeted his appearances. Rand may have accused liberals of having a "lust for power," but she never would have called Holocaust humor a harmless search for "lulz," as Yiannopoulos gleefully does.

Indeed, the new ideas on the right have moved away from classical liberalism altogether. American conservatives have always had a mixed reaction to the Western philosophical tradition that emphasizes the sanctity of the individual. Religious conservatives, in particular, often struggle with Rand because her extreme embrace of individualism leaves little room for God, country, duty or faith. But Trump represents a victory for a form of conservatism that is openly illiberal and willing to junk entirely the traditional rhetoric of individualism and free markets for nationalism inflected with racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

Mixed in with Rand's vituperative attacks on government was a defense of the individual's rights in the face of a powerful state. This single-minded focus could yield surprising alignments, such as Rand's opposition to drug laws and her support of legal abortion. And although liberals have always loved to hate her, over the next four years, they may come to miss her defense of individual autonomy and liberty. Ayn Rand is dead. Long live Ayn Rand!

- - -

Burns is an Associate Professor of History at Stanford University and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Go here to read the rest:

Washington Post Op-ed: Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals are going to miss her. - Salt Lake Tribune

A wry squint into our grim future – MyDaytonDailyNews.com – MyDaytonDailyNews

WASHINGTON Although Americas political system seems unable to stimulate robust, sustained economic growth, it at least is stimulating consumption of a small but important segment of literature. Dystopian novels are selling briskly Aldous Huxleys Brave New World (1932), Sinclair Lewis It Cant Happen Here (1935), George Orwells Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949), Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451 (1953) and Margaret Atwoods The Handmaids Tale (1985), all warning about nasty regimes displacing democracy.

There is, however, a more recent and pertinent presentation of a grim future. Last year, in her 13th novel, The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047, Lionel Shriver imagined America slouching into dystopia merely by continuing current practices.

Shriver, who is fascinated by the susceptibility of complex systems to catastrophic collapses, begins her story after the 2029 economic crash and the Great Renunciation, whereby the nation, like a dissolute Atlas, shrugged off its national debt, saying to creditors: Its nothing personal. The world is not amused, and Americans subsequent downward social mobility is not pretty.

Florence Darkly, a millennial, is a single mother but such mothers now outnumber married ones. Newspapers have almost disappeared, so print journalism had given way to a rabble of amateurs hawking unverified stories and always to an ideological purpose. Her Americans are living, on average, to 92, the economy is powered by the whims of the retired, and, desperate to qualify for entitlements, these days everyone couldnt wait to be old. People who have never been told no are apoplectic if they cant retire at 52.

The government monitors every movement and the IRS, renamed the Bureau for Social Contribution Assistance, siphons up everything, on the you-didnt-build-that principle: Morally, your money does belong to everybody.

Social order collapses when hyperinflation follows the promiscuous printing of money after the Renunciation. This punishes those who had a conscientious, caretaking relationship to the future.

In her novel, she writes:

The state starts moving money around. A little fairness here, little more fairness there. Government becomes a pricey, clumsy, inefficient mechanism for transferring wealth from people who do something to people who dont, and from the young to the old which is the wrong direction. All that effort, and youve only managed a new unfairness.

Laughing mordantly as the apocalypse approaches, Shriver has a gimlet eye for the foibles of todays secure (or so it thinks) upper middle class, from Washingtons Cleveland Park to Brooklyn. About the gentrification of the latter, she observes:

Oh, you could get a facelift nearby, put your dog in therapy, or spend $500 at Ottawa on a bafflingly trendy dinner of Canadian cuisine (the citys elite was running out of new ethnicities whose food could become fashionable). But you couldnt buy a screwdriver, pick up a gallon of paint, take in your dry cleaning, get new tips on your high heels, copy a key, or buy a slice of pizza. Wealthy residents might own bicycles worth $5K, but no shop within miles would repair the brakes. High rents had priced out the very service sector whose presence at ready hand once helped to justify urban living.

