‘War on gambling’ starts with small fry – Inquirer.net

Posted on by

A day after the Philippine National Police chief, Director General Rolando dela Rosa, announced a war on illegal gambling, arrests were made in the neighboring cities of Malabon and Valenzuela.

Instead of busting bigtime gambling operators, however, the wars opening salvo settled for small fry. Eduardo Masagcay, an alleged kubrador or bet collector, was arrested in Malabon, while pedicab driver Daniel Reyes was arrested in Valenzuela for playing tong-its, a card game he was caught playing on the street.

Chief Supt. Roberto Fajardo, the director of Northern Police District, said the arrests were in line with Dela Rosas declaration. The war on gambling has always been there. But since thats the order, we will focus our efforts there, Fajardo told the Inquirer on Wednesday.

Fajardo said the police were still awaiting the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of President Rodrigo Dutertes Executive Order No. 13. The EO directed law enforcement agencies, freeport authorities and the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. to intensify the campaign against illegal gambling.

Raids, raids, raids

Fajardo said the NPD would obey the EO through raids, raids, raids. But he said the police would need the publics help in pinpointing targets while were waiting for the IRR.

Reyes was arrested on Navarette Street, Barangay Arkong Bato, about 9:30 p.m. on Feb. 13 by PO1 Noel Caspe of Valenzuela police. A report by the officer in charge, Supt. Freddie Tejano, said Caspe chanced upon Reyes and his two female companions in the act of playing illegal cards called tong-its.

This game, the report added, is prohibited under Presidential Decree No. 1602 issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos in July 1978.

The same presidential decree was allegedly violated by Masagcay, who was described in a report by Senior Supt. John Chua, the Malabon police chief, as a kubrador for bookies karera, which is based on horse racing results.

Masagcay was taking a bet from an unidentified man when a team composed of SPO1 Damian Matalang, PO2 Francis Camuna and PO1 Ricky Lamsen arrested him on Sulucan Street in Barangay Hulong Duhat about 8:20 p.m. on Feb. 14.

Read the original:

'War on gambling' starts with small fry - Inquirer.net

Hanson, Hinch launch passionate arguments for euthanasia law – Starts at 60

Posted on by

Pauline Hanson and Derryn Hinch launched emotional arguments in favour of euthanasia, describing the relief it would have given to their families.

The senators were speaking during a debate on a private members bill that would cut federal interference with laws in the territories on assisted suicide, The Daily Telegraph reported.

She weighed about 30 kilos, and looked like a Biafran refugee, Hinch revealed of his mothers appearance as she suffered from lung cancer 26 years ago. Hinch himself has fought liver cancer.

Hanson, meanwhile, spoke of watching the impact on her father of Parkinsons disease, The Daily Telegraph wrote.

We have more compassion for animals than we do for people, Hanson said,adding that euthanasia opponents had never watched a family member lose the ability to care for themselves.

The private members bill would allow the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory legislative powers to bring in assisted suicide and repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 that prevents them from doing so.

The Restoring Territory Rights (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2016was brought by Greens leader Richard Di Natale. Announcing the bill in August, Di Natale said: Dying with dignity is a social justice issue, its a human rights issue, its a public health issue and it should not be pushed to the political margins.

Hinch and Hanson have been vocal in their support for euthanasia for some time.

Hansons One Nation party has a policy advocating euthanasia, that proposes any person of voting age be permitted to have a document written up that appoints two people as executors who could carry out that persons wish for assisted suicide should they be unable to take action themselves.

I and only I, will determine when my time is up and if I am not in a position to do so, then loved ones of my choosing will, Hanson has written of the policy.

Hinch has argued in the past that the right to decide on ones time of death was robbing older Australians of their dignity.

Being deprived of the legal right to decide that their quality of life has deteriorated to such an extent that they want to say goodbye, he has written of the current laws.

Here is the original post:

Hanson, Hinch launch passionate arguments for euthanasia law - Starts at 60

Law students accuse Medical Council of twisting their euthanasia arguments – MaltaToday

Posted on by

'As harsh as it may seem, an educated debate on euthanasia requires us to look at facts...which include aspects such as its economical effects on health services'

The Medical Council on Tuesday criticised the students report, which found that 69% of university students agreed with euthanasia as proof that the younger generation view euthanasia as a foregone conclusion.

The students were also taken to task by government Whip Godfrey Farrugia and Opposition MP Robert Cutajar for including in their policy paper economic arguments in favour of euthanasia, namely as a cost control on the public health system.

The MaltaToday stand on euthanasia | A question of dignity

As with a very large number of social issues that tend to upend the apple cart, the moral aspect on euthanasia has been widely documented and seemingly never-ending, as the rest of this policy paper tries to explain in detail, the reports introduction to the economic argument reads.

However, at the committee session, the two MPs strongly warned the law students that economic arguments can never be used to justify ending human life.

However, GHSL president Jacob Portelli told MaltaToday that the organisation had not taken a stance in favour or against euthanasia, but merely analyzed the possible impact of the legalization of euthanasia in Malta.

As harsh as it may seem, an educated and serious debate on this subject requires us to look at facts, to look at the reality of things of, which unfortunately include certain aspects such as the economical effect euthanasia will have, he said. As students, as an organisation and as possible future law makers we must not shy away from debating on issues such as these.

In a survey amongst 313 university students, a vast majority of 69% said they agreed with the introduction of voluntary euthanasia. 28 students (9.8%) disagreed, while the rest (21%) said maybe. Those who disagreed mainly said that euthanasia ran counter to their religious faith, or that it was a form of direct killing.

Students hold euthanasia debate

Earlier today, the University Students Council held a debate amongst students on campus on whether euthanasia should be legalised, reported on by student media group Insite.

University students hold a debate on euthanasia on campus

We are told to take charge of life, so why are we then condemned when we take charge of death too? she asked.

John Navarro from Gender Equality Malta said that euthanasia should be legalised, warning that people who are denied that option are likely to commit suicide.

However, Jef Cuschieri from the University Bible Group warned that euthanasia will give doctors permission to murder people, and run counter to Gods will and the sanctity of life.

Jean-Claude Schembri from the theology students association said that a dignified death is one in which the person is supported by their loved ones and a caring society till the end.

Ultimately what we all need is the resilience to find meaning in the suffering we can do little about.

Read more:

Law students accuse Medical Council of twisting their euthanasia arguments - MaltaToday

More dog food recalled because it may contain euthanasia drug … – Q13 FOX

Posted on by

From FDA.gov.

WASHINGTON D.C. A second brand of dog food has been recalled because it might contain a drug that is used to put dogs down.

Against the Grain Pet Food is voluntarily recalling one lot of Against the Grain Pulled Beef with Gravy Dinner for Dogs in 12-ounce cans, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationsaid. The food may contain pentobarbital, a drugthat is commonly used to put dogs down.

The FDA says the food was manufactured and distributed in Washington state and Maryland back in 2015. The food was distributed to independent pet retail stores.

The food is no longer on store shelves. However, it has a best by date of December 2019.

This is the second dog food recall in recent weeksdue to the presence of pentobarbital. An Illinois pet food company voluntarily recalled one of their products after the powerful sedative sickened five dogs and killed another. According to the Seattle Times, the dog killed after ingesting the food lived in Washington state.

Against the Grain can be reached at 708-566-4410 for questions on the recall.

Go here to read the rest:

More dog food recalled because it may contain euthanasia drug ... - Q13 FOX

Medical Council against euthanasia: ‘We don’t want youths euthanising their grandparents’ – MaltaToday

Posted on by

'Patients have a changing journey of hope throughout their illnesses and their positions on euthanasia will be in a state of flux'

Philip Borg, David Muscat and Doreen Cassar of the Medical Council address MPs

Patients suffering can be cared for through palliative care, and therefore we believe that euthanasia cannot be considered an option, council member David Muscat said. Patients have a changing journey of hope throughout their illnesses and their positions on euthanasia will be in a state of flux. It is the patient who is at his or her most vulnerable, and prudence must be the virtue that guides the doctors actions.

The Medical Council is a legally-instituted body that promotes public health and standards in the medical and dental professions. The Council was invited to address a joint parliamentary committee debating euthanasia, that will now draft a report after hearing several witnesses. At the end of the session, government Whip Godfrey Farrugia and Opposition MP Robert Cutajar both confirmed that their respective parties are fully opposed to euthanasia.

The joint committee wrapped up its debate on euthanasia today

It is scary that there are some youths who already looking at euthanasia as a foregone conclusion, he said, referring to a policy paper on the subject by the law students association. We are in favour of life in all its forms and if we start deciding when people should be killed and when they shouldnt, then we will effectively be sending out a message that medical services are ultimately useless because sooner or later we will all reach that moment.

Fellow council member Doreen Cassar similarly warned that Malta risks going down a slippery slope if it legalises euthanasia, arguing that health professionals in other countries are being encouraged to look at euthanasia in terms of its economic benefit to the national health services.

I want to live, but I respect everyones opinions Bjorn Formosa

The MPs also had a brief telephone conversation with Bjorn Formosa, the 30-year-old ALS sufferer and activist who has frequently expressed his desire to remain alive for as long as possible.

Sometimes the problems are exacerbated because the patients dont have people to look after them, or they lack the necessary health structures or finances to treat their illnesses. For example, ALS patients have to spend over 100,000 a year in treatment, he said.

Godfrey Farrugia questioned whether he believes the state should fork out the costs for ALS treatment, noting that it already pays 300,000 a year to store extremely rare blood types.

