Mediaboss Marketing

School boards have become a new front in the nations culture wars and hostilities are only getting more intense.

On Monday, Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandBannon's subpoena snub sets up big decision for Biden DOJ Navy engineer, wife accused of espionage plot Blinken warns Haitian migrants against making 'dangerous' trip to US MORE announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was taking a number of steps to address threats of violence against school board members at the state and local level.

Garland instructed the FBI and U.S. attorneys around the country to make contact with local law enforcement to discuss how to deal with this disturbing trend. A task force is also expected to be set up.

To supporters of Garlands position, this was an overdue action, given that school board members and teachers and, in some cases, students have faced verbal attacks and aggressive behavior, primarily over mask mandates and the controversy over critical race theory in recent months.

But the DOJ move incited fierce criticism from the right, with conservatives charging that the actions could have chilling effects on dissent and First Amendment principles.

The debate demonstrates, yet again, just how alienated from each other competing political tribes have become in America. Biden administration officials heralded the DOJ action as a commonsense safety measure. Republicans cast it as a nefarious attack on liberty.

White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBannon's subpoena snub sets up big decision for Biden DOJ The Memo: Biden's horizon is clouded by doubt Biden administration competency doubts increase MORE, just days before Garlands announcement, said, We take the security of public servants and elected officials across the country very seriously. And obviously these threats to school board members [are] horrible. Theyre doing their jobs.

But when Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, she faced hostile questioning on the topic from Sens. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Senate nears surprise deal on short-term debt ceiling hike The Memo: Culture war intensifies over school boards Senate GOP seeks bipartisan panel to investigate Afghanistan withdrawal MORE (R-Mo.) and Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonArkansas legislature splits Little Rock in move that guarantees GOP seats The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Senate nears surprise deal on short-term debt ceiling hike The Memo: Culture war intensifies over school boards MORE (R-Ark.), both of whom are possible 2024 presidential contenders.

Conservatives had already been outraged by a letter sent to the Biden administration by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) last week that described public schools and educators as under an immediate threat and suggested that some actions school board members faced were equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism.

Is it domestic extremism for a parent to advocate for their childs best interests? Cotton asked Monaco during the Senate hearing.

Hawley demanded that Monaco should tell me where the line is with parents expressing their concerns and also cast the FBI as interfering in school board meetings.

Responding to the second point, Monaco insisted, That is not going on.

Schools have increasingly become the focus of the tensions wrenching at the broader civic fabric of the United States. The trend is intertwined with the stresses and political polarization around the coronavirus pandemic, with some parents demanding mask mandates and others equally fervent in resisting them.

Meanwhile, the debate over critical race theory has become a proxy for the larger discussion of racial justice, as liberals see it, and excessive wokeness, from conservatives perspective.

That has fueled an atmosphere in which local school boards are increasingly dragged into national politics and affected by the passions that still swirl around former President TrumpDonald TrumpPennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro enters governor's race GOP lawmakers introduce measure in support of Columbus Day Bannon's subpoena snub sets up big decision for Biden DOJ MORE.

The path to save the nation is very simple its going to go through the school boards, Stephen Bannon, the former Trump aide predicted on his podcast in May.

The NSBA letter to Biden outlined numerous instances of trouble erupting at school board meetings.

The association noted that one person had been arrested in Illinois for aggravated battery during a school board meeting. Another example came in Virginia, where, according to the NSBA, an individual was arrested, another man was ticketed for trespassing and a third person was hurt during a school board meeting discussing distinguishing current curricula from critical race theory.

Facing those kinds of threats, school board members are adamant that action is needed.

Monica Peloso, president of the Cheyenne Mountain School District Board of Education in Colorado, told this column that she welcomed the DOJs moves and was thrilled that the national board had reached out to let them know what is going on. Its ludicrous.

Peloso has previously recounted to The Hill intimidating behavior experienced by her board. On Wednesday, she said that another school board district in Colorado had felt the need to have a large police presence, including SWAT teams, for one of its meetings.

But a completely different view is put forth by Sue Zoldak, a GOP strategist and founder of a parents group in Fairfax County, Va., called Do Better FCPS.

