Mediaboss Marketing

A preference deal has been struck between traditional rivals Labor and Liberals.

Liberal mayoral candidate Cr Bob Geoghegan

A preference deal has been struck between traditional rivals Labor and Liberals ahead of Septembers Maitland Council election.

Labor will preference the Greens second then Liberals third, while the Liberalswill placeBrian Burkes independent team at number twoand then Labor.

Mayoral candidates Loretta Baker (Labor) and Bob Geoghegan (Liberal)conceded the deal was uncommon, but both said they had worked well together in the past.

It is a little unusual, CrGeoghegan said.

In other areas [Labor and Liberals] are at loggerheads, but in Maitland its different.

We know they have the interests of Maitland at heart.

CrGeoghegan said his decision was based on the character and behaviour of the candidates.

Cr Baker said the deal was not about party politics, but about the broader interests that were shared between the two.

Labor mayoral candidate Cr Loretta Baker

She said while they didnt always vote the same, they both worked hardfor Maitland residents.

Read the original here:
Labor and Liberals strike vote deal in Maitland Council Election 2017 - The Maitland Mercury

During the demonstrations in Charlottesville last weekend, hours before James Alex Fields Jr. plowed his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of counter-protesters on the street leaving one woman dead and many other people critically injured many centrists andliberals couldnt help but use the spectacle of neo-Nazis and fascists coming together on the streets for a cynical attack on the progressiveleft.

If the Bernie Bros wanted to make a show of force on behalf of progressive values,Saturdayin Charlottesville would be a good time,tweetedMieke Eoyang, the vice president of centrist think tank Third Way, implying that supporters of Bernie Sanders dont stand for progressive values where it really counts (i.e., in opposing racism and fascism). Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, alsologged on to Twitterto take a swipe at those to her left:

We have actual fascists marching with torches. Maybe everyone on the progressive side could focus on the enemies of progress in front of us

— Neera Tanden? (@neeratanden) August 12, 2017

This remark was clearlyaimed at left-wingers who have been critical of the Democratic Party, with theimplication being that leftists are more interested in picking on liberals than fighting fascists, and have been helping the latter by dividingthe progressive side.

These comments and others like them were cynical and disingenuous for a number of reasons. They became particularly shameful after the terrorist attack that occurred later that day, as itwas left-wing activists from groups like theDemocratic Socialists of America(DSA), the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and Black Lives Matter who were on the front line protesting the neo-Nazis, and who ultimately put their bodies in harms way. Heather Heyer, the 32-year-old woman who lost her life in the attack,was aprogressive activistand Sanderssupporter; if we must put it in these terms, she was a Bernie Bro.

One day before the Charlottesville demonstrations, the Washington Posts Dana Milbank published acolumnpromoting the same Bernie Bro narrative that center-left liberalshave been spreading since last years Democratic primaries. In a piece slamming Bernie Bros and sisters (at least Milbank acknowledges that millions of women also supported Sanders), the Post columnist argued that progressives are coming to the Republican Partys rescueby sowing division in the Democratic Party and attempting to enact a purge of the ideologically impure. The left-wing purity police, continued Milbank, are emulating the mistakes of the Tea Party movement that made the Republican Party the ungovernable mess it is today.

Consistent throughout these centrist or liberal criticisms of the progressive left is the notion that leftists are inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) helping those on the right, whether its Republicans in congress or armed fascists in Charlottesville. The Bernie Bro trope, which remains fashionableamong Beltway insiders even a year after being discredited, puts forward two seemingly contradictory ideas: first, that Sanders supporters are purity police who will never win elections because they are too rigidly dogmatic and progressive, and second, that Sanders supporters are mostly white malereactionaries who loved Bernie solely because he was a white man (anddetested Hillary Clinton because she was a woman).

The latter claim never had much validity, and wasdebunked back in early 2016when voter turnout and pollingdata revealed that support for Sanders was based more on age than gender or race. Younger adults, includingyoung women,overwhelmingly supportedthe Vermont senator over Clinton. Yet more than a year after the primaries ended, Clintonites remain committedto this fabrication. When progressives criticized potential 2020 Democratic candidates Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker for their neoliberal politics last month, for example, some liberals reflexively charged the left with sexism and racism.

