Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Biden issued his first veto on March 20, rebuking Republicans who had hoped to overturn a Biden-administration rule on environmental, social and corporate governance guidelines (E.S.G.). It allows retirement-plan managers to consider climate change in their investment decisions, reads a Wall Street Journal article.

Republicans lambasted Bidens regulation as part of a woke agenda that will hurt retirement savings and fund left-wing political causes. Meanwhile, Biden maintained that Republicans attempts at repealing the rule would risk [] retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans dont like.

This was just the latest volley in a back and forth culture war between Republicans and Democrats that continues playing out at the federal level and in the states, even including Georgia. But far too often, both sides are wrong, and prefer to rely on government force and sidestep their fiduciary responsibilities.

By way of background, the E.S.G. fight stands at the cross-section of money management and social and political ideology. Banks that adopt E.S.G. policies are more likely to eschew investing in/conducting business with certain companies that dont match their vision for the future.

This has resulted in large firms boycotting fossil fuel companies for instance, but E.S.G.-oriented policies can capture a host of other business models that particular banks see as problematic for whatever reason. This could even include companies like gun manufacturers.

Some say these policies are simply about promoting sustainability. Others call it activism. In truth, many on the political Left undoubtedly see E.S.G. as a backdoor way of promoting their values by starving certain companies of capital, and many on the Right see these efforts as threats and would like to put an end to them.

Red state after red state has introduced anti-E.S.G. legislation over the yearsforbidding state agencies or local governments from investing their state pension funds and public school endowments in companies engaged in certain E.S.G. policies. Several of these bills have even become law, but they risk hurting taxpayers.

By next year, roughly half of professionally managed assets will take E.S.G. into consideration, Deloitte predicts. This means states that have enacted anti-E.S.G. legislation will have grossly limited their optionsreducing competition for their portfolios and the return on taxpayer investments.

Texas led the way with its anti-E.S.G. law, which mandates state and local retirement funds divest from investment firms that boycott fossil fuels. Yet a study shows that it may cost the state upwards of $532 million per year in higher interest payments on municipal bonds, but its not just Texas. Other states that have enacted similar legislation are facing millions in increased costsdemonstrating that this is a bad deal for taxpayers.

As a general rule, I prefer the government stay out of most business decisions and companies to have a reduced footprint in the political realm. However, as private companies, it is their right to engage in political activism if they wish. I dont have to agree with their viewpoints or positionsand I often dontto support their liberty to influence public policy.

At the same time, state governments shouldnt feel compelled to invest with any particular company or fund. Thats their freedom too, but enacting laws eliminating many options for non-financial reasons is a ridiculous investment strategy. States have a fiduciary responsibility to obtain the best deal possible for taxpayers, and studies have shown that anti-E.S.G. policies are a financial drag.

Some of the Left falls into the E.S.G. trap too, but from the opposite perspective. If they want to only invest in pro-E.S.G. companies, like California often does, then they are also limiting their options and focusing less on possible returns on investment. Moreover, if they want the government to force private companies into adopting E.S.G. policies, then thats an inappropriate interposition into the private market, which will likely backfire. Governments arent known for making the best business decisions.

The E.S.G. debate has already begun in Georgia, but it stands in stark contrast with developments in Texas. Rep. John Carson, R-Marietta, introduced HB 481, which would define the state retirement systems goal as to provide the greatest possible long-term benefits to members of the retirement system by maximizing the total rate of return on investment within prudent limits of risk. In short, it would require the state to only invest only where it makes the most financial sense for Georgians.

To date, HB 481 hasnt moved in the General Assembly, and with Georgias legislative session winding down, it will have to wait until next year for serious consideration. If this issue comes up again, lawmakers ought to put culture wars aside and focus on the states fiduciary responsibility.

Marc Hyden is the director of state government affairs at the R Street Institute. You can follow him on Twitter at @marc_hyden.

Continue reading here:
Stop fighting culture wars about private investing decisions - Newnan Times-Herald

Thousands of counter-protesters see British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull abort her central Auckland rally. Video / NZ Herald

OPINION:

This weekend saw a showdown between two tribes of contemporary gender politics: those in favour of progressing transgender rights versus women wishing to defend their spaces. Its a debate with huge passion, outrage and consequences.

The figure at the centre of the clash was the British trans-exclusionary radical feminist Posie Parker, aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who attempted to hold a Let Women Speak rally at Albert Park in Auckland on Saturday. She was forced offstage by a counter-rally for trans rights and has fled back to the UK.

