Steven Pinker coined the term Progressophobia as "hostility to the idea of progress and a fondness for narratives of decline, decadence, degeneration, and doom. As I say in the chapter, “Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves progressive really hate progress." Bill Maher delivers the evidence.
This will put me in a sour mood tonight, as I work on my taxes. The 25 richest people in the U.S. paid an effective tax rate of only 3.4% from 2014-2018. Krystal and Saager discuss this "phenomenal" reporting by Propublica (based on a "immense" secret trove of never-before-seen IRS records). They mention that the highest U.S. tax rate is officially 37%, for those making more than 628,000. My next stop will be Propublica to better understand how the super rich avoid paying taxes. Meanwhile, the median income U.S. household, often living paycheck to paycheck, pays an effective income tax rate of 14%. I assumed something like this, but these numbers are outrageous. This is stealing in broad daylight. This shouts: "Let them eat cake."
Here is a quote from Propublica that will be deflating for those who think that the Biden plan will be transformative regarding the tax burden on the wealthy:
The revelations provided by the IRS data come at a crucial moment. Wealth inequality has become one of the defining issues of our age. The president and Congress are considering the most ambitious tax increases in decades on those with high incomes. But the American tax conversation has been dominated by debate over incremental changes, such as whether the top tax rate should be 39.6% rather than 37%.
ProPublica’s data shows that while some wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, would pay more taxes under the current Biden administration proposals, the vast majority of the top 25 would see little change.
Christopher Rufo has been working overtime to expose critical race theory to the sunlight (and see here). CRT is being taught in many schools, including posh private K-12 schools, and it is a very good thing that Rufo has provoked conversations on the content of CRT curricula and training (in schools, government offices and businesses). I agree with many of Rufo's concerns and I appreciate the hard work he has done to make CRT concepts understandable to the many people who are intimidated by CRT rhetoric. As I have discussed many times at this website, CRT is divisive, causing people to lose trust in each other, causing unnecessary suspicions, and failing to promote human flourishing in any meaningful way. I've argued that the end game for CRT is the massively dysfunctional social atmosphere at Evergreen State College. Though I applaud the publication of the Briefing Book, I disagree with Rufo on his enthusiasm for legislative solutions he promotes.
Rufo has recently published a "Critical Race Theory Briefing Book" to help people understand what is currently being peddled under the tents of "antiracism" and "critical race theory." People are starting to speak up about their concerns with CRT (e.g., this recent statement by a public school teacher), but we need to help more people to understand the racecraft being peddled by CRT, and Rufo's Briefing Book will be helpful in that regard. He obtains much of his material from original sources--the Briefing Book is filled with quotes from critical race writers. He has also boiled down these principles into readable nuggets. In doing this, Rufo will be helping many parents, students and employees to understand CRT, which is permeated with vague concepts and familiar-looking words that CRT uses to mean the opposite of their common meanings.
Here is Rufo's definition of "Critical Race Theory, which appears at the beginning of his Briefing Book:
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Critical race theorists believe that American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, preach freedom and equality, but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination. They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.Another key concept of CRT is "Whiteness." Here is how critical race advocates commonly explain "whiteness," (this is another excerpt from the Briefing Book:
Race essentialism: Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of “Blackness” and “Whiteness,” then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to “Blackness” and negative traits are attributed to “Whiteness.” Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.Are these the types of things you want your schools to teach your children? Are you willing to draw a thick line to tell the Woke movement no? In my view, the excerpts above are racist and destructive ideas that are incompatible with the teachings of Martin Luther King. That is why you will not see CRT advocates discussing MLK, by the way. This is Rufo's opinion too. Where I disagree with Rufo is on how to best oppose the rapid spread of CRT.
“Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people.” Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility.”
“Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.”
“Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant.
All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.
“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.
“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.
“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” Ibram Kendi on KING5 News.
You can read the entire Briefing Book here.
Remember how Trump tear-gassed protestors in order clear them out to take a photo-op in front of a church in Lafayette Park? Virtually every left-leaning media outlet reported this as an absolute certainty. The only problem is that this narrative is false.
Glenn Greenwald takes us, step by step, through the June 1, 2020 false narrative, up to the new story, where old-fashioned tools called facts establish the foundation for discussing what really happened. Here's an excerpt from Greenwald's analysis:
The IG's conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway's widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “ the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day."The detailed IG report elaborated on the timeline even more extensively. It was “on the morning of June 1” when “the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day.” The agencies had “determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence.” Indeed, “we found that by approximately 10 a.m. on June 1, the USPP had already begun developing a plan to clear protesters from the area to enable the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fence” — many hours before Trump decided to go.
The clearing of the Park, said the IG Report, had nothing to do with Trump or his intended visit to the Church; in fact, those responsible for doing this did not have any knowledge of Trump's intentions
This story is not an outlier. U.S. media is constantly getting things starkly wrong. For example, See Glenn Greenwald's article on the worst ten media failures on the Trump-Russia story.
Teacher Dana Stangel-Plowe has resigned from Dwight-Englewood School as a matter of principle. It's becoming a recurring sad story. A dedicated teacher shouldn't have to give up her job of seven years (or potentially, career) to protect students from being steeped in poisonous ideology. Here is an excerpt from Stangel-Plowe's resignation note:
During a recent faculty meeting, teachers were segregated by skin color. Teachers who had light skin were placed into a “white caucus” group and asked to “remember” that we are “White” and “to take responsibility for [our] power and privilege.” D-E’s racial segregation of educators, aimed at leading us to rethink of ourselves as oppressors, was regressive and demeaning to us as individuals with our own moral compass and human agency. Will the school force racial segregation on our students next?
I reject D-E’s essentialist, racialist thinking about myself, my colleagues, and my students. As a humanist educator, I strive to create an inclusive classroom by embracing the dignity and unique personality of each and every student; I want to empower all students with the skills and habits of mind that they need to fulfill their potential as learners and human beings. Neither the color of my skin nor the“group identity” assigned to me by D-E dictates my humanist beliefs or my work as an educator. Being told that it does is offensive and wrong, and it violates my dignity as a human being. My conscience does not have a color.
D-E claims that we teach students how to think, not what to think. But sadly, that is just no longer true. I hope administrators and board members awaken in time to prevent this misguided and absolutist ideology from hollowing out D-E, as it has already hollowed out so many other institutions.
Stangel-Plowe has also offered this video explaining her concerns.