In an excellentarticleresponding to these allegations for Current Affairs, Briahna Joy Gray points out that some of the most prominent leftists criticizing centrist Democrats like Booker and Harris are, in fact, women and people of color.The bro stereotype entirely erased the perspectives of countless women and people of color who did not share the center-left political position, writes Gray, who notes that a simplistic and cynical version of identity politics has been used to derail progressives whose record of commitment to racial justice, gender equality, and LGBT issues has historically eclipsed that of the Democratic Party itself.

The second major tenet of the Bernie bro mythology that Bernie supporters engage in purity politics is less patently offensive, and on the surface more plausible. Progressives are, after all, passionate about their political beliefs, and care about whether a politician is genuine in his or her political convictions. But the notion that left-wingers are starry-eyed idealists who will rescue the GOP if they dont fall in line and play nice with the Democratic establishment has about as much veracity to it as the notion that Bernie supporters are a bunch of white male dude-bros. Indeed, many liberals seem to have already forgotten that it was the pragmatic leadership of the Democratic establishment that led to the nationwide collapse of the Democratic Party and to Donald Trump in the White House.

The reality is that theBernie bros and sisters are the pragmatic ones in this dispute, and have a much better understanding of the current populist mood in America. This has been on full display over the past several months, as liberals have become more and morehystericaland obsessed with Russia and the DNC hack,while progressives have made the fight for universal health care their No. 1 priority (next to resisting the Trump administration and neo-Nazis). ABloomberg surveyfrom last month revealed which side is more in tune with the American public: A plurality of Americans (35 percent) believe that health care is the most important issue facing the country, while only 6 percent think that our relationship with Russia is the top issue. Furthermore, polls indicatethat agrowing number of Americans a majority in many cases support universal health care.

It seems clear, then, that the progressiveleft is tryingtorescue the Democrats from themselves.It also appears that centrists and many liberalsare not interested in having an honest debate,and would rather smear progressives (e.g., the Bernie bros or the alt-left)than engage in good-faith discussion.Even after young progressives were killed and injured on the streets of Charlottesville protesting neo-Nazis, liberals continued their smear campaign:

The Alt Left, in their drive to smear the impurityof Clinton on economic justice issues, excused the racism and bigotry that is Trumpism,tweeteda prominent liberal and editor for the website Daily Koson Sunday.

Only when progressives unconditionallyembrace the hegemony of Democratic Party leaders and their neoliberal policies, it seems, will mainstream liberals stop smearing them.

Originally posted here:
Forget the liberal smears: Leftists aren't covertly aiding the alt-right they're battling it - Salon

The recent heartbreaking events in Virginia remind me that the way our brains work has its downsides.

Nervous systems love contrasts, thrive on them. Its one reason why your brain does fancier things than your liver. For example, there are both excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters, so that the brain never confuses hollering yes with hollering no, or go with stop. There are also on/off cellular mechanisms that cause neurons to go sharply silent after a burst of excitation, generating a contrast like the difference between shouting news and shutting up. Or in another neural realm: Touch a spot on your skin, stimulating a tactile receptor neuron there, and it silences the tactile neurons surrounding it sharpening the signal to identify precisely where the sensation is happening.

Crucially, the range of contrasts can change sometimes the brain must distinguish between extremes of, say, 1 versus 100, but sometimes the extremes range only from 1 versus 1.00001. And brain processes shift to accommodate that.

For example, your brain typically navigates sounds ranging from silence to sirens, but huddle among people whispering, and soon your brain is detecting minute differences in decibels. Sit in dim light, and your brain soon distinguishes among tiny gradations of light intensity. Leave that dark room, where youre distinguishing between 1 and 1.00001, so to speak, and go into sunlight: Things will shift back to 1 versus 100. Sometimes the range of what counts as pleasurable maxes out with the smell of a flower, sometimes it requires winning the lottery.

And thanks to that neural capacity for adaptation, sometimes the difference between 1 and 1.00001 can feel roughly as important as the difference between 1 and 100.

Many on the left have been concerning themselves of late with debates that can be summarized as 1 versus 1.00001. A professor, long supportive of his schools efforts at fostering diversity, objects to one proposed version of those efforts, and soon crowds of students are accusing him of the worst kinds of prejudices, chanting for his firing.

A theater director, with the best of progressive intentions, mounts a play that showcases what she advocates. Soon she is condemned for deigning to present material about the tribulations of an out-group not her own.

Controversies roil as to whether a painting that screams empathy for the pain of an Other represents homage or exploitation, whether a fashion statement is cultural appropriation or appreciation, whether the best response to a foul academic ideologue is to attend his lecture and counter him with facts, or to silence him.

