Monthly Archives: June 2017

TwoLiberal MPs havebeen secretlyworking on a plantolegalise same-sex marriage in Australia as soon as August, with a draft copy of the laws well advanced and consultation with advocates underway.

Fairfax Media can reveal WAsenator Dean Smith and NSW lower house MP Trent Zimmerman are working ona private members' billthey hope willbe presented to Parliament to legalise same-sex marriage through a conscience vote, rather than the Turnbull government's stated policy of a national, non-bindingplebiscite.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Liberal minister Christopher Pyne has reportedly been caught on tape saying marriage equality would happen "sooner than everyone thinks."

Play Video Don't Play

Research by the Obesity Policy Coalition found food packaging which used cartoons was often unhealthy.

Play Video Don't Play

Irish forecaster with a giant umbrella is blown away by a gust of wind and everyone can't stop laughing about it.

Play Video Don't Play

One of Australia's most-wanted fugitives has been caught hiding under a child's bed, after police forced their way into a home in north-west Sydney on Sunday. Vision: Seven News

Play Video Don't Play

Lee Rhiannon has spoken out against claims she derailed her party's school funding negotiations with the government, rejecting claims from colleagues accusing her of betrayal.

Play Video Don't Play

The Australian government is offering support to the Philippines as its military battles Islamist militants aligned with Islamic State. National Security correspondent David Wroe explains.

Play Video Don't Play

In a bid to limit any further jail time, Crown Resorts staff will plead guilty to gambling-related crimes at their trial in Shanghai on Monday.

Liberal minister Christopher Pyne has reportedly been caught on tape saying marriage equality would happen "sooner than everyone thinks."

It's understoodcabinet ministers Christopher Pyne and GeorgeBrandis- both of whom support same-sex marriage - are aware of the existence of the bill, which is designed to end the politicalimpasse over the issue and get it off the political agenda before the next federal election.

Senator Smith and Mr Zimmermanhave been consulting with the director of legal advocacy at Melbourne's Human Rights Law Centre,Anna Brown, who is also the co-chair of Australians for Equality, on the details of the legislation.

In keeping with the recommendations of a February Senate committee report, the draft bill would allow exemptions for religious and other celebrants who did not wish to marry two people of the same sex.

While the bill is unlikelytobe selected fordebate by thegovernment-controlled parliamentarycommittee that choosesbills, it wouldtake only a handful of Liberal MPsto side with the opposition and cross bench, reach an absolute majority of 76 votesand force the lawto be considered.

Once that happens,Liberal MPs who support same-sex marriage could team up with Labor and the crossbench onthe floor ofParliamentto legalise same-sex marriage.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

The bill would almost certainly then sail through the Senate with the support ofLabor, the Greens, the crossbench and some Liberal senators.

Senator Smith was unavailable for comment because he is travelling, while Mr Zimmerman and Ms Brown declined to comment when contacted by Fairfax Media. Senator Brandis and Mr Pyne were also contacted for comment.

In a statement, Mr Pyne said "the government has no plans to alter the policy".

However, in an interview with Huffington Post Australia, Senator Smith said there was a "natural symmetry" about having a free vote in Parliament on the two-year anniversary of government adopting its now-defeated plebiscite policy in August.

Liberal moderates are frustrated by the lack of action on same-sex marriage following the defeat of the plebiscite earlier this year, and believe Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull should stand up to the conservative wing of the Liberal Party and allow a free vote on the floor of the parliament.

However, Mr Turnbull will face pressure from the conservative wing of his party not to allow a free vote to occur.

MrTurnbull - who personallysupports same-sex marriage but is concerned about keeping the conservative wing of his party onside -said on Monday his government'sposition ofa non-binding national plebiscite on the matter was clear and that "we have no plans to change it, full stop".

Those comments were made after a leaked audio recording of Mr Pyne emerged on Monday, in which the Leader of the House predicted same-sex marriage could be legalised "sooner than everyone thinks".

Mr Pyne's remarks were made at a gathering of Liberal moderates on Friday night in Sydney as the Liberal federal council met. The recording wasleaked to conservative News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt.

