Mediaboss Marketing

In order to live and thrive, culture needs a critical space, a forum for people to reach out to one another. ... University spaces are essential as places of reflection, research and critical thinking the structures that we must establish to fight intolerance, lies, and violence.

Those words grace the masthead of The Kegley Institute of Ethics website and the sentiments have informed our work for over three decades, especially our choice of speakers. While we made an explicit choice early on to be a progressive voice in an otherwise conservative town, we have hardly shied away from controversial speakers, along the way successfully annoying folks from all points of the political spectrum.

Annoyance is not the goal, but it is an unavoidable consequence of bringing forth ideas that are uncomfortably challenging. We risk such irritation for a powerful reason: The fundamental mission of a university is to provide an intellectual environment in which all participants seek truth through critical exploration, knowledge acquisition, and personal growth. This can happen only through ongoing assessment of perceived verities about the world and our place in it which inevitably causes discomfort. Most everyone has experienced the distress of having ones cherished beliefs drawn into question by the power of a strong opposing argument.

But that is what a university is supposed to do, in part because such scrutiny is also at the core of democracy: Political self-governance succeeds only when it embraces the so-called marketplace of ideas, wherein a range of beliefs are floated, with only the best surviving inspection. In the words of Justice Wendell Holmes: The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. And what better place to undertake this testing than at our learned institutions?

How, then, to make sense of universities seeming intolerance of conservative speakers, as exemplified in UC Berkeleys amazingly inept handling of Ann Coulters scheduled appearance? Shouldnt conservative ideas be a part of the educational marketplace? The simple answer is of course they should; if anything, they should be even more highly valued, given the otherwise general prevalence of progressive voices. Resistance to conservative ideas runs afoul of higher educations mission and only adds to critics perception that academics are ideologically entrenched.

It is important to stress, though, that the problem is not nearly as prevalent as it is too-often portrayed. Sure, there is plenty of dogmatism, on both sides, but universities really are not fomenting a pandemic of intolerance.

Furthermore, recall the metaphor: We should be embracing a marketplace of ideas and one would have to truly stretch that concept to include what Coulter routinely puts forth. Her calling card for years has been to hurl invectives, seemingly with the sole idea of drawing attraction to herself, rather than trying to advance audiences understanding of complex social and political problems. Here is a small sampling:

Comments like these might generate chuckles but there isnt an idea in sight; they are mere rhetorical kicks in the gut, intended to motivate an emotional, rather than a thinking, response. Her bombastic noise, thus, simply cannot be scrutinized in competition within an intellectual marketplace.

To recognize this, however, is assuredly not to also countenance any restriction on her right to freely express herself. That can be justified only when her expressions constitute a clear and present danger to others and Berkeley officials have not yet made a convincing argument that her appearance met that very high threshold, or that adequate policing couldnt control any threat. Yes, that policing might be expensive, but the protections of liberty often are.

Rather, the problem here is that groups like Coulters Berkeley sponsor, the College Republicans, see her as representative of true conservatism. Shes not; rather, she is a master of showmanship who has long appealed to the worst instincts anger, resentment, and bigotry in her followers. Even worse, those who do in fact give cogent conservative arguments, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley, are often dismissed as liberals in disguise. We learned this when we hosted the one-time conservative icon, Andrew Sullivan, whom some local Republicans denigrated as too progressive.

To repeat: There is assuredly too much ideological rigidity in the academy. But those who decry this too frequently make the mistake of equating an insistence on ideas and arguments with intolerance. That equation terrifyingly suggests that intellectualism is anathema to conservatism, a conclusion that would certainly send Edmund Burke spinning in his grave.

Christopher Meyers, Ph.D., is director of the Kegley Institute of Ethics at Cal State Bakersfield. The views expressed are his own.

Read the original:
Academia, political tolerance and Ann Coulter - The Bakersfield Californian

BRUSSELS As French President-elect Emmanuel Macron strode to his victory rally to the tune of the European Unions anthem, E.U. advocates could scarcely believe their luck: The next French leader had scored an emphatic win embracing a partnership loathed by populist voters across the continent.

His opponent, Euroskeptic Marine Le Pen, could have shattered the European Union, already hit hard by Britains decision to file for divorce. Now, though, the E.U. has a new lease on life, as Macron and other pro-European leaders ready what could be a make-or-break reform effort for a bloc that has suffered repeated blows since the Great Recession in late 2007.

