At a recent Dallas Cowboys game, Ellen DeGeneres was seen on TV sitting next to former President George W. Bush, with whom she is friendly. Not surprisingly, she was criticized by the Twitter mob. Ellen: "I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have." I used to be able to say that, but as those left-wing "friends" lost their tolerance for opposing views, that is no longer the case.
Barbra Streisand saw fit to Tweet a cartoon of a very high heel shoe with the name Pelosi on it, impaling the back of a Trump-like figure. I understand that Twitter allows up to 280 characters. What a shame that Streisand was unable to say something intelligent, as opposed to picturing the killing of Trump.
As people were leaving the arena in Minneapolis where President Trump had a recent rally, some were verbally and physically assaulted by left-wing thugs. One thug was waving a Communist flag, while another called Trump supporters "Nazis." Ironic. Yet another burned a number of MAGA hats. Another display of how the left "debates."
Senator Rand Paul was eating lunch at a California restaurant, when a left-wing couple decided that he should not be allowed to do so. The woman angrily yelled at Paul: "You just ran into two people from New York, kiddo, and we're not putting up with your Republican bullshit." How incredibly rude and ill-mannered. And what did she mean "not put up" with it? What would she do to Paul? If she was part of a larger mob, would she join in beat-down of Paul? This is just another example of the intolerance that the left has for anyone who opposes their agenda.
Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman came up with this gem: "Hitler has nothing on Trump." It is such an outrageous, preposterous lie that I could write pages rebutting such nonsense. Let me just say that anyone who believes this is sick.
Beto O'Rourke said that he would end tax exemption for churches that did not honor same-sex marriage. "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." Such a position is tantamount to the government dictating the tenets of a religion, under the threat of suffering serious consequences. As Ben Shapiro pointed out, the First Amendment protections of religion are meant to protect religion from the government, not protect government from religion. Again, the left tolerates no dissent.
Dennis Prager recently posted an article discussing a new policy of Air Canada. The airline is doing away with the now insulting phrase "ladies and gentlemen." Airline employees will be allowed to say "everybody" and "tout le monde" ("everybody" in French). I had predicted many of these changes years ago. I argued that once the definition of marriage changes, many other changes will follow. (For a further discussion of this issue see the blog posts of 7/20/14 "My Ex-Wife," 10/19/14 "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters," 8/23/15 "Who Controls Your Language?," and 10/22/17 "As Predicted, It Will Never End.")
Daryl Morey is the General Manager of the Houston Rockets NBA team. He recently Tweeted "Stand for freedom, stand for Hong Kong." The Chinese government would not tolerate the support for Hong Kong. Basketball is a big sport in China, with the NBA having a great deal of business there. After Morey's comment, CCTV, the national broadcaster, would not air the games of the Nets and Lakers. Chinese sponsorship also ended. LeBron James disappointed with his comment that Morey "wasn't educated on the situation at hand." He also admonished "just be careful what we Tweet and say and we do, even though, yes, we do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that, too." As I stated in my 9/15/19 post, China uses its soft power (economics) to "encourage self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid."
And, in what I find to be the most disturbing story in this post, is a decision by the Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal of a Maryland high school student. Some left-wing teacher (I am assuming) gave an assignment that they undoubtedly felt was politically correct and "inclusive." The student refused to comply with the assignment. The assignment was to write the Islamic conversion prayer, "there is no god but..." I will not finish it. The recitation of that prayer is considered to be tantamount to a conversion to Islam. Once you are a Muslim, there can be no conversion back, as many Muslim countries forbid it. I have no doubt that had the assignment said that "there is no god but Christ," the Court would have jumped in to strike down such an assignment. In an early blog post I stated that after 9/11, the left and the media made Muslims the victims. That attitude continues to this day.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Getting Rid of Trump
Of course, the mainstream media/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party wants Trump out of office one way or the other. If they don't succeed with impeachment and conviction, then by "undoing the great mistake of 2016." So said the LA Times in their October 20, 2109 editorial. Their editorial sets out some generalities that they believe justify voting Trump out of office next November. I do wonder who their target audience might be. After all, California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary (8,753,788 to Trump's 4,483,810), so not much risk of California going for Trump in 2020.
