Daily Archives: November 13, 2021

Twice in an interview on CNBC following the announcement of the Presidents Build Back Better framework, Treasury Secretary Janet YellenJanet Louise YellenThe wealthy pay more than their 'fair share' and liberals know it The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - GOP dealt 2022 blow, stares down Trump-era troubles Biden faces high stakes with progressives on Fed pick MOREasserted that the taxes outlined for high-earning taxpayers and corporations by the framework (not to mention, the numerous tax breaks for news organizations, trial lawyers, unions and wealthy citizens of high tax states) represented their "fair share."

While I hope that Congress has the good sense not to enact Build Back Better, thank goodness a liberal politician can finally discuss taxes responsibly, without demonizing an entire class of Americans.

For decades, we have heard liberal politicians including presidents, cabinet members and congressional leaders demonize wealthy Americans by asserting that ourdeficit problems could be resolved,and progressive social policies achieved if only the "rich would pay their fair share of taxes." It is divisive and demagogic the height of public irresponsibility for anyone in power to demonize any class or group of Americans.

Evenon its face, the claim that the rich were under-taxed was always erroneous. The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. What would be "fair?" 75 percent? 90 percent? The top one percent pays 40 percent of federal income taxes, despite earning only about 21 percent of total reportable income. Is that less than their fair share? Since 2001, the top 1 percents share of federal income taxes paid grew from 33 to 40 percent.

Moreover, whatgoes unsaid in liberal framings of our tax system is that50 percent of Americans pay virtually no (less than three percent of) federal income tax. This fact is especially problematic, ashalf of Americans have no direct personalinterestin reducingfederal spending. This explains why rich new social programs often poll so well they do not cost half of Americans anything.If you don't have to pay for Congress's profligacy, why oppose more spending? And, would it be "fairer, better for America, if 80 percent of Americans paid no taxes?

Admittedly, payroll and excise taxes tend (paid by most working Americans) are more regressive, but, by almost any measure, the United Statess tax system is significantly more progressive than almost every country in the lefts beloved Europe, which relies primarily upon highly regressive value-added taxes to fund their vast social programs. Are those tax systems fair?

Unfortunately, in a tax system that relies heavily on its citizens willingness to file and report their own income, some people cheat. The IRS estimates that the tax gap (that is the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they pay) is approximately $400 billion. But cheaters span all income levels. Three of the largest areas of cheating come from low-income taxpayers who claim excessive amounts of refundable tax credits (like the earned income tax credit and the child and dependent care tax credits), middle-income small businesses (like restaurants and stores) and sole proprietors (like hairdressers, doctors and handymen) that transact with high amounts of cash and from the under-reporting of income from so-called pass-through entities (like limited partnerships), a favorite investment vehicle of high-income earners, for which the IRS is unable to electronically trace and verify income without an audit. Cheaters do not pay their fair share, but cheaters come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and income tax brackets.

Liberal politiciansshould have the integrity to say what they really mean: "We want to spend more money on social programs (or we want to redistribute wealth in America) and need to raise taxes to pay for it. For the same reason that gangster Willie Sutton once answered for why he robbed banks, we want to tax the rich more not because they do not pay their fair share, but because that is where the money is.

President Joe BidenJoe BidenFederal appeals court affirms stay on Biden vaccine mandate for businesses Why Democrats' prescription drug pricing provision would have hurt seniors Tennessee governor signs law restricting COVID-19 mandates MORE promised a more civil, less divisive, administration. With the Secretary's declaration that we will achieve "fairness" in Build Back Better bill if enacted, and even if it does not become law, lets hopethat liberal politicians will stop once and for all attempting to demonize the wealthy, or any other class, of Americans.

David F. Eisner was the assistant secretary for Management at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2018-2021.

See the rest here:

The wealthy pay more than their 'fair share' and liberals know it | TheHill - The Hill

In a feature piece for theWashington Post Magazine, reporter Emily Kaplan writes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an institution that has excelled at survival and, often, reinvention.

Looking back at its nearly 200 year old history, Kaplan cites key moments in the Church's past when it made significant changes in its practices. When the Church was under threat from the U.S. government in 1890, then-prophet Wilford Woodruff banned the practice of polygamy citing prophetic revelation. Such was the case in 1978, when a new revelation paved the way for Black men to receive the LDS priesthood. And today, in a church that values personal revelation from God, younger, liberal members may slowly be changing the character of the faith. We'll talk with Emily Kaplan this Friday at 11 a.m. about the future of the LDS church.

Airs: Nov. 12, 2021 at 11 a.m. MT and 7 p.m. MT.

