Republicans’ health care overhaul still a work in progress – Press Herald

Posted on by

WASHINGTON Top House Republicans unveiled a rough sketch of a massive health care overhaul to rank-and-file lawmakers Thursday, but a lack of detail, cost estimates and Republicanunity left unresolved the problem thats plagued them for years: Whats the partys plan and can Congress pass it?

At a closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and other party leaders described a broad vision for voiding much of President Obamas 2010 statute and replacing it with conservative policies. It features a revamped Medicaid program for the poor, tax breaks to help people pay doctors bills and federally subsidized state pools to assist those with costly medical conditions in buying insurance.

Lawmakers called the ideas options, and many were controversial. One being pushed by Ryan would replace the tax increases in Obamas law with new levies on the value of some employer-provided health plans a political no-fly zone for Republicans averse to any tax boosts.

Were not going to get out of this overnight, Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.

The scant health care progress mirrors a lack of movement on other issues in a capital run by the GOP. No proposals have surfaced to pursue President Donald Trumps campaign promises to build a border wall with Mexico or buttress the nations infrastructure, and Republicans have yet to coalesce around another priority, revamping the tax code.

Senate Republicans have criticized a House Republicanplan to change how corporations are taxed. Trump has said he will release his own proposal in the coming weeks, but nothing had been produced, drawing mockery from Democrats.

The health care outline was aimed at giving Republicans something to exhibit during next weeks congressional recess, at a time of boisterous town hall meetings packed with supporters of Obamas law. Ryan told reporters that Republicans would introduce legislation voiding and replacing Obamas statute after Congress returns in late February, but offered no specifics.

Many Republicans took an upbeat tone after Thursdays meeting, with Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., saying, Were only 27 days into the new administration, so we have time.

But they have repeatedly failed for seven years to rally behind a substitute plan, and there are no guarantees of success in replacing a law that has extended coverage to 20 million Americans.

See original here:

Republicans' health care overhaul still a work in progress - Press Herald

‘Hero’ film produced just for Charlottesville featured the mayor, The Daily Progress – The Daily Progress

Posted on by

Many movies have been filmed in Charlottesville and the surrounding counties throughout the years. The first to receive local acclaim was a short two-reel film called Charlottesvilles Hero that made its debut at The Jefferson Theater on this date in 1930. Financed by The Daily Progress to show just how a movie was made, the movie, using subtitles and live musical accompaniment, was filmed completely in the city and starred prominent residents including Mayor J. Y. Brown. Director Don O. Newland was brought in to oversee the film. Newland was known for his Hero collection of films, each one commissioned by a local newspaper, highlighted a particular small town and contained a standard but customizable plot that often included a head-on car crash to show trick photography and a character that played the role of a town reporter, showing how the newspaper was produced. Newland produced a similar film in Staunton in 1929.

Many townspeople were unaware that they were being filmed until they saw themselves on the screen. In the many Daily Progress articles prior to the movies premiere, the plot was not divulged but readers were told that filming was done at the library (now the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society), the office of The Daily Progress on Market Street, and various other locations in town. The article of this date noted that the audience will find a handsome, heart-stirring hero who would make John Gilbert look like a chronic case of yellow jaundice.

Mayor Browns character, Mr. Henpeck, is described as a throwback to the stone age when men tossed spears and ate raw meathe is a regular he-man. For instance he throws the hero out of the window with no more effort than he would thumps a cigarette pow, just like that.until Mrs. Henpeck grabs his hair to give him a vigorous shampoo, he becomes meek as a lamb and weaker than the sleeping sickness. Miss Clifford Hanckel, as the pretty heroine is clever and beautiful enough to write home about her actingMiss Nancy Doner, as Katrinka, the country flapper, can do more stunts on her roller skates than are ordinarily seen at a circus

Two days following the movie premiere, a review of sorts noted: Interesting indeed were the scenes of the making of a newspaper from the time of the gathering of the news of the accident to the automobiles pictures to the huge and modern linotype machine of The Daily Progress to the make-up department of the composing room where the process of making forms to fit the press that is daily serving Charlottesville with the news of the world.

A copy of the film is not known to exist.

See the original post here:

'Hero' film produced just for Charlottesville featured the mayor, The Daily Progress - The Daily Progress

Halo Wars 2 review in progress – PC Gamer

Posted on by

Forgive me, for I have sinned. I've spent the entirety of my time so far with Halo Wars 2 not in the company of our beloved motherboards and graphics cards but on the Xbox One with its fuzzy graphics. Microsoft provided early review copies, but the PC version didn't unlock until recently, and the only knowledge I have of it is my couple of hours with it at developer 343 Industries last October.

You'll hear more about the PC version from me soon, but after finishing the campaign and hopping into a few multiplayer matches with our console cousins, I feel confident in saying that Halo Wars 2 is a workable and generally entertaining real-time strategy game that performs smartly with a gamepadnot that I expect many will want to use one on PC.

And it looks alright, even without that extra oomph from a good graphics card. The animations are varied and fun to watch, and the cutscenes ooze with detail and artistry I once would have expected only from Blizzard. This graphical prowess (which hopefully looks even better on the PC) is used to good effect to tell its story, which centers of the crew of the Spirit of Fire as they wake up from almost three decades of hibernation only to find themselves facing down a new Covenant faction called the Banished. There's no Master Chief or Cortana here, but Halo Wars 2 manages to distinguish itself with a fascinating cast of characters. I particularly enjoy Isabel, the sentient AI who contacts the Spirit of Fire, and Atriox, the big baddie of the Covenant himself.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the story here is at least on par with some mainline Halo stories.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the story here is at least on par with some mainline Halo stories. The problem, though, is that it ends without any real resolution (and thus perhaps paving the way for future content), and most of the scenarios seemed aimed at preparing players for the multiplayer mode. It's not even that long. Despite its narrative strengths and memorable characterizations, Halo Wars 2 comes with only 12 missions, which I was able to get through under some severe time constraints in only eight or nine hours.

But on to what really matters: How does it play? Victory in the original Halo Wars for the Xbox 360 was largely a case of amassing a big blob, selecting all, and tossing them at an enemy like a bucket of water on a campfire. You can still attempt to do that here, but it's harder now, possibly out of a desire to make Halo Wars 2 a proper PC RTS, thus allowing for greater nuance than we normally get on a gamepad. For one, multiple missions require multiple objectives, forcing you to have troops in different places. Units move at vastly different speeds, and they'll all end up going the speed of the slowest unit in the group if bunched up.

That's not to say the gamepad controls are rubbish. Halo Wars 2 does a decent job with what it has to work with. Selecting all units with the right bumper allows you to switch though specific unit types with the right trigger, for instance, or you can select an individual unit and then double-tap the A button to select all units of that type. The D-pad enhances the action, too, mainly by allowing quick shifts between bases and other elements. It's never exactly elegant. Halo Wars 2 is never exactly difficult, either, and back in October I remember laughing at how much easier it was with a mouse and keyboard, unburdened by the need to perform acrobatic fingerwork on a gamepad with limited buttons. Even with possible balance tweaks, I expect that hasn't changed.