Not surprisingly, the Times is unable to see anything positive that Trump has accomplished. And the negatives that apply to Trump were never applied to Obama. The Times attack on Trump continued in all their editorials this past week. In their October 22 editorial, "The train-wreck presidency," the Times sets out a number of Trump's alleged failures. For example, they tell us that Trump has "insulted and alienated the nation's friends and allies." Also, they say that Trump "has cozied up to right-wing nationalist dictators and autocrats."
Presumably, Obama did not insult allies or cozy up to dictators. In 2009 Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world, from Cairo, Egypt. He invited the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend, a direct slap in the face to our ally Egypt. Egyptian President Mubarak then refused to attend the speech. Obama drew his red line in Syria, advising them of severe consequences if they should again use chemical weapons. They did, and Obama did nothing against the dictator in Syria, undermining US credibility in the world.
When it came to Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the entire world, Obama was downright hostile. Recall that when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama rudely kept Netanyahu waiting while he went upstairs to eat dinner with Michelle and his kids. One of Obama's senior aide's referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." In December, 2016, Obama's last full month in office, he had his UN ambassador abstain from a completely anti-Israel Security Council resolution, turning over all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the terrorist Palestinians. East Jerusalem contains the Old City, with Judaism's holiest sites - the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (Kotel). So much for respecting allies.
Recall the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution, when people took to the streets to contest what they saw as a rigged election with Ahmadinejad the declared victor. Obama was slow to speak out, and never really supported the protesters. Later, we learned that Obama was already reaching out to the Ayatollahs, which ultimately resulted in the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Let's not forget the $150 billion in cash sent to the Iranians as part of that deal, cash that allowed them to extend their influence across the Middle East.
Then we have Obama cozying up to one of the world's worst dictators, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. In the infamous conversation, caught on an open mic, with nominal Russian President Medvedev, Obama said to let Vladimir know that he would have more flexibility after his assumed reelection in 2012. One of Russia's biggest concerns was with a planned missile defense system by the US, which Obama made clear was one issue on which he'd have more flexibility. Obama had flexibility on the security of the US and its allies.
Following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris on the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, and on the kosher market, where terrorists killed 16 people and injured 19, world leaders came together to march with millions of French citizens. It was a march in support of freedom, free speech and against anti-Semitism and terrorism. Marching alongside French President Hollande was a total of over 40 world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli PM Netanyahu. Obama had no interest. Obama had no interest in marching against Islamic terrorism.
The Times editorial discussed other alleged failings of Trump. They say Trump "flirted with repudiating NATO." Yet, Trump's cajoling of our NATO allies resulted in those countries contributing billions of dollars more towards NATO, resulting in the strengthening of that alliance. Many of the paper's complaints centered around Trump's language and demeanor. On that issue, many people on both sides might agree. But Republicans see his demeanor as a secondary issue, with policies being primary. I stand with that group who may not always agree with Trump's demeanor and language, but often agree with his policies. And I would almost never agree with the left-wing policies of the Democratic Party.
Not surprisingly, the Times is unable to see anything positive that Trump has accomplished. And the negatives that apply to Trump were never applied to Obama. The Times attack on Trump continued in all their editorials this past week. In their October 22 editorial, "The train-wreck presidency," the Times sets out a number of Trump's alleged failures. For example, they tell us that Trump has "insulted and alienated the nation's friends and allies." Also, they say that Trump "has cozied up to right-wing nationalist dictators and autocrats."
Presumably, Obama did not insult allies or cozy up to dictators. In 2009 Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world, from Cairo, Egypt. He invited the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend, a direct slap in the face to our ally Egypt. Egyptian President Mubarak then refused to attend the speech. Obama drew his red line in Syria, advising them of severe consequences if they should again use chemical weapons. They did, and Obama did nothing against the dictator in Syria, undermining US credibility in the world.