The (only) good news from Shrivers squint into the future is that when Americans are put through a wringer, they emerge tougher.

Speaking to Reason, Shriver said: I think that the bullet we dodged in 2008 is still whizzing around the planet and is going to hit us in the head. If so, this story has already been written.

Read the original here:

A wry squint into our grim future - MyDaytonDailyNews.com - MyDaytonDailyNews

America Needs a Liberal Party – Reason.com – Reason (blog)

Delstudio/Dreamstime.comAmerica needs a new political party, one opposed to isolationism, protectionism, nativism, authoritarianism, and ecologism but which also supports free enterprise, constitutional government, human equality, liberty, dignity, and the defensive alliance of all nations committed to such ideals.

Some might call such a party "conservative," and indeed, many of those who call themselves conservatives today would find themselves in agreement with its tenets. But these are the ideas of classical liberalism; they are the ideas that made the free world free, in as much as it is free. They have been misbranded by their "progressive" opponents as "conservative" a word associated with "servility" and the service of privilege in order to make them seem reactionary. It's time for the true defenders of real liberalism to take their proud title back.

America needs a new Liberal Party because both major parties have abandoned liberalism. Neither adequately supports international free trade or the defense of the West the two pillars of the liberal world order since 1945. Both lack commitment to constitutionally limited government, separation of powers, free enterprise, human equality, and liberty under the law. Each supports its own Malthusian antihuman collectivist ideology: for Democrats, it is ecologism, for Republicans, it is nativism.

Ecologism the advocacy of state-administered collective sacrifice for the putative benefit of nature is so obviously anti-liberal, reactionary, and indeed, anti-human, that I will leave it to the would-be liberals of the left to figure out how they ever got roped into adopting it as part of their core ideology. As a result, the party that once proudly proclaimed itself the defender of the poor now centers its program on ultra-regressive sales taxes of fuel and electricity, while boasting of its ability to throw entire industries and their workers on the scrap heap. Furthermore, ecologism serves as a justification for the expansion of the powers of the state to intrude into every aspect of public, commercial, and private life reinforcing monopolies, impairing initiative, and destroying opportunities at every turn.

Nativism, on the other hand, is the ideology that brought the Trumpist Trojan horse into the conservative citadel. A mirror image of the Democrats' environmental Malthusianism, it asserts that rather than natural resources, it is human opportunities that are in limited supply. It is not a conservative ideology, because it is anti-free enterprise and anti-Judeo Christian. Our nation's founding creed is that of inalienable rights granted to men created equal by God. How can a movement which explicitly denies that faith be considered conservative, or even American? In fact it isn't conservative at all. It is alt-right. But what is the alt-right really?

In his classic 1944 work, The Road to Serfdom, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, then living in exile in England, shocked readers with his diagnosis of Nazism. National Socialism, he argued, was not the opposite of social democracy many of whose adherents could be found fighting in the ranks of the Allies but its evolutionary extension. All Hitler had done, said Hayek, was to grasp that racism is required for socialism, because to mobilize the passion necessary to achieve the full collectivist agenda, it is necessary to invoke the tribal instinct. Thus, contrary to Marx, the ultimate development of socialism is not stateless international brotherhood, but various forms of rabid tribal nationalism. Similarly, tribalism leads to socialism.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, tribalism or "identarianism," if you will is not a conservative ideology; it is collectivist ideology. It is the oldest, most powerful, lethal, and most degrading collectivist ideology, because it is based on primeval animal instinct. By using xenophobic agitation to mobilize mob support for a program of socialistic policy, unlimited government, and strongman rule, the international alt-right has embraced a political methodology clearly identified seven decades ago in The Road to Serfdom.

