Daily Archives: November 13, 2019

President Trumps oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has just released a new book entitled, Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.

This is the book that the leftist elites dont want you to read Donald Trump, Jr. exposes all the tricks that the Left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online shadow banning to rampant political correctness,' reads the description on Amazon.

The book currently has a five-star rating from 92% of the reviewers, with gushing comments like, Such an amazing book, very insightful and so true.

But the haters came out, too, just in case Trump Jr. has a couple hours to comb through the comments on the Amazon page. In fact, many sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome seem to be triggered just like Jr. says in the book!

This is not about truth or lies. It has crossed to mental illness, wrote one hater.

Ugh, wrote another reviewer who is into brevity.

The haters were out on force on GoodReads.com, too.

Everyone has a book in them and that, in most cases, is where it should stay. Christopher Hitchens, wrote one reviewer.That pretty much sums it up, though I do believe that in order to write a book, one must first demonstrate that one is capable of reading a book.

Ah, yes more attempts by the right to mind-wash the gullible with petty bias and weak, inaccurate arguments. Chief just called and said this aint it, wrote another.

Would give this a negative one million rating if I could. Horrible man with a horrible message that just spreads hate and misinformation. F*** off, another wrote.

Another wrote:

The irony of the title is that Jr. was triggered into writing this lol. Wah. Liberals are so weak and say mean things about me and dad and we cant take insults for **** [because] we have skin so thin we might very well have no skin at all. Therefore, Im going to write a super hypocritical book that is basically a load of B.S. in academia terms but whatever, the sheep who like my dad will spend their hard-earned money on it. Money for me is good. Gotta make lemonade outta lemons.

One reviewer said the book should be burned, ironically referring to Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury about a future American society where books are outlawed and firemen burn any that are found.

I was unfortunate enough to get an advanced copy but can save you the pain, this is just one big book of projection and the author is horrible. I recommend getting the fire to 451 degrees Fahrenheit for this one to visit, wrote the reviewer.

Im confused a man writes a book even though his supporters cant read. He would have made more money if this [were] a picture book. Anyway, the book is pathetic, wrote another.

But some Trump supporters pointed out that the haters have been, in fact, triggered.

LOL so many weak triggered sissies. I imagine it must be a really sad life to be triggered and offended by anything you disagree with, wrote one.

Its funny to see reviews by people who are so blinded by hatred they cant even read a book. My guess is most of these people dont even know how to read! wrote another.

Read the original post:

IRONY ALERT: Comment Sections For Trump Jr. Book 'Triggered' Is Full Of Triggered Liberals - The Daily Wire

The Panther murder was a summary moment for both of us, Mr. Horowitz said by email, adding, We were affected significantly by the way all our progressive comrades defended the Panthers and claimed the white power structure killed Betty (as one of my close friends said).

Their 1984 book, The Kennedys: An American Drama, drew a favorable review from Bob Woodward in The Washington Post.

This remarkable four-generation history of the Kennedy family boldly faces some of the major ghosts in American life, he wrote. It deals not just with individual Kennedys but with power, ambition, the presidency, family, the generational change and obligation, money, religion, narcotics, good luck and bad luck.

The Lefties for Reagan article came shortly after.

When it appeared, Peter who was the realist between us said, Our literary careers are over, Mr. Horowitz said. Not quite.

Christopher Lehmann-Haupt of The Times called The Fords: An American Epic their best book to date. In 1991 Mr. Collier, writing on his own, published The Fondas: A Hollywood Dynasty.

In addition to his wife, Mr. Collier is survived by a daughter, Caitlin Collier; two sons, Andrew and Nicholas; and five grandchildren.

Mr. Collier saw a link between his early days on the left, opposing the status quo, and his later career as his own polar opposite, arguing against what he called the feel-good ideology of political correctness.

We are the counterculture," he told The San Francisco Chronicle in 1993. Were the people in opposition to what Orwell called the smelly little orthodoxies.

Follow this link:

Peter Collier, Author and Leading Conservative Voice, Dies at 80 - The New York Times

The black protagonist of Ralph Ellisons Invisible Man struggles to divine the correct norms and beliefs in a world where he is invisible because white people refuse to see him. When they approach me, he says, they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their own imagination indeed, everything and anything except me. The problem, in other words, is not that white people look upon black people with a clear and knowing prejudice. It is that they have constructed what he calls inner eyes: those eyes with which they look through their physical eyes upon reality.

Trying to talk about Islamophobia in British politics today never mind seeking to hold anyone accountable for it is an endeavour perpetually condemned to this state of invisibility. This was helpfully illustrated on Saturday by the health secretary, Matt Hancock, who appeared on the Today programme to explain why the Conservative party was not holding an inquiry into Islamophobia. Asked about Sayeeda Warsis tireless campaign against Islamophobia in her own party, Hancock glibly allowed that I like Sayeeda but noted that there are others who take a more balanced approach to what is apparently a subject demanding great nuance. The erstwhile inquiry once promised by Boris Johnson himself has now been jettisoned in favour of a sort of All Lives Matter approach, which will not look specifically into Islamophobia, but examine all types of prejudice.

It is clear that prejudice against Muslims is only a problem for the Tories insofar as it may damage their prospects at the ballot box and at the moment, they arent very worried about that. What Hancock and the Conservatives see when confronted with reports of anti-Muslim hate is not Muslims themselves. They see personal hysteria, or political correctness exaggeration, or humbug, in Johnsons own words. Their inner eyes, as Ellison put it, look right past the reality. Warsi, a Conservative peer who has worked in race relations for three decades, is Tory Islamophobias invisible woman.

