Tag: political

  • Glastonbury performers criticise political interference in the festival after Kneecap controversy | Ents & Arts News

    Glastonbury performers criticise political interference in the festival after Kneecap controversy | Ents & Arts News

    [ad_1]

    Glastonbury 2025 is in full swing, with artists including Charli XCX, The 1975, Olivia Rodrigo, Neil Young, Rod Stewart, and Alanis Morissette among the stars set to entertain the masses this year.

    But politicians who won’t even be setting foot on Worthy Farm in Somerset have been making their thoughts known about this year’s line-up – in particular the Irish-language rappers Kneecap, who are on the bill on Saturday.

    The trio made a huge Glastonbury debut last year – impressing the likes of Noel Gallagher, who turned out for a set. But the path to a bigger stage this time round has made headlines for different reasons.

    File photo dated 06/06/24 of Kneecap members Liam Og O Hannaigh (Mo Chara), JJ O'Dochartaigh (DJ Provai), and Naoise O Caireallain (Moglai Bap) attending the UK premiere of Kneecap, at the Picturehouse Central Cinema Ian West/PA Wire
    Image:
    Kneecap at the premiere of their self-titled film in London. Pic: PA

    Outspoken on the war in Gaza, Liam O’Hanna, or Liam Og O hAnnaidh, appeared in court earlier this month charged with a terror offence, for allegedly displaying a flag in support of the proscribed group Hezbollah at a Kneecap gig in London last November.

    He is due back in court in August. On social media, he denied support for Hezbollah after the charge was announced, but the trio have held firm on their support for Palestinians.

    Removed from the bills of some festivals in the run-up to Glastonbury, there were calls from some for them to be taken off here, too – including from the prime minister.

    When asked by The Sun, Sir Keir Starmer said it was not “appropriate”, and he did not think they should play.

    Kneecap's Liam Og O Hannaidh leaves Westminster Magistrates' Court in London
    Image:
    Kneecap’s Liam Og O hAnnaidh leaves Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Pic: PA

    Protesters gather outside Westminster Magistrates' Court, ahead of the arrival of Kneecap member Liam O'Hanna, also known as Liam Og O hAnna
    Image:
    Protesters gather in support of Kneecap outside court in London. Pic PA

    Read more from Sky News
    Star-studded guest list for Bezos wedding
    Cheryl’s stalker admits another offence

    In an interview with The Guardian as the festival got under way, O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was asked if he regretted what was depicted in a video of the alleged offence that circulated on social media.

    “It’s a joke,” he replied. “I’m a character. Shit is thrown on stage all the time. If I’m supposed to know every f****** thing that’s thrown on stage, I’d be in Mensa.”

    👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

    He told the newspaper he did not know every proscribed organisation, saying he had enough to think about when he is on stage.

    “I’m thinking about my next lyric, my next joke, the next drop of a beat.”

    Glastonbury gets underway at Worthy Farm in Somerset
    Image:
    Glastonbury gets under way at Worthy Farm in Somerset

    Dilemma for the BBC

    For the BBC, which broadcasts a lot of the main sets live, it poses a dilemma.

    When asked if it would be showing Kneecap’s set live, a spokesperson said artists were booked by festival organisers and their own plans would ensure editorial guidelines are met.

    “Whilst the BBC doesn’t ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines,” they said. “Decisions about our output will be made in the lead up to the festival.”

    Which means it’s unlikely they’ll be streaming Kneecap live – but some of their set at least may be made available later.

    To those who object to them being allowed a stage here at all, it’s still allowing the band a very prominent platform.

    But Glastonbury has always leaned left, featuring acts unafraid to share their political views – and hosting former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on stage in 2017.

    Festival founder Michael Eavis told the Glastonbury Free Press that people have always come to the festival for these reasons – and made his views clear: “People that don’t agree with the politics of the event can go somewhere else.”

    Glastonbury co-founder Sir Michael Eavis and his daughter Emily as the festival opens for 2025. Pic: PA
    Image:
    Glastonbury co-founder Sir Michael Eavis and his daughter Emily as the festival opens for 2025. Pic: PA

    Singer and activist Billy Bragg, who organises the Left Field stage each year, said Glastonbury has always been political.

    “When I first came here in 1984, it was a CND (Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament) festival, and everybody was in opposition, or every young person, was opposed to Margaret Thatcher’s policies. And whatever issues – CND, the miners, gay rights, they came, it’s always been that.

    “So I don’t know why everyone’s saying this year it’s a bit political. It’s always been political. I suppose the prime minister saying who can and who can’t play might have something to do with it.”

    Bragg said he was “proud” of Glastonbury organisers for “standing up to it” and ignoring the noise.

    Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

    Glastonbury Festival 2025 has started – here’s what you need to know

    Accusations of ‘corporate control’

    Politics and pop have always been intertwined for older acts such as Neil Young, who headlines the Pyramid Stage on Saturday – and we know the BBC won’t be showing this one live, but perhaps for different reasons.

    Before his headline slot was confirmed, Young, who began his career in the 1960s with the band Buffalo Springfield, said he had initially turned down the offer to perform, saying the festival was “under corporate control” of the broadcaster.

