Tag: Information technology

(Photo: Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY) Turning to the national stage To take advantage of the national attention, She the People will host a presidential forum in Houston in April – the first by a group led by women of color. “For men and women (candidates) of various races, they all need to win women of color,'' Allison said. Virginia is a crucial state for Democratic presidential candidates. “It’s very important for women of color to be heard given the political environment that’s going on there," Allison said. One early indicator of that power will be who shows up for the presidential forum, Walsh said. The group plans listening sessions with black female leaders to discuss get-out-the-vote campaigns and demands from candidates. Campbell said her organization hasn’t heard from presidential candidates. Black female voters helped Doug Jones pull off an upset in Alabama in 2017, making him the state’s first Democratic senator in 25 years. Campbell criticized Republicans and Democrats for not talking with black women enough. "When it comes to engaging and being respectful of the black vote and black women’s vote, they have a lot of room (where) they can go up," she said of Republicans.

(Photo: Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY) Turning to the national stage To take advantage of the national attention, She the People will host a presidential forum in Houston in April – the first by a group led by women of color. “For men and women (candidates) of various races, they all need to win women of color,'' Allison said. Virginia is a crucial state for Democratic presidential candidates. “It’s very important for women of color to be heard given the political environment that’s going on there," Allison said. One early indicator of that power will be who shows up for the presidential forum, Walsh said. The group plans listening sessions with black female leaders to discuss get-out-the-vote campaigns and demands from candidates. Campbell said her organization hasn’t heard from presidential candidates. Black female voters helped Doug Jones pull off an upset in Alabama in 2017, making him the state’s first Democratic senator in 25 years. Campbell criticized Republicans and Democrats for not talking with black women enough. "When it comes to engaging and being respectful of the black vote and black women’s vote, they have a lot of room (where) they can go up," she said of Republicans.

She implied on Sky yesterday she was close to calling for a second independence referendum, because she has a mandate to stage one since the SNP won the most seats in the 2016 Holyrood and 2017 UK elections, and did so on a promise of holding a fresh independence vote if there was a material change in circumstances (in other words, Brexit). She can only exercise that existing mandate before May 2021 – the date of the next Holyrood elections. Yet on Thursday she said she actually wanted to see article 50 extended and then a second EU referendum, telling first minister’s questions: “Let’s get no deal properly off the table; let’s seek a lengthy extension to allow this issue to go back to the people.” That appeals to a large number of independence-sceptic moderate and centre-left Scottish voters: many more back EU membership than independence. Because then that “material change” in Scotland’s circumstances, her mandate, disappears. Best for Britain, the anti-Brexit campaign that favours a second referendum, has put out a statement saying that it does not want MPs to vote for that today. The debate today must focus on the pressing need for an extension to article 50 to confirm parliament’s rejection of a no deal cliff-edge on 29 March and protect the country from a damaging disorderly exit. So if the treaty provides for these, Art 62 does not apply. That means the whole treaty, not just the backstop. Labour’s Wes Streeting says there is “a considerable degree of discomfort” among Labour MPs who support a second referendum about the position of some on the Labour frontbench. He asks if the party will give wholehearted support to the Kyle/Wilson plan for a confirmatory second referendum (ie, backing a Brexit deal, subject to it being put to a public vote) if it comes to a vote.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz introduced new legislation today, dubbed the Scientific Integrity Act, to protect public scientific research and reports from the influence of political and special interests. Schatz, along with U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), said this longstanding concern has “taken on newfound urgency under President Trump.” “These are challenging and unprecedented times for science,” said Schatz in a news release. “And while it’s not the first time it has been under attack, this time feels worse. That’s why we need to answer the call of our times and stand up for science. It would make data and findings off-limits for political appointees and managers, and make sure scientists follow careful processes for review.” The Scientific Integrity Act would establish uniform standards for policies at U.S. agencies meant to prevent public research and findings from being distorted or shelved for political reasons. Public scientists would be held to high standards, but also be guaranteed rights and protections. In its first two years, he said the Trump administration has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control staff from using the words “evidence-based” and “science-based” in budget documents, and scrapped an EPA-recommended ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide proven to impair brain development in young children. “Our economy, our health and safety, and our environment all depend on independent federal scientific research and fully informed, science-based policies,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “The Scientific Integrity Act would protect scientists from political interference in their scientific work, and make sure that they can carry out their research and share it without fear of retaliation. Congress should pass the Scientific Integrity Act so that all presidential administrations can be held to that strong standard.”