Halo Wars 2's best prospect for longevity rest in the multiplayer matches, and particularly in the new "Blitz" mode. I haven't had much time to play it yet, but I admire the way it integrates a card game. You build decks with cards representing different unit types, and then use them, Hearthstone-style, to choose a combat unit to put into play from one of five randomly drawn cards. The matches themselves mainly revolve around capturing bases, but the randomness of the cards injects each round with a bit of variety that's sometimes lacking in multiplayer matches with set loadouts. But what makes it fun is also what makes it a little annoyingno matter how well I crafted my deck, I couldn't escape the feeling that luck may have played a greater role in my victory or defeat than my choices.

Above: Wes and James' Halo Wars 2 impressions from earlier this year.

I'm more than a little worried about the stability of the PC version after spending so much time with the Xbox One version. Put simply, the Xbox One version of Halo Wars 2 comes off as a buggy mess. At times the whole game would just freeze up, or worse, it'd crash, and loading screens drag on long enough to allow for bathroom breaks without missing a thing. If the PC version is at all worse, it will be really bad.

Sometime over the next couple of days, I'll post a final review outlining my thoughts after playing with the PC version. If you need an answer right now, though, take this: Halo Wars 2 isnt a bad game, but it will likely struggle to match the many richly rewarding real-time strategy games we've had for ages on PC.

See the original post here:

Halo Wars 2 review in progress - PC Gamer

Lynn Hummel column: Always something to panic about – Detroit Lakes Online

Posted on by

As a result, the computers controlling our banking systems, our hospitals, and our air control system would fail at midnight on December 31, 1999, and our bank accounts would be wiped out, our life support systems would come to a halt and patients would die on the operating table and airliners flying at midnight would crash because air controllers would be unable to communicate with pilots.

Those inclined to panic built shelters where they brought generators, huge quantities of water, a supply of food that would last for years, gold and silver and enough guns and ammo to protect themselves from neighbors who wanted to break in and share in the sanctuary.

Well, computer programmers worked out the conversion from 1999 to 2000 and January 1, 2000, began a happy new year without complications. I wonder if those who had prepared for the worst still have those generators, AK47s, ammo and pork and beans.

There is always something to panic about for people who are inclined to panic. The result is called "survivalism," which is making of preparations for an expected long-term or complete breakdown of society, also known as THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT (TEOTWAWKI) or WHEN THE S_ _ _ HITS THE FAN (WTSHTS).

Those who do it seem to have two things in common: extreme paranoia and extreme wealth. It's been going on for generations and it's still going on today. Some call themselves "preps" (as in preparation).

One solution is former ICBM silos. There is a broker who sells old missile silos. The preps who buy them worry about events developing and if something like the Russian Revolution a total takeover of the government and takeover of private wealth. Some of them have outfitted themselves with private planes and helicopters.

One of the silos is found north of Wichita, Kansas. It is protected by a large steel gate with a guard dressed in camouflage and carrying an automatic rifle. Inside is a condo survival project, a 15-story luxury apartment complex. The silo cost the developer $300,000 and the construction was completed in December, 2012, at a cost of $20 million. The units are selling for $3 million each.

Other preppers believe that survival depends on getting as far away from America as possible. The destination of preference for these doomsayers seems to be New Zealand. There is a real estate broker in Auckland, New Zealand, who specializes in high net-worth clients looking for sanctuary in times of world crises. One client, a U.S. hedge-fund manager defends his interest "this is no longer about a handful of freaks worried about the world ending unless I'm one of those freaks."

There is no limit to the possible disasters people worry about: The Bubonic Plague in Europe during the middle ages, the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, the Great Depression, the Global AIDS crisis, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa, a nuclear war started by North Korea, a race war in America, another great flood (one group is building an arc), the U.S. government coming to confiscate our guns, a deliberate move by our Congress to dumb America down, or U.N. black helicopters occupying America to enforce a New World Order. You can think of other examples and so can I.

You can be a survivalist or a prepper if you are sufficiently panicky about real or imagined threats or disasters, but can you afford it? I can't, so I'm hunkering down right here in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota with fresh flashlight batteries, pork and beans, chicken noodle soup, a can opener and lots of good books.

(NOTE: Order Lynn Hummel's new book, The Last Word (171 articles, 310 pages) by sending $15.00 plus $3.00 postage ($10.00 plus postage for additional books) to Pony Express Books, 721 N. Shore Dr., Detroit Lakes, MN 56501, or order at: bevlyn@arvig.net.)

Original post:

Lynn Hummel column: Always something to panic about - Detroit Lakes Online

Hicks column: Schools should stick to the facts, as should everyone else – Charleston Post Courier

Posted on by

This is how it all goes wrong.

Six years ago, the state Department of Education put together a panel of teachers and professors from around South Carolina to update social studies curriculum for schoolchildren.

The group determined sixth grade is the time to introduce students to early cultures, from nomads and hunter-gatherers all the way up to European explorers.

The years lessons include the beginnings of civilization, the origin of governments as well as events and beliefs that influenced these folks. Youve got the Egyptians, the Greeks and even the Ming Dynasty which may or may not have something to do with Flash Gordon.

Of course, religion played a big role in all that history and the curriculum mentions Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism even Confucianism.

Which, like the rest of history, is apparently pretty Confucian to some adults.

There is one section that focuses on the Crusades, the role of the Roman Catholic Church in medieval Europe and how the beliefs of Islam spread in early Africa.

From this simple directive in the curriculum, Explain the origin and fundamental beliefs of Islam and the geographic and economic aspects of its expansion, a teacher in Dorchester County gave students a worksheet on the Five Pillars of Islam.

Just as the country is losing its mind over a travel ban on some Muslim countries.

You see where this is going, right?

A parent recently complained to local TV about the Islam worksheet, noting that schools should get permission before teaching religious tenets.

Thats a really good point.

Explaining the history of the world in social studies class is appropriate. And, to invoke religion, God knows wed be better off if more people were actually educated instead of simply scared and hating on each other.

But lets keep it academic. Schools dont need to teach the Five Pillars of Islam, the Ten Commandments or 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover. Save all that for Sunday school.

The weekdays are for just the facts, maam.

Of course, this story got picked up by the conservative press and right-wing bloggers and suddenly it looked like South Carolina of all places was caught trying to indoctrinate children. Which is ridiculous.

This same conspiracy pops up around the country every few years, which is evidently about as often as uninformed parents actually look at their kids homework. The internet is filled with similar stories of outrage and conspiracy.

Which shows just how much some people's schooling has stayed with them.

The state Department of Education started getting angry calls and emails, mostly from out-of-state activists who have nothing better to do than stick their noses in our business.

The department told these folks the standards are being reviewed, which they would be anyway. But to some it now looks like theres a cover-up and South Carolina educators have been caught.

In fact, they are guilty of nothing more than being book smart instead of street smart.

School districts should probably pay closer attention to current events and realize that handing out detailed homework on Muslim beliefs is just asking for trouble.

Not to mention stepping over the line into mixing church and state. Teaching kids something about the world is a noble goal, but if they wade into religion its going to come back to bite them.

It would be good if the next generation understood the past that led us to this divisive present, and that includes an accounting of religion's role in history, as opposed to simply quoting the doctrine, Kill em all, let God sort em out.

But then, that probably won't fly. Some people believe all education is a liberal conspiracy, which is a convenient excuse to remain ignorant and watch swamp people on TV.