    Earlier this week, the corporation confirmed it would not show the set live “at the artist’s request”.

    Neil Young won't have his set televised by the BBC. Pic: Getty
    Image:
    Neil Young won’t have his set televised by the BBC. Pic: Getty

    Singer-songwriter John Fogerty, one of the founders of US blues rock band Creedence Clearwater Revival, is also on the bill this year – and said songwriters should talk about what’s going on in the world around them, “certainly if they have a point of view and they’d like to share it”.

    There’s a balance, he added. “I was happy to write Proud Mary, which is sort of Americana, you know, sort of love song to America, really.

    “But I wrote Fortunate Son right in the middle of the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. And that has a place too. People need to feel free to write more music like that.”

    John Fogerty is on the bill this year. Pic: Getty
    Image:
    John Fogerty is on the bill this year. Pic: Getty

    With Donald Trump back in power, the US is in “political turmoil”, Fogerty said. “It’s almost, you know, I should go sit down somewhere and write a song about this – and then you go, oh my goodness, I already did.”

    For fans at Glastonbury, music as ever is the focus here – and the feeling from most is that politicians should stay out of it.

    “The prime minister and pop music don’t really go together,” said Bragg. “I don’t think anybody, leader of the opposition either, should say who can and who can’t play at a festival.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What’s the point of political satire? – POLITICO

    What’s the point of political satire? – POLITICO

    [ad_1]

    In the midst of spending reviews, rows of migration and fights about water bosses’ bonuses, everyone could do with a laugh. So this week on Westminster Insider, host Sascha O’Sullivan speaks to a coterie of comedians and satirists in SW1 to find out: what’s the point of political satire?

    Legendary co-creator of Yes, Minister Jonathan Lynn explains how a show designed to make people have a laugh at the expense of some pompous civil servants defined how we now see “the blob”.

    Sketch-writers Madeline Grant and John Crace give us a peek into their lives of following every twist and turn of parliament. And former Tory MP Michael Fabricant explains what it’s like to be the subject of these sharp penned journalists.

    Sascha also speaks to Rosie Holt, who shot to comedic fame for mimicking cabinet ministers on the broadcast round in the pandemic. And Andrew Hunter Murray, author, BBC podcaster and Private Eye writer, explains when satire is it’s most dangerous for politicians – and powerful for comedians.

    And Lib Dem leader Ed Davey explains why he tried to use humour and comedy to make people pay attention.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who Is Riley Gaines, the Conservative Political Activist Simone Biles Took to Task?

    Who Is Riley Gaines, the Conservative Political Activist Simone Biles Took to Task?

    [ad_1]

    Over the weekend, Olympian Simone Biles found herself in an unusual competition, facing off against former college athlete turned conservative political activist Riley Gaines in a war of words. The two found themselves in a heated debate on X about trans athletes in women’s sports, an argument that took the internet by storm.

    Biles ripped into Gaines after the conservative pundit disparaged a championship-winning high school softball team, intentionally misgendering the team’s 17-year-old trans star pitcher. “You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,” Biles wrote, referencing Gaines’s past as a D1 athlete. “Straight up sore loser.”

    Biles, of course, is a world-famous gymnast with 11 Olympic medals to her name (seven gold, two silver, and two bronze). She has multiple gymnastics skills named after her and is the most decorated gymnast of all time, regardless of gender.

    Gaines is…well, who is she? What race did she lose? And how did she wind up embroiled in a war of words with the greatest gymnast of all time? Here’s everything you need to know about Riley Gaines.

    Born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2000, Gaines is the daughter of two collegiate athletes, Brad and Telisha Gaines, a football player and a softball player, respectively. She was a multisport athlete who won a Little League championship as a child. But ultimately, she chose a different sport to pursue: competitive swimming. Gaines won the 100-yard butterfly and 100-yard freestyle in the TISCA High School Swimming & Diving State Championships in Knoxville, Tennessee, in 2017. The year prior, she was invited to participate in her first US Olympic Trials in the 100 free, but failed to make the cut after finishing in 85th place.

    Despite the setback, Gaines kept on swimming. For college, she was recruited to swim Division 1 at the University of Kentucky as the number two recruit out of Tennessee and number 98 overall in the class of 2018. There, she found a lot of success, making multiple All-SEC teams (that’s the Southeastern Conference, for the uninitiated) and racking up a fair number of SEC and NCAA accolades. She competed in the 2021 NCAA Women’s Swimming & Diving Championships, placing seventh in the 200 freestyle race but winning a silver medal in the 4 × 200-yard freestyle relay. She also qualified for the US Olympic Trials again in 2021 but did not compete.

    In college, her highest-ranking individual event finish nationally was fifth place—reminder, that’s off the podium—in the NCAA WD1 Championship’s 200-yard freestyle final in March 2022. Despite Gaines’s failure to medal, 2022 was a good year for her both competitively and personally: She was named the 2022 SEC Women’s Swimming & Diving Scholar-Athlete of the Year; she married fellow University of Kentucky swimmer Louis Barker after some three years of dating; and she graduated with a degree in health sciences. She also retired from competitive swimming, having never competed professionally or participated in the Olympic Games. Her original aspiration was to attend dental school.