[Macron fields congratulations but has little time to bask in glory]

The dramatic turnabout serves as a rejoinder to President Trump, who has questioned the E.U.s value and embraced nationalists around the world. And it is likely to complicate Britains exit negotiations, providing a boost to the representatives of the 27 nations who will sit down later this year with Prime Minister Theresa May to hash out terms.

Macron bears the hopes of millions of French people, but also of many people in Germany and the whole of Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters Monday. He led a courageous, pro-European campaign. He stands for openness to the world.

Macron now faces June legislative elections that will determine his mandate for sweeping reforms in France; if he fails to garner support, his victory Sunday could also prove to be just a temporary reprieve for the E.U. The magnitude of his win 66percent of the vote is offset by many citizens appearing to have voted to keep Le Pen out, not because they embraced Macrons centrist vision.

Still, it marked a rare achievement for a candidate who had campaigned on the promise that France could flex its sovereign power through the European Union, rather than in tension with it. Even nominally pro-E.U. leaders such as center-right Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte have more typically vowed to protect their citizens from E.U. overreach hardly a message that would rejuvenate the beleaguered bloc.

[Emmanuel Macrons unlikely path to the French presidency]

Macrons win could lead to a restrengthening of the European Union as a capable actor, said Sabine von Oppeln, a professor of political science at the Free University of Berlin. The European Union got away with a black eye. ... Now it has to do something with the election result.

Macron has outlined an ambitious agenda that would knit together the countries that use the euro currency, through a common euro-zone budget and finance minister. He has pushed for a new European unemployment-insurance system, which would mean German taxpayers would underwrite out-of-work Greeks. But he also has expressed support for a buy-European-first rule for government purchasing, a protectionist measure that could cheer nationalists.

Any new effort will require quick action, given the challenges that abound. Greeces economy remains moribund. And the Italian populist Five Star Movement currently topping the polls ahead of elections that will take place by spring 2018 threatens to hold a referendum on Italys use of the euro, a move that could rekindle Europes financial crisis.

Most people realize that the euro zone, as it is, is not sustainable. A new crisis will come, said Stefan Lehne, a former Austrian diplomat who is a fellow at Carnegie Europe, a think tank.

Now the focus will shift to Berlin, whose cooperation is vital to any French effort to alter the way Europe works. To secure German flexibility, Macron will first need to prove he is serious about trying to push through the kind of free-market labor and business reforms that economists say are needed to jump-start the French economy and improve the investment climate there.

[Macron defeated Le Pen in Frances presidential election. Heres what happens next.]

The prospects of actually advancing, if France has stronger credibility in the eyes of the Berlin policy community, is pretty good, said Guntram Wolff, the director of Bruegel, a Brussels-based policy think tank.

Indeed, the next major test for Europe is Germanys September elections, in which the staunchly pro-E.U. Merkel is seeking a fourth term. Unlike the cliffhanger in France, however, the outcome is set to be a win-win for Macron, as well as for the bloc. Merkels closest rival, the Social Democrat Martin Schulz, served as president of the European Parliament until last year, and he is likely to be far more flexible than Merkel on demands from across the bloc to finally ease the German-backed policy of austerity that some blame for the regions economic stagnation.

In addition, analysts say, a weak showing by the far-right Alternative for Germany party, currently slipping in the polls, could embolden Merkel to cooperate more closely with Macron and other E.U. leaders who are pressing for an end to the age of austerity.

It would free Angela Merkel to be more forthcoming in proposing a more centrist agenda for Europe, said Cornelius Adebahr, an associate fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations. That could mean more investment and more integration in the euro zone.

Macrons victory also comes as a jolt to British leaders negotiating their departure from the E.U., who have counted on European disunity as their best path to winning a good deal. Macron has called Brexit a crime and vowed to be tough on London, even though his victory is probably better for Britain than Le Pens would have been. Had she won, the country could well have faced a chaotic rupture rather than an orderly exit.

The Daily Telegraph, a right-leaning British newspaper, on Monday ran a front-page headline saying that Frances new hope puts cloud over Brexit.

May, who is fighting her own election battle, was quick to congratulate Macron on Sunday night. But in a campaign rally Monday, she warned that the French leaders victory means that she too needs a decisive mandate in the June 8 vote to bargain with Europe.

Yesterday a new French president was elected, May said at a campaign speech in London. He was elected with a strong mandate, which he can take as a strong position in the negotiations. The U.K., we need to ensure weve got an equally strong mandate and equally strong negotiating position.

Faiola reported from Berlin. Stephanie Kirchner in Berlin and Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.

Read more:

Marine Le Pen lost. But her poweris growing.

With Le Pen defeat, Europes far-right surge stalls

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Continued here:
Macron's victory buoys the European Union after a string of setbacks - Washington Post

The UK jobs market is already beginning to feel the negative impact of Brexit, with shortages of European Union migrant labour in growing evidence in sectors ranging from nursing, to cleaning, to IT and accountancy.

The latestMarkit/REC Report on Jobs, a survey of recruiters, shows the availability of permanent and temporary candidates fell at the fastest pace in 16 months in April.

This was as vacancies continued to rise "markedly" and recruiters flagged a shortage of suitable applicants for more than 60 different roles.

Kevin Green, the chief executive of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) suggested that this growing tightness in the labour market reflected, in part, a growing unwillingness of EU citizens to come to work in the UK.

We have the lowest unemployment rate since 2005, and people already in work are becoming more hesitant about moving jobs amid Brexit uncertainty. Meanwhile, the weakening pound and lack of clarity about future immigration rules is putting off some EU nationals from taking up roles in the UK," he said.

According to the survey of 400 recruitment and employment consultancies 38 per cent reported lower permanent candidate numbers available in the month against 8 per cent who saw an increase.

All regions saw drops in candidate availability, with the most rapid in the South of England.

The number of temporary staff available fell at its fastest rate since the end of 2015.

This study makes very clear the serious impact Brexit-related uncertainty is having on our economy, and the fears employers have that it could lead to skills shortages," said Jame McGrory of the Open Britain group.

"Workers are unwilling to move to new jobs because they fear the damage a job-destroying, chaotic Brexit would have on our economy. Companies worry that draconian new immigration rules will make it harder for them to get the skilled labour they need, damaging both our economy and our public services".

TheMarkit/RECsurvey fits with other data suggesting a peak in EU migration levels to the UK since last June's Brexit vote.

New National Insurance registrations by workers from the Continent have plateaued since the vote to leave the EU, which was marked by anti-European immigrant sentiment.

And the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey has also indicated a peak in active EU workers.

Finally, provisional net immigration figures released in February from the ONS also point to a slower rate of EU immigration to the UK in the third quarter of last year, directly after the referendum.

Given that all three sources point to falling or plateauing migration flows, or indeed actually falling migrant worker numbers, we can be fairly confident that a shift is underway, said Stephen Clarke, an analyst at the Resolution think tank said in a March report.

Theresa May confirmed on Mondaythat the Conservativeswill retain their pledgeto reduce immigration down to the "tens of thousands" in their manifesto for June's general election, despite warnings from labour market specialists that achieving this reduction in inflows would harm the overall economy and damage average living standards.

The future post-Brexit rights and status of the roughly three million EU workers currently residing in the UK also remains unresolved - and is expected to be a key battleground between the UK and EU in the coming divorce talks.

Continued here:
Brexit latest: Slowing immigration from European Union already hurting labour market say recruiters - The Independent

France has a new president. In a runoff between a centrist (or center-left) pro-trade, pro-social freedom candidate and a far-right authoritarian nationalist, French voters opted for moderation. Whats surprising is that so many libertarians were disappointed with this result.

One would think that libertarians would hold their noses and support Emmanuel Macron; a centrist who at least values some economic freedoms and is an obvious defender of social liberties. Yet for many, the ultra-nationalist, protectionist Marine Le Pen was seen as the better option. What could make libertarians, arch-defenders of individual liberty, back a candidate who has spent decades skirting the edges of out-and-out fascism?

There is a simple answer to that vexing question: The European Union.

Macron is for it. Le Pen is against. That was enough for many libertarians to overlook Le Pens otherwise utterly un-libertarian platform.

But why do libertarians hate the EU?

The standard answer is that the EU steals sovereignty from the citizens of nation-states and gives power to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Follow-on arguments usually rest on descriptions of the byzantine regulatory frameworks the Eurocrats have foisted on the people of Europe.

Yet any serious scrutiny of this anti-EU argument will show that this line of argument is of little merit.

It is crucially important to recognize that the power in the EU still rests with the national governments that make up the union. These governments are still sovereign and have the power to engage in their own foreign policies and economic agendas.

The EUs supranational institutions are more geared toward harmonizing markets across the bloc.

Libertarians should see that as a good thing, because it allows businesses from across Europe to compete and trade with other members with onerous tariffs. It also removes many of the headaches that plague commerce between countries with very different regulatory regimes.

In general, the EU has done quite a good job of balancing national control of some regulatory issues while removing much of the friction of cross-border trade within the EU.

The EU common market is now actually more harmonized than Canadas own internal cross-provincial market. That is a testament to the benefits of centralized inter-state commerce rules. Perhaps it should be no surprise then that the framers of the US Constitution were so in favor of such commerce rules, even when they were generally skeptical of central government.

There is a certain red herring in the euro, the shared currency of much of the EU. Whether the euro is a good economic idea or not has little impact on the value of the EU as an organization. The union could survive without the common currency, even now, not all members have adopted it.

The UK, until last years vote for Brexit, was a central player in the EU even though it had retained the pound sterling. In the wake of the financial crisis and the continued financial challenges of some members like Greece, there might be a case for the euro being phased out.

Yet, despite all its faults, the euro has also benefited the members of the union. It has eliminated the problems of interest rate risk and government capture of central banks.

Surely libertarians who are so often skeptical of central banking can see the advantage of an institution like the ECB, which is both tightly controlled by a fixed mandate and subject to the consensus of the member states while staying independent of the venal aims of any one state.

The major stumbling block for libertarians seems to be a psychological distrust of unelected agencies and supranational organizations of any kind. Yet, such organizations do not necessarily undermine liberty.

It is a mistake to equate liberty with national sovereignty. There are certainly benefits to having most of the functions of government localized, so that voters can control who makes the rules.

But there are also cases when a more local control can undermine the rights of individuals, or discriminate against certain classes of people.

Jim Crow laws is the US are a classic example of this. The black citizens who were being systematically undermined by state governments were not freer because the central government in Washington was taking a back seat.

Fundamentally, freedom is about individuals, not tribes of people.

National sovereignty is a powerful psychological anchor that carries many boons from the perspective of law and orderly government. Yet fetishizing it is a grave mistake that libertarians too often make. If we genuinely believe in individual liberty, then we should embrace institutions that protect and expand those liberties.

For all its faults (and they are many) the EU is a force for good. It has helped secure democratic institutions across its member states and been a beacon of liberal democracy equal to the United States.

The peace the EU has secured on the continent should also be recognized.

Before the movement toward greater political union, Europe was in a state of nigh constant warfare. Political and economic integration have helped to banish the specter of war, and ensured that small countries are treated with the same respect as the mighty.

The EU has made trade between member states more open and the rule of law more firm. France has certainly been prodded by the EU to open its industries and enact labor reforms. Admittedly, those reforms have been punishingly slow and frequently grind to a complete halt. Yet, the alternative is no reform at all. That is the real alternative people like Marine Le Pen offer.

It is far better to take the slow prodding toward progress than to slip backward into a far worse past.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
The Case for the European Union The Right Engle - Being Libertarian

The mysterious artists representatives have confirmed he was behind the piece, which depicts a workman chiselling away at one of the 12 golden stars of the EUs flag.

The artwork emerged overnight on the Castle Amusements building near Dovers ferry terminal, which connects Britain to the Continent.

According to the EUs website, the stars stand for the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe.

It appeared at a difficult time in Brexit negotiations, after Theresa May slammed the blocs leadership after a detailed account of her meeting with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was published in a German newspaper.

RT

According to the report, Mr Juncker told the Prime Minister he was 10 times more sceptical they would not be able to reach a divorce deal with Britain.

The article was joined by various over Brussels briefs, claiming Britain could have to pay as much as 100billion as a potential divorce settlement.

Mrs May alleged the European Commission had sought to influence the snap General Election called weeks before.

She said: The European Commission's negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials.

All of these have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the General Election.

The artwork is only a short crossing from Calais where Banksy sent a host of exhibits from his Dismaland project in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, to be used as shelters for migrants.

He also stencilled several other pieces inspired by the Jungle migrant camp in France, which has since been dismantled.

In January 2016, a mural depicting Apple Founder Steve Jobs, whose biological father was a Syrian immigrant, appeared on the wall of a tunnel in the refugee camp.

William Kasper / SWNS.com

1 of 8

William Kasper says he took this picture of the graffiti king in Bethlehem in 2007

The anonymous artist also criticised the use of teargas in the camp with a piece on the side of the French embassy in London.

It shows a young girl from the film and musical Les Miserables with tears in her eyes as CS gas surrounds her.

Another Calais-inspired artwork by Banksy portrayed a child looking towards Britain while a vulture sits atop their telescope.

Originally posted here:
New Banksy Brexit art shows workman chiselling off star from European Union flag in Dover - Express.co.uk