GUESTS

See the original post:

Emily Kaplan On The Rise of the Liberal Latter-day Saints - KUER 90.1

If theres anything that liberal elites, especially Black liberal elites, hate more than white rednecks, its Black conservatives. Elites see them as sellouts, or Uncle Toms. MSNBC host Joy Reid once referred to Supreme Court Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court wrestles with limits on digital billboard ads, free speech Winsome Sears: The latest Black conservative to make liberals nervous Will Supreme Court allow constitutional oversight to be outmaneuvered by Texas abortion law? MORE as Uncle Clarence. And since theyre not related, it was simply a cheap shot at a man whose conservative worldview makes him, in Reids view, a traitor to his race.

In 1991, then-Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), a Black liberal, testified against Thomass confirmation, comparing him to Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian military officer who collaborated with the Nazis. Three years later, on PBS, political commentator Julianne Malveaux, another Black liberal, said: I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many Black men do, of heart disease. Now a dean at Cal State University Los Angeles, Malveaux has apologized for the remark, calling it a wisecrack.

Youd think Thomas was a grand wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, the way elites attacked him. And, of course, hes not the only Black conservative who drives liberals up the wall.

When radio talk show host Larry Elder, a Black conservative, was running this year to unseat California Gov. Gavin NewsomGavin NewsomJudge ends Britney Spears conservatorship after 13 years Manson family member Leslie Van Houten again recommended for parole Newsom says he canceled climate summit plans because kids wanted him home for Halloween MORE, a progressive Democrat, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece with the headline, Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. The author, Erika D. Smith, is a Black woman of the left.

But for liberal elites, theres no shortage of Black conservative targets. So now we have Winsome Sears, the Black conservative who was just elected lieutenant governor of Virginia, who is the latest Black voice of supposed white supremacy. No fooling.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson, a Black intellectual who teaches at Vanderbilt University, was a guest on MSNBC the other day and said Sears is a ventriloquist for white bigots. There is a Black mouth moving but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue of a figure who justifies and legitimates the white supremacist practices, he said.

But, of course, Dyson wasnt surprised he expects nothing good coming out of the mouth of a Black conservative. So, to have a Black face speaking on behalf of a white supremacist legacy is nothing new, he said.

As for Reid, who smeared Thomas as an Uncle Tom, on election night last week she said, You have to be willing to vocalize that these Republicans are dangerous, that this isnt a party thats just another political party that disagrees with us on tax policy, that at this point, theyre dangerous. Theyre dangerous to our national security, because stoking that kind of soft, white nationalism eventually leads to the hardcore stuff.

But Sears a former Marine and the first Black woman to be elected to a statewide office in Virginia was having none of it. I wish Joy Reid would invite me on her show lets see if shes woman enough to do that, she said on Fox News the day after she won. Id go in a heartbeat and wed have a real discussion without Joy speaking about me behind my back, if you will.

I am a heartbeat away from the governorship, in case anything happens to the governor. How are you going to tell me I am a victim? she said. And I didnt do anything special to get here, except stay in school and study. I took advantage of the opportunities available here in America.

We can do better its not 1963, she added.

Except, when the subject is race, its always 1963 to elites on the left. Its always Birmingham, Ala., and the hateful Bull Connor, or some other racist place and person in the Old South. Youd think that by now progressives would have, well, progressed. But theyre stuck in the past. On matters of race, the past is their safe space. Thats when Blacks were victims and whites, their oppressors. Winsome Sears is telling them that Its not 1963 anymore, and thats something they dont want to hear.

Its a good message, one that liberal elites Black and white might give some thought to, if they werent so busy smearing Black conservatives who had the gall to stray from the liberal plantation.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Read more here:

Winsome Sears: The latest Black conservative to make liberals nervous | TheHill - The Hill

Special Counsel John Durhams investigation into the Trump-Russia probe has further discredited the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the roadmap for the liberal media to paint the former president as compromised by the Kremlin and even a possible sexual deviant.

Durham indicted Russian national Igor Danchenko, who is believed to be the sub-source for former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier.

The scandalous dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clintons presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie provided the liberal media with countless anti-Trump headlines, cable news segments and helped set the tone for years of daily, feverish Russiagate coverage.

INDICTMENT OF STEELE DOSSIER SOURCE REMINDS MEDIA WATCHDOGS OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WHO HEAPED CREDIBILITY ON IT

Danchenko pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making false statements about the source of information that he provided to Steele for the dossier but the damage was done long ago, as pundits on MSNBC, CNN, reporters at major newspapers such as The New York Times and Washington Post, and countless other news organizations heaped credibility on the dossier for yeras.