He told the gathering of moderates that "we [Liberal moderates] are in the winner's circle but we have to deliver a couple of things and one of those we've got to deliver before too long is marriage equality in this country".

"Your friends in Canberra are working on that outcome."

That leak prompted former prime minister Tony Abbott, who introduced the plebiscite policy nearly two years ago, to accuse Mr Pyne of not being fair dinkum and suggesting he was disloyal to the government.

"To dump the plebiscite, to do anything without a plebiscite would be a breach of faith with the people," Mr Abbott told radio station 2GB.

-with Fergus Hunter

Read more:

Liberal MPs secretly drafting private members' bill to legalise same-sex marriage - The Sydney Morning Herald

One of the most popular sports media debates of 2017 has been the existence, or lack thereof, of ESPNs liberal agenda. The extremelypolarizing election cycle of 2016has bled into pretty much every aspect of our culture and sports is no different. And with ESPN at the top of the mountain and FS1 attempting to dethrone Bristol, some of their personalities have tried to cling on to this polarization to create an us versus them mentality to divide and conquer ESPNs audience.

FS1, namely led by Clay Travis and Jason Whitlock, have repeatedly tried to paint ESPN as having a liberal agenda. It hasnt really done anything to improve FS1s ratings, it cant really be blamed forESPNs business struggles, but the narrative now definitely exists. ESPN has tried to discount the narrative with surveys of their own, but sometimes narratives are all that matter in media.

Finally, an ESPN executive has gone on record swinging back on FS1 after taking it on the chin for several months. In Mondays Sports Business Journal, ESPN Executive VP of Programming Burke Magnus calls the FS1 narrative false and in a very calculating move, refuses to even mention FS1 by name.

One of ESPNs top executives accused Fox Sports of advocating what he called a false notion that the network operates with a liberal bias.

The whole narrative is a false one that was seeded and perpetuated primarily by a direct business competitor, said Burke Magnus, ESPNs executive vice president of programming and scheduling. We have no political agenda whatsoever.

Fox Sports has given voice to many of the accusations of ESPNs liberal bias. For example, Fox Sports 1s afternoon studio show co-host, Jason Whitlock, wrote a May 7 editorial for The Wall Street Journal in which he accused ESPN of adhering to a strict obedience to progressive political correctness.

Magnus went on to tout ESPNs talking point when it comes to allegations of the networks liberal bias, that it wouldnt make sense to step into politics and alienate half of their audience. He hits back at FS1 for trying to take advantage of the hyper-partisan political scene themselves to make a splash.

It would be foolish in the business that were in to take sides on the political arena, Magnus said. Our business competitor perpetuates this narrative because in this highly partisan time, it suits them to highlight this distinction, even when it doesnt exist.

As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Theres no denying that ESPN has become more liberal. Just look at the facts and their decision making over the last few year when it comes to programming, on-air talent, how that talent speaks out on social media, and so on and so forth. However, the result of ESPN leaning left has been more organic from a drive to become more diverse versusa top-down conspiracy to try to align the networks philosophy with MSNBC. FS1 would have you believe that ESPN is dedicating the 5th inning of Sunday Night Baseball to do an Elizabeth Warren 2020 infomercial and its just not true.

FS1s brazen personalities have overblown it for sure, butthe narrative that exists has definitely had an impact on ESPN as rare as it is to see them come out and swing back at FS1. And you can tell how fed up ESPN is with it when one of their top executives refuses to call them by name. Who knows, perhaps the decision to bring back Hank Williams Jr. is a way to try to prove that ESPN is not in fact leading the deep state resistance to Donald Trump.

It hasnt brought FS1 any closer to actually competing with ESPN, but it hasmade a lot of people annoyed and upset on all sides.

[Sports Business Journal]

More here:

ESPN exec slams FS1 for trying to create liberal agenda narrative - Awful Announcing

Younger Republicans have more liberal opinions on immigration than do older members of the GOP, according to a new poll.

Forty-one percent of all Republicans in a pollconductedby the Public Religion Research Institute says immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the United States, The Associated Press reported.