To Zoldak, the DOJs actions are a clear exaggeration and overreaction to what has happened in the last 18 months.

Zoldak argued that the pandemic has opened parents eyes to how much power school boards wield. She said that her group was focused on getting accountability and transparency regarding how her county, in the D.C.-adjacent northern suburbs of Virginia, operates.

Asked whether she felt some other parents groups had gone too far in their actions, Zoldak demurred.

We wouldnt be at this point where parents were that upset if school board members were accountable to their constituents and they were listening, she said. What we have found is that school board members consider themselves to be politicians as opposed to school administrators.

She added: They have put their political opinions above the educational progress of the students and the families they are supposed to be taking care of. Parents are frustrated.

Right now, just about everyone in the debate is frustrated. And there are no signs of those passions cooling off.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Excerpt from:
The Memo: Culture war intensifies over school boards | TheHill - The Hill

By Rep. Garnet F. Coleman| Austin American-Statesman

Redistricting is often portrayed as nothing more than a partisan battle, but most importantly, redistricting sets the stage for a decade of public policy decisions that directly impact our lives and our communities. The drawing of district lines goes a long way toward determining whether the next decade will be one of progress in public education, health care, and opportunity for working Texans, or a decade of divisive culture wars.

Knowing how important it is for legislators to be directly involved in the actual drawing of redistricting plans that provide representation for those who are driving our states rapid population growth, I could not understand why some of my Democratic colleagues wanted to extend a successful quorum break indefinitely, because there was no way that the Texas Supreme Court would prevent the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) from drawing the lines in our absence. The five-member LRB is composed of four Republican statewide elected officials, the only exception being the Speaker of the House.

As weve seen time and again this year, putting our faith in the Texas Supreme Court is a bad idea. Half of the current members of the all Republican Court have been picked and appointed by Governor Abbott, and any glimmer of hope that the court would protect the legislatures role in redistricting was extinguished when they upheld the governor's veto of Article X legislative funding, which read more like the governor's political talking points than legal reasoning.

As a legislator I need to be prepared for the worst, and the obvious worst case scenario had we continued to break quorum indefinitely was that the Texas Supreme Court would allow the LRB to draw the maps. Allowing the LRB to draw the lines, with no formal input from legislators and our constituents, would have been a monumental disaster for people of color and a decade of policy decisions that affect their everyday lives. Whether our communities be liberal or conservative, under the current redistricting process, I believe the drawing of the maps should be done by legislators who know their communities much better than distant statewide elected officials.

After we brought national attention to federal voting rights legislation that would lead to a fair and just redistricting process, I decided to come back to the Capitol. I didnt ask anyone to come back with me. I came back because it was the best way to represent my district in the Texas House, where each member has a voice and the opportunity to represent our constituents.

The quorum break was an important part of representing our districts. We accomplished a lot by bringing voting rights to the front burner in Washington, and I share with my Democratic colleagues an intense desire to stop harmful voting rights legislation from passing. But the only available remedy for Texas and many other states that have passed discriminatory voting laws this year is federal action. U.S. Senate Democrats who, unlike Texas Democrats, have a majority and the power to pass legislation, need to act now to protect every Americans right to vote.

Now we are in Austin, working to draw lines and present redistricting plans. That option would not be available had we let the LRB take over the process. Ultimately, I may disagree with the way all or part of the redistricting plans are drawn by the legislature, but by working with my colleagues in the Texas House, I am able to draw my district in a way that best represents my constituents

Coleman, D-Houston, represents the 147th district in the Texas House.

See more here:
Rep. Coleman: I returned to Austin to protect the legislature's redistricting role - Austin American-Statesman

The most controversial appointment of the reshuffle was Nadine Dorries as culture secretary. It didnt just lead to headlines that Boris Johnson was escalating the culture wars and aggravate Ms Dorriess critics in the arts world with the screenwriter Russell T Davies this week labelling her a f***ing idiot to i. It also came as a surprise to her colleagues. Its just mad, was one ministers blunt reaction on discovering the news.

Not only was it a notable promotion for the former health minister, her straight talking ways mean that traditionally she hasnt been viewed as Cabinet material.

