Mediaboss Marketing

Cindy Lamoureuxformally announced her bid to become the next leader of the Manitoba Liberals in style on Friday.

"This is something I'm very excited about," Lamoureux said, flanked by supporters moments after shepulledup outside the Manitoba Legislature on a motorcycle. "I love my province, I love my city and the people who live here in Manitoba and I want to be able to continue to work for Manitobans."

The 25-year-old secured one of three seats in the legislature for the Liberals last spring during the provincial election.

She wants to fill the vacancy left by Rana Bokhari. The former party leader lost the Fort Rouge constituency to NDP MLA Wab Kinewin the last provincial election and a month later, Bokhari announced she would step down.

Leadership candidates will have to put up $5,000 in a combination of cash andmembership sales, gather 100 nomination signatures and be vetted by a party committee before officially entering the race.

Cindy Lamoureux credits her father for getting her interested in politics at an early age. (Tyson Koschik/CBC)

She credited her father, Liberal MP and longtime MLA Kevin Lamoureux, with sparking her interest in politics at an early age.

The rookie representative for the Burrows constituency refused to talk politics or reveal details about her platform on Thursday. She instead addressed concerns about her age, andhow the Manitoba Liberals "desperately need" a leader who can take charge and boost fundraising for the party.

"Look, I recognize I am young.I am 25. I'm very transparent about that.I do think that I look younger than I am. That might catch up withme in a career in politics," she said.

"I know that I don't know everything, but I do know that here in Manitoba, we have skilled people, talented and passionate people, and I, as an individual, I am willing to listen. I want to listen. I am eager to learn and I am open-minded and I hope Manitobans will see that."

Lamoureux pointed to former Manitoba premier Edward Schreyer as proof that age doesn't mean everything.

Schreyer went on to serve as Governor General of Canada, but earlier in his career, he was the youngest person ever to be electedin Manitoba. He was 22 when he was voted in as MLA for Brokenheadin 1958.

"That is such an inspiration for me. That is why I am optimistic about this opportunity," Lamoureux said, adding the fact that she was elected is proof she is ready to rise in the Liberals'ranks.

"I think my age is a wonderful asset. I am taking full advantage of it," she said. "People are always saying, 'Young people are the future.' No, young people are today, so allow us that opportunity to shine."

The party will vote for next leader on Oct. 21.

As for the choice to roll up to the cameras on her hog, Lamoureux said was just taking advantage of the nice weather

"I believe in the old saying, 'Work hard, play hard.' I enjoy my summers and part of that is riding my motorcycle," she said, adding she has been dirt biking since she was 10.

Excerpt from:
Cindy Lamoureux makes leadership bid for Manitoba Liberals - CBC.ca

As many environmentalists and scientists worry that the United States is retreating from the fight against global climate change, acclaimed novelist Jonathan Franzen warned Tuesday that preoccupation with the issue is actually diverting attention from more immediate threats to nature.

In a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Franzen said the focus on preventing long-term changes to climate a cause he contends has largely been lost leaves scant resources for saving endangered species and other short-term ecological needs.

When it comes to the environment, climate now has an absolute lock on the liberal imagination, Franzen said. Any attempt to change the subject, even if you are trying to change it to the epic extinction event that human beings are already creating without the help of climate change, is an offense against that religion.

The author of such novels as The Corrections, Freedom, and Purity, as well as several works of nonfiction, Franzen spoke at Gund Hall as part of the Graduate School of Designs Rouse Visiting Artist Lecture Series.

Diane E. Davis, chair of the Schools Department of Urban Planning and Design, introduced Franzen, with whom she shares St. Louis roots, as a quintessentially urban writer, a man concerned not just with the dilemmas of modernity but also deeply cognizant of the power of place, space, and territory in creating the context of human experience.

But it was his passion for the environment and for protecting free speech, as well as his reflections on the current political climate, that occupied Franzen in his lecture.

