Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive voters in University-Rosedale are being treated to an embarrassment of riches this municipal election, says Rory Gus Sinclair.

The community activist and past chair of the Harbord Village Resident Association should know. Hes been organizing candidate debates in the downtown neighbourhood for years, and says this years contest in Ward 11 will be one to watch.

University-Rosedale is one of seven wards in which incumbents arent running for re-election this year. While there is a clear favourite in some of the other open races, the vacancy left in Ward 11 by outgoing progressive council heavyweight Mike Layton has attracted three high-profile left-leaning candidates hoping to take his place. The resulting electoral battle is shaping up to be one of the most competitive contests in the Oct. 24 vote.

There are some seriously good candidates in there, said Sinclair. Its exciting in the sense that were going to get a new face, no matter what.

In one corner is Dianne Saxe, the former provincial environmental commissioner whos taking leave from her role as deputy leader of the Green Party of Ontario to run for council. Shes pitted against Norm Di Pasquale, Toronto Catholic District School Board Trustree for Ward 9 (Toronto), and Robin Buxton Potts, current interim councillor for neighbouring Ward 13 (Toronto Centre).

All three cite similar issues when asked about residents biggest concerns housing unaffordability, development pressures and climate change and each claim theyre uniquely qualified to take on those problems.

I think the biggest thing that separates me is my direct experience at city hall, said Buxton Potts, 34, who was former Ward 13 city councillor Kristyn Wong-Tams chief of staff, and before that worked in the council offices of Adam Vaughan, Ceta Ramkhalawansingh and Joe Cressy

Saxe, 69, who ran for the Greens in University-Rosedale in Junes provincial election and placed fourth, says her 46-year career working for the public interest in government, business and law will enable her to deliver for residents.

She also touts her long personal relationship with Mayor John Tory, whose daughter is married to the son of family friends. Under the strong-mayor system that will go into effect in the coming council term its going to be increasingly important to work well with the mayor, and I can do it better than they can, she said of her opponents.

Di Pasquale argues that as a school trustee hes the only candidate whos already served as an elected representative for University-Rosedale. I know what its like to be the face of moving policy and then having to have it stand up in the public, he said.

The 44-year-old, who previously helped lead a grassroots campaign to keep jets out of the island airport, also has the support of Torontos progressive establishment, including local NDP MPP Jessica Bell, political advocacy group Progress Toronto, and Layton himself.

Norm leads with his progressive values and has the energy and knowledge needed to advance stronger progressive policies across a range of issues, said Layton in a statement Thursday.

There are indications Di Pasquale could use the help. An early Forum Research poll conducted Sept. 14, before Layton announced his endorsement, suggests Di Pasquale is trailing in fourth place, behind Saxe, Buxton Potts and lesser-known candidate Axel Arivu.

Neither Di Pasquale, Saxe nor Buxton Potts lives in Ward 11, but all say they have roots in the community and have a home near by.

Buxton Potts has faced criticism from the moment she entered the race. Thats because in June when council appointed her to temporarily take over Wong-Tams seat after the latter stepped down, she promised she had no intention of running in the municipal election.

She said she changed her mind when Layton announced his intention to step down because, with the departures of Wong-Tam as well as Cressy, the former SpadinaFort York councillor, it meant Torontos three downtown wards would be left without an experienced representative.

Buxton Potts was recently photographed at a fundraiser for Tory, but said she has not asked for the mayors endorsement and would only accept it if she secured concessions to benefit the wards residents.

It initially looked as though the trio of prominent left-wing candidates risked splitting the progressive vote in Ward 11, allowing a more centrist challenger to take the seat. But although broadcaster Ann Rohmer entered the race and was considered to have a strong chance of securing Torys endorsement, she ended her campaign just nine days after registering.

Although the remaining leading candidates are broadly in sync with the downtown progressives who make up much of University-Rosedale, Layton says the winning council candidate will need more than left-wing bona fides to do the job.

The ward is a hot spot for pressures related to Torontos housing crunch, including rising rent and home prices, visible homelessness, and large-scale development. It also has a lot of residents with strong opinions about those issues.

Whoever is elected will need the skills to personally engage with the community and come up with collaborative solutions residents can live with, Layton says.

Sinclair agrees, and says the workload for the local councillor has only grown since the province doubled the size of Torontos wards in 2018.

