Connect with us


10 Things in Politics: Meghan’s biggest interview bombshells – Business Insider



Prince Harry Meghan Markle Oprah

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.

Getty Images

Good morning! We hope you had a nice weekend. Welcome back to 10 Things in Politics. Don’t miss the best of Insider’s political coverage! Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox each day.

Today is International Women’s Day! Send your tips and thoughts to or tweet me @BrentGriffiths.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. STUNNING ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE ROYAL FAMILY: Meghan Markle said members of the royal family expressed “concerns” to Prince Harry about “how dark” their son’s skin would be before he was born. Oprah Winfrey, who interviewed the couple, appeared stunned by the accusation. Harry refused to give any more details. 

Other shocking allegations from the two-hour interview:

Markle said she contemplated suicide amid negative stories: “I just didn’t want to be alive anymore,” the Duchess of Sussex said. She added that she asked an unnamed, senior royal staff member about seeking treatment, but was turned away. Markle said this was her breaking point.

  • The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is available for those in crisis or looking to help someone else at 1-800-273-8255.

Harry said his father briefly stopped taking his calls: Harry said Prince Charles stopped speaking to him after the couple decided to step back as senior members of the royal family. Both said their decision to step back was due to the palace’s lack of support.

Markle said she was silenced: She was told to respond “no comment” to any gossip or tabloid story regardless of its accuracy. Markle said she later regretted believing the monarchy “when they said I would be protected.”

Read the rest of the stunning claims here.

Initial press coverage: The couple said the royal family’s failure to denounce the tabloids’ racist and sexist coverage of them featured prominently in their decision to step back as royals.

Daily Mail:

Screen Shot 2021 03 08 at 3.16.26 AM

The Daily Mail/Twitter

Daily Mirror:

Screen Shot 2021 03 08 at 3.21.38 AM

Daily Mirror/T

Note: The palace has not yet responded to the interview, which is scheduled to air in the UK tonight

2. House set for Tuesday vote on $1.9 trillion relief plan: President Biden’s stimulus package is nearing the finish line. The Senate made some changes to the legislation when it passed it entirely without any GOP support on Saturday. The debate over the bill included a nearly-12-hour vote, which shattered the modern record. The rush is on as some aid will expire March 14. Biden said Americans will start receiving their $1,400 checks this month.

Police reform collage

Rep. Karen Bass, Patrisse Cullors, Vanita Gupta, and Sen. Cory Booker.

Photos by: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Rich Fury/Getty Images for Teen Vogue; Tom Williams/Pool/AFP via Getty Images; Tasos Katopodis/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

3. The 10 people shaping the debate over policing: Police reform is becoming one of the key challenges the Biden administration takes on. Behind the scenes, lawmakers like Democratic Rep. Karen Bass and Republican Sen. Tim Scott, to activists like Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, are shaping the fight. Check out the rest of Insider’s exclusive list.

4. Top NY Democrat calls on Gov. Andrew Cuomo to step down: Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a fellow Democrat and the majority leader of the New York State Senate, called on Cuomo to resign, saying “we need to govern without daily distraction.” Cuomo said resigning would be “anti-democratic” even though he has called for others’ ouster in the past. Five women have now accused the governor of inappropriate behavior.

5. Jury selection in Derek Chauvin’s trial begins today: The former Minneapolis officer is charged with second-degree murder over George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020. Chauvin was filmed kneeling on Floyd’s neck as Floyd said he couldn’t breathe. The Associated Press has more on the trial and what to expect.

6. The top things for your calendar, all times Eastern:

  • 11:00 a.m.: Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top officials hold a White House press briefing.
  • 11:30 a.m.: Jen Psaki holds the White House daily news briefing with leaders of the new Gender Policy Council.
  • 4:20 p.m.: Biden, Vice President Harris, Defense Secretary Austin speak on International Women’s Day.

7.  US proposes power-sharing government with the Taliban: The Biden administration proposed an interim agreement between the Taliban and Afghan leaders ahead of a May 1 deadline for a possible withdrawal of US troops, The Washington Post reported. Biden promised to cease “endless wars” on the campaign trail, but withdrawing the remaining 2,500 troops could hand the Taliban key victories.

8. Trump vows to travel 5,000 miles to Alaska to campaign against Lisa Murkowski: The former president told Politico he will campaign against the GOP senator’s reelection campaign next year after she repeatedly turned against him, including voting to convict him of inciting the Capitol riot. But his efforts may not matter since Alaska no longer has party primaries.

9. Top disease expert warns against letting our guard down: Dr. Michael Osterholm said the US is in the “eye of the hurricane” in the fight against COVID-19. He stressed that while cases are going down and vaccinations are accelerating, the potential spread of a variant first found in the UK is a cause for concern.