Sixty percent among Republicans between the ages of 18 and 29 answered the same way, however, compared to only about one-third of voters ages 65 and older.

The poll found that 63 percent of Americans overall say there's a lot of discrimination against immigrations.

A slight majority of Republicans of all ages, 55 percent, say immigrants in the U.S. illegally should have a path to citizenship "if certain conditions are met."

But among younger Republicans, 62 percent responded that immigrants in the U.S. should have a legal path to citizenship.

Republicans of different ages also have opposing views on gay rights, according to the poll.

Fifty-four percent of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 29 say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry, while just half that percentage of older Republicans responded the same way.

The poll was conducted with 40,509 interviews from May 18, 2016, to Jan. 10, 2017. The margin of error is 0.6 percentage points.

See the original post:

Poll: Younger Republicans have more liberal opinions on ... - The Hill - The Hill

Actor James Woods is more outspoken than ever about his conservative political and cultural beliefs. Hes earned nearly 700,000 followers on Twitter thanks to his sharp and constant commentary about the news and about the Left.

Surprisingly, the actor doesnt often take his opinions beyond social media. He doesnt pop up in many interviews or throw himself at the press. It appears this is for a very good reason.

A writer at Independent Journal Review recently attempted to interview Woods to get the artist's opinion about Johnny Depp's assassination "joke" and Woods politely declined. He explained why he generally avoids the press these days even press of which he approves.

"Well, I'm deeply flattered, but turn down hundreds of requests to do interviews. I'm a big fan of IJR, but I must graciously decline. I find that Twitter makes it impossible for the sleaze liberal press to take my words out of context. If I were to do an IJR interview, surely CNN and NYT would misrepresent my thoughts and words. As honorable as IJR may be, they can't stop others from engaging in malicious behavior. Sadly, free speech is dead in liberal America," wrote Woods to the reporter who requested the interview.

For the record, Woods was one of the first and only celebrities to condemn Depp's commentsand his attacks on liberals haven't stopped or slowed since then.

His reason for declining interviews is understandable, yet it's a sad commentary on how far gone the mainstream media are today. The actor has worked with everyone from Martin Scorsese to John Carpenter, but he can't share whatever expertise or viewpoint he has because the press is so blatantly biased against people like him.

Related: James Woods, Culture Warrior, Returns to Fight

Woods even admitted in 2013 that his outspokenness would likely lose him future opportunities and end his career in Hollywood. He may have been right. His last major role was in 2013 on Showtime's "Ray Donovan," which also starred conservative actor Jon Voight.

Other than that, Woods has done mostly sporadic voice work.

While it's easy to miss his work as an actor, his commentary on Twitter is something people can enjoy each and every day.

Read the rest here:

James Woods: 'Free Speech Is Dead in Liberal America' - LifeZette

Tim Farron explained that his resignation was due to his conservative Christian beliefs having hampered the liberal views of his party. Paula Zoido Oses analyses this argument and explains how liberalism can work in public life.

Tim Farron,recently stepped down as the leader of the Liberal Democrats due to a conflict between his Christian Faith and the liberal values defended by his party. This event has raised important questions about the lines between religious belief and public policy, with some commentators going even as far as stating that it signals the decay of liberalism. For this reader, however, Farrons resignation does not symbolise the decay of liberalism, but rather an action that unveils a high-definition picture of its otherwise usually concealed flaws.

What we mean by liberalism is a long and contested issue, too long to explore here. However, in a very basic sense we can probably agree with Rawlss later definition of liberalism as a political stance depending upon a capacity to set clear boundaries between the political arena, and everything else. That is to say, liberalism is not necessarily a moral doctrine with contents of its own that tells us how to act. Instead, liberalism is a vessel that allows citizens with different backgrounds, each carrying their own moral doctrines and personal beliefs, to find an area of consensus for the sake of peaceful coexistence, without having to renounce to their moral beliefs.

If we want liberalism to work, we should maybe understand it more as a set of rules (the domain of politics) than as a set of values (the domain of morality). But what is crucial is to never overstep what seems to be the only rule of liberalism to never impose our comprehensive, private views on to others, for that would go against what seems to be the only clear value attached to liberalism: liberty.

