Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

POLL: White Liberals Most Bothered by Joe Biden’s Whiteness – The Jewish Voice

Andrew Stiles ( Washington Free Beacon )

The only Democratic voters significantly bothered by Joe Bidens race and gender are white liberals with graduate degrees, according to a Pew survey published this week.

According to the poll, a majority of Democratic voters are not concerned that their partys presumptive nominee for president is an elderly white man. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said Bidens age and race do not bother them. Among black voters, 72 percent said they werent bothered by Bidens race and gender, while 70 percent of Hispanic voters said the same.

Concern over Bidens whiteness was considerably higher among white Democrats, nearly half of whom said they were bothered that their partys nominee was not a minority. A majority of liberal Democrats reported being bothered by Bidens whiteness, as did 58 percent of Democrats with a postgraduate education. Among Democrats with a high school education or less, 76 percent said they didnt care about Bidens race or gender, the highest result among any of the demographics measured.

Pew even broke down the numbers by which candidate each voter supported in the early stages of the Democratic primary. The results were not surprising. Early Biden supporters were the least likely to care about the former vice presidents race and gender, while 73 percent of Elizabeth Warren supporters were bothered by the fact that the likely Democratic nominee was not at least going to be an elderly white woman.

Warren was one of the first Democratic primary candidates to use the term Latinx on the campaign trail. The non-gendered alternative to Latino and Latina is most popular among white liberals with graduate degrees and left-wing activists. A 2019pollof Hispanic voters found that just 2 percent prefer the politically correct Latinx, while 68 percent said they preferred Latino/Latina or Hispanic.

Biden will be the Democratic Partys first white male nominee since John Kerry in 2004 and the first Democratic nominee without an Ivy League degree since Walter Mondale in 1984.

More here:
POLL: White Liberals Most Bothered by Joe Biden's Whiteness - The Jewish Voice

John Ivison: Liberals should follow the French lead and force tech giants to pay for news content – National Post

OTTAWA The idea that crises bring opportunity as well as danger is becoming trite.

But it doesnt make it less true.

Canadian officials are intrigued by what is happening in France and Australia, where governments have moved with alacrity to take measures aimed at forcing Google and Facebook to share advertising dollars generated locally with domestic publishers.

Competition authorities in both countries are devising a new payment for content regime, so that the social media giants pay for the news stories that help drive traffic on their sites.

One Canadian government source said the measures are being studied to see if they could work here.

The Liberals should stiffen their spines and follow the lead of the French and Aussies.

The consequence of not doing so could be no less than the demise of the Canadian news industry.

Google and Facebook consume around 70 per cent of advertising revenue, yet provide little in terms of news content.

The government passed on the option of taxing the tech giants two years ago, preferring to introduce a $600-million media bailout fund that offers publishers a 25 per cent refundable tax credit on the salaries of eligible reporters. It also included a 15 per cent tax credit on digital subscriptions.

But this was nothing more than a Band-Aid and it has taken the 30-40 per cent drop in revenues experienced by some publishers during the COVID crisis to bring the issue back onto the agenda.

A more lasting solution was offered by the Public Policy Forum in its Shattered Mirror report in 2017. It suggested using the Income Tax Act as a means of encouraging Canadian advertisers to use local media or more accurately, to discourage them from using foreign companies. The act currently restricts the deduction of business expenses to advertisements that appear in Canadian-owned media.

Nobody is more aware of how unpalatable it is to rely on the government than news organizations themselves

The Policy Forum proposed to extend that idea to the online sphere. However, to avoid abrogating trade and income tax agreements, the government would introduce a withholding tax to be paid by companies that advertise through foreign social media companies money that would be funneled into a journalism fund.

Some contribution to the system that provides content that benefit their enterprises seems reasonable, the report concluded.

That wasnt how the government saw it when it rejected the idea. It argued there was a public interest argument for supporting the media, which justified backing the fund with money from general revenues.

There were concerns that Google and Facebook would simply pass on the cost to advertisers who did not see local publishers as a viable online alternative to the dominant social media channels.

Officials looking at the issue today are further concerned about the reaction from the White House, should Canada go down the same road as the French and Australians.

