What Is Identity Socialism?
Presented by Dinesh D'SouzaThere’s a new socialism in town. Its foundations are more cultural than economic. Dinesh D’Souza explains this major development in leftist thinking and its impact on your life. Watch now.
And:
Former Capitol Police Chiefs Testifies Leftists Were
Irrefutably Part of Jan 6 Attack (Video)
“An eyewitness account that I read excerpts from in today’s hearing provides a different perspective on what, why and how things got out of control at the Capitol on Jan. 6,”
+++++++++++++++
Bolton dumps on Trump. I did not see Trump as Bolton did. Time will tell.
John Bolton LOSES It Over Trump
According to Breitbart News,
former National Security Advisor John Bolton attacked former President Donald
Trump stating that he “is a pathetic figure.”
“I
have to say watching the speech at CPAC today, it was like watching an old
movie or TV reruns — very stale,” Bolton said on “CNN Newsroom.”
“And I think this is a mark of what happens inevitably when somebody leaves the
presidency, especially under the cloud of dishonor that Trump did. He is
fading. People may not appreciate it at the moment. but the real test here is
not what they think in Orlando today, but what the public as a whole will
think in six
months.”
He
later added, “But just to take CPAC — if this is the epitome of support for
Trump, the
straw poll that was taken this weekend and released just
before Trump spoke, showed that of all the participants, 55 percent supported
Trump being reelected as president. That is a pathetic figure. I would have
expected 90 percent. So if 55 percent, one month after leaving office at CPAC,
is the best he can do, that’s a mark of how far he has fallen already.” You can watch a
clip of Bolton’s remarks here.
And:
Kennedy flips out as well but not over Trump:
 |
| Friend, I have learned that the words "biological male" are now considered offensive to the woke left. Let me tell you how all of it started to set the stage for you because I want to hear your opinion on this thing. I asked a question earlier this week to Judge Merrick Garland. A question that I thought was as straightforward as they come. I asked Judge Garland if he agreed that allowing "biological males" to compete in women’s sports was unfair to women competitors, given how God designed us differently.Of course, he never answered the question. But here’s the real kicker: the internet got all in a tizzy because I used the words “biological males” because they said it’s now considered "transphobic." Can you imagine that?? The speech police are something special. Don’t misunderstand me, now. I’m not trying to be flippant, but this is crazy. +++++++++++++++++++++ This from Real Clear Science: Which
is better for Earth: an
electric or gas-powered vehicle? The answer to this question might seem
blindingly obvious: Of course electric cars must be better for the environment,
because they don’t have exhausts and so don’t emit greenhouse gasses as they
drive. However, electric vehicles (EVs) aren't perfect, and they come with
their own set of polluting problems. Notably, their batteries contain
components, such as lithium, that require a significant amount of
energy to source and extract. But battery production is just one
part of an electric car's life span. A 2014 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked
at the entire life cycle of an EV's emissions, from mining the metals required
for the batteries to producing the electricity needed to power them, and then
compared this with the average emissions of a gas-powered vehicle. The team
found that when electric vehicles are charged with coal-powered electricity,
they’re actually worse for the environment than conventional gasoline cars. In much of the world, however,
national grids are now clean enough for EVs to beat their gasoline-powered
counterparts when it comes to pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions during
their lifetimes. "Only when connected to the dirtiest, coal-heavy electric grids do gasoline internal combustion engines become comparable to EVs on a greenhouse gas basis," said Colin Sheppard, a researcher with expertise in energy and transportation systems engineering at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For the time being Stanford defies the mob's desire to dump on Hanson, Ferguson, Atlas and The Hoover Foundation. The feeling is they will return because the counter culture crowd never ceases when they are offended. Stanford Mob’s Attempt To Cancel Hoover
Institution Scholars Fails The left's failed attack on the Hoover Institution was a victory
against the academy's intolerance. Yet most conservatives lack the same
protection.
Cancel culture is successful because of two basic assumptions. One
is that all enlightened people within a certain community believe in the same
things and that anyone who disagrees with any of the current leftist
orthodoxies about politics, race, or sex is a heretic who must be shunned,
shamed, and driven out of polite society. The other is that the cultural
consensus is so strong that no individual or group of individuals can resist
it. Armed with these factors, outrage mobs — particularly on college
campuses — are generally able to overwhelm their victims without too much
trouble. All it usually takes is an accusation, a circulated letter, or a
demonstration of some sort, and the woke usually get their way. Fearful lest
they become the next targets to be labeled as racists, transphobes (or, even
worse, Trump supporters), most university administrators obey the cancel mob
and punish whoever has been deemed to have stepped out of line. That’s not the way it went at Stanford University last month,
however. There, a recent virtual meeting of the Faculty Senate
devoted to an auto-da-fe of three prominent conservatives and the Hoover Institution
that shelters them did not produce the desired results. Despite a months-long
campaign of demonization directed at Victor Davis Hanson, Niall Ferguson, and
Scott Atlas — amplified with support from The Stanford Daily — the assault
ended without condemnation of the trio or Hoover. Stanford Provost Persis Drell and Condoleezza Rice, one of
Hoover’s directors, were asked to present a report to the body later this year
about “increasing interaction” between the university and the think tank. This
outcome was far from what the outrage mob at Stanford wanted, and likely won’t
be the end of the assault on Hoover. Still, it is discouraging to the group of
professors who organized the effort to censor Hanson, Ferguson, and Atlas and
to drive Hoover out of Stanford. Cold Comfort for Most Conservatives As much as this is a rare victory for rationality over woke
culture, any satisfaction at this outcome should be tempered by an
understanding of the exceptional nature of the circumstances. This story isn’t
a victory for academic freedom over the forces of groupthink repression.