I think its a really hard, hard frigging job, he said.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

See original here:
Three progressives are fighting for this downtown council seat. Why is one touting her ties to John Tory? - Toronto Star

Throughout most of Chris Hedges new book, The Greatest Evil is War, theres not much to ponder. Hedges has not written a philosophical treatise or a heady analysis of battlefield strategy. Nor does he propose a novel way of assessing war, such as Samuel Moyn did in last years Humane, which argued that making war more humane only prolongs it. Hedges refuses to reside in the abstract, creating instead a book about war that is meant to be experienced viscerally.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent and author who has covered conflicts in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Central America, wants us to feel what he has felt and see what he has seen in those combat zonesand he has seen more than enough throughout his career. His book is nothing short of a gut punch.

According to advance publicity, Hedges was reluctant to write another book about war, but relented after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Appropriately then, he kicks off his powerful jeremiad by drawing a parallel between Russian President Vladimir Putins war in Ukraine and the United States invasion of Iraq. He does this for two reasons. Most obviously, hes emphasizing the hypocrisy of the American political-media establishment that was so quick to condemn Putinthe new Hitlerfor invading a sovereign nation after that same media establishment enthusiastically supported the U.S. war against Sadaam Hussein. Both were and are wars of aggression, after all.

Preemptive war, whether in Iraq or Ukraine, is a war crime, Hedges declares in the books very first sentence. Drag Putin off to the International Criminal Court and put him on trial. But make sure George Bush is in the cell next to him.

Comparisons like this wont sit well with many. But Hedges draws parallels between these wars and others that have historically been framed as good versus evil because he wants to erase such distinctions. There are no good wars, he insists. While acknowledging that we must occasionally fight, such as in World War II, he reminds us that the suffering of those involvedphysical, spiritual, moralis almost never justified.

The examples Hedges offers of such suffering can be hard to stomach. But they are key to his argument that U.S. media must attempt to portray the reality of war instead of offering up the romantic myth of wartime heroism that were typically shown. This myth, Hedges says, must be obliterated so Americans can make informed decisions about whether to support these wars.

In a chapter titled Shadows of Warexcerpted in its entirety in The Progressives October/November issueHedges presents the books central thesis. He writes: Wars effects are what the state and the press, the handmaiden of the war makers, work hard to keep hidden. If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be harder to embrace the myth of war.

Simply put, Hedges argues that destroying this myth would mean fewer wars. And to do this, his book aims to present the reality of war in chapters that examine PTSD and moral injury; what its like to kill another human being; war profiteering; military brainwashing; killing children; grieving families; the story of a paraplegic veteran; and an interview with a Holocaust survivor. Saving Private Ryan this is not. The book is an utter repudiation of war as a noble or glorious endeavor.

Hedges refuses to reside in the abstract, creating instead a book about war that is meant to be experienced viscerally.

The most disturbing chapter is simply titled Corpses, and it tells the story of Jessica Goodell, a Marine sent to Iraq to process dead soldiersmany of whom died by suicide, and many with bodies so mangled by IEDs that little remained except vaporized flesh that she had to scoop into body bags. Her story will haunt you for days.

I wrote earlier that The Greatest Evil is War is meant to be experienced viscerally and not intellectually. Thats true until the end. In Permanent War, the books final and most important chapter, Hedges puts American war-making into a broader context and explains why our wars have become interminable. His analysis here is the same one expounded by many of the great war critics of our time, such as Noam Chomsky, Andrew Bacevich, Glenn Greenwald, and the late Michael Hastings.

Following World War II, America saw the birth of a massive national security statethe military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower called itostensibly justified by the threat of the Soviet Union. To fund this new state, crucial resources were diverted from infrastructure, education, healthcare, and clean energy research and development. Meanwhile, Hedges writes, America transitioned from being a country that primarily produced things to a country that primarily consumed things.

Hedges observes how these two factorsa gargantuan military and a new American ethos that promised endless consumption without responsibilityhave landed us in the predicament were in. As Andrew Bacevich told me in a 2010 interview, this is the heart of the dilemma. America must now constantly build weapons and fight wars to secure the resources necessary to maintain its limitless consumption.

But permanent war and endless consumption are unsustainable, of course. Not only are they destroying our planet (the Department of Defense is the single largest institutional consumer of petroleum in the world), but, as Hedges points out, they are destroying our liberal traditions and democratic institutions. Permanent war, he argues, cheapens culture into nationalist cant. It degrades and corrupts education and the media and wrecks the economy. There is little question we are seeing this borne out.

In a brief but chilling coda, Hedges says witnessing so much war has nearly broken him, and admits that no one can truly convey what its like to be in combat. Its impossible to portray war, he concludes.

Maybe so. But The Greatest Evil is War is the rawest, angriest, most graphic, and most revolting account of war Ive ever read. And it comes about as close to shattering the myth of war as any portrayalor attempted portrayalthat Im aware of.

