Monthly Archives: February 2022

Breadcrumb Trail Links

CSIS did warn the Trudeau government of the presence of 'extremist elements' within the trucker protest in January. Whether the report on this was read and absorbed is another matter.

Publishing date:

Pity Canadas intelligence agencies!

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Yes, I just wrote that. As a 32-year veteran of both CSE and CSIS, I must admit to a little sensitivity when I come across accusations of intelligence failure hurled at our protectors. Not that I am trying to claim that we are perfect: no one is. It is just that this notion that every bad turn of events originated in lousy intelligence-gathering wears a little thin after a while. And is usually wrong.

Intelligence agencies, however, are their own worst enemies. They say little, if anything, to the general public about what they do and why they do it. As a consequence, when things go south and they remain tight-lipped, the door is open for all and sundry to point fingers in their direction and blame them for all kinds of bad things.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Take the Freedom Convoy and its dogs breakfast of hangers-on in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada. Some national security experts immediately labelled this an intelligence failure, pointing in the specific direction of CSIS.

It turns out that these experts were wrong. Completely wrong.

Canadians should realize two things about intelligence in our country. One is that as soon as you leave the inner sanctum of spydom, you lose access to what is being collected and what is being shared. I left CSIS in 2015 and even though I have a current Top Secret security clearance I have absolutely no idea what CSIS is currently up to. As a consequence, for me or anyone to call what transpired in Ottawa a failure by CSIS is arrogance and hubris of the highest order.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The other is that intelligence agencies are highly constrained by what they can and cannot collect. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a high level of protection from intrusion into our thoughts and activities as it should. If CSIS had been investigating the actions of a legitimate protest movement without due cause (reasonable suspicion), it would have been acting illegally.

In the end, however, CSIS did warn the Trudeau government of the presence of extremist elements in the Freedom Convoy in January through a report issued by ITAC the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (which gets most of its intelligence from CSIS). In other words, the government did receive the best intelligence available before the proverbial hit the fan. How in heavens name does this constitute a failure? Quite the contrary; the women and men at CSIS did exactly what Canadians expect from them.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As an aside, some think CSIS is not taking far-right extremism seriously enough. Again, wrong. In my days there (2001-2015) the Number One terrorism threat we monitored was, no surprise, the Islamist variety. I do know, however, that the Service has devoted significant resources to the far right, a move in the correct direction (although the jihadis still constitute the greatest global threat).

What may have happened in January was something that occurs all too frequently in our land: the intelligence was ignored or not given enough credence. I saw this on far too many occasions in my career and this speaks to Canadas poor intelligence culture (unlike that of our allies, the United Kingdom, U.S. and even Australia). To mix metaphors, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him read your intelligence. We at uOttawa PDI National/Cyber security are trying to change this mindset through our courses and events.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The lessons here? CSIS and other agencies are hard at work trying to collect, process, analyze and disseminate intelligence on current issues to senior government clients. Some clients get it and are avid users, others not so much. While CSIS is not perfect, the notion that it was asleep at the wheel is as of yet unfounded and any claims it was need to be backed up by concrete data (likely not forthcoming anytime soon) not speculation by national security experts.

Phil Gurski is a Distinguished Fellow in National Security at uOttawa. He worked as a foreign intelligence analyst at CSE from 1983 to 2001 and as a strategic terrorism analyst at CSIS from 2001 to 2015.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from Ottawa Citizen, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Ottawa Citizen Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Follow this link:

Gurski: Canadas spies were right about the Freedom Convoy - Ottawa Citizen

Article content

Another slow-roll Freedom Convoy made its way through Kingston on Monday afternoon.

Participants met at the Highway 38 and Highway 401 carpool parking lot and travelled as a group to Highway 15. They then headed south toward Highway 2.

Sgt. Steve Koopman said Kingston Police were aware of the public assembly, but at that point it was just that. He said they were causing minimal impact to traffic and were not blocking any public infrastructure.

He did not wish to disclose their location or direction of travel to avoid confrontation.

The convoy, moving at the same speed as regular traffic but repeatedly honking their horns, reached the front of City Hall at about 2 p.m. and continued along Ontario Street. There were no counter-protesters to be seen at about 3:30 p.m., just many families walking in the area.

In front of City Hall, a line of about eight Kingston Police vehicles were parallel parked, watching the convoy drive past.

Original post:

Slow-roll 'Freedom Convoy' travelling through Kingston - The Kingston Whig-Standard

HAMILTON MTN News has continuing coverage on the "Freedom Convoys" that have been protesting COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Canada and the US.

We have been covering the story from near the border and on Sunday the rallies came through the Missoula and Bitterroot valleys.

There were about 50 vehicles decorated with American, Canadian, and political flags at the K-Mart parking lot in Hamilton as well as signs saying "we love truckers" and supporting those truckers as they rally against mandates.

Hannah Hislop/MTN News

The point of all of this is just freedom of choice," said event organizer David Bethman. "We don't care if people get the vaccine or don't get the vaccine. That's a personal decision.

On Sunday a crowded parking lot was filled with decorated pickup trucks and big rigs protesting COVID-19 mandates.

We're all just hard-working Americans and Canadians and we just we just want to get rid of the mandate, said Montana trucker Steve Smith.

The rally was in reaction to vaccine requirements for truckers to work across the northern border with supporters expressing mixed emotions and explaining why they came out to participate.

Hannah Hislop/MTN News

I don't like people sitting here telling me what to do, how to do it, said retired trucker Bobby Tucker.

Elated, happy you know, it's it's a good feeling, added Enrique Cruz a trucker from Hamilton.

Cruz added that he came out to support what he calls a brotherhood, "you know so we can come together for this we can come together for a lot more, said Cruz.

They werent alone; along the route to Missoula, supporters on the side of the road waved and cheered.

Continue reading here:

Bitterroot 'rallies' with Freedom Convoy in protest of COVID mandates - KPAX-TV

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Revere Payments announced that it is proud to become the official payments processor of CPAC and the American Conservative Union. Revere is a brand wholly owned and operated by commerce and payments platform Metrics Global.

At Revere Payments, we believe in the freedom to do business, not cancel culture, said Metrics Global founder and CEO Wendy Kinney. Everyday we partner with clients to eliminate their risk of being deplatformed or restricted by financial institutions taking political stances. Law abiding business owners should never have to wonder whether they will be discriminated against and shut down because of their political beliefs, she continued. We provide white glove service to process transactions with state of the art technology to protect sensitive data and prevent fraudwhether you are conservative, liberal, neither, and everything in between.

We are calling CPAC 2022 Awake Not Woke, and there is no more appropriate partner for payments processing than Revere Payments, said Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union. CPAC is standing up for conservative activists and their right to assemble, celebrate America, and raise much-needed funds for candidates and causes they support. Revere Payments is a key partner in our efforts, and ensures that we will be fully operational, even when the woke mob comes after us.

Revere Payments provides its clients with online payment solutions, in-store point-of-sale solutions, and event-based solutions. They are partnering with clients across the United States to mitigate political risk. They process credit, debit, and bank-to-bank transactions securely. Revere Payments parent company is Metrics Global, a long-established commerce and payments platform.

For more information about Revere Payments, visit: http://www.ReverePayments.com.