    However, Gaines’s life trajectory would soon change after one fateful matchup at the end of her collegiate career. In March 2022, during the last meet of Gaines’s career, she tied with University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas for fifth place in the NCAA 200-yard freestyle championship. Thomas would go on to become the first openly trans woman to win an NCAA championship, after emerging victorious in the 500-yard freestyle. Thomas’s win added fuel to the fire regarding the ongoing national debate about trans women’s participation in women’s sports.

    At first, Gaines was cordial about Thomas’s win and directed her ire at the NCAA. “I am in full support of her and full support of her transition and her swimming career…because there’s no doubt that she works hard too, but she’s just abiding by the rules that the NCAA put in place, and that’s the issue,” she reportedly said in an interview with The Daily Wire. But eventually, Gaines did what many in her position have, pivoting to hawking right-wing conservative talking points and anti-trans rhetoric as her full-time job.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The political opportunism behind Reform UK’s support for abolition of the two-child limit on benefits

    The political opportunism behind Reform UK’s support for abolition of the two-child limit on benefits

    [ad_1]

    The leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, recently announced that if in government, his party would abolish the two-child limit on benefits. This social security policy restricts the payment of means-tested benefits to the first two children of a family.

    Farage explained the announcement as being pro-natalist – intended to encourage a higher birth rate – as well as being “pro-worker”. Farage said that the abolition of the two-child limit “makes having children just a little bit easier” for “lower paid workers”.

    He noted that Reform wanted “to encourage people to have children”. Such arguments are familiar in the European political right, although the UK’s Conservative opposition criticised Reform’s proposal.

    To be in government, Reform has two possible routes: to build a coalition of voters for it, or to split left-leaning voters. Its proposal to abolish the two-child limit may be aimed at both.

    On the one hand, it might be supported by left-leaning voters who are able to accept Reform’s broader policy agenda. On the other hand, it might be aimed at encouraging left-leaning voters who find Reform’s agenda problematic to move to parties (such as the Greens and Liberal Democrats) who are less equivocal in their commitment to abolishing the two-child limit than the Labour government.

    Social security policies winning votes

    Social security policies have long been used as part of political strategising. The situation with the two-child limit is complicated, though, because both anti- and pro-natalist views of social security (and it predecessors) have been popular at particular moments.

    Political and popular arguments have long been made that supporting the poorest families leads to them having too many children. This, so the argument goes, reproduces, rather than addresses, the poverty they face. Examples can be found, for instance, in the 1834 poor law commission report in relation to “bastardy” and large families, Sir Keith Joseph’s 1970s focus upon the “cycle of deprivation”, as well as “underclass” arguments in the 1980s and 1990s.

    The two-child limit was announced in the 2015 budget and introduced in 2017 with the reasoning that “those in receipt of tax credits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work.”

    Three children playing
    The two-child limit on benefits restricts welfare payments for children to the first two children in a family.
    Len44ik/Shutterstock

    In contrast, the architect of the British welfare state, William Beveridge, noted in 1942 that children’s allowances (now child benefit) would help “housewives as mothers” in their “vital work in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race and of British ideals in the world.” The 1945 Labour election victory in support of the welfare state suggests pro-natalist policies can contribute to electoral success.

    The expansion of tax credits in the 1990s and 2000s were partly explained in pro-natalist terms. Tony Blair, for instance, noted: “The working tax credit enables half a million mothers to choose to stay at home.” That, in other words, tax credits enabled women to choose having and raising children over paid work.

    Recent polling, however, suggests that the anti-natalist two-child limit polls well among voters, especially Reform voters. In 2024, for example, YouGov found 60% of Britons thought the two-child limit should be kept. The figure was 84% for Reform voters.

    Targeting voters

    The abolition of the two-child limit may have been adopted to increase Reform’s appeal to left-leaning voters. Providing additional support for families through social security may be attractive to voters concerned with social injustice. The two-child limit increases child poverty. Affected families are unable to provide even the most basic needs, such as food, clothing and heating.

    Nevertheless, Reform’s proposal is also embedded in caveats and would be paid for through means appealing to its existing voters. So, for example, Farage emphasised that the abolition of the two-child limit would be restricted to only British families. It would not be extended to families “who come into the country and suddenly decide to have a lot of children”.

    By keeping the two-child limit for migrant families, Reform’s proposals are consistent with existing immigration and asylum policies. It has been observed in an inquiry by All Party Parliamentary Groups on poverty and on migration that policies like this are, at least in part, “designed to push people into poverty in the hope that it will deter others from moving to the UK.” And, therefore, the abolition of the two-child limit can be seen as part of Reform’s pledge to severely curtail immigration.

    Farage also argued that the abolition of the two-child limit would be paid for by other policies that are central to Reform’s electoral agenda. These include stopping asylum seekers being housed in hotels and the abolition of net zero policies. It is also consistent with Reform’s view that jobs in Britain should be filled by British people. This, it believes, will help reduce reliance on migrant labour from overseas.