10. Meet Afghanistan’s fearless Gen Z influencers: “Mixing traditional and streetwear styles, they blast Travis Scott, Rihanna, Nina Simone, and Afghan musicians like Ahmad Zahir. They post selfies in front of Kabul’s graffiti walls and carefully timed videos … Put simply, they’re young, gifted and Afghan.

One last thing. 

Today’s trivia question: Today is International Women’s Day. What US political party is credited with starting the global holiday? Email your guess and a suggested question to me at

If you or someone you know is struggling with depression or has had thoughts of harming themselves or taking their own life, get help. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) provides 24/7, free, confidential support for people in distress, as well as best practices for professionals and resources to aid in prevention and crisis situations.

Two crossed lines that form an ‘X’. It indicates a way to close an interaction, or dismiss a notification.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Politics: The Minders and Mandarins of Capitalism – The Wall Street Journal



Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

James R. Otteson’s “Seven Deadly Economic Sins” (Cambridge, 305 pages, $27.95) is a fine effort to introduce readers to the basic principles of market economics. The hamartiological framing—the “sins” are bad assumptions about how markets work—is part of the author’s effort to make the subject more engaging than a typical treatise on economics. It works. Mr. Otteson, a professor of business ethics at Notre Dame, writes with an apt combination of casual wit and rigorous logic. 

I only regret that the book had to be written at all. There was a time in this country’s history—if the reader will allow a bit of declinist gloom—when America’s political class understood by instinct that wealth in a market economy comes about by voluntary exchanges in which all parties benefit. We do not live in such a time. About half of this country’s high-level elected officials appear to believe that some Americans have money because they took it from other Americans (the rich got rich “on the backs of workers” is a common trope). And so it is left to scholars such as Mr. Otteson to spell out the difference between zero-sum and positive-sum economic relationships.

A transaction based on extraction or theft is zero-sum (1 – 1 = 0). A transaction based on a mutual exchange is positive-sum (1 + 1 = 2). Wealth in most societies before about 1800, he reminds us, was based on the former model; wealth in market economies is based on the latter. What we need is someone able to explain to our well-intentioned politicos that the wealth they want to reallocate came about from mutually beneficial positive-sum transactions and not from zero-sum extraction. The way to diminish poverty and aid the disadvantaged is therefore not to punish positive-sum exchanges by taxation, but to allow more of them.

Other chapters in the book treat the “Good Is Good Enough Fallacy,” or the idea that every beneficial end is worth pursuing by all available means; the “Progress Is Inevitable Fallacy,” or the idea that a certain level of prosperity is guaranteed no matter what we do; and the “Great Mind Fallacy,” or the idea “that there is some person or group that possesses the relevant knowledge to know how others should allocate their scarce time or treasure.”

This latter point isn’t new—you can read the gist of it in Friedrich Hayek’s essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) or Thomas Sowell’s book “Knowledge and Decisions” (1980)—but Mr. Otteson helpfully elucidates it in terms of individual experience. The experts may know that high-sugar carbonated drinks are on balance bad for your health, but they cannot know if you, in your circumstances, should or shouldn’t have a Coke. Most people would agree with that observation, but it is remarkable how many government policies are premised on its antithesis. City bans on unhealthy habits, state subsidies for favored industries, tax breaks meant to encourage virtuous behavior—these and a thousand other state-backed strategems assume the authorities and their experts understand immeasurably complex circumstances that they can’t possibly understand. But the alternative—allowing the people who do understand them to make their own decisions, even if they’re wrong—isn’t so satisfying to our governmental minders.

“The Power of Creative Destruction” (Belknap/Harvard, 389 pages, $35), translated by Jodie Cohen-Tanugi, is a full expression of the Great Mind outlook. Not that the authors—Philippe Aghion, Céline Antonin and Simon Bunel, all associated with the Collège de France—are socialists or militant redistributionists. They are mandarins. They recognize that you can’t pay for the modern welfare state or enjoy high levels of prosperity without robust economic growth. But capitalism, in their view, is constantly menacing itself and requires the aid of sage policy makers to prevent its collapse.

The authors are heavily influenced by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. In “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” (1942), Schumpeter contended that capitalism was doomed by its own logic. The capitalist system depends on a constant succession of entrepreneurs dislodging established firms—a process he called “creative destruction.” But eventually, he saw, yesterday’s innovators become today’s monopolists and learn to use the levers of power to prevent further innovation. Growth diminishes; a dissatisfied public demands welfare-state protections and restrictions on entrepreneurial activity; and capitalism, deprived of growth, slowly transmutes into socialism. 