To this extent liberalism presents itself as a political doctrine, and not a moral one. In this pretence lies its most powerful and enigmatic promise: that you can be a liberal and not be one, if that is what you want, as long as you find ways of making sure that your illiberal beliefs do not become an obstacle to the correct functioning of the liberal state. In other words, and as I like to put it, liberalism lets you be anything you want to be as long as you are a liberal, too. This is also the reason behind the liberal stress on the distinction between the private and the public. The idea of a private sphere where individuals are allowed to act according to whichever moral doctrines they choose makes the liberal demand of keeping the political arena separate from our comprehensive beliefs considerably more bearable.

If Farrons resignation is truly the result of his impossibility to combine both his role as a political leader and his commitment to the Bibles teachings, then this can hardly be seen as a sign of the decay of liberalism, but instead as an honest and brave admission of his incapacity to comply with the rules of the liberal game. And yet, it seems unfair that someone would have to leave politics simply for holding religious beliefs. Even if not acting as a politician, Farron will surely continue to live as part of a liberal political community within the United Kingdom. Does this mean that all Christians like him or even all those holding religious beliefs of any kind, by extension should be excluded from the liberal sphere of politics? The answer is as simple as yes and no. If it truly is the case that one cannot compromise a part of their private beliefs when entering the political arena of liberalism, then surely one has to be excluded from it.

But also, as stated above, the main promise of liberalism is precisely that its arena should be ample enough for everyone to be able to step in without having to leave too much of their private moral beliefs outside it. However this promise is not always fulfilled. Farrons decision is a good example of this. It points directly at the greatest weakness of liberalism, namely the big question mark that hangs over the expected capacity of individuals to split themselves in two. For instance, nobody seems to have questioned whether, in fact, what drove Farron to quit was the impossibility to keep his faith a private matter and separate from his job. Farron may have felt, and rightly so, that by being a liberal politician he was betraying his Christian faith.

One commentator on the issue pointed at Jeremy Waldrons work, which connects the birth of liberalism to Christian values, and used this to argue that Farrons faith made him a better liberal and not a worse one. There is nonetheless another key element that has shaped liberalism which seems to have been forgotten in this debate, and that is the secular revolution that transformed Europe from the Enlightenment onwards. It is only when we imagine citizens as able to conceive the world in a secular way that liberalism makes sense. That is to say, liberalism only works when we can expect individuals to at least act as if they recognise the existence of a common ground outside religion where we can still communicate with each other in a way that makes sense.

This common ground, in the case of liberalism, is what since the Enlightenment has been known as reason. Regardless of whether we are religious or not, we are also expected to be rational individuals. I would go as far as to say that above all, what liberalism expects from us is to be rational. That is what allows us, in theory, to engage with others in the public sphere, to reach consensus in public matters that can be accepted by all regardless of their religious faith, and to be able to mould our private beliefs in order to fit with the demands of our public life. If we are rational enough, too, we will do this voluntarily, for we will understand that the trade-offs of liberalism are better than merely living in a society that allows no space for our private selves at all, as happens with non-liberal societies.

However, Farrons resignation reminds us that the big problem of liberalism may in fact be its strong reliance on a secular idea of universal reason. For as far as we know the evidence of reason being a universal trait is far from solid, and historically this is a concept tied more to Western Imperialism than anything else. After all, even the leader of a so-called liberal political party is left struggling to make sense of liberalisms way of managing value pluralism through rationality. Does this mean that liberalism is bound to fail? Not necessarily. Yet it is certain that by admitting his impossibility to disentangle his Christian faith from his political actions, Farron has reminded us all of the usually hidden limits of liberalism.

______

About the Author

Paula Zoido Oses is Visiting Tutor at the New College of the Humanities.

Excerpt from:

Tim Farron's resignation and the hidden limits of liberalism - British Politics and Policy at LSE (blog)

Sen. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) / AP

BY: Alex Griswold June 26, 2017 4:38 pm

Liberal activists in West Virginia accidentally flew an aerial message attacking a Republican senator representing a completely different state on the other side of the country.