    There is little evidence that the introduction of the two-child limit had the desired impact on lowering poorer households’ birth rates. And it is unclear whether the proposed abolition of the two-child limit rooted in a British-only, pro-natalist agenda is enough to attract left-leaning voters.

    These voters might, for example, be more concerned with Reform’s position on immigration and asylum seeking, as well as the social injustice of the undoubted poverty in which families subjected to the two child limit on benefits live.

    Reform’s strategy then may be to further encourage those voters to turn from its closest rival – the Labour party – to other political parties. Whichever is the case, the situation will undoubtedly shift if the Labour government does take the step of abolishing the two-child limit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sun names new political editor and drops business page

    Sun names new political editor and drops business page

    [ad_1]

    Jack Elsom has been named as political editor of The Sun taking over from Harry Cole.

    This follows news that Cole is moving across to the USA to become editor at large fronting an evening politics show on Youtube and contributing to Fox News.

    Elsom is currently chief political correspondent of The Sun and has been with the title since 2021, after starting as a political reporter.

    He began his journalism career in 2018 when he joined Mail Online as a news reporter after graduating from King’s College London with a degree in politics.

    Sun deputy political editor Ryan Sabey moves to the new role of economics editor, whilst also retaining deputy political editor duties.

    Sun on Sunday political editor Kate Ferguson has been given a new role additional role heading up The Sun’s broadcasting content, including Never Mind the Ballots. Video is now major focus for the title. In September 2024, Sun editor in chief Victoria Newton told Press Gazette: “Video has become the focus for everything we do”.

    Elsom, Ferguson and Sabey will be assisted by Sun political correspondents: Sophia Sleigh, Noa Hoffman and Martina Bet. Together they form a merged Sun and Sunday on Sunday political team.

    Sun editor in chief Victoria Newton said: “Harry leaves big shoes to fill as he heads to the US, but I’m excited by the huge potential of the new team, which can take our coverage of politics from strength to strength. These are exciting and unpredictable times at Westminster.

    “The Sun will be in the thick of it, breaking stories, sticking up for our readers and holding the politicians to account every day.”

    From next week The Sun is replacing its business page with a new Sun Money daily page, with more of a focus on consumer finance. This will be led by Sun head of consumer Tara Evans.

    Sun business editor Ashley Armstrong left the title this month to join the Financial Times and there has been no news as yet of this role being replaced.

    Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top Jan. 6 prosecutor says Trump’s Capitol riot pardons signal approval of political violence

    Top Jan. 6 prosecutor says Trump’s Capitol riot pardons signal approval of political violence

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor who oversaw the Capitol riot investigation is speaking out about President Donald Trump’s mass pardon of Jan. 6 rioters and the Trump administration’s targeting of career law enforcement officials who worked cases against the people who attacked the U.S. Capitol.

    Greg Rosen, who was the chief of the Capitol Siege Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, called the Justice Department’s handling of Jan. 6 cases appropriate, proportional and righteous, noting that hundreds of defendants convicted of misdemeanors ultimately were sentenced to probation.

    “The concept that these defendants were railroaded or mistreated is belied by the actual facts,” Rosen said in an interview days after he resigned from the Justice Department. “The reality is every single case was treated with the utmost scrutiny, and every single case required the same level of due process, maximal due process afforded by the U.S. Constitution.”

    Judges appointed by presidents of both parties adjudicated the cases, and Rosen said the historical record created by the prosecutions “is what will speak volumes, not conjecture and not speculation.”

    Rosen, who was previously a prosecutor in Virginia, served at the Justice Department for more than a decade, culminating in his role overseeing the Jan. 6 cases, leading a unit that was shut down when Trump came to office. Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 defendants and commuted the sentences of members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Those pardons, Rosen said, sent the wrong message to the American public.

    “The underlying message of the pardons and the expressive nature of the pardons is that political violence is acceptable, particularly if it’s done for a specific purpose,” Rosen said. “Political violence in an American society, in a constitutional republic, is essentially the brain rot of the republic. I think Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘It’s a republic if you can keep it.’ To have pardons … pardoned people who committed wrong, objectively speaking, and then to celebrate that is a message to the American people that the rule of law may not matter.”

    Image: Donald Trump
    President Donald Trump arrives to speak to supporters near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.Brendan Smialowski / AFP – Getty Images file

    White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that Trump “doesn’t need lectures from Democrats about his use of pardons,” before citing former President Joe Biden’s pardons including that of his son Hunter Biden and his preemptive pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci. “President Trump is using his pardon and commutation powers to right many wrongs, acting reasonably and responsibly within his constitutional authority,” Fields said.

    Rosen resigned from the Justice Department last week and is joining a private law firm after a tumultuous few months when some of his colleagues were fired, while he and other leaders were demoted to entry-level positions by the former interim U.S. attorney for Washington, Ed Martin, whom Trump named as his pardon attorney and as director of the Justice Department’s working group investigating what Trump has called “weaponization” of law enforcement against himself and allies.