Running up taxes on fuel, electricity, and fuel for the putative purpose of stopping climate change is an alternative version of human sacrifice for weather control. Excluding immigrants for the putative purpose of making jobs available is merely an alternative version of the counterfactual case for population control to wit that we supposedly would all be better off if there were fewer people (in fact, we weren't). Neither is a liberal, moral, rational, or practical position. On the contrary, increasing human numbers, freedoms, and living standards accelerates the rate of invention, and thus humanity's ability to deal with any problem. That's the liberal, moral, rational, and practical program for advancing the human condition. It's also the winning political answer to both the brown and green anti-humanists. Immigrants and free enterprise, together, are what made America great and they both need each other.

To see clearly what the Liberal Party needs to oppose, it is useful to examine what freedom's most dedicated enemies are for. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the principal philosophical theoreticians of totalitarianism internationally, and his publications are regularly featured in such American identitarian outlets as Radix (Dugin's English language translator is the wife of American alt-right leader and Radix publisher Richard Spencer). While he greatly admires Nazism, Dugin's "Fourth Political Theory" seeks to transcend traditional Nordic racism's self-limited market appeal by proposing multi-centered tribal fascism, and allying it with other anti-liberal ideologies including communism but also ecologism in a new synthesis to counter the liberal ideas of individualism, intrinsic rights, and universal human dignity. It is the raising of "blood and soil" over "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;" of animal instinct over human reason; of the id over the superego; of greed and lust over justice and love. This is the metaphysics of tyranny.

James Madison said, "If men were angels, government would be unnecessary." The corollary to this is that if men were beasts, freedom would be unacceptable. Dugin understands this. So like Circe, he seeks to use the sorceries of tribal and ecologic anti-humanism not merely to weaken and break up the Western alliance, but to turn men into unreasoning beasts, the better to end the specter of liberty everywhere.

This is the enemy we now face. Encouraged, supported, and in some cases directed by the Kremlin, the green, red, and brown rainbow alliance of tyranny is on the march across much of the globe. In Europe, the socialists and environmentalists mismanaging the European Union are discrediting the dream of a united Europe, providing the opening for Moscow-backed tribalist parties to break up and take over the continent. This effort is being further helped by a concerted campaign of economic sabotage by the green and red parties whose anti-fracking initiatives are making sure that Europe remains dangerously dependent on Russian natural gas, and by the armed forces of Russia and its Iranian and Syrian allies, whose ethnic cleansing campaigns are stampeding millions of refugees into Europe to rapidly accelerate the rise to power of the Kremlin's brown fifth column.

America should be opposing this offensive against the free world with might and main, but under the mis-leadership of the partisan careerists who dominate both major parties it is not doing so. On the contrary, with the near unanimous support of the Democrats in Congress, the Obama administration helped to fund Iran's brutal offensive in Syria to the tune of 100 billion dollars released in accord with the terms of its nuclear deal, and failed to effectively assist Syrian rebel forces fighting the Iran-Assad-Russia alliance on the ground. Not only that, the Obama administration opened the door to overt aggression by failing to honor America's treaty commitment to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and by reducing U.S. Army troop strength in Europe to 30,000 men, an amount less than one-tenth that of its late Cold War strength and smaller than the New York City Police Department.

Until recently the Republicans chose to criticize the Democrats for their foreign policy weakness, but the new Trump administration promises to be even worse. While the Obama administration offered only feeble help for the Syrian rebels, Trump has said he supports the Assad-Iran-Russia war effort. While Obama limited the U.S response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ineffective economic sanctions, Trump has offered justification for Putin's attack. Furthermore, notwithstanding his U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley's Samantha Power-like grand verbal denunciations of Putin's aggression, Trump has dismissed criticisms of the Russian strongman's murderous regime across the board. While Obama cut American military power in Europe to mere tripwire levels, Trump has offered to render even that symbolic level of support to Europe's defense moot, by stating that he sees no reason to be bound by the NATO treaty's requirement to come to member states' aid should any come under attack.

Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin chose to interfere in the American election with both covert and overt actions to assist the rise of Donald Trump. What is disheartening, however, is the degree to which the Republican Party has rallied to deny or dismiss this intervention in America's internal affairs, an outrage which verges on an act of war against the U.S. homeland itself. And while the Democrats are currently making much of Trump's Putinophilia, an honest recollection of their own behavior prior to the Trump candidacy makes it difficult to take their newfound ardor in the defense of the West seriously. That said, we now have a president whose self-interest apparently requires him to suppress or silence the nation's intelligence agencies that have brought to light the enemy conspiracy on his behalf, and a majority party in as much as it remains a party bound to support him in this endeavor.

This is a five-alarm fire. America needs a new party, one that will in the present emergency bravely rise to the defense of the republic and the grand alliance of the free nations which it leads. It needs a party of economic sanity, which will not destroy the basis of our livelihood through either a combination of trade war and immigration restriction, or top-down suppression of business. It needs a party of humanity, which rejects tribalism, not only for the harm it inflicts upon its targets but for the moral and intellectual degradation it infests within the minds and hearts of its converts. It needs a party of liberty, one which will defend not only the borders of freedom, but the ideas and institutions that make freedom possible.

In short, America needs a Liberal Party. Scattered, the forces of liberalism are weak. Together, we may yet prevail.

Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Energy of Lakewood, Colo., and the author of The Case for Mars. The paperback edition of his latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, was recently published by Encounter Books.

Read more from the original source:

America Needs a Liberal Party - Reason.com - Reason (blog)

The right-wing Liberal club hiding donors and building conservative clout – The Age

A fundraising club linked to the hard-right of the Liberal Party is obscuring its donors by failing to make disclosures to the Australian Electoral Commission as required by law, according to a political donations expert.

The Deakin 200 Club was launched in June 2014 by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, along with right-aligned federal MPs Kevin Andrews, Josh Frydenberg and Michael Sukkar, and then Victorian Liberal Party president Tony Snell.

With membership about $200 a year, the club also hosts regular fundraising events, attracting luminaries such as businesswoman and football identity Susan Alberti.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott will be guest of honour at a club dinner this month, with attendance costing up to $500 per person.

Rising right-wing recruiter Marcus Bastiaan is organising the dinner, which is being promoted to conservative elements of the Victorian branch, Fairfax Media reported last month, and will raise money for Deakin and other marginal seats.

The club's current members as disclosed on their parliamentary registers of interests include conservative Liberals Sukkar, Victorian MLC Richard Della-Riva and federal MP Scott Ryan.

Senator Ryan is also Special Minister of State, with responsibility for the AEC, including the integrity of the disclosure integrity regime.

Despite its fundraising activities, the club has never lodged a disclosure as a so-called "associated entity" of a political party, unlike similar clubs run by candidates and their supporters.

Josh Frydenberg's Kooyong 200 Club raised $464,000 in 2015-16, its disclosure as an associated entity on the AEC website shows. Kelly O'Dwyer's Higgins 200 Club raised $263,000.

A Liberal insider estimated the Deakin Club raised a "six-figure sum" annually.

Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, denied the club was an associated entity, and said funds raised by the club were managed by the Victorian division of the Liberal Party.

"It's a club/brand for Deakin ... to fundraise on behalf of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party," said Mr Sukkar's spokesperson Joshua Bonney, a former Glen Eira council candidate and evangelical churchgoer who is organising a cocktail event for the club in April.

"All funds are therefore reported in the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party's return in the usual way," Mr Bonney said.

Under Australian electoral law, only donations over $13,200 need to be disclosed. The Liberal Party disclosure does not identify any donations made to the Deakin fundraising body, nor the amount the club donates to the party itself. It does identify donations made by the Higgins and Kooyong clubs.

Mr Sukkar said the Victorian Liberal party had ruled out the establishment of new stand-alone fundraising entities in the wake of a row over the party's control of funds raised by the Higgins 200 Club in 2010. A similar row between the party and Liberal investment vehicle the Cormack Foundation is currently ongoing.

However political donations expert Joo-Cheong Tham said the club's activities clearly fell within the definition of an "associated entity" under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

"It's not up to the Victorian Liberal Party to decide which organisations are associated entities and which are not," said the associate professor of the University of Melbourne Law School. "That is determined by the application of the law and the objective facts about the activities and the objectives of those organisations."

Meanwhile the rise of candidate-linked fundraising entities such as the Deakin Club showed the creeping Americanisation of our political finance system, said law expert Graeme Orr, where individuals increased their internal party power and leverage through their fund-raising prowess.

"[What we are seeing is] the American phenomenon, of well-connected candidates in wealthy districts building treasure chests to increase their factional or ideological influence in the party, versus the Australian tradition of strong, centrally controlled parties," said Professor Orr, from the University of Queensland.

Simon Frost, state director of the Liberal Party, said the Victorian division "and its associated entities and electorate conferences conduct robust auditing and reporting of contributions, in accordance with relevant laws."

Senator Ryan denied any involvement with the management of the Deakin 200 club, through a spokesperson, and directed operational queries to "the club's executive," and disclosure queries to the Liberal Party and the AEC.

An AEC spokesperson said as the status of various associations or groups arises from time to time, the commission "addresses issues directly with the entity concerned."

Originally posted here:

The right-wing Liberal club hiding donors and building conservative clout - The Age

A conservative author tried to speak at a liberal arts college. He left fleeing an angry mob. – Washington Post

Students at Middlebury College in Vermont protested an author who has been called a white nationalist, causing the college to move a planned lecture to another room on campus. (YouTube/Will DiGravio)

As the co-author of one of the 1990s most controversial works of scholarship, Charles Murray is no stranger to angry protesters.

Over the years, at university lectures across the country, the influential conservative scholar and author of The Bell Curve says hes come face-to-face with demonstrators dozens of times.

But none of those interactions prepared him for the chaotic confrontation he encountered Thursday night at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vt.

When The Bell Curve came out, Id have lectures with lots of people chanting and picketing with signs, but it was always within the confines of the event and I was eventually able to speak, Murray told The Washington Post. But Ive never experienced anything like this.

The demonstrations began conventionally enough, with several hundred organized protesters packed into a lecture hall Thursday, chanting and holding signs. They ended with Murray being forced to cancel his lecture and later being surrounded by an unruly mob made up of students and outside agitators as he tried to leave campus, according to witnesses and school administrators.

After swarming Murray and two school officials, the protesters shouted profanities, shoved members of the group and then blocked them from getting to a vehicle in a nearby parking lot. Witnesses said the confrontation was aggressive, intimidating and unpredictable and felt like it was edging frighteningly close to outright violence.

[Trump lashes back at Berkeley after violent protests block speech by Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos]

In a message to the campus community Friday, Middlebury PresidentLaurie L. Patton said her administration plans to respond to the clear violations of Middlebury College policy that occurred the night before without providing more specific information. Patton who was on hand Thursday night said she was deeply disappointed by the events she witnessed and called the night painful for many at Middlebury, a top-tier liberal arts college with about 2,450 undergraduate students.

Today our community begins the process of addressing the deep and troubling divisions that were on display last night, her message said. I am grateful to those who share this goal and have offered to help.

We must find a path to establishing a climate of open discourse as a core Middlebury value, while also recognizing critical matters of race, inclusion, class, sexual and gender identity, and the other factors that too often divide us, the statement added. That work will take time, and I will have more to say about that in the days ahead.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled Murray a white supremacist and a eugenicist who uses racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.

Murray, a statistically minded sociologist by training, has spent decades working to rehabilitate long-discredited theories of IQ and heredity, turning them into a foundation on which to build a conservative theory of society that rejects equality and egalitarianism, the SPLC states.

Murray bristled at the SPLCs characterization of him and blamed it for provoking protests among college students who have failed to scrutinize his work.