Saturdays clash of cultures is a sign of where politics is heading in New Zealand towards a fully-fledged culture war. This is something normally more associated with American politics but also increasingly in places like the UK.

There was an element of pantomime on both sides over the last week. Posie Parker thrives on controversy. She might be complaining now about her treatment in New Zealand, but by holding her rally in a public place like Albert Park she was provoking opposition and stoking tensions, hoping to become something of a martyr.

She won. She made global news, fuelling publicity in the UK and US markets where she carries out her main fundraising. She will now be even better equipped to push her particularly toxic form of gender politics.

Likewise, those opposing Parker were rather opportunistic in arguing that she is a fascist and that her beliefs were such a danger to the public that she had to be banned from the country.

They must have known they were giving the previously-unknown visitor huge amounts of free publicity and therefore helping get her views out to a wider audience. As broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan argued yesterday, Parkers opponents made sure that she was in the news most of the week, and They helped her spread her message. They played right into her hands.

The Greens represent one side of the polarised divide. MP Golriz Ghahraman tweeted on her way to the rally: So ready to fight Nazis. Co-leader and Government Minister Marama Davidson put out a video to say that she was so proud of the protesters. And obviously wearing her hat of Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence she used the event to declare that I know who causes violence in the world, and its white cis men.

The New Zealand Heralds Fran OSullivan wrote on Saturday that The culture wars are set to be a defining issue in the 2023 election. And she bemoans the Posie Parker tour dominating politics in a week in which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank confirmed that New Zealand will tip into a technical recession this year.

According to OSullivan, the rainbow community leaders went into overdrive producing an illustration of how quickly a cultural issue can consume public discourse.

The implication is that the public is going into an election campaign in which there will be less debate and focus on addressing the cost of living crisis. And last week the Government released a major evaluation of their latest progress in eliminating child poverty which tragically showed that no real progress had been made. This vital issue was completely overshadowed by the Posie Parker visit, providing a warning of what type of issues might dominate the public sphere in the lead-up to the general election.

The two parliamentary parties stoking the culture wars are Act and the Greens. Those parties will gain a much higher profile if cultural issues keep rising to the fore. The Greens will pick up middle class supporters whose main focus is on social justice issues, while Act might be able to pick up more anti-woke working class supporters in provincial New Zealand.

Squeezed in the middle are the major parties of Labour and National, who are desperate to stay out of it all, aware that middle New Zealand is less enamoured by such debates and concerns. Labour, especially under new leader Chris Hipkins is trying to shuck off the woke association the party developed under Jacinda Ardern. Likewise, Christopher Luxon is trying to get rid of the reactionary image National sometimes had under Judith Collins.

On the outside is New Zealand First, with Winston Peters trying to get into the culture wars game. Hes positioned himself, along with Act, as being opposed to the woke elites focus on what he calls social engineering. Peters gave his State of the Nation speech on Friday in which he claimed: There is a full-scale attack being waged on New Zealanders culture, identity and sense of belonging. He complained that nowadays theres an awful tribalism in New Zealand politics.

Peters pushed all the buttons on the culture war issues claiming that the education system was the victim of virtue signalling tinkerers, and that government departments were more focused on relabelling themselves with Mori names than actually doing the mahi. Co-governance was also targeted as an elite agenda that would take away the one person, one vote Western tradition of democracy.

Theres a whole new terminology that needs unpacking and defining in the new landscape of culture wars. We have been through versions associated with the progressive side of this debate such as political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics, and now woke politics. To what extent these terms are useful continues to be debated. Perhaps the better term for the milieu of more middle class progressive demands is social justice politics.

Much of it is associated with leftwing politics but, in reality, the left is divided over culture wars. The cultural left side tends to be connected with more elite, educated, and middle class activists. The more traditional, or working class orientated old left, is still focused on economic inequality and improving the lot of those economically disadvantaged as a whole, with a focus on universalism and civil rights.

Even the term culture war needs some unpacking. New Zealand lawyer Thomas Cranmer provides the following useful definition: In essence, they are political conflicts that revolve around social and cultural issues, such as gender, race, sexuality, religion, and identity. The term was coined in the United States during the 1990s to describe the heated debates that were taking place between conservatives and progressives over issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. However, the scope of culture wars has since expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, from free speech and cancel culture to critical race theory and the role of the media in shaping public opinion.

According to Act Party deputy leader Brooke Van Velden, New Zealand risks becoming a divided society where cancel culture spirals out of control. Similarly, in the weekend James Shaw pointed to the Posie Parker controversy, and said Her arrival is the kind of risk that metastasises into broader political violence. He told Newsroom that Theres a real possibility we will see some form of political violence this year and someone will be injured, or worse.