There is little point any more using facts to prove the partys problem with Muslims. The facts are there. The posting or endorsement of anti-Muslim online material is rife. Batches of suspensions from the party happen on a regular basis, but they are rarely followed through with expulsions, and the problem never leads to any investigation of why it persists. This is probably because Conservative party members the people who selected our prime minister dont see Islamophobia as something to be ashamed of. According to a YouGov survey earlier this year, a staggering two-thirds believe the ludicrous myth that parts of the UK are under sharia law; nearly half are happy to say they wouldnt like to have a Muslim prime minister.

The leaders of the Conservative party have decided that the perception that the Conservatives have a problem with Muslims whether real or imagined is one they can live with. The decision to pull the Islamophobia inquiry in favour of a vague look into all types of prejudice isnt a sign that the party thinks this problem doesnt exist; its an indication that they think its a problem they can afford to have.

This realisation is far more alarming than the fact that the countrys ruling party is tolerant or dismissive of prejudice. For it is possible to conclude definitively that the British people do not care about Muslims enough for Tory apathy on the issue to cause any further damage to the Conservative brand. If anything, the Tories may be channelling what many feel is a welcome escalation in rhetoric against Muslims, led by the prime minister himself, a man who still will not offer any apology for his playground bully name-calling of letterboxes and bank robbers.

What we are witnessing is not merely a dismissal of the problem, it is a retrenchment. The moral universe in which these conversations might once have taken place has now been annihilated by political posturing. All pronouncements about race and racism are now judged only in terms of which side is speaking and what political impact it will have.

This brave new world has given us the rather staggering sight of Nick Boles, who resigned the whip over Brexit, telling Warsi it was her own fault that her admirable campaign against Tory Islamophobia hadnt dented the problem. She might make more progress, Boles sneered, if you spend less time attacking your natural allies because they dont measure up to your exacting standard of saintliness. Fortunately I do not have to put up with the egomania of people like you any more. This is what it looks like when Conservatives are on your side.

The sad truth is that racism and especially Islamophobia only carries a political cost when the victims occupy a position that momentarily humanises them, as we saw, however briefly, with the Windrush scandal. In their repeated refusal to take Islamophobia seriously, the Tories are demonstrating that they understand this truth all too well. As long as Muslims remain invisible, then nothing needs to change.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Read the rest here:

When it comes to Islamophobia, Tory eyes are still wide shut - The Guardian

Mania for diversity, inclusion and equity has replaced pursuit of knowledge

Jos Cabranes has never let his service on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stop him from warning the public about alarming trends in higher education.

Five years ago the former trustee and general counsel at Yale University signed a letter demanding that the nations trustees tackle political correctness run amok on campus, saying it undermines the free exchange of ideas.

Two years ago he wrote in The Washington Post that progressives were bringing Cold War-style censorship to higher education with their administrative demands on faculty to put social justice over free inquiry.

Now the sitting judge elevated to the appeals court by President Clinton is on The Wall Street Journal op-ed page with an excerpt from his recent speech to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Honored for his outstanding contribution to liberal arts education last month, Cabranes blames the new alliance of activists and administrators on a far-reaching intellectual confusion that pervades the nations campuses, from dorm rooms to classrooms:

Too many in higher education are unwilling or unable to maintain a distinction that lies at the core of the liberal democratic project, and at the center of the Wests intellectual tradition: the distinction between inquiry and action, speech and conduct.

This is why federal courts on a near-monthly basis are reprimanding colleges and universities for improperly chilling speech and faculty hiring has slowed even as the cost of tuition grows, he says.

He notes the remarkable evolution of Yales mission statement from the promotion of knowledge to improving the world with nary a mention of knowledge. When he was legal advisor to three Yale presidents, I was pleased to think that my job was largely to protect our faculty from undue risks, so that the university could fulfill its core mission as a place of inquiry.

Those days are long gone. University staff now seek to achieve diversity, inclusion and equitydefined, ever vaguely, on their terms. And so the nonfaculty staffwho, unlike the faculty, are dedicated to doing rather than deliberatingset the tone on campus, Cabranes writes.

The average reader is probably in the dark about how little power faculty have in the admissions process, with deleterious consequences for academic freedom, he continues:

Faculty members who want to be involved in admissions are relegated to toothless advisory committees, where they are lucky to be invited to glimpse the making of the sausage. Admissions professionals are less interested in traditional academic criteria, such as scholastic talent and intellectual openness, than they are in flashier virtues such as activism, leadership or overcoming adversity.

The contemporary admissions process thus reflects and advances a transformation of the university from a place of thought to an instrument of social action. Is it any wonder that students go searching for windmills at which to tilt?

Similar to admonitions from political scientists that Congress must reassert itself against the ever-growing blob of the administrative state, Cabranes calls on faculty to reassert its historic centrality in the university and stand ready to protect the search for truth.

But he also wants governing boards to stop being rubber stamps for social justice-driven administrative decrees, and alumni to make their displeasure palpable to money-hungry development staff:

Trustees can start by recalling their considerable legal authority. They should demand detailed justifications for each and every deputy deanship and assistant directorship that swells the bureaucratic ranks.

Alumni must also become wiser in their philanthropy. At big-name institutions, bureaucratic bloat is made possible by immense endowments and endless fundraising campaigns.