I am not privy to the health ministrys budget, but of course it would be ideal and easier if treatment was paid for by the state, Formosa responded.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists also gave a presentation, with its chairman Karl Wright warning that journalists should avoid sensationalising stories related to euthanasia and suicide. TVM broadcaster Norma Saliba said that journalists should strive to educate the public over the facts on euthanasia and seek variousopinions.

The Law Students Association (GHSL) presented a policy paper, outlining its view on how euthanasia should be legalised without coming out in favour or against it. The paper included a survey amongst 313 university students, in which 69% said they agreed with euthanasia.

Read the original:

Medical Council against euthanasia: 'We don't want youths euthanising their grandparents' - MaltaToday

Another company issues recall after euthanasia drug found in dog … – KATU

Posted on by

Another company has issued a voluntary recall after a drug sometimes used to euthanize pets was found in one of its batches.

Against the Grain pet food announced the recall of one lot of their Pulled Beef with Gravy dinner for dogs that was manufactured and distributed in 2015.

Pentobarbital, a drug that is often used to euthanize pets, was found in lot number 2415E01ATB12 (the second half of the UPC code is 80001, which can be found on the back of the product label) with an expiration date of December 2019.

If a pet consumes Pentobarbital, they could experience side effects like dizziness, excitement, nausea, inability to stand and coma. In some occasions, it could lead to death.

No complaints have been filed to Against the Grain about the food.

Earlier this month, Evanger's issued a similar voluntary recall after Pentobarbital was found in a batch of their food. A Washington woman said Evanger's Hunk of Beef sickened her pugs, even killing one of them.

Go here to read the rest:

Another company issues recall after euthanasia drug found in dog ... - KATU

Call to tackle rural crime as farmers ‘soft targets’ | UTV – ITV News – ITV News

Posted on by

Concerns have been expressed that rural homeowners, including farmers, remain soft targets for criminals across Northern Ireland.

The Ulster Farmers Union has pointed to the latest statistics from the PSNI regarding rural crime as highlighting existing frustrations.

Amid a 9% increase in agricultural crime, the union says livestock theft is an almost daily problem in some areas.

It also points to figures from the farm insurer NFU Mutual as suggesting the value of thefts is rising, as expensive machinery and livestock are targeted.

The figures highlight our frustration, UFU deputy president Ivor Ferguson said.

We can see from them where the problem is worst Armagh, Banbridge, Craigavon and Newry.

In these areas, we need the PSNI to respond to these statistics.

The judiciary needs to realise that these are not victimless crimes but crimes that often leave people feeling vulnerable and isolated in rural areas.

UFU deputy president Ivor Ferguson

Mr Ferguson added that, when it comes to theft and burglary, such crimes in rural areas now account for at least a third of the number of incidents despite having smaller populations and housing density than urban areas.

That is simply unacceptable, he said.

The union further noted added the frustration for farmers when those charged with rural crimes appear before the courts only for sentences to fail to reflect the impact of their crimes.

The Ulster Farmers Union says it will continue to press the PSNI to focus more resources on tackling rural crime, while recognising that individual police officers do their best to engage with farmers within the limits of the budgetary restraints forced on them.

The UFU says those drawing up budgets must recognise that rural areas are exposed, and deserve as much protection as towns and cities in Northern Ireland.

Last updated Thu 16 Feb 2017

Read more:

Call to tackle rural crime as farmers 'soft targets' | UTV - ITV News - ITV News

Hadi’s Bill opens doors for disproportionate punishments, constitutional expert says – Malay Mail Online

Posted on by

Hadis Bill opens doors for disproportionate punishments, constitutional expert says

Professor Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi speaks at the forum 'Sejauh mana anda memahami hudud' at the PAUM Club House in Kuala Lumpur February 12, 2017. Picture by Boo Su-LynKUALA LUMPUR, Feb 12 A private members Bill to enhance Shariah punishments will enable excessive sentences for religious offences that mostly victimless and non-violent, Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said today.

The constitutional expert said the Bill by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang will also allow penalties for Shariah offences that are harsher than even punishments for heavier crimes in the civil system.

Punishment must be proportionate to the offence committed, the University of Malayas emeritus professor of law said in a forum on understanding the Islamic penal code of hudud organised by Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Youre going to have penalties of 100 lashes, RM100,000 fine, or 30 years jail for offences that are in some cases are purely victimless crimes. Some of Shariah crimes are victimless crimes a person drinks, doesnt pray, doesnt fast there is no clear harm to public order and national security.

In Criminal Procedure Code, Penal Code, the offences are much lesser for much bigger offences, Shad said.

According to Shad, the First Class Magistrate courts should be the benchmark for the punitive powers that Shariah courts may have. Currently, the Shariah courts powers are equivalent to the Second Class Magistrate courts.

Shad also said that the Shariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 also known as Act 355, which Hadis Bill aims to amend, is itself unconstitutional as it provides for penalties, but not the broad categories of offences that fall under the Shariah courts jurisdiction.

The law expert said the Act gives a blank cheque to state courts to enact punishments for any crime seen as against the precepts of Islam, adding that this has since been abused by state authorities.

If they really want to follow the Constitution, first step should be that all Shariah enactments must either be repealed, amended, or made in line with the Constitution. Only then can the punishment powers of Shariah courts be enhanced, he said.

Shad said Shariah laws are currently inconsistent and differ from state to state, and that there should be effort to unify these, which he noted is missing from Hadis Bill.

He also pointed out that, in Islam, there is a distinction between sin and crime, and not every sin must be criminalised as it is being done by the Shariah enactments in the country.

Other panelists in the forum today included Universiti Sains Malaysia political science professor Dr Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid and Perlis mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin.

The latest version of Hadis Bill aims to increase the punishments that Shariah courts can mete out from three years jail, six strokes of the cane and an RM5,000 fine to 30 years imprisonment, 100 strokes, and an RM100,000 fine.

Islamist party PAS is organising a rally in support of the Bill for Saturday, February 18 at Padang Merbok in the countrys capital.

Go here to see the original:

Hadi's Bill opens doors for disproportionate punishments, constitutional expert says - Malay Mail Online

Right Turn: Q&A with gay Republican Anthony Rek LeCounte – Metro Weekly

Posted on by

Anthony Rek LeCounte Photo: Julian Vankim

Coming out as gay now is the easiest thing in the world, says Anthony Rek LeCounte. No one has a problem with it, especially in D.C.

Coming out as Republican? Not so much.

Ill often find myself trying to talk around my political views in conversations with folks in D.C. or in New York or New Haven, in ways Im much less likely to do when it comes to my being gay, says the 27-year old Arlington resident and board member of the D.C. Log Cabin Republicans. Its harder navigating the question of, When do you make the reveal that youre a Republican and how do you squeeze that in there?'

Thats not to say that coming out gay was simple for LeCounte, who was raised in a close-knit conservative military family by devout evangelical parents. His father, an Army officer, is also an ordained minister. Despite their religious beliefs, his parents eventually came to accept his sexual orientation, as well as his relationship with his boyfriend.

My parents are conservative Christians, says LeCounte. Theyre still not going to be going to any gay pride parades or anything like that. I dont see them joining PFLAG or anything. I dont know how they square what their thoughts on my being gay are with the church. Im under the impression they think its a sin, but Im not actually sure. Theyre working through that their own way, and as long as our relationship continues to be warm, Im happy to let them develop as they will.

The oldest of four children, LeCounte spent his childhood moving to various army bases: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, even Germany. The constant moving forced him to learn how to adapt to new situations and make new friends quickly. Its a skill LeCounte has carried into adulthood, charming people with his outgoing nature, intelligence, and warm Southern drawl.

Given his familys conservative background, its not surprising that LeCounte eventually gravitated to the Republican Party. Whats also not surprising particularly in our current political climate is that people often take issue with the fact that hes a Republican who happens to be both gay and African-American.

Ive had a number of folks make crazy remarks at bars or on Facebook. A number of people have defriended me because of it, he says. I had an acquaintance who I ran into at a bar, and we chatted for a little bit. Later, he texted me and said something to the effect of Id forgotten you were a Log Cabin Republican, and like theres nothing more disgusting to me than a Log Cabin Republican. And I responded, Okay, well, you have a good night, too.'

LeCounte points out that Log Cabin hasnt gotten the credit it deserves for working within the GOP to advance LGBTQ rights.

A lot of folks dont realize, for example, that the lawsuit that led to the repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, was a Log Cabin lawsuit, he says. Or that the Log Cabin Republicans submitted a white paper to the Trump administration about the executive order. [National Log Cabin President] Gregory Angelo has been in constant consultation with folks on the transition team, and later, in the administration, and has a bunch of them on speed dial. Were making progress behind the scenes. We are getting folks who agree with us. We are turning the tide on a lot of LGBT rights issues from a Republican perspective.

Asked why the organization he belongs to hasnt gotten a fair shake, LeCounte targets the staff at some national LGBTQ organizations.

Theres a saying in politics that personnel is policy,' he says. A lot of these nonpartisan groups are staffed by aggressively left-wing progressive folks who, even if their organization say, We believe X, Y, and Z, have their own biases which then affect their decisions. If an LGBT candidate is pro-life, or supports gun rights, or holds a bunch of other conservative positions that run deeply counter to what the progressive movement is doing, a lot of these groups dont want to be associated with those kind of candidates. So theyll either endorse against or theyll just pretend the candidate doesnt exist.

That situation is further complicated by the two-front war Log Cabin must wage, not only against the Left, but from extreme social conservatives within the Republican Party, who wear hostility towards the LGBTQ community as a badge of honor. LeCounte believes that they are a dwindling minority, even within the GOP.