Democracy might also be harmed if the culture wars dominate this years election. An ugly fight over transgender politics, co-governance, or race relations would be one that alienates many voters, and reduces participation in politics. Some of the public will turn away in disgust, confusion, or fear about culture wars. The intolerance and outrage that often occurs in these debates can make ordinary voters feel unwelcome taking part in discussion and debate, or even in voting.

This doesnt mean that the issues at the heart of culture wars are unimportant or should be suppressed. For example, there are vitally important issues and reforms that need to be progressed in terms of gender and transgender rights.

This is also a point made well by Thomas Cranmer: it is important to note that culture wars are not inherently bad. They can provide an opportunity for different groups to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate over important issues. They can also bring attention to marginalised communities and push for greater social justice and equity.

However, he points out that culture war debates often lack genuine, good-faith engagement: The problem arises when culture wars become polarised and divisive, with each side demonising the other and refusing to engage in productive dialogue. This is where New Zealand currently finds itself.

The main problem in culture wars arise when there is no room for nuanced discussion, openness or a willingness to learn from others and opponents. Overall, there is a need for healthier debate and engagement in New Zealand politics.

This is something political columnist Janet Wilson wrote about in the weekend, arguing that we have a declining culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness: That growing inability to think critically enables what Illinois University Ilana Redstone calls The Certainty Trap, that sense of self-righteousness that comes with having brutally judged, then condemned and dismissed, someone with whom we disagree. And when it comes to political debate, Redstone says The Certainty Trap holds us back and puts up walls.

We need to develop our skills, Wilson says, that includes being open-minded, having a respect for evidence and reason, being able to consider other viewpoints and perspectives, not being stuck in one position, as well as clarity and precision of thought.

Similarly, Thomas Cranmer argues that we will deal better with culture war issues when we foster a culture of humility and tolerance: all parties, regardless of their political affiliation, need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue and debate over important issues. This also means that we need to be willing to listen to the perspectives and experiences of those who may hold different views from our own.

Leftwing activist and blogger Martyn Bradbury attended Saturdays rally and counter-rally and was appalled by both sides. He says: Right now the entire community need to actually step back and consider how the militant cancel culture element of the debate has alienated everyone else and created the environment where Posie Parker can thrive.

New Zealand is facing huge problems which require critical thinking and debate. We wont be well served if such political debate and the upcoming election are highjacked by the hate and tribal opportunism we saw over the weekend.

Visit link:
Political Roundup: Posie Parker and the ugly stoking of a culture war ... - New Zealand Herald

Relationships and sex education

Organisations write to education secretary before review, saying Englands schools have vital role in tackling misogyny and abuse

Thu 23 Mar 2023 20.01 EDT

Dozens of organisations and charities have written to the education secretary, amid fears that sex education in England may become a casualty of the culture wars.

More than 50 organisations concerned with education and tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) have written to Gillian Keegan to urge her to resist the politicisation of sex education, following a row in which Conservative backbench MPs claimed that children were being taught graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely, and 72 genders.

Rishi Sunak responded by asking the Department for Education to ensure schools are not teaching inappropriate or contested content in the subject of relationships, sex and health education (RSHE), and said he would bring forward a review into the subject.

The letter comes after an independent investigation for the Isle of Man government this week found that claims that children had been left traumatised by inappropriate and graphic sex education taught by a drag queen in a school on the island were inaccurate and had led to teachers facing death threats.

The prime minister confirmed a review into sex education, which will apply only to state schools in England, after a Tory MP, Miriam Cates, said children were being exposed to sex education classes that were age-inappropriate, extreme, sexualising and inaccurate. But teaching unions said the claims were inflammatory rhetoric and the review was politically motivated.

Led by the End Violence Against Women coalition and signed by organisations including Rape Crisis, SafeLives and the Sex Education Forum, the letter argues that schools are critical to tackling abuse, but currently were being left to deal with the fallout left by misogynistic influencers and tech companies.

It states: In light of recent headlines which have the potential to incite opposition to much-needed RSHE delivery in schools, we are seeking assurances that the upcoming review will not be unnecessarily politicised, and will be focused on what children and young people need to live happy and healthy lives, and the urgent need to do more to tackle VAWG and the rising influence of online misogyny in schools.