Read this article:

Pro-Freedom Revere Payments Proudly Becomes the Official Payments Processor of CPAC - Business Wire

When Hungarians go to the polls in April, liberal democracy will be on the ballotand not only in Hungary. Former US President Donald Trump is promoting the populist prime minister, Viktor Orban. Tucker Carlson, Fox News most-watched on-air personality, has travelled to Budapest to promote Orbans brand of ethnic nationalism. Nonetheless, Orban is facing his most serious challenge since returning to power in 2010.

Hungarys normally fractious opposition has finally united behind a single candidate: Peter Marki-Zay, the conservative mayor of Hodmezovasarhely, a small, rural town in the centre of the country. A devout Christian with seven children, Marki-Zay is running on a pro-European, pro-rule-of-law, anti-corruption platform. He describes himself as everything that Viktor Orban pretends to be.

Orban, now 58, was a reform-minded firebrand 30 years ago. But over the past decade, he has transformed Hungary into an illiberal democracy where only his voice represents the people. During his first term as prime minister in 19982002, Orban shepherded Hungary into NATO and the European Union. But after being defeated in 2002, he vowed never again to risk an electoral loss. Ditching his former pro-Europe, pro-democracy agenda, he embraced the politics of ethno-nationalism and anti-globalist grievance.

Upon returning to office in 2010 with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, Orban rewrote Hungarys constitution and election laws to entrench himself in power. His party, Fidesz, soon controlled the countrys media and judiciaryincluding the Constitutional Court. And Orban and his cronies became very rich.

In gearing up for this years election, Orban has held rallies accusing the EU of attempting to seize Hungary from the hands of the Virgin Mary, to cast it at the feet of Brussels. Yet despite his rants and flagrant violations of EU rules and values, Hungary remains a member of the bloc. The EUs convoluted bureaucracy simply wasnt built to handle an autocrat like Orban. It lacks any mechanism to bring him to heel, largely because he has been able to rely on Polands own illiberal government to veto any action taken against him.

As a Hungarian by birth, this years election is personal for me. I was six years old in 1955 when I opened the door of our Budapest apartment and faced three men in workers overalls. We came about the gas meter, one lied. Get your mother. I called out my mothers name, returned to my room and didnt see her (or my father, who was already imprisoned) for almost two years. My parents, the last independent journalists in Soviet-controlled Hungary, were convicted of espionage and sentenced to long prison terms.

Even by Cold War standards, the jailing of a couple with two small children was sufficiently shocking to merit front-page coverage in the New York Times. Fortunately, my parents were freed 18 months later, just in time to cover the October 1956 Hungarian uprising. But that years revolution was brutally crushed by Soviet tanks and troops, inaugurating an occupation that would last until 1989. Budapest, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed in his second inaugural address in January 1957, is no longer merely the name of a city; henceforth it is a new and shining symbol of mans yearning to be free.

I was still a small child when we began our westward journey the following year. But I have remained immensely proud of the land we were forced to abandon. On 16 June 1989, I stood with 300,000 Hungarians in Budapests Heroes Square, for the reburial of those who had died in the failed revolution.

Moved to tears by the solemn ceremony, I still recall the final speaker, a skinny, bearded 26-year-old who declared, If we are determined enough, we can force the ruling [Communist] Party to face free elections. With those rousing words, the young Orban launched his political ascent. Within a few months, he had left Budapest to study at the University of Oxford on a grant from the American financier-philanthropist George Soros, whom Orban now routinely smears as an all-purpose scapegoat.

In 1995, while regional demagogues stoked a genocidal war in the Balkans, I chose my hometown as the place to wed the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was still in the midst of negotiating the end of that conflict. In his wedding toast, flanked by Hungarian President Arpad Goncz, my new husband said, With this marriage, I also welcome Hungary back into the European family of democracieswhere she belongs.

Richard and I had friendly relations with Orban during his first term, even hosting him for dinner in our home. Although he is not a murderous dictator in the manner of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he lacks deep convictions beyond amassing power for himself. His genius lies in stoking feelings of thwarted nationalism, assuring Hungarians that only he can defend them against a hostile, non-Christian world. I frequently heard the same language from Balkan warlords 25 years ago.

Hungary may no longer jail independent reporters, but Orbans regime has silenced critical voices in more subtle and equally effective ways, such as by withholding broadcast licences and consolidating news outlets into holding companies run by Orbans allies. The Soviet troops who once patrolled my neighbourhood are long gone. In Orban, however, Putin has an ally inside the EUeven as the Kremlin threatens Hungarys security from the east, in Ukraine.

Orban proved unfit to realise the promise he voiced in Heroes Square in 1989. When 90% of the media in Hungary is state-controlled, it is hard to call elections there free. Nonetheless, the choice this spring is not up to Trump or Carlson or even Orban; it is up to Hungarian voters.

Almost half a million Hungarians (out of a population of 10 million) have opted to emigrate since Orban assumed power. Now we, the Hungarian diaspora, have a special responsibility to make our voices heard, so that tomorrows Hungarians will not have to realise their potential elsewhere.

For the second time in my lifetime, Hungary has an opportunity to be a symbol of mans yearning to be free. But Hungarians must seize it while they still can.

Read more from the original source:

Hungary's freedom election | The Strategist - The Strategist

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Today on The Argument, whats our responsibility to Ukraine?

Im Jane Coaston. And this week, Im joined by two of my colleagues from Times Opinion, columnist Bret Stephens and editorial board member Farah Stockman. Brett and Farah both write about foreign policy, and theyve spent time reporting in Europe and the Middle East. Their reporting has given them pretty starkly different ideas about when the U.S. should bang down doors to defend democracy and when its better to butt out, which brings us to the topic of todays show, the crisis in Ukraine.

Tensions are mounting in Eastern Europe, where more than 100,000 Russian troops are deployed at Ukraines border.

In response, Ukraine is carrying out its own drills. Meanwhile, NATO forces are training in nearby Estonia.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said yesterday he believes Russian president Vladimir Putin has not made a final decision on whether or not to invade Ukraine.

Germany and the United States, together with our allies and partners, are working closely together to pursue diplomatic resolution to this situation.

Today, the eyes of the world are on the United States to see how we will respond. Will we stand strong in support of Ukraine, or will we sit passively on the sidelines?

Bret, its been a long time.

Hi, Jane.

Farah, its a pleasure.

Thanks for having me on.

And I think I speak for many Americans when I say, what is happening between Russia, the United States and Ukraine?

Just in basic terms, we see more than 100,000 Russian troops surrounding Ukraine. You see warships. Theyre encircling Ukraine. And either Putin wants hes going to invade or he wants us to think hes going to invade. And theres essentially been a war going on there on the border since 2014, when Putin annexed Crimea. And hes been taking little bites out of Ukraine ever since. I think Putin saw that his influence is waning, his ability to influence Ukraine in a political manner is going away, so now hes going to do it by brute force.

I think Russia is profoundly threatened by the fact that Ukraine, particularly under its new president, is consolidating its democracy, moving towards the West, becoming increasingly anti-Russian in its orientation. I mean, this is a pretty rank act of aggressive behavior to, first, eight years ago seize portions of sovereign Ukrainian territory, in wanton violation of international law, wage a war that has lasted now eight years, taken thousands of lives, involve the downing of a civilian jetliner people sometimes forget and now, massed 130,000 troops in a manner that Europe hasnt really seen probably since before the Second World War.