In an unprecedented night of Tory splits, four cabinet ministers, Amber Rudd, David Mundell, David Gauke and Greg Clark, defied their party’s last-minute whip and refused to vote against the government’s own motion, after it was amended to rule out any prospect of no-deal Brexit. 7.16pm MPs back the amendment by 312 votes to 308, defeating the government. 7.42pm Tory whips attempt to force MPs to vote against the amended motion they had effectively already backed. Six other cabinet ministers also splintered to back a separate proposal for a “managed no deal”, despite the prime minister’s warning that the plan was doomed. If MPs agreed a deal, she said, the government would request a “short, technical extension” to article 50, a hint that May plans a third meaningful vote next week. Now it’s effectively a bad Brexit deal or no Brexit at all, which is absolutely ghastly.” The prime minister’s warning of an extended Brexit delay followed a disastrous night in parliament for the government. Cooper moved the amendment instead and the government was defeated by four votes. May’s warning about a potentially lengthy delay to Brexit came as it emerged the DUP is back in talks with senior government figures about what it would take for them to back May’s deal at a third Commons vote. Earlier on Wednesday night, May was also forced to allow a free vote on an amendment by Tory backbenchers based on the so-called Malthouse compromise, which suggested a 21-month transition to no deal. A commission spokesman said it was “not enough to vote against no deal – you have to agree to a deal … We have agreed a deal with the prime minister and the EU is ready to sign it.”

The saddest thing about the Saskatchewan Party’s recent negative political advertising isn’t that it’s a reflection of today’s social-media-driven political debate (although today’s social media surely isn’t helping this age-old problem). If one is ever inclined to see what it’s like living with a partisan mindset, follow a few old political warhorses on Twitter … or perhaps even a few current politicians emboldened by the notion that decency and good grace are no longer qualities voters want. Conservative, Liberal, NDP … it really doesn’t matter the party. What they’ve always shared is a core belief that enraging, engaging and mobilizing a support base is more critical than some “subjective” view of what’s true. Social media is often selling angry, half-truths in a dark, petty way, but this is what negative political advertising has always been. After all, Meili did say Saskatchewan should “consider a modest carbon tax” made in Saskatchewan, which would still put him in the camp envisioned by federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. And Meili did call the federal court case (and the Saskatchewan government’s general opposition to the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) “a pointless crusade.” The anti-pipeline rally Meili attended before he was an MLA was to protest the Husky oil spill in the North Saskatchewan River and the doctor mostly talked about preventing negative health outcomes. And there was nothing more hypocritical or misleading in this Sask. Party ad than its line: “When it was time to fight Trudeau’s equalization plan that hurts provinces like Saskatchewan, he didn’t say anything at all.” A dozen years ago, the NDP government, the Saskatchewan Party Opposition and the federal Conservative Opposition were in 100 per cent agreement that non-renewable resources should be removed from the equalization formula — a questionable national strategy, but one that would have provided Saskatchewan with $800 million more annually in federal transfer payment revenue. The really sad thing is we still have negative political ads because they still work … perhaps better than ever.

Quick guide Last-minute backstop changes explained What was added to May's withdrawal agreement? It gives legal force to a letter from Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, the presidents of the commission and council, given to May in January. This stated the EU’s intention to negotiate an alternative to the backstop so it would not be triggered, or, if it was triggered, to get out of it as quickly as possible. Unilateral statement from the UK Sets out the British position that, if the backstop was to become permanent and talks on an alternative were going nowhere, the UK believes it would be able to exit the arrangement. Hoped to be enough to persuade the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, to change his initial legal advice that the backstop could be in place indefinitely. Daniel Boffey Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback. He echoed Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, in saying that a freshly negotiated legal add-on to the Brexit deal was “complementary” and not a rewrite. It says that we will work together, in good faith, in pursuit of a future relationship that ensures that the objectives of the protocol, particularly the need to avoid a hard border, are met.” Varadkar read from a prepared statement and did not take questions, reflecting the Irish government’s desire to project a sober tone and not say anything to complicate Theresa May’s uphill battle to get the deal through Westminster. Those doubts and fears can now be put to bed.” Varadkar was at Dublin airport preparing to fly to Washington on Monday night but returned to government buildings for a late-night cabinet meeting.