Theres the sense now that the mainstream of America is pro-LGBT, and therefore, the party needs to, at the very least look like its moving in that direction. Even if theres still some policy disputes, he says. So a lot of the rank-and-file Republicans find in Log Cabin a way to reach out directly to the LGBT community, or at the very least, ways to be and seem more inclusive.

Although LeCounte was not a Trump supporter in last years election he felt Trump was insufficiently conservative he is keeping an open mind when it comes to policy, preferring to score the presidents job performance on an issue-by-issue basis.

He is concerned, however, about the highly partisan nature of politics in Washington that threatens to keep Trump supporters and opponents in separate silos.

I think theres a mutually reinforcing epistemic closure where President Trump isnt talking to a lot of the folks who could probably help him policy wise, he says. And a lot of those people arent willing to help because apparently even just sitting on his economic counsel is grounds for people to boycott your company. He points to the recent boycott of Uber, believed to be friendly to the Trump administration until it pulled away.

I think Trump would probably be more amenable to hearing some criticism and changing his mind about things, if there were a sense that it was being offered as constructive criticism, LeCounte says. We need folks who are Democrats or libertarian or even nonpartisan being willing to work with the administration to offer better ideas, good ideas, course corrections, and to do it from a place where theyre willing to say, Yeah, Im working with the administration to do this. Im going to own part of this, too. This is a team effort.'

METRO WEEKLY: When did you first realize you were a conservative Republican?

ANTHONY REK LECOUNTE: When I was in high school, I was Democrat, but I was a pretty conservative one, because I was an evangelical Christian. I actually used to listen to Christian talk radio on my way to and from school. I listened to Focus on the Family with James Dobson and some other conservative talk radio, so I always had Christian conservative-style views.

Then, I kind of swung hard libertarian. I read half of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I went into college as this libertarian democrat, and then swung pretty hard left because of Yale.

MW: What about Yale changed your views, particularly if Atlas Shrugged appealed to you?

LECOUNTE: The social aspect of college. I was surrounded all the time by people who were just incredibly far left, and left in a way that I had never really experienced before. Growing up, a Democrat was a Mark Warner-style Democrat, or a Joe Manchin, or a Bill Nelson. Liberals were not that liberal. Especially in the military. Views in the military run the gamut, but all the Democrats were much more like working-class Democrats. When I went to Yale, everyone was aggressive, Marx-reading social Democrats, quoting Europe or citing Europe for every policy.

I started to realize that, on a lot of things, I was kind of out of sync. It gradually reached a crescendo by senior year when I realized that I was skeptical of a lot of the policy goals [of liberals]. The entire social justice movement made me uneasy. Identity politics has always made me uncomfortable and has always struck me as everything thats wrong with politics, and so that was a source of friction.

Then the Tea Party rose up, and I remember having conversations where Id say, Some of the stuff theyre saying, they have a point, or Some of the criticisms youre launching are just really unfair for these folks. While that was happening, my conservative friends were increasing in number and I was having more conversations with them. They were having me look at other sources of information. I started reading stuff like National Review, and Heritage this was before The Daily Signal CATO, and Reason, and I started seeing alternate points of view that started making a lot of sense.

In 2012, I realized, Holy crap. I think Im Republican. So I made the switch, went out and volunteered for Mitt Romney, voted for Mitt Romney, and got my job in right-leaning politics, and it was off to the races from there.

[callout]Read: LGBTQ Letters to President Trump[/callout]

MW: Do you feel your military upbringing influenced your political leanings?

LECOUNTE: Certainly. The military is a very right-leaning community, but not necessarily in the ways a lot of folks think. There is a lot of the traditional three-legged stool Republicanism you know, social conservatism, economic conservatism and foreign policy, obviously. But a lot of folks in the military are just libertarian.

A lot of that comes down to the environment youre in. If youre in the military, as a service member or a dependent, your entire life is heavily regulated by the government. Your kids go to federal government schools. You go to government doctors. A lot of times, youre doing your shopping at government stores. You see, in just about everything you do, what a command economy looks like, and its really inefficient and frustrating and limiting. It leaves a lot of folks thinking, Man, free markets are awesome.

You get this sort of libertarian atmosphere where one of the most popular bumper stickers I remember seeing was Government philosophy: If it aint broke, fix it till its broke. You say that to anyone with military experience, whether as a dependent or a service member, and theyll immediately relate and have stories for you. I feel that sort of experience really primes you for a more libertarian world view.

MW: Have you ever experienced any pushback from the African-American community because you are Republican?

LECOUNTE: The simple answer is yes. I actually got into this heated argument at a gay bar last week. A few Black Lives Matter protesters were there, and they werent protesting, just having a drink. I was there with some Republicans and they realized that we were a Republican group, so they came over to talk to us.

Initially, they were friendly. We were happy to talk to them. Then they brought up Black Lives Matter, and I had a mild disagreement about a tactical question and they flew off the handle. Within half-an-hour, one of them was shouting Youre a traitor to your race. Youre a self-hating black man. One said, I protest so that we can have fewer people like you. So I can stop people like you.

Those incidents, fortunately, dont happen too often now, but if I make a mistake and Im walking down the street in D.C. with any kind of Republican paraphernalia there will be comments. Especially in 2012, I would wear my Romney/Ryan pin and more than a few times someone on the Metro would just have very choice remarks. Every so often, they would threaten violence. On four or five different occasions, Ive almost been the victim of a hate crime for two reasons: once for being gay, and the others for being a Republican while black.

Anthony Rek LeCounte Photo: Julian Vankim

MW: Have these altercations ever turned physical?

LECOUNTE: They would have, but I managed to remove myself from the situation. Two of them were on the Metro. In one case, there was a Metro worker who wasnt inciting the incident, but was very approvingly standing by the guy who was. It was an awful situation.

Thats part of why I generally dont go around with Republican paraphernalia thats visible anymore. Nowadays, you just dont know. Its kind of par for the course. Youre used to it. Sen. Tim Scott got up and gave a speech a couple days ago about how he got all manner of invective for supporting Jeff Sessions nomination for attorney general. He read some of the tweets that folks were sending him. They were calling him a house negro, which Ive been called. Ive also been called a house faggot. Its just kind of par for the course if youre a minority Republican. There are certain comments you know youre going to get. MW: Why is that?

LECOUNTE: Because a lot of folks take politics personally. In a way that I think conservatives, like myself, try not to. Instead of just saying, Oh, this person disagrees with me. Thats interesting, a lot of folks take it as a personal affront that you disagree with them, especially if you disagree with them as a black man or a gay man or a woman.

MW: Do you expect more African-Americans to become Republicans as time goes on?

LECOUNTE: I hope so. Ive noticed that in the last couple of elections, young black voters, especially young black male voters, vote significantly more republican than older black voters, and obviously, more than black women. In 2012, for example, among young black men, a full one-fifth of them voted for Mitt Romney. I dont know what the numbers were for Trump, but its probably higher this time around. [Editors note: Only 13% of African American men voted for Trump, with just 9% of African Americans 18-29 regardless of gender voting for him. Source: Mic.]

I would expect that as a lot of those folks grow older, and as the Republican party makes more of an effort to be inclusive to black voters and actually starts to show up, you will see a lot more folks voting Republican. What that will look like and to what degree the Republican Party will capitalize on that, I have no idea. I would hope that within a few election cycles we get to a point where a Republican getting double digits of the black vote is normal and expected. And then a dam will break, because once it becomes normal to see black Republicans, it will encourage a lot of other folks to say, Hey, I dont have to be a Democrat. Then things will get interesting.

MW: As a group, LGBTQ people overwhelmingly identify as Democrat. Why do you think that is?

LECOUNTE: A lot of it comes down to historical Republican opposition to the LGBT rights movement, which is understandable. Republicans bitterly opposed same-sex marriage. Of course, Democrats did, too, but the Republicans were a little bit more enthusiastic about it. Republicans pushed a lot of the marriage amendments that are still in the constitutions of thirty-something states. Republicans, to this day, are opposing a lot of the trans rights stuff. So I think a lot of LGBT folks see Republicans as the party of the opposition to their civil rights.

There are also a lot of folks in the Republican party who are happy to take up that mantle. I think those folks are a shrinking minority of the party, but theres a lot of them, and theyre pretty loud. For that reason, a lot of LGBT folks take Democrat versus Republican very, very personally in a way that I find completely understandable.

MW: Do you feel that more LGBTQ people would become Republican if the Party stopped its opposition to our rights?

LECOUNTE: I think so. I know a lot of gay people who have conservative ideas about national defense or economic policies or various social issues that are not gay rights. I think a lot of those folks would be more willing to identify as Republican if they didnt feel that by doing so they were running counter to their interest in terms of issues like same-sex marriage or anti-discrimination laws.

MW: What do you view as the difference between being a conservative and being a Republican?

LECOUNTE: To be Republican is more of a partisan tribal kind of identification. Its This is my team, this is my coalition, Im invested in this Partys agenda, this Partys goals, this Partys candidates.

Being a conservative is more about a philosophy. Some folks are conservatives first, and theyre Republicans because that is the closest thing to a conservative. Some folks are Republicans first, and they are conservative when the Republican Partys conservative, and theyre not conservative when the Republican Partys not.

Im more of a conservative first, a libertarian-leaning conservative. And to the extent that the Republican Party is the best vehicle to promote the conservative and libertarian policy goals, thats the umbrella that I want to work within. If at some point, it somehow became the case that Democrats were much better on a lot of those issues that I care about, then I would happily support either a particular Democratic candidate or even the Democratic Party at large. For now, though, that doesnt seem to be the case.

MW: You were famously one of the Never Trump Republicans during the last campaign. Do you feel Donald Trump is a conservative, or is he just a Republican?