The letter states that young people are being exposed to misogynistic influencers online and increasingly looking to porn to fill the gaps in sex education, adding: We urge you to commit to providing teachers with much-needed support and resources to hold space for young people to openly discuss these themes. We cannot afford the cost to these young people, and for wider society, of shutting these conversations down.

It also argues that the VAWG sector had a long history of delivering evidence-based and trauma-informed interventions with children and young people and should be a critical partner delivering lessons.

The organisations accused the government of spending only 3.2m of the promised 6m funding package for RSHE, despite research from the DfE estimating that it would cost 59m to deliver the RSE curriculum. It also pointed to recent research from SafeLives that found teachers felt time, resources and school prioritisation presented major barriers to effective delivery.

A government spokesperson said: All children deserve to grow up in a safe environment, which is why we will be publishing further guidance on how schools can create a culture of respectful relationships, and teach effectively about sexual harassment, sexual violence and stamping out violence against women and girls.

We are also protecting children though our online safety bill, by ensuring technology firms will be required to enforce their age limits to stop children from being exposed to harmful material online.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Link:
Gillian Keegan urged to not let culture wars weaken sex education - The Guardian

EXCLUSIVE: Republican senators are readying to make the case that the Pentagons progressive military policies under the Biden administration are to blame for the Armed Forces dire recruitment crisis.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing at 9:30am this morning on the militarys shortage of new troops, which the Center for Strategic and International Studies called "the worst recruiting crisis since the creation of the All-Volunteer Force nearly 50 years ago."

Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Rick Scott, R-Fla., members of the committee and military veterans themselves, drew a link to their own time serving the country when asked by Fox News Digital about the current personnel crisis.

"My family didnt have much growing up, and the Navy gave me the opportunity for a better life and a better education it can provide that for so many kids across our nation. But unfortunately, this administration has made their focus more on pushing the failed agenda of the radical Left than building a lethal force and advertising the opportunities our military provides and how great our service can be for ones life," Scott said. "When our military is more focused on achieving some diversity metric rather than defeating our enemies, our national defense and the American people lose."

AIR FORCE GOES ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION HIRING SPREE: TOP JOB PAYS UP TO $183,500

Ernst told Fox News Digital, "The militarys purpose is to fight and winnot crusade for social causes. As a combat veteran, this is personal to me. The Department of Defense must act urgently to fix waning recruitment and retentionand ultimately to build a more lethal force. Our adversaries are watching."

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

BIDEN ARMY SECRETARY RESPONDS TO WOKE CRITICISMS, SAYS DEI PROGRAM IMPORTANT

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., another member of the panel, told Fox News Digital that hes looking to press the Pentagon officials at todays hearing on their commitment to upholding national safety rather than waging "culture wars at home."

Story continues

"The goal of our military should be to meet global challenges facing America with decisive authority, not to wage culture wars at home," Schmitt said. "I look forward to questioning top military officialsto get more answers and ensure that our military is laser-focused on addressing the challenges that our adversaries pose to our country and our freedoms."

Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, a military veteran, blasted the Biden administration's "failed agenda"

In a statement made to Fox News Digital late last week, the committees top Republican, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., warned that "divisive" policies imposed by President Joe Bidens appointees are leaving the U.S. more vulnerable to its foreign adversaries.

"In the competition with China and Russia, our greatest asset is our people. The divisive social policies being pushed by senior Democrat appointees at the Pentagon are undermining this advantage," Wicker said.

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION WORKERS FRET COMPANIES AREN'T HIRING THEM ANYMORE: INSANE, PATHETIC

The personnel shortage has so far hit the Army the hardest, having fallen short of its 2022 recruitment goals by 25%. The Navy, Air Force and Marines all barely scraped by after dipping into their pools of deferred recruits guaranteeing a setback in reaching this years benchmarks.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., referenced the dire recruitment statistics in his own comments to Fox News Digital.

Sen. Joni Ernst, also a veteran on the Armed Services Committee, said the military's purpose was not to "crusade for social causes"

"While the Biden administration declares climate change a national security threat, our real enemies are growing in strength and numbers," Tuberville said. "Last year the Army missed its recruitment goal by 15,000 recruits more than an entire division. This year is shaping up to be even worse. This national security emergency ought to be a wake-up call for Pentagon leadership but theyve refused to take responsibility. Its time for them to get serious about keeping our country safe."

Testifying at the Tuesday morning hearing will be the undersecretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin is expected on Capitol Hill later this week for a House hearing on Biden's Defense budget proposal.