Franzen, an ardent bird watcher, drew the wrath of fellow environmentalists for committing what he termed offenses against liberal orthodoxy in a 2015 New Yorker article on climate change and the environment. The piece expressed skepticism that the world would take the radical actions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, Franzen said, and argued wed be too late even if we did.

Franzen also took issue with claims by some progressives that the reason the United States cant really get serious about reducing its carbon emissions is that fossil fuel corporations are sponsoring denialists and buying elections. He acknowledged that this behavior occurs, but said that the issue is more complicated.

The problem really is not that democracy is being prevented so much as that democracy is occurring. Its precisely the citizens in the major carbon-emitting democracies who benefit from cheap gasoline and global trade, he said, adding that the cost of that pollution is borne heavily by people in undeveloped nations like Bangladesh.

Franzen said he saw a silver lining for the environment in the election of Trump, noting that such actions as the administrations recent rejection of a petition to ban use of a harmful pesticide could remind people that there are other issues besides climate change that matter right now.

A narrow focus on global warming is also a poor strategy for mobilizing public support for the environment, Franzen said.

Ordinary Americans understand apparently better than the liberal elite does that theres precisely nothing that any individual can do about climate change nothing except feel guilty, he said. And guilt is one of the least effective human motivators.

Franzen took aim at progressives on several other issues, including for actions he said undermine free expression. He cited recent protests mounted at the University of California, Berkeley, and Middlebury College against planned appearances by controversial speakers. Franzen said the actions amounted to suppressing free speech.

He also directed his ire at Americans focused on simply denouncing President Trump instead of trying to understand and maybe win over the swing voters who responded to the Trump message of anti-elitism and anti-global nationalism. The effect, he said, has been to deepen the liberal silo, not see beyond it.

By Clea Simon, Harvard Correspondent | April 19, 2017

Read the original post:
Jonathan Franzen has some choice words for liberals - Harvard Gazette

Well, the liberals are at it again with their political correctness nonsense. This time they took aim at the 22,000-lb Massive Ordnance Air Blast (aka the Mother of All Bombs), which progressives found offensive. While never been used in the field, its been in service since the Bush administration, so this outrage seems a bit delayed. Second, no one really cares that this bomb was gendered. Its these politically correct antics that will continue to make the Left look abjectly insane and unpalatable. Its part of the speech codes, the lectures on so-called privilege, and safe space authoritarian ethos that only emboldened the forces the helped elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. A lot may not have liked Trump, but after being lectured to, among other things, about how calling this 22,000-lb bomb is an example of lethal patriarchy, you would vote for the candidate who shunned this nonsense. And believe me mother of all bombs is a much friendlier term than what we really could call this bomb, give the conflict were in with radical Islamic terrorists.

I really want the media to STOP using the term "mother of all bombs". Offensive.

It's grotesque to call a killing device, the Mother of All Bombs. The #MOAB is the epitome of lethal patriarchy.

#MOAB actually stands for Massive Ordinance Air Burst. Trump is sexist even when referring to bombs. Nice consistency.

i'm not sure what's stupider: dubbing a bomb "mother of all bombs" or calling a bigger bomb "father of all bombs" in response

The U.S. dropped a MOAB on ISIS fighters in Afghanistan, killing nearly 100 of them last week. Some saw this as sending a message to North Koreas Kim Jong-un, who was making preparations for the 105th anniversary of the countrys founder, Kim Il Sung, which also included a possible nuclear weapons test. That didnt happen. A missile test was conducted on Sunday, but it blew up on the platform.

Tillerson Slams Obama Admin For Passing them the 'Buck' on Iran

More here:
Liberals: Saying 'Mother Of All Bombs' Is 'The Epitome Of Lethal ... - Townhall

Every summer in Canada, companies and organizations receive federal grants to help ensure college and university students get an internship. I worked for a pro-life organization that received grants over the summer, but recently, the Liberals started looking into axing these grants for pro-life organizations.

An argument can be made on why these grants shouldnt be given to any company or organization at all.

But thats not what this is about.

Watch as I explain why the Liberals are doing this and where the problem is.