But, make no mistake, this is not an industry that is warning of an imaginary danger. Print organizations were already at the cliffs edge, despite incremental gains in online advertising.

The deteriorating state of media puts at risk the health of our democracy. As the Forum summarized: Sources of opinion are proliferating, but sources of facts on which opinions are based is shrinking.

Nobody is more aware of how unpalatable it is to rely on the government than news organizations themselves.

With so many other demands on Ottawas coffers post-COVID, reliance on a fund paid for from general revenues is not sustainable.

Even increasing the subscription tax credit to 50 per cent is not a long-term solution.

But some form of payment for content by companies that have been freeloading for years is simple fairness.

The whole debate foreshadows a far larger discussion about the role of government when we all finally emerge from this impasse.

There is growing opinion that the Washington consensus of trade agreements, financial deregulation and offshore production is dead and that new rules will govern the economy of the near-future.

The idea that Canada can rely on traditional market forces to remain competitive, while everyone else adopts more active industrial strategies is foolhardy, wrote Sean Speer, a former adviser to Stephen Harper, and Robert Asselin, a former adviser to Justin Trudeau, recently.

The debate about open and closed economies is as old as Canada.

The country has veered between the poles of protectionism and free trade, never fully embracing either one.

But it seems we are at a point in our history where actions that hint at mercantilism are in the ascendancy.

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Visit link:
John Ivison: Liberals should follow the French lead and force tech giants to pay for news content - National Post

Liberals and custodians of free speech come together to justify attack on Arnab Goswami and his wife by Congress goons – OpIndia

Republic TVs Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami was attacked by two bike-borne assailants little after midnight on 23 April, 2020 near his residence in Mumbai. Soon after, he released a video wherein he said that the two men belonged to Yuva Congress and had attacked him to teach him a lesson after he had questioned Congress President Sonia Gandhis silence on Palghar sadhu lynching.

However, soon after the attack on Goswami, the liberals and the defendants of freedom of press implicitly justified and defended the attacks on Goswami.

Taseers Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card was recently revoked as he had concealed that his father was a Pakistani citizen. He has regularly displayed Hinduphobia and spoken the same language of the Islamists who killed his father in Pakistan.

- article continues after ad -- article resumes -

NDTV journalist Nidhi Razdan slyly referred to Goswami as the pandemic India is facing.

Meanwhile, Congress supporters on social media have started trending DramaBandKarArnab hashtag.

Earlier, Lamba had hailed Yuva Congress after Goswami released a video stating that the two men who had attacked him were Yuva Congress workers.

In the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd April, after his regular edit call post the 10 PM debate, Arnab Goswami and his wife were driving back home when two bike-borne assailants attacked their car. According to our sources, the assailants parked their bike in front of Arnab Goswamis car in order to get him to stop the car and then attacked it. Arnab Goswami and his wife have escaped unhurt. The assailants, after attacking the car and trying to break the windows, also threw ink at the car. According to Republic TV, the goons confessed that they were from Congress and the attack took place only 500 meters away from Goswamis residence, according to Republic TV.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals and custodians of free speech come together to justify attack on Arnab Goswami and his wife by Congress goons - OpIndia

Some Liberals Are Warming Up To The Idea Of Hindu Rashtra Over Nehruvian Secularism, Whats The Catch? – Swarajya

An article in the Indian Express, written by the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University, Hyderabad, Faizan Mustafa states that the Indian minorities are too fed up of the facade of secularism.

Mustafa argues that if Indians are done with the Nehruvian model of secularism (without pointing out its flaws), they should declare the country a Hindu rashtra, giving Hinduism the status of the dominant spiritual heritage.

He is right in saying that the Hindu rashtra will not be entirely different from the current secular state, because it is not in Hinduisms character to do what Pakistan or other Islamic countries do to religious minorities.

We also agree with him that a Hindu rashtra must bring with it genuine liberalism.

However, there is a catch, and those who are not well-prepared, will be left bewildered by Mustafas proposal.

One, its an ultimatum to intellectuals to work hard to save the Left-Islamist marriage

The proposal is a warning to the Left compatriots that unless they get a grip of the narrative and strike the enemy harder, the regressive Left-Islamist marriage is in trouble.