Well, guess what? One of the developers of South Carolinas curriculum is from Bob Jones University, which educated folks know is not exactly a bastion of liberal hedonism.

So rest assured these professional educators were only thinking about history in the academic sense, not the lunacy of todays politics. That was their mistake.

But it could turn into another lesson.

When future sixth-graders one day study the 21st century in social studies, this hysterical little period in history will be called the return of the know-nothings.

Read the original here:

Hicks column: Schools should stick to the facts, as should everyone else - Charleston Post Courier

Americans ‘plain dumb’ – Hastings Tribune

Posted on by

After reading Saturdays Hastings Tribune featuring stories and letters about a Bigfoot conference, guns everywhere, a creepy Daddy/Daughter Date Night, media bias and some absurd political views, Ive come to the conclusion that many Americans are just plain dumb.

A recent Psychology Today article said Dumbness has been steadily defined lately, by a combination of irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video over print culture; a disjunction between Americans rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

Yes, there has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in the U.S. Much of the reason is because of our declining state of education.

Im thankful we have a great learning environment here, including Hastings College, Central Community College-Hastings, and many scholarly public school teachers who place emphasis on science, research methodology and critical thinking.

Lets hope our teachers, friends and neighbors begin using their brains and the fad of increasing anti-intellectualism, now found in education, politics and business, and advanced by social media, is soon reversed and reflected in stories featured in the Tribune and elsewhere.

Visit link:

Americans 'plain dumb' - Hastings Tribune

‘Modi combines Savarkar and neoliberalism’: Pankaj Mishra on why this is the age of anger – Scroll.in

Posted on by

We live in a disorienting world. In West Asia, the Islamic State uses displays of cruelty and religious fanaticism as a propaganda tool. In large swathes of Europe, far right nationalism is rearing its head for the first time since after the defeat of fascism in World War II. The worlds only superpower, meanwhile, has a president elected to office on an explicit programme of racial and religious bigotry, attacking Muslims and non-White Americans in his campaign speeches.

And, of course, closer home in India, the ideology of Hindutva, which considers India to be a Hindu nation, grows ever stronger, assaulting Muslims and Dalits in its wake.

In his new book, intellectual Pankaj Mishra tries to explain this fury enveloping the world. Titled Age of Anger: A History of the Present, the work traces traces todays discontentment to the rapid changes of the 18th century, when modernity was shaped.

You say that the enlightenment gave rise to some irresistible ideals: a rationalistic, egalitarian and universalising society in which men shaped their own lives. So why do so many people disagree with the way in which you see the enlightenment? Youve shown it to be a very positive thing. So how are, say, Islamists looking at it differently? Why do they disagree?Well, I am not sympathetic to their critique and I am not sure that theyre directly critiquing the Enlightenment rather than the consequences of the kind of thinking introduced by the Enlightenment philosophers in the late 18th century. And lets be careful here: many of the consequences werent anticipated by these philosophers themselves.

What they were talking about was a polity. And for them a polity was the church and then the monarchy. And they thought individuals could use reason since there had been enough scientific breakthroughs, enough revelations about the nature of reality out there. They did not need intermediaries like the church to tell us what to think about the world, what to think about reality. We could use our individual reason to construct our own worlds essentially and shape society. That was the fundamental message they had. They had no idea what would happen in the 19th century.

What happened in the 19th century was something very different: large nation-states came into being, the process of industrialisation started, the use of individual reason expanded, science took off, all kind of new technologies came into being, and large political and economic webs were built.

The Islamist critique of that would be: too much responsibility for shaping the world was placed upon the extremely fallible minds and sensibilities of the human individual. That this was going against centuries of custom, tradition and history. Human beings had always been seen as being very frail and weak creatures who needed some kind of constraint and that was the role of traditional religion.

Religion reminded humans being of the severe limitations that life imposes on everyone. Whereas the promise of freedom and emancipation sets off all kinds of unpredictable processes that result in actually more oppression and more pain.

So that would be or has been the modern critique of the Enlightenment which is shared by a pretty broad spectrum of people, not just the Islamists. Mahatma Gandhi himself voiced many of these critiques of modern science, modern industry and the modern nation-state. You have to remember that Rabindranath Tagore himself expressed those critiques. So we also have to look at these other critics of Enlightenment rationalism.

You go into some detail in describing Savarkar in the book. In many ways, a very good argument could be made that Savarkar was a rationalist. He said Hindus should eat beef, for example. How does a Savarkar then map to the more modern forms of Indian conservatism? How do you go from Savarkar to the current-day gau rakshak?I think Savarkar is essentially a child of Enlightenment rationalism despite all the claims made for an unbroken Hindu tradition. The important thing to note about the Savarkar variety of Hindu nationalism is that it is deeply European and deeply modern. Which was one reason why Gandhi was so opposed to it. He said this was the rule of Englishmen with the English in his book Hind Swaraj.

So Savarkar does not partake of a critique of the Enlightenment. He, in fact, in very much a product of 19th century Europe, which advances Enlightenment rationalism in unexpected directions. He starts to think of a national community of like-minded individuals. He starts to think of a past which can be recruited by the present, that can be deployed politically. Savarkar subscribes to everyone of these political tendencies which are elaborated most prominently by [Giuseppe] Mazzini. So he comes out of that particular tradition.

So this whole reverence for figures and symbols from the past which the gau rakshak seems to manifest is a total 19th century fantasy. People did not think of the past in that way before that century. The past was very deliberately enlisted into a nationalist project. Every nationalist and I write this in the book had made some sort of a claim upon the past, made some sort of connection.

We are now looking at history as a series of ruptures and new beginnings. In Savarkars case, the rupture would be the Muslim invasion of India. Thats also the case for [VS] Naipaul. That was the big rupture that violates the wholeness of the Hindu past. And now we are invested in a new beginning, which is the revival of Hindu glory.

This whole way of looking at time, of looking at human agency and identity is a product of the European 19th century. And thats where Savarkar should be placed. I think we spend too much time comparing him to the Germans and the Italians of the 1930s. I think we should go back and look at the 19th century more closely. And also look at Savarkar which Ive done in the book together with various other tendencies such as Zionism.

But its not only Savarkar whos doing this, right? Theres a whole galaxy of Indian leaders, right from Nehru to Jinnah, taking off from the Enlightenment. In your book, you quote Dostoyevsky, who underlined a tragic dilemma: of a society that assimilates European ways through every pore only to realise it could never be truly European. Is there anything that can be done to break this dilemma?The short answer would be a pessimistic one: that there is no way to break this. Because once we make that original break from pre-modern/rural/traditional society, break away from belief in god, from belief in a horizon that was defined by transcendental authorities, once you stop living in that world, then you are condemned to finding substitute gods. And the national community and the nation state has been that substitute god or transcendental authority for hundreds and millions of people for the last two hundred years.

And one reason it endures even though in many ways the nation state has lost its sovereign power after being undermined by globalisation is that as an emotional and psychological symbol, and as a way to define the transcendental horizon, the nation state is still unbeatable. So once we make that basic move away from the pre-modern modes of life into this modern, industrialised, urbanised mode of existence, we have basically embarked on a journey where theres no turning back. Theres no breaking out of that.