Editors Note: You can read an excerpt from The Greatest Evil is War in the October/November 2022 issue of The Progressive.

See more here:
Book Review: Shattering the 'Myth of War' - Progressive.org

Posted on: September 23, 2022, 01:11h.

Last updated on: September 23, 2022, 02:07h.

Arkansas casinos have been cleared to link progressive slot machines to networks that expand into other gaming states.

Progressive slot machines are the terminals that are typically responsible for jackpot headlines. With a progressive, a small portion of each bet played is set aside for a grand jackpot prize, delivering life-changing wins regularly.

The Arkansas Racing Commission this week approved a request from the Saracen Casino in Pine Bluff to link its IGT-manufactured slot machines with the companys slots operations in Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, and South Dakota.

Our machines quite literally will be linked to the Las Vegas Strip, Carlton Saffa, chief market officer for Saracen, told the gaming commission this week.

The progressive games biggest jackpot can usually only be won by playing near-max bets on the terminal. The gaming manufacturer or distributor handles the progressive jackpot funds and distributes the winnings when the jackpot hits.

Arkansans authorized four commercial casinos through a ballot referendum during the November 2018 election. The question amended the Arkansas Constitution to allow a casino in Jefferson, Crittenden, Garland, and Pope counties.

To date, the largest slot jackpot in Arkansas history was a $131,000 win hit at Saracen. While thats a considerable amount of cash, it pales compared to the amounts progressives award.

IGT currently has 11 progressive jackpots of $1 million or more operating in the US. The largest is a more than $12.9 million Megabucks prize.

Saracen plans to bring IGT Wheel of Fortune progressives to its casino first. Wheel slots remain one of the most popular titles in the US gaming industry. Saffa says three different Wheel progressives will feature minimum jackpots of $200,000, $500,000, and $1 million. The minimum bet to qualify for the $1 million progressive jackpot will be $5 a spin.

The casino rules that the Arkansas Racing Commission finalized after the constitutional amendment allowed the casinos to link progressives with other commercial gaming states. But the casinos must first apply and receive authorization from the state before placing the pooled electronic terminals on their gaming floors.

Three of Arkansas four casinos are up and running Saracen, Oaklawn Racing Casino Resort in Hot Springs, and Southland Casino in West Memphis. The fourth and only remaining casino opportunity is earmarked for Pope County.

After years of legal contention, the Cherokee Nation Businesses, the economic arm of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, has been determined the rightful recipient of the Pope gaming license. The Cherokees have partnered with Legends Hospitality, a sports-focused concessions and hospitality firm partially controlled by Dallas Cowboys billionaire owner Jerry Jones. Their goal is to build a $225 million property called Legends Resort & Casino in Russellville.

Expected to break ground before the end of the year, Legends Resort & Casino is to have a gaming space measuring about 50,000 square feet, with roughly 1,200 slot machines and 32 table games. A sportsbook, 200-room hotel, meeting and conference center, and a spa are also in the works.

Continue reading here:
Arkansas Casinos to Link Progressive Slot Machines With Other States - Casino.Org News

This is a tale of two houses, said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), slamming Schumer and Manchins agreement to take up permitting reform in exchange for his vote on the party-line bill as a sleazy backroom deal.

Its all shaping up as Democrats last big internal fight before the midterms, a rare remaining sore point for a party thats largely and finally united on everything from abortion to the economy to same-sex marriage. And after nearly an entire Congress defined by the 50-50 Senate, the House is taking a starring role: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is pledging to vote against the permitting bill if its linked with government funding, but lower-chamber progressives are offering the main intraparty resistance to Manchins plan.

The Senate is planning to pass a short-term funding bill with permitting reform attached just before the Sept. 30 deadline, daring Grijalva and his allies to risk a shutdown fight over the issue, according to multiple Democrats familiar with the plan. In an interview on Monday, Manchin seemed unworried about the fate of his proposal: I would think that common sense would have to kick in sooner or later.

The text of Manchins permitting bill is not yet public, but senior Democrats in both chambers are downplaying the chances of disaster. Several lawmakers and aides said they believe there is a path to an amended deal that can win over Grijalva and other House Democrats while keeping Manchin on board.

One key motivator: Many clean energy advocates say a permitting deal as envisioned by Manchins initial framework would benefit renewable projects, including wind and solar generation, even if it would also accelerate some fossil-fuel pipelines, such as the long-stalled Mountain Valley natural gas line that originates in the senators home state.

