"Media’s Anti-‘Woke’ Mania Moves Social Justice to the Fringe. ... The meaning of this ubiquitous term [woke] often shifts with context. Originating in Black vernacular English, according to Merriam-Webster, to 'stay woke' means to question 'the dominant paradigm,' and to carry awareness of racial and other forms of oppression. The phrase became a Black Lives Matter call to action in the Ferguson uprising of 2014, but as that revolutionary spirit ebbed, 'wokeness' has become a stand-in for what the right once decried as 'political correctness.' ...
In the wake of Black Lives Matter uprisings and the rise in awareness of white nationalist organizing, corporate media have taken up the term, often in a pejorative or sarcastic context. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has featured the word in dozens of headlines, in pieces defending opting out of Covid-19 vaccines (10/29/21), transphobia (10/14/21), anti–teachers union positions (7/7/21), free-market capitalism (10/5/21) and voter suppression (4/28/21). The Journal has even used it to attack the Chinese Communist Party (3/7/21; FAIR.org, 3/17/21). ...
At the New York Times, the liberal and conservative columnists are united in their disdain for wokeness, seen as both an attack on Western openness and an albatross for the Democratic Party."
-->Leave it to FAIR to explore how our mainstream media attacks and ridicules the concept of white people coming to terms with the systemic racism of our culture. Being a Woke white person is no longer cool at all, or so our major media tells us.
The Guardian UK:
"Turns out, Harvard students aren’t that smart after all. Ever wondered what it takes to get into Harvard? Stellar grades, impressive extracurriculars and based on a recently published study, having deep pockets and a parent who either works or went there. Those last two are pretty important for Harvard’s white students because only about 57% of them were admitted to the school based on merit.
In reality, 43% of Harvard’s white students are either recruited athletes, legacy students, on the dean’s interest list (meaning their parents have donated to the school) or children of faculty and staff (students admitted based on these criteria are referred to as ‘ALDCs’, which stands for ‘athletes’, ‘legacies’, ‘dean’s interest list’ and ‘children’ of Harvard employees). The kicker? Roughly three-quarters of these applicants would have been rejected if it weren’t for having rich or Harvard-connected parents or being an athlete. ...
This dynamic is inherently racialized, with almost 70% of all legacy applicants at Harvard being white. According to the study, a white person’s chances of being admitted increased seven times if they had family who donated to Harvard. Meanwhile in stark contrast, African American, Asian American and Hispanic students make up less than 16% of ALDC students."
-->What a sordid peek at our nation's most prestigious college. Full of dumb, white rich kids, whose families have bribed their way in by giving a few million here or there. Well, just look at Jared Kushner. This story was too much for our dumb, white newspaper of record, which didn't cover this current research.
"Progressives on Wednesday slammed what they called a proposed $10 billion handout to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—the world's first multi-centibillionaire—in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act as a 'giveaway of galactic proportions' in the face of growing wealth inequality and the inability of U.S. lawmakers to pass a sweeping social and climate spending package.
According to Defense News, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to merge the $250 billion U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (USICA)—aimed largely at countering the rise of China—with next year's NDAA, which would authorize up to $778 billion in military spending. That's $37 billion more than former President Donald Trump's final defense budget and $25 billion more than requested by President Joe Biden. The NDAA includes a $10 billion subsidy to Bezos' Blue Origin space exploration company. ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has condemned the NDAA for containing $52 billion in 'corporate welfare' for Big Tech. Explaining why he would vote against the NDAA, Sanders said Tuesday that 'combining these two pieces of legislation would push the price tag of the defense bill to over $1 trillion—with very little scrutiny.' "
-->No mention of this story in the NYT, which has a thing about military spending in the US. It is never enough!