Rather, it’s a demonstration of the vulnerability of the vast majority of
scholars who dissent from leftist orthodoxy and aren’t ensconced
in a well-funded independent institution. The presentation attacking Hanson, Ferguson, and
Atlas from four Stanford professors is a compendium of baseless accusations
about the “ideological rigidity” and “partisanship” of its target. It is long
on irony and short on rigorous thinking. Although they claim to be defending
academic freedom, the accusers’ document amounts to an indictment of Hoover for
fostering scholars who disagree with the rigid leftist groupthink of Stanford. While the accusers claim to have nothing against opposing views,
that they seem to think disagreement with leftist conventional wisdom on any
topic is inherently unscholarly and should be denied the imprimatur of a
Stanford address. Indeed, they are either unable or unwilling to see that their
complaints show their rigidity and partisanship. ‘Conformity and Intimidation’ Hanson, Ferguson, and Atlas have written a spirited defense of their conduct that
constitutes an important statement defending freedom of speech. Rightly, their
article denounces the quartet of professors who attacked them for demonstrating
the “stale breath of conformity and intimidation” that permeates the Stanford
campus. The claim that Hanson, a renowned classicist and respected
columnist, had written articles that “form the backdrop to an insurrection” as
well as to an assault on “constitutional democracy” is laughable. He raised
reasonable concerns about the integrity of the election results and associated
issues. The attack on him is a piece of rank partisanship that illustrates
the desire of many on the left to brand anyone who raises questions about the
current administration’s policies as an “insurrectionist.” Rather than seek to
defend democracy, the goal is to silence opposition. Ferguson is accused of intimidating left-wing students, but the
true story is very different. All he was guilty of doing was attempting to
promote an open discussion of issues on Stanford and to oppose students who
wished to silence that effort. Atlas’s crime was to raise well-founded doubts about the efficacy
of lockdowns as a coronavirus response. Worse than that, he advised the Trump
White House, which opened him up to outrageous and utterly unscholarly claims
that he was responsible for the deaths of COVID-19 victims. Delegitimizing him
and his analysis of the coronavirus disaster was a matter of treating all those
who have any connection with the Trump administration as criminals, something
that could only be accomplished by blatant misrepresentations of his views and
statements. In a different academic setting, any one of these charges would
have been enough to finish the accused. But not at Stanford. The Hoover Institution, initially founded in 1919 as a library by
Stanford alumnus Herbert Hoover —a titan of business and philanthropy and a
future president — has a $450 million endowment and a $50 million annual
budget. Although part of the university, it has an independent board of
overseers, giving it the independence it needs to be a rare academic source of
thought and inquiry. While the conservatism of its scholars makes it an outlier
at Stanford and academia, as one of the world’s most prestigious think tanks,
it’s an important asset to the university. A Rare, Atypical Victory Thus, it was unsurprising that university officials had no
sympathy for efforts to purge Hoover from their campus and spoke to this effect
before the Faculty Senate. That left Hoover’s opponents decrying their failure as a “tragic day.” Their arguments against Hoover scholars and the claim that
colleges are to blame for an “insurrection” because they have not been even
more uniformly dedicated to delegitimizing the Trump administration is risible.
But they’re right to describe their failure as a function of the desire of the
Stanford administration not to drive the Hoover Institution away from its home
in Palo Alto. Absent the kind of financial protection and the independence that
Hoover offers scholars, they wouldn’t stand a chance of keeping their places in
almost any other academic setting. The almost uniform intolerance for
conservative views in academia is not in question. But in recent years this totalitarian spirit has spread from the
academy to the rest of society. Woke mobs in newsrooms like those of The New
York Times and Politico now play the same role as university senates and
student protest movements with even more ruthless dedication to silencing
opponents, with even more success. The result is a growing bifurcation of the press, with only
avowedly conservative media being a safe place for those who question modern
leftist orthodoxy. Similarly, only conservative think tanks provide
opportunities for a range of dissident thinkers. Rather than celebrating the victory of the Hoover scholars over
those who have done so much to defame them on the Stanford campus, this story
only further highlights how isolated conservatives are in the academy. The
effort to promote genuine diversity of opinion on campuses that don’t have
well-funded enclaves like Hoover remains a forlorn hope. Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin. |
No comments:
Post a Comment