Mediaboss Marketing

Quebec Liberal leader Dominique Anglade proposed on Sunday to lift the QST on electricity bills "up to $4,000" on a temporary basis.

"The cost of living situation is extremely difficult for everyone," she told a news conference in Montreal, citing economic uncertainty, high inflation and the Ukrainian conflict. "It's not a luxury in Quebec to have heat and electricity."

Criticizing Premier Francios Legault's decision, which in 2019 indexed the rates of Hydro-Quebec to inflation, she proposed to "put a freeze" on them.

The rates were frozen in 2020, but must be indexed from 2021 to 2024.

The consumer price index inflation rate was 5.1 per cent in January, according to the Bank of Canada.

The official opposition leader also wants to abolish once and for all the provincial tax on certain necessities, such as soap, shampoo, toothbrushes and non-prescription drugs.

In total, she estimates that these measures would cost the government $1.5 billion, but she says the additional revenues generated over the past year are more than enough to cover the new expenses.

Anglade called on the premier to "take the proposal we are making today and apply it to the budget."

The budget is scheduled for March 22.

-- This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on March 13, 2022.

See more here:
Quebec Liberals want to suspend taxes on electricity and nix QST on some basic necessities - CTV News Montreal

The 2022 midterms are here. Its likely that the Republican Party retakes the House and possibly the Senate. With Bidens appalling approval numbers and the likelihood that not much else is going to get done on the Hill, Democrats face a thin record to sell to voters who only see inflation rising, a supply chain crisis that remains out of control, and a president who is totally aloof. The Democrats only have a four-seat majority in the House. Its going red. So, what will be the fate of the January 6 Select Committee? It should be trashed. I think it will since we all know its a Democratic Party circus being used as a fundraising ploy. Its also a shoddy and transparent push to convict Trump onsomething to prevent him from running for president again. The irony is the more aggressive this committee gets on their January 6 hysterics; it only increases the likelihood that Trump runs out of spite. Yet, former Speaker Newt Gingrich went even further, suggesting that the committee members could be jailed for their involvement in the anti-Trump witch hunt (via Newsweek):

Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, responded with a warning after prominent Republican Newt Gingrich suggested that members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack against the U.S. Capitol could face jail time if the GOP returns to power.

Gingrich, who served as House Speaker from 1995 to 1999, made the remarks during an interview with Fox News on Sunday morning. He predicted what will happened to the January 6 committee if Republicans take control of Congress. "The wolves are gonna find out that they're now sheep, and they're the ones whoin fact, I thinkface a real risk of jail for the kind of laws they're breaking," Gingrich said.

Cheney, a staunch Trump critic, serves as the vice-chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 violence. She tweeted a response to Gingrich's threat later on Sunday.

Yeah, I dont know about jail, but if remarks like this ruffle the feathers of liberals and anti-Trump RepublicansIm all for it. And Liz Cheney is the perfect person to fall for this because shes just obsessed with de-Trumping the GOP. Its not going to happen, Liz. Maybe that will sink in when you get primaried out of your seat. Leaving out the straight to jail aspect of this, the committee has been saddled with eye roll-worthy moments. The texts that Mark Meadows turned over would probably bear more weight if key members of the committee didnt peddle doctored versions of them. The credibility of this whole act was shoddy, to begin with, and Democrats spewing fake texts just embodies the ethos around this whole production. The truth doesnt matter if Trump goes down. Hes not. How many times have we heard that the walls are closing in, and nothing happens?

Original post:
Gingrich: If GOP Retakes the House, 1/6 Committee Members ...

Jonathan Haidt researches ways to understand the way we make moral value judgments, and he's working to use that understanding to help us bridge the conflicts and divisions threatening us. I've just finished reading his 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion." I want to share a few insights in hopes that you'll be intrigued to read more from him.

Much of our moral thinking is coded into our genetics. People who inherit brains that delight in novelty, variety and pleasure and who tend to be less sensitive to signs of threat are predisposed to grow up to become liberal. People whose brains are alert to potential threat and not so disposed to novelty tend to ripen as conservative. Think of a continuum, not either/or. Life circumstances can influence and change our development, but we come pre-wired to some extent.

Humanity needs both kinds of brains.

Haidt says human beings have "taste buds" for six psychological sensitivities that form our moral values. Liberals tend to focus on three of these moral tastes; conservatives value all six. Much of our conflict and division comes from our holding different core values and misunderstanding each other's perspective.

He describes these six moral foundations in terms of values that we treasure and in terms of their opposite negative triggers. The shared three are:

(1) Care/Harm: All of us intuitively desire to protect our children and the people and things that we love. When triggered by threats that may harm them, compassion motivates us to act in their defense through protective caring and kindness.

(2) Liberty/Oppression: We all desire liberty; we yearn to be free from oppression and oppressors.

(3) Fairness/Cheating: We value reciprocal cooperation that enables trustworthy relationships. Fair-dealing should be rewarded; cheating and deceiving should be restrained.

Liberals and conservatives all embrace these three sets of values. Liberals focus more strongly on the care/harm and liberty/oppression foundations: social justice, compassion for the poor, the struggle for equality, defense of the vulnerable. Conservatives often resent liberal programs that infringe on their liberties or tell them how to run their business and lives under the banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.

Conservatives care more about fairness/cheating and believe in proportionality. Work hard and you earn your rewards. Do the crime, do the time. Liberals will often trade away proportional fairness if it conflicts with compassion or the desire to fight oppression.

The other three sets of moral foundations appeal especially to conservatives.

(4) Loyalty/Betrayal: All humans are descendants of successful tribes who formed coalitions. We value the sacrifice of our loyal team players; we punish traitors or anyone who threatens our group.

(5) Authority/Subversion: Maintaining order and justice requires stable traditions, institutions and values. Respect legitimate authority and rank; hold subversion accountable.

(6) Sanctity/Degradation: The world is complicated and threatening. Some things are noble, pure and elevated; others are base, polluted and degraded. It is a sacred duty to preserve institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community. Protect the sacred; avoid and purge the toxic.

Haidt believes liberals and conservatives are both necessary for healthy political life. Liberals are experts in care. They "see the victims of existing social arrangements, and they continually push to update those arrangements and invent new ones." Social conservatives understand "you don't usually help the bees by destroying the hive."

We all tend to gravitate toward groups that share our values. We create narratives and principle to justify our own group's beliefs.

Haidt says our minds are designed for "groupish righteousness." Shared values bind us to like-minded people. Shared values also blind us. Within the echo chamber of our groups, we often fail to see and hear the values and morality of other temperaments.

Lately I've been reading the letters to the editor with these six "taste buds" in mind. When I find myself triggered by something annoying, I ask myself, "What moral foundation value is motivating this writer?" It's easy to see what they are against, I need to ask, "What are you for? What values are you defending or promoting." I think people are usually right in what they affirm and often wrong in what they deny.

Frequently the people I instinctively disagree with are sensing a threat that I may not recognize yet. Maybe a threat to values and traditions that do help sustain a strong community.

How can we recognize the moral foundation grounding another's belief? If we can slow down, even for two minutes, the flash of reaction can yield to a calmer, reasoned curiosity. We need conservative and liberal minds. Can we listen and help one another?

Here is the original post:
OPINION | LOWELL GRISHAM: Author suggests liberals, conservatives have more in common than many people think - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

SCARBOROUGH Steven Del Duca, Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, has announced that Ontario Liberals will commit $1.9 billion in funding to redevelop and improve the Birchmount and Centenary hospital sites in Scarborough.

To meet the growing healthcare needs of residents, the Scarborough Health Network (SHN) has long requested provincial funding to plan, design, and build new hospital facilities in the region. This includes plans to renovate and redevelop the Birchmount and Centenary hospital sites. To date, Doug Fords Conservatives have refused to commit funding to these important projects.

The people of Scarborough have waited too long for a commitment from Doug Ford, said Del Duca. Whether its their baffling response to the pandemic, inaction on long-term care or lack of funding for hospitals, its clear the Ford government just doesnt take the health of Ontarians seriously.

Todays announcement is part of the Ontario Liberal plan to permanently increase local hospital capacity and expand the number of beds in Scarborough by 30 per cent. It is anticipated that the redeveloped Birchmount site will also feature new critical care beds, improved rehabilitation services, more surgery units, a mental health unit, post-acute care and other critical services.

For four years, Scarborough has been waiting for Doug Ford to invest in Scarborough Hospitals, yet Scarborough has been left at the back of the pack for this important investment, said Scarborough-Guildwood MPP Mitzie Hunter. Only an Ontario Liberal government will deliver the support and investment that Scarborough residents expect.

Despite a global pandemic, Doug Fords Conservatives have spent less on hospital and healthcare infrastructure while in office than in the year before Doug Ford was elected. An Ontario Liberal Government will build a stronger healthcare system that all Ontarians can be proud of.

-30

See the original post:
Ontario Liberals will Redevelop and Improve Scarborough Hospitals - Ontario Liberal Party

When I was very young, I participated in a several-month training in community organizing taught by the great Fred Ross, Sr., whose previous students included Cesar Chavez. As it became apparent that the demand for introverted community organizers was not great, I settled for a career in law. But much of the wisdom Fred imparted continues to guide me.

One point he made over and over was the distinction between organizing and mobilizing. Almost anyone, he said, could stir people up and get them to show up at a march or demonstration. By itself, however, that kind of mobilization rarely changes anything: Those responsible for the problem simply keep their heads down until the mobilization concludes and then keep doing precisely what they were before. Real power, Fred said, comes from organizing. And organizing takes time, developing trust, and understanding one person at a time.

Fred also emphasized the importance of always being truthful with the people one is organizing. No matter how awkward, embarrassing, or discouraging the answer may be, community members deserve an honest response when they ask an organizer a question. Without candor, trust is impossible. When an organizer would gloss over the difficult parts or make up something she or he did not know Fred was incensed.

Although the Industrial Areas Foundation, for which both Cesar and Fred worked, is alive and well, I fear that too much of todays political work follows the alluring expedients of mobilizing rather than the transformational path of organizing.

I am particularly struck by progressive activists repeated insistence that the Democrats have to deliver on this or that demand or their base will become disillusioned and stop voting. If that is true, it can only be because the activists mobilizing them to vote in the last election failed to level with them about the political situation the nation is in.

Thinking of the Democrats as a unitary body susceptible to coercion, and capable of delivering if it really wants to, is simply false. Those who voted Democratic in 2020 included progressives, liberals, moderates, and some very conservative people who could not tolerate President TrumpDonald TrumpRubio on White House records at Mar-a-Lago: 'It's not a crime, I don't believe' Overnight Health Care DC ending mask, vaccine mandates On The Money Biden's inflation boogeymen MORE and yet President BidenJoe BidenBiden's FDA pick clears key Senate hurdle Overnight Health Care DC ending mask, vaccine mandates American unity is key to a Europe whole and free MORE still carried just 51 percent of the vote. Preventing a resurgence of Trumpism requires the Democrats to maintain a very big and welcoming tent. That cannot work if the welcome evaporates immediately after the election: Progressives do not have sufficiently strong voter support for the Democrats to be viable as a narrowly ideological party.

The feel-good arguments that this country is somehow more progressive than is commonly understood do not bear close examination. Yes, Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonRubio on White House records at Mar-a-Lago: 'It's not a crime, I don't believe' Anthony Weiner to make first cable news appearance since incarceration on Hannity Durham alleges cyber analysts 'exploited' access to Trump White House server MORE received almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but far-right candidates won significantly more votes combined than liberal and leftist candidates did. Overall, polls consistently show self-identified conservatives substantially outnumber self-identified liberals. And although polls often show substantial majorities supporting this or that progressive policy, a segment of those liberal voters are nonetheless wedded to the Republicans because of their strong feelings about abortion particularly as opposition to abortion becomes less tolerated within the Democratic Party.

And anyone who mobilizes voters by suggesting that coming out to vote once will bring victory on this or that issue is not being honest. They are building not power but cynicism. Only organizing people for the long struggle ahead can remedy deep injustices.

Our greatest leaders frankly acknowledged the obstacles their movements faced. As massive as the March on Washington was, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr., was under no illusions that victory was at hand:

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.

Had the massive mobilization swept him into declaring that victory was at hand, the brave men and women of the Civil Rights movement would have become disillusioned, lost trust in him, and fallen away. King knew better.

Five years later, on the day before he was killed, Dr. King again preached candidly about the need for perseverance:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land.

Cesar Chavez, too, was candid about the obstacles the farmworkers movement faced and the hard, sustained work that would be required for success:

Our struggle is not easy. Those who oppose us are rich and powerful and have many allies in high places. We are poor. Our allies are few. But we have something the rich do not own. We have our bodies and spirits and the justice of our cause as our weapons.

We are now half a century beyond when Dr. King and Cesar Chavez spoke, and yet true victory remains elusive. It is not fair or just that people who have endured so much already are still having to endure more. But promising quick fixes that cannot be delivered will only prolong that injustice by feeding cynicism and division within the progressive movement.

Since the ballots were counted in November 2020 and, indeed, in earlier elections when Democrats lost too many winnable seats it has been clear that progressives would have no congressional majority but, at best, could scrape together enough votes with much more conservative members to form an anti-Trumpist coalition.

Anyone who has led the base to believe that victory was at hand on crucial but hotly contested causes if only they pushed Democrats hard enough was deceiving that base and sowing the seeds of future cynicism.

To build the kind of power that can genuinely rescue this country, we need organizing that levels with people about the obstacles ahead, just as Dr. King and Cesar Chavez did. Anything else the sugar high of short-term mobilizing or seeking some parliamentary magic that can deliver what the voters did not will only postpone the day when justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

David A. Super is a professor of law at Georgetown Law. He also served for several years as the general counsel for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Follow him on Twitter@DavidASuper1

Read more from the original source:
Liberal activists need to level with their base | TheHill - The Hill