    Rosen also spoke about the Trump administration’s pending settlement of a lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to climb through a broken glass door in the building. Trump and his allies are also discussing potential settlements with Jan. 6 defendants. Rosen called the news “shocking” and said it was not supported by the evidence.

    The notion that Jan. 6 defendants were “part of some system of weaponization is just not borne out by the truth, it’s not borne out by the facts,” he said.

    The public, Rosen said, often overlooks that the prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants began in the final days of Trump’s first term, when Trump himself was publicly declaring that rioters would be held accountable.

    Rosen said it should be easy to evaluate what happened from an apolitical and nonpartisan perspective. “A crime obviously occurred,” Rosen said. “We investigated that crime, we brought charges, and those charges were vetted and scrupulously analyzed by — not only internal to the department,” before charges were brought, “but externally, by judges and juries.”

    Demonstrators attempt to breach the U.S. Capitol building during a protest in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
    Demonstrators try to breach the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Victor J. Blue / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

    Rosen said the firings and demotions of federal employees who worked on Jan. 6 cases have left the Trump administration less prepared to handle the types of cases it proclaimed to want to prioritize.

    “The irony here is that every single one of those prosecutors, the ones who were fired or the ones who were demoted, were individuals who would have otherwise served the community, served the District of Columbia and helped prevent violent crime in a way consistent with any administration’s priorities, let alone this administration’s priorities,” Rosen said. “Frankly, it’s ridiculous that we are seeing retaliation being taken against people who did their jobs and did their jobs effectively with the full-throated support of the United States government.”

    “This is not a circumstance where we are essentially deep state actors, so to speak. We are just trying to do our jobs,” he said. “From my perspective, it sends a terrible message. It sends a message that every aspect of what you do will somehow be politicized or the word I think that keeps getting used is ‘weaponized,’ and that’s very unfortunate.”

    Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.
    Pro-Trump supporters storm the Capitol after a rally with President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.Samuel Corum / Getty Images file

    Rosen, whose father was in law enforcement, said he always wanted to be a trial attorney. He was drawn to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington because of its unique status as an office that prosecutes both local and federal crimes.

    Now, Rosen is joining the boutique litigation firm Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, as some Washington law firms that have worked cases against Trump or his priorities face threats from the administration.

    “Law firms, whether you are on a firm that is from big law or whether you’re at a solo practitioning firm, you should be able to represent your clients zealously and zealously in a way that is not impacted by who the president of the United States is,” Rosen said. “There can be a chilling effect. And I think what we’re seeing in the litigation across the board, particularly when it came to some of the executive orders, is that firms can be practically, morally and financially impacted in ways that could not just hurt the business, but undermine the rule of law and the ability of lawyers to fulfill their constitutional duties.”

    Rosen said he hopes the record created by the prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants helps shape how the attack is perceived in history, even as political actors chip away at its reality.

    “What I hope the takeaway will be to citizens of this country is that what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, was a national disgrace and then the prosecution that followed reaffirmed the principles of the rule of law and vindicated the rights and the bravery of law enforcement,” Rosen said.

    “I would not change a thing about the way we conducted ourselves and the honor in which we brought to the court and to the system,” he added.

    Watch more from this story on “Hallie Jackson Now” Tuesday night at 5 p.m. ET on NBC News Now.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 5 Women in Political Philosophy You Should Know

    5 Women in Political Philosophy You Should Know

    [ad_1]

     

    Being deprived of political rights for most of world history, women tried to contribute to political theory and philosophy as soon as they could find themselves pen, paper, and free time from making the world spin around. Furthermore, institutional political philosophy often ignored the private sphere and civil society, which were the very areas where women spent much of their lives. For this reason, these five ladies in political philosophy thought that the fight was far from over. This, in turn, inspired their scholarly publications and political activism.

     

    Exclusion of Women in Political Philosophy

    artemisia gentileschi judith painting
    Judith Beheading Holofernes, by Artemisia Gentileschi, c. 1620. Source: Le Gallerie Degli Uffizi

     

    The Enlightenment era introduced remarkable women thinkers who aspired to establish political rights for their sex. It wasn’t until the 20th century, however, that their intellectual and activist descendants—the suffragettes and feminists—triumphed in championing these rights.

     

    Nonetheless, the right to vote and be voted for did not water down the deeply entrenched biases and discrimination against women.

     

    For reasons like this, women in philosophy were largely excluded from the greater conversion. These five women highlighted here were able to break through the historical exclusion.

     

    1. Martha Nussbaum

    martha nussbaum
    A photo of Martha Nussbaum. Source: National Endowment for the Humanities

     

    Martha Nussbaum (1947-) is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago and the author of 21 books. Her readership extends way beyond the walls of academia. Her area of expertise ranges from Greek and Roman philosophy and literature to political and legal philosophy, as well as the theory of emotions. Nussbaum wrote a doctoral dissertation on Aristotle at Harvard in 1975 but previously gained a strong background in classical philology at New York University during her undergraduate studies. She received the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy in 2016, the Berggruen Prize in 2018, and the Holberg Prize in 2021. Nussbaum is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Academy of Finland, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. She disagreed with and argued against several influential philosophers like Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Susan Moller Okin, and John Rawls, among others.

