Latest news with #GreenNewDeal
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump defied the world with truth — and upended the status quo
In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo. The unthinkable has become the banal. Take illegal immigration — remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under former President Joe Biden? Recall the only solution was supposedly 'comprehensive immigration reform' — a euphemism for mass amnesties. Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration. It simply disappeared with common-sense enforcement of existing immigration laws — and a new president. How about the 40,000- to 50,000-soldier shortfall in military recruitment? Remember all the causes the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs and stiff competition with private industry? And now? In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot. Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring rural, middle-class Americans — especially white males — that they were not systemically racist after all. Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about the 'end of the NATO crisis,' supposedly brought on by a bullying United States? Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend 2% of GDP on defense, which will soon increase to 5%. Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become frontline NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO secretary-general even called Donald Trump the 'daddy' of the alliance. What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly 50 years? Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — were supposedly too dangerous to provoke. Now? Most of its expeditionary terrorists are neutered, and their leaders are in hiding or dead. Iran has no air force, no real navy, no air defenses and no active nuclear-weapons program. Its safety apparently depends only on the mood of the United States or Israel on any given day not to fly into its airspace and take out its missiles, nuclear sites, generals or theocrats at will. What happened to the supposedly inevitable recession, hyperinflation, stock-market collapse, unemployment spikes and global trade war that last spring economists assured us would hit by summer? Job growth is strong, and April's inflation rate is the lowest in four years. GDP is still steady. The stock market hit a record high. Trade partners are renegotiating their surpluses with the United States. It turns out that staying in the US consumer market is the top priority of our trading partners. It seems their preexisting and mostly undisclosed profits were large enough to afford reasonable symmetrical tariffs. For now, news of tax cuts, deregulation, 'drill baby, drill' energy policies displacing Green New Deal strangulation and $8 trillion to $10 trillion in potential foreign investment has encouraged — rather than deterred — business. Then there were our marquee elite universities, whose prestige, riches and powerful alumni made them answerable to no one. And now, after the executive and congressional crackdown on their decades of hubris? Supposedly brilliant university presidents have resigned in shame. The public has caught on to their grant surcharge gouging. Campuses have backed off their arrogant defiance of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings. They are panicked about the public exposure of their systemic antisemitism. They are scrambling to explain away their institutionalized ideological bias and their tawdry profit-making schemes and mass recruitment of wealthy foreign students from illiberal regimes. So, the mighty Ivy League powerhouses are now humbling themselves to cut a deal to save their financial hides and hopefully return to their proper mission of disinterested education. What happened to the trans juggernaut of sex as a social construct and its bookend gospel that biological men could dominate women's sports? People woke up. They were no longer afraid to state that sex is binary and biologically determined — and that biological men who dominate women's sports are bullies, not heroes. Where are the millionaire scamming architects of BLM now? Where is the 'DEI now, tomorrow, and forever' conventional wisdom? Where are Professor Ibram X. Kendi and his $30,000 Zoom lessons on how to fight racism by being racist? They have all been exposed as the race hustlers they always were. Their creed that it is OK for supposed victims to be racist victimizers themselves was exposed as an absurd con. So, what flipped everything? We were living in an 'emperor has no clothes' make-believe world for the last few years. The people knew establishment narratives were absurd, and our supposed experts were even more ridiculous. But few — until now — had the guts to scream 'the emperor is naked' to dispel the fantasies. When they finally did, reality returned. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Boston's schools don't have to be mediocre
After all, the mayor controls the schools, because she appoints all the School Committee members. The buck truly stops at City Hall. Yet, with a mayoral election heating up, the quality of education in Boston Public Schools is shaping up to be at best a secondary issue in the race. Advertisement That's despite the fact that the Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In a poll conducted last year, most So why isn't education at the top of the mayoral agenda? There are deeply rooted reasons why schools, despite being the biggest single operating department in the budget and the most important city service, tend to be oddly absent from mayoral races in Boston. Advertisement First, perhaps, is history: Until 1991, Boston had an elected School Committee so mayors could legitimately claim that the schools weren't under their purview. A few years later, former mayor Tom Menino made news when he That was more than 30 years ago, though, and neither Menino nor any of his successors have ever in fact been judged harshly for the schools. Then there's the demographic reality that the number of voters who have a direct connection to the district has decreased, because there are fewer students in schools than there were a generation ago. Boston's population is about 650,000 and there are about There's also sheer political calculation: It's not lost on anyone that when former city councilor John Connolly tried to run as an education candidate in 2013, he lost. 