LECOUNTE: Well, hes definitely Republican. I think, more than anything, the president is a populist. He wants to do what the American people really want, and especially the things that they want that run counter to elite opinion.

For example, elites love trade deals. A lot of voters dont, so Trump wants to represent the voters who dont like those. Similarly, with immigration or other issues. I think his goal and the way he sees himself is to represent the folks whose voices arent usually heard. Sometimes, that veers him towards the conservative direction. He favors tax cuts and he has appointed a conservative, libertarian-leaning Supreme Court justice. But sometimes that leans in a complete other direction, like with protectionism, for example. Conservatives are generally very anti-protectionist. We dont like tariffs, and were generally very fond of trade deals.

MW: Have you changed your mind about Trump from how you viewed him during last years campaign?

LECOUNTE: I think the campaign is one thing, and the administration is another. I sort of take a similar approach to Trump that I did to President Obama. When President Trump does things I agree with, Im going to praise him, and when he does things I disagree with, Im going to oppose him. Im just taking it issue by issue, trying to influence him to do the things I support the way I would any other president.

MW: Based on what youve seen so far, do you largely agree or disagree with his actions as president?

LECOUNTE: Its a bit of a mixed bag. I think hes done some encouraging things. Hes done some frustrating things. Mostly, though, he hasnt done much yet.

MW: Whats the best thing you think hes done?

LECOUNTE: The Gorsuch pick, by a mile. Im very excited about the Gorsuch pick. That is the happiest Ive been about politics since November 2014.

MW: Whats the worst thing you think hes done?

LECOUNTE: Probably the travel ban, or whatever were calling that. I have a very Christian perspective about refugees and taking care of the victims of horrific situations around the world, especially in a situation where we had a hand in why its that bad. Seeing that translators who worked with us in Iraq who finally got their visas are now being turned away at the airport is very frustrating.

The administration does seem to be figuring out some of the things that work, and figuring out some of the things that they should be doing differently, and so I hope thats one of the things where cooler heads will prevail, but I guess well see.

MW: Do you think the LGBTQ community has been overreacting to some of the actions taken by the Trump administration?

LECOUNTE: There was an article I think it was in The Washington Post that said something to the effect of Not every Trump outrage is outrageous. I think a lot of folks are inclined to think the worst of the new administration, and so every time they hear a whiff of rumor of something awful, theyll dial it up to 11 immediately, even if the rumor was never credible or it wasnt clear where it was going to go, or whatever.

I think a more productive approach that a lot of conservatives are taking is: Relax, lets wait and see whats going to happen. Lets actually find out if this thing is actually unprecedented or if its just an ordinary thing.

MW: Do you think that people should take Trump at his word when he promises to do things like signing the First Amendment Defense Act, or fulfill other promises that hes made to social conservatives, or is that just pandering for political reasons?

LECOUNTE: I think candidate Trump was trying to get those people to feel like their concerns were heard, without necessarily giving them everything they want. Because candidate Trump made a point of saying like, Im going to be pro-LGBT. The quote was You can expect forward motion on LGBT rights in this administration.

To the extent that hes not actually done anything to undermine LGBT rights in any meaningful way maintaining the order, saying that, for him, same-sex marriage is a solved issue LGBT rights groups, as well as LGBT voters, should keep their powder dry. If he actually promoted the First Amendment Defense Act to undo the anti-discrimination laws, then thats a reason to get up in arms, but for now he doesnt seem to be pushing that at all. Im not aware of any serious push within Congress. I think that last session, they didnt even get it out of the House. Its definitely not getting out of the Senate. So its never going to get to his desk to sign or veto.

MW: How do you feel about Mike Pence?

LECOUNTE: I would love to meet him in person. He seems like he would be a very, very Midwestern guy, in the most salt-of-the-earth, folksy, down-home sort of way. I get the sense that he doesnt actually want to be controversial. When the Indiana fight happened over the original Religious Freedom Rights Act, [critics] came out and they said this is awful for these reasons. Mike Pence went back and said, All right, change the law. And they changed the law, and he signed it.

I think he doesnt get enough credit for the fact that he did call for the law to be changed and he did sign to change the law, which he didnt have to do. Again, thats something folks like [North Carolina Gov.] Pat McCrory just didnt do. That has to count for something.

MW: How do you respond to people who say, Youre young, gay, African-American, and Republican. Why are you a Republican? Do you have an elevator speech or any explanation that you would give to them?

LECOUNTE: I really should work on an elevator speech. Ive been thinking about ways to do that. Its really context-specific. Sometimes, to be honest, Ill just ignore the question if I dont feel like answering it.

But when I am in the mood to answer the question, the simple version is I am a young, black, gay man who was mugged by reality, and I dont want that to happen again. Im a guy who gets a paycheck and I want to keep more of my paycheck. Im a guy whose family is in the military, and I want to know that our militarys keeping us safe and that were looking out for our military. Im a guy whos mom was a military police officer, and I want to know that our policies around law enforcement are productive and fair for both suspects and the accused, as well as safe and fair for law enforcement.

Im a gun owner who wants to make sure that my gun rights are being protected. Im a person of faith who cares that religious liberty continues to exist in this country. Im a person who cares deeply about education policy, and I want to know that my kids, if or when I have any, will be able to go to good schools and that we will have a serious degree of choice in terms of being able to make sure theyre well-educated.

On a lot of those issues, the Republicans in general and conservatives have the right ideas about how to move forward, whereas Democrats are off in the wrong direction. Democrats are, obviously, not at all pro-gun anymore. A lot of them oppose school choice. They have various opinions about the military that Im a little bit skeptical of. While, yes, I might disagree with where the Republican Party stands on LGBT issues right now, as far as being black and young, the Republican Party has loads to offer me that I think the Democratic Party does not.

For more information about the D.C. chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, visit dclogcabin.wordpress.com. For information on the national chapter, visit logcabin.org.

View post:

Right Turn: Q&A with gay Republican Anthony Rek LeCounte - Metro Weekly

Motivating Your Team: Why The Golden Rule Doesn’t Always Apply – Forbes

Posted on by

Forbes
Motivating Your Team: Why The Golden Rule Doesn't Always Apply
Forbes
We all have different preferences. My wife, Mary, watches sports. I watch nature shows. She roots for the Knicks. I root for the young impala dodging the cheetah. Occasionally, I surprise her with tickets to a game at Madison Square Garden. While she ...

Read the original post:

Motivating Your Team: Why The Golden Rule Doesn't Always Apply - Forbes

LETTER: Living by ‘Golden Rule’ would defeat ISIS – Daily Record – Daily Record

Posted on by

12:04 a.m. ET Feb. 16, 2017

Defeating terror requires better ideas.(Photo: ~File photo)

How can ISIS/ISIL/DAESH be defeated? The first rule of conflict is: Know your enemy.

ISIS is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a splinter group of Muslims called Salifists who are Sunni Absolutists with a desire to foment the war to end time. They believe that The Divine is on their side and they will prevail to assume control of planet Earth. The problem is that most religions have a sect that has the same belief that in that war, The Divine is on their side and that they, and they alone, will assume control of planet Earth. The line of these Armageddon-seeking groups stretch back deep into religious history. In the final analysis, all of these groups are only ideas promulgated with the hope of gaining temporal power and dictating to the masses of humans.

For all of these groups, the enemy is always out there, anyone who is different from the people in the group. All of the problems of the world, particularly the problems of the leaders and their followers, are caused by those outside. Since they are not us, they eventually become seen as legitimate targets and sub-human impediments to fulfilling the goal of becoming masters of the earth. They claim that the others hate them and are trying to destroy them and their purity. The other problem is that frequently impure people get inside the group of those who are the chosen and the group has to go through periodic purges to maintain their purity.

Generally, political issues cause the rise of these groups. living in poverty, discriminated against, feeling powerless, being pawns in a game you dont understand, generally feeling mistreated by everything around you leads some to gravitate to believing in the cause of the Absolutist regime. It is us-versus-them on steroids. Every slight, every wrongful act, every misplaced word is proof that the faithful are under attack and they must strike back.

Essentially, ISIS is only an idea. The problem is: How do you defeat an idea? Ideas are bullet- and bomb-proof, in fact, outright warfare against the keepers of the idea only serve to prove to the faithful that the leaders claims that they are under attack, are correct. Even discrimination is tacit proof that the rest of the world is against the keepers of the pure doctrine.

The only thing that can defeat ISIS or any of the other absolutist movements is a better idea; the idea of a world where humans respect each other; where the gap between wealth and poverty is much smaller than it is today; where there is opportunity for you to grow into what you can become and your children can live a better life than yours; a world where love and respect are the common currency of people and nations those better ideas can defeat any Absolutist message.

Unfortunately, it is not natural for humans to practice the rule of: Do not do to others that which you dont want done to you. While this rule is understood and has been realized many times in human history, it is not universally practiced anywhere. Striving to live that rule is probably the hardest thing humans can do. Unfortunately, it is easier, and perhaps more satisfying, to simply strike back hard against your perceived enemy even though you know it will lead to counterstrike-for-counterstrike and can lead to Armageddon which is, of course, what the absolutists wanted in the first place.

Yet, we continue to lash out at others fully expecting that this time, unlike all the times before, that the outcome will be different. Defeating ISIS and all the other absolutists would be easy if we could live the Golden Rule but that rule is incredibly difficult to live. It is, as one author noted: The March of Folly and we are well along the path. We can turn around and get off the path but will we ever do that?

