''This article discusses liberalism as a major worldwide political ideology, its development, and some of its many modern-day variations. For the ideology commonly referred to as liberalism in the United States today, see American liberalism. For other uses, see Liberal (disambiguation).

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.A: "'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." - Coady, C. A. J. Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.440. B: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." - Lord Acton Traditionally, what was meant by "liberty" was the freedom of each individual to do as they pleased, provided they did not infringe on the liberty of others. This is often called classical liberalism. Another form of liberalism, often called social liberalism, holds that freedom requires what is sometimes called a "level playing field", that for people to be free they must be free from the unequal power of those born to wealth and high social status. Attempts to level the playing field include anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, affirmative action, and progressive taxation. A third form of liberalism, now almost universal in liberal democracies, holds that the government should provide for the general welfare. This sometimes includes a dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by taxes. Classical liberals often strongly object to this kind of liberalism, asserting that the freedom of private property takes precedence over the personal freedom that depends on health, education, and a place to live; they claim that private charity does the job as well, or even better.

Classical liberals seek a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on coercive power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government. Modern liberals advocate a government in which the rights of minorities are protected. Compare for the latter aspect the Oxford Manifesto of 1947 of the Liberal International (Respect for the language, faith, laws and customs of national minorities), Oxford Manifesto of 1997 (We believe that close cooperation among democratic societies through global and regional organisations, within the framework of international law, of respect for human rights, the rights of national and ethnic minorities, and of a shared commitment to economic development worldwide, is the necessary foundation for world peace and for economic and environmental sustainability), the ELDR Electoral programme 1994 (Protecting the rights of minorities flows naturally from liberal policy, which seeks to ensure equal opportunities for everyone). In modern society, classical and social liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity. Compare the Oxford Manifesto of the Liberal International (These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities).

More on [ Liberalism ]