So Putin, I think, is eager to cast himself as a potential victim of NATO expansion. Everybody knows that the chances of Ukraine joining NATO are basically nil because NATO expands only by unanimous consent, and Germany has long made its opposition clear. NATOs a defensive alliance. People join NATO because theyre afraid of Russia, not because they want to threaten Russia.

How much does this have to do with the United States at all? How much is this about the United States role, and how much is it about, like, Russia believes that Ukraine will always be a Russian territory, despite independence efforts since 1917, and large swaths of the Ukraine say we are not?

This is a big deal. This could result in the biggest security challenge that Europe has seen in decades. And it has to do with us because we really we are the backbone of NATO. We are. Those are our allies there. And this is a test of US leadership. This is a test of the resolve of the West. China is looking at this. Putin wants to get Ukraine, just like China wants to get Taiwan. And theyre all looking to see what were going to do. It matters because were talking about the future of Europe. Were talking about where will Europe end, essentially, and Russia begin. Its about much more than Ukraine.

And we saw the other day that, after the West started threatening sanctions on Putin should he decide to invade, what did Putin do? He went to Beijing and he sat down with President Xi in China and sought his backing so that he can withstand Western sanctions with Chinese support. So we are kind of seeing a little bit of a replay of the Cold War rhetoric coming out of Bidens mouth, and the response its creating. To them, this is about whether the US is still the boss of the world and whether we can boss people around and tell them what to do in their own backyards.

I would add to what Farah said, this is also about the future of freedom. I mean, the touchstone event in Vladimir Putins life as a young KGB agent was the collapse of Soviet power and control in Eastern Europe and Germany, where he was stationed. And theres a psychological element I think hes been looking to avenge what he sees as that historic and personal humiliation for a long time. But theres also, I think, an ideological component thats really important.

You know, in 1991, we had the sense that, in some way, there was a universal consensus, or near universal consensus, that liberal democratic governance was kind of the inevitable destination toward which every country was heading. Some of them quickly, some of them more slowly. But you now have a real ideological competition in the world between liberal democracies, which, lets face it, are not as attractive as they used to be, beset by all kinds of problems, doubts, fissures, partisanship, polarization, inequality, go down the list, and a kind of a model of what you might think of as efficient autocracy.

China, which, when it wants to build things, builds it with astonishing speed. Personalized power in Russia. And I think much of what is now happening is a challenge because the autocrats see an opening in Western weakness or division. But I would say at the core of this dilemma for us is the question of whether the liberal democratic model, which the United States has championed, for better or worse, and well or badly, since the end of World War II, is enfeebled. And theres a question as to whether it is going to remain at least the default aspiration of much of the world, or whether countries are going to look at China and say, well, you know, they make the trains run on time, as someone used to say.

You just made a Mussolini reference. And Im not going to go on a tangent about how Mussolini didnt actually make the trains run on time, and that is a historical myth.

I know he didnt make the trains run on time, but people said he made the trains run on time.

People did, people did. Bret, you wrote that the United States must restore the concept of the free world.

Yeah.

What is the free world?

As I defined it in that column a few weeks ago, the free world is an idea that countries that, to one degree or another, adhere to the values of democratic processes and liberal norms Im thinking about freedom of speech, rule of law, due process, presumption of innocence that those fundamental values in a deep way bind these countries together, and create expectations of solidarity and common interest that are important to maintain, not least because many of these countries tend to have the same enemies.

And we used to talk when I grew up in the 80s, the expression the free world was a common expression. It has gone into disuse. And I think when you have a challenge like Putins challenge to Ukraine, its worth restoring the concept. Its worth thinking that, even if we dont have legal treaty obligations to Ukraine, we have a certain set of moral obligations. And those moral obligations are important not simply for morality itself, but because as goes Ukraine, to some extent goes liberal democracy elsewhere in the world.

I mean, Im just having flashbacks of domino theory all over the place when Im hearing Bret talk. This is what got us on the path of Vietnam, right? We started off giving arms and having military advisors, and as soon as we knew it, were deep in a war. And we said it was a war over freedom and, you know, exactly like this, about ideas. But at the end of the day, when you look at how wars actually feel and the logic of wars, all of these things that we talk about tend to go away.

Look, I agree that democracy is the best system. I agree that capitalism is the best system. I think it would be great if everybody had freedom all over the world. My five-year-old daughter also wants a pony. Right? The question is not whether these things are desirable. The question is whether they are achievable, and whether they are achievable with us. Can we really spread democracy and ensure that every country in the world has democracy and freedom?

How do we stand up for those ideas in a way that doesnt overstretch us, that doesnt squander our limited resources in wars that are actually not to protect our own homeland? We have been blessed with two oceans and two pretty friendly and not so strong neighbors. And so thats the reason weve been able to run around the world doing things in Somalia and all kinds of places that actually dont have immediate national security interest for ourselves.

I was on the ground in Pakistan in 2001 when we started Operation Enduring Freedom after 9/11. And the people there joked it should have been called Operation Endure Our Freedom. They were just waiting for the bombs to drop on their heads. All the Iraqi families that were gunned down by, like, scared to death American soldiers because the car came too fast at the checkpoint and the soldiers thought they were terrorists, like, when you start these wars, it doesnt matter how many great, lofty goals you had.

At the end of the day, you know, wars are dirty, and theyre terrible ways to spread democracy, often, especially in countries we dont happen to know all that much about. We dont have the greatest track record right now of actually making democracies come to fruition in these countries. And we also, the other thing thats gone on, theres a big change, another big change in the world since the Cold War, is that the Global South has grown up. Theyre a lot wealthier. Theres a lot more educated people there. And theyre kind of tired of us wagging our fingers in their faces telling them how to run their countries.

We can be overbearing in the way that we help. And we can inadvertently do more harm than good. Weve proven that over and over again over the last 20 years.

I want to come back to the current crisis because I do want to stay on this point of what this all means for the future of liberal democracy such as we see it. The United States has deployed troops to Poland and Germany. Its repositioned troops from Germany to Romania. But theres not been any talk about troops going into an armed conflict. So Farah, what do you think we should do in Ukraine, or not do?

We have to stand with our allies and for our values, but we cant get overstretched. And so far, I think weve done a pretty good job. I hope that they end up convincing Putin not to invade. But what should be the future of Ukraine?

To me, I think Ukraine should be a bridge. It should be a bridge between Russia and the West. It should not be a NATO member. And if, as Bret just said, no one thinks its going to become a NATO member anytime soon, just say that. Theres worse things in the world than being a buffer state. Either Ukraine is going to be a buffer state or its going to be forcibly taken over by Russia. And I think thats the choice.

But based on polling that was done in December, Ukrainians support integration with the European Union by about 58 percent and integration with NATO by 54 percent. But Im curious, from the Ukrainian perspective, this seems like a lot of decisions being made over their heads. Where do their voices lie in this?

Bret, this is your chance.

Ah, OK, well.

To come in and talk about how we have to stand up for the Ukrainians.

Well, look, I mean, Farah has said a few things I really disagree with. Number one, we talk about how we dont want to be the ugly Americans, but here we are, two columnists for a prominent American paper, basically suggesting that, well, Ukraine ought to be a buffer state. I think Ukraine ought to be what Ukrainians want it to be. And thats the fundamental issue at stake here, which is that Vladimir Putin is signally unwilling to let Ukrainians decide their own future. And if we believe that the idea of democratic self-determination is impossible, then the suggestion that we ought to bargain away that fundamental Ukrainian right to decide by democratic majoritarian means where they see their future I think is almost like a kind of weird form of neo-imperialism.