     

    From her first and probably most famous book, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (1986), Nussbaum has been concerned with the notion of good life. In her book Creating Capabilities (2011), she embedded this notion in a wider perspective of global justice. In her view, GDP and foreign investments are not a measure of quality of life given the prevalence of gender discrimination, nutritional deficiency, unequal property and inheritance laws, religion-based discrimination, domestic violence, etc. Instead, the focus should be shifted from quantitative and aggregative measures of well-being to individual freedoms and opportunities that would allow one to flourish.

     

    2. Judith Butler

    judith butler
    A photo of Judith Butler. Source: Pink News

     

    Once even burned in effigy, Judith Butler (1956-) has been setting fires across political theory and philosophy for the last four decades. After earning PhD from Yale University in 1984, they proceeded to teach at Wesleyan University, George Washington University, and Johns Hopkins University before finally joining the University of California, Berkeley, in 1993. Raised in a reformist Jewish family, Butler was introduced to philosophy by their Rabbi, who wanted to punish them for being too talkative during classes by making them read ethics and Jewish philosophy.

     

    Their truly impressive academic work covers political theory and philosophy, critical theory, gender and sexuality studies, literary theory, and third-wave feminism. They have published 19 books so far, hundreds of academic papers, and were awarded 14 honorary doctorates. Butler is also the recipient of the Andrew Mellon Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in the Humanities, the Adorno Prize from the City of Frankfurt in honor of their contributions to feminist and moral philosophy, and the Brudner Prize from Yale University for lifetime achievement in gay and lesbian studies.

     

    Butler is best known for her theory of gender performativity, which was elaborated in her early books, Performative Acts and Gender Constitution (1988) and Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990). According to Butler, gender is not something we are but something we do—an ongoing performance shaped by societal norms and repeated actions rather than a static label. She argues that what society perceives as natural gender roles are actually constructed through repetitive behaviors and cultural expectations. By emphasizing the performative nature of gender, Butler opens up possibilities for resistance and subversion, encouraging us to break free from rigid gender binaries and explore a broader spectrum of identities.

     

    3. Angela Davis

    Angela Davis
    A photo of Angela Davis. Source: THRED

     

    Angela Davis (1944-) is a living legend in both scholarly and activist circles. Believe it or not, she even did some time in jail because of her role in the politically charged murder in the 1970s committed by the Soledad Brothers and was even among the FBI’s Most Wanted before getting caught. Davis worked under the supervision of Herbert Marcuse and moved to East Germany to obtain a PhD since the FBI confiscated her manuscripts. She obtained three honorary doctorates in 1972 from Moscow State University, the University of Tashkent, and Karl-Marx University in Leipzig. She was almost fired from her first teaching position at the University of California, San Diego, due to her flirting with communism within the Che-Lumumba Club, the all-Black branch of the Communist Party USA and the Black Panthers Party.

     

    Before retiring, she held the position of Distinguished Professor Emerita and Head of the Department of Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Davis received the Soviet Union’s Lenin Peace Prize and was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame. She was also named Time magazine’s Woman of the Year in 2020 and made Time’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

     

    Davis mostly published about race, gender, and class. However, she also contributed to the theory of punishment and argued for years that prisons are the main locus of racial and class inequality. In her 2010 book Are Prisons Obsolete, Davis claimed that Black, Latino, and Native American people have a greater chance of going to prison than getting an education. Instead of marking these people as violent aberrations, American society would be better off with a rehabilitation and restoration system.

     

    4. Susan Moller Okin

    Susan Okin
    A photo of Susan Moller Okin. Source: NCFR

     

    A leading political philosopher who wrote about gender, family, and culture, Susan Moller Okin (1946-2004) was the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society and a professor of political science at Stanford University. Before coming to Stanford, Moller Okin taught at Harvard, Brandeis, Vassar, and Auckland. She also earned her DPhil at Somerville College, Oxford. A liberal feminist who focused on the exclusion of women in Western political thought, Okin was a leading political philosopher who wrote about the exclusion of women in Western political thought.

     

    In her groundbreaking 1989 book Justice, Gender, and Family, Susan Moller Okin criticizes modern justice theories by big shots like John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Michael Walzer for their flawed assumptions about gender and family relations. She argues that these theories, rooted in male perspectives, mistakenly view the family as a just institution, ignoring its role in perpetuating gender inequalities as children internalize sexist values from their parents and reinforce bias in society. In other words, without a fundamental change in the focus of theories of justice, we are to proliferate gender inequalities. It is worth noting that this book landed Moller Okin the Victoria Schuck Award for the best book on women in politics.

     

    5. María Lugones

    maria lugones
    A photo of María Lugones. Source: Manoalzada

     

    María Lugones’ (1944-2020) work spanned several academic fields and topics, such as political philosophy, decolonial feminism, Andean and Latino philosophy, and theories of resistance. Originating from Argentina, she identified as a woman of color. Lugones did her PhD at the University of Wisconsin in 1978 and then taught Philosophy, Women’s Studies, and Comparative Literature at Carleton College and Binghamton University. In 2016, she was honored as a Distinguished Woman Philosopher by the Society for Women in Philosophy, while in 2020, she received the Frantz Fanon Lifetime Achievement Award from the Caribbean Philosophical Association. Interestingly, Lugones left her mark outside academia as well.