In remarks that conservatives should chew on, Cabranes also sees a role for students coming to American institutions from abroad. They came to this country to learn in a free and open environment and they may yet ensure that our country remains a source of inspiration and hope.

Read the excerpt.

IMAGE: Yale Law School/YouTube

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See the article here:

Federal judge calls on faculty to fight back against the 'new alliance of activists and administrators' - The College Fix

Democratic voters have a clear ideological choice in this years presidential primaries.

But if there is any lesson from the recent New York Times/Siena College surveys of the six closest states carried by the president, its that the Democrats have been presented with a series of choices about how to win back the White House that are not really even distinct choices at all.

It is often posited, for instance, that Democrats face a choice between a moderate who might win back a crucial sliver of white working-class voters who flipped from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, or a progressive who might mobilize a new coalition of young progressives, perhaps especially in the rapidly diversifying Sun Belt states.

But for the most part, these choices are not grounded in the attitudes of the electorate in the most competitive states.

Instead, the polls results on persuadable and low-turnout voters suggest that the Democratic focus on Obama-to-Trump voters, or on low-turnout progressives, is largely misplaced.

The partys leading candidates have not yet reached the real missing piece of the Democratic coalition: less educated and often younger voters who are not conservative but who disagree with the partys cultural left and do not share that groups unrelenting outrage at the presidents conduct.

This basic conclusion follows from what registered voters told us in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida.

Heres what stood out to me.

It would have been reasonable to expect, as I did, that middle-class Joe from Scranton, Pa., would show strength by winning back the white working-class voters who defected from the Democrats in 2016. If he could do so, he would rebuild the so-called blue wall of traditionally competitive states across the Midwest. Add to this the college-educated white voters whom Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and Mr. Biden would have a commanding lead.

But there is no sign that Mr. Biden has any special appeal to white voters without a degree in these states. Instead, he runs a bit ahead of Mrs. Clinton across the board, among college-educated and working-class white voters alike. (He led by an average of two points over Mr. Trump among registered voters across the six states.).

It seems that all but a sliver of the white voters without a degree who backed Mr. Trump in 2016 will stick by him in 2020.

One might have also assumed that Elizabeth Warrens real weakness would be among white, working-class voters. It was Mrs. Clintons great weakness and Mr. Bidens supposed strength. Some parts of Ms. Warrens background a liberal college professor from Massachusetts would not seem to make her a natural fit.

Ms. Warren isnt particularly strong among white voters without a college degree. But this is not the biggest source of her gap with Mr. Biden in our general election polling: For starters, she underperforms Mr. Biden among well-educated white voters by even more than she does among white working-class voters.

Her challenge is particularly great in the best-educated areas. In census tracts where at least 45 percent have a college degree, she leads Mr. Trump by 15 points, compared with Mr. Bidens 23-point lead.

The Biden-but-not-Warren voters in these areas say shes too far to the left, 79 percent to 9 percent. They oppose moving to a single-payer health system, support the presidents tax reform and are relatively likely to say theyre conservative or Republican.

This is perhaps the central tension of Ms. Warrens bid heading into the general election. Her plans and liberal views have made her the favorite of well-educated white Democratic primary voters. Yet she has adopted a set of populist economic policies that appear to go too far for the demographically similar but persuadable voters who would otherwise seem like the most natural fit for a candidate of her style.

At the same time, she seems to have little special resonance with less educated voters, even though her policies would seem to be targeted at building their support. For now, technocratic populism could be a lose-lose.

The challenge extends to nonwhite voters; she underperforms Mr. Biden by even more among this group. Here, she does have a name recognition problem: 32 percent of the 87 nonwhite Biden-but-not-Warren voters in our polls dont have an opinion of her, and they agree only narrowly, by a margin of 38 percent to 30 percent, that shes too far to the left. But those who do have an opinion generally dont think highly of Ms. Warren, with 24 percent favorable and 43 percent unfavorable.

These nonwhite Biden-but-not-Warren voters split, 44-46, on whether they agree with the statement that the women who run for president just arent that likable. Unlike other nonwhite voters in the surveys, they split on whether they support reducing legal immigration. Ms. Warren will most likely win some of these voters, but they will offer resistance to a progressive nominee.

Its commonly assumed that theres a simple choice between persuasion and turnout in elections: A candidate can either aim to flip moderate voters or to rally a partys enthusiastic base.

In a high-turnout presidential election, this choice doesnt really exist. Virtually all of the ideologically consistent voters will be drawn to the polls, at least in these crucial states where the stakes are so high.

As a result, the voters on the sidelines are often also persuadable. With the exception of one key chunk of persuadable voters affluent voters repelled by the left on economics the persuadable voters wind up looking fairly similar to the low-turnout voters.

They arent particularly ideological. Theyre a bit conservative on cultural issues, at least compared with the Democratic base. Theyre less likely to be college graduates, but they dont love the president. Theyre likelier to be young and nonwhite, demographics that would ordinarily be a big Democratic advantage. But because they dont tend to be partisan, it diminishes that advantage.

The lower level of education, in particular, presents a unifying challenge for the left: It makes it harder for them to win over or mobilize irregular voters. Todays activist left draws its intellectual energy from critiques of capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and structures of domination. These have their origins in academia, and while they have spread widely in recent years, their advocates rely on academic language like intersectionality and white privilege. Many younger, well-educated liberals are immersed in these arguments, and they believe they have almost a moral obligation to challenge structures of power.

