Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

NSA Speaker's Tip: Conference Rescue Call
Here's a quick tip for professional speakers to help conference organizers while filling up holes in their schedule.

By: Marc Pitman

Read this article:
NSA Speaker’s Tip: Conference Rescue Call – Video

Three noted political scientists (Profs. Lee Epstein, Jeffrey Segal & Christopher Parker, whom Ill call Epstein et al.) recently posted a study (see also here) saying that many Supreme Court Justices votes in free speech cases are strongly correlated to the ideology of the speech or the speaker. [T]he votes of both liberal and conservative Justices tend to reflect their preferences toward the ideological grouping of the speaker, and not solely an underlying taste for (or against) the First Amendment.

We [report] the percentage of votes each Justice cast supporting free speech when the speaker is liberal and when the speaker is conservative. The probability of Scalia voting in favor of a liberal speaker is about .22; for conservative speakers, its .62. The Supreme Court (and its members) can appear more or less supportive of free expression depending on whether it decides cases with speakers left or right of center. (Note that the authors state that their coding of liberal vs. conservative speakers focuses on the ideological content of the specific speech, rather than the broader partisan or ideological beliefs of the speaker.)

The study got extensive coverage in various places, including in the New York Times. Unsurprisingly, the coverage characterized the study in similar ways. In cases raising First Amendment claims, a new study found, Justice Scalia voted to uphold the free speech rights of conservative speakers at more than triple the rate of liberal ones.

But looking closely at the study aided by a detailed response posted by Prof. Todd Pettys and a reply posted by Epstein et al. (including Appendix C) suggests that the study doesnt really support these assertions. Let me discuss this in a bit of detail.

1. To begin with, how can one measure whether speakers are left or right of center when the case involves speech and speakers that arent particularly ideological, or that are ideological in ways that are hard to see as liberal or conservative or involves a bipartisan (or multi-ideological) coalition of claimants?

One possible answer would be to exclude these cases from the analysis, by coding them as neither. (Indeed, when the study looks at the ideological valence of the government action being challenged, as opposed to the ideological valence of the speech, it has a no direction option.) But this is not the approach that the study took; instead, they labeled all cases as involving a conservative speaker or a liberal speaker. Thus, just to give some examples (and this isnt meant as an exhaustive list):

2. Now one possible response indeed, the one seemingly offered by Epstein et al. is that these cases were coded based on whether the law stemmed from a generally conservative or liberal ideological policy (or, relatedly, whether the legal challenge to the law was associated with a conservative or liberal view of free speech). Thus, for instance, Epstein et al.s explanation for the coding of Wisconsin v. Mitchell was, Hate crime laws are liberal laws, so speaking out against them is coded as conservative speech. (By speaking out here, I take it the authors mean litigating against, since Mitchell was prosecuted for violating the hate crime law, not for speaking out against it.) Likewise, for the rape victim name case, the authors write, [k]eeping [the identity of a victim of sexual assault] private is more of a liberal interest, so the speech is coded as conservative; Im not sure whether thats an accurate summary of political views now, or in 1989, but in any event it focuses on the ideology behind the law, not on the ideology of the speaker.

The coding of the violent video game case as involving a conservative speaker was justified on the grounds that restricting (the business of) violent video games in the name of protecting children is more frequently supported by liberals and derided by conservatives as an example of the nanny state. The various cases involving bipartisan challenges to election laws were often coded as conservative, Epstein et al. say, because a challenge motivated to bring about greater inclusion in the political process is liberal regardless of the challengers partisan label. And challenges to election laws by third-party speakers, such as Forbes, were coded as liberal because greater inclusion in the political process is coded as liberal regardless of the partisanship of the speaker.

3. But when the claim is that conservative Justices are more willing to vote to uphold laws that reflect conservative legal principles (or accept free speech challenges that conservatives tend to like), thats a very different claim from the claim that toward the ideological grouping of the speaker (emphasis added).