When it came to Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the entire world, Obama was downright hostile. Recall that when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama rudely kept Netanyahu waiting while he went upstairs to eat dinner with Michelle and his kids. One of Obama's senior aide's referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." In December, 2016, Obama's last full month in office, he had his UN ambassador abstain from a completely anti-Israel Security Council resolution, turning over all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the terrorist Palestinians. East Jerusalem contains the Old City, with Judaism's holiest sites - the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (Kotel). So much for respecting allies.
Recall the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution, when people took to the streets to contest what they saw as a rigged election with Ahmadinejad the declared victor. Obama was slow to speak out, and never really supported the protesters. Later, we learned that Obama was already reaching out to the Ayatollahs, which ultimately resulted in the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Let's not forget the $150 billion in cash sent to the Iranians as part of that deal, cash that allowed them to extend their influence across the Middle East.
Then we have Obama cozying up to one of the world's worst dictators, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. In the infamous conversation, caught on an open mic, with nominal Russian President Medvedev, Obama said to let Vladimir know that he would have more flexibility after his assumed reelection in 2012. One of Russia's biggest concerns was with a planned missile defense system by the US, which Obama made clear was one issue on which he'd have more flexibility. Obama had flexibility on the security of the US and its allies.
Following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris on the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, and on the kosher market, where terrorists killed 16 people and injured 19, world leaders came together to march with millions of French citizens. It was a march in support of freedom, free speech and against anti-Semitism and terrorism. Marching alongside French President Hollande was a total of over 40 world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli PM Netanyahu. Obama had no interest. Obama had no interest in marching against Islamic terrorism.
The Times editorial discussed other alleged failings of Trump. They say Trump "flirted with repudiating NATO." Yet, Trump's cajoling of our NATO allies resulted in those countries contributing billions of dollars more towards NATO, resulting in the strengthening of that alliance. Many of the paper's complaints centered around Trump's language and demeanor. On that issue, many people on both sides might agree. But Republicans see his demeanor as a secondary issue, with policies being primary. I stand with that group who may not always agree with Trump's demeanor and language, but often agree with his policies. And I would almost never agree with the left-wing policies of the Democratic Party.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
The Impeachment Compulsion
At a recent press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House intelligence committee, announced the "urgency" with which impeachment proceedings needed to progress. Why the rush? The Democrats know that the Senate will not convict Trump, which requires a two-thirds vote. They talk about the threat to democracy and the Constitution. That is a farce. The Democrats rarely support the Constitution. They do not support the First Amendment. See today's other blog post. They do not support the Second Amendment. They do not support the Electoral College. They say that they support the separation of powers, except that when Obama said that he had a pen and a phone, and would take action on his own if Congress did not act, that did not seem to bother them. When Obama decided which provisions of the ACA, passed by Congress, he would enforce, that did not seem to bother them. So, sure, I buy the Dems' rationale that they need to protect the Constitution.
So what is the urgency? I can think of several reasons. First, if the proceedings go into the new year, many people who may otherwise support the Dems, are going to wonder why they are doing it with an election only months away, when the people will decide. Second, the primaries start in February. Do they want the Democratic candidates' messaging to be focused on impeachment? Third, it may be that the Democrats are worried that support for impeachment will wane with time, which happened with all their other "impeachable" offenses - Russian collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, we just don't like Trump and so on. Interestingly, Hannity showed a clip covering every single month of Trump's Presidency, January, 2017 through now, in which either a Democrat in Congress or a talking head in the media, was advocating for impeachment. Every single month of Trump's presidency! But Tucker Carlson did one better. He found a video of an Obama appointee, Evelyn Farkas, from BEFORE the 2016 election. Farkas: "...if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I'm not even joking." Somebody else would take over? What, a military coup? Because a non-violent coup has been in the works since Farkas' comment.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Congressman Schiff got himself 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post (the biggest lie), after claiming that he found out about the whistleblower from the ICIG (intelligence community's inspector general) only days before September 13. Actually, he knew about it a month earlier, but kept it quiet. On September 17, Schiff told MSNBC "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." Not so, as the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's committee for advice. And let's not forget that the inspector general stated that the whistleblower had an "arguable political bias...in favor of a rival candidate."