George N. Wells

DOVER

Read or Share this story: http://dailyre.co/2lRgw5z

Link:

LETTER: Living by 'Golden Rule' would defeat ISIS - Daily Record - Daily Record

h3cz: The Golden Rule of Twitter – Dexerto

Posted on by

Hector h3cz Rodriguez is the owner of one of esports most popular properties, OpTic Gaming.

His vision has helped create a peerless franchise, where tournament viewership can rest solely on the performance of his team.

Through daily video logs and regular streaming, as team owner h3cz is every bit as famous as his high profile players, amassing his dedicated audience.

Social media is a vital cog in the OpTic Gaming machine and has been key to building their reputation.

Still, social media continues to be a minefield, even for veterans like Hector. In the first of a regular column, he discuss his own experiences and how theyve helped mould the way OpTic approach platforms like Twitter:

The Golden Rule of Twitter

I have one particular rule with the OpTic players and staff; no swearing on Twitter, the main reason you need to be professional in esports, regardless of your role, is because first impressions are everything.

A message that I like to drill into anyone associated with OpTic, is that you never know whos watching. Whether you like it or not, the root of the competitive gaming industry is money from advertising via brand sponsorship.

It makes everything go around and without it, all wed have is Gamebattles. As esports expands beyond the endemic companies who are aware of the industry, you get into non-endemic space with companies who want a piece of the action, and it would be naive to think that you know which companies are thinking about sponsoring you. Large brands will always have researchers out to identify the next big thing.

If those brands arent familiar with the accepted terminology in esports, they could be put off by you Tweeting out that you f****** hate this TV show. Judging a book by its cover is something people tell you not to do, but its the first thing that a company will do when starting a business relationship.

A relatable example would be when you go for a job interview, regardless of the position, youre going to wear and suit and tie to put your best foot forward and make a good impression.

Im not saying that you have to always be squeaky clean, because a lot of sponsors will allow you creative freedom, but you have to remember that people from outside of the esports world will not read the things you say in the tone in which you tell them.

Always be aware of how you are perceived. There is a huge difference between audio and text; it is a lot easier to give context while filming, tone, facial expressions, body language etc. on the other hand, on Twitter its almost impossible to detect the tone of the author, especially when its someone you dont know.

The same rule goes with sarcasm so avoid when possible. An example I always like to give about Twitter swearing happened back when the Old Men of OpTic were playing Ghosts in 2014. It completely changed the way I viewed social media and the way I interacted with it.

A young streamer had Tweeted at me that I was missing shots because I was getting old. In what I considered a joking manner, I responded F*** you dude as in HA HA F you dude, quit bustin my chops.

Not an hour had passed when I was contacted by the mother of this young fan, who said that she wasnt happy about the way I had talked to her son. I quickly realised that I didnt know how old he was, I didnt know his circumstances and that responding in that way was leaving me open to potential problems. She read that Tweet as a direct insult to her son, when I meant it in an entirely harmless way.

Advertisement

I respect her vigilance as a parent. While I probably wouldnt have reacted in the same way, it taught me that you couldnt assume how someone will read something; you cant assume that they know the context or the back story and instead of having to explain myself, my Tweet or my teammates Tweets, from the moment that happened, I stopped swearing on Twitter and in turn, I implemented the no swearing rule for the rest of OpTic I too needed to be vigilant and protect me, them and OpTic from any misunderstanding.

Read the rest here:

h3cz: The Golden Rule of Twitter - Dexerto

Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation – USA TODAY

Posted on by

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch (R) meets with Democratic Sen. Robert Casey on Thursday.(Photo: Win McNamee, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON The first of many liberal public interest groups to delve deeply into Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's record on Thursday called him a "dangerous" choice who consistently favors corporations over workers, women, minorities andpeople with disabilities.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee was announcing a March schedule for Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, the Alliance for Justice issued a 56-page report on the federal appeals court judge that says aconservative ideology pervades his 10 years of opinions and dissents.

The group said the Senate should give "heightened scrutiny" to Gorsuch's nomination because of President Trump's recent attacks on the federal judiciary. Those attacks followeddecisions across the country that blocked Trump'seffort to impose a temporary travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries.

"Judge Gorsuchs view of the Constitution is one that would indeed take our nation backwardto an earlier era, where women, people of color, persons with disabilities, workers, LGBTQ Americans, and those interacting with the criminal justice system have fewer rights and legal protections," the report said.

The analysis likely to be followed by as many as dozens more from conservative as well as liberal public interest groups paints a portrait of a conservative ideologue whose views were formed in college and law school, long before his 2006 confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Read more:

On anniversary of Scalia's death, will his legacy live on in Neil Gorsuch?

Former law clerks herald Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's independence

But it devotes most of its attention to his rulings on the bench, highlighting those it considers to be outside the judicial "mainstream." Prominent among the cases cited are those in which Gorsuch favored the religious rights of corporations and non-profits over women seeking insurance coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

"He has placed the rights of corporations over those of other Americans, weakened critical acts of Congress, and advocated for overturning long established legal doctrines that ensure the federal government can properly enforce protections for the American people," the report said.

That's areference to Gorsuch's disdain for aSupreme Courtprecedent granting considerable deference to federal agencies when they interpret vaguely written laws or regulations. It's one area where Gorsuch disagrees with the late Antonin Scalia, the justice he would succeed on the court if confirmed by the Senate.

It is hard to overstate how dangerous Neil Gorsuch would be on the Supreme Court, Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the Alliance for Justice, said.Neil Gorsuchis a judge whos ideologically driven.

Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that hearings on Gorsuch's nomination willbe held the week of March 20, with the judge appearing on March 21. The hearings are likely to last three or four days, followed by committee and full Senate votes, most likely in April.

That timetable would give Gorsuch an outside chance of being confirmed in time to hear oral arguments later in April the last arguments of the court's 2016 term. Otherwise, he would not sit in on cases until the 2017 term begins in October.

Trump urged Democrats to vote for Gorsuch during hispress conference Thursday but acknowledged that "you may not see that." Without at least eight votes from Democrats, Republicans who control the Senate would have to change the rules to eliminate the current 60-vote hurdle.

"But hell get there one way or the other," Trump said.

Read more:

Analysis: Trump's 80-minute press conference was a spectacle for the ages

The first 100 days of the Trump presidency

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lngZ1X

See more here:

Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation - USA TODAY

If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is heading for a split – Telegraph.co.uk

Posted on by

Gay marriage and abortion are the prime hot-button issues but others include sex before marriage and the role of women in the clergy. In Lichfield, some wealthy gay donors to the church feel themselves alienated by anattitudewhich forces gay vicars to be celibate and fails to recogniseequal marriage.

The more "traditional" family values may not be something we all buy into, but one of the main tenants of a truly liberal society is that that liberalism cant be forcefully imposed on the people from above. The UK, and more specifically the Church of England, are clearly places of diverse opinion. The question is: how do they all come together?

At present, the worldwide Anglican Communion is undergoing a demographic shift. As the average British churchgoer becomes older and older, much of the growth is coming from socially conservative African countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda.

With the UK and the US increasinglysecular and accepting of gay marriage, the Communion is faced with a dilemma: embrace liberalism and risk alienating many Anglican communities from the developing world or court those same communities and become out-of-step with 21st Western liberal values.

See the rest here:

If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is heading for a split - Telegraph.co.uk

Sportswriting Has Become a Liberal Profession Here’s How It Happened – The Ringer (blog)

Posted on by

Back in the 1930s, you could walk into a press box and find not just a social justice warrior but an actual communist. His name was Lester Rodney, and he wrote sports for the party newspaper, The Daily Worker. Rodneys politics made his life complicated. Writers at respectable outlets like The New York Times would hardly speak to him. But his moral clarity was keener than just about anybodys.

I can do a lot of things you guys cant, Rodney told colleagues, according to his biographer Irwin Silber. I can belt big advertisers, automobile manufacturers, or tobacco companies. You guys cant write anything about the ban against Negro players. I can do that.

Indeed, the segregation of baseballThe Crime of the Big Leagues! the Worker called itwas Rodneys great subject. He was determined to exact justice on the sports page. Rodney pestered owners and managers about their willingness to sign black players and recorded their responses. The pitcher Satchel Paige used Rodneys column to challenge the winners of the World Series to a game against a Negro Leagues all-star team.

When baseballs commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, ignored Rodneys reporting, Worker headlines taunted him: Can You Read, Judge Landis? When Landis refused to give a statement about the progress of integration, they taunted him again: Can You Talk, Judge Landis? By the time Jackie Robinson integrated baseball in 1947, black ballplayers knew Rodneys was one of the first and loudest voices to rally to their cause. But thanks to Rodneys radioactive politics, he was largely written out of history until his rediscovery a half century later.

Occasionally, Rodney was so committed to being an ideological sportswriter that he tied himself in knots. After a game in the early 50s, a fan at the Polo Grounds got close to Giants manager Leo Durocher, stole his baseball cap, and made off with the prize. If youre sticking up for the oppressed masses on deadline, what do you do with that? According to Roger Kahn, Rodney wrote a column arguing ballplayers were workers and should be granted the use of their tools.

Later, police apprehended the thief. He turned out to be a poor Puerto Rican. At the request of his boss, Rodney then wrote the opposite column, arguing the thief was a victim of capitalism and, thus, had as much right to the cap as Durocher. Such were the headaches of being a lefty in the press box.

In 2017, itd be hard to find a communist covering the Grapefruit League. But its easy to find a sportswriter who is infused with Rodneys passion, his crusading spirit. Today, sportswriting is basically a liberal profession, practiced by liberals who enforce an unapologetically liberal code. As Frank Deford, who joined Sports Illustrated in the 60s, told me, You compare that era to this era, no question we are much more liberal than we ever were before.