Follow this link:
Republicans will use hearing to assert Dems' 'culture war' policies hampering military recruitment - Yahoo News

Opinion

Charities should be open to fair criticism, but the reaction to our inclusive language guide was offensive and divisive

Tue 21 Mar 2023 06.00 EDT

Last week, we updated Oxfams inclusive language guide, an internal document intended to help our staff speak about our work. The guide explores the role of language in tackling poverty and the words we choose to use when talking about, for example, gender, migration, race and disability. Like many other progressive organisations taking this approach, we faced an onslaught of criticism.

Perhaps not surprisingly, we were quickly accused of wokery of the worst kind, of wasting money, banning words and being ashamed of Britains heritage. The Daily Mail splashed Beyond Parody across its front page (its anti-wokery almost beyond parody in itself); Piers Morgan weighed in with a sarcastic tweet that very poor people really wanted to be addressed by the right preferred pronoun; and, before we knew it, our own tweet had been viewed more than 5m times.

Over the past few days, Ive taken time to consider the responses and, amid the heady mix of transphobia, offensive language, racism, thoughtful criticism and supportive comments, to see if I could understand why people are worried about our approach and what we can do to respond to their concerns.

The first complaint seemed to be that producing the guide shows Oxfam is wasting money, and instead we should just get on with fighting poverty. These concerns are built on the assumption that fighting poverty simply involves delivering things, such as food or money, directly to beneficiaries with few or no overheads. Any bureaucracy to manage or improve the work of the charity (such as this guide, or indeed any paid staff) is then considered wasteful.

Development charities cannot pretend to use donor money solely for feeding people and building loos, while surreptitiously using some funds to cover core costs and campaigns. We need to be upfront about the fact that good quality programming needs overheads, that systemic change needs campaigning, that treating people with dignity is a critical part of ending poverty.

This is not just the right choice to make, its also the best way to inspire the next generation of supporters. Talking about the importance of decolonising aid or about trans-inclusion may not feel popular, for now at least, but it will help us to transform the development sector into something more fit-for-purpose in the 21st century.

Words are powerful. In recent weeks, Ive visited Oxfam teams in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Ukraine. In both places, were taking practical action to improve the lives of people in need, but I was also reminded by individuals I met that dignity and solidarity are just as important. When I asked what more we could do, the answer was use our voice: to champion peace and justice, to express solidarity, to ensure people living in challenging circumstances know they are not forgotten.

The second criticism seemed driven by headlines claiming Oxfam has banned mothers and abandoned women. The variety of brilliant Mothers Day displays in our network of shops over the weekend suggests otherwise. Despite our guide saying were not banning any words (stating in its introduction that it is just a guideline and not intended as a prescriptive document), and despite the use of parent, carer or guardian being commonplace in all sorts of contexts, we became a target for those who hate what they see as woke gone mad.

Our guide tries to encourage a considered and nuanced approach to how we refer to people, yet it sparked a reductive, divisive response. Clearly, there is still much to be done to win hearts and minds, to allay fears and to show the centrality of our work with women and girls around the world.

I was perhaps most surprised by the strand of criticism that suggested pronouns dont matter in the global south and that this obsession is a western creation. There are so many communities around the world in which notions of gender are more nuanced than simple binaries. There are also many societies in which sexual minorities are among the most persecuted, and therefore the most poor and vulnerable. Understanding the intersectional nature of the factors that shape poverty, and changing our approach accordingly, has to be an important part of how we operate as an international organisation.

Last, we faced criticism that Oxfam is ashamed of its heritage. The fact that we said English is the language of a colonising nation seems to have hit a particularly raw nerve. To me, its difficult to argue against the fact that English (alongside French, Portuguese and Spanish) is spoken by as many people as it is because of colonisation. In many parts of the world where we work, English is seen as the foreign language of the coloniser. Being aware of this isnt about carrying a sense of shame of Britains past; its a pragmatic recognition of a reality we need to take into account when we communicate. This kind of progressive internationalism has been at the heart of Oxfams approach for all of its 80 years.

Just this month, the chair of the Charity Commission, Orlando Fraser, urged charities to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and to model a better kind of public discourse, one that makes our society kinder and more cohesive. Its a responsibility that Oxfam takes seriously.

In the end, Oxfam only has one agenda: to beat poverty. Our vision is of a kinder and radically better world. The last few days have shown just how challenging that is, but they have also served as a reminder of the importance of the task.

Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is the chief executive of Oxfam GB, and a former secretary general of Civicus, a global alliance of civil society organisations

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

View post:
Oxfams job is to end poverty we refuse to be distracted by the toxic culture wars - The Guardian