Reporters at the Charleston Gazette-Mailon Monday noticed a plane flying around West Virginia's capital city with a banner reading, "SEN HELLER: KEEP YOUR WORD VOTE NO ON TRUMPCARE."

The only problem? Republican Sen. Dean Heller represents Nevada. The GOP senator representing West Virginia is Shelley Moore Capito.

The Gazette-Mails executive editor, Rob Byers, identified UltraViolet, a liberal women's advocacy group, as the organization responsible for the embarrassing mixup.

UltraViolet appeared to be using its aerial message to pressure Senate Republicans to vote against the chamber's health care bill under consideration to replace the Affordable Care Act.

Aerial messages appear to be a favorite tool of UltraViolet. The groupflew an anti-Donald Trump banner over the men's U.S. Open golf tournament earlier this month to protest the women's U.S. Open being held at a Trump-owned golf course this year. UltraViolet also recently flew a banner in Kansas City, Kan. attacking the Royals for accepting a pro-life advertisement.

View original post here:

Liberal Activists Accidentally Fly Banner Attacking Nevada Republican Over West Virginia - Washington Free Beacon

Whenever the Left pushes for sharp increases in the minimum wage (which has intrinsic populist appeal and tends to poll well), conservatives argue that such plans would kill jobs, stifle entry-level opportunities, and end up hurting many of the very people it was ostensibly meant to help. Liberals' rhetoric about the minimum wage does not align with the data, critics contend, citing evidence about the types of workers who actually seek and fill those positions. Many supporters respond, in turn, with slogans and smears: It's time to "give America a raise," to end "starvation wages" and promote "fairness," they claim, attacking "mean-spirited" and "greedy" opponents for protecting "the rich" at the expense of the poor. Which brings us to Seattle's hard-left city counsel -- home to such lovely characters as this woman -- deciding in 2014 toignore pleas from the business community and hike the minimum wage within their jurisdiction to $15 per hour. The Left celebrated, the Right braced for impact. The new law took effect two years ago, and basic economics has now rendered a verdict:

In other words, even before the full $15-per-hour mandate was phased in, thousands of jobs were killed, and low-wage workers' hours were significantly reduced -- taking money out of their pockets. Behold, the (ahem)wages of "fairness."A rival study conducted by a progressive, pro-union organization was commissioned by the Seattle Mayor's office (after preliminary data from UW's respected, nonpartisan team of economists appeared politically unhelpful to the city's policy), predictably declaring the move a big success. Unsurprisingly, it is being criticized asbought-and-paid-for propaganda. Its liberal authors are counter-attacking by alleging that the more credible study by mainstream economists is methodologically flawed, drawing this strong rebuke: "When we perform the exact same analysis as the Berkeley team, we match their results, which is inconsistent with the notion that our methods create bias," one UW professornoted. It turns out that when you raise the cost of creating new jobs and sustaining existing ones, fewer jobs are created, and employers find ways to stay in business. Hardest hit are low-skilled, would-be workers looking to get a foot in the door -- as well as low-income workers whose hours were slashed after the government artificially mandated a spike in their hourly pay. Based on the data, the harm outweighed the benefits:

But hey, at least a bunch of liberal politicians were able to congratulate themselves on being "compassionate." National Review's Charles Cooke joked that the study's conclusions simply indicate that the minimum wage must be goosed even higher:

Even though he obviously meant this in jest, there are undoubtedly left-wing activists re-writing their talking points demanding precisely this "solution" at this very moment. Hell, why not make it $150 per hour? By the way, the Democratic Party enshrined a national $15 minimum wage in its 2016 platform. To borrow the Left's lazy, bullying preferred framing on so many policy debates, why do Democrats hate poor people? Especially those who actually work for their party? Parting thought: Between California's dashed single-payer fantasy and Obamacare's continued implosion, it's been a rough stretch for liberal policy schemes. Not that it will deter the true believers for one nanosecond. Onward, for "fairness!"

Original post:

Settled Science: On Minimum Wage, Basic Economics Again Rudely Intrudes on Liberal Dreams - Townhall