Older or less educated voters, on the other hand, might have no idea what theyre talking about. Some could be baffled by the argument that there could be a Black History Month but not a White History Month. Others simply might not share the same deep, systematic critique of American society. It is no surprise that voters like these would say that political correctness has gone too far, as our polling showed.

Theres often a notion that Mr. Trump cant find additional voters to expand his support beyond the 63 million he won in 2016.

But the Times/Siena polls find that there are plenty of people who havent voted recently who support the president. And those people seem fairly likely to vote.

Registered nonvoters lean Democratic, but only by a bit.

Among registered voters who havent voted in either of the last two elections in the battleground states, 45 percent of those who would back Mr. Trump against an unnamed Democrat say theyre almost certain to vote, and an additional 39 percent say theyre very likely to vote. For those who would back the Democrat, a slightly higher 51 percent say they are almost certain to vote, and only 22 percent say they are very likely to vote.

Over all, a lower share of Democrats say theyre certain or very likely to vote, in no small part because registered Hispanic voters who havent voted recently dont seem to be itching to surge to the polls. Just 29 percent of nonvoting Hispanics say theyre almost certain to vote, and only 24 percent say theyre very likely.

A strong Democratic turnout, in other words, wouldnt assure the party of victory. It may prove to be merely a necessary component of keeping pace in a high-turnout election.

Democratic strength in Arizona was perhaps the most surprising topline result in the six states polled. Mr. Biden and Ms. Warren fared better there against Mr. Trump than in any other state Mr. Biden by five points, Ms. Warren by two. This would seem to lend credibility to the view that the Democrats might soon be able to abandon the Rust Belt in favor of a new coalition in the rapidly diversifying Sun Belt states.

Progressives have long dreamed of a majority anchored in those states, since they would be freed from appealing to white working-class conservatives and could focus on turning out young and nonwhite voters, who may be more progressive.

But this does not seem to be a real choice for 2020, either.

For one, it is not obvious that progressives will find the Sun Belt to be more favorable to their causes, even if the voters there are more ethnically diverse. These Sun Belt states have shifted mainly because white college-educated conservatives have defected from the president. Arizonas views remain conservative: It is the only state in the poll that opposes an assault weapons ban, and it opposes single-payer health care by a wider margin than any other state.

Even if the Democrats did crack Arizona in 2020, it would be hard to win without the Rust Belt. A Sun Belt path would also involve wins in Florida or Texas, or perhaps both North Carolina and Georgia.

None of these options look particularly easy for progressives. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren underperformed Mr. Biden in Florida, a result of their weakness among the states older and more conservative white voters. Of all the states, liberals represented the smallest share of the electorate in Florida.

Indirectly, the Arizona poll does support the view that Texas is a real opportunity for Democrats, but not yet a top-tier one. Mr. Biden ran nine points ahead of Mrs. Clintons 2016 performance among registered voters in Arizona, a shift that would translate to a tie in Texas, where Mr. Trump won by nine points (if Mr. Biden outran Mrs. Clinton by the same amount). But Democrats would probably still trail among likely voters in Texas because of the relatively low turnout among Hispanic voters.

More generally, relatively low turnout among nonwhite voters will be a serious challenge for Democrats across the Sun Belt, if historical patterns hold. Hispanic voters have never matched the turnout of non-Hispanic voters, and they continue to indicate a relatively low intention to vote in 2020.

At the same time, the polls offer little evidence that African-American voters are all that much likelier to turn out in 2020, a pattern thats evident in most midterm and special election results. So long as thats true, the party will struggle to break through in North Carolina or Georgia, where black voters represent a large share of the electorate.

All considered, Democrats appear to be caught between their past and their imagined future: They have made substantial gains in the Sun Belt, but not enough for it to represent the path of least resistance. The Rust Belt remains the clearer path, if the party had to make a true choice, but it is not so secure that the party would be wise to abandon efforts to find an alternative further south.

For now, the Midwest is not as strong for Democrats relative to the country or in absolute terms as it was during the Obama elections.

View post:

Five Polling Results That May Change the Way You Think About Electability - The New York Times

MADRID (AP) Prime Minister Pedro Snchez's Socialists won Spain's national election on Sunday but large gains by the upstart far-right Vox party appear certain to widen the political deadlock in the European Union's fifth-largest economy.

After a fourth national ballot in as many years and the second in less than seven months, the left-wing Socialists held on as the leading power in the national parliament. With 99.9% of the votes counted, the Socialists captured 120 seats, down three seats from the last election in April and still far from the absolute majority of 176 needed to form a government alone.

The big political shift came as right-wing voters flocked to Vox, which only had broken into Parliament in the spring for the first time. Sunday's outcome means there will be no immediate end to the stalemate between forces on the right and the left in Spain, suggesting the country could go many more weeks or even months without a new government.

The far-right party led by 43-year-old Santiago Abascal, who speaks of "reconquering" Spain in terms that echo the medieval wars between Christian and Moorish forces, rocketed from 24 to 52 seats. That will make Vox the third leading party in the Congress of Deputies, giving it much more leverage in forming a government and crafting legislation.

The party has vowed to be much tougher on both Catalan separatists and migrants.

Abascal called his party's success "the greatest political feat seen in Spain."

"Just 11 months ago, we weren't even in any regional legislature in Spain. Today we are the third-largest party in Spain and the party that has grown the most in votes and seats," said Abascal, who promised to battle the "progressive dictatorship."

Right-wing populist and anti-migrant leaders across Europe celebrated Vox's strong showing.

Marine Le Pen, who heads France's National Rally party, congratulated Abascal, saying his impressive work "is already bearing fruit after only a few years."

In Italy, Matteo Salvini of the right-wing League party tweeted a picture of himself next to Abascal with the words "Congratulations to Vox!" above Spanish and Italian flags. And in the Netherlands, anti-Islam Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders posted a photograph of himself with Abascal and wrote "FELICIDADES" Spanish for congratulations with three thumbs-up emojis.

With Sunday's outcome, the mainstream conservative Popular Party rebounded from its previous debacle in the April vote to 88 seats from 66, a historic low. The far-left United We Can, which had rejected an offer to help the Socialists form a left-wing government over the summer, lost some ground to get 35 seats.

The night's undisputed loser was the center-right Citizens party, which collapsed to 10 seats from 57 in April after its leader Albert Rivera refused to help the Socialists form a government and tried to copy some of Vox's hard-line positions.

Snchez's chances of staying in power still hinges on ultimately winning over the United We Can party and several regional parties, a complicated maneuver that he has failed to pull off in recent months.

Snchez called on opponents to be "responsible" and "generous" by allowing a Socialist-led government to remain in charge.

"We extend this call to all the political parties except for those who self-exclude themselves ... and plant the seeds of hate in our democracy," he added, an apparent allusion to far-right and also possibly to separatist Catalan parties.

United We Can leader Pablo Iglesias extended an offer of support to Snchez.

"These elections have only served for the right to grow stronger and for Spain to have one of the strongest far-right parties in Europe," Iglesias said. "The only way to stop the far-right in Spain is to have a stable government."

Pablo Casado, the leader of the Popular Party, also pledged to work to end months of political instability. He said "the ball was in the court" of Snchez, though. In recent months his party and Citizens have struck deals with Vox to take over some cities and regional governments.

Bonnie Field, a professor on Global Studies at Bentley University in California, called the political situation a "mess government-wise."

"Spanish politics are now increasingly complicated and any governing formula is going to require lots of negotiations, and people being open to criticism," she said.

The Socialists took a hit in the country's Senate, losing their absolute majority of 133 seats in the upper parliamentary chamber amid the significant conservative inroads.

Julia Giobelina, a 34-year-old web designer from Madrid, was angry at having to vote for the second time this year. But she said she cast her ballot in hopes of stopping Vox.

"They are the new fascism," Giobelina said. "We citizens need to stand against privatization of health care and other public services."

Spain returned to democracy in the late 1970s after a near four-decade right-wing dictatorship under the late Gen. Francisco Franco. The country used to take pride in claiming that no far-right group had seats in the national Parliament, unlike the rest of Europe. That changed in the spring, but the Socialists' April victory was still seen by many as a respite for Europe, where right-wing parties had gained much ground.

Vox relied on its anti-migrant message and attacks on laws that protect women from domestic abuse as well as what it considers leftist ideology disguised as political correctness. Still, it does not advocate a break from the EU in the very pro-EU Spain.

It has nevertheless flourished after recent riots in Catalonia by separatists, capitalizing on Spanish nationalist sentiment stirred up by the country's worst political conflict in decades. Many right-wingers were also not pleased by the Socialist government's exhumation of Franco's remains last month from his gargantuan mausoleum so he could no longer be exalted in a public place.

The debate over Catalonia, meanwhile, promises to fester.

The three Catalan separatist parties won a combined 23 seats on Sunday.

Many Catalans have been angered by the decision last month by Spain's Supreme Court, which sentenced to prison nine Catalan politicians and activists who led a 2017 drive for the region's independence. The ruling has triggered massive daily protests in Catalonia that left more than 500 people injured, roughly half of them police officers, and dozens arrested.

__

Wilson wrote from Barcelona, Spain; AP journalists Ciaran Giles in Madrid and Renata Brito in Barcelona contributed to this report.

Read more:

Socialists win Spain's election, but far right surges - WTHR

During the 1994 Stanley Cup Final, a colleague led an expedition of scribes to the White Horse Tavern in New Yorks Greenwich Village.

Now, theres nothing unusual about a group of sportswriters heading to a bar. At least there didnt used to be. But the White Horse was a singular destination, a drinking hole whose regulars had included Jack Kerouac, James Baldwin, Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas, the Welsh writer and heavyweight drinker who, according to mythology, downed 18 shots of whisky at the tavern, collapsed and died days later.

Soon thereafter, I was relating the story of the writers pilgrimage to Harry Neale, Hockey Night In Canadas colour man. Standing nearby was Don Cherry, whose ears perked up at the mention of Thomas.

Such a sad story, Cherry said, shaking his head. He was such a great writer and he drank it all away.

This, we emphasize, was Dylan Thomas he was talking about, not Steve or Wayne or any of the other Thomases associated with hockey, and I almost expected Cherry to start reciting A Childs Christmas in Wales.

That wasnt the only time Cherry surprised. Over the years, there were other encounters where he would reveal layers at odds with his public persona. Im not going to tell you he was complicated and people misunderstood him. But there was a depth there he seldom showed to his audience, which makes the events of the last couple of days, to say nothing of the platform on which he built his celebrity, so infuriating.

Cherry was fired Monday, on Remembrance Day of all things, by a broadcaster that suddenly determined he was a liability to its image. Thats pretty funny because, for over 30 years, Cherry has presented opinions that had no place on the public airwaves; opinions that would have been offensive on a public-affairs program but were offered, remarkably, in a segment that was supposed to be about hockey.