Permitting reform, as Manchin put it, means were able to have the energy security that our country needs now. Referring to new transmission lines for renewable energy, he added: And as we move towards the transition [to clean energy], youre able to do that with the infrastructure its going to take. ... I would like to think people are being practical and not being political.

President Joe Biden hands the pen he used to sign the Democrats' landmark climate change and health care bill to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer watches in the White House in Washington, Aug. 16, 2022.|Susan Walsh/AP Photo

The West Virginia centrist said he understands if House Democrats are still steaming over the downsizing he exacted upon their original party-line domestic agenda. Yet liberals across the Capitol vow their opposition to his plan is not retribution for two years of Manchin-induced headaches from his reshaping of the $1 trillion-plus Build Back Better bill into the smaller Inflation Reduction Act, to the Houses forced swallowing of last years bipartisan infrastructure bill, derided by some on the left as basically a Republican effort.

Instead, House Democrats say its all about what they see as an environmentally hazardous permitting deal that undercuts some of the climate provisions they won in this summers new law.

Still, a few Democrats admit theyre relishing their chance to hold some leverage over the West Virginian.

Its about time, quipped retiring Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who joined about 70 Democrats in urging party leadership to keep Manchins bill separate from government funding.

Its a pretty important vote and we shouldnt play games with it to make it impossible to defeat, Yarmuth said, adding that he and other House Democrats never signed off. Thats totally Schumers deal. Im not bound by Schumers agreement.

Theres another big incentive to limit the blast radius of the permitting fight. Democrats are entering the pre-midterms stretch with a singular focus on avoiding self-inflicted political wounds, including the potential for a shutdown. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he needs to see the permitting text before he can say whether hell support it, but urged his party to be strategic about picking fights that could endanger a government funding patch.

It could be that people are looking for leverage, Murphy said of Democrats positioning. Or it could be that House members are still cross at Joe Manchin.

If the permitting push does hitch a ride on the Senates funding bill this month, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) hinted at the steep climb and possible education campaign that skeptical Democrats in his chamber might need to sign on.

Theres no doubt its controversial, Hoyer told Bloomberg TV of Manchins permitting plan on Monday. And well have to convince our members that the language that is brought over does not undermine our environment.

Manchin said Schumer and Pelosi are standing firm in their commitments to him: I believe exactly what theyve told me they see exactly what this country needs and why we need to make sure that we have to be the superpower of the world. He said he was buoyed by the Monday release of a competing permitting reform bill by dozens of Senate Republicans as a show of bipartisan support for his ideas.

The road to an eventual permitting law is still looking bumpy, with some of the nations most vocal environmental groups galvanized into their own missives opposing what they called a fossil fuel wish list that would perpetrate environmental racism, among other effects. Some climate activist groups have already staged protests.

In a recent interview, Grijalva wouldnt say whether he and other progressives were willing to take the whole ship down and trigger a standoff over government funding. But he said that any Manchin-led permitting bill would face a great deal of resistance without significant changes.

And while Democrats cheered their summers huge climate gains in the Manchin-crafted party-line bill, plenty of progressives feel they owe him nothing on the separate issue of energy permits. Huffman said that while some of the bill could end up being good policy, he stressed that it needed to be considered in the light of the day not in some back room with Joe Manchin.

Beyond Sanders, progressives on the Senate side are staying out of the fray for now and calling for a pragmatic approach. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), whos already backed the permitting deal, said that disagreements within the Democratic coalition are natural, but like it or not, in order to build the kind of clean energy we want, we are going to have to change some federal laws.

Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Read the original:
'Sleazy backroom deal': Progressives tangle one more time with Manchin - POLITICO

Healey, if she wins, would also be the states first openly gay female governor. And she will run for governor on a two-woman ticket with Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, who cruised through her three-way Democratic primary for the No. 2 spot on Tuesday setting up Massachusetts as one of three states that may elect women to both offices this year at the same time. In Arkansas, Republicans nominated Sarah Huckabee Sanders for governor and Leslie Rutledge for lieutenant governor. And in Ohio, Democrats are running Nan Whaley and Cheryl Stephens.

With your help, for the first time, Massachusetts will elect the first governor and lieutenant governor on an all-woman ticket, Driscoll told supporters after declaring victory Tuesday night. Thats right not one, but two women in the corner office.

Further down the ballot, former Boston City Councilor Andrea Campbell would become the first Black woman elected attorney general if she defeats Republican Jay McMahon in November. Campbell and Rayla Campbell, a Republican running a long-shot campaign for secretary of state against seven-term Democratic incumbent Bill Galvin, said they made history Tuesday night as the first Black women nominees for statewide office in Massachusetts.