'There's a disturbing culture in Boston politics where politicians believe that you can't win on schools and it can only be a divisive issue,' Finally, as this editorial board put it in the Advertisement That, at least, is a problem voters can end: by getting into the habit of demanding more. We can't afford to be defeatist. Especially in a post-pandemic world, in which many white collar workers can live anywhere, Boston needs schools that are good enough to hold on to residents and produce students who can succeed at college or in careers — and not just those able to land a seat at an exam school. In public debates, the candidates should be pressed on how, or if, they would How would they bring the third of students who regularly miss school back into the classroom? What would they do to stop fistfights (and worse) in the schools? Would they ban cell phones during the whole school day and if so, how would they enforce bans? How would they turn the downsizing of the schools — an inevitability, considering long-term enrollment declines — into an opportunity to make the remaining schools better? When she first ran for mayor four years ago, Mayor Michelle Wu had a lot to say about school buildings — she promised a 'Green New Deal' for dilapidated school facilities — and relatively little about what happens inside them, reflecting the kind of play-it-safe mentality Connolly described. Advertisement Her record in office is more encouraging: Wu has started the painful, but overdue process of shrinking the physical size of the district. She hired an impressive superintendent, Mary Skipper. She But violence in the schools — and Her main opponent, Josh Kraft, has called for more Those ideas should get a full airing. So should Wu's record. But families should make sure to tell the candidates their ideas and their concerns, too, and their priorities. The part we all can play in making the schools better is to demand more — to insist that B or C isn't good enough, and that we won't accept buck-passing from mayors. Advertisement Four years ago, Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
The National
7 days ago
- Politics
- The National
BBC bias may well be unspoken but it exists
The Prof's dogged determination yesterday showed what can happen when an easy listening Radio Scotland programme ambles into a serious subject with a formidable contributor ready to stand his ground. He was determined to point out that 'fringe' causes like independence and Gaza are now mostly majority causes, yet casually placed way below the 'mainstream' concerns of the great and good in broadcasting's pecking order. Richard spoke about the preponderance of business over trade union voices on the BBC, the insidious presence of right-wing Tufton Street think tank types on Question Time and Debate Night … and the unfair way his own interview was being conducted. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I went on the BBC today. Here's why it got fiery For that he got it in the neck. And gave back as good as he got. Yesterday's Mornings phone-in was about bias, bad judgement at the BBC and a decline in trust amongst viewers and listeners. Savaging the sole pro-indy, left-wing voice substantiated the accusations rather well. To be fair, Richard was asked on. I was too but didn't pick up the message till halfway through the show. So, it's true the left/indy position was sought out and 'heard'. But that's not enough. It's one thing to have a sole voice representing the Yes 'minority' (which as Richard pointed out, is a polling majority these days), it's quite another to be interrupted throughout like an annoying, foot-stamping, attention-grabbing, irritating toddler. From her tone, I'm not sure presenter Connie McLaughlin knew Richard's background beyond him being a National columnist (though strangely the paper's name was omitted from his description). For the record, Professor Richard Murphy from Sheffield University co-founded the Tax Justice Network and directs Tax Research UK. He co-created the Green New Deal and the concept of country-by-country reporting, used in more than 90 countries to identify tax abuse by multinational corporations. Not a guy to be shut down. And anyway, from 25 years' experience of live broadcasting at the BBC and Channel 4, it's totally counter-productive to interrupt or shut down a speaker accusing you of bias. Flexing the extra muscle wielded by a broadcaster flips the audience instantly onto the interviewee's side. The transcript of the exchange has done the rounds but the nub of the exchange was this: Richard: Let's just be clear. I've heard a programme which is entirely about how good the BBC is from BBC editors and producers. That is bias. Connie: Have you not been speaking for the past eight minutes or so? Because I don't think then that's accurate. Richard: Yes, and every time I do, you interrupt me. Connie: Come on. Richard, that's not fair. Come on. Listen, I'm going to give you a minute and a half, but I have got to move on. That's part of my job, so you can continue on for a minute and a half. There you go. Richard: You aren't rationing others… Connie: You're eating into your minute and a half … Richard: The BBC is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland. It is biased against the Palestinian cause and its right to have a state. It is biased in favour of Israel very clearly. It is biased with regard to its output in favour of the wealthy of this country. And that is the accusation that most people in this country have against the BBC, which is why they won't listen to it, because they do not get objective reporting. Wow. It was powerful listening because bias was being demonstrated not just discussed. And because another contributor, former BBC Scotland political correspondent Brian Taylor, was correctly asked to respond. He insisted he'd never been asked by the BBC to tailor a report to fit an agenda dictated by managers. He observed Unionists also complained of BBC bias and finished: 'The Beeb did not steer me for one scintilla of one second.' Actually, that was my experience too – it doesn't mean management bias didn't exist. IN my 25 years working for the BBC, I only experienced one active steer by London in 1997, after Scots had voted out every Tory MP, meaning Her Madge's Opposition at Westminster would have no representation in any Scottish election programmes if we played it by the usual book. READ MORE: Half of Aberdeen homes fall in value as 'oil capital' status diminishes No MPs should mean no microphone. But London insisted the Tory voice should be heard despite their election wipe-out and that they should be the second speaker in any political discussion. I decided I didn't get that memo but did let Tories speak, for the same limited time as every other minority party. No-one complained. But the bigger point is that no-one gets to broadcast for the BBC without internalising its collective outlook and corporate stance. Things that deviate too far from a comfortable, middle-of-the-road stance simply feel wrong. No-one has to say anything. Especially after the BBC's clash with Tony Blair during the Iraq War over the 'dodgy dossier', when popular director-general Greg Dyke was forced to walk the plank. After that Auntie shrank from any confrontation with government and the higher echelons of the BBC and the Tory Party became interchangeable. The corporation's timorousness and insistence on the most wooden version of 'balance' were palpable to all staff. Take the indyref. I got a call from a producer in 2014 explaining that BBC Scotland couldn't cover the phenomenal increase in Yes activity unless there was some grassroots No activity they could film as well. Did I know of any? Control by unspoken diktat is how all corporate culture works everywhere. Nothing needs to be said. But back to the programme. Clearly, producers imagined much of their discussion would centre on the Beeb's decision to sack MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace for alleged sexual harassment and John Torode for an alleged racist remark, and to allow a 13-year-old Palestinian lad to accurately describe the living hell of Gaza, where his dad has worked for Gaza's Hamas-run government. A BBC review into the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone concluded there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards' or evidence his 'father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Abdullah's parentage was a relatively small problem which could easily have been signposted, letting viewers decide on his story for themselves. READ MORE: Former top judge says court would 'likely' rule Israel is committing genocide in Gaza But oh no. The BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. As ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel asked: 'If the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? Why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned?' Indeed. And while we're at it, what was the problem with Gaza: Doctors Under Attack – another excellent, disturbing, passionate documentary dropped by the BBC in case it did 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – even though subsequently broadcast by Channel 4 without any formal complaints. Roger Bolton – former Radio 4 presenter told MacLaughlin that the biggest danger to the BBC is its 'on the one hand, on the other' style of reporting. 'When facts dictate the truth of one side,' he said, 'the Beeb should take a stand.' Correct. But he went on to praise the BBC as great value, 'costing less than a cappuccino a week'. Whit? This very comparison presumes a middle-class audience – when in fact, women account for three-quarters of criminal convictions for watching TV without a licence. Why? According to a BBC-commissioned report it's because women are more likely to head single-parent households; more likely to be in when an inspector visits and more likely to be living in poverty or low-paid work and struggling with bills. £174.50 is a lot for many people yet non-payment is treated as a criminal offence, unlike any other unpaid household bill. This is Auntie's biggest problem. It is so very special. A bit like M&S food. It does not just produce programmes. It produces BBC programmes. Unashamedly targeting middle to upper-class consumers may work for a private company. But not for a public service broadcaster. Some views, voices and causes are quite plainly the wrong leaves on the line for BBC Scotland. What's needed is a heartfelt apology to Richard Murphy. No-one's holding their breath.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rounds, GOP holdout, says he'll back Trump's funding cuts package
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he'll support a package of more than $9 billion in cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting after making a deal with the Trump administration. Rounds said Tuesday that he worked with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on a deal that would redirect some funding approved under the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. 'We have an agreement with OMB to resource the funds from other already allocated funding through what had been [former President] Biden's Green New Deal program, and we'll take that money and we'll reallocate it back into the tribes to take care of these radio stations that have been granted this money for the next two years,' Rounds told reporters Tuesday. Rounds had previously held off from backing the package, citing concerns about how tribal stations would fare under President Trump's proposed public media cuts. The shift comes as top Senate Republicans are ramping up work to lock down support for Trump's package to claw back previously congressionally approved funds. Republicans can afford to lose three votes in the Senate. The bill, which passed the House last month, calls for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month that allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing expected Democratic opposition. While the CPB provides some funding to NPR and PBS, which have come under heavy GOP scrutiny as the party has leveled allegations of bias against the media organizations, Republicans in both chambers have raised concerns the cuts could have a disproportionate effect on rural and tribal stations. Asked Tuesday whether a parallel deal for nontribal broadcasters was also in the works, Rounds said he is 'not aware of any of those.' 'The ones that I was concerned with were specifically these tribal grants. I think there were 14 total,' Rounds said. 'Some of them might be 50 percent funded under this program,' Rounds said. 'Some of them are 80-85 percent funded.' 'They wouldn't have survived without this, but they provide emergency services information for some of the most rural parts of our country and some of the poorest counties in the United States.' Pressed on the legality of the move, Rounds argued the move to transfer the funds would be legal, 'according to OMB.''OMB has assured us that they believe that they do have the authority to make that transfer, and that the Department of the Interior has agreed to take the transfer and to place it directly in — through the Department of the Interior to these tribes,' he said.'But we know it's less than $10 million total, so it's not a huge sum of money compared to the rest of the rescissions package. But for me, it was very important.'The Trump administration has already faced a series of legal challenges over efforts to withhold congressionally approved funds. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
White House agrees to exempt PEPFAR from cuts
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought told reporters after meeting with Senate Republicans on Tuesday that the White House is on board with a substitute amendment to the rescissions package that would exempt PEPFAR, the global anti-AIDS initiative from cuts. Vought said that the president could accept the substitute amendment to exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, an initiative George W. Bush launched in 2003, from rescissions. He said the size of the rescissions package would be $9 billion if the Senate substitute amendment is adopted. 'It's substantially the same package and the Senate has to work its will and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they've got the votes,' he said. 'There is a substitute amendment that does not include the PEPFAR rescission and we're fine with that,' Vought said Tuesday after the lunch. The amendment means the House will have to vote again on the legislation. House Republicans had pressed for the Senate not to change the bill. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Appropriations panel, had expressed concern over the proposed cut to PEPFAR, which is now likely to be dropped from the bill. Collins announced her opposition to the PEPFAR cuts June 4. The White House budget director said he's also working with senators 'who have tribes in their states' who are concerned about cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could affect radio stations on tribal lands. Vought and the Senate GOP leadership have reached a deal with Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) to redirect some other unallocated spending to help stations broadcasting to tribal communities. 'It's not Green New Deal. There's money that's been around for a long time that we can purpose for what is needed,' Vought said. He expressed confidence that Senate Republican leaders have the votes to move the bill. Rounds told reporters after the meeting that Vought has agreed to redirect unallocated funding in the Interior Department to help radio stations broadcasting to tribal lands. He said the administration has agreed to repurpose approximately $9.4 million in unallocated funding to help 28 or 29 radio stations impacting tribal lands across 14 states. 'This is being repositioned with funds that are currently within the Department of Interior,' Rounds said. Rounds threatened last week to vote 'no' unless the 'Native American radio stations' were protected. The deal to help those radio stations, however, will not be reflected by changes to the legislative text of the rescissions package. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says he plans to hold two procedural votes Tuesday to advance the package — a motion to discharge the legislation from the Senate Appropriations Committee and a motion to proceed to it on the Senate floor. 'Rescissions have been a part of the process around here for a long time, not only in the annual appropriations process,' he said, noting presidents of both parties have submitted rescissions packages to Congress in the past. 'What we're talking about here is one tenth of 1 percent of all federal spending,' he added. 'That's one-thousandths of the federal budget that's included in this rescissions package.' 'And so I have the hope we have the votes to get on this bill later today and to have an opportunity for people to offer amendments if they see things they think they can fix or modify in the legislation,' he added. Asked about the decision to restore the PEPFAR funding, Thune told reporters there was 'a lot of interest' in his conference to do so. 'There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue and so that's reflected in the substitute,' he said, describing it as a 'small' change. 'We hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate that the House would accept that one small modification,' he said. Updated at 4:04 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