Cherry, in fact, crossed the line so many times that he succeeded in moving it. I thought he had toned things down over the last six years when he moved over to Sportsnet and, by Cherrys standards at least, his latest screed about poppies and immigrants was standard fare.

But this apparently was the tipping point for the 85-year-old former NHL coach, which raises one question for the people who have carried HNIC over the years.

What did you expect?

Cherry, by all rights, should have been fired decades ago; but he created something so large, so powerful that he changed the rules. Think about that for a moment. Think about the CBC, that citadel of inclusion and sensitivity, allowing that foghorn on its airwaves.

As for the reason he was tolerated all those years, its not hard to identify.

The man delivered unprecedented numbers and made the network a boatload of money. Even though his views were anathema to everything the CBC represents, they went along for the ride; and if there was turbulence along the way, that was just the price of doing business.

Cherry, after all, was a ratings machine. In 2004, the CBC held a popularity poll to name the greatest Canadian in history. Cherry finished seventh, one spot before Sir John A. Macdonald, the Father of Confederation, and two before Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone.

At the height of his popularity, everyone wanted a piece of Cherry. The Province employed him as a columnist, a process that consisted of Cherry faxing over some 30 pages of his deeper thoughts that had to be condensed into a readable form. This was Paul Chapmans job at the newspaper. He reports Cherrys stuff was pretty good.

That was also just a minuscule part of his empire. His RockEm, Sockem videos were bestsellers. He had a chain of restaurants. He had his own TV show beyond Coachs Corner.

He was, in short, big business.

As for the why, I wish I could tell you. He built his brand on an outrageous caricature, but he sold it and Canadians bought it. Again, it was inconsistent with the values I identify with this country, but there was also something about the Cherry package the bombast, the bluntness, the wardrobe and, yes, the humour that was appealing.

Or maybe he made it safe to be a bigot. I dont know. I just know it was the same drumbeat for over 30 years and, for the most part, people ate it up.

Have things changed that much? Thats part of it. But political correctness isnt a construct of 2019. It was talked about back then. Cherrys commentary could be just as offensive. But it made money, lots and lots of money.

The irony in all this is, while Cherry was ranting about immigrants and francophones and their threat to national unity, it didnt dawn on him that Canada was strong enough to absorb different cultures and languages without falling apart. I mean, if our country was really in peril, we would have noticed something over the last 30 years.

But were still here; still strong, still vibrant, still diverse. It seems we can be more than one thing at any one time, which also describes Cherry.

I would have liked to remove the parts I didnt like and left behind the reader, the thinker, the student of history. But he wouldnt have been Cherry.

Thats also funny because Cherry wanted to remove the parts of our country he didnt like. He just didnt understand what was left wouldnt be Canada.

ewilles@postmedia.com

twitter.com/WillesOnSports

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Read more here:

Ed Willes: Don Cherry was many things, but bigot was always part of his shtick - National Post

LAKE BALATON, HUNGARY, and BERLIN/FRANKFURT, GERMANY On Saturday the world celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which led to the reunification of Germany.

But what has Germany become? Not what some had hoped. And the proof of that can be found in Hungary, about twohours west of Budapest, at a place called Lake Balaton.Why mark the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall from a lake in Hungary? Because it's where a lot of Germans have fled to who are fed up with Angela Merkel's new Germany.

Germans Fleeing Migrant Crime

The Lake Balaton region is full of Germans who have moved here for all sorts of reasons, but a local real estate agent told us the biggest reason is migrant crime in Germany."At the moment our clients are 80 percent German," Hungarian Real Estate Agent Lszl Kozma told us, "And the main reason is the immigration problem in Germany."

Kozma says the number of Germans moving to Lake Balaton spiked immediately after Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed over a million mostly Muslim asylum seekers into Germany in 2015, while Hungary was turned migrants away.

"Yes, yes, yes, this is the reason," Kozma says. "They want to escape to Hungary and live here permanently."

They include Germans like Gerhardt Boehm, who told us he would never move back. He feels safe in Hungary.

Kozma says there currently are not enough properties in the area for all the German buyers.

If Germany Has "Never Been Safer," Why Are Germans Leaving?

The German establishment continues to push the narrative that Germany has never been safer, even though it was learned that the number of Germans murdered by migrants doubled last year from 2017.

Germany recently discovered that two of the so-called "refugees" it welcomed into Germany used to run a prison in Damascus that tortured thousands of Syrians.

It's part of the reason that less than half of East Germans say reunification has been a success, and why polls have shown some former East Germans would even like to rebuild the Berlin wall.

Is Germany Becoming "East Germany 2.0"?

"It's getting worse than the situation in East Germany because we didn't have this," says German evangelist and author Heidi Mund, herself a former East German, "We didn't have this murder, we didn't have the rape."

But speaking out about migrant crime too forcefully in the new Germany can get you in trouble. Mund thought International Women's Day would be a good time to speak about the danger of migrant crime to all women. Only a heavy police presence prevented her from being physically attacked by West German leftists, who spat on her and called her obscene names.

This is why some are calling today's Germany "East Germany 2.0." Because just like in East Germany, certain ideas are enforced, either by society or the government, and those who deviate from political correctness could lose their jobs, or even face criminal action by the state.

Germany's crackdown on so-called online hate speech has even been copied by dictatorships.

Famous German pastor Theo Lehmann was persecuted in the old East Germany and sees similarities to today's Germany.

"It is extremely annoying that nowadays again you have to measure every word because later somebody could come and criticize it," Lehmann told us. "That hurts any free discussion and it's an incredible fear that is everywhere in society. Nobody dares to speak up anymore, because you are always in danger when you say something that is against the mainstream. You could be called a racist or a fascist without any discussion. These labels are put on you right away."

Message to America: Build a Wall

Of course, all of Germany is not crime-ridden, but one German website lists more than 75-thousand migrant crimes since 2015.

One citizens' group called Memorial Against Forgetting hasbegun to demonstrate in German cities with what it calls lines of horror. They are lines strung from building to building with pieces of paper; each one a crime committed by a migrant.

The leader Robert Vogelmann says he welcomes true refugees to Germany, but not criminals.

"Refugees welcome, yes," he says, "Refugees welcome from war, and people who need help, but no criminals."

The Berlin wall was a wall of oppression. But thirty years after it fell, increasing numbers of Germans are now fleeing to a country with a wall that has made it much safer than Germany: Hungary.

Robert Vogelmann told us he has a message for Americans, and for President Trump: "Build a wall. Build a wall. Build a big, big wall."

Read the original post:

30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Some Germans Want a New Wall - CBN News

In July 2018, after much chasing of his publisher, I managed to get an interview with polarising professor and rock star intellectual Jordan Peterson. It was for a new show which would go out first as a video and podcast and later on the radio station 4FM; I got the time with Peterson by promising that the interview would go out in full, as live.

Id recently finished his book 12 Rules for Life and was fascinated by the surge of fame that had engulfed him. Id read enough features and listened to enough podcasts with the 57-year-old Canadian to know he was displeased with how his words, as he saw it, had been twisted in different ways to besmirch his name and misrepresent him.

When Peterson arrived into our small studio that day it soon became clear how polarising he was; two workmates wanted to meet him and told me theyd do anything to make that happen; one excitedly met him and brought him up the three storeys, while the other waited outside the building, hoping to grab a picture. But others in the office were appalled that he was even there; when I asked one co-worker why, he spoke passionately about Petersons views on the Muslim religion. It soon becoming clear he had mixed up Peterson with American neuroscientist and author Sam Harris, who would be joining him on stage the following night in the 3Arena for a discussion about religion and the War of Ideas. Others branded him transphobic and misogynist offering quotes and derided the picture-seeker for asking for a snap.

Over 70-odd minutes, we discussed everything from Petersons depression, equality of outcome, his rise to fame, Chris Rock quotes (hes right, were all fools) and Donald Trump.

The US president was even more all-consuming than usual in Irish news due to a trip to London at the time, so I took that as a starting point. At the time, I didnt realise it, but he hadnt spoken at length about Trump before and a clip from our interview went viral, getting more than 2.5 million views and about 9,000 comments. He didnt say anything groundbreaking as far as I could tell, only that we would soon return to normative (political) incompetence .

Other clips, and indeed the full interview, accumulated huge views and engagement very quickly. Petersons parting words to me as he left the studio that day, were that Id likely get flak from both sides after I made a Jordan destroys joke (referring to the endless clickbait-y YouTube video titles featuring edited footage of him dancing intellectual rings around someone who dares question his views).

He was right; some comments were thoughtful and appreciative about the density of the conversation; others didnt think too much of me, or that I was worthy enough to talk to the professor. The commenters on the Trump clip were next-level, attacking everything from the shape of my head to my voice I had to Google to find out what exactly a soy boy was.

But they also went after Peterson too, and not in the more obvious ways. Some were disappointed he didnt fully condemn Trump, others that he even dared question him. It was clear, at least in the murky world of YouTube comment sections, that he had fans on both sides of the political divide, not just perpetually angry alt-right incels (who, granted, were still by far the loudest).

A few months ago I was contacted by Petersons assistant, who told me a documentary, The Rise of Jordan Peterson, was in the final stages of production and the film-makers wanted to use a clip from my interview. The producer, Maziar Ghaderi, subsequently showed me the finished film with a short clip of yours truly included.

I sat down to watch it, with more than a decade of objective movie criticism behind me, and was genuinely impressed. Director Patricia Marcoccia had followed Peterson for several years after initially approaching him in the spring of 2015 with a more specific idea. We had a meeting with him and his wife and learned more about what was happening in his life, and he told me that he was adding a third storey to his home, modelled after an indigenous longhouse, she tells me over email. The initial plan was to focus on the house build and his relationship with the craftsman whod help him do it.

A year and a half later, though, Jordan released the Professor Against Political Correctness videos on YouTube. I had no idea they were coming, says Marcoccia. Before the videos came out, we had talked a bit about political correctness, but I didnt know how much he was thinking about it. I also hadnt previously heard him express political ideas or even his personal views on religion and God.

Marcoccia admits she was surprised by the much-publicised stand Peterson took on Bill C-16, a law passed by the Canadian parliament which added gender expression and gender identity to Canadian human rights legislation, making it illegal to promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression. Peterson hadnt included much on the subject in his videos or lectures, I quickly realised I needed to put the initial story I was working on on hold and create something new that would help me make sense of what was going on.

Marcoccia calls that period, uncomfortable, but the new direction of the documentary quickly took shape. We went to campus rallies and started reaching out to students who supported him him and those in opposition.

Having seen the film, I find it surprising that The Rise of Jordan Peterson has had screenings cancelled after staff members in theatres objected. Id recently viewed Alison Klaymans superb fly-on-the wall look at Steve Bannon, The Brink. Bannon is another figure who has been the subject of widespread protests, but there werent protests at screenings of The Brink.