White supremacist? he said Friday. Lets see: if you have a guy who was married for 13 years to an Asian woman and who has two lovely Asian daughters, wouldnt that disqualify him from membership in the white supremacist club?

Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was not invited to Middlebury to discuss The Bell Curve, but instead to talk about his latest book: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

His lecture was co-sponsored by Middleburys Political Science Department. The other sponsor was the AEI Executive Council at the college, an outreach program by the Washington-based group that operates on dozens of campuses.

Our goal was not to create a controversy, but to start a discussion and a dialogue, said Alexander Khan, a member of the AEI Executive Council. Many members of our own club here dont agree with everything Dr. Murray has to say, but we still believe in the importance of robust discussion and the free exchange of opinions.

That is a cornerstone of what it means to receive a liberal arts education, he added.

The Associated Press reported that more than 450 alumni signed a letter calling Murrays visit unacceptable.

In this case, theres not really any other side, only deceptive statistics masking unfounded bigotry, the letter said.

Both students and other community members came out to show that we are not accepting these kind of racist, misogynistic, eugenist opinions being expressed at our college, Elizabeth Dunn, a student protest organizer, told the AP. We dont think that they deserve a platform because they are literally hate speech.

Video from the lecture in Wilson Hall showed hundreds of students turning their backs to Murray once he took the stage and began speaking.

Chants including Hey hey, ho ho, Charles Murray has got to go and Racist, sexist anti-gay, Charles Murray go away followed as Murray remained at the lectern for close to 20 minutes. The students held signs that said No Eugenics and Scientific racism = Racism.

Anticipating that the lecture might be interrupted, administrators attempted to relocate the event and a Q&A with Middlebury professor Allison Stanger to a location where the exchange could be live-streamed. Some of their discussion was recorded, but the dialogue was cut short by loud protesters who slammed chairs, chanted and periodically pulled fire alarms, which shut down the buildings power, according to Middlebury spokesman Bill Burger.

It became very difficult to hear in there where they were recording, Burger said. Nonetheless, there was a principle at work in that we were determined to continue the event. Both sides felt like they were standing for principle.

Murray said he felt like students were protesting a perceived persona more than a person, one theyd labeled a racist, sexist pseudo scientist. Asked why he thinks he continues to arouse such passion 23 years after The Bell Curve was published, Murray said he could only speculate.

I think there is this rage on campuses about Donald Trump and as someone who has written pretty explicitly about my disapproval of Trump I can sympathize with that.

But if you have someone that they can say, This is one of those people who is the problem, then they latch on to that person, he added. Thats who I was to them.

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a talk by inflammatory Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and put the campus on lockdown after intense protests broke out on Feb. 1. (Video: The Washington Post / Photo: AP)

Burger said Stangers hair was pulled before she reached the car, twisting and injuring the professors neck. Burger said she later went to a hospital and was fitted with a neck brace. (Stanger could not be reached for comment.)

By the time Murray, Stanger and Burger made it to their car with a campus security escort, the vehicle was mobbed by masked demonstrators who climbed on the hood, pounded the windows and blocked the cars exit while security struggled to clear a path, witnesses said.

At one point, a stop sign was pulled from the ground and laid in front of the vehicle to block its path. After close to 10 minutes, the car managed to separate from the mob, witnesses said. Minutes later, the group was forced to leave a nearby restaurant when security informed Murray and the others that more protesters were on their way.

Murray said he harbored no ill will toward Middlebury and praised campus administrators for not backing down from protesters as the night intensified.

He said he didnt want to dramatize the events or present his final interaction with protesters as a life-or-death situation, but noted that the crowd was out of control.

Had there not been those security guards, I would certainly have been pushed down on the ground, he said. Maybe nothing more wouldve happened after that, but certainly that wouldve happened.

I was glad to get the hell out of there, he added.

MORE READING:

Art Institute campuses to be sold to foundation

This lawmakers bio touted a business degree. It was actually a Sizzler training certificate.

