Mediaboss Marketing

Canada will be spending more on defence, but how much more, and inwhat areas remained unclear Tuesday as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made the media rounds in Ottawa following his first-ever sit-down with his new U.S. counterpart.

"We are committed to investing in our defence," Sajjan said in an interview with CBC News Network'sPower & Politics, a message he repeated on other news programs, andin front of reporters on Parliament Hill.

That the message needed to be hammered home in public following his meeting on Monday with U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis should be no surprise.

The Trump administration has made it clear it expects allies to put more money into military spending, but the Trudeau government has been decidedly fuzzy on what it intends to do in the upcoming federal budget.

Last year, the newly-elected Liberals were able to claim justifiably that their military spending plans would be calibrated after they had conducted a defence policy review something that's now largely completed.

Sajjan candidly acknowledged Tuesday that Washington had significant input into the review, which is expected to be released sometime in the next few months.

"We get input from all our allies, particularly in the Five Eyes community," Sajjan told host Rosemary Barton, referring to the U.S., Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canadian intelligence sharing pact.

The British were also heavily involved in giving advice to Canadian defence planners.

How the opinions of the country's two longest-standing allies helped shape the Liberal views on defence spending and global engagement, remains to be seen.

At the 2015 Natosummit in Wales, both the Obamaadministration and the government of former British prime minister David Cameron, leaned on Canada to meet the Natobenchmark of spending two per cent of gross domestic product on defence.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper countered the pressure by saying allies should look at what Canada is doing for the alliance, the kind of equipment it brings to missions and the fact that it can always be counted on to show up.

It is an argument that the Trudeau government has also adopted and Sajjan has often repeated, including on Tuesday.

But it is a line that many experts in the defence community don't believe will wash with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has often questioned the relevancy of Nato.

During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to hold the line on defence spending, which runs in the vicinity of $21 billion per year. Their platform also pledged to carry on with military budget increases outlined in the last budget tabled by Harper's government in 2015.

That fiscal plan allowed for a gradual increase over 10 years of $11.8 billion to the baseline appropriation at National Defence, beginning in the 2017-18 fiscal year.

According to former finance minister Joe Oliver's projections, that would mean a $184 million increase this year, with the cash ramping up gradually to $2.3 billion per year by 2026-27.

Sajjan was asked directly on Tuesday byBarton whether the Liberals still intended to live up to that pledge he deflected the question and talked about what Canada contributes to international missions.

Excerpt from:
Sajjan says Liberals 'committed to investing in defence,' but won't say by how much - CBC.ca

By Noah Strote By Noah Strote February 7 at 6:00 AM

Noah Strote, an assistant professor of history at North Carolina State University, is the author of the forthcoming Lions and Lambs: Conflict in Weimar and the Creation of Post-Nazi Germany.

The left is struggling to define a strategy of resistance against the radical agenda of Donald Trump and his Cabinet. Some are calling for the adoption of tea party-style tactics of total obstruction. Congressional Democrats seem to be taking a more pragmatic approach. Since the inauguration, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) has pledged that his caucus is ready to work with the Trump administration on policies that align with Democratic values.

Twentieth-century German history provides a useful perspective. While comparisons between Trumps America and Adolf Hitlers Germany should be made cautiously, we can learn something from the anti-Nazi resistance: The left should not only be fighting extreme measures coming from the regime, but it should also peeling off conservatives to create an anti-Trump coalition.

Unfortunately, the German example also shows that such coalitions can require painful compromises on core values precisely the kind of compromises Democrats currently appear unwilling to make. More than anything, the analogy shows that false moves during a resistance can haunt a nation for decades.

Like Trump, Hitler took control of a democratic system in crisis. Establishment politicians on the left and the right were fighting over what seemed like mutually exclusive visions for the countrys future. The left argued that Germany had been founded on secular ideals of pluralism and socialism; the right considered Christianity and capitalism the basis of national community. Hitler, an outsider with no government experience, took advantage of this situation by allying himself with the right and blaming the left for the countrys polarization.