Clearly some parts of that analysis are valid, although Schumpeter was mistaken, in my view, to think of capitalism as a “structure” that can’t adapt to the demands placed on it by an intermittently irrational public. Mr. Aghion, Ms. Antonin and Mr. Bunel share Schumpeter’s overdefined understanding of capitalism. “Capitalism must reward innovation,” they write, “but it must be regulated to prevent innovation rents”—rents meaning profits accruing to incumbent firms—“from stifling competition and thus jeopardizing future innovation.” 

And what sort of regulations do they think will encourage innovation, foster competition and save capitalism from itself? You may have guessed already. Industrial policy: tariffs and other protections, subsidies to viable industries and firms, “investments” in R&D and higher education, and so on. What capitalism needs, if I may put their argument in my own words, is more public officials ready to heed the advice of centrist academic economists. 

The book is rife with charts and graphs, and the authors cite a bewildering array of highly specialized studies. Much of this technical argumentation strikes me as overdone. I appreciate, for instance, the conclusion that lobbying and barriers to entry are likelier than innovation and competition to aggravate inequality. But people who think markets worsen inequality are committed to an unfalsifiable ideology and won’t be moved by any combination of graph-packed quantitative studies.

What to Read This Week

Love and death in a utopian community, the remorseless business of slavery, a passion for peacocks, updating Sir Gawain and more.

“The Power of Creative Destruction” is an impressive book in its way, but the authors don’t acknowledge the—to me—obvious objection. Once you afford governmental bodies the power to manage the economy, you also give established firms the tools with which to insulate themselves from competition. Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to deprive incumbent firms of any special privileges and let them figure out how to survive? Then again, if we did that, we wouldn’t need so many mandarins.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Book review: Border politics serve up racism, human exploitation – Vancouver Sun



B.C. activist/scholar Harsha Walia makes a convincing case in her bracing new book on our global, man-made crises

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.

Article content

Border & Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism

Harsha Walia | Fernwood Publishing (Halifax and Winnipeg, 2021)


Article content

$27 | 320pp

Borders are far more than lines on paper.

As local organizer, activist and scholar, Harsh Walia demonstrates in her passionately felt, deeply researched and closely reasoned new book, Border and Rule, that borders can serve as lethally intricate mechanisms of imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism and class exploitation.

They work to divide workers and undermine international solidarity, while inscribing cartographies of privilege and oppression on the long-suffering face of the Earth.

And yet in mainstream discussions, borders are only questioned when heart-rending images of migrant children huddling miserably in U.S. border holding pens or drowned on the shores of the Mediterranean inspire brief and self-congratulatory spasms of outrage and pity among comfortable observers on the “right” side of the borders.


Article content

Walia, who has spent much of her adult life doing the hard work of organizing solidarity activity and saving lives of those threatened with deportation back to the dangers they are fleeing, is understandably dismissive of such liberal responses. She points out that centuries of imperial conquest, colonial occupation and gendered, racist segmentation of the workforce have set the stage for the current global crisis, which saw over 80 millions of our sisters and brothers driven forcibly from their homes last year, according to the United Nations, while hundreds of millions more have been forced to migrate by climate disasters, poverty and famine. Such disasters are, Walia persuasively argues, not so much “natural” as created by economic and social relations (aka predatory and racialized capitalism and a world order designed to serve the needs of the rich over the needs of the rest of us).


Article content

Walia’s analysis is dense and complex, and her language occasionally overburdened with abstraction. But even where her thought is difficult, it is always worth the time it takes to grasp.

This is a remarkable book that reflects a lifetime of activism and reflection on the author’s part — Walia has been in the news lately, resigning as executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association after a controversial social media post on arson committed at several Catholic churches. Still, this book is rich with learnings for us all.

Her core argument, that “a political and economic system that treats land as a commodity, Indigenous people as overburden, race as a principle of social organization, women’s caretaking as worthless, workers as exploitable, climate refugees as expendable and the entire planet as a sacrifice zone must be dismantled,” will challenge and inspire readers.

Highly recommended.

Tom Sandborn crossed a border to live in Vancouver in 1967. He welcomes your feedback and story tips at

  1. Read more about books and authors

  2. Political coverage, here and there in the Vancouver Sun

Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion delivered straight to your inbox at 7 a.m., Monday to Friday by subscribing to our Sunrise newsletter here.

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email



Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Jason Kenney's longing for Alberta's pre-COVID politics –



Pandemic? What pandemic?

In Premier Jason Kenney’s Alberta, the pandemic isn’t just retreating, it has been defeated.