Here are five of the biggest offenders.

MSNBCs Rachel Maddow helped pushed the discredited Russian collusion narrative.

Rachel Maddow

MSNBCs biggest star relied on the dossier for so much content that Steele probably deserves a writing credit on "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Maddow routinely insisted "pieces" of the dossier had checked out back when the entire thing was completely unverified. She dedicated so much of her programming in 2017-2019 to hyperventilating over whether or not Trump colluded with Russia that ex-MSNBC host Krystal Ball slammed her former colleague in 2019 when the Special CounselRobert Mueller'stestimony began to debunk Maddows favorite narrative.

"Rachel Maddow, youve got some explaining to do," Ball saidon her former show "Rising."

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple has written a series of columns calling out members of the media who pushed the bogus dossier. Back in Dec. 2019, Wemple penned a column headlined, "Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart," which came out nearly two years before Durham further discredited it.

Maddow even seemed to dismiss the severity of the new revelations when the Durham indictments continued to undercut her favorite narrative. Journalist Drew Holden recently called her the "vociferous cheerleader of the Steele dossier," noting she "hyped it at every turn."

DURHAM NUKED STEELE DOSSIER CREDIBILITY BUT NEWS OUTLETS THAT PUSHED IT ARENT RUSHING TO ISSUE CORRECTIONS

Maddow was hardly the only figure at MSNBC to boost the dossier, with others such as Nicolle Wallace and Chris Hayes also touting it or at least claiming it was not "disproven."

"The dossier on its face is still considered an unverified document compiled by British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele based on raw Intelligence. To date, none of it has been disproven, and whole big parts of it are holding up," Wallace said in 2018.

BuzzFeed provided liberal news outlets with endless anti-Trump fodder when it first published the dossier on Jan. 10 2017. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo - S1AETILHYYAA

BuzzFeed News

The website best known for listicles and pop culture quizzes provided liberal news outlets with endless anti-Trump fodder when it first published the dossier on Jan. 10 2017. The article headlined, "These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia," admitted the claims were "explosive but unverified" and BuzzFeed ran with it anyway.

"The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them," reporters Ken Bensinger and Miriam Elder wrote.

"Now BuzzFeed News is publishing thefull documentso that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the Buzzfeed reporters continued.

BuzzFeed noted the dossier had "circulated for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence officials."

BuzzFeeds decision to publish the dossier rocked the journalism industry, with many Trump critics praising the outlet and other media watchdogs condemning it as reckless.

WAPO MEDIA CRITIC SAYS DURHAM INDICTMENT IS 'BAD NEWS' FOR THOSE WHO HYPED STEELE DOSSIER

CNN reported in Jan. 2017 that then-President-elect Donald Trump was officially briefed on what came to be known as the Steele dossier.

CNN and MSNBC

CNN reported in Jan. 2017 that then-President-elect Donald Trump was officially briefed on what came to be known as the Steele dossier.

Once CNN published its report, BuzzFeed decided Americans needed to see it for themselves.

CNNs initial report even noted that then-senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway dismissed the dossier as "unverified and untrue," but the liberal network ended up spending years promoting it anyway.

MATT TAIBBI RIPS RACHEL MADDOW FOR DEFENDING RUSSIAGATE AMID DURHAM PROBE REVELATIONS: SHOCKING NEW LOW

Officials like national security analyst Steve Hall and anchor Anderson Cooper stated it was "not" discredited or disproven in their coverage of it in 2017 and 2018. Anchor and ex-Obama official Jim Sciutto relentlessly defended the dossier, repeatedly saying it was "corroborated" and at one point calling it "not bogus."

Jonathan Chait

New York magazines Jonathan Chait penned a December 2017 article headlined, "The Steele Dossier on Trump and Russia Is Looking More and More Real," which detailed the crudest elements of the anti-Trump report.

Chait noted the lewd sexual claims had not been proven before saying that "hardly settles the question" of whether or not the dossier was legitimate.

"As time goes by,more and moreof the claims first reported by Steele have been borne out. In general, there is a split between the credibility afforded the dossier by the mainstream media and by intelligence professionals. The former treat it as gossip; the lattertake it seriously," Chait wrote. "Unverified private reporting should not be taken as gospel truth, and no doubt some of the tips Steele picked up are false. But we should probably be giving far more weight to the possibility that the darkest interpretation of Trumps relations with Russia is actually true."

Chait has also spent ample time defending the dossier on Twitter, frequently writing things like "maybe the dossier is real" and "dismissive coverage hangs on the assumption [former Trump attorney] Cohen is more credible than Steele. That is not a solid assumption."

Jane Mayer

New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer helped make the dossiers author a household name with a glowing profile in March 2018.

Mayers piece was titled, "Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier," with the subhead "How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trumps ties to Russia." The lengthy story poo-pooed conservative pundits who felt the dossier was a partisan smear and essentially dismissed that Clintons campaign helped fund it in the first place.

Mayer explained how Steeles family was middle class with blue-collar roots, fawned over his prestigious education and examined his time working for the Secret Intelligence Service.

Former British spy Christopher Steele arrives at the High Court in London, Britain, July 20, 2020. (REUTERS/John Sibley)

"Even before Steele became involved in the U.S. Presidential campaign, he was convinced that the Kremlin was interfering in Western elections," she wrote, noting that Steeles sources felt Trump could be "easily blackmailed" because of "perverted sex acts" that took place in Russia.

Many of the alleged "perverted sex acts" landed in the dossier.

"The credibility of Steeles dossier has been much debated, but few realize that it was a compilation of contemporaneous interviews rather than a finished product," Mayer wrote. "Regardless of what others might think, its clear that Steele believed that his dossier was filled with important intelligence."

The profile of Steele helped legitimize the dossier in the eyes of many liberal pundits who worship legacy publications such as The New Yorker.

"Its too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steeles dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steeles major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures," Mayer wrote.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In July 2018 Mayer tweeted, "Steele's opposition to Trump was based on his investigation, which unearthed alarming, and myriad ties between America's future president and Russia's corrupt rulers. Calling that a bias is like saying the FBI is biased against crime."

In July 2020, the aforementioned Holden accused Mayer of being "one of the media personalities at the forefront of pushing the validity of the dossier" and the New Yorker scribe responded.

"Steeles overall thrust was that Russia was trying to interfere in the 2016 election," Mayer wrote. "And about that he was absolutely right, correct?"

Fox News Brooke Singman and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

View post:

Discredited anti-Trump Steele dossier was embraced by liberal media: Here are five of the biggest offenders - Fox News

Newsweek deputy opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon took aim at White liberals and liberal media "elites" for weaponizing "wokeness" in a CNN sit-down Sunday.

Ungar-Sargon, who recently wrote a book called "Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy," criticized what she called the "Great Awokening," a trend she dated back to 2015.

"What we saw was White liberals starting to have more extreme views on race than even people of color," Ungar-Sargon told "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter. "The people of color that they're advocating on behalf of."

Those White liberals, she said, started to push for radical agenda items, like defunding the police, while a 2020 Gallup poll found that 81% of Black Americans oppose such an uprooting of law enforcement.

CANCEL CULTURE: DAVE CHAPPELLE AND OTHER COMEDIANS WHO HAVE TAKEN SIDES

What Ungar-Sargon discovered in her research on wokeness is that White, affluent liberals are "using the pain of African Americans in order to withdraw from the common good and abandon the working class of all races."

WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY - JUNE 06: Community members observe a moment of silence that lasted 8 minutes and 46 seconds to honor George Floyd during a Black Lives Matter protest at the Municipal Building on June 06, 2020 in West Orange, New Jersey. The West Orange Youth Caucus organized this peaceful event on the 12th day of protests since George Floyd died in Minneapolis police custody on May 25. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images) ((Photo by Elsa/Getty Images))

She also addressed the "woke media," singling out the New York Times, which she referred to as the "former paper of record," for making personnel decisions that too often bow to the pressures of the online mob. Here Stelter attempted to defend the "younger, liberal employees" who he said were trying to create "a more perfect newsroom" and "a more perfect union." But Ungar-Sargon argued too many outlets were engaging in a "silencing of debate."

BABYLON BEE EDITORS REVEAL THEIR GUIDE TO WOKENESS AND HOW THEY RESPOND TO BEING FLAGGED AS MISINFORMATION

A woman holds up her sign against Critical Race Theory (CRT) being taught during a Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) board meeting in Ashburn, Virginia on October 12, 2021.

Republican Glenn Youngkin's gubernatorial win in Virginia was a "perfect example" of the trend, she said, noting that multiple hosts on MSNBC called it a victory for White supremacy. The GOP ticket sided with parents who spoke out on school districts' progressive agendas and the use of critical race theory, concerned that the curriculum would only serve to divide their children by race. MSNBC host Joy Reid argued their education fight was "code for White parents who don't like the idea about teaching about race."