In the age of liberal sportswriting, the writers are now far more liberal than the readers. Absolutely I think were to the left of most sports fans, said Craig Calcaterra, who writes for HardballTalk. Its folly for any of us to think were speaking for the common fan.

Of course, labels like liberal and conservative dont translate perfectly to sports. Do you have to be liberal to call Roger Goodell a tool? So maybe its better to put it like this: There was a time when filling your column with liberal ideas on race, class, gender, and labor policy got you dubbed a sociologist. These days, such views are more likely to get you a job.

Donald Trumps election was merely an accelerant for a change that was already sweeping across sportswriting. On issues that divided the big columnists for years, theres now something like a consensus. NCAA amateurism is rotten. The Washington Redskins nickname is more rotten. LGBT athletes ought to be welcomed rather than shunned. Head injuries are the great scandal of the NFL.

A few decades ago, Taylor Branchs line that NCAA amateurism had an unmistakable whiff of the plantation would have been an eye-rollingly hot take. Now, if you turned in a column comparing college football to the institution of slavery, I suspect few editors would try to talk you out of publishing it. But they might ask you to come up with something more original.

As recently as the turn of the century, you could find columnists hanging Alex Rodriguezs $252 million contract around his neck. Nobody much writes about free agency like that anymore. Even a bad contract is usually called a misallocation of resources by a team rather than a manifestation of a ballplayers overweening greed.

In the new world of liberal sportswriting, athletes who dabble in political activism are covered admiringly. Last year, Slates Josh Levin went searching for the voices who were dinging Colin Kaepernick for his national anthem protest. Levin found conservatives like Tomi Lahren and a couple of personalities from FS1. In the old days, such voices would have filled up half the sports columns, easy.

Institutions that made for easy off-day fodder for the writers now get increasing scrutiny. The writer Joe Sheehan has called the Major League Baseball draft a quasi-criminal enterprise that serves the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Lester Rodney would have been proud of that line.

And these are just issues within sports. Look at the way sportswriters tweet about politics now. God bless the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost, Peter King tweeted earlier this week after the papers revealed the Trump administrations web of ties to Russia. Two weeks ago, sportswriters blasted away at Trumps immigration banstaging their own pussy-hat protest within the press box. Last year, Roger Angell came out of the bullpen to endorse Hillary Clinton.

How many sportswriters have you seen on Twitter defending Donald Trump? asked the baseball writer Rob Neyer. I havent seen one. Im sure there must have been a few writers out there who did vote for him, but theres a lot of pressure not to be public about it.

Forget the viability of being a Trump-friendly sportswriter today. Could someone even be a Paul Ryanfriendly sportswriterknocking out their power rankings while tweeting that Obamacare is a failure and the Iran deal was a giveaway of American sovereignty?

In sportswriting, there was once a social and professional price to pay for being a noisy liberal. Now, theres at least a social price to pay for being a conservative. Figuring out how the job changedhow we all became the children of Lester Rodneyis one of the most fascinating questions of our age.

There was always a coven of liberals in sportswriting: Shirley Povich, Dan Parker, Sam Lacy, George Kiseda, Robert Lipsyte, Wells Twombly, and the merry band known as the Chipmunks. As Roger Kahn once wrote, Sports tell anyone who watches intelligently about the times in which we live: about managed news and corporate politics, about race and terror and what the process of aging does to strong men.

But these idealists plied their trade in a media universe almost completely different from our own. The first reason sportswriting became a liberal profession is that the product known as sportswriting has been radically altered from what it was 40, 30, even 20 years ago.

The old liberal sportswriter was a prisoner of daily newspapers. If he wanted to write about politics, he had to do it within the confines of a sports story. You decide whether you think this is a lefty idea or not, said Larry Merchant, who was a columnist at the old (liberal) New York Post. I wrote a story about a horse that had ridden in the Kentucky Derby. Now, it was in service of the national police in riot control in Washington, D.C. To me, thats the most natural story in the world!

Even if a newspaper had a political sports columnist, he was nearly always paired with a second, apolitical columnist, who matched the formers moral crusades with his own rigid attention to balls and strikes.

When you treat sports as a self-contained universe into which the rest of the universe does not intrude, it will inevitably be conservative, said Craig Calcaterra. You defer to the commissioner, to the head coach, to the reserve clauseto the reigning authority.

The internet leveled the barrier between sportswriting and the rest of the universe. It also dropped the neutrality that was practiced by everyone but a handful of columnists. We might have been more liberal than you would have imagined we were, but we didnt bring it in our copy, you know? said Deford. We separated our individual lives from what we wrote because that was what was expected.

This loosening of the prose was hastened along by a technological change. Starting in the 1950s, accounts of games (gamers) became less valuable when fans could watch for themselves on TV. As the game inventory on cable and then DirecTV and then the internet has exploded, gamers are less valuable than ever. Newbie sportswriters have been redeployed. The people who in an earlier generation would be telling us what they saw are telling us what they think instead, said Josh Levin.

The internet transformed sportswriting in another way: It made a local concern into a national one. On one level, this is pure joy: Now everyone gets to read Andy McCullough. But it also meant that reactionary opinions that may have played in St. Louis or Cincinnati are now held up for ridicule by the writers at Deadspin. I suspect a lot of sportswriters who might be right-leaning either get on the train or dont write about politics at all.

You might argue, as Neyer does, that the old sportswriters were probably mostly left-of-center types. But without Twitter, it was difficult for anyone to know this. When I started doing this, in 2003, it felt a little lonely, like I was in a phone booth yelling this stuff, said The Nations Dave Zirin. I didnt know, or have access to, a community of sportswriters who felt similarly.

The changes in the architecture of sportswriting also changed the professions great dilemma. For a century, even sportswriters who had curious minds felt the narcotic pull of the toy department. (It took the carnage of the 68 Democratic National Convention to shock Red Smith into consciousness.) Thenonce wokethe sportswriter faced a second problem: What do I do? Try to sneak politics into my column? Abandon the good salary and Marriott points offered by sportswriting to do real work on the front page?

In the Twitter era, I suspect most sportswriters dont feel this dilemma very keenly or even at all. As the world burns, they turn in their power rankings and then they tweet about Trump.

There were other tractor beams that pulled sportswriting to the left. After a slack period since Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown shuffled off the main stage, weve finally entered the second great age of athlete activism. Youre talking about 50 years of pretty much quiet, said Sandy Padwe, who wrote a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer and later became an editor at Sports Illustrated. The new wave of activism is not like the 60s by any means, Padwe said. But its a hell of an improvement.

Activism smuggles liberalism into sportswritingnot as opinion but as news. Whatever his politics, the sportswriter must report Gregg Popovichs lecture on white privilege; Steph Curry calling Trump an ass; and a handful of the Super Bowlwinning Patriots refusing to go to Trumps White House.

Its not only athlete activism that has rejiggered sportswriting but the athletes increased power. In the 60s, a sportswriter who merely wanted to be a stenographer to the powerful would cozy up to the league commissioner or owner. Nowafter the explosion in player salaries and the voice granted by Twitterthe same power seeker is more likely to cozy up to LeBron James, or his agent. As Lester Rodney would tell you, when youre covering sports from the workers point of view instead of managements, the trade inevitably moves to the left.

Non-sports types like Taylor Branch have given the industry a much-needed noogie. Branchs 2011 article in The Atlantic transformed the crusade against NCAA amateurism from one often neglected in the sports press into one that burned up the New York Times op-ed page. It makes sense that a hometown sports page is not going to get into this, Branch said. Their job is to feed the appetite of the sports fan. This is a fly on their dessert.

Deford told me: I kill myself when I think that when I ran The National neither I nor the bright people on that paper thought we really ought to examine the NCAA. We never said that. We just accepted that. We took it at face value. We should be ashamed of it.

If liberals have a long-standing delusion, its that the presentation of hard data (about everything from climate change to voter fraud) will win the masses to their cause. But within sportswriting, this is actually true. The publication of college football coaches rapidly inflating salaries floated the anti-amateurism crusade. If you know that the NBA signed a $24 billion TV deal with ESPN and Turner, its hard to argue that even Timofey Mozgovs contract is going to bankrupt the league.

Its the accumulation of evidence rather than political change, said Bruce Arthur, who writes a column for the Toronto Star. People just figured it out.

There are chance events too. The fact that Dan Snyder hasnt put many winning Redskins teams on the field has the side effect of undermining support for the teams nicknameIf Snyders for it, people think, how can I not be against it? Similarly, Roger Goodells mishandling of issues like Deflategate suggests that he might be mishandling player safety too.

Donald Trumps election changed sports Twitter into a frisky episode of All In With Chris Hayes. But here, sportswriters are probably being radicalized at roughly the same rate as the rest of the electoratea process that began during George W. Bushs administration and continued apace through the Obama years. If most Democrats you know seem feistier than they did 20 years ago, it follows that sportswriters would too.

Talk to the real lefties within sportswritingLipsyte, Padweand you find theyre skeptical that were witnessing a genuine ideological conversion. Sportswriters rarely touch issues like the antitrust exemption and the flag-waving militarism that drenches pro sports. (See Foxs Super Bowl pregame show for one recent example.) Theres still plenty of PED hysteria, even if its getting better. The idea that league drafts unfairly conscript players to teams feels like an issue thats just starting to get mainstream traction. In 10 years, woke sportswriters will be wondering why our generation didnt talk more about it.

Maybe what were seeing is simply writers plying their trade in a different era. We shouldnt piss on things that are progress and are good, Lipsyte said. But how much of it is really any kind of expression of liberalism? How much is times change and we change with it? Maybe were just standing in the same place but being carried along by the flow.