For a short while, the alliance between the Nazis and the right-wing establishment held. Conservatives trusted Hitlers promise to restore Christian values to German society. They raised no objection when the Nazi-led government smeared left-wing politicians as traitors and drafted laws intended to isolate groups that had allegedly eaten away at the countrys cultural fabric. Similarly, congressional Republicans remain mum as Trump declares war on the liberal media, lambastes dissenting civil servants who betrayed their jobs, and bars some Muslims and refugees from entering the United States.

The Third Reichs founding coalition began to falter when conservatives saw that their new leader showed little commitment to traditional Christian values. Fewer than two years into the regime, after a fateful event known as the Night of the Long Knives during which Nazi security forces purged a number of key conservative politicians Hitler made clear that he considered race, not Christian spirit, to be the true source of national unity.

Germans on the left found themselves at a crossroads. Two paths lay open: They could double down in their struggle against the right or try to woo disillusioned conservatives.

A minority, mainly communists, chose the first path. They excluded conservatives from a popular front of anti-Nazi resistance and insisted on the strict application of left-wing values, such as the socialization of private property and the complete separation of church and state.

But most left-wing leaders chose the second path. In the years between 1935 and 1945, they quietly began recruiting conservatives to build an anti-Hitler coalition and plan for the post-Nazi order. To achieve that goal, however, they needed to develop ideas and craft policies that would attract religious Germans.

This required some painful ideological compromises. Many left-wing leaders gave up their struggle against religion in public schools and abandoned their previous goal of socializing key industries. The more radical left criticized them as betraying the socialist cause. But after Hitlers demise and the end of World War II, their decisions helped to provide a stable foundation for what became known as West Germany, and ultimately todays reunified Germany, which by most measures is one of the least politically polarized societies in the world.

Meanwhile, the left-wing resisters who refused to compromise with conservatives found themselves isolated and dependent on support from the Soviet Union, whose leaders proved just as ideologically intransigent. These were the men and women who ended up founding East Germany, a state that survived only as long as communist Russia remained economically viable.

The current American situation is not identical to the German case. But Trumps ascendancy is a symptom of societal crisis, just as Hitlers was in Germany. At least since the 1980s and the entry of a religious right into politics, there has been polarization over the question of the countrys bedrock values. And for the past eight years, Republicans establishment politicians and the tea party insurgents who brought them to heel have run a successful campaign of no compromise with the left. Living in North Carolina, the so-called belly of the beast, I have seen how many on the right speak about liberals as enemies (and vice versa). They embrace Trump despite their skepticism because they think he can finally push through their agenda with no left-wing interference.

Liberals could emulate the pragmatic wing of the anti-Nazi resistance by appealing to conservatives. But this would require something more agonizing than normal bipartisan compromises. It would mean finding common ground on the very social issues that have riven politics for the past three or four decades.

Liberals might have to alter, or at least sideline, some of their most prized platforms on abortion or secularism in the public sphere. Conservatives might need to consider welfare policy proposals they have long condemned, such as single-payer health care. Compromise on that profound level seems almost impossible at the moment. But Trumps threat to the republic grows in proportion to the widening ideological fissure between left and right. As the German example shows, bridging the worldviews of former enemies may be the only way to avoid the abyss.

Holocaust survivors are gathering in Auschwitz to mark the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp. (Reuters)

The rest is here:
What American liberals can learn from the anti-Nazi resistance - The ... - Washington Post

Liberals are so busy confessing and denouncing privilege they've forgotten to fix it Quartz When an author writes a book about privilege, many questions quickly arise: How privileged is the author, and are they self-aware of their privilege? What is their socioeconomic background, and what disadvantages have they overcome? If she thinks ...

Read the rest here:
Liberals are so busy confessing and denouncing privilege they've forgotten to fix it - Quartz

New England Patriots QB Tom Brady celebrates a touchdown against the Atlanta Falcons / AP

BY: Bill McMorris February 6, 2017 3:35 pm

After weeks of politicizing the Super Bowl, liberals became howling mad when rightwing trolls returned the favor.