The propaganda arm of the Democratic party (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) did not hesitate to plaster their front pages and inside pages with transcripts of Trump's telephone call with the Ukranian President. Nor did they hesitate in claiming a "cover-up" by Trump - a "cover-up" that Schiff knew about and...covered up!
I have long admired the Democrats ability to speak with one voice - the way in which they perfectly coordinate their talking points. Whatever station I turned to, whatever Democrat was on, they all discussed the "threat to national security." Their concern for national security strikes me as being as sincere as their concern about the Constitution. They have no concern about protecting our borders. Some advocate no borders at all - aka "open borders." Remember when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev to let Vladimir (Putin) know that he would have more flexibility after the (2012) election? I do not recall the media or other Democrats being terribly concerned. I do not recall them asking if Obama might have engaged in some quid pro quo with Putin, and whether that flexibility reflected some unspoken deal that affected our national security. But why ask? It was Obama, after all. Everyone can trust him.
Of course, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was ready, willing and able to make excuses for Joe Biden, as Vice President, pushing the Ukranian government to fire their top prosecutor - under threat of not receiving $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US. There is a video of Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired, and essentially claiming that he did so under the authority of then President Obama. That prosecutor, by the way, was investigating the Ukranian energy company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board sat one Hunter Biden. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (10/1/19 Op-Ed) told us that Joe Biden knew nothing of his son's business dealings, telling his son only "I hope you know what you are doing." You see, the Bidens had been through a lot, and Joe did not want to give his son a hard time. Just reverse the names, say, to Donald Trump and Donald, Jr., and I'm sure Goldberg would give the same unquestioning understanding to the Trumps.
Goldberg told us that Hunter Biden's position on the Board was "untoward," and trading on his father's name was "sleazy." But let's not criticize Joe. The 10/3/19 USA Today Editorial leads with the "stipulation" that there is no proof that Hunter engaged in illegal activity. Who is stipulating? They told us there is no basis to claim that Joe acted improperly in pushing for the prosecutor's dismissal. I get it - we can just assume that the Biden's are innocent, just as we can assume that the Trumps are always guilty of something.
What's that? You want me to discuss President Trump's 7/25/19 telephone call with Ukranian President Zelensky? The call that is purportedly the reason for all this impeachment talk. But is it really? Nancy Pelosi was telling us how serious it was before she even read the transcript. Did she already know what was in it from Schiff? Did they work together on the timing of all this? I think I'll pass. The President should be able to speak with foreign leaders without the Congress listening in. It is the President who speaks for the country on matters of foreign affairs. We just suffered through over two years of the Russian collusion story. They told us that Trump was a Russian asset. It was not that long ago that the Democrats and their propaganda arm were telling us that Trump was going to get us into a nuclear war with North Korea. More recently, they told us that Trump was going to start a major Middle Eastern war with Iran. Frankly, I am sick of the hypocrisy, the double standard, and the non-stop lies about Trump. So, I will not join in their games.
So what is the urgency? I can think of several reasons. First, if the proceedings go into the new year, many people who may otherwise support the Dems, are going to wonder why they are doing it with an election only months away, when the people will decide. Second, the primaries start in February. Do they want the Democratic candidates' messaging to be focused on impeachment? Third, it may be that the Democrats are worried that support for impeachment will wane with time, which happened with all their other "impeachable" offenses - Russian collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, we just don't like Trump and so on. Interestingly, Hannity showed a clip covering every single month of Trump's Presidency, January, 2017 through now, in which either a Democrat in Congress or a talking head in the media, was advocating for impeachment. Every single month of Trump's presidency! But Tucker Carlson did one better. He found a video of an Obama appointee, Evelyn Farkas, from BEFORE the 2016 election. Farkas: "...if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I'm not even joking." Somebody else would take over? What, a military coup? Because a non-violent coup has been in the works since Farkas' comment.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Congressman Schiff got himself 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post (the biggest lie), after claiming that he found out about the whistleblower from the ICIG (intelligence community's inspector general) only days before September 13. Actually, he knew about it a month earlier, but kept it quiet. On September 17, Schiff told MSNBC "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." Not so, as the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's committee for advice. And let's not forget that the inspector general stated that the whistleblower had an "arguable political bias...in favor of a rival candidate."
The propaganda arm of the Democratic party (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) did not hesitate to plaster their front pages and inside pages with transcripts of Trump's telephone call with the Ukranian President. Nor did they hesitate in claiming a "cover-up" by Trump - a "cover-up" that Schiff knew about and...covered up!
I have long admired the Democrats ability to speak with one voice - the way in which they perfectly coordinate their talking points. Whatever station I turned to, whatever Democrat was on, they all discussed the "threat to national security." Their concern for national security strikes me as being as sincere as their concern about the Constitution. They have no concern about protecting our borders. Some advocate no borders at all - aka "open borders." Remember when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev to let Vladimir (Putin) know that he would have more flexibility after the (2012) election? I do not recall the media or other Democrats being terribly concerned. I do not recall them asking if Obama might have engaged in some quid pro quo with Putin, and whether that flexibility reflected some unspoken deal that affected our national security. But why ask? It was Obama, after all. Everyone can trust him.
Of course, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was ready, willing and able to make excuses for Joe Biden, as Vice President, pushing the Ukranian government to fire their top prosecutor - under threat of not receiving $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US. There is a video of Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired, and essentially claiming that he did so under the authority of then President Obama. That prosecutor, by the way, was investigating the Ukranian energy company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board sat one Hunter Biden. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (10/1/19 Op-Ed) told us that Joe Biden knew nothing of his son's business dealings, telling his son only "I hope you know what you are doing." You see, the Bidens had been through a lot, and Joe did not want to give his son a hard time. Just reverse the names, say, to Donald Trump and Donald, Jr., and I'm sure Goldberg would give the same unquestioning understanding to the Trumps.
Goldberg told us that Hunter Biden's position on the Board was "untoward," and trading on his father's name was "sleazy." But let's not criticize Joe. The 10/3/19 USA Today Editorial leads with the "stipulation" that there is no proof that Hunter engaged in illegal activity. Who is stipulating? They told us there is no basis to claim that Joe acted improperly in pushing for the prosecutor's dismissal. I get it - we can just assume that the Biden's are innocent, just as we can assume that the Trumps are always guilty of something.
What's that? You want me to discuss President Trump's 7/25/19 telephone call with Ukranian President Zelensky? The call that is purportedly the reason for all this impeachment talk. But is it really? Nancy Pelosi was telling us how serious it was before she even read the transcript. Did she already know what was in it from Schiff? Did they work together on the timing of all this? I think I'll pass. The President should be able to speak with foreign leaders without the Congress listening in. It is the President who speaks for the country on matters of foreign affairs. We just suffered through over two years of the Russian collusion story. They told us that Trump was a Russian asset. It was not that long ago that the Democrats and their propaganda arm were telling us that Trump was going to get us into a nuclear war with North Korea. More recently, they told us that Trump was going to start a major Middle Eastern war with Iran. Frankly, I am sick of the hypocrisy, the double standard, and the non-stop lies about Trump. So, I will not join in their games.
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part III
In a sad story out of Los Angeles, we learned that an LA City Attorney, 60 years of age, shot and killed his 60 year old wife and 19 year old son. Thankfully, his 25 year old daughter escaped. Then I read a Facebook post by the sister of the deceased wife. I had to reread it a couple of times. "You never think this is going to happen to your immediate family. Still in shock, but completely heartbroken about losing my dear sister Sandy, nephew Michael and brother-in-law Eric to gun violence today..." What? Eric murdered your sister and nephew, and you put him in the same sentence, and make it about gun violence? No moral judgment about your now dead brother-in-law's horrific act of murder. No, the guns did it. I would bet this woman could make a moral judgment about second-hand smoke.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part II
Bring back the 1950's blacklist? Debra Messing and Eric McCormack star/starred (I don't know, I never watched it) in the TV series "Will & Grace." McCormack Tweeted: "Hey @THR (The Hollywood Reporter), kindly report on everyone attending this event (a Trump fundraiser in Hollywood), so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thx." Messing added: "Please print a list of all attendees." They were rebuked by none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who had to remind them of the blacklisting of the 1950s. "...a lot of really good people were accused of stuff. Nobody cared whether it was true or not. They were accused. And they lost their right to work...In this country, people can vote for who they want to." The two actors then backpedaled, claiming they just wanted transparency, and it had nothing to do with keeping people from working. Right - "so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with." Got it.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part I
Where's the evil? The New York Times put up this Tweet, before taking it down under pressure: "Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down." Those evil airplanes! Do not blame the perpetrators, who were radical Muslims who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. No, 9/11 was about planes taking down buildings. The same "analysis" is used by the Left when it comes to guns. The guns do the killing, not the evil perpetrators. Where's the call to ban airplanes? Never mind; the Green New Deal proposes just that.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
My letter to the Los Angeles Times
The Sunday, August 25,2019, Los Angeles Times front page lead story was titled "Conservative radio host is an internet smash." The subheadline is "His online 'university' makes hugely popular videos that aim to indoctrinate the right." Dennis Prager has a radio show based out of Los Angeles. He and Allen Estrin founded Prager University for the purpose of, as Prager often says, "teaching what isn't taught" in schools and universities. What follows is my letter to the Times about their one-sided coverage of Prager U.
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
"Your article on Prager U is so one-sided and biased, it is why the President refers to the mainstream media as "fake news." Let's start with your subheadline that Prager's aim is to"indoctrinate" the right. The assertion of "indoctrination" is repeated in the second column on page one, and is repeated yet again in the very first paragraph on page eleven where the story continues. You then go on to assert that Prager's messages are "polarizing."
This article is a perfect example of why Prager U is needed, and how you in the media, in Hollywood and in academia live in such a left-wing bubble that you are unable to recognize your own biases. Rather, you believe "your" truth is "the" truth. You are unable to even see the "indoctrination" perpetrated by you in the media and by Hollywood and by academia. Yet, you say Prager and Adam Carolla are releasing a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," about the "intolerance for conservatives on college campuses." You say it is one of their favorite subjects. Why does it not bother the Times that conservative views are not permitted in academia? Shouldn't the lack of tolerance for diverse viewpoints at colleges and universities be one of the Times' favorite subjects?
How ironic that you are able to quote one left-wing source after the next, yet, in this lengthy hit piece you were unable to find a single subscriber to Prager U in order to seek another opinion. You acknowledge that Prager U has had over 2 billion views - but you could not locate a single individual to ask what he or she thought of the videos.
You quote a UCLA professor who states that Prager U "is much more effective than the version of this content available on the liberal side." You wonder why that might be? Everywhere in society we are inundated with left-wing voices and talking points. Liberals/leftists need only read the LA Times or NY Times, or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC for the left-wing view of issues. They need only attend left-leaning (most) colleges and universities. However, people who want to hear another side of the issues - the conservative side - need to seek it out.
You close with an assertion that Prager has a "combative view of ideological debate." I have listened to his radio show for decades. Not only is Prager not combative with callers, he is the most likely, of the various talk show hosts, to allow callers to make their points without interruption.
The fact that you chose to make this totally biased and one-sided story about Prager U your front page lead story in the Sunday paper speaks volumes about your biases - and your inability to recognize them. This should have been an Op-Ed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)