The Obama administration was a dream time for liberal sportswriters, who had a president who talked about sports like they did. Trumps election caused a convulsion. Lipsyte added, Kaepernick, the manifestos of Melo and LeBron, and the Trumpish tinge to the Patriots and its reaction from players who say they wont go to the White House have to be acknowledged, and once you do that, it feels like left-leaning commentary. Unless, of course, it is.

On November 8, we learned a lot of Americans arent ready to sail into the progressive horizon. In sportswriting, as in politics, there was a backlash that you could see across the media.

First, conservative political writers began grumbling about their sports pages the way they grumble about the front pages. A 2014 American Spectator column sniffed: [The sportswriter] now lies prostrate before a new set of masters: Mimosa-sipping Manhattanites and liberal witch hunters whose sole interest in sports is purging football teams of offensive names, obtaining equal screen-time for females, and celebrating sexual diversity. Equal time and diversitywhat a crock.

Next, other sportswriters took up the critique. The sports media is the most far-left contingent of media that exists in this country, Fox Sports Clay Travis declared last month. In tsk-tsking the writersand the athletes they worshipthe holdouts sounded like the founders of Fox News. Your medias been hijacked!

Those who are sitting out the liberal sportswriting renaissance are as likely to tweak the media as they are to offer competing ideas. This week, when Nike released an Equality ad starring LeBron James and Serena Williams, Jason Whitlock said: all this resist, resist its bogus. Its a campaign. It aint got a damn thing to do with you, the ordinary working man.

Earlier this year, when Ronda Rousey was throttled by Amanda Nunes, Travis said: There were a ton of people in the sports media who wanted Ronda Rousey to be good because it somehow represented their belief that women are better than men. Breitbart approvingly cited the remark.

In a world where liberal sportswriters predominate, theres a second economic opportunity. You create a safe space where sports and politics dont intermingle, where readers arent just excused for not being woke but are rewarded for it. On one of the recent Barstool Rundown TV specials, Dave Portnoy said the immigration protests that were filling airports were probably the no. 1 story for people [who are] not us real-world issues that we dont care at all about.

Then Portnoy cut to footage of a readera Stooliewhod arrived on a flight from Istanbul while the protests were raging. The Stoolie pretended to be a refugee whod made it through customs and marched through the terminal, soaking up the applause of the crowd. If there was ever a more backhanded indictment of sports Twitter, Id love to see it.

What about me? If it hasnt seeped into the preceding paragraphs, Im a liberal sportswriter myself. The new world suits me just fine. Would it be nice to have a David Frum or Ross Douthat of sportswriting, making wrongheaded-but-interesting arguments about NCAA amateurism? Sure. As long as nobody believed them.

If anything has gone haywire in this new world, its the problem of Leo Durochers cap. Writers trying to find the proper, liberal response to new issues wind up tying themselves in knots.

Take the reaction to the Ray Rice video in 2014. There was a hue and cry throughout sportswriting: Something ought to be done! (If there was any criticism, it came from the left: that replays of the elevator video were re-victimizing his then-fiance, Janay.)

Unfortunately, many of the early columns didnt always say who ought to do something or what it should be. Roger Goodell used the groundswell of rage to suspend Rice indefinitely and increase his already-fearsome power over player discipline.

Such imprecision doesnt just empower hardliners like Goodell. A few months after Rices suspension, Adam Silver, the model of a progressive commissioner, used a gray area in his leagues CBA to levy a harsh punishment against a convicted domestic abuser, Jeffery Taylor. Silver attributed his actions to what he called the evolving social consensusmuch of which was crafted in the media.

And theres another liberal ideal at stake here: that criminals whove paid their debt to society ought to have a chance to re-enter it. In 2010, Barack Obama congratulated the owner of the Eagles for giving Michael Vick a job after he was released from prison. Rices bad acts were very different from Vicks. But say Rice got another NFL job after his apology tour. Would a sportswriter have written an encomium to the owner who signed Rice? Should they have? Its an awfully tough question.

I bet old Lester Rodney would have smiled when told the headaches he faced at The Daily Worker are now racking sportswriters from the L.A. Times to SB Nation. For this is what happens when revolutionary ideas become a ruling philosophywhen the former insurgents get the run of the place.

Here is the original post:

Sportswriting Has Become a Liberal Profession Here's How It Happened - The Ringer (blog)

Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? – Chicago Tribune – Chicago Tribune

Posted on by

What happened to liberal Democrats, and their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. Yeah, you can look it up.

And their liberal friends in liberal Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was "Three Days of the Condor," with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for "the clarity" of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and Wikileaks was their winged chariot of truth and beauty. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on private citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to them? What happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats?

Donald Trump was elected president, that's what happened to them.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer, and Pence was his superior. Lying to a superior is grounds for court-martial. Or, at least gives pretext for a quick and brutal departure from the Trump White House, which is what happened.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. It's as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk. And Flynn's head, up there above them, is pecked endlessly in the sun.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA and others on multiple occasions, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the "Never Trump" Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador before Trump was inaugurated president.

This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It means his conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about. I have a hard time believing Flynn was a traitor. But I don't have a hard time believing that arrogance and foolishness are necessary prerequisites for a hard public fall.

What's astounding about this is that news reports on Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else.

They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

That's what is amazing. That the intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks to damage and weaken a president.

Liberals who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians are overjoyed. They don't question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Trump declared his war with American intelligence on his Twitter account and then did so in person as he stood in the White House at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I think he's (Flynn) been treated very, very unfairly by the media as I call it, the 'fake media,' in many cases and I think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly," Trump said.

"I think in addition to that, from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked," said the president, adding that such leaks were a "criminal action, criminal act."

The president's references to Flynn are awkward and politically self-serving.

But the president's reference to the intelligence community in his government is an open declaration of war. And it's dangerous.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's not whether they believe it that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

So why aren't liberals more concerned, when once they'd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they weren't concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, it's all about power, isn't it? And ideals even those which help keep the republic be damned.

Listen to "The Chicago Way" podcast with John Kass and WGN's Jeff Carlin and guests Sen. Rand Paul and Kristen McQueary at http://www.wgnradio.com/category/wgn-plus/thechicagoway.

jskass@chicagotribune.com

Read more from the original source:

Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune

‘Liberals will continue to lose’: Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts – Washington Post

Posted on by

Journalist Jeremy Scahill, a frequent panelist on Real Time With Bill Maher, was booked to appear this Friday but canceled after he found out Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos would also be a guest. Yiannopoulos is known for his provocative stories with such headlines as Gay rights have made us dumber, its time to get back in the closet. He was also permanently banned from Twitter last year a feat that takes some doing. Among his transgressions was targeting SNL comedian Leslie Jones, calling her barely literate, and rallying his hundreds of thousands of followers to direct racist, sexist missives to her. (She briefly quit Twitter over the abuse.)

[Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter?]

Scahill, a founding editor of the Intercept, explained himself on Twitter. He took great pains to express his admiration for the producers and writers of the show. He even sang the praises with a few big caveats of host Maher. But he called Yiannopouloss appearance many bridges too far.

He has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes, Scahill wrote. Appearing on Real Time will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign.

Maher responded to Scahills criticism and doubled down on his decision to have the provocateur as a guest.

Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech, Maher said in a statement, according to Entertainment Weekly. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims and he might be nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.

Maher also addressed Scahills criticism of his views on Islam. My comments on Islam have never veered into vitriol, Maher said.

Scahill isnt the first person to take issue with the way Maher discusses Muslims. During one episode, Ben Affleck attacked the host and panelist Sam Harris for their racist comments about the religion. (Harris called Islam the mother lode of bad ideas.)

Maher, a champion of free speech, often builds his shows around guests with widely varying views to promote lively debate. Earlier this month, he hosted staunch Trump supporter Tomi Lahren alongside Republican strategist Rick Wilson and Missouri Democrat and Afghanistan veteran Jason Kander. Ann Coulter, another specialist in inflammatory rhetoric, has also been a frequent guest.

[Bill Maher hosted conservative Tomi Lahren on Real Time. They were both preaching to their own choirs.]

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)

Yiannopoulos is no stranger to boycotts. Earlier this year he was scheduled to make an appearance at University of California, Berkeley, but violent protests broke out around the campus with demonstrators setting off fireworks and throwing bricks. University police ultimately canceled the event, which in turn prompted President Trump, in an early morning tweet, to threaten to pull the public universitys funding.

So far Yiannopoulos hasnt weighed in on the controversy on Facebook a social media account hes still allowed to have.

Original post:

'Liberals will continue to lose': Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts - Washington Post

Liberal ex-MP who called party a ‘gay club’ likely to be kicked out – The Australian Financial Review

Posted on by

Ross Cameron embraces Kirralie Smith after speaking at her fundraiser for the Australian Liberty Alliance held at North Ryde RSL.

Former Liberal MP Ross Cameron who said the NSW division of the party was "basically a gay club" looks likely to be banished from the party for up to five years, potentially turning him into a free-speech martyr.

But Mr Cameron received support from an unexpected figure, former High Court judge Michael Kirby, who said gay people had learnt that being unfairly punished reinforced feelings of exclusion and social stigma.

The NSW Liberal Party state executive is scheduled to decide next Friday if Mr Cameron should be suspended for saying on television last year that NSW Premier Mike Baird was threatened with his job if he supported internal voting changes that would undermine the power of the Liberal's dominant left faction.

The disciplinary hearing isn't directly related to Mr Cameron's recent public comments about homosexuality, when he joked that the Roman emperor Hadrian had a homosexual lover who probably used cocaine.