     

    Lugones was among the theorists who coined and developed the term “coloniality of gender.” The term captures the central argument of decolonial feminists that gender is an imposition by colonial powers and global capitalism, which further dehumanizes and alienates people. Lugones points out that Native American tribes, such as the Hopi or Iroquois Confederacy, had matriarchy, and full equity between men and women was promoted within their political systems. The colonization of Indigenous people of North America brought the false dichotomy of gender and the notion of agency that must be linked to autonomy and sovereignty. It follows, from Eurocentric logic, that colonized people are not agents since, from the very moment of colonization, they lost autonomy and sovereignty.

     

    Lugones, therefore, turned to spelling out strategies of resistance that are at the disposal of those who are oppressed. In her article “Purity, Impurity, and Separation” (1994), she introduced the metaphor of curdling, through which people should surpass false dichotomies and Eurocentric categories. Thus, curdling involves mixing and transforming elements that colonial narratives attempt to separate and purify. In other words, we should embrace our plural identities through liberatory political and cultural activities.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does Education Level Determine Political and Religious Beliefs?

    Does Education Level Determine Political and Religious Beliefs?

    [ad_1]

    Numerous studies have confirmed that intelligence is associated with a specific set of religious and political beliefs, including liberalism, anti-racism, free speech, tolerance of others and being fiscally conservative. There is a positive correlation between intelligence test scores, as represented by IQ, and educational duration. Essentially, education reduces the probability of being poor and having right-wing ideology. Does educational level really play such a vital role? Various approaches have been used to unscramble the effect of intelligence from confounds, such as socioeconomic variables. Recent studies discussed below consistently report robust relationships between educational levels, cognitive ability, low religiosity, and liberal views.

    Education and Politics

    A recent study using a within-family design (to circumvent environmental confounds) examined the relationship between cognitive performance and political beliefs using polygenic scores. Cognitive performance is simply a euphemism for intelligence. A polygenic score is a DNA-based predictor of someone’s trait, calculated as a linear combination of the estimated effect of alleles. This approach was taken because other studies have demonstrated that polygenic scores can predict political beliefs such as social liberalism.

    The most definitive outcome was that the amount of education significantly affects political beliefs. The authors concluded that intelligence has a causal effect on political beliefs, suggesting the relationship between intelligence and political belief is not due to environmental confounding such as socioeconomic factors. People do not have right-wing conservative ideology because they are poor, they hold these beliefs because they are poorly educated. According to earlier publications (Onraet et al. 2015; Jedinger & Burger, 2022) less intelligent people may be attracted to conservatism because rules and stereotypes reduce the need for cognitive resources. Gandhi concluded that it’s easier to go along with whatever one is told to believe in than to think for oneself.

    Education and Religiosity

    Increasing educational levels significantly correlate with the current trends towards a lower level of church attendance and a lower level of religious beliefs and attitudes. The higher the level of education, the less likely one is to be orthodox or fundamentalistic in one’s religious beliefs. In addition, the higher one’s educational level, the less likely one is to believe in God and to think of God as a person, the less favorable one is toward the church, and the less importance one attaches to religious values. A recent poll found that 93 percent of the current members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God.

    The trend in today’s culture is unusual. Religious beliefs have been a durable feature of the world’s cultures. For example, up until the nineteenth century, it is unlikely that you would meet someone who does not believe in God. Anthropologists estimate that at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals (bulls and bears were very popular) or objects (such as quartz stones during the Neolithic) have been worshipped in some form by humans since our species first appeared. Evolution has clearly selected for a brain that has the ability to accept a logically absurd world of supernatural causes and beings. Spirituality must have once offered something tangible that enhanced survival. Something has clearly changed in the past 200 years that underlies the increase in religious non-believers. There are two possibilities: greater access to education and scientific knowledge and differences in brain structure and function between conservatives and religious groups versus liberal non-believers. I’ve discussed the first option; let’s consider the second option.

    A recent fMRI study found that not believing in a God is due to the activation of distinct higher-order brain networks. The results demonstrated that religious believers are more likely to use more intuitive and heuristic reasoning and that religious non-believers are more likely to use more deliberative and analytic reasoning. For example, non-believers are more likely to process sensory information, such as something they see, in a more deliberative manner that involves higher cortical areas, called top-down processing, involved in reasoning. In contrast, religious believers are more likely to interpret visual information in a more emotional or intuitive manner, called bottom-up processing, that involves more ancient brain systems. Religious believers share this bottom-up processing bias with people who believe in the supernatural or paranormal activity, such as telekinesis or clairvoyance. We may inherit both our brain structure and our religious and political beliefs from our parents. However, separated twin studies have found only a small effect of parental beliefs on their adopted children. Future studies will need to focus on the role of specific brain structures on religious and political beliefs.