Indeed, this revised claim in part simply reflects what we mean by conservative and liberal. For instance and I speak here just of general tendencies, from which some on each side dissent historically pornography bans have been seen as part of a conservative policy agenda. Conservative Justice Scalia has long argued in favor of the constitutionality of such bans, and many conservatives (though not all) have agreed with him in some measure. Liberal Justice Douglas had long argued against the constitutionality of such bans, and many liberals (though not all) have agreed with him in some measure. But that simply reflects that, when we say a Justice is conservative, we generally mean that the Justice tends to endorse a conservative view of the law, of the Constitution, and of the judicial role, and similarly for liberals.

Follow this link:
Volokh Conspiracy: The Justices, the freedom of speech, and ideology

Photograph by Rebecca Ingram

Many students, faculty and staff were upset a few weeks ago by a preacher in front of Sherrod Library harassing students.

However, because ETSU is a public school, it has an obligation to provide free speech to visitors who follow university guidelines, even if the content of their speech is unpopular.

If theyre threatening, if they pull out a knife and say Im going to kill you or if they punch somebody, then the university can actually do something, but if they insult somebody, [ETSU] can probably not, University Counsel Ed Kelly said.

Kelly said ETSU is a public forum and, as such, must go out of its way to guarantee a conducive speaking environment for visitors.

If youre the sixth circuit court of appeals or a district court judge, you might look at the situation where someone says, Look, they called me a whore, and it affects my education, and the court will say, Well, was there another place you could go and not hear that? Kelly said.

While private universities can control the kind of speech allowed on campus, a public university is subject to the requirements of any other government institution.

What the government will allow are time/place/manner restrictions, meaning that we cant regulate the speaker in a public forum, Kelly said.

There are some exceptions. If I make a direct threat Im going to kill you as opposed to you should be taken out and shot, one is a general threat and the other is a general statement.

Follow this link:
ETSU obligated to protect free speech

Just under three weeks ago, President Salovey delivered his freshmen address on free expression at Yale. He quoted extensively from the Woodward Report, a document whose language he called clear and unambiguous in its defense of free speech, and he made the case for why unfettered expression is so essential on a university campus.

Our community now faces an opportunity to put these ideals into practice. The Buckley Program, an undergraduate group on campus, recently invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to give a lecture next week. An accomplished and courageous woman, Hirsi Ali has an amazing story. She suffered genital mutilation as a child and later fled to the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage. These are beyond mere unfortunate circumstances, as some organizations have called it. Once in the Netherlands, she worked at a refugee center, became a politician, fought for human dignity and womens rights and ultimately abandoned her Muslim faith. In her works since then, she has voiced strong opinions against Islam, opinions which have provoked constant threats on her life ever since.

As the president of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program, here is my understanding of the controversy that then unfolded: When news of the upcoming September 15 lecture became public, a student representative of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) contacted me and asked to meet. During our first conversation, she requested that the Buckley Program disinvite Hirsi Ali. I told her such an option which she now denies to me and university administrators having presented was a non-starter.

I distinctly remember that this student then asked if my group would consider either prohibiting Hirsi Ali from speaking on Islam or inviting another speaker to join someone who would supposedly be more representative and qualified to discuss the subject. She told me certain national organizations, which I expected to be opposed to Hirsi Alis invitation, were interested in her visit to Yale. I took this to mean these organizations might drum up a controversy about Hirsi Alis visit. And she expressed support for the Brandeis University administration, which revoked an honorary degree from Hirsi Ali this past spring. This, of course, was precisely one of the incidents of censorship that President Salovey alluded to in his address.

This student, the MSA, and a little over thirty other organizations signed an open letter with its fair share of cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterizations that was sent yesterday in a school-wide email. But these students fail to understand the purpose of the University and the meaning and necessity of free speech within it.

The idea that free speech extends to only those with whom one agrees is close-minded. The idea that inviting an additional speaker is necessary in order to supposedly advance free speech, but really just to correct our own lecturers views, is ridiculous. The idea that a fellow undergraduate organization can dictate to another how to run its own event is shameless. And the idea that only so-called experts merit invitations is absurd. (After all, I dont remember anyone fretting over Al Sharptons invitation to speak on the death penalty last week despite his lack of a criminal-law degree.)

These standards and requests are unjust not simply because some students were seeking to unevenly impose them, but more importantly because they are antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge that defines a university like Yale. Such a pursuit requires a robust protection of the right to freely express ones views, however controversial.

One need not agree with everything Ayaan Hirsi Ali says to agree that her voice makes a valuable contribution to advancing the open exchange of ideas on this campus. In his address, President Salovey declared, We should not offend merely to offend. We should not provoke without careful forethought. If one actually examines Hirsi Alis work, one sees that she does present well-reasoned arguments, even if disagreeable, and that she doesnt provoke merely to provoke, which should be evident by the many death threats she has received throughout the years.

Her work does not qualify as libel and slander, as was suggested by the open letter, and it cannot be reduced to purported hate speech, a slur used simply to silence speech with which one disagrees. A sincere observer will readily find that Hirsi Ali is far from the inflammatory demagogue the MSA portrays her as. Instead, that observer will find that she is a brave woman deeply committed to fighting for the respect and dignity of millions of oppressed women around the world.

The MSAs insistence throughout the past week that we cancel or change the format of our event strays far from the ideals of free expression so eloquently defended by President Salovey and so essential to our university. If the MSA or another student organization would like to invite another guest of their own, the Buckley Program will not stop them. But we hope that if anyone from the Yale community attempts to disrupt our event, the administration will stand behind its stated commitment that students be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable and challenge the unchallengeable.

Read the original here:
LIZARDO: Why Hirsi Ali should come

Fifty years ago this fall, the Free Speech Movement was born at the University of California-Berkeley. Rebelling against strict rules barring political speech on campus, thousands of students began a series of protests. In December 1964, after more than 700 students were arrested during an occupation of the administration building, there was a turning point. The UC Berkeley Academic Senate lopsidedly endorsed the argument that students speech rights should be no different on or off campus.

There would be years more squabbling about what was allowed at Berkeley. But gradually the concept of campus as a place where vigorous debate and dissent was not just accepted but championed took hold at American universities.

Now we are witnessing a growing phenomenon in which campus protests are used to try to prevent debate. Across the nation, commencement speakers have been uninvited or have backed away from their commitments after facing intense criticism from groups of students and some professors.

The most notable example came at Rutgers, where former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was deemed non grata over the Bush administrations use of torture and its launching of the Iraq War.

This reduces the debate over national security to a cartoon. Hillary Clinton was among the Senate Democrats who backed the war. And President Barack Obama may have banned enhanced interrogations, but hes ramped up a drone killing program that has sparked international anger. Is assassination less morally objectionable than torture?

But Rutgers students dont have to worry about any such complexity. Theyve got their villain.

The villain at Haverford College was former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, whom students said should not be allowed to speak until he apologized (yet again) for how he responded to a campus Occupy protest in 2011 and supported reparations for those protesters. Birgeneau declined their demands but chose not speak.

Thankfully, another speaker at Haverfords weekend ceremonies pointed out the arrogance of the students. They should have encouraged him to come and engage in a genuine discussion, not to come, tail between his legs, to respond to an indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without hearing counterarguments, said former Princeton President William G. Bowen.

Fifty years ago, this goal of genuine discussion was what led Berkeley students to demand the right to freely discuss racial discrimination, the growing U.S. involvement in Vietnam and more. Now their figurative grandchildren have a different point of view: Every controversial question has only one answer. You have absolutely nothing to learn from people whose opinions you dislike, is the formulation offered by Yale Law School professor Stephen E. Carter.

This is not progress.

Read more:
Sad anniversary for Free Speech Movement


Free speech on campuses is dead! Didn’t you hear? Leftist fascists are forcing universities to cancel commencement speakers that they find objectionable. Others are getting protested. It’s awful! Where is the freedom? Actually, the freedom is in the protesting.

According to multiple conservative outlets and their liberaltarian friends, this is the month in which academic freedom coughed its final dry death rattle at the hands of the left. The cause of death was the rescinding of invitations to the following commencement speakers:

Oh, the horror! Or, as critics put it, the “bald hypocrisy on free speech and academic freedom,” the “modish commitment to so-called diversity” in which “muggers prevail” and commencement speakers are “excommunicated, ignored, or banished from public life.”

As Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi put it in her trollish complaint about students complaining, “God forbid these delicate students should be exposed to an idea or an organization with which they disagreeat college.” (Pro tip: If you’re positioning yourself as a defender of speech freedoms and the headline of your post tells “Fragile” people to “STFU and Listen,” you’re doing it wrong.)

Here’s the thing: Condoleezza Rice, just to take one example, is not banished from public life. And these “delicate students” have already been exposed to her ideas. We all have. Those ideas sucked. So the upshot is that Condoleezza Rice doesn’t get a paid trip to New Jersey. She still gets to write books and be on Fox News anytime she wants, whenever she can take more time off from her six-figure position as a tenured professor at Stanford.

Whose free speech do these concern-trolling, hand-wringing conservatives purport to be protecting? Soon-to-be job-seeking ex-students with high debt loads, and low marks for political participation, and little to their names but degrees with the names of their parent institutions? Or powerful captains of industry, politics and media who are paid for the chance to add to their home office’s “walls of me” and blow hot platitudes over the mortar boarded heads of their young charges?

And blow they do. Let’s face it, commencement addresses suck, and they suck in direct proportion to the cultural standing of the speaker. The more famous your commencement addressor is, the likelier their address is to be a warmed-over serving of wilted TED Talks punch lines. Tom Friedmanesque yarns. If you’re really lucky, maybe your school will actually get Tom Friedman, instead of a starchy simulacrum of Tom Friedman.

But let’s not even bother with that tack, because being denied a chance to speak at a graduation ceremony is not an infringement on your free speech. Free speech might entail an invitation to speak to a voluntary audience and then have alternative viewpoints offered by other speakers, and then perhaps engage in a dialogue over those ideas. This is not how commencement speeches work. If a commencement address is free speech, then so is a seven-hour harangue by Fidel Castro to Cuban citizens who are too scared to get up and leave the auditorium to pee.

A commencement address is the opposite of free. It is paid speech. Paid speech that, just like the honorary degree that accompanies it, associates the recipient with the granting institution as if by royal decree. It’s entirely legitimate for faculty and students, who are already associated with the institution by their works and their merits, to dispute whether an honoree is also worthy of that association.

Here is the original post:
In Defense of Protesting Commencement Speakers

According to a recent article in the New York Times, the Supreme Court like nearly every other major institution of American governance is in serious trouble.

After a string of high-profile decisions that split cleanly along partisan lines, the courts reputation for honesty, integrity and a high-minded remove from the ugly world of partisan politics is eroding, with consequences that could extend far beyond its hallowed walls. Politically, ours isan increasingly polarizedera,and as the court has shown itself to be far from immune to the ideological pressures that have brought so much of the federal government to a grinding halt, some worry that Americans belief in and respect for the rule of law could be the ultimate victim.

Its because of this context that a recent study from political science and law professor Lee Epstein (along with two colleagues) that examined Supreme Court justices rulings on free speech cases has earned so much attention. Epstein and her fellow researchers examined more than 50 years worth of Supreme Court rulings on free speech and reached a conclusion that is at once unsurprising anddeeply troubling: Justices tend to be far more sympathetic to free speech when the speech in question aligns with their ideological beliefs.

Hoping to better understand the study as well as learn the identities of the worst free speech hypocrites on the current court Salon spoke this week with Epstein. The interview can be found below, and has been slightly edited for clarity and length.

How did you conduct this study, and what are its chief findings?

We looked at all First Amendment cases involving expression And what we did was we coded the outcome of the case, whether the courts then favored the First Amendment or not, and then we looked at the speaker the nature of the speech and looked at whether it was a liberal speaker or conservative speaker. Then we controlled for a whole bunch of other variables that could detect outcomes in First Amendment cases, but we were really interested in the ideology of the speaker.

The essential finding is that liberal justices tend to vote in favor of expression when its a liberal speaker and conservative justices tend to vote in favor of expression when its a conservative speaker.

Was the effect of the ideological preference equal on both sides or was one side more susceptible that than the other?

It was actually pretty equivalent Liberals, on the whole, are more supportive of expression. Thats true. But in terms of the bias, its significant for both the liberals and the conservatives. Now, if you look at the current court its clear that the conservatives are more extreme [in their bias] than the liberals.

Was there any member of the current court whose bias was more pronounced than was the case for the other eight?

More here:
Scalias free speech hypocrisy: What a new study proves about his bias

NSA CT Announces Dick Bruso April’s Guest Speaker

The National Speaker’s Association Connecticut chapter has announced NSA member Dick Bruso will be the guest speaker at the organization’s monthly meeting to be held April 29.

His clients include best selling authors and in-demand speakers, as well as successful entrepreneurs and business leaders. He is a contributing author, on the topic of branding, to NSA’s popular books, “Paid To Speak and Speak More!” Dick is an active member of NSA and NSA/Colorado. He served as president of NSA/CO for 2005-2006 and prior to then was a member of the NSA National PR Advisory Task Force. Dick, also, served as the 2009-2010 chair of the NSA Writers & Publishers PEG, as the chair of the NSA Academy for Professional Speaking for 2011-2012 and as the co-chair of the 2012 Cavett Institute.

The subjects covered in this upcoming meeting are intended to benefit anyone who speaks for a living or does so to obtain clients for their business. Providing a platform for networking and education, the meeting is one of many held by the organization. Members and guests are welcome.

Holding seven to eight such meetings per year at the Shelton Public Library – Huntington Branch the NSA CT chapter offers free attendance to members and associates. Guests can attend at a rate of $35 per person. Registration is now open by visiting the link below and clicking on the “Register Now” link:$$AUTOLOGIN$$

Visitors can join any meeting by going to the website, and can also find out more through the organization’s calendar. They can also find a speaker through the Member Directory or contact the organization directly.

The next meeting, featuring guest speaker and NSA member Dick Bruso, will take place April 29, from 6 to 9 p.m., at the Shelton Public Library – Huntington Branch, 41 Church Street, Shelton. To learn more about the NSA CT, go to About the National Speaker’s Association Connecticut Chapter.

The National Speaker’s Association Connecticut Chapter holds meetings seven to eight times a year covering various topics helpful to those who speak professionally. Special meetings such as Speaker 101 are intended to help anyone who wants to get into the speaking business. Meetings are free for members and associates.

Originally posted here:


Home Board of Directors About Us Become a Member Find a Speaker Honorary Members Speaker Resources Member Activities Monthly Meetings Upcoming Events Speaker Opportunitites OnLine Payments Vendor Resources The Spirt of NSA Contact Us

Charles Fleisher is highly experienced speaker, mentor and life coach, having spoken to over 50,000 people during his career.

On October 10, 1988, Charles was the passenger in a vehicle driving at speeds over 100 miles an hour. The ride ended with him being thrown from the vehicle for over 100 feet, resulting in a broken neck and sustaining a paralyzing injury.Charles now devotes his life to sharing the awareness he has received from living with paralysis. He works with audiences and individuals to manage change and capitalize on difficulties.

In his recently released book, The Secret of Difficulties: 4 Steps to Turn Tragedies into Opportunities, Charles profiles individuals who have taken difficult situations and turned them into opportunities they would not have had if they had not had the difficulty in the first place. It provides 4 clear steps to take your own difficult situations and turn them into opportunities to improve your own work, organization, or personal life.

Your Story Blows Me Away: Secrets of Amazing Storytelling for Businesses

Speaker: Dave Leiber

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Stop beating around the bush. Get people to pay attention. Scrap those bullet points. Talk in a way that makes hearts flutter. Learn how to tell your story so that everyone who hears it cares and remembers. Columnist Dave Lieber has been working for more than 30 years to get his newspaper audiences to not turn the page on him. In today’s world, it’s harder than ever to get people to notice you. But there’s one tried and true method that works every time. Dave will share his simple-to-use storytelling method and customize it for your industry. You can use these techniques immediately to increase sales, get that contract, and increase your loyal fan base whose members will help you, fund you, support you and care about you.