And its easy to cherry pick examples from the past and look at places where American intervention went wrong. It certainly did go wrong in many places. But there are many places where it went right, and it made a huge difference in the lives of people. I mean, my mother was liberated from Nazi-occupied Europe by force of American arms. If you are South Korean and America certainly made many mistakes and actually committed crimes in the Korean War. Nonetheless, the reason why a member of the Kim dynasty is not your ruler has to do with an American intervention. The tragedy in Southeast Asia, the real tragedy began not when America intervened, its when America left.

So the shadow of the ugly American, I think, hangs over our heads very heavily. And to some extent, maybe its not a bad thing that we should be particularly conscious of the ways in which indeed, as you point out, we can be foolish, overbearing, overconfident and overstretched. But we shouldnt lose sight also of the fact that the world in which we live, in which there was an enclave in West Berlin, in which there was a free South Vietnam, in which now countries like Lithuania that lived under Soviet occupation for 50 years enjoy freedom because the United States chooses to exercise a vigilant role in global affairs.

But we cant separate that intervention from then leaving. Like, these interventions at some point may have been successful, and then theres the and then the United States left. And Im not sure how we can separate that.

Well, I mean, intervention is a big word, right? I mean, we intervene in all kinds of ways. And sometimes we intervene in foolish and catastrophic ways. But the great tragedies that I see befalling places like Afghanistan are the tragedies that are befalling it now. I mean, were talking about a million refugees already outside of Afghanistan and the prospect of mass hunger in that country because of our absence.

I only mention that to say that we have this idea and I think its a very American idea that once were out of town, its someone elses problem. And A, I dont think its someone elses problem. That problem tends to metastasize. But if were going to talk in moralistic terms, lets recall that many of the tragedies in the world unfold in our absence, not in our presence.

Dont get me wrong, I think we have done many good things in the world, and there are many good things that are worth doing. But I have seen us time and time again make a mess of things. What I want to say about Ukraine is not that I dont think we should sit down and bargain their future away. But I also dont think we should promise them that we can save them. We have made statements in the past.

The first Gulf War, we made a lot of statements supporting the Shia, telling them to rise up against Saddam Hussein. They rose up, and they were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. And they remember that. OK? In Syria, we made statements in support of the Syrian uprising against Assad. And what did we give them? MREs.

In the early days of Syria, I remember being on the phone so many times with people who were like, why arent the Americans giving us more support? Theres only so many insurgencies for democracy and freedom that we can realistically support around the world. We need to do a better job picking our battles. We really do, because we have to protect ourselves and our own democracy first, because we cannot help anyone else if we are in disarray. And guess what? Were in disarray right now. We really are.

Just to be clear, I dont think anybody is talking about American troops fighting in Ukraine. I certainly am not, and I probably I know I hold up the right wing of The New York Times editorial page. Lets just be clear about what were saying, which is not to deploy American forces anywhere in Ukraine, but maybe to do what we can to deter Russian aggression by arming Ukraine before Russia comes in.

Were doing that.

Well, no, were giving them aid in the form thats being counted in pounds, not tons. Its not massive aid. But your point, Farah, about pragmatism is totally well-taken. And I dont think anyone thinks that we shouldnt be anything except pragmatic.

We dont want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. What we want to do is provide a margin of deterrence against a potential invasion and give Ukrainians a fighting chance if they do invade, because if we dont do that, then the next target isnt going to be Kyiv. Its going to be Vilna or Warsaw or other places that are inside of NATO. And it means that the danger will be greater, not less.

Final point. You know, one of the arguments that I always made is that there was this odd confluence, oddly enough, between Barack Obamas foreign policy and Donald Trumps. They just came in very different-looking packages. Barack Obama loved to talk about the need for more nation-building at home. And Donald Trump actually picked up on that theme with America first.

I mean, theyre really actually very closely related, even if the means differed. And I would push back at the argument that the United States conducts foreign policy at the expense of domestic policy. Theres actually very little evidence. So the idea that were spending ourselves to death in places like Afghanistan or NATO when those priorities really belong at home I think is a misunderstanding of actually the relative balance of our budgetary attention.

I want to get in on this, because Bret, you were talking about holding up the right wing of The New York Times Opinion page, but

Ross might argue with me, but, you know.

Yes. But actually, Ross would argue with you on this point. Theres this weird confluence between the isolationist post-liberal right and a very specific swath of the very far left where its like America should have no influence because America sucks. And we actually saw an op-ed in The Times by Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, and Gladden Pappin saying that hawks are standing in the way of a new Republican Party.

Now, I objected on a couple of points, because I think that one of the problems that they see with hawkishness is that the liberal democracy or liberal values that we would be defending are values they dont like, including, quote, a virulent cultural libertinism that dissolves bonds of family and tradition, which I believe means gay people. But I think that theres a general hawkishness or however you want to interpret that is growing increasingly unpopular with Republicans. As someone who clearly believes that we should be taking a somewhat more muscular position, how do you respond?

Yeah, I mean it ought to tell the far left that if their arguments sound exactly like the far right, theres something the matter with them and vice versa. And it is part of what I was describing earlier, which is, I think, a broad ideological assault on the tenets of liberalism. Because youre absolutely right, regimes like Hungarys regime, not only is it against civil liberties when it comes to freedom of the press, but its also, in my view, militantly homophobic and frighteningly so.

The new right has become sympathetic to Putin, because he seems to be a good horse for them to ride in terms of the broad assault the idea of what a liberal democracy should stand for, which is precisely the right of individual human beings to pursue their own happiness and find their own future. And thats whats really under attack.

So its not a surprise to me that the American conservative crowd, which has echoes for me of Father Coughlin back in the 1930s, is banging the anti-war drums. And thats a force thats probably going to gain strength within the Republican Party. Its why, if you follow my column, you know that Im almost or perhaps even more uncomfortable with the Republican Party today than I am with the Democrats.

I do want to get back to the narrower question of Ukraine and talk a little bit about Bidens strategy. What is a good political outcome for Ukraine as the Biden administration sees it? Whats a win here for the Biden administration?

I think if Putin doesnt invade, I think thats an achievable goal. If he pulls his troops back and then Biden can claim a diplomatic win. I think just showing that NATO is standing strong. Showing Putin that by being aggressive, hes actually being counterproductive to his own goals. I think, just realistically, Putin is always going to mess with Ukraine. And whether its covert or overt or whatever, thats a reality.

And we need to get creative about how we push back. And we need to be smart. Im not saying leave the Ukrainians high and dry. But I do think, you know, Russia has a voice in the Security Council. Russias been at the table with us to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Theres a lot of places we need Russia and China, by the way. So to me, its a win to simply dial it back and get back to a place where the powers of the world can make things manageable.

Bret, what do you think? What will be a success here to you?

I largely agree with what Farah just said. And obviously nobody wants a violent outcome here. I have to say the Biden administration has exceeded my expectations in the way in which they have handled things so far. They have whipped NATO into shape, deploying troops to front-line NATO states, so far in relatively small numbers. But definitely as tripwires, its an important signal.

Biden, I think, did well in his meeting with the German Chancellor in insisting that Nord Stream 2 would be shut down in the event of an invasion. Giving Putin a clear sense that hes not, as I think Putin may have suspected, facing a weak, feckless and confused American administration that is going to kind of scamper out of Central Europe or Eastern Europe the way we did scamper out of Central Asia. So I think thats about right. I mean, if theres a face-saving solution for Putin, obviously we should seize it, right? Because its not in our interest to risk a kind of military confrontation on this scale.

Since you acknowledge that Ukraine is not going to be a NATO member anytime soon, why not give that to him?

Because I think its none of our business to give that to him.

What do you mean its none of our business? NATO is none of our business?

Its not our business to bind a future generation, say 25, 30 years from now, to whether its in the United States, a future American president, or future Ukrainian government to say, no, you will never ever join NATO. I mean, look

Promises are broken all the time.

But diplomats exist to come up with language that is appropriately ambiguous. But the main thing is Russian forces on the borders of Ukraine have to melt away and Ukrainian sovereignty has to be upheld. And then everything else is, in some ways, open to some kind of creative solution.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Were working on an episode right now about whether the left has ceded the idea of patriotism to the right and how much that matters. Its a big complicated question and I want to hear how you think about it. Would you call yourself a patriot? Whats the behavior or action that feels patriotic to you? And if you dont feel patriotic, whats standing in the way? Leave me a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

I want to ask both of you as journalists Im curious how you think that this potential conflict is being positioned to Americans. I remember being in high school when 9/11 took place. And that was the idea

See, I dont remember being in high school.

Oh.

I was. I am but a youth. And I remember that there was a lot of media coverage of how the Taliban treated women and the executions of women in soccer stadiums. And Laura Bush talked a lot about this. And Im aware that that was part of an ideological effort to get Americans on board with war in Afghanistan. And let me tell you, as a freshman in high school, it worked

Oh, yeah.

on me. I opposed the war. But I also was like, I dont know what to do with that. I dont know what to do with bad actors who are hurting innocent people. And part of me is very much of the we got to do something. That in times in history when we didnt do things, we look back on those moments that are like, why didnt we permit ships of Jews fleeing Europe to land? Why didnt we get involved in Rwanda earlier? Like, why didnt we do these things? But at the same time, Im like then we wound up in Afghanistan for 20 years. So this is complicated.

These are hard questions.

Right.

I lived for several years in Kenya, which I had a wonderful experience, but you would go and visit the Maasai and many of them still did female genital mutilation, right? What am I going to do? Its one of those youre a guest in this country. And the best thing you can do is give your example and moral support to those Kenyans who are standing up against the practice, right? But would it have made a difference? Were we going to send military to come over and overthrow the government because of this practice?

There are any number of interventions, but the very first has to be providing a model thats different a successful model thats different, and showing, hey, there is a different way and I hope you follow my way. But in order for the United States to lead the world into these values, you have to have followers. And you either get them to follow you by convincing them that your way is better or you get them to follow you at the end of a barrel of a gun.

And thats what we did in Pakistan. We forced them. We said youre either with us or against us. And Pakistan pretended to be on our side. But at the end of the day, they supported the Taliban and we all see the results here all these years later.

These are not easy questions. This is part of this is modernity, right? We talk about individual values. In a lot of parts of the world, they talk about communal values the rights of the family, the rights of a clan. You know, this gets really complicated when we boil it down to our ideas of what liberal values should be spread around the world.

And a lot of times the United States has hid behind the notion of a rules-based order or freedom were spreading freedom. But we get to determine, right, what we think freedom is or what we think the best way to spread those values are. A lot of your examples, Bret, of us doing it right happened a long time ago. I havent heard you give a recent example of us doing it right.

So what should we do in Ukraine? Its what were doing, right? But I think the question is, is there any amount of weaponry that we can give them that is going to stave off an attack from Putin if he decides to attack? And then to what extent are we morally responsible for the outcome?

I guess, again, Farah and I disagree about all kinds of things. You mentioned that weve had a lot of failures. And thats true. I mean, I guess were all a product of our generation. And from my generation, what I recall is that America actually stood up for freedom in Western Europe and won the Cold War. We stood up after dallying for some time, we stood up for the people of Bosnia and ended genocide in Bosnia, and did the same thing in Kosovo again.

And yes, by the way, there have been catastrophic misjudgments and a real question of whether the American government has the competence to get some of these large-scale interventions right. I mean, some of the abuses and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be legendary.

At the same time, I worry about this belief that we are uniquely blundering, stupid, incompetent people who really need to just tend to our own house, which is a broken house, and let the rest of the world fend for itself. We dont have that option. Theres no U.N. waiting to rescue us from international or global anarchy in the event that the United States just folds up shop and says were going to tend to our own knitting for the next 20 years.

What are we not doing that we need to be doing?

So we are sending pounds were measuring in pounds the amount of military aid that we are sending to Ukraine. It should be measured in thousands of tons. There should be an airlift to Kyiv with various kinds of weapons that would make a Russian general think very hard about the costs of an invasion.

Step one, do everything we can to raise the prospective costs of a Russian military incursion. Step two, which is what Biden, to his great credit, is already doing, is beefing up Americas military presence and NATOs military presence in frontline states.

Step three, begin immediately taking actions against Putins inner circle, especially their financial means, as a way of showing that for the 100-odd people or 1,000-odd people however many it is who really rule Russia, a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a really bad bargain, because theyre not going to have their mansions in Belgravia, or in Monaco, or elsewhere in areas where the United States or NATO exercises a great deal of influence.

Here is the original post:

Opinion | This Is About the Future of Freedom: What Does America Owe Ukrainians? - The New York Times

By Maria Saporta

Its time to get out of the lawsuit business. So proclaimed several board members of the Atlanta Housing authority at a specially-called virtual meeting on Feb. 16 when the board approved a settlement agreement with the Integral Group and its development partners over 88 acres of land next to four mixed-income projects.

After years and years of protracted lawsuits and countersuits between Atlanta Housing and Integral, a proposed settlement was announced by Mayor Andre Dickens on Feb. 3, exactly one month after his inauguration.

Clearly, it felt like a new day for the city and Atlanta Housing. At long last, the authority would be able to direct its focus on developing affordable housing throughout the city rather than be saddled with the distractions of endless lawsuits.

AHA board member Kirk Rich (far left) argues against the Integral settlement at AHA board meeting back in February 2020. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

During the AHA board meeting, several members congratulated Dickens for being able to broker a settlement between the different parties.

Theres a new settlement proposal put forward by the new mayor of the city of Atlanta, Dr. Chris Edwards, the AH board chair said in his opening comments at the meeting. And I believe I speak for all of us when we say we want to be on board, supporting the mayor. As Ive said often., theres only one mayor at a time, and we should support his leadership. Because were all human all of us are not going to agree on all that goes into a decision. I believe that we all do agree that we want to get this behind us.

Fellow board member Robert Highsmith, an attorney, admitted that he would have lost a bet if someone had said a settlement agreement would be voted on within the first six weeks of Mayor Dickens term.

I want to thank you, Mayor. I might have lost that bet. Mr. Chairman, if you had told me that six weeks into the new administration, we would have a viable settlement of this litigation thats taken up so much of all of our time, said Highsmith, adding the agreement still needs to be approved by the courts and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. But we have a final executable document here that I think is going to get us there.

HUD celebrates 50th anniversary in Atlanta on Nov.4, 2015 at the Center for Civil and Human Rights. Left to right: Renee Glover, Egbert Perry, Shirley Franklin and Georgia Tech professor Danny Boston. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed welcomes then-HUD Secretary Julian Castro to Atlanta. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

Echoing those statements was Kirk Rich, a commercial real estate executive who serves as vice-chair of Atlanta Housings board.

After thanking the various parties who worked on the settlement agreement, Rich also singled out Mayor Dickens.

To your point Robert the courage and leadership as a new mayor to do this so rapidly will allow us to get back to business that we were appointed to do and that we as a city of Atlanta. Im very happy to be here tonight and be able to put this to a vote so we can move on.

While they were applauding Dickens, a stubborn truth remains. Most of the current members of the Atlanta Housing board have been in charge during a period when the agency did little to develop affordable housing in the city limits.

In fact, the authoritys development efforts came to a virtual standstill after former Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was able to push out former CEO Rene Glover in 2013. Several of the current board members were either appointed by Reed or are known to have had close ties to him.

Over the past eight-plus years, the authority has been sitting on more than 300 acres of undeveloped land while the city has been experiencing a dramatic decline in affordable housing.

Egbert Perry, founder and CEO of the Integral Group, in a conference room at his companys headquarters in 2017. (Photo by Maria Saporta.)

One of Mayor Dickens top priorities has been to increase the availability of affordable housing in the city. And the Atlanta Housing authority is viewed as the key vehicle to build affordable housing especially on the lower-end of the income spectrum.

So, it would make sense for Dickens to be able to name his own team to Atlanta Housings board.

Unfortunately, it appears that former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms tied up most of the appointments before she left office.

The Atlanta Housing authority sent over the list of board appointments with the terms of the members. Two members are public housing residents who serve one-year terms. The others are all appointed by the mayor.

Chairman Edwards was given a retroactive five-year term. He had been serving as part of an expired term appointed by Bottoms, and his current term will expire on Sept. 2, 2024.

Bottoms appointed Rich to a five-year term expiring Nov. 4, 2024.

Bottoms also appointed Pat Dixon Jr. to serve until Sept. 21, 2025.

And Bottoms appointed Ten Traylor to a five-year term expiring June 1, 2026. By the way, Traylor abstained from voting for the settlement agreement without explaining why.

The seventh board member Highsmith is the only one whose term is expiring this year on Nov. 5. Highsmith was first appointed by Reed.

So, Dickens hands are tied when it comes to being able to set his own housing agenda through Atlanta Housing (AH).

That is unless AH board members do the right thing and submit their resignations to Mayor Dickens. They should give the mayor the freedom to accept their resignations or to keep them on board. At least they would be accountable to the current mayor and not to the two previous mayors.

As we proclaim its a new day for Atlanta Housing given the proposed settlement agreement with Integral, lets take it one step further. Let Dickens put his own team on the AHA board, and then it will really be a new day for affordable housing in Atlanta.

Go here to see the original:

Give Mayor Andre Dickens freedom to name his team to Atlanta Housings board - SaportaReport

I cant imagine being president of the United States is very much fun. Lyndon Johnson, a particularly aggrieved occupant of that office, said it best. Twice.

Being president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There's nothing to do but to stand there and take it. And: If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: President Can't Swim. Double ouch.

Theres some pleasure in the presidency though riding in Air Force One and the White House movie theater come to mind but I think the coolest part has to be awarding the nations highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

You may not know that much about the PMOF. Even though it's a huge deal, its a bit under the radar, so let me tell you about it. First of all, if you have never seen it, the medal itself is quite eye-catching. Pretty cool, right?

Now lets look at who is eligible to receive the award, which is actually rather loosey-goosey. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award given by the president for especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

The decision is the presidents alone. They dont need to consult with anybody, says E. Fletcher McClellan, a professor of political science at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, whose research focuses in part on the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I know there's mention of civilian boards and things like that. [But] this has become more of an in-house White House staffing project.

Its typically given to Americans, like Joe DiMaggio, Maya Angelou and Henry Kissinger, but can be given to foreigners such as Angela Merkel, Desmond Tutu and Stephen Hawking. And yes, many businesspeople have received PMOFs, (more on that below).

The award was established by President Kennedy though he was assassinated before he could confer any. Tragically then, Kennedy was in the first class of recipients given by LBJ (who was later bestowed with the award posthumously by Jimmy Carter).

Story continues

President Donald Trump awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Tiger Woods during a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, May 6, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

There are two levels of the PMOF, regular and with distinction with the latter having only been given to 27 or about 4% of the 654 awardees since 1963. You can even win twice, though only two people have; Colin Powell once with distinction. The other double winner for some ungodly reason was Ellsworth Bunker, the hawkish ambassador to South Vietnam from 1967 to 1973, both times with distinction even. (Talk about overkill.)

Some other PMOF facts. Every president since Kennedy has received a medal except Nixon, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. You have to figure the latter two will be tabbed sooner rather than later. (As for Nixon, he could be like Pete Rose and the Baseball Hall of Fame, right?) Biden already got his btw, with distinction, from Obama while he was the vice president.

Five members of the Kennedy clan have been awarded PMOFs, while a sixth, Jackie Kennedy, was one of the very few to turn the award down along with Bill Belichick and Dolly Parton, who has declined twice! Then theres Bill Cosby, who won a medal in 2002. Later there was talk of rescinding it, but that didnt appear to go anywhere.

And yes, besides politicians, actors, artists, athletes and scientists, a good number of businesspeople have been honored. (See if you can guess which president picked each one.) Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, Roger Penske, Arthur Laffer, Miriam Adelson, Alan Greenspan, Walter Wriston, Estee Lauder, Dave Thomas, Gordon Moore, Peter Drucker, John Kenneth Galbraith, James E. Burke, Edgar Bronfman, David Rockefeller, Lew Wasserman, James Rouse and Sam Walton. (Walton was in one of my favorite classes, 1992, along with Ella Fitzgerald, Ted Williams, Johnny Carson, Richard Petty, I.M. Pei and Audrey Hepburn.)

Some other business recipients are: David Packard, Ed DeBartolo, Justin Dart, An Wang, Walter Annenberg, Lil and DeWitt Wallace, Arthur Krock, and Walt Disney.

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Melinda Gates, left, presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bill Gates, center, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2016, in Washington. Obama is recognizing 21 Americans with the nation's highest civilian award, including giants of the entertainment industry, sports legends, activists and innovators. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Historically the award has been fairly non-partisan. George W. Bush gave awards to Katharine Graham and Donna Shalala. Obama mostly did left-leaning awardees but also made awards to George H.W. Bush, Sandra Day OConnor, Robert Gates, Richard Lugar and William Ruckelshaus. Trump, however, did not cross the aisle, awarding mostly to GOP politicians, supporters and athletes.

Joe Biden has yet to give out any PMOFs. I am a little bit surprised, says McClellan. Obviously, his first year was extremely busy. Maybe hes waiting for the right time. We might not see it until the end of this year. Im surprised too. As one of only two living recipients of the medal with distinction along with Buzz Aldrin I just think its Bidens kind of thing.

So who would I pick if I were president? (Scary thought.) I have a million ideas for non-business people; Dionne Warwick, Josh Bell, Michelle Kwan, Tommy Caldwell, Ellen Ochoa, Willie Nelson, Snoop, (maybe not Martha Stewart), Jennifer Doudna, Ringo, etc., but I want to focus a bit on businesspeople.

With apologies to Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and others, I think big tech is mostly off the list for now, (especially Zuckerberg and Musk.) But I would make an exception for the late Steve Jobs, and what about Tim Cook in the same year even? (Or would that tick Tim off, always being in the shadow of?)

Outside Silicon Valley there are plenty of other candidates. How about Ken Chenault or Mary Barra? What about Charlie Munger? (Maybe too ornery.) Jamie Dimon or Ann Fudge? How about Herb Kelleher (posthumously) and his flyboy pal Gordon Bethune? Theres Howard Schultz, Dick Parsons, Ralph Lauren, Ted Turner, Paul Allen (posthumously) and Mike Bloomberg. (Who would you pick?)

I have an idea: How about a second one for Warren Buffett this time with distinction. Too much? If Ellsworth Bunker can win two, why the heck not?

This article was featured in a Saturday edition of the Morning Brief on February 19, 2022. Get the Morning Brief sent directly to your inbox every Monday to Friday by 6:30 a.m. ET. Subscribe

Andy Serwer is editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter: @serwer

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, and YouTube

Read the rest here:

Who should win the Presidential Medal of Freedom? - Yahoo Finance

I hope the truckers do come to America and I hope they clog up cities, Trumpist Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul declared. And hell probably get his wish.

If ambulances, fire trucks, and other essential services are gridlocked for extended periods, if factories are shut down and workers laid off because of additional supply chain disruptions, thats apparently what Paul considers the acceptable cost of an essential civil rights protest.

How differently would Paul react to a convoy of Black Lives Matter protesters clogging up cities and bringing public life to a standstill? He likened a group of peaceful BLM protesters to a crazed mob when some yelled at him, while he was safely under police escort.

Of course, hes not alone in his hypocrisy. Trumpists who praise the Canadian truckers who occupied Ottawa and closed off access to essential international bridges for weeks have loudly condemned less disruptive BLM protesters as terrorists. Last year, in the wake of BLM protests, Trumpist Florida Governor and presidential aspirant Ron DeSantis proudly signed expansive anti-riot legislation including a ban on Willfully obstructing the free, convenient, and normal use of a public street, highway, or road by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding, or restraining traffic or passage by standing on or remaining in the street, highway, or road, endangering the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians. It should be needless to point out that DeSantis strongly supports the truckers Freedom Convoy. Lawlessness for me but not for thee, he might explain.

Do protesters have First Amendment rights to appropriate public streets, occupy public spaces, and obstruct transportation systems and the flow of people and goods for extended periods? Of course not. Rallies, marches, and other public protests have long been subject to non-partisan, non-discriminatory, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

But partisans right and left generally recognize the necessity and constitutionality of these restrictions only when applied to their ideological opponents. When their friends and allies take over public spaces, public systems and public life for prolonged periods, they call it civil disobedience Pauls tribute to trucker convoys. Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in our country, Paul declared, inviting truckers to occupy Americas roads and cities. Over a decade ago, Occupy Wall Streeters wrongly claimed they were engaged in civil disobedience when they appropriated public parks in much smaller, much less disruptive protests of income inequality.

Both sides imagine that protesting under the banner of civil disobedience immunizes them from arrest or punishment for illegal actions. Both sides are wrong. Civil disobedience is not simply a willingness to break laws you consider unjust. It includes a commitment to suffer the punishment for law breaking, in order to dramatize the laws injustice and hasten its change. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty, Martin Luther King Jr. explained in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. In his classic defense of civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau exhorted his reader to Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. Thoreau was not an activist. He felt no obligation to devote himself to eradicating wrongs. But he did not want to be complicit in them. The monstrous wrong of his day was slavery, so he famously refused to pay taxes to Massachusetts because it belonged to a union of slave-holding states and recognized the legal prerogatives of slaveholders. He willingly went to jail but spent only one night there because someone paid his taxes for him with no thanks from Thoreau.

Of course, most of us would have happily walked out of jail. Most of us lack the commitment, altruism and un-wielding integrity to meet the high standards set by Thoreau and King. Most of us do not volunteer for punishment when we regularly (and sometimes unavoidably) break the multitude of laws that are supposed to govern our daily lives.

Im not suggesting that you should turn yourself in every time you attend an unpermitted protest. But the more disruptive, prolonged and uncivil your protest, the more it appropriates public spaces and systems, subsuming public life, the more you should acknowledge and hold yourself accountable for its costs. Civil disobedience is not an exercise of rights so much as an assumption of social responsibilities.

Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and author of eight books, is a former member of the boards of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the national American Civil Liberties Union.

Read the original post:

The truckers' 'Freedom Convoy,' civil rights and social responsibility - wgbh.org

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas said Friday that he would see to the end of tenure at the states public colleges and universities. His reason? The University of Texas at Austins Faculty Council had recently gone too far in asserting professors right to teach critical race theory.

What we will propose to do is end tenure, all tenure for all new hires, Patrick, a Republican, said during a press conference. For currently tenured professors, he continued, the law will change to say teaching critical race theory is prima facie evidence of good cause for tenure revocation.

Its unclear how far Patricks proposal will go. Texas lieutenant governors have real power when it comes to setting the legislative agenda, and Patrick said he already has the support of Brandon Creighton, Republican chair of the state Senate Committee on Higher Education. Unnamed university leaders and members of the University of Texas systems Board of Regents also think tenure has outlived its time because they dont have control of their own universities, Patrick said. Even so, any serious attempt by Texas to end tenure will be a titanic battle between legislators and faculty advocates: PEN America has already called the proposal a mortal threat to academic freedom, while the American Association of University Professors fact-checked Patricks disingenuous speech and warned that changing the law to make teaching CRT a fireable offense is an extremely dangerous authoritarian precedent.

In a democracy, politicians do not determine what people are allowed to learn or forbidden from learning, Irene Mulvey, AAUP president and professor of math at Fairfield University, said in a statement.

Whats certain is that the ongoing war on CRT escalated significantly with Patricks announcement. The move didnt necessarily shock those who have been tracking legislative attempts to ban the teaching of CRT or other so-called divisive concepts this legislative session, however. Whereas earlier anti-CRT bills mostly targeted K-12 instruction, these experts said, 2022 is much more about higher education.

Sumi Cho, a retired DePaul Universityprofessor of law who taught aseminar on critical race theory, said, Throughout 2021, we saw what Ill call the White Discomfort Bills 1.0, which largely mimicked the former Trump administrations now-rescindedexecutive order against the teaching of divisive concepts on race and gender in federal contractor trainings. In early 2022, Cho continued, weve seen an explosion both in terms of quantity of bills, as well as the severity of the language.

Cho, who serves as director of strategic initiatives at the African American Policy Forumthe group that co-wrote the template resolution on CRT that UT-Austins Faculty Council adopted, offending Patricksaid bills in six states sought to ban the teaching of CRT by name in 2021, compared to 25 explicitly targeting CRT and systemic racism this year.Idaho, Iowa and Oklahomaenacteddivisive-concepts lawsfor higher education last year, but some 20 states are targeting colleges and universities this year, she added.

As of Friday, 23 states were considering 49 different divisive-concepts bills implicating higher education, according to tracking by PEN America. Many include penalties for violations.

Regarding these penalties, Cho said mandatory punishments and private cause-of-action vigilantism are on the riseinspired, no doubt, by the 2021 Texas law outlawing most abortions, which opens up those in violation to private litigation.Chocited a bill in Oklahomathat would allow K-12 employees to befired for failing to comply with a proposed ban on books involving sex, sexual "perversion" or sexual or gender gender identity, and for parents tosueand collect$10,000a dayif the offending book is not removed within 30 days. Another bill would allow K-12 employeesto be sued for $10,000 for continuing to promote ideas shown to be in opposition to the closely held religious beliefs of the student.

A third Oklahoma bill, SB 1141, would ban college and university programs beyond gender and ethnic studies from including in any required course any concepts related to gender, sexual, or racial diversity, equality or inclusion.

Cho said legislators are also broadening their takes on divisive concepts, to include religion, culture, political beliefs andLGBTQ issues this year.

In South CarolinaHB 4605 seeks to protect individuals from ideological coercion and indoctrination by any state-funded entity, including postsecondary institutions. This includes private colleges that accept state funds. Under this proposed law, no such entity may subject anyone to defined divisive concepts about race, gender, religion or sex, or compel any individual to accept or adopt the following: the existence of genders other than male and female and gender fluidity; nonbinary pronouns, honorifics or related speech; unconscious or implicit bias; or that race and sex are social constructs. No one under 18 may be taught about sexual lifestyles, among other topics. Violations, to be reported to a state hotline, lead to a loss of state funding, tax-exempt status and any other state-provided accommodation or privilege, until the entity demonstrates compliance. Beyond HB 4605, two other bills seek to limit discussions around race and other topics in South Carolina.

In Georgia, faculty members are already dealing with unpopular changes to public universities posttenure review system and the imminent appointment of higher education neophyte Sonny Perdue as chancellor of the University System of Georgia. Now professors are facing two divisive-concepts bills that mention postsecondary education and a legislative inquiry into such concepts.

In an initial, 11-page letter to the university system, David Knight, chair of the Georgia House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education, asked for detailed information on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and DEI spending on each campus for the last five years. The letter asks about everything from whether faculty and staff members may include research, service or scholarship about diversity as part of their performance evaluations to professional development, e.g. faculty support center hosting a book study on Ibram Kendis How to be an Anti-Racist.

In an updated letter sent to the system last week, Knight pared down his request, saying, I did not realize the volume of data my request would produce, and I appreciate your feedback on this matter, suggesting some quiet back-and-forth with acting chancellor Teresa MacCartney. Knight continued, My motivation is to understand how university and college resources are expended, especially as it relates to helping students earn degrees on time, in high-demand fields, with as little debt as possible, or otherwise related to improving the economic opportunities of Georgians and Georgia.

Knight said he now wants an organizational chart for each institution that had programs or offices primarily or mostly involved in advocacy for affinity or identity groups, social justice, antiracism and DEI, and information on how DEI factors into to hiring and employee evaluations practices.

Heather Pincock, associate professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and a member of the United Campus Workers of Georgia, said Knights request can be read multiple ways, including as information-gathering ahead of the passage of any actionable anti-CRT law this year. Pincock said she was more inclined to see the request as data for state budget building, especially given Knights multiple statements of concern about increased university spending on DEI.

My interpretation is that its a different strategy for trying to censor our campuses, she said.

Pincock added, Whats especially alarming about Representative Knights request is that while the [pending state] bills primarily target the curriculum and what is taught in the classroom, this request suggests that legislators are also interested in curtailing activities outside of the classroom, including student services.

Dustin Avent-Holt, an associate professor of sociology at Augusta University, said that while DEI is being framed in part as a budgetary issue, weve been experiencing budget cuts over the last 20 to 30 years in Georgia. And so [the Legislature is] kind of cutting us off, if you will, creating a kind of financial crisis and then using that as a pretext for getting rid of things that they dont want to have at the university.

Asked how hed be affected by any new state law limiting the discussion of divisive concepts, Avent-Holt said, I teach social inequalities. I dont know how to teach about social inequalities without discussing that.

Texas passed an anti--CRT billimpacting K-12 education last year, which Patrick mentioned Friday during his press conference. That bill and others like it ledChos policy forum and the AAUP to co-sponsor a template resolution for faculty senates affirming the right to teach CRT and gender justice without political interference. UT Austin is among about a dozen institutions where faculty governance bodies have passed a version of that resolution, but so far its the only one thats prompted a governor or lieutenant governor to resolve to end tenure.

Patrick said during his press conference that instead of passing a resolution on teaching CRT, UT Austin faculty members should have asked for an appointment to discuss the matter with him or other lawmakers, because lets be very clear, on the Senate bill that we passed on critical race theory, and the House bill that we passed, we didnt say, You dont talk about race. We didnt say that you cant teach about slavery. We didnt say that you ignore our history. What we said is, Youre not going to teach a theory that says were going to judge you when you walk in the classroom about the color of your skin That if youre white, you were born a racist.

Experts say critical race theory isnt assigning blame based on skin color but about recognizing institutional racism where it persists, including in the legal system. Faculty members generally consider the curriculum to be the purview of the faculty, and many if not most would consider involving legislators in curricular discussionsparticularly those involving politically contentious issuesto be anathema to academic freedom.

Jeremy Young, senior manager of free expression and education at PEN America, said Patricks speech represented a new low in attacks on education and academic freedom in higher education. The attempt to end tenure completely in all Texas state universities and then to specifically to revoke tenure for any professor who teaches critical race theory is despicable. It is the exact opposite of academic freedom. Exactly what academic freedom was designed to protect against are these kinds of government incursions into faculty teaching and faculty research.

Andrea Gore, Vacek Chair in Pharmacology at UT Austin and chair of the councils academic freedom committee, said she was shocked that Patrick had even noticed a nonbinding resolution on academic freedom. Nevertheless, Patricks actions and words make it clear that not only has he been waiting for an opportunity to do away with teaching race and social justice in public universities, he has also had tenure in the crosshairs. This resolution scraped off a thin veneer that was giving faculty a false sense of security about academic freedom in Texas.

Taking this view, tenure is not so much a new front in the war on CRT as CRT is the newest battle in the longer-running political war on tenure.

She added, Tenure gives the faculty protection and freedom to speak and conduct research in their areas of expertise, even if those areas might be considered controversial, and without fear of reprisal.

Richard Lowery, an associate professor of finance at UT Austin and frequent critic of the academic left who has argued that critical theory and social justice are incompatible with academic freedomand whom Patrick mentioned flatteringly several timesFridaysaid he did not support ending tenure, which protects dissident faculty members, too.

The lieutenant governor has never reached out to me or spoken to me about higher education, aside from acknowledging me in the audience of one talk, Lowery said. Ending tenure just gives the activists who have taken over UT Austin one more tool to threaten and punish people who depart from campus orthodoxy, once the politicians no longer view this as a politically valuable football to play with and go back to neglecting their obligation to provide oversight of the university.

Lowery said that if anyone wants to get serious about really reforming higher education so we can get back to providing valuable learning experiences for students and performing evidence- and logic-based research, they know where to find me, but hardly anyone seems to care about this on either side.

See more here:

Texas lt. gov.'s pledge to end tenure over CRT is a 'new low' - Inside Higher Ed