She spent much of her parliamentary career in political Siberia after calling the then prime minister and chancellor David Cameron and George Osborne two arrogant posh boys.

A long-time supporter of Mr Johnson, her appointment was read as sending two important signals: 1. Loyalty pays off 2. The government is upping the ante on culture wars. Evidence of the latter has been on full show in Manchester this week where Ms Dorries has been making waves at the Conservative Party conference.

In a series of appearances, Ms Dorries suggested that the BBC is an institution staffed by people whose mum and dad worked there, warned that the corporations next licence fee settlement would be dependent on change and suggested that the BBC might not exist in 10 years time.

It was part of a wider theme with the culture wars opening and closing Tory conference. Party chairman Oliver Dowden kicked things off with an attack on cancel culture while the Prime Minister ended it by railing against the tearing down of statues, warning the country was at risk of a know nothing iconoclasm.

In a week that saw Tory activists gather for their first in-person meet since Mr Johnson announced a tax rise, its understandable that ministers are keen to have some things to point to that play well with the base. As ministers pushed for workers to return to the office, the phrase stop woke-ing from home was a regular utterance in the fringes.

But up until this point, Mr Johnson has been reluctant to fully step into culture war issues. So, whats behind the noise? Opinion is divided in the Tory party as to whether recent moves really amount to a hardening of the governments culture war position.

As one adviser puts it: A lot of this is talking tough so you dont have to walk the walk. They argue that by having someone who is prepared to be very vocal and indulge in a bit of BBC-bashing, the government actually has less to prove on policy.

Although there are senior figures in Downing Street pushing for a tougher stance such as head of policy Munira Murza and her husband Dougie Smith, Mr Johnsons preferred approach has been to wait for the other side to overstep and then jump in.

Even Ms Dorriess appointment can be read through this prism. It comes as relations between the government and BBC have come under strain with a very public row over the appointment of the journalist Jess Brammar as executive editor of the BBCs news channels.

Old social media posts were dug up by media on the right to claim Ms Brammar was unsuitable for the role while former No 10director of communications Robbie Gibb warned the BBC it cannot make this appointment if it wants to retain the support of the government.

By bringing in Ms Dorries, one government insider argues that Mr Johnson is showing two can play at that game. Tory MPs complain that so far the government has played too nice.

The new BBC chairman Richard Sharp may be a Tory donor, but he is a former Goldman Sachs banker, not a bomb thrower. He is not going to take on the BBC in the way that the other mooted candidate Charles Moore former Spectator editor could have.

In Ms Dorries, the BBC faces a politician who is willing to give them a tough time. But the caricature often conjured up of her as someone who wants to preside over the end of the BBC could also prove wide of the mark.

Supporters of Ms Dorries say much of the commentary around her appointment amounts to snobbery. She is a successful author in her own right and someone who is unashamedly pro Coronation Street when many of her colleagues would rather talk opera.

Its part of the reason she was picked by No 10. She sounds different to many of her cabinet colleagues her working class roots means that on some of the key levelling up issues she has an air of authenticity. Whats more, Ms Dorries isnt particularly attracted to the phrase culture wars, instead preferring to view such fights through the lens of social mobility.

While the Government wants to have the fight on British history and statues, there are limits to how far both she and Mr Johnson want to go. There is a reluctance, for example, to expand into areas such as trans rights.

But even if Downing Street is just looking for a focussed fight, it doesnt take much to transform into something else.

Relations between the BBC and government didnt exactly blossom this week with Mr Johnsons tetchy appearance on the Today programme with Nick Robinson, and every time Ms Dorries attacks the corporations staff, saying their parents all worked there, it leads to a backlash amongst employees to say she is wrong, with Huw Edwards among those to hit back.

Its why few on either side believerelations between the Government and the BBC will improve anytime soon instead, expect the opposite.

Go here to read the rest:
Nadine Dorries is prepared to give the BBC a hard time dont expect relations to improve any time soon - iNews

Hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Dublin city centre over the weekend to object to hotel developments planned for the sites of two cultural institutions the Cobblestone pub in Smithfield and Merchants Arch in Temple Bar.

owever, there is a growing sense that this joint campaign could just be the beginning of a wider movement aimed at halting the proliferation of hotel developments at the expense of Dublins built heritage. The latest controversies have led to renewed criticism of Dublin City Councils planning decisions and have resulted in growing frustration at the appeals process under An Bord Pleanla.