The liberal media made these claims, Ungar-Sargon noted, despite Youngkin making inroads in Black communities and conservative Winsome Sears becoming the first Black female to be elected as the state's lieutenant governor.

Former Republican Delegate Winsome Sears celebrates winning the race for Lt. Governor of Virginia as she introduces Republican candidate for Governor Glenn Youngkin during an election night party in Chantilly Virginia, U.S., November 3, 2021. REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst (REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst)

Babylon Bee editors Kyle Mann and Joel Berry also recently penned a book on "wokeness" called "The Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness," a satirical take on the movement. In a recent interview with Fox News Digital, they said that the best way to respond to liberal media attacks is to make them the punchline.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

"You always kind of win that exchange when [there's] someone lecturing you and saying your joke is inappropriate and then you just tell a joke about them," Mann said, with Berry adding the media always provides "plenty of material."

Read the rest here:

Newsweek editor accuses White, affluent liberals of 'using the pain of African Americans' to further goals - Fox News

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro will join the centrist Liberal Party (Partido Liberal)ahead of next year's presidential elections, according to a party statement released on Wednesday.

Bolsonaro had left his right-wing Social Liberal Party in 2019, leaving him without an official political affiliation. Bolsonaro is required to join a party if he wants to run for reelection, with independent candidates legally not allowed on the ballot.

The far-right Brazilian leader is expected to sign his Liberal Party membership papers in Brasilia on November 22.

The Liberal Party is a member of an establishmentcoalition of parties called "centrao." These parties have helped Bolsonaro pass legislation while in office and protected him from impeachment.

Joining the Liberal Party signifies a shift in political strategy by Bolsonaro, who railed against the establishment during his presidential campaign in 2018.

Bolsonaro previously attempted to start his own party in 2019, Alliance for Brazil, but itfailed to garner the necessary signatures for registration.

Meanwhile, former judge Sergio Moro also joined apolitical party on Wednesday, signaling he will likely launch a bid for the presidency. Moro, who oversaw the country's "Operation Car Wash" corruption probe, has become a member of thecenter-right Podemos Party.

Moro said he would run on a presidential platform of fighting corruption and eradicating poverty in the developing South American nation.

Moro becameBolsonaro's justice minister in 2019, but later had a falling out with the president and left the position the following year.

During his time at the helm of "Operation Car Wash," Moro charged former President Luiz Inacio Lula daSilva, or Lula, with corruption in 2017, sending the left-wing figure to prison in 2018. Lula was later released, with the Supreme Federal Court finding Moro to be biased in overseeing the corruption trial.

Lula, who served as president from 2003 to 2010, is expected to run against Bolsonaro in the 2022 election. Lula has slammed Bolsonaro over his coronavirus and economicpolicies and labeled the current president a "psychopath."

Recent polls have suggested that Lula would handily defeat Bolsonaro in a presidential matchup, with Morotrailing behind both of them.Bolsonaro has stoked fears of a rigged election, suggesting he may not step down peacefully if he loses the presidency next year.

wd/sms (Reuters, AFP, AP)

See the article here:

Brazil: Bolsonaro joins Liberal Party ahead of 2022 election - DW (English)

FW de Klerk, South Africa's last white president, has died at age 85, his foundation announced on Nov. 11.TREVOR SAMSON/AFP/Getty Images

Richard Poplak is a Canadian author and journalist based in Johannesburg.

The list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates includes some ghoulish recipients, not a few of whom subsequently used their prize as a bloody cudgel. But heres a weird one: in 1993, the Nobel committee decided to split the Nobel between South Africas liberation hero (and soon-to-be head of state), Nelson Mandela, and apartheids last president, Frederik Willem de Klerk. The award was given during the sepia-tinted period of racial reconciliation that is alleged to have defined South Africas democratic transition. But as the years have worn on, apartheids violent death grunts have been parsed more thoroughly, and de Klerks inclusion on the Nobel list prompts an unwelcome question: what is it that you mean by peace, exactly?

Mr. de Klerk passed away this week at the age of 85. Known as FW to both his friends and enemies, he grew up in the eye of the system: his father was one of the architects of institutional apartheid, having served as a well-known National Party minister in successive cabinets. A lawyer by training, FW first entered the all-white House of Assembly in 1972, and never looked back. He was the young, hawkish face of the National Party, a weapons-grade debater who served, just like his old man, in successive ministerial roles.

Even if we were to employ the loosest interpretation of the term liberal, Mr. de Klerk never came close. Nor was he a reformer. He served the apartheid regime as an apartheid devotee, helping to craft, calibrate and occasionally soften its policies (the latter usually for optical purposes). He was an unabashed Afrikaner supremacist, a virulent anti-communist, and conservative about pretty much everything else. But he was also a pragmatist entranced by the laissez-faire neoliberalism promulgated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both of whom later became ardent de Klerkian admirers.

Imagine if South Africa could have both racial segregation or, rather, entrenched economic rights for the white minority and open markets! This was heresy in the fading light of Prime Minister P.W. Bothas brutal tenure, as South Africas townships became more restive and the regime instituted a total onslaught against the forces of liberation. Nelson Mandela was in jail, his African National Congress (ANC) party was banned, a State of Emergency was in effect. But cooler heads in the National Party ran the numbers, and following the imposition of international economic sanctions in the 1980s, the countrys books were solidly in the red. When Mr. de Klerk became president in 1989, he had one choice. South Africa was broke and broken; apartheid was in triage. It was time to midwife a new dispensation into being.

After he freed Mr. Mandela, unbanned the ANC and terminated institutional segregation, far too much was made of Mr. de Klerks moral fortitude. Far too little was made of his brilliance as a political strategist. While lesser intellects in his cabinet wailed as institutional white supremacy was dismantled around them, shadowy forces linked to the government stoked black-on-black violence, creating a volatile and bloody stage for the theatre of transition. How much Mr. de Klerk knew of the civil wars architecture is still in dispute; nonetheless, at least 10,000 people died over the course of his five-year presidency.

Ultimately, what Mr. de Klerk wanted was a hand in negotiating the constitution, the final draft of which was to be written by those in power following the first free elections in April 1994. The miracle of that celebrated process was not Mr. Mandelas improbable rise from unjustly-imprisoned revolutionary to president, but the fact that the National Party managed to garner more than 20 per cent of the national vote, mostly from the white and mixed-race populations. This is one of the most stunning electoral victories of all time, and it effectively gave the National Party say over the final constitution most notably the rights that would bar economic redress or reparations for black South Africans.

Mr. de Klerk had won. But he wasnt a sportsman about it. He never acknowledged the National Partys brutality. Nor did he fully his word agree with the United Nations designation of apartheid as a crime against humanity. He served a truculent presence beside Mr. Mandela as one of his two deputy presidents, and vacated that office in a huff in 1996.

As for the atrocities committed during his tenure, he always remained tight-lipped. He had a chance during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process to come clean, to provide at least some succour to the victims of the regime he helped run. He refused. Just before he died, he recorded a video that provides something of a posthumous apology, but it plays like legacy-protecting revisionism, a de Klerkian specialty.

Hes taken many secrets, and a Nobel Peace Prize, to the grave. Hopefully both prove more useful in the afterlife.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read more from the original source:

Opinion: F.W. de Klerk was neither a liberal nor a reformer. But he was a pragmatist - The Globe and Mail

This summer, Pano Kanelos left his post as president of St. John's College, just a few years into the job and before his term was set to expire.

On his way out, he praised the Annapolis institution, which is known for its Great Books curriculum that emphasizes key texts from Western civilization, for staying mostly outside the culture wars that are challenging our society. He remarked that the centrifugal force of politics is pulling everything into it, conditions that he felt make it difficult to pursue liberal education rooted in free thought and speech.

Perceiving politics creeping into higher education, the outgoing president wondered, how do we self-consciously maintain that space of liberty over time?

Perhaps by starting a new university.

Thats the answer Kanelos gave to his own question this week as he announced the creation of the University of Austin, an institution-in-the-making that describes itself as committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse.

Unlike many new higher ed endeavors, the proposed universityUATX for shorthopes to root itself in a physical campus. It will surely seem retroperhaps even counterculturalin an era of massive open online courses and distance learning to build an actual school in an actual building with as few screens as possible. But sometimes there is wisdom in things that have endured, Kanelos wrote in a letter announcing the launch of UATX.

So its leaders are looking for land in the capital city of Texas. Why Austin, a city home to the South By Southwest festival whose slogan implores residents and visitors to keep Austin weird? Because the city is a hub for builders, mavericks and creators, according to the universitys extensive FAQ webpageplus if it's good enough for Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, it's good enough for us.

That line in particular, and the announcement as a whole, sent academic Twittera sometimes unruly collection of scholars and other higher ed workersinto a frenzy. Almost as soon as the universitys teaser trailer hit the internet, parody videos popped up.