Where do you situate Modi on this scale?I think Modi is an interesting case. Hes not only someone who incarnates the tendencies that we identify with Savarkar who is a model for Modi but also mirrors many contemporary tendencies which one can identify with a sort of aspirational neoliberalism. The man from nowhere who makes it big: thats the story that Modi has tried to sell about himself. That hes the son of a chaiwallah who has overcome all kinds of adversity including violent, vicious attacks from the countrys English-speaking elites who wanted to bring him down but failed. And he has overcome all these challenges to become who he is. And he invites his followers to do the same.

So, in that sense, he not only is a Hindu nationalist in the old manner of thinking of India as primarily a country of Hindus and as a community of Hindus which needs to define itself very carefully by excluding various foreigners, but also someone who is in tune with the ideological trends of the last 30 years, which place a lot of premium on individual ambition and empowerment, not just collective endeavour. So he is a very curious and irresistible mix, as it turns out, of certain collectivist notions of salvation with a kind of intensified individualism.

You used a very interesting phrase there: aspirational neoliberalism. In the book, you use another term, neoliberal individualism. In my opinion, you take a negative opinion of this sort of individualism. Could you tell us what neoliberal individualism is, how is it different from, say, Enlightenment individualism and why are you taking a negative view of it.Individualism really is synonymous with modernity, which is all about individual autonomy and reason. The most important difference is that the previous forms of individualism had certain constraining factors. There would be religion, the nation state, the larger collective.

When [Alexis de] Tocqueville goes to America and begins to describe individualism at work in the worlds first democratic society, he is aware that all of this is made possible because religion is a very important factor. There are many intermediate institutions there to mediate between individuals and the larger reality of society. So these factors were extremely important for individualism to actually work properly.

What neoliberal individualism proposes, though, is essentially that we dont actually need these intermediaries. It buys into a kind of extreme libertarian fantasy of the kind we see people like Peter Theil [co-founder of PayPal and vocal Trump supporter] expressing. Theyre saying, we dont need government, we dont need collective endeavour of any kind, we dont really need notions of collective welfare, general welfare or common good.

They believe individuals pursuing their self-interest can create a common good. And the marketplace would be where these individual desires and needs could be miraculously harmonised. So its a kind of mysticism, really, neoliberal individualism. It basically argues that we dont need any constraining factors. We do not need any intermediate institutions of the kind Tocqueville argued for in America. Neoliberal individualism says, all we really need is individual initiative, individual energy, individual dynamism and, of course, individual aspiration. So this is how neoliberal individualism is different from previous forms of individualism.

It is interesting that you mention Peter Theil, a major supporter of Trump. Is neoliberal individualism then powering Trump?Well, no. Thats the thing. There are many contradictory elements in this mix. To go back to Modi, he comes from a party which has as part of its extended family the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. The Manch believes in Swadeshi but Modi wants to attract foreign investment.

I think we have to start thinking of a world where archaisms, modernity, post-modernity all exist simultaneously yet differently. You can think of it as different territories. Trump can therefore mobilise a whole lot of disaffected individuals who have believed in the neoliberal ideology and have felt themselves victimised by various technocratic elites and attract a figure like Theil, who claims to be a libertarian, and at the same believe that economic protectionism is the way to go.

I think there are many different contradictory tendencies that have come together to produce events or personalities like Donald Trump and Modi. I think if we were to follow this old analytic method of either/or we would miss many of these contradictory aspects of modern politics and economics. In the same way, Erdoan mixed in neoliberalism with Islamism and Putin mixed in Orthodox Christianity with Russian Eurasianism. There are all kinds of mixtures on offer.

The central argument being that they correspond to the acute, inner divisions of human beings. Of people wanting individual power, expansion and at the same time wanting identity, longing and a sense of community. So this is, in a way, a little snapshot of where we are a kind of endless transition.

Age of Anger: A History of the Present, Pankaj Mishra, Juggernaut Books.

Read more:

'Modi combines Savarkar and neoliberalism': Pankaj Mishra on why this is the age of anger - Scroll.in

UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball – UNM Daily Lobo

Posted on by

Hello gorgeous world was written in massive curly letters on a free speech beach ball in Smith Plaza Wednesday afternoon.

The inflatable beach ball standing taller than some students was brought to Smth Plaza by the UNM chapter of Young Americans for Liberty as a way to remind students of the importance of free speech, and to create dialogues between different-minded groups, according to YAL President Jess Ceron.

We thought it would be a good idea to come out here and talk to them about how we dont support one side of free speech, we support all sides, Ceron said. So anyone and everyone can write whatever they want on this ball. No one is gonna get in trouble for saying it.

Every semester the group does a free speech event, and this is the second time theyve used a beach ball, she said.

This way it makes it fun, rather than if I was to sit here for 30 minutes and say, Let me tell you about free speech. Youd doze off. But with this you can write whatever you want, Ceron said. No ones going to get mad. People arent going to judge you for what you wrote.

Typically student groups holding events outside, in the SUB or in a classroom reserve the space for free, and are asked to do so at least two business days before the event is scheduled to take place so that the space reservation can be approved.

Ceron said YAL intentionally didnt go through that process because they dont believe student organizations should have their free speech limited by space reservations. She said space reservations make holding events difficult because of the time it takes to reserve spaces and wait for a confirmation.

We just dont think that there should be zones where were allowed to do things, especially if were not hurting anyone, she said. And then they could shoot us down, like what if they didnt like the idea of free speech? Thats kind of not fair to students, because

that is our right.

Ceron said she had issues reserving space for a dodgeball event last semester. Student activities would not approve the event because of safety concerns, a reason that Ceron said she understood.

They shot me down for many reasons where I was like, I guess we cant do this event, she said. And I was like, No thats not fair, so I came out and did it without permission. They didnt shoot me down. They didnt say anything.

Ceron said she didnt think events should be denied unless theyve happened before and already been a safety hazard.

YAL has experience with events not coming together, as they originally invited Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, but had to disinvite him and pass the speaker off to the College Republicans, she said.

Milo himself has shown partisanship, and Young Americans for Liberty is not a partisan organization, member Bryan Cusack said. Due to the nature of its tax exemption status it cannot support anyone that supports a candidate.

The group received a lot of messages over initially inviting the controversial Breitbart writer Yiannopoulos they later transferred official hosting duties to UNM College Republicans most of which they didnt respond to, he said.

Most of the criticisms, we just let them go because they were using ad hominem attacks on us, Cusack said. They were using a lot of logical fallacies against us trying to dehumanize the group. Essentially they were playing identity politics.

Ceron said the free speech beach ball was especially important now because the group wants to clarify that everyone can say anything, and they dont have to be nice.

We had a girl who just failed her stats test and she said Forget stats, and wrote it on there, she said.

Officially the group is opposed to hate speech policies, Cusack said.

We just advocate free speech in general, which means the abolishment of hate speech policies, because some of them are written to censor free speech. I could technically say hate speech, but at that point its still free speech, but its just offensive, he said.

The beach ball eventually became adorned with all kinds of messages, some political, some more lighthearted. Just some of the scrawled comments: RIP Harambe, There are only 2 genders and Love each other.