It signals that the Muslims intellectuals are keeping the option open, instead, to negotiate with more benign right-wing elements.

Two, it is a veiled threat imperial forces are too powerful to be pushed out of the game

The message is that we can change things on paper as much as we want, but the functioning of the Christian and Islamic imperial structures in India will remain intact.

The reason simply is that they already function with minimal dependence on other communities or indigenous political, social and economic structures. In a globalised world, they hold an organisational, political and financial clout that the Hindus can hardly match.

It is important to recognise that these imperial forces have a utilitarian approach towards the Left.

Indian Left exists thanks to the the alliance with imperial forces, not the other way around.

Left is quite expendable for the imperialists. Its only utility comes from the hegemony in the intellectual ecosystem.

If that comes under threat, the imperial forces can also directly negotiate with the non-Left forces to come to a new arrangement where they are, as before, left alone to work, just, say, at a higher price.

Even the political parties vilified as saffron have shown eagerness to maintain a functioning partnership with the Christian and Islamic supremacist forces.

The tallest Christian cross coming up in Mizoram, illegal church construction on Sattra land in Majuli, Assam, the Tablighi Jamaat-Covid-19 fiasco, and the (lack of) reaction to the recent mob lynching of two saffron-clad sadhus in the Christian missionary hotbed Palghar, Maharashtra are but a few examples.

Given the ideological straitjacket, even in the case where the right wing becomes the new ally of the imperial forces, the Left can only push the narrative of "Hindu fascism as it does now.

In fact, a Hindu rashtra will offer an unprecedented convenience to imperial forces a complacent right-wing and an ineffective Left.

Three, it assumes right wing cant achieve anything beyond winning a few elections

Mustafa seems to be banking on the assumption that a lot of left-wing intellectuals have that the Indian right wing simply doesnt have a coherent constructive ideology or strategy beyond criticising Congress and the Left. It can change the name, but it has no alternative to Nehruvian secularism in practice.

The Left has always assumed that the emergence of a political Hindu is impossible due to the internal contradictions of the Hindu society.

Not that the Left cant see that there is real anger among Hindus based on genuine grievances, but it is sure that given the lack of intellectual leadership, it will never be channelised into anything concrete.

The Left-wing intellectuals themselves proudly proclaim that there are almost no right wing intellectuals in India. So the best the right-wing can do is win some elections, but in the intellectual domain, it will always remain on the fringe.

That means, while some ad hoc innocuous measures like CAA can crop up here and there, the right-wing wont ever have any real, long term productive power.

It also means that the right-wing movement will be limited to one political party all eggs in one basket; and right-wingers will never amount to anything more than IT cell and bhakts.

Fourth, the surety that a Hindu rashtra will fail and its failure will sound death the knell of the Hindu movement

The proposal also has an underlying sadism if India becomes a Hindu rashtra, it will only end up the way Nazi Germany did beaten, disgraced and untouchable.

The Germans were rescued by their fellow white men but the guilt of a failed Hindu rashtra would be so immense that the Hindus won't dare become political again, and retire to a permanent passiveness.

It would sound the death knell of the Hindu culture and philosophy that survived centuries of persecution.

The same fear is visible in the older generation of the right-wing intellectuals who, as a result, restrained the movement tightly.

The likes of Arun Shourie did a great job exposing the left cabal but always maintained a suspicion of the right-wing politics.

All the four points discussed above pose substantial challenge for the right-wing, and must be taken seriously.

The movement definitely has a long way to go, be it organising and educating the masses in Indic politics, or having a voice loud-enough to penetrate the intellectual ivory towers.

However, at the same time, the recent trends suggest that the days of Hindu movement being defined by the Left are over.

One, a Hindu political being is already here

The Left banking on the internal contradictions of Hindu society for divide and rule hasnt noticed that pan-Hindu unity and a Hindu political being is already on the scene.

Research shows that contrary to the claims that it is an upper-caste party, the BJPs social base is now broad-based and mirrors the Hindu society.

The shift of the poor, rural and lower caste voters to BJP is ideological, and those who identify with BJP arent swayed by short-term considerations.