Reporters spent months calling on Super Bowl MVP Tom Brady and Patriots owner Robert Krafta lifelong Democratand head coach Bill Belichickto disavow then-candidate Donald Trump, and were met with silence. After Trump pulled off an upset victory against noted abuela Hillary Clinton and New England advanced to the Super Bowl, that mission took on a new sense of urgency.

Sports blog SB Nation boldly declared that "The Patriots have a Trump problem." The post breathlessly recounted the disappointment that many self-proclaimed "die-hard fans" felt when they refused to talk about politics.

"When Belichick takes a stance on the need to be focused on doing your job, and then when its convenient for him to do something that serves him and a friendship with Donald Trump, he does it? Thats a betrayal from a fans perspective," one fan told the blog created by DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsis.

The New York Times noted that "politics and footballare coming together again in an extraordinary, and for the league, uncomfortable way." The source of this commingling: reporters.

"Many players on the Falcons and Patriotsincluding Mohamed Sanu, who is Muslimwere peppered with questions [from reporters] about their thoughts on the president and his temporary ban on refugees from some Muslim-majority countries," the Timesreported.

The hyper politicization of the event was compounded by Lady Gaga's threat to use the halftime show as a platform for anti-Trump activism, which led some conservatives to beg the media to check politics at the gate of Houston's NRG Stadium. Ben Domenech, founder of the Federalist, laid out the case for an apolitical civic society in an op-ed for the New York Times.

"It is now impossible to consume media without the constant encroachment of political divisiveness and partisan tribalism," Domenech said. "Breaking down the walls between us is easier to do when our culture is not so politicizedwhen we can feel free to watch, laugh and cheer alongside our fellow Americans without catching ourselves wondering how they voted. That is the healthier way to live, particularly in the era of Donald Trump."

Liberals greeted Domenech's op-ed with their trademark tolerance.

With New England trailing 28-3 in the second half, the political jokes flowed from the left side of the spectrum.

In the aftermath of the Patriots' historic comeback, conservatives noted that reports of New England's demise were greatly exaggerated.

The changing fate of the game led liberals to declare it a victory for white supremacy. Comedians, writers, and activists took offense at the idea that anyone would seek to use a sporting event as a metaphor for politics.

It didn't work.

Read the original post:
Liberals Regret Politicizing the Super Bowl - Washington Free Beacon - Washington Free Beacon

USA TODAY 5:52 p.m. ET Feb. 6, 2017

During the Chattanooga Women's March in Tennessee on Jan. 21, 2017.(Photo: Doug Strickland, AP)

Letter to the editor:

I live in California, Im a heterosexual white male, and I wear a bright red hat that really infuriates people.

My hat has a patriotic phrase on the front: Make America Great Again, but from the looks I get, youd think it was some sort of communist propaganda. Contrary to the belief of those who see me wear it, I am not a racist, sexist, or bigot. In fact, the ones who get the most upset upon seeing my hat are probably bigots themselves my beliefs are different, and that really seems to grind their gears.

Wearing the hat is my way of protesting the politically correct movement thats successfully turning half of the U.S. into pansies. Its my jab at all the liberals who claim to be tolerant, yet seem to be very intolerant of my hat (and my views). Its my attempt to expose the hypocrisy of some of those on the left who think Im deplorable for donning such an accessory.

The truth is, Im sick of the politically correct nonsense. Im sick of seeing people shamed into silence. My hat is my counterattack. Its me refusing to change my wardrobe because people are offended. I love American values and the freedom we enjoy to say what I want to say, believe what I want to believe and wear what I want to wear and I wont let the ill-feelings of others scare me into submission.

Are you offended by the hat I wear? Your answer might say more about you than it does about me.

Noah Peterson; Santa Clarita, Calif.

USA TODAY

Policing the USA

Facebook comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

Lets let the man whom we elected do his job. Even if you did not vote for him, the American way is to respect who is in office. Let President Trump do his job. His tactics may be too harsh for some, but he is doing all he talked about during his campaign.

Sylvia L. Ossa

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jVMLy9

See original here:
I aim to expose liberals for their intolerance: Your Say - USA Today - USA TODAY