The Trump regime has told us again and again precisely what they are.
During the first Trump term and even into the second, commentators would frequently pose the rhetorical question of asking how some Trump outrage would have been perceived if it had been done by Barack Obama. The point of this exercise was to note how Trump continues to get away with pretty much everything and has never been held to the same standards as Obama. A subtext of that comparison was to suggest that Trump was a president in some way similar to Obama, and to downplay the regime change that Trump began in his first term and has accelerated during his second term.
L’article Christian Nationalist Rally Led By A Christian Nationalist Regime est apparu en premier sur IRIS.
Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.
Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.
Policy coherence is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development, climate targets, and reducing inequality, as reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recent scholarship has moved beyond technocratic approaches, drawing on comparative politics, particularly the “3 I's” of ideas, interests, and institutions, to highlight the inherently political nature of coherence. Yet even these studies often treat coherence as binary, easily observable, and intrinsically beneficial. Building on a coherence literature focused on discourses and frames, this paper challenges these assumptions by examining how policy (in)coherence is constructed and contested. Focusing on policy implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's coal heartland, we analyse two cases before and during the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine: the commissioning of the Datteln IV hard coal plant in 2020, and the clearance of the village of Lützerath for mining in 2023. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with German energy, climate, and environmental experts, alongside policy and media analysis, we find that (in)coherence is greatly constructed and contested under shifting political and economic pressures, instrumentalised and legitimisatised by different actors to advance their interests, and profoundly shaped by temporal dynamics. Given recent findings that challenge the 2030 Agenda's assumption that policy coherence reduces inequalities, we also explore how (in)coherence is perceived to shape multidimensional inequality in the Energiewende more broadly. Here, we find that (in)coherence is most prominently perceived to cause delays in climate mitigation, disproportionately affecting youth, low-income households, migrants, and activists. In this context, (in)coherence is not merely technical, political nor constructed, but fundamentally a matter of justice, shifting the analytical focus from whether policies and their implementation are coherent to how, and for whom, coherence matters.
Depuis le début de la guerre à Gaza, la couverture médiatique des événements et les prises de position autour du conflit israélo-palestinien soulèvent de nombreuses interrogations sur la liberté d’expression et l’orientation des médias traditionnels français. Des polémiques et des tensions émergent régulièrement lorsque certaines personnalités prennent position en faveur de la cause palestinienne ou critiquent le gouvernement israélien. Dans le même temps, les réseaux sociaux apparaissent de plus en plus comme une alternative aux médias traditionnels. Ils permettent à de nouvelles voix de se faire entendre et de proposer une autre manière de traiter l’actualité internationale, notamment sur un ton humoristique à l’instar de la chronique « La Riposte ».
Pour autant tous les sujets se prêtent-ils à l’humour ? Assiste-t-on à une recomposition du paysage médiatique, où les médias traditionnels sont concurrencés par la place grandissante des réseaux sociaux dans la diffusion de l’information ? La liberté d’expression est-elle encore présente dans les médias ou se retrouve-t-elle de plus en plus confrontée à des formes de censure ? Pourquoi la question israélo-palestinienne demeure-t-elle un sujet particulièrement clivant dans les médias et dans l’humour français ?
Autant d’enjeux abordés avec Akim Omiri, humoriste et animateur de l’émission « La Riposte » sur Radio Nova, qui revient sur les polémiques médiatiques dont il fait l’objet et sur le traitement de la question palestinienne dans les médias français.
L’article L’humour peut-il tout permettre ? Avec Akim Omiri est apparu en premier sur IRIS.