But those comments, including the "gay club" jibe, made it unlikely he would escape a suspension, two Liberal sources said, which would be a major snub for the former parliamentary secretary to Treasurer Peter Costello and well-known Sydney political identity.

Liberal free-speech advocates haven't rallied behind Mr Cameron, who has developed a reputation for pushing the boundaries of political and social commentary in appearances on Sky News and elsewhere.

Those who have declined to support him include Human Rights Commissioner turned Liberal MP Tim Wilson; left-baiting columnist and Liberal Party think tank director Nick Cater; Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher, who is Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's representative on the NSW Liberal state executive; former leader Tony Abbott; and Walter Villatora, Mr Abbott's campaign manager who is trying to win Mr Baird's old seat in the NSW Parliament.

At a meeting last year of the 21-member executive which considered whether to discipline Mr Cameron, only one person spoke in his defence, according to someone present. Alex Dore, the 24-year-old nephew of the editor of The Daily Telegraph, Chris Dore, said it wasn't the party's role to police the public comments of its members, the source said.

Under the NSW Liberal Party's strict rules, penalties for speaking publicly about internal matters are imposed about once a month. Last year they ranged from a three-year suspension to verbal request not to do it again, another party source said.

The executive is controlled by the left faction. Mr Cameron's views are associated with the party's right.

Mr Cameron, who has compared himself in private to the Greek philosopher Socrates, will be allowed to defend himself. The meeting will be run by party president Kent Johns, who last week said that Mr Cameron's remarks about gay people were highly offensive and he was becoming "nothing more than a circus act".

Asked if he had prejudged Mr Cameron, Mr Johns said: "I'm not prepared to discuss internal party matters."

It could be possible the comments would be protected under a High Court ruling that found there was implied right to free speech in the constitution, according to Mr Kirby, who was part of the decision and made history as the first openly gay High Court judge in 1996.

"There may be a constitutional question as to whether opinions expressed by Mr Cameron in the context of political meetings are not protected by the constitutional implied right of free speech which the High Court of Australia has held exists in Australia for speech about political questions," Mr Kirby said in an email.

"I was a party to one such decision of the High Court in the unanimous opinion in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520. I adhere to what the court said there. In a representative Parliamentary democracy as provided by our constitution there is a need for active and energetic debate whatever might be appropriate in other circumstances.

"LGBTIQ (gay) people learn in their lives that the problems they face often come about through the overreach of criminal and punitive laws. Such overreach tends to reinforce social stigma and attitudes of denigration and religious feelings of exclusion of others and self-righteousness. So I do not favour punishment in such circumstances."

See the article here:

Liberal ex-MP who called party a 'gay club' likely to be kicked out - The Australian Financial Review

New Liberal PAC Targets Democrats for Primaries – NBCNews.com

Posted on by

A new progressive Political Action Committee plans to recruit and fund primary opponents to Democratic members of Congress that it feels are not aggressive enough in fighting President Donald Trump.

WeWillReplaceYou.org was formed by a group of progressive activists with backgrounds in the Bernie Sanders campaign, the environmental movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the DREAMer movement of young undocumented immigrants.

It's a project of #AllofUs, a new millennial progressive organization that has protested Democratic members of the Senate, urging them to draw a harder line against Trump's cabinet nominees and policy agenda.

While many liberals, including filmmaker Michael Moore, have issued nominal threats of left-wing challenges to Democratic lawmakers, WeWillReplaceYou.org appears to be the first organized effort to explicitly turn those threats into a reality. That will likely put it on a collision course with Democratic efforts to protect incumbents.

"Other groups are probably expecting to primary Democrats, but we think that it's important to make the threat clear now because so many Democrats are not fighting Trump forcefully enough and we need to communicate that we're serious," Claire Sandberg, a former Sanders staffer and one of the group's founders, told NBC News. "Our message to Democrats is pretty straightforward: Fight Trump or we'll find someone who will."

The objective is not necessarily to replace Democratic incumbents, but to pressure them, Sandberg said, adding that the group is holding off on releasing any targets at the moment.

"We want to leave the door open for Democrats to improve and be stronger in their opposition to Trump," said Sandberg. "We're only a few weeks into the Trump administration. Our goal is not primary every single Democratic member of Congress. It's to push Democrats who are there to do better."

WeWillReplaceYou.org will decide which Democrats to target based on where it can have an impact and through surveys of its members. There may be a handful of "litmus tests," the group suggested, such as voting against Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

The group welcomes comparisons to the Tea Party, and it's certain to attract familiar criticism from Democratic officials worried that primary challenges will undermine the party's ability to retain seats.

Ten Democratic senators are up for reelection next year in states Trump won. Republicans now hold 52 seats and the Senate, and if they were to pick off 8 of those ten Democrats, the GOP would win a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority -- an outcome many Democrats would view as Armageddon.

Sandberg rejected the criticism that primary challenges to those Democrats would imperil the party's effort to hold those seats. Demoralizing the base with tepid opposition to Trump, Sandberg said, should be Democrats' bigger fear.

"The same base that supports those primary challenges will propel them to victory in general elections," she said.

But in places like West Virginia, where Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin is facing a tough reelection battle, Democrats will almost certainly need more than base voters alone to prevail. Trump won the state by over 40 percentage points.

Either way, primary challenges seem inevitable after an election loss that galvanized the left and nurtured doubts about party leadership.

"The 53 Senators, including Democrat Joe Manchin, who voted to put millions of jobs at risk by putting another Wall Street banker in charge of the Treasury Department shouldn't expect to keep theirs," Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of the liberal group Democracy for America said after Manchin joined Republicans in voting to confirm Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin Monday.

WeWillReplaceYou.org plans to raise money and organize volunteer efforts online, so the scale of its operations and the number of races it gets involved in will depend on how much support it receive.

But it hopes to operate on the cheap. The group plans to eschew expensive TV advertising in favor of some digital ads to support its main focus on distributed organizing, which leverages technology to generate phone calls, door knocks, and other volunteer efforts without the overhead of paid staff required by more traditional field programs.

As a hybrid PAC, the group can coordinate directly with campaigns in addition to fund independent expenditures.

In addition to Sandberg, who was the director of digital organizing on Sanders' campaign, advisors to the new group include include Kenneth Pennington, Sanders' former digital director, Rafael Navar, the national political director of the Communications Worker of America, May Boeve, the executive director of the environmental group 350 Action, Taj James, the executive director of Movement Strategy Center, former andra Flores-Quilty, the president of the United States Student Association and Carolina Canizales, a former United We Dream official.

All are working in their personal capacity, not on behalf of their groups.

Another advisor, Jessica Pierce, who once ran the NAACP's field training program, said Democrats' current leadership has taken support from communities of color for granted.

"Even now our elected leaders are still failing us," she said. "As someone who has run national election campaigns in every election cycle since 2006 , but who has also been a part of the momentum of the Movement for Black Lives -- I know that it is going to take all of, working strategically to make the change that people need. We must resist at every level-- from the streets to the Senate."

The rest is here:

New Liberal PAC Targets Democrats for Primaries - NBCNews.com

John Howard backs Liberal preference deal with One Nation in WA – The Guardian

Posted on by

John Howard confronted by One Nation supporters on a visit to the NSW central coast in 2001. The then PM responded to the threat of One Nation to the Liberal partys electoral fortunes by refusing to preference them Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

The Western Australian Liberal deal with Pauline Hansons One Nation has been given the blessing of the former prime minister John Howard, despite his 2001 edict it must be placed last on his partys how-to-vote cards.

Adding star power to the Liberal election campaign in Perth on Thursday, the nations second-longest-serving prime minister said the WA division made a very sensible, pragmatic decision to cut a deal with the rightwing party.

I fully understand why the WA Liberal party has taken the decision, he told reporters at a shopping centre in the seat of Southern River on Thursday, when he received almost entirely positive responses from voters and children.

Howard said One Nation had morphed into a different beast since his 2001 instructions, although he still didnt agree with everything it espoused.

Everyone changes in 16 years, he said. Trying to understand that decision and decisions that were taken by various iterations of the Liberal party 15 or 16 years ago is ridiculous.

Everyone changes in 16 years ... I think its entirely sensible

This is a different set of circumstances. I think its entirely sensible that the party has done whats its done.

The Greens were the only ones who hadnt changed, he said, and advocating dismantling the US alliance illustrated the partys continuing extremism.

The idea that people would see the current One Nation party as more extreme than the Greens is ridiculous, Howard said. And whos playing footsie with the Greens the Australian Labor party.

His comments came after the WA premier, Colin Barnett, refused to be drawn on whether the Liberals were morally wrong to seal the deal, snubbing alliance partners the Nationals, which retaliated with its preferences.

Barnett admitted some of the headline-grabbing views of candidates were abhorrent but said it was a numbers game and he had an election to win.

The latest comments from One Nation hopefuls dogging the party reportedly came from the now-deactivated Twitter account of Richard Eldridge, who is contesting an upper house seat in Perths South Metropolitan region.

In the posts, Eldridge, a real estate agent, advocated killing Indonesian journalists and also attacked the gay community, black people and Muslims.

Old social media posts are also haunting Michelle Myers, who was nominated for the newly-created seat of Bateman.

On Facebook last year, she said the gay community used Nazi-style mind control to get people to support same-sex marriage and has recently been protesting against abortion outside a reproductive health clinic in Midland, where women also get fertility treatment.

In absolutely no way do I endorse the policies or candidates of One Nation, Barnett told reporters. I find some of those comments absolutely abhorrent.

Im not going to be defending One Nation go and talk to Pauline.

Read more:

John Howard backs Liberal preference deal with One Nation in WA - The Guardian