About Dave Lieber:

See the original post:

National Speakers Association New Jersey Chapter NSA

In striking down the aggregate limits on contributions to candidates, PACs and political parties challenged in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court delivered a victory not only to political donors seeking to support more challenges to incumbents, but to everyone who is affected by American politics and law. The reason is a key and often forgotten point about the First Amendment: it protects speech, not speakers.

Freedom of speech is often treated as a contemptible burden in American politics; something that must be endured but not respected. When hateful speech is heard, or a wealthy individual spends huge sums of money on speech we disagree with, we commonly ask why they ought to possess a right that we feel does more harm than good. This was the general reaction to the McCutcheon decision: why does anyone need the right to spend more than $123,000 (the limit declared unconstitutional) on political contributions?

This misses the point by focusing solely on the speaker and ignoring the broader social benefits that result from a free and uninhibited exchange of ideas. Speech is constitutionally protected and unlimited because society benefits from the increased knowledge that is generated by it, and because the government cannot be trusted to decide what speech is “good” and what speech is “bad”. Chief Justice Roberts writes in the McCutcheon decision that “The First Amendment does not protect the government, even when the government purports to act through legislation reflecting “collective speech.”"

The wisdom of this principle has been borne out by history, which teaches us that the power to censor is always used against those who criticize the powerful. This was true a century ago when the government prosecuted pacifists in World War I and communist sympathizers in the Red Scare. It is just as true today, when protestors at political conventions are put in caged “free speech zones”, such as at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and when a majority of the nation’s universities maintain unconstitutional speech codes used to punish criticism, such as occurred in 2007 when Valdosta State University had a student “administratively withdrawn” (expelled) for criticizing the construction of a parking garage on campus.

Speech restrictions of all kinds exist to protect those in power from criticism. In the case of contribution limits, incumbents are protected from challengers. Despite its reputation as a tool of the establishment, money spent on political speech actually creates an opportunity to challenge entrenched political interests by increasing voter knowledge. This is especially valuable for outsider candidates running grassroots campaigns without the aid of connections to the ruling class or major media corporations. Pessimism about politics might lead us to think money spent on political advertising is wasted, but research shows that spending in campaigns is correlated with higher voter turnout and higher levels of public knowledge. This should not be surprising; the more advertisements you see about a candidate, the more likely you are to want to figure out what all the commotion is about and discuss the race with your friends.

This is how unlimited political speech comes to benefit everyone affected by American public policy: through producing a more informed, engaged electorate. Yet when cases like McCutcheon are discussed in the public sphere, they are presented as “wins” for large donors and “losses” for the rest of us.

This is nonsensical – speech is not a zero sum game. We all benefit from the exchange of ideas, regardless of their source. That is why cries of “corporations are not people!” are not an adequate response to the Citizens United decision which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums of money on political speech. The entity speaking does not matter, the speech itself does.

It is an unfortunate indication of our culture’s declining respect for the First Amendment that a ruling which removes an unnecessary restriction on the ability of citizens to participate in the political process is vilified. Perhaps that would begin to change if we recognized that more speech for Citizen A creates ripple effects increasing political participation throughout the system. He often speaks for thousands or millions of others who agree with him, and those who disagree may still be informed or motivated by his message. We must remember that voters are not robots who treat ads as orders, and in this social media age people can nearly instantly respond, rebut, subvert and lampoon the speech with others if the message is false or unpersuasive. And on Election Day, everyone still gets exactly one vote.

The answer to speech is more speech. The First Amendment should mean that the government does not get to say “you’ve said enough.” With McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court has brought us one big step closer to living up to that ideal.

Luke Wachob is the McWethy Fellow at the Center for Competitive Politics.

Go here to see the original:
LUKE WACHOB: A victory for free speech, a win for democracy

Lunch Keynote Presentation
Introduction: Morrie Ruffin, Managing Director, Alliance for Regenerative Medicine Speaker: Silviu Itescu, M.B.B.S., CEO Managing Director, Mesoblast.