    Conclusions

    It is tempting, and certainly unfair, to make inferences about the accuracy or the quality of an ideology or belief system based on the intelligence of its supporters. Intelligence is likely to affect political and religious beliefs through increased knowledge of the facts. Nevertheless, there are likely other possible causal connections that have not yet been explored. All that can be concluded from the current literature is that there are causal pathways to religious and political beliefs that are not mediated by income or other environmental factors but rather by educational level and brain structure. We cannot say that the beliefs of high IQ people tell us what is right to believe, but rather only what smart people choose to believe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says he will remain Tesla CEO and plans to cut back on political spending | US News

    Elon Musk says he will remain Tesla CEO and plans to cut back on political spending | US News

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk has said he is committed to remaining as Tesla’s chief executive for at least five years, as the electric carmaker faces pressure from consumers and the stock market over his work with Donald Trump’s government.

    The world’s richest man said he will cut back on political spending after heavily backing the US president last year.

    During a video appearance at the Qatar Economic Forum hosted by Bloomberg, a moderator asked: “Do you see yourself and are you committed to still being the chief executive of Tesla in five years’ time?”

    Musk responded: “Yes.”

    The moderator added: “No doubt about that at all?”

    Musk chuckled and replied: “I can’t be still here if I’m dead.”

    Tesla has borne the brunt of the outrage against Musk over his work with Mr Trump as part of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which implemented cuts across the US federal government.

    Asked if the reaction made him think twice about his involvement in politics, Musk said: “I did what needed to be done.

    “I’m not someone who has ever committed violence and yet massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was threatened against me.”

    He added: “Don’t worry: We’re coming for you.”

    Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

    Musk pulls back from D.O.G.E. role

    Musk spent at least 250 million dollars (£187m) supporting Mr Trump in the presidential campaign, and even held some of his own campaign rallies.

    “I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Mr Musk said. Asked why, he responded: “I think I’ve done enough.”

    And he added: “Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason.”

    Read more:
    US has a red line in Ukraine-Russia talks, says Trump
    King writes to Biden after he reveals cancer diagnosis

    Aspirations to build ‘billions of humanoid robots’

    It comes after a Tesla pay package Musk was due, once valued at $56bn (£41.8bn) was stopped by a judge in Delaware.

    Musk referred to chancellor Kathaleen St Jude McCormick as an “activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume”.

    Follow The World
    Follow The World

    Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

    Tap to follow

    But he acknowledged his Tesla pay was part of his consideration about staying with Tesla, though he also wanted “sufficient voting control” so he “cannot be ousted by activist investors”.

    “It’s not a money thing, it’s a reasonable control thing over the future of the company, especially if we’re building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • “Smacks Too Much Of Elimination Of Political Rivals” – German Chancellor Merz “Very Skeptical” About Banning AfD

    “Smacks Too Much Of Elimination Of Political Rivals” – German Chancellor Merz “Very Skeptical” About Banning AfD

    [ad_1]

    Via Remix News,

    In recent months, a ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) appeared to be inching closer and closer, but now a key voice has clearly spoken out against such a move.

    Chancellor Friedrich Merz has now said that voting on an AfD ban in the Bundestag is not the right path, saying it “smacks too much of the elimination of political rivals.” 

    He said he does not believe the current evidence is sufficient.

    He has even gone a step farther, stating that former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, an SPD politician with far-left sympathies who wrote for Antifa Magazine, was wrong to classify the AfD as “confirmed” right-wing extremist in the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) report. 

    Critics indicate that she rushed the report out at the last minute of her tenure, despite the BfV having no president and despite a lack of any expert review, which she had previously promised would happen.

    Speaking to Die Zeit, Merz said; “Working ‘aggressively and militantly’ against the free democratic basic order must be proven. And the burden of proof lies solely with the state. That is a classic task of the executive branch. And I have always internally resisted initiating ban proceedings from within the Bundestag. That smacks too much of political competition elimination to me.”

    When the BfV first labeled the AfD “certainly right-wing extremist,” calls came from the left, including the Greens, Left Party, and SPD, to immediately begin proceedings to ban the party in the Bundestag. Even a large portion of the CDU backed the move.

    Now, the BfV has temporarily removed the designation pending a court appeal, and as Remix News reported, this removal may have been in large part possible due to pressure from the United States.

    Merz also expressed his displeasure with Faeser’s move to release the report on her last day of work.

    He told Zeit he was “not happy with the way this process is being conducted.”

    “The old government presented a report without any factual review, and it was also classified as confidential,” he added. 

    As Remix News reported, the 1,100 page report contained only public statements from the AfD, and it has already been leaked and published by the German press. 

    Remix News, in a report published earlier today, notes that the BfV is likely sitting on huge amounts of private surveillance data related to AfD members, but due to the unsavory mass surveillance methods used to obtain this data, it is likely withholding this from any official report.

    “I don’t know the content of this report, and frankly, I don’t want to know it until the Federal Ministry of the Interior has made an assessment of it,” said Merz. 

    He said that it would take several weeks and even months for the interior ministry to make such an assessment.

    Read more here…

    Loading…

    [ad_2]

    Source link