If you really dont want to hear the other side, its totally fine, Ceron said. I just think if you gave your personal opinion on a subject then you should be able to hear it too.

Cathy Cook is a news reporter at the Daily Lobo. She can be reached at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @Cathy_Daily.

Read the rest here:

UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball - UNM Daily Lobo

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on by

Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Letter writer Gary Hartzell makes an interesting statement in his Should Politics From the Pulpit Be Banned? (Letters, Feb. 10). His letter defending the 1954 Johnson Amendment that authorizes tax-exempt status for religious organizations only so ...

The rest is here:

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

How Twitter’s New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora’s Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech – Forbes

Posted on by

Forbes
How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech
Forbes
Earlier this morning social media and the tech press lit up with reports of users across Twitter receiving half day suspensions en masse as the platform abruptly rolled out its decade-overdue hate speech filter to its platform. The company has refused ...

and more »

Link:

How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech - Forbes

Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago – Chicago Tribune

Posted on by

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to notions they once rejected such as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California at Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited.

U. of C. Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U. of C. was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U. of C. students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Related articles:

This, dear white people, is how to look like a snowflake

What the Constitution says about impeachment

Trump is looking like a very weak autocrat wannabe

Trump's White House is falling apart

Continued here:

Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago - Chicago Tribune

At UCLA, book on ‘Islamic Totalitarianism’ censored at free speech event – The College Fix

Posted on by

At UCLA earlier this month a book about Islamic Totalitarianism prompted a group of student protesters to allegedly form a human shield around a table holding the publication, a confrontation that ended after a campus official demanded the books be removed.

The incident took place before a panel discussion Feb. 1 on the threat to free speech co-hosted by the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute.

The university has since apologized for the incident and has implemented procedures to ensure it does not happen again, and a campus spokesman disputes the claim that students formed a human shield to block the book.

The book that drew the ire of protesters is Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. Its co-author, Elan Journo, director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, was not at the event but was told by his staffers who were there what happened.

Journo told The College Fix that approximately twelve UCLA students expressed disapproval of the publications insulting language and effectively formed something like a human barricade around the table where his book was presented during a reception prior to the talk.

In an article in The Hill, Journo states that at this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was inflammatory. It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movements global assaults on free speech.

Journo told The College Fix that based on eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on the scene when the UCLA rep stepped in, my colleagues who were staffing the table tried to point out the absurdity of ban the book. At that point, the rep picked up the stack of books and demanded that all copies of the book be removed, and that either he would take them or they could be put them under the table.

Not wanting to escalate the dispute or delay the event, which was about to start, the staff manning the display table decided to put the stack of books under the table. That was about the time the event began, and people entered the auditorium. The protesting students dispersed, except for two who attended the event, Journo told The Fix.

Later, during the panel event, YouTube broadcaster Dave Rubin, who also served as the event moderator, held up a copy of Journos book, bringing to light the irony of the situation.

Rubin placed the book on the table and jokingly stated that its a scary thing filled with words.

He added: Its just a book and its a set of ideas.

Reached for comment, ULCA Laws Executive Director of Communications Bill Kisliuk said in an email to The College Fix that it is true that that a UCLA staffer made an error in judgment and requested that a book be removed from sale in violation of university policy.

The school has since apologized for this action and taken steps to prevent it from happening again. It is worth noting that the evenings event, in which speakers addressed a student audience and exchanged in a free flow of ideas, proceeded without interruption or interference, Kisliuk said.

The speakers included Flemming Rose, author of The Tyranny of Silence, and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute.

In his email to The College Fix, Kisliuk also pointed out that while the institute had permission to have a table in the hallway outside the event, ARI representatives never indicated in multiple discussions with UCLA officials beforehand that they planned to sell materials. University of California and UCLA policy require that third-party organizations obtain advance approval before seeking to sell products on campus.

Kisliuk also disputes the claim that the students formed a human shield.

Prior to the event, several students gathered at the ARI table and engaged in dialogue about the book. They did not seek to impede attendees interested in the book, nor was anyone prevented from entering the room where the panel discussion took place, he said. A member of the UCLA Law staff did ask an ARI representative to stop selling copies of the book. While ARI staff removed copies of the book from the table on request, at least one copy remained visible on the table until ARI packed its materials and stopped staffing the table.

Kisliuk said that in a letter of apology to the Ayn Rand Institute, Law Dean Jennifer Mnookin stated that the request to remove copies of the book was not in keeping with UCLAs Law or her vigorous commitment to support free speech and respectful debate.

Moving forward, Mnookin has partnered with administration to hatch out a plan for enhancing policies and procedures which would prevent this occurrence from repeating. Kisliuk describes how the plan now includes improved student organization training in regard to protection of free speech at events.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Dominic Mancini is an undergraduate student completing Ashford University's online psychology program. Currently working as an intern at the Quicken Loan's Detroit headquarters, his career goals include human resources, journalism and political commentary. He has previously managed a YouTube channel by filming and uploading video blogs and tutorials. During his spare time, Dominic enjoys playing the piano, heading to the gym, and discussing current events.

Go here to read the rest:

At UCLA, book on 'Islamic Totalitarianism' censored at free speech event - The College Fix

Atheists and religiously unaffiliated need more representation – UConn Daily Campus

Posted on by

In the modern era, atheists, agnostics and other religiously unaffiliated persons have made great strides in gaining acceptance in society. One recent milestone was when President Obama signed an amendment to the International Religious Freedom Act to include protections for nonbelievers. A panel created by the law has criticized those countries that continue to persecute atheists, some of which even consider atheism an act of terrorism. Despite this, atheists at home still face large pockets of resistance in society and are one of the most underrepresented groups in the country in terms of political power.

According to polls taken by the Pew Research Center, more than one in five Americans are religiously unaffiliated. It should seem safe to assume that this ratio holds in government. Out of a Congress with 535 members, we should expect to see around 100 that are religiously unaffiliated. The number is close to 100 in a way, because its what we get if we take out the two zeroes. Only Democratic Representative Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona is unaffiliated.

There are many reasons why atheists face such severe underrepresentation. Historically, of course, atheists were not trusted and were treated as heretics. Religious people who formed the majority of the nation in its earlier days clearly did not like atheists, as eight states still have unenforceable provisions banning atheists from public office. Of course, thats just history. Nowadays, people are more accepting of views that differ from their own. Thats why a whopping 58 percentof people say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who was atheist.

This is disappointing, to say the least. If a person is qualified for office, you should at least be willing to vote for them no matter their religion or lack thereof. This holds especially true in a country where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. In fact, you could argue that atheists would be the best for satisfying this vision, and would indeed be the best group for maintaining proper freedom of religion.

Why would an atheist, someone who doesnt believe in God, be the best for preserving freedom of religion? Because freedom of religion also includes equality and consistency in the law among different religions. In other words, no one law can be made that derives from the beliefs of just one religion. So banning something like shellfish or pork would be putting the interests of one religion above others and would be unconstitutional. While there are many religions in this country, the religiously unaffiliated are, well, unaffiliated. That makes them the ideal group to make laws that will ensure equality between different belief systems, sort of like a third party arbiter.