With dire warnings that international tourists will soon be coming to Dublin to simply gaze at hotels and apartment blocks, we take a look at some recent developments that have pitted the preservation of our cultural heritage against modern-day progress.

It may not look like an iconic building from the outside, but the Cobblestone pub is considered by many to be one of the last bastions of traditional Irish music in the city.

Since a planning notice went up on October 1, outlining proposals for a nine-storey, 114-bed hotel on the site, thousands have taken to social media and the streets to express their opposition and outrage.

While the applicants, Marron Estates Ltd, have committed to retaining the iconic pub as part of the overall redevelopment, there are fears that the historic character of the protected building will be lost if a 5,818 sq m hotel is permitted.

Much of the local political reaction so far has been unequivocal, with Labours Joe Costello branding the plan cultural vandalism and Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon warning that Dublin is losing the parts of the city that make it interesting.

Following Saturdays protest march from Smithfield to Dublin City Councils Civic Offices, which organisers estimate was attended by between 1,500 and 2,000 people, more than 31,000 have now signed an online Save the Cobblestone petition.

Musician Eoghan Ceannabhin, who organised the campaign, said the protest and petition were part of a wider effort to halt the encroachment of developer-led projects at the expense of the citys cultural heritage.

At the moment, our focus is on encouraging people to make submissions to Dublin City Council in advance of the November 4 deadline for observations, but we plan to come out on the streets again before then, he said. There is a wider issue about democracy around planning, which can also be seen in the Moore Street campaign.

The famous pedestrian route linking the Hapenny Bridge with Temple Bar will be kept open to the public if a controversial hotel development goes ahead at Merchants Arch but that hasnt stopped over 51,000 people signing an online petition objecting to the plan.

It involves the demolition of a number of retail units and the construction of a boutique hotel and restaurant at the iconic archway.

Permission for the development was granted to publican Tom Doone, who owns the Merchants Arch bar, by Dublin City Council earlier this year. An appeal was lodged by former Irish Times environment editor Frank McDonald and Temple Bar residents.

However, An Bord Pleanla upheld the councils decision, despite a recommendation from its own inspector to refuse permission. Previous efforts to develop a hotel at this location had been turned down by the board.

The decision to grant permission for the hotel has been criticised by Temple Bar residents and An Taisce. Comedian and television presenter Dara Briain also informed his 2.5 million Twitter followers of his objections to the plan.

Merchants Arch, which fronts onto Wellington Quay, was originally a guild hall and dates back to 1821.

A decision by the city council in October 2020 to grant permission for a 54-bed tourist hostel on a site connected to James Joyce was seen as a full-on assault on the citys cultural heritage.

More than 100 leading names from the worlds of literature, academia and the arts including film director Lenny Abrahamson and writers Sally Rooney, John Banville and Salman Rushdie were strongly opposed to the plans for the house at 15 Ushers Island.

The tourist hostel plan was also opposed by the Arts Council, An Taisce and the Department of Culture and Heritage.

The property was formerly the home of Joyces grand aunts and was the setting for his short story The Dead. It was used as a location for the 1987 film adaptation of the story, directed by John Huston and starring Donal McCann and Anjelica Huston.

Bestselling novelist Colm Tibn was among those to lodge an appeal. However, earlier this year, An Bord Pleanla upheld the councils decision to grant permission. The boards inspector noted in his report that a previous permission in 1996 to develop the property as a cultural centre had not been implemented or fully realised. Describing the property as being in a neglected condition, he said it was recognised that the best method of conserving a historic building is to keep it in active use.

A long campaign to see the historic 1916 battleground site on Moore Street retained and protected is back in the news again this month.

Members of the Moore Street Preservation Trust and 1916 Relatives Alliance have now produced an alternative plan for the wider area, outside the State-owned national monument at 14-17 Moore Street, which will form part of a cultural quarter.

UK developers Hammerson are seeking permission from Dublin City Council for a mixed retail, office and residential scheme on a 5.5-acre site between Moore Street and OConnell Street.