By: Alliance for Regenerative Medicine

Lunch Keynote Presentation – Video

Speaking at a book launch in the presence of President Emeritus Fenech Adami, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat stated that Freedom Day thirty-five years ago had been part of the plan which had been aborted in 1958 by the resignation of Dom Mintoffs first government. Independence and the Republic were stages along the way. All led to the life we live today.

The book which was officially launchedIL-ELSIEN: Il-mixja lejn il-31 ta Marzu tal-1979 (FREEDOM: The road leading to 31 March 1979)was researched and written by historian Mark Camilleri, and published by SKS (Sensiela Kotba Sojalisti).

The book is packed with new historical information backed by documents freshly unearthed from the British national archives in London and the Labour Partys internal archives at amrun.

It reveals new facts about what made Mintoffs undertakings during the sixties and seventies at all possible.

During the event, Prof. Dominic Fenech stated that Freedom Day had been an independence beyond Independence itself.

He said that the new publication excellently provides the residential context of Maltas freedom from foreign rule.

The event was also attended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and various Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

The new publication brings new historic material out in the light.

It discloses for the first time documents shedding new light on the legendary Labour meeting in Gozo of May 1961, on the extensive foreign connections forged by the Labour Party while in opposition during the sixties, Che Guevaras 1964 reference to Maltas anti-colonial struggle, Mintoffs correspondence with Bertrand Russel, and more.

It also features many photographs related to Freedom Day which have never been publisehd before.

See original here:
Freedom Day part of aborted 1958 plan

Earl H. – AA Speaker – “The Path to Freedom”
LOVE this tape by one of the all-time best AA speakers, Earl H. His talks are always so inspiring and he relates the message in such a creative and captivati…

By: Odomtology 12-Step Recovery Media

See the article here:
Earl H. – AA Speaker – "The Path to Freedom" – Video

Keynote Speaker Jon Lovett Highlights | First Amendment Week 2014
Want to see First Amendment Week keynote speaker Jon Lovett before he comes to LMU on Feb. 11? Check out these highlights from other events he has spoken at….

By: LosAngelesLoyolan

Originally posted here:
Keynote Speaker Jon Lovett Highlights | First Amendment Week 2014 – Video

First Amendment lecture: The Government as Speaker |
A brief excerpt from Quimbee's lecture video on the First Amendment implications of the government as a speaker. Watch more at…


Read more:
First Amendment lecture: The Government as Speaker | – Video

Fifty-five Years 8 and 9 Kerikeri High School students, aged 11 to 14, took part recently in the Bay of Islands first floating conservation classroom. ExploreNZ provided the vessel; Department of Conservation (DOC), the speaker and activities.

The students were chosen from those who had represented Kerikeri High School in the 2013 Top Energy Far North Regional Science and Technology Fair and produced outstanding science fair projects.

The inaugural 5-hour trip left from and returned to Doves Bay, Kerikeri.Various iconic sites around the Bay of Islands were visited: the Black Rocks; Motuarohia, Moturua, and Urupukapuka Islands finishing with a stop at Marsden Cross in Rangihoua Bay.

Helen Ough Dealy, Partnerships Ranger (DOC) says: “The trip wasnt simply a reward for the students who had taken part in the 2013 Science Fair, it had a very real educational component. The kids took part in a thorough biosecurity check of their gear on the mainland at the Doves Bay Marina; a practical way of helping keep the pest-free islands of Project Island Song rodent and Argentine ant-free. The impacts of eco-tourism, issues associated with dolphinwatching and ways the public can help protect archeaological sites were some of the other topics covered.”

Dave Rivington,Operations Manager for ExploreNZ said: “This is the first step. We hope to expand this joint Department of Conservation and ExploreNZ initiative in the future to get more Northland kids out experiencing the Bay for themselves.”

Fleur Corbett, Chair of the Guardians of the Bay of Islands (who coordinate Project Island Song in partnership with hapu from Te Rawhiti and DOC) said: “Its fantastic to see such exciting new initiatives that involve young people – the conservationists of the future. Working with ExploreNZ is a great example of the contribution business and conservation can make together, especially when it involves the education sector.”