In a recent hearing on vaccines, Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., admitted the medical value of vaccines but added, "I still do not favor giving up on liberty for a false sense of security." What Paul — a part-time ophthalmologist but full-time libertarian crank — calls "a false sense of security" is technically known as herd immunity. Achieving that level — 93 to 95 percent for measles — not only protects the health of a community, it protects those who really can't be vaccinated for medical reasons such as immune system problems or infants to whom the measles vaccine is not given until later. He is applying standards of political philosophy to a scientific field. Paul is making a category error in the other direction. And public health is the application of this discipline to a community of human beings. Given the nature of the measles virus, 93 to 95 percent of a human population needs to be covered for a community to be protected. Politics does make a huge difference to public health in one way. When politicians give legitimacy to dangerous and disproven scientific theories — as both Paul and President Trump have done on vaccinations — they are encouraging a lower level of coverage, which makes a higher level of compulsion necessary. So it is the vaccination skeptics who are making intrusive public health methods more likely.

On the other side is a symbol of Cobb’s future, the Marietta Walk homes, one of many developments bringing new voters to an area that was the cradle of Newt Gingrich’s political career a few short decades ago. In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won Cobb County by 12 percentage points and won Georgia by eight points. In 2016, the county swung Democratic as Hillary Clinton won Cobb by two points, even as she lost the state overall by five points. “I tend to look at this going back to 2016 when one of the most monumental things that happened was when Hillary Clinton actually won the top of the ticket here in Cobb,” said Michael Owens, the Cobb County Democratic Party Chairman. “It’s the first time in 40 years that a Democrat has won the top of the ticket.” “In 2018, in Cobb County, we carried every statewide election by 30,000 votes or more,” Owens noted. Since 2010, Cobb’s population has swelled by 10 percent, outpacing overall growth in the state. “I’d say younger people in this area definitely change the politics in this area. It’s definitely a younger crowd moving in.” That’s just Cobb County, of course. Brian Kemp lost Cobb County, but it still produced the most Republican votes of any county in the state. “I think Georgia’s been a swing state before.

By Hélène Landemore Hélène Landemore is associate professor of political science at Yale. I propose a new step forward: Let’s use digital tools to disrupt, and indeed reinvent, democracy itself. Open deliberation via crowdsourcing; issue-based chat room discussions; use modern ways to map, structure and moderate online debates and ensure they’re not overwhelmed by irrelevant posts; even use “gamification” to encourage public participation and ensure a constant flow of communication between the people and their representatives. This communication channel would be the responsibility of a new body I call the “open mini-public.” Similar to Alexander Guerrero’s proposal for a “lottocracy,” open mini-publics would consist of randomly selected citizens – but not necessarily replace our existing chambers of government. And, through the smart use of digital tools, they would gather input from the wider public at all times, up to the point of decision-making. These would function as comment boards and interactive galleries, allowing members of the public to peek into, and contribute their own ideas and arguments to, the body’s deliberations. Separate, secure chat rooms within these platforms would allow discussions of specific issues by pre-determined numbers of additional randomly selected citizens. To maximize public involvement, these forums could use principles of gamification – such as offering the chance to earn points or even real money for participation. Vetting could be done by experts and citizen representatives – as in the Citizens’ Initiative Review model that Oregon adopted in 2011, in which randomly selected citizen review boards evaluate ballot proposals in order to inform the voters. This model – using mini-publics for a constant rotation of ordinary citizens in and out of our political structures, and digital tools to maintain open communication flows between the people and their representatives – would bypass the bottlenecks created by elections and party structures.