However, 1916 relatives and campaigners including James Heron Connolly, grandson of James Connolly are calling on the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Darragh OBrien, to support the alternative plan, which proposes the reinstatement of several historic buildings and the development of a new courtyard space behind Moore Street.

Earlier this year, a report into the future of Moore Street called for urgent ministerial and Government approval for the Irish Heritage Trusts proposal for the restoration of the national monument.

The Moore Street Advisory Group (MSAG) also recommended that nobody with a commercially vested interest should be appointed to a committee for the proposed visitor centre.

There was much consternation in Ballsbridge in September 2020 when the former home of 1916 leader The ORahilly was demolished to make way for a planned apartment and hotel development.

Even though it had permission from An Bord Pleanla, eyebrows were raised when the Herbert Park property was demolished early one morning. Dublin City Council was in the process of having it added to its Record of Protected Structures at the time.

The council immediately ordered work to stop on the site, pending an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the demolition. Local residents, meanwhile, were given permission in the High Court to seek a judicial review into the matter.

Commenting at the time, Siobhn Cuffe, chair of the Pembroke Road Association, said: The destruction of the house in the early morning of September 29 is utterly shocking. City councillors had voted that it would be listed and preserved.

She added that the proposed 12-storey block would be three times the maximum height permitted in the area.

Despite previous plans for a Covent Garden style development on the site of the former Iveagh Market in the Liberties, the fate of the historic building hangs in the balance due to ongoing legal actions.

The Iveagh Market was gifted to the people of Dublin by the Guinness family in 1906 to provide a permanent home for stall holders who operated around St Patricks Cathedral. It ran as a market until the 1990s but has been idle since then.

The property is at the centre of a legal dispute over its ownership. Last December, Lord Iveagh invoked a reverter clause in the original deeds that stated the building could be repossessed if it was not being used for its intended purpose as a market.

The move sparked legal action from publican Martin Keane, who had secured two previous planning permissions from Dublin City Council to develop the building, although the projects did not proceed.

A separate legal action is being taken by the developer against Dublin City Council after the local authority refused to grant him a third planning permission.

There is growing concern that the Francis Street landmark could ultimately be lost to the community due to the poor condition of its roof, which has resulted in significant water damage to the interior.

Essential repairs required are estimated at 13m, while the cost of redeveloping the building is put at over 30m.

In a recent statement, the Liberties Cultural Association said the condition of the Iveagh Market demanded immediate attention.

The markets require urgent and essential arresting action, a spokesperson said. The securing of the building from further deterioration and decay must be carried out immediately.

Liberties Cultural Association are asking for all parties to come together and come up with a solution. It's up to them to solve the problem.

It was claimed that the very soul of Dublin was at stake when the Bernard Shaw pub in Portobello closed its doors in October 2019.

While the exact reason for the South Richmond Street pubs closure after 13 years was unclear, a statement from the owners said: "Its with heavy hearts that we announce the end of our Bernard Shaw adventure.

"Weve tried really hard over the last few months to renew the lease, stay on longer, or buy the place. A lot of things didnt go our way over the last 12 months either, but its out of our hands now unfortunately."

A favourite haunt of the citys so-called hipsters, even singer Hozier added his voice to the outpouring of grief on social media when the pub closed.

What is most special and unique about Dublin are Dubliners themselves, and spaces like this where culture and community is fostered and grows, he tweeted. Without interesting places like these, the city loses its heartbeat.

The southsides loss, however, was to be the northsides gain and the Bernard Shaw has since reopened at Cross Guns Bridge in Phibsboro.

See the original post:
From the Cobblestone to Merchant's Arch and Moore St the places at the forefront of Dublin's culture wars - Independent.ie

Southwest Airlines canceled over 1,000 flights this weekend. Thousands of passengers were left stranded in airports across the country on Sunday, after a quarter of all flights never took off. Southwest blamed air traffic control issues for the cancelations, but to many, they seemed connected to Southwest's new COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which its pilots asked a court to block. Were the canceled flights the result of a "sick out" on the part of pilots refusing to get vaccinated? The pilots' union denied it, but when Amtrak started canceling trains Sunday afternoon due to "unforeseen crew issues," the idea that a general strike is brewing started to circulate, a response to the mass firings of other working-class and middle class Americansnurses and police officerswho have refused the vaccine.