Many observers critiqued the cast of characters assembled to serve on the UATX board of advisors. Like Kanelos, several of them recently picked up and left other organizationssome kicking up clouds of controversy on the way out. Theres Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor who left Portland State University after facing investigations for research misconduct, calling it a Social Justice factory. Theres Bari Weiss, a reporter who left the New York Times citing bullying and an illiberal environment after colleagues pushed back against some of her ideas. Theres Heather Heying, a professor of biology who left Evergreen State College after settling a lawsuit she and her husband filed over their treatment during campus protests.

Setting itself up as in contrast with those institutions, the new University of Austin promises to be fiercely independentfinancially, intellectually, and politically. No one can sign up for classes yetbut they can donate money. Its website says that $250,000 will support 10 studentsso does that mean tuition will be $25,000 a year?$500,000 will support 10 faculty fellows, and $100 million will get naming rights for an undergraduate college.

The institution, which its leaders say will seek accreditation (though that process takes years), has secured enough seed money to launch and aims to raise an additional $250 million, according to its website. Its fiscal sponsor is a nonprofit called Cicero Research, affiliated with one of the co-founders of the data-analytics company Palantir. Cicero Research had no assets as of 2020, according to The Daily Beast.

Money raised will be spent largely on instruction, not administrative bureaucracy, according to the universitys website, because the institution intends that student affairs, athletics, and extraneous services will be outsourced or streamlined whenever possible to keep costs down. Kanelos explained this further in his announcement letter, critiquing that universities now aim to attract and retain students through client-driven student experiencesfrom trivial entertainment to emotional support to luxury amenities.

Yet research shows that those services and activities are the kinds of programs that help students complete college. They can be especially important for students typically less well-served by higher educationstudents least likely to be insulated from the quotidian struggle to make ends meet, which the UATX website names as one of the motivations for creating a physical campus.

What all the rhetoric about freedom and independence looks like in practice remains to be seen. Kanelos farewell interview with St. Johns may offer clues. He called for an environment where intellectual exploration is the centerpiece, and for a learning community to allow one another to make mistakes, to explore ideas that maybe arent fruitful, to sometimes say things that are challenging or might offend the sensibilities of othersand then to forgive each other when we do make mistakes and to continue to move on.

Its a perspective about education that seems at odds with the reality that many students and faculty dont want their lives to be made intellectual matters, as one professor told EdSurge recently.

As news about the proposed university spreads, some early supporters are clarifying their affiliations with it and their opinions about its strident stances. For example, one person listed as an advisor to the University of Austin is longtime college president Gordon Gee, who these days leads West Virginia University. But he sent an email to faculty, staff and students at West Virginia U. on Monday distancing himself from the premise of the upstart university.

Serving in an advisory capacity does not mean I believe or agree with everything that other advisors may share, he wrote. I do not agree other universities are no longer seeking the truth nor do I feel that higher education is irreparably broken. I do not believe that to be the case at West Virginia University.

Another advisor, Jonathan Haidt, a longtime advocate for viewpoint diversity at universities, expressed his firm endorsement for UATX in a tweet on Monday. Haidt runs a group called Heterodox Academy, of which Kanelos is a member.

The University of Austin did not reply to immediate request for comment.

See the original post here:

Protesting Alleged Liberal Bias in Higher Ed, Scholars Announce a University of Their Own - EdSurge

Even if it's rebranded, the idea of critical race theory will continue to pervade because of liberal "wokeness," said a former Trump education chief.

Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos called critical race theory and the 1619 Project "insidious" ideas on Friday. DeVos also decried the "battle" parents nationwide face in attempting to involve themselves in their children's curriculum.

"Because wokeness is the left's religion, 'banning' critical race theory or the 1619 Project won't fix the problem," DeVos wrote in an opinion article. "The liberal education establishment will simply rename, rebrand, or repackage these insidious ideas to get around so-called bans."

DEVOS FAMILY OFFICE'S INVESTMENT ARM SWINDLED OUT OF $100 MILLION BY THERANOS FOUNDER ELIZABETH HOLMES

Critical race theory and other closely related ideologies hold that the United States is inherently racist and that skin color is used to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between white people and nonwhite people. Critics claim it relegates all white people to the role of oppressors and all people of color to that of victims.

Rhode Island mother Nicole Solas reportedly incurred a "$74,000 bill, threats of litigation from her school board, and a lawsuit from the nation's largest teachers' union to block her access to related records" while attempting to get curriculum information from her county's school board before enrolling her child, DeVos wrote for Fox News.

Parents must have the right to hold schools "accountable" for what they teach, DeVos added.

"Instead, we must equip parents themselves with the tools to hold schools accountable for their programming decisions to be able to see what is being taught and differentiate between activist and academically oriented schools before they have to make an enrollment decision," she said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The effort for educational transparency must be aggressive, DeVos said, or else some educators will keep shifting the nomenclature of ideologies such as critical race theory.

"But that hasn't stopped the education 'blob' from branding curricular transparency efforts as 'Bullying & Censorship,' 'fascism,' 'teacher abuse,' 'intimidation and harassment ... a conspiracy to prevent students from learning honest history,'" she said.

Original Location: Betsy DeVos: Liberal 'wokeness' will always 'rename, rebrand, or repackage' 'insidious ideas' such as critical race theory to keep them alive

Washington Examiner Videos

Read this article:

Betsy DeVos: Liberal 'wokeness' will always 'rename, rebrand, or repackage' 'insidious ideas' such as critical race theory to keep them alive - Denver...

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh meets with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Nov. 14, 2019.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

The Liberals and the NDP are coming together; the Conservatives are coming apart. While negotiations continue on some sort of pact between the two main progressive parties, the Conservatives are consumed by internal divisions among other things, over vaccine mandates.

A nascent leadership revolt, in the form of a civil liberties caucus devoted to upholding the rights of vaccine resisters, appears to have been stifled for now, the ringleaders forced to recant and/or denied critics posts. But this is unlikely to be the end of it.

That the two should be happening at the same time may not be entirely coincidental. The Liberals and the NDP are coming together because the Tories are coming part. With little fear of losing votes to their right, the Liberals can afford to tack left, and yet still own the centre.

Indeed, so strong is the Liberal position in this Parliament that its difficult to see the point of a deal with the NDP.

The Liberals had no particular trouble getting legislation through the past Parliament. They are unlikely to have much more in the new one, and for the same reason: the distribution of the seats between the parties is such they can govern with the support of either the NDP or the Bloc, rather than having to depend on one or the other (or, worse, both).

That would explain why the deal, should one arise, is unlikely to be a full-blown coalition: the NDP are in no position to demand seats in cabinet. But neither are they in much position to demand anything else.

A diminished Quebec Liberal Party fights to survive

Is carbon pricing Liberal policy? For the most part, its anything but

Viewed another way, they dont need to. The Liberals have already moved so far toward the NDP on most issues as to be all but indistinguishable from them. Perhaps, by agreeing to some sort of formal alliance, the NDP might be able to move the Liberals a little more their way, but at the cost of further blurring the distinctions between them.

If its hard to see what the Liberals get out of a deal, then, its even harder to see what the NDP get. Suppose they agree, as it has been reported they might, not to defeat the Liberals over the budget, or any other matter of confidence, for three years. What do they get in exchange? Ill tell you what they get. They get to avoid having an election.

This is usually considered a gain for the party in power. But while no party wants an election any time soon, the NDP have a lot more reason to fear one than the Liberals. Simply put, they cant afford it. Through the first three quarters of this year, the NDP raised only half as much money as the Liberals, a third as much as the Conservatives. Theyve only just finished paying off their debt from the 2019 election. They cant possibly face another one.

So the NDP will promise not to bring the government down over things they werent about to bring it down over anyway. Only now they can say its on account of The Agreement, and not because theyre too deathly afraid to.

What, in particular, will they not bring the government down over? Not over policy differences remember, they dont really have any. That leaves questions of ethics and competence. A supply and confidence agreement would amount to a pledge not to make trouble on these files.

We can have some confidence this is whats involved because of the partys haste to deny it. No matter what, we will still hold them to account, Charlie Angus, the partys ethics critic, assured The Globe. If there is an SNC-Lavalin scandal, that aint getting pushed under the rug.

Uh-huh. Getting answers out of governments is hard enough at the best of times. The opposition has few tools at its disposal, even in a minority Parliament; the only one that really matters is the threat to defeat the government if it does not give way.

Suppose, then, one of the opposition parties were to relinquish sign away, in fact this threat. And suppose a dispute arose over, say, the governments readiness to hand over documents related to, oh lets say, the mysterious dismissal of two Chinese scientists from a top-security laboratory in, for the sake of argument, Winnipeg.

How might those negotiations go, with the NDP safely tucked in the Liberals pocket? I can just guess:

Give us the documents!

No.

Please?

No.

Come on, be a sport.

No.

All right, then. We tried.

Perhaps this was what Erin OToole had in mind when he described the deal as billions of dollars of new spending to buy Jagmeet Singhs silence. But in truth the Liberals could probably have got it for free.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read more from the original source:

Opinion: That Liberal-NDP deal in full: the NDP agree not to do what they weren't going to do anyway - The Globe and Mail