These are valid issues, and their currency reflects the lefts admirable ability to be introspective. But these debates also display the lefts time-honored capacity to eat itself alive with turmoil over the difference between 1 and 1.00001.

And then along comes Charlottesville, and we are reminded about just how contrasting contrasts really can be, how vast the difference between 1 and 100 is, or in this case, 1 and negative infinity. We are reminded what it is like when KKK garb, swastikas and torches are marched through our streets. What it is like when one of the marchers floors a cars accelerator to hurtle into a crowd, leaving Heather Heyer dead. What it is like when, 70 years after 407,000 Americans died fighting Nazism, fascism and racial supremacy, we have a president who gives comfort to those malignancies. We are reminded what evil actually looks like.

It is time to readjust our brains to focus on the biggest of contrasts, to remember who the real enemy is, to use our intellect and passion to destroy it.

Neuroscientist Robert M. Sapolsky is a professor of biology, neurological sciences and neurosurgery at Stanford University. His latest book is Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

The rest is here:
We saw evil in Charlottesville. Now liberals need to readjust their brains to stop it - Los Angeles Times

Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims fascists, they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody. No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.

Even far-left liberals like Evergreen State professor Bret Weinstein will be stripped of police protection solely because the mob called him a racist.

If the liberal shock troops deem local Republicans Nazis because some of them support the duly elected Republican president Portland will cancel the annual Rose Festival parade rather than allow any Trump supporters to march.

Theyre all fascists! Ipso facto, the people cracking their skulls and smashing store windows are anti-fascists, or as they call themselves, antifa.

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally last weekend were Nazis, white supremacists or passionate Civil War buffs, inasmuch as they werent allowed to speak. The Democratic governor shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed.

We have only visuals presented to us by the activist media, showing some participants with Nazi paraphernalia. But for all we know, the Nazi photos are as unrepresentative of the rally as that photo of the drowned Syrian child is of Europes migrant crisis. Was it 1 percent Nazi or 99 percent Nazi?

As the Unite the Right crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event: The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding antifa beating white nationalists being led out of the park.

Thats when protestor James Fields sped his car into a crowd of the counter-protesters, then immediately hit reverse, injuring dozens of people, and killing one woman, Heather Heyer.

This has been universally labeled terrorism, but we still dont know whether Fields hit the gas accidentally, was in fear for his life or if he rammed the group intentionally and maliciously.

With any luck, well unravel Fields motives faster than it took the Obama administration to discern the motives of a Muslim shouting Allahu Akbar! while gunning down soldiers at Fort Hood. (Six years.)

But so far, all we know is that Fields said he was upset about black people and wanted to kill as many as possible. On his Facebook page, he displayed a White Power poster and liked three organizations deemed white separatist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent search of his home turned up bomb-making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and a personal journal of combat tactics.

Actually, none of that is true. The paragraph above describes, down to the letter, what was known about Micah Xavier Johnson, the black man who murdered five Dallas cops a year ago during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. My sole alteration to the facts is reversing the words black and white.

President Obama held a news conference the next day to say its very hard to untangle the motives. The New York Times editorialized agnostically that many possible motives will be ticked off for the killer. (One motive kind of sticks out like a sore thumb to me.)

In certain cases, the media are quite willing to jump to conclusions. In others, they seem to need an inordinate amount of time to detect motives.

The media think they already know all there is to know about James Fields, but they also thought they knew all about the Duke lacrosse players, gentle giant Michael Brown and those alleged gang-rapists at the University of Virginia.

Waiting for facts is now the Nazi position.

Liberals have Republicans over a barrel because they used the word racist. The word is kryptonite, capable of turning the entire GOP and 99 percent of the conservative media into a panicky mass of cowardice.

This week, Mitt Romney and Sen. Marco Rubio -- among others -- instructed us that masked liberals hitting people with baseball bats are pure of heart -- provided they first label the likes of Charles Murray or some housewife in a MAGA hat fascists.

Luckily, the week before opening fire on Republicans, critically injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Bernie Sanders-supporter James Hodgkinson had used the vital talisman, calling the GOP fascist. So you see, he wasnt trying to commit mass murder! He was just fighting Nazis. Rubio and Romney will be expert witnesses.

And lets recall the response of Hillary Clinton to the horrifying murder of five Dallas cops last year. The woman who ran against Trump displayed all the moral blindness currently being slanderously imputed to him.

In an interview on CNN about the slaughter that had taken place roughly 12 hours earlier, Hillary barely paused to acknowledge the five dead officers -- much less condemn the shooting -- before criticizing police for their implicit bias six times in about as many minutes.

What she really wanted to talk about were the two recent police shootings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, refusing to contradict Minnesota Gov. Mark Daytons claim that the Minneapolis shooting was based on racism.

Officers in both cases were later found innocent of any wrongdoing. Either the left has had a really bad streak of luck on their police brutality cases, or bad cops are a lot rarer than they think.

Some people would not consider the mass murder of five white policemen by an anti-cop nut in the middle of a BLM protest a good jumping-off point for airing BLMs delusional complaints about the police. It would be like responding to John Hinckley Jr.s attempted murder of President Reagan by denouncing Jodie Foster for not dating him.

Or, to bring it back to Charlottesville, it would be as if Trump had responded by expounding on the kookiest positions of Unite the Right -- just as Hillarys response echoed the paranoid obsessions of the cop-killer. Trump would have quickly skipped over the dead girl and railed against black people, Jews and so on.

That is the precise analogy to what Hillary did as the bodies of five Dallas cops lay in the morgue.

Thank God Donald J. Trump is our president, and not Mitt Romney, not Marco Rubio and not that nasty woman.

More:
When liberals club people, it's with love in their hearts - Mt. Vernon Register-News

Now that Christy Clark has resigned and her party no longer governs, the B.C. Liberals have some hard thinking to do. Their governing philosophy was dictated, in large part, by the situation that existed when they came to power 16 years ago.

In 2001, voters were exhausted by the recurring crises that had wracked NDP premier Glen Clarks administration. They wanted a more disciplined approach, particularly to financial matters.

There was a sense also that government had come to occupy too large a place in peoples lives. Part of this was due to Clarks love of the limelight and his publicity-seeking style of politics.

When the Liberals took office, incoming premier Gordon Campbell, chose a different path. He intended to impose financial management, and succeeded. The budget was balanced early on.

He also wanted to take government off the front page of the newspapers, and here, too, for a time, he succeeded. Decisions that would have haunted an NDP administration, such as refusing to raise welfare rates for a decade, or permitting private surgery clinics to proliferate, caused barely a ripple.

After Christy Clark took over in 2011, she saw no need to change. Then came Mays election. Finally, it appeared, voters had had enough.

Care is needed with this judgment. The Liberals still won more seats than the NDP, and it took an NDP/Green Party alliance to unseat them. How stable that arrangement is remains to be seen.

However, its never a good idea in politics to pin hopes of a comeback on your opponents falling short. It does appear the pendulum has swung leftward in major population centres such as Greater Victoria and the Lower Mainland, at least for the present.

The question for the Liberals is how they should respond. Swing too far left, and they might lose their base.

We saw that in Christy Clarks last throne speech, delivered after the election, which adopted several NDP themes. It was a clumsy effort, and many of the party faithful were enraged.

An overly aggressive tack to the left also risks reinvigorating the provincial Conservative party.

Moreover, the Liberals economic message still has appeal thrift in government, low taxes and an emphasis on job creation. It is the social-policy side of the ledger that needs attention.

And here an awkward reality emerges. Most voters can say where the NDP and Greens stand on raising the minimum wage, increasing income assistance, subsidizing child care or strengthening public education. These are all key planks of a centre-left platform.

But for a centre-right party, the fit is more difficult. Here, too, the throne speech was telling. Clark and her colleagues could find no words of their own to embrace a social agenda.

The challenge lies in shifting some longstanding mindsets. The Liberals must find ways to make a more activist program acceptable to their base.

It should not, in principle, be hard to support strengthening the social safety net. The case for investing in education and skill training is likewise easy to make. And who disagrees with the need for more affordable housing, or the urgency of combating homelessness and drug abuse?

The difficulty lies in reconciling these projects with a party philosophy grounded in personal responsibility and small government. No simple matter.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was famous for solving such puzzles, or triangulating, as it was called. He could present ideas that were seemingly incompatible, and weld them together.

That is essentially what the Liberals next leader must do. Whether voluntarily or kicking and screaming, the party will have to confront a new reality.

Generating wealth is important, but distributing it fairly is also a duty of government.

Read more:
Editorial: BC Liberals face new reality - Times Colonist