This shouldnt come as a surprise to intellectuals. It is a logical outcome of the path our political and intellectual leaders took and the choices they made after independence.

Also read: New Research, Old Findings: Rural, Poor And Lower Caste Voters Are Behind Phenomenal Rise Of BJP

Two, Intellectuals can exist outside the ecosystem

Imperialists-financed incentive structure means the Left dominates the knowledge ecosystem, and attracts more career-minded ambitious folks.

But the humanities and social sciences arent such specialised disciplines that the people not trained in them for years cannot penetrate.

.As much expertise the intellectuals like to credit to themselves, its not very hard to master the English language and explain things in it.

The Hindu movement does not have to depend on the mercy of the ecosystem for intellectual leadership.

Three, young right-wingers today are very different from the older generation

The Left incentive structure is controlled by a few oldies at the top. While this means better organisation, it also means lesser intelligence and flexibility to respond to changes on ground.

On the other hand, right-wing isnt as organised, but is filled with and driven by young minds.

These young people born post-liberalisation can imagine a life without a maai-baap state. They dont toe the line that the Left has set for them by marking no go zones with the labels of fascism, bhakt, troll, saffron etc.

The Left has so far managed Indians by fear and intimidation.

But young Indians today think for themselves, fiercely protect their autonomy and dont cow-down to moral shaming.

Unlike the older generation of right-wing intellectuals, they are neither reluctant nor ashamed to assert own existence with full force.

Sure, they are a little rough around the edges, but its a minor problem that can be solved by little guidance.

Four, Hindus arent clueless fanatics. They know what they are fighting, and what is it that they want

The Left threatens Indians into submitting to the imperial forces lest multiple identities regarding caste, language, region pull apart the nation.

Too bad it cannot see that hundreds of right-wing groups with young people from a variety of backgrounds are a continuing experiment of respectful co-existence which is neither marred by Lefts victimology-driven over-sensitivity, nor oppressive caste hierarchy or cowbelt dominance.

Mustafa says Hindutva fanatics will be hugely disappointed to know that the Hindu rashtra will not be entirely different from the current secular state.

Professor Mustafa will be disappointed to know that that the Hindus are no more fooled by a superficial change, like that of the Nehru surname to Gandhi.

What Hindus are demanding is a rigorous evaluation of the past crimes against them, the ideas that propelled it, and breaking the structures that continue to push the same ideas. Fight is not against certain groups, but certain ideas.

For the sake of brevity, we wont go in the details of what Indic thought is, and how the Indic movement is tackling the long-term challenges of caste discrimination, communalism, etc.

Suffice to say that both the diagnoses and solutions are more accurate and effective than the Lefts oppressor-oppressed binary.

Five, the current Hindu movement has same creative power as the Indian National Movement

In the real-world outside Leftist fantasies, the right-wing is not composed of just some street-level clueless fanatics. It is not an aberration of history, a high tide that is destined to go down.

The aberration in Indian history is the hegemony of Left in independent India that, in alliance with global capitalists and imperialists, made the legacy of the freedom movement stand on its head.

Also read: Indian Lefts Fall From Grace: Those Who Criticised Global Capitalism Are Now Taking Orders From Foreign Masters

Its time to bring out Gandhi, Bose, Tagore and others mummified and neatly arranged in the museum of Indian Left; breathe a new life into their ideas, and build upon the foundation laid by them.

The current Indic movement situates itself as a successor of the Indian national movement. Its a river that slowly but steadily cuts its way.

It is the continuation of the fight for the ideals of the freedom fighters, be it Tagores atmasakti; Ghoshs reawakening of Indias ancient spirit ; Vivekanandas idea of service, Ambedkars organise, Tilaks swaraj, Boses India is calling or Gandhis Ram Rajya.

Continue reading here:
Some Liberals Are Warming Up To The Idea Of Hindu Rashtra Over Nehruvian Secularism, Whats The Catch? - Swarajya

Conservatives reject Liberals’ tentative agreement with NDP, Bloc on Parliament’s return – CBC.ca

The Liberal governmentreached a tentative agreementwith the NDP and the Bloc Qubcois about the conditions under which Parliament could reconvene this week but the Conservatives' rejection of thatdeal could lead to MPsreturning to the Commons on Monday.