Accompanying the students was Jess Gibbs (Kerikeri High School Science Teacher): “This trip was a wonderful opportunity for our students to gain a personal understanding of the conservation work that is carried out in the Bay of Islands and why it is so important. Meeting Helen and talking with her gave students a real insight into the work of DOC and possible future career paths available to them. We would be very keen to continue working with ExploreNZ and DOC to give our students such memorable experiences.”

Helen Ough Dealy, says: “It was wonderful for the Department to work with local kids on conservation projects right in their backyard. Many of these students had never been out on the water before. The main aim was to make conservation real for them and encourage them to see they can make a difference by getting involved themselves.”

Some of the conservation pledges made by the students included: “Just before going camping I will check my bags and tents for pests as the gear is in a place with pests.” “When I get home I will get rid of invasive plants in my garden.”

The floating classroom idea originated in the ExploreNZ-sponsored combined Bay of Islands schools planting trip to Urupukapuka Island during winter 2013.

Read more:
Floating classroom – first for the Bay of Islands

Respect media freedom, urges Speaker Muturi
Assembly speaker Justin Muturi says stakeholders in the media industry must be involved in drafting of a new legislation on media. With the bill still at its…

By: Kbc Kenya

Excerpt from:
Respect media freedom, urges Speaker Muturi – Video

The Freedom Online Conference _ Promoting standard
Promoting standard – The role of civil society and intergovernmental organisations. Moderator: Meryem Marzouki, CNRS, Paris6 University Speaker: Fieke Jansen…

By: TunisiaLive

Read this article:
The Freedom Online Conference _ Promoting standard – Video

>>> focus groups described our party as narrow-minded, out of touch, and “stuffy old men.” the perception that we’re the party of the rich unfortunately continues to grow.

>> in the spotlight tonight, the republican party reveals it has learned absolutely nothing. that was republican party chair reince priebus 89 days ago after his party lost the presidency and seats in the house and in the senate. here is the chairman speaking at this weekend’s gathering of the conservative faith and freedom coalition.

>> i just want to let you know, i’m a christian. i’m a believer. god lives in my heart. and i’m for changing minds, not changing values. are you with me?

>> here is how priebus plans to change minds.

>> a permanent across the country coast to coast ground operation and focused in asian, hispanic, african-american, ander, evangelical, veterans. branding and marketing. digital and data. we need to control the moderators. we need to set the parameters of the debates. when we talk about moving the convention from the end of august to the end of june, it’s so that we can get to the general election money.

>> priebus did not make a single policy recommendation. but that’s what you do when you desperately want your audience to like you.

>> this is not an establishment takeover. this is using your brain. it’s not an establishment takeover. i’d rather win together than lose together. we’re all a part of together. i would just ask you that we come together. that’s what we have to do together. and together, let’s build it together, and let’s win together. god bless you.

>> not in attendance at the faith and freedom coalition event was the most popular republican in the country. governor chris christie was busy in chicago, receiving praise from arguably the most popular democrat in the country.

>> the enduring image most americans have of you is standing there in your jacket, grieving with your people, working with them and working with the president. and you’ve got both praise and damnation for ignoring the political differences that you had then and still have with the president and all of us who are in the other party to do something that was really important.

>> joining me now, washington bureau chief of the huffington post and an msnbc contributor, ryan grimm, and the ” washington post ‘s” nia malika-henderson. ryan , i go to you first on this. reince priebus has not hitched his wagon to a single substantive policy recommendation, except for this one. he said after the house — the republican autopsy came out, he said, “we are not a policy committee but among the steps republicans take in the hispanic dmunt and beyond we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform .” today, ryan , the ” washington examiner ” reports that house speaker john boehner will not violate the so-called hastert rule on an immigration bill . “no way in hell” is how several described the chances of the speaker acting on such a proposal without the majority of a majority. it does not look to be the best strategy, if you will, ryan .

The rest is here:
What Faith and Freedom confab says about Republicans

Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty
Theme: Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty Featured Speaker: Mustafa Akyol Journalist Author of “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Li…

By: NFMultimedia

Go here to see the original:
Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty – Video

FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin

Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by