The government shouldnt just fund those they only ideologically agree with. In a free and open society, individuals and groups should have the right to advocate for what they believe.

Its called free speech and expression. At the end of day, if these pro-life groups arent doing anything illegal (and theyre not) they should be able to receive public funding for their student summer internship program.

If they dont, if they are being singled-out for this, then thats discrimination. If pro-life groups or politicians did this to you, Id be staunchly defending your right to advocate and hold your beliefs.

So, do me the favour and dont discriminate against my advocacy and beliefs.

Lets not simply discriminate against ideas, Liberals. Were better than that.

Follow Jay on Twitter at @JayFayza

Read the original here:
Trudeau Liberals consider defunding pro-life summer internships - The Rebel

posted at 4:01 pm on April 19, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

This entire process certainly didnt start with Michael Bloomberg, but he definitely made it famous. The subject at hand is the increasing popularity of soda taxes (or more broadly, sugary drink taxes) as the latest sin tax of choice among liberals. Its been attempted in various places, but one of the more recent ones was enacted in 2015 in the liberal bastion of Berkeley, California. Since going into effect there have definitely been some impacts on the local economy and this piece from Time Magazine attempts to pick out some sweet spots in the data (if youll pardon the pun) as proof that the system is working. Lets see what they came up with.

The researchers looked at whether the tax impacted the buying behaviors of Berkeley residents. They found that one year after the tax took effect, sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell by close to 10%, and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%. Sales of unsweetened teas, milk and fruit juices also went up, suggesting people were substituting their sugary drinks with healthier alternatives

The findings suggest that even in higher-income communities, a soda tax can impact sales. Popkin predicts that the drops would be even greater in cities and counties with lower-income communities. In Mexico, which passed a similar tax that took effect in 2014, there have been significant declines in the consumption of sugary beverages. Among low-income residents, it dropped by 17% early on.

So since the tax was enacted, sales of all sugar sweetened drinks fell by 10% in the area where the tax was collected. I suppose if we bring the conversation to a dead stop right there you might be led to believe that the effort was effective, eh? But as with so many other metrics in society, the raw numbers dont speak to a host of other factors. Heres one thought Berkeley is a very liberal spot with lots of vegans and other health conscious lifestyle types of folks. Do you suppose that people were just looking for healthier options anyway? The study doesnt tell us if this was a sudden reversal or part of a longer trend.

Heres another factor to consider. When you drive up the price of any goods or services, its true that some people will choose not to spend their money in that fashion. But others may seek a cheaper option. Heres where the report goes completely off the tracks. (Emphasis added)

Another interesting finding in the study was that sales of sugar-sweetened beverages in neighboring cities rose nearly 7%possibly because people may be buying their soda where its cheaper. Yet Popkin says hes skeptical that the number of people in Berkeley would be great enough to increase the rates of other cities substantially, and believes that the higher rates could be partially unrelated.

So you were willing to flatly accept a 10% drop as being attributable to the tax, but youre skeptical that the 7% rise next door could be caused by people buying in bulk where the product is cheaper? Yeah that makes total sense.

Far more likely is that the real drivers for these changers are, to some significant degree, attributable to normal market forces. When you drive up the cost of something people look for other options. That happened in Philadelphia where the city government decided to save the people from themselves with a similar soda tax. The net result seemed to be angry consumers, more people shopping in the nearby county without the tax and, just by the way, the local Pepsi plant laying off a bunch of their workers. Brilliant!

None of this, of course, addresses the underlying problem with this approach. Since when is it the governments job to engage in social engineering experiments using the power of taxation as a cudgel to wield against the citizens? If you honestly believe that soda is a dangerous product unfit for human consumption, then ban it. If the people support your efforts you will be reelected. But if its good enough to be legally sold, then dont pretend youre trying to make people healthier by letting them drink something that you are saying is borderline toxic while actually just filling the city governments coffers with their grocery money. Thats both dishonest and insulting.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals attempt to point to success of soda tax in Berkeley - Hot Air