This ties into one of the major problems regarding new religious freedom laws. Because the overwhelming majority of politicians are Christian, these laws are often skewed. For example, laws have been passed that allow businesses to refuse service to homosexuals. These are unconstitutional acts, because religious belief does not give you the right to discriminate and because such acts deny equality among religions. Homosexual marriage may be considered a sin by some Christians, but if other religions dont consider it so then a law against it does not meet constitutional requirements.

Our country was born out of a desire to have fair representation in our government. The underrepresentation of the religiously unaffiliated is one of the most blatant cases of the continuing failure to realize this ideal. One way to remedy this would be for more religiously unaffiliated people to put themselves out there and run for office. But a lot of the responsibility lies on our society to stop being so hostile towards them. 49 percent of Americans would be unhappy if a family member married an atheist. And when 42 percent of the population is unwilling to vote for even a qualified atheist, very few will be willing to run. Those that do will likely feel coerced to hide or downplay their beliefs out of fear of opposition, in comparison to Christian politicians who are allowed and even encouraged to flaunt their beliefs for the public. No citizen should be effectively prevented from a political career because of their beliefs.

Read the original here:

Atheists and religiously unaffiliated need more representation - UConn Daily Campus

Top 10 Ancient Atheist Philosophers and Their Quotes – Insider Monkey (blog)

Posted on by

Pop goes the philosophyits time fortop 10 ancient atheist philosophers and their quotes.

Philosophers arent always atheists. The one I dated for 7 years was thoughI still tease her by saying God is controlling the universe. It seems like a weird thing to tease someone about I knowbut she often teases me by telling me that everyones brain is just existing in a vat someone and the universe isnt real. As the philosophers say,people do weird things. Then I make her reassure me that it is because Hilary Putnam made many arguments against the theory we are all brains in vats. Also, my man Ned Block said that we have no reason to think we are living in a simulation. Take that, the Matrix.

Lucian Milasan/Shutterstock.com

Atheism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. Atheistsstress that atheism is not a religion. It is not a disbelief in a god or any gods, but is rather a lack of belief. Its as if you reach into your pockets to see if you have any belief on you, turn them inside out, and theyre empty. That being said, atheists are also very diverse in what they believe inthere can be a multitude of subtle differences to a belief or non-belief. They have different reasons for their lack of belief. The only commonality in their belief is that there is no god nor supernatural beings.

If you are wondering where atheism came from, or how long it has been existing, here is the answer. Atheism is believed to trace back its origins to Ancient Greecewhich is why we have what we call the ancient atheist philosophers.Atheism also has roots in the Vedic period of India. There are also ancient atheists hailing from pre-Socratic Greece, like Thales and Anaximenes. In the ancient time,atheist philosophers were persecuted and punished for what they believed and did not believe in. There were philosophers who were thrown out of their cities and some were even executed.

At one point in history, Christians were tagged as atheists by non-Christians because of their lack of belief in the Roman gods. When Christianity became well-established, their positions shifted, and soon enough non-Christians were dubbed as either pagans or atheists.

18 Most Famous Atheists in the World

There have been several ancient atheist philosophers who had their mark in history over the years. They were most popular because of their quotes that defined what they did and did not believe in. Here, we enumerate the top 10 ancient atheist philosophers and their quotes, and we have also prepared 18 Most Famous Atheists in the World. No ranking is necessary, as there is simply no way to really rank them from greatest to least. They were all great in their own right. We just searched for the 10 great ones who made an impact with their arguments through the quotes they once have said in their lifetime. We used data from Arguments For Atheismand BBCas well as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyand the Internet Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy.

Visit link:

Top 10 Ancient Atheist Philosophers and Their Quotes - Insider Monkey (blog)

NATO, Donald Trump, Samsung: Your Friday Briefing – New York Times

Posted on by

New York Times
NATO, Donald Trump, Samsung: Your Friday Briefing
New York Times
At a NATO meeting in Brussels, the U.S. defense secretary, Jim Mattis, rejected closer military ties with Moscow. And NATO angered Russia by saying it would step up war games and surveillance in the Black Sea. In his first, somewhat awkward trip as ...
NATO: Russia targeted German army with fake news campaignDeutsche Welle
Military spending by NATO membersThe Economist (blog)
This Is How NATO EndsForeign Policy (blog)
Telegraph.co.uk
all 54 news articles »

See the rest here:

NATO, Donald Trump, Samsung: Your Friday Briefing - New York Times

US officials adopt combative tone on Russia at Nato summit – The Independent

Posted on by

There will be no military cooperation with Russia and Vladimir Putins government must show that it is ready to abide by international law, Americas Defence Secretary has declared, as he accused the Kremlin of interfering in a series of elections in democratic states.

The combative stance taken by General James Mattis at a Nato summit in Brussels appeared to contradict that of Donald Trump, who has declared that he wanted to cooperate with Mr Putin, a man he has repeatedly praisedon counter-terrorism, especially against Isis in Syria.

The US President has only belatedly acknowledged that Moscow carried out hacking operations in the election which brought him to power, after a long period denying that was the case.

Mr Putin raised the issue of security today, stating that it was vital to have cooperation with the US and Nato. Its in everyones interest to resume dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of Nato. It is absolutely clear that in the area of counter-terrorism all relevant government departments and international groups should work together,said the Russian President.

Speaking soon afterwards, Mr Mattis made it clear that there was a trust deficit with Moscow. Asked whether he believed that Russia interfered in the American presidential elections, Mr Mattis answered: There is very little doubt that Russia has interfered, or attempted to interfere, in a number of elections in democracies. On joint military action with Moscow in Syria, he was adamant: We are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level.

Political talks will take place, said the US Defence Secretary, to seek a way forward where Russia, living up to its commitments, will return to a partnership of sorts here with Nato.

But, Russia is going to have to prove itself first, he said.

The Nato summit hosted discussions on counter-terrorism, but most of the agenda was designed to counter alleged Russian aggression ranging from conventional military to cyber attacks.

Several member states in eastern Europe have said they have been targeted in hacking operations. Earlier in the week, Ciaran Martin, the head of the UKs new National Cyber Security Centre, revealed that political parties in Britain asked for help following cyber attacks during the 2015 UK general election and the hacking of Democratic Party emails in the US elections.

Nato military units are continuing to be deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland and the naval presence will be increased in the Black Sea region. Russia has complained that the build-up of troops at its borders is in breach of past pledges by the alliance, and spurious threats were being manufactured in the Black Sea region to justify an enlarged Western presence there.

Natos Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, insisted at the summit: Our aim is to prevent conflict, not to provoke it. We will not match Russia soldier for soldier, tank for tank, plane for plane. Our deployments are defensive and measured. Our presence in the Black Sea will in no way aim at provoking any conflict or escalating tensions.

Mr Mattis has demanded that Nato raise their defence spending to alleviate the disproportionate contribution being made to the alliances budget by the US. This would, in part, help Nato to negotiate from a position of strength, he held.

This led to another spat with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, saying that attempts to build a dialogue with Russia from a position of strength would be futile. The US Defence Secretary hit back: I have no need to respond to the Russian statement at all. Nato has always stood for military strength and protection of the democracies and the freedoms we intend to pass on to our children.