"One sitting each week is unacceptable, even if it is eventually supplemented by a virtual sitting for a handful of additional MPs," Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said during a news conference on Sunday. "Physical distancing means staying two metres apart, not staying away from Parliament."

The Official Opposition's insistence on meeting in the House of Commons three times a weekmeans negotiations between federal parties remain up in the air on the eve ofApril 20 thedateMPs were intendedto reconvene when Parliament adjourned five weeks ago.

The Liberal Party told its staff Sunday that if no deal is reached between all four parties before late Monday morning, the party will attend theHouse sittingin reduced numbersand with minimal staff present.

That would scenario would see the NDP and the Bloc each sending three MPs to the House. B.C. MP Paul Manly would attend on behalf of the Greens.

Scheer said the Conservatives are sending the same number of MPs as the last emergency sitting. The Liberals told CBC News they would do the same.

Scheer is scheduled to speak about Parliament's returnat 10:15 a.m. ET on Monday.

Earlier Sunday, Liberal House Leader Pablo Rodriguez shared on Twitter details of theagreement struck with the NDP and the Bloc, which includes a combination of in-person and virtual sittings each week.

"Under the agreement, the House of Commons will hold one day of in-person meetings per week, with a small group of MPsin the chamber. As well, there will be additional virtual sessions with a small number of MPs from across the country," the statement reads.

Rodriguez said the proposal will give MPs the same amount of time toquestion ministers and the prime minister as they would normally have under regular parliamentary circumstances.

During his Sunday COVID-19 briefing earlier in the day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticizedthe Conservatives for their repeated calls to convene in the Commons' chamber.

"I'm looking forward to taking questions from opposition parties, but it has to be done in a responsible way and right now, the Conservatives are not taking a responsible approach," Trudeau said.

Late Saturday, CBC News learned that the Trudeau government had offered to compress five days of question period into two days a week.

The arrangement would have involvedvirtual sittings every Tuesday, with MPs across the country taking part in the equivalent of two question periods. On Wednesdays, a smaller number of MPs and the prime minister would sit in the House of Commons and face the equivalent of three question periods.

In contrast, the tentative deal between the Liberals, NDP and Blocstarts with a proposal for asingle in-person sitting beginning this Wednesday.

By next week, one session would be held virtually on Tuesday, followed by a sitting in the chamber on Wednesday.

The following week and all subsequent weeks would see MPs meeting virtually on Tuesdays and Thursdays and in-person on Wednesdays, for a total of three sessions per week.

The arrangement is similar to the NDP's initial recommendation, which called for the House to meet in-person once a week on top of two virtual sessions that would involve hearing from a larger contingent of MPs.

"I think the reality is the more we are meeting in person, the more that increasesthe risk. That's why the NDP proposal, I think, makes a lot of sense," said NDP House Leader Peter Julian.

Trudeau said during his morning remarksthat convening all 338 MPsand their staff in the House of Commons would amount to an "irresponsible" move due to public health guidance urging Canadians to practisephysical distancing.

Scheer fired back at the prime minister for suggesting that any parties were advocating for afull roster of MPs to return to the Commons on Monday.

"That is completely false, and it's disingenuous to try to put that forward before Canadians as if that was a real scenario," Scheer said.

The outgoing leader also said that his proposal which includes two hours per session to question ministers is in line with theprotocols legislators followed during the government's last two emergency sittings.

"Thirty-twoMPs attended representing all parties," Scheer said. "This allowed us to follow public health advice and still carry out our duties."

While the Green Party of Canada does not hold recognized party status, former leader Elizabeth May saidshesupports sitting in the Commons only if there is a compelling reason to do so, such as passing legislation.

Commenting on Scheer's insistence thatvirtual sittings do not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, May said she believes remote platforms do just fine when it comes to holding politicians to account.

"We've already seen standing committees meet by Zoom," May said in an interview with CBC News. "I've seen [Conservative MP] Pierre Poilievre go at Bill Morneau. It wasn't any different in quality than question period. His opportunities were exactly the same."

More here:
Conservatives reject Liberals' tentative agreement with NDP, Bloc on Parliament's return - CBC.ca