I asked producer Ghaderi why he thought that was. My theory on why The Brink didnt face the same market limitations as our film is that Bannon is easier to label as a far-right crazy which is what he is but Jordan is more obscure to them due to his decades of research and authorship, he says.

Peterson was a far more amiable subject, according to Marcoccia. However, there was an issue when the films executive producer suggested Peterson sign an exclusivity contract, The restrictiveness of the agreement did not sit well with Jordan and this created some tension. This interaction actually enabled me to see the seriousness with which he interprets legal documents really thinking through worst-case scenarios, she admits. Ultimately, despite Petersons new-found fame and a cluster of other documentary film-makers approaching him, they continued without the contract, Our filming had been working out just fine without it and I thought it would be best to continue that way. Then everything went back to normal.

Has Peterson seen the finished film? We watched the film after it was completed with Jordan, his mother Bev and his wife Tammy, who was in hospital at the time, Ghaderi says.

It was clear that parts of it were stressful for Jordan to watch. For him, watching it was like reliving tumultuous parts of his life. I think he needs to see it again in order to see it as a film. All three of them said they respected it and thought it an honest portrayal of what happened, Marcoccia adds.

Having felt firsthand the viciousness of some of those who align themselves with Peterson online, its pretty obvious to me why hes such a beacon for controversy. As the documentary explores, Peterson has not done himself any favours with his choice of language. But this film is not a judgment on Peterson. Nor is it propaganda for his legions of followers. Its a balanced piece of work that offers a nuanced look at someone who, like it or not, is now firmly in the public eye. As Ghaderi succinctly puts it: Theres a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him.

The Rise of Jordan Peterson is screening at Omniplex Cinema, Rathmines, Dublin on November 13th and is available on iTunes

Original post:

Theres a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him - The Irish Times

By David Getter 11/12/19 10:23pm

Free markets are not very popular on college campuses. As rigid economic regulation has become a staple of leftist politics, another market the marketplace of ideas is now being subjected to the same type of boundless regulation.

The marketplace of ideas, coined by John Milton in 1644 and popularized by John Stuart Mill over 200 years later, posits that free-market principles ought to be applied to speech in the same way as they are to economics. John F. Kennedy affirmed this sentiment a mere six months before coming here to deliver his iconic We choose to go to the moon speech at our very own Rice Stadium.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values, he declared. This idea that it is okay to be subjected to speech that strikes us as unpleasant or distasteful is a classically liberal idea.

Liberalism, which comes from the Latin root liber, or free, is the foundation upon which all valid democracies have been built. Classical liberalism is predicated on the notion that freedom is paramount. It identifies the individual as unique, free-thinking, and highly rational. However, such emphasis on individualism has fallen out of favor with the modern left, supplanted instead by collectivism and group politics. The type of liberalism that pervades todays college campuses is not classical liberalism. It is defined by the postmodern belief that it is our responsibility to legislate thought and punish ideas that we perceive to be hurtful.

This phenomenon is evident in our reaction to the incident at Willys Pub last Thursday in which three members of the Rice community made the ill-advised decision to wear U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement uniforms for Halloween. Their costumes were perceived by many to be crude and racially insensitive. Two of the students were subsequently asked to step down from their positions as committee heads at McMurtry College, and one was even fired from his job at Pub. The Rice chapter of Jolt Texas went so far as to urge Dean [of Undergraduates Bridget] Gorman to consider social rustication.

However personally offended this incident makes you feel and I happen to believe strongly in the validity of such feelings and the offensiveness of the actions in question we all have a vested interest in promoting free speech. When emotion takes precedence over rational thought to the point that free speech is called into question, we have arrived at a state of Social Marxism, where thought is regulated as stringently as the Nordic economies. Locke argued that our aim should not be to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom, including for those whose speech we find objectionable. In ideologically homogeneous communities like colleges and universities, however, this argument has fallen on deaf ears, which has led renowned free-market economist Thomas Sowell to decry postmodern liberalism as nothing more than totalitarianism with a human face. The late Milton Friedman remarked that liberalism now stands for almost the opposite of its earlier meaning.

Enjoy what you're reading?Signup for our newsletter

True classical liberals would never actively wish fear or pain on another person, but they are also cognizant of the fact that a world without fear or pain is a world without liberty, and such a world is antithetical to every fundamental American value that makes this country the shining city that it is. If you dont want to listen to me, heed the words of former president Obama. A few weeks ago, the liberal icon denounced what he called woke culture, saying, "If all you're doing is casting stones, you are probably not going to get that far. A few months prior, he rebuked what he called the circular firing squad, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.

As postmodern liberals attempt to grapple with this new wave of political correctness, purity tests and Twitter mobs, they will have to find some way to reconcile these new liberal ideals with the fundamental American value of free speech. So, next time someone on campus wears an offensive costume or says something culturally insensitive which is inevitable lets try to find it in ourselves to restrain our inclination to react punitively and instead use the intellectual acumen that we all possess as Rice students to settle our disagreements in an open marketplace of ideas. For a community that views diversity as paramount, it is imperative that we protect diversity of thought with the same vigilance that we protect other forms of diversity.

In short, it is incumbent upon the entire Rice community to abide by the age-old adage first uttered by Voltaire three centuries ago that instructs us to defend to the death the right of others to say that which we disapprove of. Only then will we truly realize our stated goal of cultivating a diverse community of learning and discovery.

See the original post here:

The degradation of classical liberalism - The Rice Thresher