Uncategorized
1 hearing, 2 witnesses, vastly different takeaways
It was one hearing, with just two witnesses. But, in an era of political polarization and yawning cultural divides, Americans came away having heard very different things.
Millions of men and women listened to nervous-but-composed college professor Christine Blasey Ford tell the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she was “100 per cent” certain that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers, and they lauded her credibility and courage in speaking out.
Others saw a woman with a spotty memory who failed to prove Kavanaugh was her abuser, and believed the judge as he repeatedly choked up and vigorously defended himself. “The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life,” he said.
Americans followed the hours of testimony from their homes, in their cars, in offices and in classrooms. Wherever they were, though, it seemed most responded through the prism of their own politics, and personal experiences. Few people interviewed by The Associated Press seemed to have had their minds changed by anything they heard.
Heather Lake of Omaha, a stay-at-home mother of four and registered Democrat, said she went into the hearings believing Ford, and that the professor’s testimony only solidified her belief.
“Just seeing how vulnerable she is, it strikes me how cruel all the attacks on her have been,” said Lake, 38, who was sexually assaulted in her teens. “This is why women keep their sexual assaults to themselves.”
But Connie Cook Saunders, a 52-year-old fitness director for a San Diego athletic club who considers herself a moderate Republican, wasn’t swayed by Ford’s appearance.
“I personally feel like it’s a witch hunt,” she said. “It’s political. If it happened to her I am sorry, but it doesn’t make sense to bring it up now.”
The hearing was to be the culmination of a Supreme Court nomination process that will determine the political bent of the court for decades, and quite likely decide issues such as the legality of abortion and gay marriage in the United States.
It took place in a week when “America’s Dad,” Bill Cosby, was declared a sexual predator and sentenced to jail, and at a time when the U.S. president himself has battled multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. The major backdrop was the #MeToo movement, in which women across the country have brought down powerful men they accused of sexually assaulting or harassing them.
Ford’s detailed testimony brought many to tears in the wood-paneled hearing room and beyond as she described being locked in a bedroom as a 15-year-old by two drunk boys whom she identified as Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge. She said Kavanaugh groped her, tried to take off her clothes and covered her mouth to keep her from screaming.
“Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack,” she said, adding that she eventually escaped to a bathroom. In fact, she said, her most indelible memory was the “uproarious laughter,” the two boys “having fun at my expense.”
She was “terrified” to testify, she said, but did so because “I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.”
Kavanaugh began his own testimony on a note of barely contained fury. He labeled Ford’s accusation and two other allegations that have followed as “smears,” ”character assassination” and part of a “calculated and orchestrated political hit” fueled by a hatred of President Donald Trump and funded by left-wing opposition groups.
He repeatedly fought to control his tears as he talked about how the allegation has destroyed his family. “The truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone — not in high school, not in college, not ever,” he said.
His supporters focused on what Ford could not remember. How is it possible, they wondered, that she didn’t recall the exact address where the assault took place or how she got to and from the house?
Mary Ann Almeida, who said she was raped as a 14-year-old, thought Ford came across as untruthful.
“When you’re a true victim, you remember where it happened,” said Almeida, now 60, who watched the hearing from her home in southeastern Kentucky. “You know who was in the room, you also remember every single detail.”
But it was Kavanaugh whom Jalon Alexander, a 25-year-old Democrat and law student at the University of Pittsburgh, did not find credible.
“The more I listened to him, there was nothing he said that made me doubt Dr. Ford’s accusation,” Alexander said. “What makes him so special that we’re willing to undermine the integrity and legitimacy of the court?”
In San Diego, Republican strategist Jennifer Jacobs was struck by Ford’s sincerity. But she also was moved by Kavanaugh. “Clearly this is a passionate man,” she said. “He’s not some crazed barbarian.” She added her “heart was breaking” for his wife and children.
But Jen Bradshaw in Quincy, Illinois, who was texting with a girlfriend as they watched Kavanaugh’s opening statement, was shocked at his angry demeanour.
“Can you imagine if Dr. Ford had shown even a hint of that much anger or openly cried?” said the 36-year-old mother of two. She also wondered: “If this is him sober and angry, what is he like after one too many beers?”
At Yale, Kavanaugh’s alma mater, student Samantha Peltz was troubled by what she called the partisan nature of the judge’s remarks. “It’s quite surprising to see him behave in such a partisan manner as someone being considered to be elevated to the highest court in the land,” she said.
Another viewer, sympathetic to Kavanaugh, saw the hearing as an attack on a successful white man.
“He’s on trial for being basically a white conservative who went to an elite school,” said Mike Glasoe of West Fargo, North Dakota, who considers himself independent politically and said he has voted for both Democrats and Republicans.
But in Raleigh, North Carolina, artist and retired state employee Penney De Pas called it part of a movement of Americans fed up with men in positions of power abusing their status to get away with sexual assault.
“You have a group of baby boomers and Gen Xers and millennials … who are like ‘We’re not going to put up with this anymore,'” De Pas said.
Many of the Americans who remembered the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 found themselves comparing the treatment of accuser Anita Hill then to the treatment of Ford now.
“I remember one of the questions asked of Anita Hill was something like, ‘Are you a woman scorned?'” recalled Helen Anderson, 72, of Sioux City, Iowa. “I think some lessons have been learned since Ms. Hill was treated the way she was.”
Thomas was confirmed despite Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment, which he strenuously denied.
At least one thing seemed clear Thursday: The country’s awareness and understanding of sexual assault has evolved markedly in the years since.
“Anita Hill happened at a time in our culture where women were not as empowered as they are now at all levels,” said John Cowles, a formal federal prosecutor and practicing attorney in Kansas City. “It makes sense to me women are believed more now than they were back in the 80s.”
RAINN, the anti-sexual violence organization, estimated that its National Sexual Assault Hotline saw a 147 per cent increase over normal volume Thursday.
___
Margery Beck in Omaha, Nebraska; Bill Cormier in Atlanta; Maryclaire Dale, Matt Sedensky and Errin Haines Whack in Philadelphia; Alex Derosier in Raleigh, North Carolina; Amy Forliti in Minneapolis; Adam Geller in New York; Jocelyn Gecker in San Francisco; Blake Nicholson in Bismarck; Stacey Plaisance in New Orleans; Jamie Stengle in Dallas; and Annika Wolters in Phoenix contributed to this story.
Marjorie Miller And Jocelyn Noveck, The Associated Press
Uncategorized
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Carson Binda
BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.
“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”
Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.
Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.
When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.
The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.
“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”
If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.
Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.
“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”
Uncategorized
The problem with deficits and debt
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss
This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.
But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.
Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:
Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.
Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.
Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).
Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.
Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.
Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.
-
Daily Caller23 hours ago
Biden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
-
Business1 day ago
Freeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
National2 days ago
Liberal Leadership Launch…
-
Catherine Herridge2 days ago
Return of the Diet Coke Button
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
WEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information
-
Business1 day ago
TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal
-
Business24 hours ago
UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms