Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Readers weigh in on the Pope's remarks, Jordan Peterson's appraisal of our PM, and preserving the culture of Canada's 'Second Nation', in the Letters to the Editor

Publishing date:

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Re: Papal visit should not obscure federal obligations to Indigenous-Canadians, Terry Glavin, July 27

Im sure the glaring ironies of the continuously referred to water metaphor, and repeated references to mothers and grandmothers in the various remarks made by Pope Francis, didnt escape many observers of his visit to Canada.

That water is the essence of life didnt need to be pointed out to those bands who still need to drink from plastic bottles on a daily basis despite Justin Trudeaus promise from 2015 to deliver clean driving water to all First Nations by 2021.

And the fact that headdressed males swarmed a stage in a disorderly and unseemly fashion to get selfies with the Pontiff while women stood on the periphery with no overt welcome to that apparently spontaneous moment spoke more loudly about the hypocrisy of womens place in the Catholic Church than could ever be over-ridden by Franciss words.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Larry Baswick, Stratford, Ont.

I am deeply appreciative of the recent work of the Posts Terry Glavin in regard to the mistreatment of Canadas Indigenous peoples.

I have found his reports compelling and enormously valuable and perhaps more accurate and balanced than those found elsewhere within the Canadian media landscape.

And I am in awe of the measured, gracious comments from Canadas Indigenous leaders in Glavins articles. Their dignity in the face of these horrors should inspire us all.

Al Coates, Cambridge, Ont.

Re: Worst is yet to come from Trudeau Liberals, Jordan Peterson, July 27

If only one of the comments garnered by Jordan Peterson from conversations during his travels is true, it is an indictment of Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Party of Canada and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. Canada is indeed the laughingstock of the world.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Canada was once a proud country, punching above our weight in war and peacekeeping roles, a middle economy, trading with the world and a recognized nation of peace, order and good government. But the Liberals handling of the pandemic, overreaction to the truckers protest, climate hysteria, penalizing of Canadian taxpayers instead of China, decimation of our economy with constraints on our energy sector, condoning of public-sector incompetence, creation of chaos at airports, and contempt for our parliamentary system (while Britain illustrates how our democracy should work), expose a different picture. Justin Trudeau and the current Canadian government are a joke. The joke is on us.

Larry Sylvester, Acton, Ont.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Bless the National Post for having the courage to publish Dr. Jordan Petersons appraisal of the current state of affairs in Canada. However, Postmedia must be very worried that publishing the article will jeopardize its standing as a qualified Canadian journalism organization. There is a way to mitigate the risk. Simply publish a rebuttal by noted Liberal pundit and deep thinker Gerald Butts.

Peter Keerma, Aurora, Ont.

Re: Trudeau will continue winning if Conservatives keep flip-flopping, Jamil Jivani, July 25

Jamil Jivani hit the nail on its head regarding the need for Conservatives to stop trying to cater to the left the left being bigger government resulting in greater intrusiveness into individual rights and the destruction of the fabric of a free society with all its consequences. A little more to the left and you can see the authoritarian communist party of China ruling. A little to the left and you can see the dictatorship in Russia.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The more control a government has over its citizenry the greater the dictatorship. Nazism and communism share the same core concept, which is control by a small group using force to eventually control a society. These systems have resulted in incalculable suffering for humankind. Being in the spectrum but not on the extreme should not absolve our left-wing parties, however well-meaning they appear. The end result is always the same.

If we want to uphold freedom, the Conservatives should stop flip-flopping, whether they get elected or not.

Andr Behamdouni, Sturgeon Falls, Ont.

Re: The first rule of Poilievres Fight Club is there are no rules, John Ivison, July 27

Perhaps Pierre Poilievre is right that its time to get angry and charged up to vote and take down the real divisive monster in Canada: Justin Trudeau. Maybe Poilievres scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach is exactly what is needed to shake up and revitalize our failing institutions and restore a bit of trust in them.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We keep taking the same tired, failing, status quo approach to politics and it just isnt working for the people anymore. Time for a change, even if it means tearing it all down to do it.

Corey Needer, Vaughan, Ont.

Re: Charest and Poilievre have an opportunity to build bridges between English and French Canada, Conrad Black, July 23

Pierre Trudeau was correct: French-Canadians must be masters in their own house, but their house is in Canada. Hence it is the prerogative of French-Canadians to pass laws that will protect their culture and language, and this is what Bill 96 is all about. It is the rights of the Quebec nation to take steps to preserve its heritage.

There is now Truth and Reconciliation taking place with First Nations, with all of us remembering that they were the ethnic groups that were the earliest known inhabitants of this country. Their common teaching is that people should live in harmony.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Then came the Second Nation to inhabit Canada, the French, with Samuel de Champlain in 1608 founding what was to become the city of Quebec and New France. But then British rule took over and 10,000 Acadians, who were descendants of the early French settlers, were deported between 1755 and 1763. The Acadians had built a distinct culture and society over generations. The deportation was referred to as the Great Upheaval and the Great Expulsion. Obviously, the expulsion of the Canadian French nation was offensive and culturally oppressive.

Bill 96 should be seen as part of a reconciliation with the Second Nation, to bring harmony. It is to ensure the survival and flourishment of the Quebec Nation, to ensure the preservation of its heritage.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Roger Cyr, Victoria, B.C.

Re: Ottawas unjust energy transition paints a bullseye on western Canada, Bill Bewick, July 27

The population of Sri Lanka is unable to feed itself after an economic meltdown and after their government forbade the use of agricultural fertilizers and pesticides. As a result of massive protests, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country, although he has said he will return at an unspecified date.

In Canada, Justin Trudeaus government has informed our agricultural sector it wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer by 30 per cent. When Canada experiences the resulting food shortages, let us hope Trudeau is forced to flee as well.

Robert B. Kalina, Oakville, Ont.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Re: Canada shares expertise on moving grain from Ukraine, but faith in Russia nil, July 22

A Canadian Press article advised that some Ukrainian grain is being transported through Europe by rail.

Rail transport is complicated by the fact that Ukrainian railroads have a broad gauge (1.524 mm) track while most other European railroads have standard gauge (1.435 mm) tracks (as does most of Canada).

A way Canadian railroad expertise might help is by designing and managing the construction of a 150-kilometre standard gauge railway to link Odesa, in Ukraine, to the Bulgarian rail network for forwarding grain to shipping terminals in Istanbul, Turkey.

With war-time exigencies and temporary structures, it should be possible to construct this standard gauge trackage in several months. The Ukrainian Railway authorities have shown tremendous resilience and resourcefulness during the war and should be able to operate this railroad perhaps using 100-tonne grain hopper cars loaned by Canada.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Derek Wilson, Port Moody, B.C.

Re: UNESCO: Nearly half of Telegrams Holocaust content contains denial, distortion, July 14

As a hidden infant child survivor whose father and whose fathers siblings and their spouses as well as other close family members perished in the Holocaust, I often wonder at the reaction of so many regarding the denial of this horror. A cursory study of Jewish history will show the presence of denial in one form or another throughout the ages.

Consider first the exodus from Egypt. From a purely secular point of view, the exodus of a slave nation from the most powerful empire on Earth, must have had cataclysmic economical, political and social effects on Egyptian society. Yet there is nary a reference to this event in Egyptian records. But Jews celebrate Passover to this day.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And if we consider Persian sources, there is no record of the decree made almost 1,000 years after the Egyptian exodus, to annihilate every Jewish man, woman and child in the Persian empire. In the end it was a Holocaust that didnt happen. And Jews have celebrated their deliverance on Purim ever since.

If we fast forward to WWII, we note that it was the most documented war in history. We have an incredible storehouse of photographic evidence of the Holocaust, as well as the testimonies of thousands of survivors and rescuers. And yet with modern technology it is relatively easy to sophistically Photoshop extant evidence and to create new evidence.

So what do I expect my heirs to face long after I and all other survivors have gone? I am not suggesting that we, or they, should stop confronting Holocaust denial. Indeed, such denial should be vigorously opposed. Still, we should not be surprised or shocked when we see denial writ large. In the end, what is important, and lasting, is what we both Jew and Gentile pass down to our children. There will always be people of goodwill who will oppose the evil they confront. And I am alive to write this because of an extended Christian family who risked life, limb and torture to save a mother and her three children.

Eli Honig, Toronto

National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (150 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email letters@nationalpost.com. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

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 notificationsyou 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.

See more here:

Letters to the editor: Irony and inspiration in Pope Francis's visit - National Post

This weeks announcement that Stan Grant will be permanent host of the ABCs Q&A follows widespread speculation about the future of the program. On some estimates, ratings have fallen by more than 50% from a peak of over 600,000 during its first decade under Tony Jones, who served as host from 2008.

Hamish Macdonald succeeded Jones in November 2019 but resigned in July last year, describinghis 18-month tenure as a bruising experience. Aside from being attacked on Sky News for his far left Green agenda, he was relentlessly trolled on social media, with virulent accusations of bias from both the left and the right.

Curiously, the BBCs Question Time Q&As prototype has followed a parallel trajectory. Its ratings have fallen precipitously, from nearly nine million to just over a million and the decline coincides with the replacement of veteran host David Dimbleby by seasoned BBC personality Fiona Bruce, whose own brand of charisma is no match for the gravitas of her predecessor.

Question Time is something of a cuckoo in the nest. In its 43-year history it has consistently featured leading commentators and parliamentarians; its two most longstanding presenters, Dimbleby and Robin Day, were the equivalent of BBC royalty. But since its takeover by a commercial production company in 1998, the program has crossed the line into terrain more generally associated with tabloid media.

Now its producers prefer guests like Brexiteer Nigel Farage, conservative psychologist Jordan Peterson and John Lydon (alias punk rocker Johnny Rotten), who serve to ratchet up the controversy. Its been claimed that paid audience plants are instructed to ask heavily weighted questions, and that the chairing is biased. And Bruce endures the kind of social media onslaught that drove Macdonald out.

Reports of disastrous ratings may themselves be a form of motivated attack. Audiences now have many more viewing options than the original live transmissions, and the BBC has persistently asserted that audience figures are higher than some surveys suggest.

Q&A is in much the same situation: while Sky claims the lefty lovefest has scored as low as 228,000, the ABC estimates the regular following through 2021 at more than 400,000. But thats still quite a drop-off since the programs heyday.

Are we just jaded with celebrity opinion shows, especially those founded in the leftright dramaturgy? The predictability is at times exhausting.

Macdonalds best episode was his first, in February 2020, when he chaired a session on the bushfires with a panel that included Kirsty McBain, then mayor of Bega, and Andrew Constance, Liberal MP for the area. The panel sat on office chairs in a semi-circle, genuinely sharing what they had all just been through, including Macdonald himself, who had reported from an evacuation centre as the fire front approached.

A few weeks later, though, it was back to business as usual, with the presenter in a glossy suit fielding the play of leftright argy-bargy in the studio.

We dont need this anymore. In many ways, the conventions of robust disagreement and both sides-ism are no longer a positive feature of civil society but rather a threat to it. As Republican Liz Cheney put it in a recent statement to the January 6th Committee, the normal sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop. And we have to recognise what is at stake.

Stan Grant has several times taken the helm as guest host of Q&A since Tony Joness departure. He prompted a furore in March this year when he expelled an audience member who expressed support for Putins invasion of Ukraine, asserting the program was contributing to media bias against Russia. There were calls of propaganda from the audience as the speaker proceeded to claim that Ukraine was responsible for all the violence.

Aired in the second week of the Russian invasion, this episode included speakers and audience members with family in the war zone. We encourage different points of view here, Grant said. But we cant have anyone who is sanctioning, supporting, violence.

Clearly caught off guard by an unscheduled audience intervention, Grant may have missed the essential point: that the statement, intentionally or not, was Russian propaganda. It was a critical moment for many reasons, one of which is that Grants subsequent appointment as host could signal a change in direction for the program.

That moment also raised the question of when we should call foul on claims about the right to express opinion, especially in a media culture increasingly subject to influence from organised, even state-run, propaganda. And what is propaganda? How does it manifest and how should we respond?

This, surely, would be a good focus for a Q&A program. Peter Pomerantsev, who has studied Russian propaganda for decades, would be the perfect guest. These are times in which we need sustained, forensic focus on complex issues. We need insight and analysis from people with knowledge and experience, not extemporised opinion from celebrities.

The Ukraine invasion is the starkest manifestation of the transformed geopolitical environment. With Donald Trump already moving to gather support for another tilt at the presidency, and the US justice department taking its time over the evidence against him, the future of American democracy is in jeopardy. In Australia we have a leader of the opposition who talks openly about war with China.

Jones, Macdonald and Grant have all had extensive experience as foreign correspondents. With domestic politics increasingly dwarfed by the massive geopolitical tensions of our era, those issues should be to the fore. Q&A, which originated as a premier platform for the opinion wars, now has an opportunity to lead the way out of them.

Originally posted here:

Can Q&A lead us out of the opinion wars its helped to fuel? - The Conversation

There has been no love lost between the Golden State Warriors' fan base and Charles Barkley.

But recently, the former player and current TV analyst said something that even the most die-hard Warriors' fan can agree with.

During an interview with NBC Sports Bay Area during the American Century Championship at Edgewood Tahoe Gold Course, Barkley gave an abundance of credit for Golden State's success to Bob Myers, the team's general manager. He even said he's one of the greatest things to ever happen to the franchise that's turned dynastic under his leadership.

Bob Myers has done a fabulous job," Barkley said. "He won the Finals for those guys this year, going out and getting Andrew Wiggins. He was the second-best player. Jordan Poole. Otto Porter."

While recognizing the Warriors as NBA Champions is undeniable, actually giving credit to the Warriors organization is somewhat uncharted territory for Barkley. As fans remember, Barkley refused to pick Golden State in any of the five games in the Western Conference Finals.

He openly stated that he could not in good conscience actually pick the Warriors even though he knew they were the better team. This drew "Chuck you suck!" chants from Warriors fans at Chase Center.

But Barkley has finally changed his tune, at least when it comes to the actual players and foundation of the franchise that's won four championships in the last eight years and yes, that's four more than Barkley, himself for those keeping score at home.

So, Bob Myers was the second-best thing to happen to the Warriors since Steph Curry the last few years," Barkley said. "So, give Bob Myers some credit. And, obviously, Otto Porter played great. Drafting Jordan Poole. You talk about Steph and those guys, give Bob Myers a ton of credit. He deserves it.

Excerpt from:

Charles Barkley Thinks Bob Myers is the 'Second-Best Thing' to Happen to Golden State - Sports Illustrated

MYRNA BROWN, HOST:Good morning!

Some Republicans are flip-flopping on same-sex marriageand seem to be trimming their sails on pro-life.

Also, a challenge to the church from a friendly nonbeliever

NICK EICHER, HOST:Thats ahead on Culture Friday with Andrew Walker.

Also today a review of Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris.Arts and Media editor Collin Garbarino seeks a few minutes youd spare us.

And your listener feedback.

BROWN:Its Friday, July 29th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. Im Myrna Brown.

EICHER:And Im Nick Eicher. Good morning!

BROWN:Now news with Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, NEWS ANCHOR:Kentucky floods In Kentucky, flash floods killed several people and forced many to their roofs Thursday.

Heres Flo Harris, Kentucky resident,

HARRIS: Its pretty scary, and knowing that theres nothing you can do about it.So what do you do? You stand there and watch it and pray that the Lord will take care of everybody.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said this is some of the worst flooding in the states history. Hundreds will likely lose their homes. Hes announced a state of emergency and called the National Guard.

BESHEAR: Were currently experiencing one of the worst most devastating flooding events in Kentuckys history.

As much as six inches of rain has fallen in some parts of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia and the National Weather Service said about three more inches are likely.

GDP report bleak, Meta revenue down The U.S. economy is sinking toward a recession. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the U.S. gross domestic product has fallen for a second straight quarter. Thats one informal, but not decisive, indicator of a recession.

Inflation has consumers buying less

AUDIO: I notice, like, I go and try to get milk and like even a half gallon of milk, it's hard to find for under $8, which is really hard.

But President Biden countered recession fears by pointing to economic positives.

BIDEN: If you look at our job market consumer spending business investment we see signs of economic progress in the second quarter as well.

Facebook reported its first ever revenue loss this quarter. Twitter and Snapalso reported second-quarter letdowns.

Biden/Xi follow up President Biden spoke with Chinese leader Xi Jinping for over two hours on Thursday. WORLDs Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER, REPORTER: Chinas state media reported that the two leaders hadquotein-depth communication on U.S.-China relations and issues of mutual concern.

The morning conversation comes after China threatened a forceful response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosis possible visit to Taiwan.

Elsewhere in the Pacific: Kim Jong Un has threatened to use nuclear weapons if war breaks out against the U.S. or South Korea.

Reporting for WORLD, Im Josh Schumacher.

Ukraine grain exports update AUDIO: [Odessa port]

As the war between Russia and Ukraine drags on, ships are sitting idle in three Black Sea ports waiting to export 22 million tons of grain. That even after Russia said it would allow the ships safe passage out of the port in Odessa for 120 days.

Guy Platten, the secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping, says security is a concern.

PLATTEN:You know, we need to ensure that the safety of the crew are paramount in getting the ships out.

Underwater mines populate the waters outside the ports and Russian missiles struck the port only hours after the two governments signed the agreement last Friday.

Airline merger JetBlue Airways announced Thursday that it will buy Spirit Airlines if antitrust regulators OK it. WORLDs Mary Muncy has more.

MARY MUNCY, REPORTER: A merger between Spirit and a different airline, Frontier, fell through on Wednesday, but by Thursday, JetBlue had agreed to buy Spirit for almost $4 billion.

The deal would put JetBlue fifth behind the big four airlinesAmerican, United, Delta, and Southwest.

The big four control about 80 percent of the U.S. market, soa JetBlue spokesman saidbuying Spirit would increase competition.

But groups like the anti-merger American Economic Liberties Project say it could raise other budget airlines prices.

Reporting for WORLD, Im Mary Muncy.

Gun profits Five major gun manufacturers made a combined $1 billion on semiautomatic, AR-15-style weapons in the last decade.That, according to a Congressional investigation released Wednesday.

Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York says the firearms companies used questionable marketing tactics. But Representative James Comer of Kentucky says the firearm industry has done nothing wrong.

COMER:Their customers are allowed to lawfully buy guns their customers are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Semiautomatic rifles have been used in several recent high-profile mass shootingsincluding in Buffalo, New York, and in Uvalde, Texas.

Im Paul Butler.Straight ahead: on Culture Friday, same-sex marriage, abortion, and a challenge to the church.

Plus, a review of a heartwarming movie now in theaters.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST:It's the 29th day of July, 2022. Glad to have you along for todays edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, Im Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST:And Im Nick Eicher. First up: Culture Friday with Andrew Walker.

Andrews a professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at Southern Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. Morning, Andrew!

ANDREW WALKER, GUEST:Nick and Myrna, its always good to be with you.

BROWN:Andrew, we didn't get a chance to talk about this last week, but I know it's still on your mind.

You wrote, and I'm quoting you here, Most Republicans knees are buckling about having to go on the record about same-sex marriage. They fear political retribution, meaning they aren't really free. But truth and freedom go hand in hand. Rather than buckle at elite scorn, always testify to what is true. Live Free."

Of course, you were referring to the 47 Republican House members who essentially walked away from the party's stated principles and platform, not to mention what the Bible teaches about marriage, to cast a vote for same-sex marriage.

Here's the rub: When the Supreme court redefined marriage in 20-15, the collective response from Republicans was outrage.

What do you think has changed in seven years and why is this a defining cultural moment?

WALKER: Well, it's a good question. I think what we are noticing over the last seven years, is the ability for law to be a teacher. We see this principle laid down in Scripture. Paul says the law is a teacher, it's a paedagogus. What he means by that is, law shapes belief, belief shapes behavior, behavior shapes our understanding of customs.

We are now accustomed to five plus years of same-sex marriage, and United States. It's now routine. It's now by all accounts, traditional based on the evolving mores of the modern kind of secular worldview. I say that in jest, obviously.

But all this goes to show us is how if you don't keep the debate alive, individuals on the other side of the aisle will treat you like you're on the wrong side of history. And that's what we're seeing play out.

And I think theres a lot of Republican cowardice on this issue. You're right, they did speak out profusely against the Obergefell ruling, and rightfully so, because this was the Supreme Court, kind of bringing this issue to all 50 states, without any votes whatsoever.

But now that this all seems normal, the Republicans are abandoning principle. And as you mentioned in your question, they're abandoning their own platform of their own party. And so I think this goes to show you that if we are not testifying to what is true, what is false can easily come to the surface.

And so regardless of what happens, if there are 60 votes for this in the Senate, our calling as Christians doesn't change because the nature of marriage can't change. It's something outside the purview of politics, because God is the author of marriage. And our calling is to testify to what is true, regardless of the cost.

EICHER:That's interesting. Let's talk about another issue that seems to be buckling Republican knees, as you say and thats the issue of abortion, now that the Supreme Court has washed its hands of the issue and said this is now a matter for the peoples representatives to handle. And Im hearing rumblings that the peoples representatives are saying, at least some of them: Oh, great! This is going to kill us in the midterms. We need to lay low Maybe heres where we find out where evangelicals are because the criticism is they look the other way on Republican hypocrisy and this seems potentially an opportunity to show otherwise.

WALKER: It is really interesting that now that issues of life are back on the table, you know, one of the concerns that the pro-life community had about the mainstream Republican establishment is that they actually didn't really want Roe to ever be overturned. Because as long as they just paid lip service to the pro life movement, with Roe in place, abortion was really going nowhere.

But now there's actually opportunity for abortion to move in the states. And I wouldn't be shocked. I mean, I can't read the motives of every Republican office holder, but I wouldn't be shocked if there are some who were really turned off by this.

One of my good friends is a high ranking official in the Republican Senate side. And this individual told me about conversations with Republican consultants, who were really, really concerned about how overturning Roe could negatively impact Republicans come November. And my friend, who is very, very pro life, was about to pull his hair out because he said, How insane is it, that there are Republican operatives who are actually concerned and upset at the overturning of Roe v. Wade, when this again is what is purportedly at the center of the Republican Party's platform.

So there's some gross hypocrisy going on here. And listen, we need to call balls and strikes. When the Republicans get it wrong. When they're acting cowardly or hypocritically, they need called out for this.

EICHER:Speaking of calling the strike zoneI know you saw this onea well-known personality, public intellectual, saying the church is striking out. Im talking about the Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson. He put up a video on YouTube called a message to the Christian churches that among other things admonishes the church to focus ministry resources toward men, young men in particular. He's very passionate on it. Here's a bit of what he said.

PETERSON:... invite young men. Put up a billboard. Say, young men are welcome here. Tell those who have never been in a church exactly what to do, how to dress, when to show up, who to contact, and most importantly, what they can do. Ask more, not less, of those you are inviting. Attend to some souls. That's what youre supposed to do. Thats your holy duty. Do it. Now. Before its too late. The hour is nigh.

And I was thinking about that in light of a really good column you ran in WORLD Opinions by a new writer, Bethel McGrew. Americas lost boys, it was called. She talks about the Chicago Fourth of July shooter about how the warning signs are there if only we would look.

Jordan Peterson seems to have looked and hes urging churches to attend to these young people.

So my question is, first, I wonder if you think Jordan Peterson has it right and whether he has something to say to the churches that we ought to listen to.

WALKER:So I think on the whole, Jordan Peterson is correct in his diagnosis, about the nature of masculinity in our culture. Now, I don't think that full scale adoption of all that he's proposing is necessarily correct, because I think at the heart of some of Jordan Peterson's recommendations, is a very kind of mancentric, anthropocentric understanding of man trying to get himself to Godwhen in reality, the message of the Christian gospel is God bringing himself to man and to what to woman, to be clear.

But there is, I think, a general listlessness in our culture, about the nature of masculinity. I think there's at least two reasons for that: One at the pop culture level, ask yourself, How often do we see men portrayed in any type of ennobling capacity? A lot of times, especially on sitcoms, husbands, and fathers are portrayed as kind of absent-minded dunces. But then also, we have what I would call elite scorn at the notion of masculinity as well.

Now, I don't think we need to revert to kind of chest thumping bravado, to call for a healthy masculinity. That's not what I'm calling for. Im calling for a healthy, Biblical masculinity that understands what God has called us to in our masculinity, which is to be faithful providers and protectors and responsible individuals in society.

So I do think that there are many avenues in the culture that are causing men to second guess themselves and question whether anything about their status as men matters in society.

And so this is an opportunity. I mean, Jordan Peterson is correct insofar as he's saying to the church, Church, you need to talk about the excellence of what it means to be masculine. The church does have something to say here. The church is one of the few institutions in society that I would argue hasn't lost the very definition of what it means to be a man.

We're now living in this kind of genderless age, where, you know, you really can't be a man or a woman by any biological category. It's all a matter of your mind. But the church, through the word of God actually has a word here.

One of my favorite understandings of Christianity is that Christianity is a religion of assertion. We actually believe in truth, we actually believe that there is something composite to masculinity and femininity, and we need to champion that because if we don't champion that, we'll let kind of the culture despisers around us take advantage of our frailty, and to manipulate the conversationand I think to make men and boys for that matter, more worse off.

BROWN:All right, Andrew Walker. Hes a professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at Southern Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. Thanks, Andrew!

WALKER:Thank you.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST:Today is Friday, July 29th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. Im Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST:And Im Nick Eicher. Up next, arts and media editor Collin Garbarino reviews a film currently in theaters. Its about not just following your dreams but helping others along the way.

COLLIN GARBARINO: Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris is a charming adaptation of Paul Gallicos 1958 novel of the same name. At first glance, the movie seems like a Cinderella story for older folksa humble cleaning lady embarks on an adventure to buy a life-changing dressbut this middle-aged Cinderella turns out to be something of a fairy godmother herself.

The year is 1957, and Ada Harris is a London war widow making ends meet by cleaning houses. Shes hard working and selfless, but her employers take her for granted. Her friends care for her, but sometimes they take her for granted too.

Archie: Why do you stick with her whos so crabby.

Mrs. Harris: Met her me first shift building planes. Never had a better friend.

Vi: Trouble with this oneshe always speak the truth. Cant help herself.

Archie: That is a terrible affliction. All right behave yourself ladies. Ill be watching you.

Her life has been on hold since World War II ended, but she finds new purpose after seeing her employers custom-made Christian Dior gown. Mrs. Harris decides she must have one too, but a Dior dresss 500-pound price tag is an impossibly large expense for someone like her. The determined Mrs. Harris scrimps and saves, and after an unexpected windfall, she heads to Paris to claim her gown.

But Mrs. Harris isnt prepared for the world of haute couture at the House of Dior, and purchasing a gown proves more complicated than expected.

Madame Colbert: [speaking French] This lady wishes to buy a dress. Direct her to a suitable shop. [speaking French] Go!

Andre: Please let me escort you out.

Mrs. Harris: No, no, no. Hang on a minute. Ive come miles. Saved every penny scrubbing floors and I dont know what, so I can buy this frock.

Madame Colbert: A Christian Dior is not for pennies. [speaking French]

Mrs. Harris: Right. If you think I ain't got the money. There.

Andre: [speaking French]

Some members of Pariss high society resent the disruption her simple virtues bring to their image-conscious world. But others embrace the good-natured Mrs. Harris, inspired by her honesty and love of others.

Marquis: Excuse me cher madame, but it would be my honor to have you view the collection as my guest. There you are. Merci. Shall we?

Mrs. Harris: Oh!

Mrs. Harriss quest for a luxurious dress might sound like a frivolous plot device, but the movie doesnt endorse materialism. Mrs. Harris doesnt pretend the dress will make her a better person. And no one, including Mrs. Harris, understands why she wants one.

Madame Colbert: This Dior dress that you admire so much. Where will you wear it? At the opera ball or Queen Charlottes? Will you wear it to polish floors or will you keep it shut in your wardrobe? A Dior dress is designed to astonish and delight. How will you do that, Mrs. Harris? Forgive me for saying this, but you are nobody. Invisible. How will you give this dress the life it deserves?

Originally posted here:

The World and Everything in It: July 29, 2022 - WORLD News Group

A visual representation of the souls of my children when they start lecturing me about my failings.

I finally worked up the wherewithal to start looking at my pictures from our trip. Matt had the better idea of posting big chunks of them every Sunday and then going back offline, whereas I thought, foolishly, that I would come home and sort them and then post them systematically. I added Post Pictures to my List Of All The Things I Will Do. I got home and started working down the list. Part of my magical thinking was that if I could just get to the end of my inbox, and do all the other miscellaneous admin (thats what I call it to myself) that always sits there, like the laundry, weighing on my conscience, I would be really happy.

So, I kid you not, I did just that (less the pictures). I coped with my inbox. I went through and paid all kinds of school fees. I found my stamps and mailed my letters. Iseriously, sit down and put down your iced coffeegot to the end of my list. I crossed the last thing off on Monday night and then sat back and waited for the flood of relief and joy that I knew, as certainly as night follows day, would overwhelm me.

But nothing happened. Nothing at all, except that I looked back at my phone and found I had three new tasks magically appear in my email that I didnt even know were going to hit me. And I was just as anxious as ever. And no feelings of happiness or relief whatsoever illuminated my soul. It was a huge and terrible disappointment.

And so, in the spirit of Solomon and all his experiments in temporal joy, let me just warn you off even trying.Do Not Devote Yourself To Admin. Dont. Dont make responding to email your full-time job. Youll do it all and youll still be stressed out. I mean, Im not suggesting you not do it at all, but, as the person who wrote Deep Work said (I think), shove that baby back in the corner. Admin should be confined to a small box, like a yapping angry dog. It shouldnt be let out to wander around and take over everything. Like the laundry, which should live in its own dismal room and be shoved back in whenever it spills out or whenever anything more interesting comes along, email and other sorts of tasks should be forced back into their desolating corner in favor of more satisfying pursuits, like pulling up weeds, arguing with your children about Jordan Peterson, and trying to recreate the Coffee With Milk that you ordered once in Portugal.

Not a very good picture, I admit, but stopping to fix it is really beyond my abilities right now. To put any nice pictures here Im going to have to go back and resize everything and Im not sure how. Hopefully, it isnt as complicated as it looks. Meanwhile, as I said, my children have had a lot of things to say about Jordan Peterson. Apparently, a lot of them watched his short lecture to the church (I havent had a chance to yet) and were both bemused and incensed. For some reason, most of them are big JP fans. The oldest is working her way through his lectures on the Bible and can often be found, headphones plugged in, smiling and shaking her head. They are interesting, but, as she says, he so often misses the point. As to what the church should be doing, my children wanted to give Jordan Peterson some advice. Of course, he is right that young men are being cast off and that the church should particularly invite them in and affirm their biological realities. But (and this is the advice bit) it would be helpful if Professor Peterson would take the trouble to discover what the church is for. And he could do that by reading more Christian writers andthey were quite adamant about thisgiving in and going to church himself. If CS Lewis could submit himself to the mediocrity of the C of E on an ordinary Sunday morning, and Jesus himself could go to the Synagogue for his whole earthly lifeand my goodness, what must it be like to sit there and listen to one dubious and confused biblical exposition after another, oh wait, God does it still! He is there in every worship service in every corner of every country through all timethan even Jordan Peterson can, and should, go. Because it is only by going and submitting ones impressive intellect to the mercies and grace of the ordinary gathering of faithful worshippers that the point of the exercise gradually becomes clear. And that is that Jesus saves us from ourselves and unites us to him. Thats a message that young men need, but also older ones, and women as well.

My children pointed their fingers at me and practically shoutedGo to church, Jordan. The young menand young womenof today who listen to you insist.

And now, if you will excuse me, Im going to go have my morning walk in this hideous thousand-degree weather. And after that, I have no idea. I probably need to go buy a latte since I cant make a good one myself and I cant crop my pictures either. Have a nice day!

See original here:

Wisdom of the Ages: Email, Jordan Peterson, and a Latte - Patheos

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

With the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v. Wade, pro-life and pro-abortion factions have been jockeying to further influence our nations culture. Its hard not to notice the hateful ugliness of a visceral recoil coming from leftist activists. So why exactly does a nations culture matter? Whats at stake? Why does choosing to live a life of virtue, or vice, even matter?

With abortion and many other issues, the world is in a massive state of confusion. Violence is increasing. Order is breaking down. Everyone knows that there is something wrong afoot. Everything that is good these days is under attack. Whats going on, and what can everyday people do about it?

In Against the Grain: Heroic Catholics Through the Centuries I tell the story of 21 saints from 21 centuries focused on 21 virtues and why virtue matters especially for our time. Better understanding individuals who lived as shining examples, as signs of contradiction, who did what was right and not what was necessarily always popular. Against the Grain is a summons to heroic virtue, to sainthood, for all. To be a saint is to change the world one soul at a time.

When the world tilts toward crazy, the desire for the heroic increases. Americans love superheroes. Feel good stories about good defeating evil. Our rational brains inform us that while comic book and movie superheroes arent real, were fascinated by them nonetheless. Why is that? Instinctively we love our military, police, firefighters, medical and everyday heroes. Heroes give us solace, energy, and hope.

MARIO LOPEZ SHARES PHOTOS OF HIS SON'S FIRST COMMUNION

Details of St Savior in Chora church, known as Kariye in Turkish, in Istanbul, Friday, Aug. 21, 2020. Turkey on Friday formally converted former Byzantine church, St Savior in Chora, into a mosque, a month after it similarly turned Istanbul's landmark Hagia Sophia into a Muslim house of prayer, drawing international rebuke.(AP Photo/Emrah Gurel)

Catholics know that those who have lived lives of heroic virtue, our Saints, were not fictitious, but real. We look to them to imitate them as they give us true solace, energy and hope. Living lives of heroic virtue is what is required to fix our broken families, nation, and church.

Dr. Jordan Peterson recently asked Church leaders to start asking more of young people. He spoke of "making big demandsbig asksof her members. By so doing they would get a heroic response, heroic involvement, and heroic dedication. Do we prefer short-term safety, affiliation or status over long-term freedom, belonging and heroism?"

Against the Grain, while focusing on heroic saints, is a highly relatable book as it also focuses on struggles and weaknesses. Against the Grain shows the path the saints walked to get to the point of strength. And thats the example that you and I need. Where we too say, "Why not me?"

Against the Grain is a roadmap. It is a message to take action. An action of resistance to the globalists "Great Reset," "Great Transition," and to the anti-Christian elites.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

People Praying in a church

Against the Grain is also a life preserver. More to the point, its an eternal life preserver. When the culture is swamping your boat with garbage and nonsense, living a life of greater virtue, perhaps even heroic virtue, is an eternal life preserver.

We are called to be extraordinary in the ordinary. As the world whips itself into further frenzy, confusion, and madness, the cross is the answer. Saint Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, said in the 11th century, "While the world changes, the cross stands firm." Stand firm with the cross.

Against the Grain is a playbook for the good guys to stop playing defense and start playing offense. If you have been conditioned to go with the flow of our immoral culture, this book is not for you. If you live as a sign of contradiction amidst our coarsening culture, and are looking to live a life of greater virtue, perhaps even heroic virtue, be fortified with Against the Grain.

Against the Grain is a book that will change the way you see your faith and your relationship with humanity. Its about an epic struggle and mostly, about our future. As Saint John Vianney said, "The saints did not all begin well; but they all ended well. We have begun badly; let us end well, and we shall go one day and meet them in heaven."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

(Photo by Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images) (2005 Getty Images)

Against the Grain is for culture-warrior, patriotic, serious, faithful Catholics, and people of all faiths interested in the Catholic story. This story isnt just about our forefathers. Its about each persons personal quest to find the courage to be truly faithful in a world where Catholicism is often unwelcome.

Dont wait for Calvary. Instead, move forward with moral confidence. If need be, heroic confidence. Step into the breach. Stand out. Go against the grain.

Saints are heroes. Be one.

View original post here:

Learn from these heroic saints who lived against the grain - Fox News

On the internet, youll find extreme dieters of all types, and many of them will swear to you that theirs is the only healthy way for a human to eat. At one end of the spectrum, theres Jordan Peterson with his carnivore diet, consisting of nothing but beef, salt and water. At the other, frugivore diets pushed by YouTubers and their ilk are not just vegan and raw but almost entirely made up of fresh fruit. And then, of course, we have the classic and unapologetically restrictive weight loss programs like the cabbage soup diet, the Master Cleanse (aka the lemonade diet), and the currently trendy Mono Diet, where you eat only one food.

Advocates for highly restrictive diets like these tend to massively overemphasize the benefits of their approved food while seriously exaggerating the drawbacks of all other foods. But these are only the most extreme examples of a supposed wellness culture that makes huge generalizations and routinely manipulates or straight-up ignores scientific evidence. Unfortunately, this approach ends up polluting even those conversations that do have some legitimate basisfor instance, veganism.

There are plenty of health benefits to a plant-based diet, and unlike the above examples, its not even necessarily a particularly restrictive dieteven nonvegans and nonvegetarians who eat primarily plant-based can reap the benefits. But the unfortunate truth is that like most things on the internet, a grain of truth gets stretched far beyond the bounds of what science can actually prove.

Its not hard to imagine why some voices for veganism might exaggerate or even fabricate health-related claims. The animal agriculture industry enacts gruesome violence against animals, as well as many of its laborers and, of course, the health of the planet. So if health is what will compel people to change their diets in a way thats beneficial for animals and the environment, its easy to see why some activists and influencers would push nutritional facts as the most effective avenue to help end the industry.

But ultimately, misinformation is only going to harm the movements credibility. Veganism is a more widespread idea in our society now than ever beforewe cant afford to risk causing folks to dismiss the whole thing as bunk. And all of this misinformation, exaggeration, and cherry-picking is a shame, because it obscures the actual strong evidence of the benefits of eating less meat, eggs, or dairy: lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer, to name just a few.

Regrettably, conversations around veganism tend to be rife with pseudoscience. Its not hard to find vegan influencers who spout unproven theories as though they were fact, utilize confusing and misguided logic, or say things that are plainly falselike that a vegan diet can change your eye color. Even actual medical doctors have been known to make dramatic and shaky claims, such as that a single meal high in animal fat can cripple a persons arteries, citing one single, decades-old study that featured just 10 subjects and no control group.

Youll hear people saying that nothing less than a 100% plant-based diet can be considered optimally healthy, when the reality is, we just dont have the data to back that up. Sure, there are plenty of studies that do support the general idea that plant-based eating is healthy in one way or another, and plenty of them are recent and use reliable methodologies. But even good data can be woefully misinterpreted. Correlation often gets mistaken for causation, and its difficultif not impossibleto isolate very specific inputs and outcomes (like, does cheese cause cancer?) because human biology and lifestyles are complicated.

Heres an example: James Beard Award-winning Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel points to this Bloomberg article, the headline of which boldly claims, One Avocado a Week Cuts Risk of Heart Disease by 20%. Which sounds huge! But a closer look reveals that the study only demonstrates an association between avocados and heart disease, not a causal relationship. Do avocados cut the risk of heart disease, or do people who make overall heart-healthy lifestyle choices just eat a lot of avocados? Based on this study alone, we cant say. Any conclusion is, at best, a loose interpretation of the facts.

And the issues with nutritional science as we know it today go even deeper. For one thing, many of these studies (including the avocado one) rely on self-reported information from study participants. Thats putting a lot of faith in regular people to accurately and honestly measure their own eating habits, which human beings are famously bad at. When the input data is already in question, its hard to trust any conclusions drawn from it.

Even putting that aside, observational studies dont allow scientists to randomize their study subjects. If were just noting what real people are actually doing, we cant separate the elements we want to examinefor instance, meat consumptionfrom other factors like income, education, gender, smoking and drinking behavior, and what else they eat. As a result, the kind of information we get from these studies is imprecise;and unless the results include very dramatic, statistically significant trends, its risky to extrapolate much from them.

But getting the kind of data we could reliably work with is more or less impossible. To truly control a study, researchers would have to literally control everything eaten by hundreds of participants (or more) over a period of years, in order to eliminate all (or even most) potential confounding factors. Real human lives are just too complicated to regiment the way a true lab study requires.

Furthermore, the biological world is just more complicated than wed like to think. Different people have different nutritional needs. For people with certain gastrointestinal conditions, eating fully vegan just isnt feasible. But even barring that, human bodies are unique and one person may not process a particular food in the exact way another person would. With that in mind, one-size-fits-all health advice of any kind should probably be subject to some heavy skepticism. Given all of this, its no wonder that doctors, nutritionists, researchers, and other credentialed expertsnot to mention third party interpreters of research, like journalists and other media figurestend to give diverse, often contradictory advice.

Meanwhile, an alarming portion of the population, and even of the scientific community, are apparently indifferent to nutritional science altogether. Fewer than 20% of medical schools in the U.S. have a single required course on nutrition, and the majority of medical schools teach less than 25 hours of nutrition education in the four years it takes to complete an MD program. All this, despite the fact that diet-related diseasemuch as heart disease and type 2 diabetesare among the leading causes of death in the U.S. today.

Our diet-obsessed culture is constantly searching for a magic bullet to fix all the diet-related problems we face. We try complicated, often punishing, and sometimes even dangerous methods to, ostensibly, get healthy (often a euphemism for lose weight), based on so-called empirical evidence thats shaky at best. The fact is, nutritional science just isnt at a point where we can confidently dole out sweeping directives on how people should eat. Sure, there are some points that the medical community has reached some degree of consensus on: The American Heart Association tells us that eating a lot of meat is not a healthy way to lose weight, especially for folks who have or are at risk for heart disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says to avoid processed food and sugary drinks in order to lower our risk of heart disease and stroke. And the American Cancer Society tells us to eat a variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Eat your veggies and avoid soda are probably not groundbreaking bits of advice for most people, and theyre certainly not going to sell any flashy new diet books. Anyone whos spouting granular advice on exactly what and what not to eat is probably operating more on faith than facts. Perhaps a 100% vegan diet is the healthiest way for humans to eat, after allbut we just dont know for sure. Its past time vegan influencers and activists embrace that scientific reality. The credibility of veganism, and the future of a more sustainable and compassionate world, depend on it.

Read more:

Vegans need to stop exaggerating the health benefits of a plant-based diet - Fast Company

I

My preference for female artistes (outside groups) has two sides in a balance. On one side there is Joan Baez, Janis Joplin, Carole King, and Joni Mitchell. On the other, there's Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Nina Simone.

There are others like Olivia Newton John, Mary Hopkin, and Sarah Vaughan, but I listen to the above seven more.

Baez, Joplin, King, and Mitchell pushed the boundaries of songwriting for women. They were storytellers telling their own stories, and stories of their time.

Fitzgerald, Holiday, and Simone were singers who gave life to the great American songbooks and composer-songwriters of their time. However, Fitzgerald had her fair contribution to songwriting. Holiday also wrote a few songs.

When I reached the end of my formative years, these seven female voices became my lighthouse.

II

Aman Bhai, a friend who happens to be a child psychiatrist once told me, if you treat a child as an adult, they'll respond back as an adult. I remembered this. When I became a father, I would encourage serious and open discussions with my daughter, Annapurna. Whether because of this or not, Annapurna has shared things with me ever since she and I can remember. This gave both of us a portal to transcend a generation divide.

A couple years ago, I asked Annapurna to give me a list of some albums I could present her in vinyl (LP). A few days later she gave me her list. The second serial was circled. It was Amy Winehouse's Back to Black.

Annapurna told me, "Listen to this album. You'll like Amy."

I had no idea who Amy Winehouse was. The only guess I could make was from her surname. It was evident she was Jewish and white. I now had to listen to the "Back to Black" single.

The 10-second intro sent shivers down my spine. The moment Amy started to sing, I was blown away. Had I listened blindfold, I'd have thought I was listening to a black voice. When she spoke, I was even more surprised. She had a British accent. London Cockney to be precise.

The seven female voices that tuned my ears are all from the USA, with Joni from Canada. I never came across one British female voice worthy to be inducted into my personal "hall of fame". And here I was listening to such a voice that was full of power and majesty.

My curiosity didn't end here. Amy's voice was tearing emotions out with honesty. The lyrics were unexpectedly explicit, but honest. The voice was raw, natural, and full of melancholy. In the melancholy there was an emptiness.

I never heard a female voice with this emptiness. I had to find out more.

III

Back to Black has eleven songs. Each song is different, but they all string into a common thread. Like Joni Mitchell's Blue (1971), Back to Black is an autobiography of a young girl trying to understand relationships. Like Carole King's Tapestry (1971), the album navigates through different experiences of a young girl.

Back to Black songs are songs of love and betrayal. They're not sugary. If love can kiss, it can also bleed. This is the freshness and honesty I never found in depth in the song writing of Baez, Joplin, King, and Mitchell.

There was still something different with Amy. In her voice, you can feel blues, gospel, and jazz oozing. However, it wasn't polished. It was raw. Only Billie Holiday, in the seven female voices that were my lighthouse, had that raw voice.

Once you hear a voice like that, you know there's a story behind all this.

IV

The more I explored Amy through her studio albums and live performances, the more it became evident, that she wasn't listening to sugary pop while growing up. Coming from a musical family, and her paternal grandma Cynthia knowing the jazz musician Ronnie Scott, intimately told you what type of songs her young ears were subject to.

Frank Sinatra's "Fly Me to The Moon" was one of the first songs Amy listened, at the age of two. She would sing the song to cheer her up.

While growing up, she listened to Motown girl groups. She listened to gospel voices in Mahalia Jackson and Aretha Franklin. She listened to the jazz of Sarah Vaughan, Dinah Washington, and Thelonius Monk. Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday also trained her ears. Carole King, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Alanis Morissette, and others were also with her in her formative years.

Amy only wanted to be a jazz singer. When she applied to the Sylvia Young Theatre, she wrote in her essay, she wanted people to hear her voice and forget their troubles. Many certainly did. She also wrote songs to forget her troubles. Sadly, she failed to make ends meet.

Growing up near and later settling in Camden in London exposed Amy to the bright and dark sides of popular culture. Camden is a place that makes dreams. And dreams can go either way. They can be fairy tales or can end up in nightmares. When you live between the two in a place like Camden, you need to be managed well. Sadly, that wasn't the case with Amy, before or after her fame. Her death was just the end, but her troubles started well before that fateful day, July 23, 2011, when she never woke up.

V

Amy Winehouse was the missing link in my balance of seven female voices. The balance needed a voice that would resemble both its sides. Amy was that voice. Through Amy I explored Adele, Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish and some others. Somehow, they lack that raw, honest, and sincere emotion in their voice, and the lyrics came so naturally with Amy.

Although Amy is no longer with us, "I'm not ashamed even if the guilt kills me" to say that she was a breath of fresh air while she sang, and fresher now as we look back with a smile on our faces on an artiste who was honest and natural.

Asrar Chowdhury is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. He is the author of Echoes in SHOUT of the Daily Star. Email: asrarul@gmail.com; asrarul@juniv.edu

See the original post:

Remembering the honest and natural voice of Amy Winehouse - The Daily Star

Last summer, I wrote about how Portnoys particular brand of transgressive boorishness served as an inspiration to Republican politicians eager to capitalize on the backlash to newly established progressive social norms around things like gender pronoun usage and diversity, equity and inclusion practices. But that alliance was never ideological it was aesthetic. To a certain kind of secular, mostly apolitical Barstool bro, the party of evangelical pro-lifers might not have been an ideal fit, but it was certainly more appealing than the party of woke scolds and stuffy bosses across the aisle.

Now that the Supreme Court has handed social conservatives their most significant ideological victory of the modern political era, those voters will have to choose: Is it worth giving sanction to an overtly religious, mostly unpopular political project simply to own the libs? Portnoy himself explicitly says no. But cultural backlash is as unpredictable as it is powerful, and its place at the heart of the modern GOP means that how a particular type of independent, attitudinally conservative voter responds could shape America for years to come.

To look at the empirical evidence in so much as it exists around opinion on abortion rights, one might think that Republicans victory over Roe is somewhat Pyrrhic. The most recent data from the Pew Research Center, collected at the beginning of July after the Dobbs decision, shows that 57 percent of the population disagrees with the decision itself (including a not-insignificant 29 percent of Republicans); the only group expressing overwhelmingly strong approval is white evangelicals. Sixty-two percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

But dig deeper into the data and youll find that support for abortion varies considerably based on the duration of pregnancy, especially taking into account voters geographic distribution. There are also, of course, the inherent limitations of public opinion polling, as well as the relative rarity of single-issue voters (among whom anti-abortion voters outnumber their counterparts). Its not quite accurate to say the GOP has summarily alienated an electorate that otherwise seemed prime to embrace it in this falls midterms.

So one might look to another indicator, albeit one lacking the veneer of empiricism that polling maintains: The opinions of thinkers and leaders in the conservative movement. What actual politicians say is unreliable, as beholden as they are to pesky primary voters and wealthy, ideological donors. What about those responsible for curating the vibes of the modern conservative movement?

At the beginning of June, the National Review fellow and social-conservative wunderkind Nate Hochman wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled What Comes After the Religious Right? In it, he expanded on the somewhat declinist view of the conservative Catholic writer Matthew Walther, who coined the term Barstool conservative in a 2021 op-ed for The Week writing that, While the old religious right will see much to like in the new cultural conservatism, they are partners, rather than leaders, in the coalition. Hochman argues that although a figure as non-pious as Trump (who could plausibly claim the mantle of the Barstool president) might have empowered social conservatives, theyre too much of an electoral minority to succeed without their comparatively libertine coalitional partners.

Hochmans insight invites a similar reflection from the other side of the aisle. Once upon a time, as the writer Matt Yglesias recently pointed out in response to Portnoys pro-Roe stance, chauvinistic bros were reliable Democratic voters, who made common cause with realpolitik-ing feminists willing to overlook the Clinton-era partys affective cultural conservatism in exchange for political wins. Both were opposed to the Moral Majority-era sanctimony of the Reagan-Bush GOP, the ethos of the alliance perhaps best summed up by a notorious quote regarding Clinton from the former Time White House reporter Nina Burleigh: Id be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.

For various reasons beyond the scope of this essay, the salience of cultural politics has increased in American life to an extent that makes that alliance impossible. Conservative thought leaders now find themselves at the same crossroads liberals once did: What price are they willing to pay what are they willing to sacrifice, or excuse to keep such fickle, secular, Portnoy-like independent voters in the fold?

What are conservative thought leaders willing to sacrifice, or excuse to keep such fickle, secular, Dave Portnoy-like independent voters in the fold?|Michael Reaves/Getty Images

As the GOPs most reliable and motivated voting bloc, the anti-abortion movement is clearly not going anywhere. To the chagrin and fear of liberals, and the hope of the would-be New Right, theres some evidence that they might not have to. Looking at the replies to Portnoys initial post-Roe tweet, alongside the criticism from hard-right figures like Dan Bongino (as well as Hochman himself), one can see a slew of comments from average, non-blue-check-sporting Barstool fans, protesting that all the Supreme Court did was let it be a state issue, or that he should simply stick to sports.

This is where Barstool per se ceases to be a useful framework through which to understand the shifts occurring in American politics today. (As with any brand with as massive a reach as Portnoys, its fans are more ideologically diverse than a liberals snap judgment would assume.) The angst inspired by Portnoys pro-abortion rights turn reflects a much broader phenomenon: Just as secular and religious GOP voters are split, theres an even narrower division among those who are simply alienated by the modern left and those who are outright anti-feminists, especially among young voters.

The anti-feminism of todays young conservatives takes a few different forms. There is, of course, the outright hate spread on forums like 4chan and by trolls like Nick Fuentes; the casual, fratty misogyny of more mainstream figures like Trump White House aide Garrett Ziegler, who in a live streamed rant after his Jan. 6 committee testimony called his female former coworkers thots and hoes; and the faux-erudition of New Right leaders like Sen. Josh Hawley, who in a keynote address to the National Conservatism Conference decried the lefts attack on men in America. (Its not just America, either: In South Korea, youth anti-feminism helped propel a conservative president to the Blue House.) Young anti-feminists see a world where women are at least notionally more empowered than ever, yet no one seems to be happy about it. They look to the past for solutions in lieu of inventing new ones for the moment.

And there are plenty of historical examples, both religious and secular, to draw from. In her 1991 book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, the feminist writer Susan Faludi described a taxonomy of anti-feminist reaction to the advances of the Equal Rights Amendment era, from Christian leaders like Paul Weyrich who promised to overturn the present power structure of the country to the quasi-paganism of the poet Robert Bly, who encouraged real men to reclaim their cultural birthright by psychologically isolating themselves from women. Faludi sums up their shared philosophy as the belief that the very steps that have elevated womens position have actually led to their downfall.

One might wonder what Faludi, in an era where Weyrich and Bly have inspired successors in figures like the (now-disgraced) megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll and the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, would have to say about the backlash to womens more recent advances. To borrow a rhetorical move from Woody Allen, whom Bly especially hated, we dont have to wonder; I happen to have Ms. Faludi right here: Writing in the New York Times in response to Roes overturning, she argues that feminisms growing entwinement with celebrity culture is a primary culprit in making it more vulnerable than ever to a more pernicious backlash, one that has never relented, one that has brought us the calamity of the Alito draft opinion.

This is why social conservatives find themselves at a moment of not just dog-that-caught-the-car peril, but potential promise. The Courts ruling was only made possible by the combined forces of secular conservatism, via Trumps mass heterodox appeal, and the decades of concentrated effort by a minority of religious activists. Like with Weyrich and Bly, or Driscoll and Peterson, anti-feminism can take many forms and have many motivations, but the basic ressentiment it taps into transcends religion, class or partisanship, and is stubbornly persistent. By subsuming life-or-death social issues under the auspices of Lean In moments and social media slap downs over whether Taylor Swift is or isnt a feminist, as Faludi wrote, liberals and feminists have risked erasing the distinction in the publics mind between serious material outcomes and such symbological slap-fights.

That possibility conjures a world where arguments about womens health outcomes, or whether theres a feminist case against abortion, or over pro-family Republican economic policies might become immaterial as abortion becomes an entirely different, more recognizably modern kind of culture-war issue. We simply dont know yet whether the Barstool cohort of the modern GOP will look around at a post-Roe world and decide their party has gone too far. But if they dont, and Trumps coalition holds, it will be the most powerful symbol yet of Americas transition to a symbolic mass politics of cultural grievance.

Those politics still can have very real policy consequences, as millions of women in red states are now discovering. Improbable as it might seem, whether or not said consequences endure or even spread might depend on what occurs in the hearts and minds, and on the ballots, of men like Dave Portnoy.

Read the original here:

The Barstool Bros' Split Over Abortion Could Determine the Future of the GOP - POLITICO

Believe me, I hear you loud and clear about the awful new comments policy, which has pretty much shut down this blog's comments. I believe the Mothership is working in some way to fix this. In the meantime, if you have something substantive you would like to say, email me at rod -- at -- amconmag -- dot -- com, and I'll consider posting your words. I won't use your name unless you explicitly ask me to. Be sure to leave clear instructions if you want me to edit out anything.

A reader writes:

Just back from a week at summer camp as an adult leader for my son's scout troop. My kids live in sort of a conservative catholic cocoon, we do a few things "beyond the pale" (in the sense of the old border with Scotland). For many years scouts has been like baseball: kept safe more by inertia than by anything else.

Now that "scouts BSA" (formerly the Boy Scouts) also has girls, cross-dressing can actually be harder to see at first glance. Someone walks past, girl or boy? Maybe it's a good thing there are girls, my son is often oblivious to these things.

So, I know I'm not reporting anything crazy, nor unexpected. Of course, now that American youth are on a trans / genderbender kick, of course that streak will infect the scouts. How could it not? Years ago,scouts BSA was officially unwelcoming to LGBT scouts and leaders, so there were some constraints - that's all to the wayside now. Now the only thing holding it back is who runs scouting... moms and dads mostly. But you know how that is. If there's no express counter-cultural rule, you know which way this goes.

So among the camp counselors this year, there were a good 2-4 who didn't, shall we say, dress according to their biology.

What do you do as a parent? Do you say something on the survey? As if that would accomplish anything (other than labeling you as a hater).Do you seek after authority, to try to rein this in? But could you do it, even if you tried?

Do you encourage your son to be a counselor when he gets older? Would you send your kid off to room with folks like that for a couple months? Sacrifice your son on that alter-altar? A really good boy from our troop is there this summer as a counselor... I will pray for him.

So another institution is taken over, kids lose one more place where they can be a kid, and you have (sadly) one more example of why we need a Benedict Option.

Here's a letter from a Reformed pastor:

I read your blog today about the feminization of Christianity and the need to man up.Thought provoking for sure.Then I read your Substack about the Reformed Church in the Netherlands and I was surprised to see that my thoughts were somewhat tracking yoursHere are some observations in no particular order.1. Hyper masculine church leadership often results in catastrophic disasters. Men who cant control their sex drives, (Ravi long list here Canadas Bruxy Cavey is the most recent addition to this hall of shame) or their need for power (James MacDonald) or their competitive spirit (Driscoll) destroy what they build in the most fantastic ways. Jesus is aware of this as he commands the path of cross bearing, suffering and models rhetorical poise in the face of intense attack. Be ready to die for God, for truth, and for your neighbour. But first, you die to yourself. 1.5 Hyper masculine Christianity is Islam. Rules, oppression of women, violence, strict discipline, little to no grace. Hyper masculine Islam is ever waiting in the wings and is actively recruiting. They will tell a man to fight and shed the blood of the enemy. The Christian idea that the fight is against powers and principalities and ultimately against the evil within is in competition with those eager to find warriors to battle external foes who can only kill the body. 2. When I grew up all the men went to Mass on Saturday nights. We were Protestant and my dad would often note that the Catholics had the most men in church. Why? Maybe it was the ritual. Maybe it was the fact that the church with its huge bloody Christ painted on the wall, the focal point for all to see, created the sense of death, and with it the sense of adventure the spurs a man to be the best. Or maybe thats just me, from a strict Calvinist iconoclastic upbringing being shocked by such an image. I can still see that Christ arms out stretched with a grey bearded God the father above him holding up his arms with his and a dove above them both. Blood and water being collected from his side into a communion chalice. No mystery here when it came to theology. Blood, death, God, Christ. A church that still could pack the place at 11:30pm on Christmas Eve. When we Protestants lost the visual arts, we started to lose everyone.3. Bible study with a group of young men the other night. Our discussion of the Virgin Birth devolved into a discussion about the mysterious birth of Anakin Skywalker. They knew more about George Lucas and his parody of the virgin birth than the story in Matt 2 and its theological implications. You are right on about Myth, men crave myth, and when they cant find it at church they will settle for light sabres in a universe far far away. 4. Protestants kept the Bible though. A Protestant understands what is going on. The Orthodox have the liturgy, the Catholics the dogma, the Protestants insist on the Bible to keep the others honest. :). But we are losing the Bible now. My denominational seminary continues to weaken its Greek and Hebrew requirements. Apparently you dont have to sweat and struggle through difficult course work to be a pastor anymore. Men looking for a challenge need not apply. Makes me mad. I chose Calvin Seminary because an old professor of Old Testament looked at me over his glasses and said Seminary is school and it is difficult. As it should be, my 25 year old self thought. I wish I could say that my seminary education was almost as rigorous as an MD, should be more rigorous. The doctor can only kill the body, a bad pastor wrecks a lot of souls. My seminary also actively recruits women, an odd thing since our 30 some years of women in office has yet to yield much more than 10% of pulpits as actually being available to women. The congregations, not a bishop, choose and they tend to be conservative. 5. That said, do I want to fight the trans issue? In some ways we are like King Theodon when Gandalf says War is upon you. There isnt a choice anymore. Ive got public school teachers telling me they have to lie to parents to hide a kids trans identity. Ive got members who work for large organizations that have to promote the June agenda, as part of their jobs. I meet with them, we talk about it. Is this fighting? I am not sure. People dont come to church to hear what is blasted at them 24 hours a day everywhere else. I hate having the culture dictate what I have to talk about. But, the war is upon me and an enemy gets a vote. It is foolish to ignore an enemy. What does fighting look like? -I have a Bible study for broken drug addicted young men.-our church keeps men at the upper levels of leadership, even though not all agree with this.-we have an explosion of little children and growing young families. Where will we be in five years? StrategyI am not sure how to fight.6. Many people dont get it. Things that are obvious to me are not obvious. We are masters at adapting to bad circumstances, and often blind to how bad those circumstances really are. Iniquity is probably the right word, avon in Hebrew, crooked path, lost way, falling in the pit one dug, exchanging truth for lies and losing all sense of truth its the same problem.7. Why did Jordan Peterson succeed? I wish I knew.

Another reader writing about men in the church:

This is in regard to your second "men in the church" post.That article you wrote about Anna, the young Catholic woman who had been struggling to find a husband, has stuck with me since you published it in 2019. I am an evangelical man living in a "seminary town" who attended the seminary off and on over the past eight years, finally graduating last year. The seminary environment had a similar gender imbalance to what Anna speaks of in her complaint, but reversed -- there were far more men than women at the seminary. This was to be expected, it being the flagship seminary of a theologically conservative evangelical denomination who believes only men should be ordained as pastors. But I found it to be the worst possible environment to try to date in. The deck was stacked against me. I was "competing" against hundreds of men far more godly (and handsome, charming, intelligent, etc.) than myself, and the attractive single women at the seminary had their pick of the litter.The churches, on the other hand, were a bit different. As with most evangelical churches, the ones I attended did have more single women than single men. However, I now, like the reader you quote at the beginning of this post, attend an ACNA church. What drew me to the Anglican tradition is what draws most young men to more liturgical traditions -- the beauty and seriousness of the liturgy and the gift of an actualpath to walkin terms of spiritual discipline. Unfortunately (but also fortunately, because I love my church!), I now attend a church where there are currently preciselyzerosingle women in attendance, apart from one or two who appear to be straight out of high school, which is a bit too young for this 32-year-old.I actually asked my pastor about this when I first met with him after beginning to attend the ACNA church. I noted semi-jokingly that I was concerned about never finding a wife if I stopped attending a baptistic evangelical church, since most of the single Christian women in town were of that ilk. He assured me there were plenty of Anglican women, and even joked that maybe I could get a Catholic girl to make the jump to Anglicanism! Well, these Anglican women must be in other congregations in other cities, because after six months of attending, I haven't seen any at my church. I say this not out of bitterness or discontent. I am merely noting a curious fact.(There is a saving grace for me, though, because I work at a fairly large classical Christian school, which sees an influx of young, single female teachers each year. There's the awkwardness of navigating workplace romance, but at least there are options. I tried the online dating thing and found it to be largely a waste of time, and the platforms designed to be addictive. I can't see myself ever doing online dating again, though I know it works well for some people.)

All of this is to say that more and more young men are going to realize, when they jump ship to more liturgical churches, that their pool of potential mates rapidly shrinks. (Although perhaps this is not true for Catholic churches, if Anna's Australian experience is anything to go by.) If they are coming out of evangelical circles, they might be able to find a woman willing to make the jump with them (especially if, like my ACNA church, their church allows them to be a member and still hold to believer's baptism). But they need to prepare for that reality. I think, too, that pastors and other leaders in these liturgical churches need to be prepared to play matchmaker across their networks to find these eager young men wives who are similarly committed to liturgical Christian living and serious discipleship. It's an old-school approach, but what other option is there, especially for men unlike myself who don't also work in a Christian environment?

Reader Joan in Mass. writes:

for the first "Where Are The Men?" postFor all the digging Podles does into the beginning of the feminization of Western Christian congregations in the High Middle Ages, I'm surprised that he didn't mention the most famous change from that time, the one still being debated: mandatory priestly celibacy. It altered the appeal of the priesthood, ensuring that a very different sort of individual would choose that path. I don't know much about organizational dynamics, but I do know one thing from my years as an employee: the personality of the individual in charge sets the tone, both the CEO for the organization as a whole and the first-level supervisor for the team or sub-unit. At the top of the church, elite families still placed their younger sons in positions of power, tolerating mistresses and secret families, but at the parish level, the priest was more and more likely to be the sort who had never fit in with his male peers and who still couldn't relate to them. Thus, without changing anything else, the church became less welcoming to normal men, simply because the guy in charge was not one of them. And then the divide was baked into the culture and endured even after Protestants restored marriage for the clergy.

In response to your correspondent in the ACNA, I have heard before that religious groups oriented around addiction recovery tend to be overwhelmingly male because addiction is an overwhelmingly male problem. Unfortunately, a history of addiction, especially addiction to something illegal, is a huge red flag for large numbers of women, especially women who have never struggled with addiction themselves. A guy has to get a long, long way from a past like that before law-abiding women will start to trust him.

Here is a letter Harvard's diversocrats sent to faculty and staff:

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

"Additional demographic categories"! Well, never let it be said that these people working these bullshit jobs are just laying around.

Originally posted here:

From The Mailbag - The American Conservative