These states give more grant aid to college students in need than the feds

See the rest here:

A conservative author tried to speak at a liberal arts college. He left fleeing an angry mob. - Washington Post

Bishop Carroll Holds Down Liberal – KSCB News.net

Bishop Carroll led throughout on their way to a state clinching win at the Big House in Liberal Friday night. Carroll, who went 20-5 and took third at state last year beat LHS 40-30. The Lady Redskins had a rough night offensively struggling against Carrolls press in the first half. Carroll also gained a lot of offensive rebounds in the first half.

Carroll led 10-6 after a quarter and 24-13 at the half. Liberals push came in the third quarter when LHS cut the Carroll lead to 28-23 with 1:38 to go in the third. The Lady Eagles led by as many as 13 (36-23) on the way to the win. LHS was 4-4 at the foul line while Carroll was 8-22. BCHS made 7-16 threes and LHS was 4-15.

Bishop Carroll held Jada Mickens to two points in her final game. Reyna Gonzalez led LHS with eight. LHS finished 17-5 while Bishop Carroll is 18-4 and going to state.

See the original post here:

Bishop Carroll Holds Down Liberal - KSCB News.net

Liberal preselection for Evelyn: Bridget Vallence boosts Guy’s gender targets – The Age

Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy's bid to tackle his party's gender gap has been a given a much-needed boost, with a woman finally preselected into a safe Liberal seat ahead of next year's state election.

After Liberal preselections in Brighton, Nepean, Narracan and Burwood were all won by men in recent months, 37-year-old Goodyear procurement manager Bridget Vallence bucked the trend when she was chosen on Saturday as the new candidate to replace retiring MP Christine Fyffe in the outer eastern seat of Evelyn.

The well-regarded Liberal nudged out a competitive field including Ms Fyffe's son, Scott before eventually beating key rival Grant Hutchinson (who is aligned with controversial Liberal numbers man Marcus Baastian) in the final round, 39 votes to 31.

"This sends the right message to the party," one senior parliamentarian told The Sunday Age. "Yes, we need more women, but we also need quality women. This is a great result."

Ms Vallence's victory is viewed as an important win for Mr Guy, who warned Liberals last year it was time to "get serious" about narrowing the gender gap and announced an ambitious goal to lift his party's female representation in parliament by a further 10 per cent at every election.

However in the four consecutive preselections that have taken place since, the male candidate has prevailed: Brighton was won by former Napthine government staffer James Newbury; Nepean was won by Russell Joseph, the 56-year-old electorate officer to retiring MP Martin Dixon; Narracan was won by 65-year-old incumbent MP Gary Blackwood; and Burwood was won by sitting MP Graham Watt.

After the convention, Mr Guy said: "Bridget will be a tremendous candidate for the Liberal Party in Evelyn. I'm proud to see the Liberal Party select someone of such calibre and promise as our Evelyn candidate."

The under-representation of women in parliament has long been a problem in Australia, which has low levels of female participation compared with other developed democracies.

In a bid to tackle the issue, the University of Melbourne recently developed a new course, Pathways To Politics, to encourage more women to get involved. Following the success of a pilot last year, the program was launched formally last Tuesday.

Under the program, which is modelled on a similar Harvard initiative, participants are given 12 weeks of intensive training on everything from negotiating the party machine, to speech writing, to knowing when to run. Past guest speakers have included Tony Abbott's former chief of staff Peta Credlin and former governor-general Quentin Bryce, while Ms Vallence is one of its first graduates.

Dr Andrea Carson, the academic coordinator of the program, said the aim was to lift female representation across all levels of politics: local government, state parliament, and federal parliament.

"It's about women thinking that politics is not outside their reach," she said. "It also offers very practical skills about how to negotiate the boys club and let's face it, that boys club does exist, particularly with parties that don't have quotas or targets."

Go here to read the rest:

Liberal preselection for Evelyn: Bridget Vallence boosts Guy's gender targets - The Age