However, dialogue wastaking place with the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, meeting in Germany, and the military chiefs of the two countries, USmarine General Joseph Dunford and the Russian General Valery Gerasimov in Azerbaijan. Mr Lavrov repeated Russias denial of hacking during the American election. You should know we do not interfere in the domestic matters of other countries,he said.

The Kremlin continued to refuse to comment publicly on the turmoil which has enmeshed the Trump administration, with Michael Flynn, the Presidents national security advisor, being forced to resign over clandestine contact with the Russian ambassador to the US and an investigation under way into links between the Trump election team and Russia.

But Konstantin Kosachyov, the head of the international affairs committee in the Duma, protested that even a readiness for a dialogue with Russians is seen in Washington as a thought crime. Either Trump has not found an independence he was looking for, and is being gradually cornered, or Russophobia has infected the new administration top down.

Follow this link:

US officials adopt combative tone on Russia at Nato summit - The Independent

The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring – The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted on by

The usefulness of Americas allies was severely questioned during Donald Trumps election campaign. Allies were presented as costing America a considerable amount and giving little in return. The title of an article in Foreign Affairs summed up this perception: Ripped Off: What Donald Trump gets Right about U.S. Alliances.

This election platform is now being translated into action. Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that the political reality in the United States ... the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms is that American allies must increase defense spending by years end towards a 2 percent GDP target. If they dont, the United States will moderate its commitment to them. Mattis elaborated, No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values. Americans cannot care more for your childrens security than you do.

Mattiss comments were directed to NATO but also address concerns about all of Americas allies. It must be noted, however, that NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards a 2 percent GDP objective over the next decade. Such pronouncements have been made beforeat least about NATO. What is different this time is the public perception of America being ripped off by all its allies, in addition to the election of a president determined to place America First. Americas allies are now believed to have made the country weaker and less secure. As President Trump declared at his inauguration, America has subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.

The 2 percent benchmark has the virtue of simplicity. While it is easy to judge countries against a simple quantitative measure, it also significantly misleading. American security may not necessarily be improved even if allies do as Mattis requests. The crucial issue relates to grand strategy, since America and its allies have different visions.

America desires to be a great power with substantial global influence. The country has sought global primacy for many years. America's relative economic superiority has waned over time and others have developed economically, what has been termed the rise of the rest. This does not necessarily mean America will lose its global primacy, but that retaining primacy will rely more on other instruments of national powerand America has many. A central part of this shift has been ensuring that America has the worlds most effective military force.

Allied grand strategies are much less ambitious. They principally want to ensure national defense and occasionally, limited regional influence. Fundamentally, allies want help from others in times of conflict and the wording of the various alliance treaties reflects this.

In the postCold War era, and especially since 9/11, America has sought to make its alliances global. Allies are expected to help out worldwide and not in a strictly national or local sense. In some ways, this is a logical development in combatting certain types of terrorism, particularly those that emanate from distant locations.

Even so, none of Americas allies would be deployed to the Middle East or Afghanistan unless the United States was there. For example, Denmark would not have intervened in Iraq and Syria or Afghanistan by itself. Instead, the American military ecosystem makes Danish (and other allied) deployments both possible and useful. Without this American involvement and push, most allies would address the present terrorist threat through internal national security involving police and CVE campaigns, with no offshore interventions.

America has a larger defense budget allocation than its allies because Washington has far greater ambitions. Now, however, America has upped the alliance ante. The United States now seeks global burden sharing to support the maintenance of America's global primacy, not the local burden sharing originally agreed upon. The real question is whether the proclaimed 2 percent defense budget benchmark will lead to better burden sharing. The answer depends on what the money is spent on.

See the original post:

The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring - The National Interest Online (blog)

Brexit Britain’s Nato strategy is fatally flawed – The Guardian

Posted on by

The phrase, in different forms, is as familiar as any in politics. The first duty of government is to protect the security of the country and its people. All prime ministers of all parties say words of this kind. All of them mean it. And in most cases the words weigh on them, too, because however pompous they sometimes sound, they are true.

What are the threats to that security, now and in the future? Defence ministers, officials and experts are gathering in Munich this weekend to wrestle with the issue. Politicians cannot predict the future. But they know there is stormy weather ahead, in the shape of the threats from Russia, Islamist terror, cyber-attacks and the new uncertainties in Washington.

Theresa May is no different. But her speech to the Republican party in Philadelphia last month set out some clear markers on her defence thinking. The speech was widely reported as a break with the nation-building of the Iraq war era, and thus with the liberal interventionism of Tony Blair. Her words were juxtaposed with Blairs support for intervention in his speech in Chicago in 1999.

Yet more careful reading shows that it celebrated engagement with the world, not retreat from it. Mays view of the world is not isolationist, as Donald Trumps is. On Islamic State, Israel, Iran, the Baltics, Poland, Afghanistan, Kosovo and South Sudan she made clear her commitment to staying engaged. She even said that we cannot stand idly by when the threat is real and it is in our own interests to intervene.

That comment reflects what seems increasingly to be the key to everything about Mays worldview, from bad business practice to Brexit: her desire to act responsibly, as she sees it. Many will dismiss that as a banality. But dont do that if you want to understand her.

In international affairs, May is firmly a traditional multilateralist. She is not, as Brexit might imply, a go-it-aloner. In every other context she thinks alliances matter. Her principal goal when she met Donald Trump in January was to get him to commit to Nato, which he did, sort of.

Her Philadelphia speech stressed the need to rebuild confidence in global institutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, which she takes seriously. May even went out of her way to say she wants the European Union to succeed, not unravel, which is not the view of Trump and some fanatical Tories.

A properly functioning Nato is central to Mays view of British security. And this is a pivotal week for stabilising the post-Obama politics of Nato, with defence ministers meeting in Brussels and G20 foreign ministers in Bonn; and both the US defence secretary, James Mattis, and the vice-president, Mike Pence, scheduled to attend the Munich security conference. Every US visitors words will be carefully monitored, not least because Trump himself is now scheduled to make his own first presidential trip to Europe in May to attend the Nato summit.

May will have watched with approval as, in comments in Brussels, Mattis rehearsed the administrations commitment. His view that European allies must spend more and commit more, that Nato was nevertheless a bedrock, and that the US will meet its responsibilities which include 70% of Natos budget is Mays view. It has been Washingtons stance for some years now, though it has been decked out more garishly in the Trump era.

It also happens to be both right and pressing. The age of the large, supposedly one-off intervention, the brief post cold war template that evolved after the tragedies of Rwanda and Bosnia in the 90s and that led directly to Iraq and Libya, is clearly over now. Public readiness across western Europe for such interventionism is low, as Syria showed.

Yet Russian assertiveness is a real and present threat to the continent, and only an alliance can diminish it. In the past three years Russia has annexed Crimea; promoted a civil war in Ukraine; threatened the Baltic states; outmanoeuvred the west in Syria; tested western defences with planes, ships and, above all, cyber; and may be meddling in national elections in Europe, just as it almost certainly did in the US last year in support of Trump.

Russias assertiveness is based more on a desire to restore its standing than to dominate the world. But the distinction makes little difference to the threat. And the threat requires a coordinated investment by the alliance. Natos 2% of GDP spending target on defence is in some ways a perverse measure on one reading this week Britain missed the target last year despite being one of Europes heavier defence spenders. But more, better coordinated and more effective defence investment is an unavoidable collective responsibility. In that sense, Mattis and May are right.