TalkLeft

O'Mara Denies Giving Zimmerman's Medical Report to ABC News
Jeralyn Wed, 16 May 2012 23:31:40 -0500
Mark O'Mara says on camera he did not leak Zimmerman's medical report to ABC News. I'd bet he's telling the truth and didn't leak it. Who's suggesting he did? Team Crump, of course. O'Mara has had this report for weeks. He had it in court with him at the bond hearing and said he hadn't yet turned it over to the prosecution. Zimmerman's father, brother and friends referred to it in interviews weeks ago. The report was given exclusively to Matt Guttman of ABC News. [More...] When did he get it? Everyone's assuming it came from the discovery provided by the state. Maybe he's had it for a while, having received it from one of Zimmerman's friends or family members, but he and ABC decided not to release it until the announcement had been made that the discovery had been turned over to the defense. Why would that date make it okay? Because in the media's view, the public records law allows the public and media to obtain discovery the day it is released. What better day to release an exclusive than one in which attention is already focused on the case. (ABC released its exclusive photo showing Zimmerman’s injuries the day of the bond hearing, which it proudly announced here. (Warning about ABC news articles, they have video that starts playing automatically -- I rarely read or link to their articles because of the intrusiveness, but in this case, they are the source so it's hard to avoid. That their videos aren't set to the off position, allowing to you click and watch if you want to, is completely unacceptable and boycott-worthy.) So who gave it to Guttman if he didn't get it from the discovery? It’s unlikely the doctor provided it, he’d be breaching confidentiality. It could be one of Zimmerman's friends or relatives, who had received a copy and initially provided it to O'Mara. Zimmerman was still in custody when O'Mara told the court about it at the bond hearing. He didn't give it to O'Mara. This was what O'Mara feared when he told the the Judge whose husband worked with CNN analyst Mark NeJame he might request she be recused from the case. At the brief court hearing (video here)at which he described why he might move for recusal, he said he was concerned about the possibility that Zimmerman's family had an ongoing relationships with NeJame -- which he couldn't control. ( His fear appears to be well-founded. It was NeJame just a week ago who brought out a copy of a Zimmerman family photo on CNN which he said he had asked the family give to someone who gave it to him. Watch the video in the article.) O'Mara couldn't control the leak of the medical report any more than he could the photo. Just because it helps Zimmerman, doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. Guttman and ABC picked the timing of the release of the contents of the report. Just because the report was contained in the discovery doesn't mean that's where they got it. What better day than to release it than the day after the discovery was turned over, when everyone is curious as to what was the discovery contained? Maybe my speculation is wrong and someone not associated with the defendant provided it to Guttman. But if it was Zimmerman's family and/or friends, I think they may end up hurting Zimmerman's case more than helping it by trusting and working with the media. They are feeding right into Team Crumps' playbook,, giving them an opportunity to claim Zimmerman isn’t playing fair. The media doesn’t care about George Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial. It cares about being first to report news and getting exclusives. George Zimmerman has a lawyer. His family and friends need to respect O'Mara's decisions about what should be shared with the media and when.
NY Times Details Missteps In Trayvon Martin Shooting Investigation
Jeralyn Wed, 16 May 2012 22:54:08 -0500
The New York Times reports the results of its reporters' investigation over the last several weeks into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. It includes a lot of unnamed police sources and claims by unnamed witnesses made after the fact. Most of this stuff we've heard before, and I'd caution against assuming the New York Times is reporting facts. It's reporting what unnamed police sources and witnesses told the reporters, which may or may not be accurate. [More...] The Times devotes a lot of space to one eyewitness who talked to them. The witness complains about being ignored. It seems to be the freaked out 911 caller whose call lasted more than 10 minutes. In her 911 call, she said there were other neighbors whose porches were closer to the where the shooting occurred, who might have helped. It was too dark for her to see anyone clearly until after hearing the shot. She was so distraught during the call the dispatcher offered to send an ambulance to her house. She and her lawyer, Derek Brett of Orlando, later made the CNN rounds, with her face and voice being shielded. By then, she was convinced it was a young boy, Trayvon, who had cried out for help. Her wording in her 911 call is similar to her later interviews: the "pop" sound, the thought someone might have been walking their dog in the rain, and a lot more. She doesn't describe the man as Hispanic in her 911 call, only in later interviews does she say she could see the man walking away was Hispanic. What she saw was Zimmerman walking away after the shot when people with flashlights had arrived on scene. She didn't even have her window open when she first heard what sounded like a scuffle before the shot. Then she turned her attention elsewhere until she heard them again. She called 911, and appears to be looking out her window describing what she is seeing. She says she heard a "pop." She wasn't sure it was a gunshot. She couldn't identify who was on top during the scuffle. She assumes it was the younger person because the older one walked away after it was over. She is the witness who describes an "authoritative" voice. She assumes the older person has the authoritative voice. As I've said before, we've heard Zimmerman's voice, it's timid. We haven't heard Travyon's voice. She hears Zimmerman say he shot someone and surrender to police. This is a classic case of an eyewitness memory being contaminated by post-event information, where the witness' memory of the original event is blended with information received later through the media. The result is a new memory is formed that is not accurate. Listen to her 911 call. 911 calls released in Sanford shooting: MyFoxORLANDO.com Then read the transcripts of her and her lawyers' CNN TV interviews. The witness' voice was disguised, sometimes as a male voice, but they all seem to be the same witness, the lawyer for the witness is the same, and it is the same lawyer as the one quoted about his client-witness in the New York Times article. Anderson Cooper Interview Ashleigh Banfield Interview Jane Velez Mitchell Interview Another CNN Interview with witness'lawyer The only eye and ear witness accounts that should be considered reliable are the first ones the witnesses gave in their 911 calls and at the scene, when the witnesses were contemporaneously describing what they were seeing and hearing. All these witnesses later interviews were given after they comingled what they originally witnessed with information learned later. What a great example of why mistaken eye-witness evidence is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country. The witnesses aren't lying, they are just mistaken. What inconsistencies do you notice between this witness' 911 call and later interviews? As to the rest of the Times' article, Tom Maguire at Just One Minute lists his complaints.
Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread
Jeralyn Wed, 16 May 2012 15:21:32 -0500
I'll be working the rest of the day, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Subscribe to Liberalism RSS feed