Treasurer Deb Goldberg is unopposed in her reelection bid. And state Sen. Diana DiZoglio is one step closer to the auditors office after defeating her Democratic primary rival, Chris Dempsey, on Tuesday.

It is kind of stunning that, despite our progressive reputation, Massachusetts has never elected a woman governor and we have never had women really set to lead the commonwealth across the highest offices, Amanda Hunter, executive director of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, which advocates for women in politics, said in an interview. This is a major turning point.

But heated general-election battles will need to be fought first. Diehls victory over more moderate Republican Chris Doughty tees up the gubernatorial contest to be a referendum on Trumps legacy in a state that twice handed him some of his biggest defeats.

And the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts is littered with losses after Tuesdays primaries. While they cheer the likelihood of shattering several glass ceilings in November, progressive activists who won major victories in recent years with Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Sen. Ed Markey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu are smarting after their statewide candidates fell short.

State Sen. Sonia Chang-Daz, who ran to Healeys left in a battle between two progressives, dropped out of the Democratic primary in June. Quentin Palfrey, who won the state partys endorsement for attorney general, ended up exiting the race a week before the primary to back Andrea Campbell. Three other candidates backed by major progressive groups Dempsey, state Rep. Tami Gouveia for lieutenant governor and Tanisha Sullivan for secretary of state all lost Tuesday night.

They generally lacked either campaign cash, name recognition in a low-interest primary, slick outreach operations, or all three. Chang-Daz proved unable to compete with the near-universal recognition Healey, a two-term attorney general, had with Democratic primary voters or her massive campaign coffer. Healey entered the general election with more than $4.7 million.

Palfrey, despite being the state Democratic Partys 2018 nominee for lieutenant governor, trailed in polling against Andrea Campbell, who was coming off a third-place finish in last years Boston mayoral race, and Shannon Liss-Riordan, a labor attorney and former U.S. Senate candidate who poured $9.3 million of her own money into her campaign. Sullivan and Gouveia never advertised on television.

Weve had candidates in recent years whove done a lot of really great progressive agenda-setting, but also spent a lot of time laying their groundwork, Jonathan Cohn, policy director for Progressive Massachusetts, said in an interview. One of the problems this cycle is there arent that many candidates who have done that.

To be clear, Healey is a progressive just not one whos as far left as some activists in Massachusetts wanted.

But Cohn and other progressives say theyll take Healey if it means retaking the corner office from Republicans who have held it for the better part of 30 years and breaking some barriers along the way.

Massachusetts is no stranger to electing women: Former Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy became the first to win one of the states six constitutional offices in 1986, followed by former Treasurer Shannon OBrien in 1999. In 2001, Jane Swift stepped up as acting governor when then-Gov. Paul Cellucci resigned to become U.S. ambassador to Canada.

But two decades after Swift, Massachusetts has lagged behind many other states. Nine states have sitting female governors. Thirty of the 45 women who have served as governor across 31 states were elected to the job, while the rest were appointed or took on the role through constitutional succession, according to Rutgers Universitys Center for American Women and Politics.

This state has always had a reputation of being pretty parochial and stuck to people who look more like me: white, Irish and male, former state Democratic Party Chair Phil Johnston said in an interview. So this represents a radical departure that I think should be celebrated. Its great progress in Massachusetts.

While the Republican primary for lieutenant governor was too close to call early Wednesday morning, Driscolls victory on the Democratic side guarantees the general election will be a contest between two female candidates. And the bevy of women running for statewide office comes a year after voters saw four women, including Andrea Campbell, lead the field for Boston mayor.

Even just seeing multiple women running for these positions, it helps to break down a lot of long-held stereotypes that voters have, explained Hunter, of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation. We know from our research that when we ask voters to picture a governor, a majority still picture a man. Just seeing different examples of what a candidate looks like helps voters expand that perception in their mind for the future.

This potential banner year for female candidates at the statewide level in Massachusetts comes as the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to upend five decades of constitutional access to abortion drives women in some states to register to vote in droves.

While abortion is enshrined in state law in Massachusetts, Democrats from Healey on down the ballot have made clear through stump speeches and television ads that they will be champions for reproductive rights. And they argue that their Republican opponents wont be in a state where 78 percent of residents believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Women are energized, Assistant House Speaker Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said in an interview. And this election, more than any other I can think of, has such ramifications for women.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misstated the last name of Amanda Hunter, the executive director of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation.

Read the rest here:
Healey inches toward historic first in Massachusetts as progressives get steamrolled - POLITICO