However, heres the crux. May is the leader of a government whose most important European policy is withdrawal from Europe. Yet at the same time she is also the leader of a government that wants a stronger and more unified Europe, this time in the shape of Nato, to stand up to Vladimir Putin.

Politically, this is a rotten hand to play. Whenever May meets the leaders of Europe in an EU context she is firmly telling them that Britain is walking away, scrapping EU rules, spurning their single market, refusing to pay a financial penalty, perhaps even setting the UK up as a low-tax offshore threat to the EU 27. Yet whenever she meets these selfsame leaders in a Nato context she is just as firmly telling them that they must spend more on defence, commit to compatibility of military kit and stand together against common challenges from Russia.

As a strategy for winning friends and influencing people in Europe, it could hardly be clunkier or more self-destructive. Why should Angela Merkel, facing a tight election in September, want to do May any favours right now on Russia? It is hardly surprising that Emmanuel Macron, who may be president of France in less than three months, dismisses Britain as a vassal state of Trumps America.

'There is a real danger that this largely imaginary outward-facing Britain simply looks to others like an irrelevance'

Trump makes all this more difficult. Partly that is because he is so destructive. Jeb Bushs remark about Trump in 2015, that hes a chaos candidate and hed be a chaos president, looks prophetic now, as the Washington Posts EJ Dionne pointed out this week. Partly it is also because Trump may prove to have been Putins candidate. The issue cost Trump his national security adviser and may ultimately bring down the president himself.

May talks bravely about Brexit Britain being outward facing and engaging with the world. But there is a real danger that this largely imaginary Britain simply looks to others like an irrelevance. The elites meeting in Munich this weekend arrived studying a pre-conference report titled: Post-Truth, Post-West, Post-Order?

In that kind of dystopian world Britain will seem an important country, with major security assets ranging from nuclear weapons to powerful intelligence services but failing now more than ever to play a serious role.

Read the rest here:

Brexit Britain's Nato strategy is fatally flawed - The Guardian

Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records – Breitbart News

Posted on by

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The group filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the records weeks ago but are planning to sue by next week for the records if they do not receive anything by then.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Judicial Watch filed the requests with the FBI, NSA, CIA, and Treasury Department, according to the groups Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell.

The group is aiming to find out whether there was ever a warrant allowing the U.S. government to wiretap Flynns phone calls, and if so, who requested it and why.

If you have a warrant, attached to the warrant 99 percent of the time, there is an affidavit, a sworn declaration normally by a law enforcement officer or senior official, said Farrell.

Such a warrant could be classified, depending on the case, he said.

A wiretapped phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post and revealed in a Feb. 9 story.

The leak, which took place in December, contradicted public assertions by Vice President Michael Pence that Flynn had never discussed sanctions with Kislyak, and led to Flynns eventual resignation on Monday.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA)highlighted this week that such wiretapping would only be legal if intelligence agencies obtained a warrant or happened upon the conversation while investigating a foreign official.

Nunes speculated that its pretty clear that there was no warrant.

Its pretty clear thats not the case, he said. Im pretty sure the FBI didnt have a warrant on Michael Flynn To listen to an Americans phone call you would have to go to a court, thered be all that paperwork there. So Im guessing that doesnt exist.

Nunes said even if it was inadvertent, there is a process that masks the Americans identity.

And if you were going to unmask it, it seems like you would immediately go get a warrant, he said.

Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer and adjunct professor at George Mason University, said that a warrant would only be requested or granted if the agents in question suspected Flynn of criminal activity.

The Trump administration has denied that Flynn broke any law.

Both Nunes and Farrell said the leaking of the phone call is illegal and harmful to national security.

Farrell said the contents of the call would be considered raw intelligence, typically handled in a SCIF, or a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility an enclosed area in a building used to process types of classified information.

All activity and conversation inside a SCIF is restricted from public disclosure.

It seems that certain government officials were either reading that out loud to a reporter or giving them copies of it Farrell said.

That theyre conveying that information to reporters in order to embarrass or smear General Flynn or people in the Trump administration is treasonous, he said. Its a crime its a national security crime. The FBI should presently be hunting down the likely suspects.

Farrell also said the leak compromised COMINT, or communications intelligence, a subset of SIGINT, or signals intelligence.

It appears that these various officials that are reportedly so concerned about national security that they are recklessly making COMINT disclosures, he said. They are compromising sources, intelligence, and methods.

The irony is rich, he said.

Democratic lawmakers and officials in the Obama administration blame Russia for hacking into servers belonging to the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta and leaking them to Wikileaks.

The hacks prompted intelligence investigations, which concluded that Russia was responsible. Trump dismissed suggestions that Russias involvement helped him win, and criticized the intelligence community, setting up a contentious relationship that has continued throughout his first weeks in office.

Farrell said he believes embedded political operatives within the various agencies and departments are likely responsible for the leaked Flynn call.

Youve got political appointees who converted to civil service slots, he said. Theres a legion of Sally Yates out thereat lower levels or at different departments and agencies who are either overtly or subversively attempting to undermine not just Gen. Flynn and aiming at President Trump.

Its an incremental attack. They will try to pick off one by one people close to the president. I refer to this as really as a soft coup, he said.

Here is the original post:

Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records - Breitbart News

Posted in NSA

Democrat invites Trump to tour NSA after he called it ‘un-American’ – Washington Examiner

Posted on by

A Maryland Democrat has invited President Trump to tour the National Security Agency to become better acquainted with its mission and workers, after Trump questioned the intelligence community's loyalty to the American people amid a series of leaks.

In a letter to Trump, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger wrote Thursday he thinks it's "critical" for the president to witness the work of the "dedicated men and women do every day to protect our soldiers on the battlefield, as well as everyday Americans" who work at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., which is in Ruppersberger's district.

Responding to intelligence agency leaks that led to the resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on Monday, Trump criticized the integrity of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence and the NSA, calling them "un-American" and suggesting that "they act just like Russia."

"I am confident this will give you a new understanding and appreciation of the essential services provided by our intelligence workers," Ruppersberger wrote. "As commander in chief, it is imperative you avail yourself the opportunity to experience the mission of the NSA up close and personally."

Subscribe today to get intelligence and analysis on defense and national security issues in your Inbox each weekday morning from veteran journalists Jamie McIntyre and Jacqueline Klimas.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for the Daily on Defense newsletter. You should receive your first issue soon!

The president is also reportedly looking to hire billionaire investor Stephen Feinberg, a co-founder of Cerberus Capital Management, to lead an investigation into the leaks, according to a report.

Ruppersberger said he found these reports "alarming."

"Today's report that you plan to assign a friend with almost no national security experience to review our intelligence agencies is simply the colloquial straw that broke the camel's back," Ruppersberger wrote. "If you follow through with this effort, I fear it will greatly damage our intelligence community's required independence and stifle the exchange of sensitive information that may conflict with your policy positions."

Top Story

Nearly half of D.C.'s food industry workers are estimated to be foreign-born.

02/17/17 12:00 AM

Originally posted here:

Democrat invites Trump to tour NSA after he called it 'un-American' - Washington Examiner

Posted in NSA