“Such a joy to connect with Albertans during Canada’s first major event after the pandemic,” said a jubilant social media post last week from Kenney after he visited the Calgary Stampede.

Saying “after the pandemic” was no slip of the keyboard. Kenney chose his words carefully, including being sure to point out the Stampede was the “Canada’s first major event.”

Alberta was the first province to lift virtually all pandemic restrictions on July 1; the first to get more than 70 percent of eligible citizens vaccinated with one dose; and, now, the first province to declare we’re in a post-pandemic world.

This is Alberta exceptionalism, Kenney style.

And, boy, does Kenney need to be seen as exceptional these days. His popularity plummeted during the pandemic – from a high of about 60 per cent in support in 2019 to around 30 per cent now, according to the most recent polls.

The pandemic, of course, is not over – as health experts are quick to point out.

The number of cases and hospitalizations have fallen dramatically in Alberta (and other jurisdictions) thanks to vaccinations, but the pandemic is still with us, even if it is a shadow of its former self.

At the same time, countries including France are re-imposing restrictions as the number of Delta-variant cases surge and experts talk ominously of a fourth wave among the unvaccinated.

Ironically, Kenney’s optimistically misleading view of Alberta being in an “after the pandemic state” might actually put the province at risk of enduring more variant cases. The province’s vaccine rollout, doing so well just weeks ago, has stalled. After hitting 70 per cent of Albertans with their first dose a month ago, the rate has increased by a trickle to just under 75 per cent despite the government announcing a vaccine lottery with cash prizes and exotic vacations.

There are a multitude of reasons for the slower uptake including lack of access to clinics in rural areas and suspicion of the vaccines — but you have to think that Kenney talking about the pandemic in the past tense has some people wondering why they’d bother to get a shot now.

Therein lies a Catch-22 for Kenney among his Conservative supporters who have rankled at pandemic restrictions from the beginning.

Tell them the pandemic is over and they’ll see no reason to get vaccinated. Tell them the pandemic is not over and he’d have to maintain pandemic restrictions, further aggravating his conservative base.

For the base, the big issue is politics, not pandemics.

Right-wing voters are disappointed in Kenney, not just because he imposed what they considered draconian COVID-19 measures, but because he backed off on his war with the federal Liberal government during the pandemic.

Well, that war is back on.

Kenney is holding a referendum vote this October, in conjunction with Alberta’s municipal elections, asking Albertans if they want the federal equalization program scrapped. Never mind that it’s a federal program paid for by federal tax dollars, Kenney is arguing that equalization is unfair to Alberta (even though Kenney himself was part of the Harper federal cabinet that amended the equalization formula a decade ago).

Kenney has dusted off the anti-Trudeau rhetoric, once again accusing the prime minister of “openly campaigning against Alberta” in the last federal election, even though the federal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline and has committed to twinning the pipe so Alberta can get more energy products to the West Coast for shipment internationally.

But Kenney is loath to give his political nemesis any pats on the back. This reluctance reached petty heights, or lows, on July 7 when the prime minister held a news conference in Calgary with Mayor Naheed Nenshi to formally announce the city’s $5.5-billion Green Line LRT project. Neither Kenney nor anybody from the Alberta government attended the news conference even though the province is kicking in $1.5 billion.

Kenney’s office said the announcement was just a rehash of previous announcements. That’s true – but when has a politician ever shied away from re-announcing projects when there are headlines to grab?

Kenney apparently didn’t want to be seen helping boost Trudeau’s profile on the eve of a possible federal election.

On a more practical front, Kenney’s anti-Trudeau feelings could prove costly to Alberta’s parents, particularly those in the large urban centres, who are keen on the federal government’s $30-billion plan for a $10-a-day daycare system.

Both British Columbia and Nova Scotia have signed on to plans tailored to their provinces and Alberta insists it is in negotiations, but Kenney’s initial response in April was to dismiss the federal plan as a “nine-to-five, government-run, union-operated, largely-urban-care” system. Predictably, the Alberta government is also upset with the federal government’s plan announced this week to begin consultations on a “Just Transition” plan to help Canadian workers energy workers get ready for a future less dependent on fossil fuels.

“The federal government’s intention to hastily phase out Canada’s world-class oil and gas industry is extremely harmful to the hundreds of thousands who directly and indirectly work in the sector, and will be detrimental to Canada’s economic recovery,” said Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage Tuesday in a deliberate misreading of Ottawa’s intent.

But that’s the tone of the Alberta government in 2021 when it comes to dealing with the federal Liberals: partisan, pugilistic and plain ornery.

It’s a throwback to 2019 before the pandemic hit.

In that respect, Kenney is right. Politically speaking, Alberta is indeed in a post-pandemic world.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading