Category Archives: Liberal

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

Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, on Nov. 10.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The federal Liberal government is promising to hire more staff to tackle a backlog of requests for assistance and shortage of case managers that is leaving many disabled veterans without the help they need.

Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay made the commitment in an interview after The Canadian Press published a series of articles in the lead-up to Remembrance Day that looked at some of the most pressing challenges facing veterans today.

Those challenges included the backlog of disability applications that is leaving thousands of veterans waiting months and sometimes years for treatment and financial support, and which veterans organizations have identified as the communitys top concern.

The series also looked at the overwhelming number of veterans assigned to individual case managers, and how those caseloads are threatening to let some of the most severely injured fall through the cracks.

The toll of veterans injuries on families and caregivers

Were going to hire more, MacAulay said. Our party and government have indicated quite clearly were going to hire more adjudicators and case managers. The biggest priority in Veterans Affairs Canada is to deal with this backlog. And thats what were going to do.

Yet while the minister underscored adding staff, as the Liberals also promised during the recent election, will form a key part of the governments response, he would not say how many people would be hired or when.

Im not going to give you an exact date on anything, MacAulay said. But what Im going to do is make sure that we continue to deal with the backlog and bring that percentage down.

The Canadian Press series also looked at the lack of a promised strategy from the government for veterans homelessness, calls for more assistance to the families of injured veterans, and the fight some are waging for equal treatment from Ottawa.

Veterans Affairs had more than 40,000 unprocessed disability claims from more than 30,000 veterans in its possession at the end of June. Veterans and their advocates have said the long waits for claims to be processed are adding more stress and instability on injured ex-soldiers.

The Liberals have hired about 560 temporary adjudicators over the past two-plus years to bring the backlog under control after years of cuts under the previous Conservative government and a surge in new applications for help more recently.

The parliamentary budget officer in September 2020 reported the government would need to keep most of those temporary staff past their current contract end in March 2022 for another three years to properly deal with the backlog.

Veterans Affairs officials privately warned MacAulay the same thing this past May, according to documents obtained through access to information, noting those temporary staff only really got up and running this past January after months of recruitment and training.

Those officials not only spoke of the importance of retaining those temporary staff, but also for the government to make a decision on such an extension sooner rather than later.

With delays in extending spike staff comes the higher risk of losing these highly skilled and trained employees, reads the report. To date, we have lost 38 employees with 27 being essential decision makers.

MacAulay would not speak to whether the temporary staff would be hired or otherwise extended.

The minister was also vague on the governments plan to address the fact case managers within his department and struggling with large caseloads, though he did say the government remains committed to its 2015 campaign promise of having only 25 veterans to one case manager.

Our goal is to make sure that we bring down that ratio, he said. Yes, 25 to one. Theres only one way you can do this, and it is to have more people to do the job.

Veterans Affairs says the average case manager today has about 33 veterans assigned to them, but the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees says a survey of its members found the majority have more than 35 and some have in excess of 50.

The lack of details from MacAulay did not sit well with the opposition parties, which questioned the governments commitment to veterans given the lack of details around how it plans to address the challenges facing former service members.

Conservative veterans affairs critic Alex Ruff acknowledged the previous Harper government made mistakes in its treatment of former military personnel, and noted some of the positive changes the Liberals have made to the available benefits in recent years.

But he questioned why the Liberals have failed to eliminate the backlog or address the shortage of case managers despite having been in power for the past six years and asked what the governments current plan is for fixing the problem.

If youre going to do this, whats the plan? he said. What are the concrete details of how youre actually going to deliver on this?

In direct response to The Canadian Press series, Bloc Quebecois veterans affairs critic Luc Desilets called on the government to immediately fulfill its promise to reduce the ratio of veterans to case managers to 25 to one, including by hiring more veterans themselves.

Veterans Affairs Canada is failing on a number of fronts and there is a human cost to that, Desilets said in a statement released in French.

The minister must redouble his efforts, and things are urgent. The Bloc Quebecois is asking VAC to deploy the necessary resources to hire more case managers.

NDP veterans affairs critic Rachel Blaney noted parliamentary budget officer Yves Girouxs report in September 2020 actually said the government could have eliminated the backlog within 12 months if it invested more money into hiring and retaining staff.

It was very clear: if you want to get this backlog done, keep these people that youve hired temporarily permanently and then hire these other people to get it done in a year. So I get a little frustrated, Blaney said.

I know it will cost money. But I think the majority of Canadians feel very much that when people serve our country in the way that they have we need to return the favour when they return from their service.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Go here to read the rest:

Liberal government vows to hire more staff to address veterans' backlog, caseloads - The Globe and Mail

Fox News contributor Joe Concha blasted the liberal media, including MSNBC, for sowing the seeds of racial division in America after some of their pundits and guests claimed racism was the motivation for Republicans win in the Virginia gubernatorial election on Monday's "Fox News Primetime."

Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a neck-and-neck election widely seen as a referendum on President Biden's policies. One of the central issues in the race was education, with some parents pushing back on critical race theory.

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin speaks at a campaign rally at the Loudon County Fairground on November 01, 2021 in Leesburg, Virginia. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

"This is a crap-tastic combination of being blind and tone-deaf on the part of the Joy Reids and Sunny Hostins of the world who only get to be on national television because they play the race card and they further divide the country in the process," Concha said.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE LEFT'S POWER PLAYBOOK: SHELBY STEELE

Liberal pundits reacted to Democrat losses by saying racist "dog whistles" were at play in the gubernatorial campaign. Concha proceeded to blast the media for claiming parents who want to have a voice in their children's education are racist.

Opponents of the academic doctrine known as Critical Race Theory protest outside of the Loudoun County School Board headquarters, in Ashburn, Virginia, June 22, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein)

"Wow, what a strategy attack parents who simply want to say and what their kids are taught and not only criticize those taxpaying parents for acting like, you know, parents, but call them white supremacists in the process. Wow. Wisteria Lane is changed because white supremacists voted for Winsome Sears the first Black female to win election statewide in Virginia because Glenn Youngkin captured more than 50% of the Latino vote Latinos support white supremacy? Wow, who knew this?"

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

LIBERAL MEDIA IGNORES WINSOME SEARS' HISTORIC VIRGINIA WIN; 'THE FIVE' REACTS

Concha held particular animosity for the rhetoric of MSNBC guest, Elie Mystal, who claimed on "The Cross Connection" that White uneducated voters are not interested in issues such as infrastructure, rather they care about "using their guns on Black people and getting away with it."

"That's what they want. That's what they actually are in it for this," Mystal said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Concha said that he's "all for free speech" but a line has been crossed by MSNBC for having Mystal on the network.

"A line here has been eviscerated Saying White people care more about killing people because the powers that be at Comcast, who own NBC and MSNBC, should step in and say, 'Take this person off the air, he's toxic. His rhetoric is well past provocative, it's reckless, it's beneath even our low standards,'" he said. "That's never going to happen because that would take some backbone; and the people that run that network are jellyfish for allowing a clown like that on the air saying something like that."

See the rest here:

Joe Concha: Only reason these liberal pundits have a job is to sow division in America - Fox News

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said last week he will make masculinity a signature political issue. Tom Williams/Pool/Getty Images hide caption

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said last week he will make masculinity a signature political issue.

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley was the first lawmaker to publicly vow to challenge the 2020 presidential election results, and memorably raised his fist in solidarity with protesters outside the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Now he has a new focus: defending the men of America.

In a keynote speech at the National Conservatism Conference last month, Hawley accused the political left of seeking to redefine traditional masculinity as toxic, and called for a "revival of strong and healthy manhood in America."

"This is an effort that the left has been at for years now and they have had alarming success," he said. "American men are working less, they are getting married in fewer numbers, they're fathering fewer children, they're suffering more anxiety and depression, they're engaging in more substance abuse."

Hawley said he did not want to paint all men as victims. But he blamed the left for wanting to define "traditional masculine virtues" like courage, independence and assertiveness as "a danger to society."

"Can we be surprised that after years of being told they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games?" he said at one point.

In a TV interview with Axios last week, Hawley again accused liberals of telling men that their masculinity is "inherently problematic." And he said he'll make masculinity a signature political issue.

When pressed on whether any of his claims are supported by data, Hawley said millions of men are idle in part because of liberal policies. He pointed to a lack of jobs, fatherlessness and the "social messages we teach our kids in school."

Others disagree like Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a gender studies professor at Calvin University and author of the book Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.

"I think there are many challenges that the younger generation is facing right now, women and men," Du Mez said. "But there are a lot of assumptions that Hawley's making that the problems are caused by some sort of destruction of manhood or destruction of masculinity, when we could look at: What are the expectations of masculinity that might be inappropriate, that might be outmoded, that are perhaps exacerbating this crisis?"

There are many ways in which liberals are actually working to strengthen fathers, she added, pointing to things like paid paternity leave and broader family leave policies.

"There can be ways to find common ground here rather than pitting half of America against the other half," she said. "And I think that white men actually have a really critical role to play in that respect."

Du Mez spoke to Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep about what she makes of Hawley's recent comments (NPR has invited him on the program too, Inskeep notes).

So what is exactly is the ideal man, in Hawley's view?

"A man is a father. A man is a husband. A man is somebody who takes responsibility," he told Axios.

In his keynote speech, Hawley said society needs "the kind of men who make republics possible."

Hawley doesn't exactly define masculinity in his remarks, Du Mez said, though she noted a call to action.

"He is calling on conservative men to step up to their roles as providers and protectors protectors of faith, family and nation and to protect what he calls 'our culture,'" she said.

Du Mez notes that Hawley's keynote remarks drew on the notion that God created men and women as distinct and even opposite, with men as more assertive and women as more submissive.

Though his speech focused on masculinity, Hawley did take a moment to acknowledge the role of women and to describe their virtues as "every bit as necessary to the success of our republic." (He also slammed liberal lawmakers and advocates for using the phrase "birthing people" instead of "mother" and "trying to destroy women's sports, as if women and men are somehow interchangeable.")

"Men are protectors, women are designed to be protected," Du Mez said. "This vision of gender difference really runs through conservative Christianity and through American conservatism more generally."

She cautioned that she was not speaking to Hawley's personal beliefs, but noted this line of thinking is a widespread religious belief that would "resonate powerfully" with conservatives, especially conservative evangelicals.

Traditional masculine virtues are in the service of white Christian nationalism, Du Mez argues. She described Hawley's language as "militant" and said militancy does sanction violence, something that would also resonate with much of his base.

She cited survey data that shows the majority of white evangelicals believe the 2020 election was stolen, with 39% of those believing political violence may be necessary to save the country. NPR reported on those findings earlier this year.

Inskeep asked Du Mez why she is using the term "white Christian nationalism," anticipating that Hawley might point out he didn't bring up race himself.

Du Mez answered that it's important to understand how Hawley's words might resonate with this base in particular ways.

"With this calling on men to defend our 'shared culture,' in his words, he really does seem to be tapping into a distinctive notion of who real Americans are," she said. "And those are Americans who share his conservative values, not just around gender but arguably also around what this country is supposed to be, what this country is supposed to look like."

The audio version of this story was edited by Steve Mullis and produced by Barry Gordemer.

The digital version of this story originally appeared on the Morning Edition live blog.

Here is the original post:

Sen. Josh Hawley claims without evidence that liberals are attacking masculinity - NPR

In August, a conservative group produced a study showing how widespread the diversity industry was on Americas college campuses.

As The Free Press reported at the time, the Heritage Foundations report indicated that at many of the nations major universities the diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, staff often doubled or tripled the number of faculty within their history departments, for instance.

And those diversity police often come with grandiose titles and accompanying bloated paychecks.

Now, another conservative group has issued a report showing how pervasive the DEI mantra runs through the hiring process.

The American Enterprise Institute culled through job openings at a wide array of institutions from some of Americas most elite schools to local community colleges in the fall of 2020. Its researchers were looking for announced job descriptions for new hires that included requirements for DEI statements.

For example, the job candidate was asked to respond to a question such as: How do you think about diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI], including factors that influence underrepresentation of particular groups in academia, and the experiences of individuals from particular groups within academia?

The research ultimately settled on 999 job vacancies.

Of those, 19 percent featured diversity statements as a condition of hiring, while 68 percent referred to diversity or diverse, although that was usually in relation to the campus climate.

The AEI report noted DEI statements were most commonly found in political science jobs, with journalism, engineering, and history not far behind.

Such statements were least common within business schools.

Regionally, schools in the West were most likely to mandate DEI statements, while such a requirement was least likely in the South.

The study noted the potential effect of such policies with one example.

The researchers pointed to an analysis of a faculty opening in the life sciences department at the University of California-Berkeley, where the scale of the resulting purge would make Stalin blush.

Overall, 893 nominally qualified candidates applied, yet 679 were immediately eliminated solely due to insufficiently woke diversity, equity, and inclusion statements.

In other words, Berkeley used a political litmus test to eliminate over three-quarters of the applicant pool, the report noted.

In their conclusion, the AEI researchers wrote, Nearly one in five professors are now being selected based on not only academic merit but also their commitment to a particular ideological vision. Indeed, this number may be even higher than one in five: We believe our coding schemes are conservative and, if anything, likely underestimate the prevalence of DEI statements.

If the primary purpose of DEI statements is to effect political change in higher education rather than achieve greater diversity or institutional effectiveness, then their track record on the latter may not matter to proponents, the report added.

As of now, we believe we are on firm ground in asserting that the evidence does not yet support the contention that these practices will improve the campus climate or research productivity of higher education.

If policymakers do not intervene, they argued, DEI requirements are likely to grow substantially in the years to come, in part since trends that start at elite institutions are soon adopted by others.

Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

More here:

Liberal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Drive On College Campuses Is Becoming A Routine Part Of Hiring, No Evidence That Intellectual Talent Improves -...