You might have expected that the Left would be championing what looks like it might be a powerful form of collective action on the part of working-class Americans. There was a time some can still recall when the Left stood for labor and collective power. Instead, you saw prominent Left-wing voices denouncing Southwest employees as terrorists and demanding they be put on no-fly lists; many others defended the mass firing of nurses and cops. And it was Republicans and conservatives, infamous for their laissez-faire free market policies that favor the rich, who were cheering the striking workers and tweeting the hashtag #GeneralStrike.

This inversion of the politics that ruled the U.S. for much of the 20th century didn't happen overnight. Most recently, it's an extension of the COVID lockdown class divide that separated those who could work from the safety of their homesaccountants and bankers and lawyers and project managers and, yes, journalistsfrom those whose jobs required they brave the pandemic to support their familiesgrocery store workers, deliverymen and women, drivers, pilots, small business owners, and of course, healthcare workers. This was a class divide as much as an economic dividethe college educated vs. the working class. And you can see where each side of the political aisle sees its base by which position it took on this divide: Democrats favored lockdowns while Republicans took the side of those whose work was either outside the home or eliminated.

We now know how this story ended: with conservatives cheering collective action and liberals who stood at the windows of their home offices clapping nurses for putting their lives on the line now championing companies firing them for refusing the vaccine. Never mind that they might have antibodies. Never mind that they know how to keep themselves from getting COVID-19 and how to keep it from spreading, lessons learned in the most dangerous, COVID-infested places while liberals were safely quarantined. Never mind that Black Americans are the least likely to get vaccinated and are now facing exclusion from dining out and going to the movies and expulsion from jobsjobs they worked when it was the most dangerous to do so (there was a Black Lives Matter protest against vaccine mandates last month).

But this divide didn't start with the pandemic. It's been a long time in the making. And it's not even a purely American phenomenon. French economist Thomas Piketty has documented a massive shift in Western democracies across the globe since the 1960s, in which liberal political parties have lost their working-class base to become parties made up of and catering to the highly educated. Thus, in 1980, the Democrats won just 24 of the 100 counties where people are most likely to have a college degree; the Republicans took 76 of them. In 2020, Trump won a mere 16; Biden took 84 of them.

It's not just about education, though. The Democrats' new highly educated base is also increasingly affluent. The Democrats won just nine out of the 100 highest-income counties in 1980; by 2020, Biden won over half of them. The class divide has even led to minority groups increasingly voting for Republicans, a change that's been driven almost entirely by working-class members of those communities.

For a long time, the attrition of working-class voters to the Republican Party was read as a success of the culture wars. In his 2005 bestseller What's the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank famously argued that the white working class were voting for free-market Republicans because conservatives had whipped them into a state of agitation with a culture war so devious it convinced them to abandon their economic interests. The truth is a little more complicated: With the Democrats taking the lead on globalization, both parties had abandoned the working class economically; at least Republicans didn't sneer at their values while doing so.

As liberal elites came to define the culture of institutions like the media and the corporate culture of everything from Nike to American Express, conservative institutions like Fox News and Republican politicians could get away with sticking with culture war issues; it was enough not to insult the worldview and values of working-class Americans, who tend to be more conservative on a host of issues.

But what we're seeing now is the possibility that the American working class is developing a class consciousness that's populist economically, too, albeit in its own way. Forced to defend their autonomy in the face of vaccine mandates, working-class Americans across industries are fighting back and insisting on their collective power. And while they may not pick the issues today's highly educated Left might wish they did, this moment is presenting Democrats with a stark choice: Do they want to be the side sneering at working-class Americans and cheering at the companies who are firing them? Or do they want to be the side that stands for their empowerment and autonomy, however they themselves choose to define it?

Batya Ungar-Sargon is the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek. Her book "Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy," will be out later this month.

The views in this article are the writer's own.

Read more from the original source:
Working-Class Americans Are Standing Up for Themselvesand the Left Is Denouncing Them | Opinion - Newsweek