Daily Archives: April 28, 2017

New York Post

Next to Berkeley's fascists, Ann Coulter is a liberal New York Post In other words, in the Berkeley context, she's the liberal. She believes in the efficacy of reason and in the free exchanges of ideas. Her enemies do not. Indeed, the budding fascism that progressives feared in the Trump years is upon us, although not ... Ann Coulter the latest target of liberal attack on free speechWashington Times Hannity, Ingraham Propose 'Massive' Free Speech Tour of Liberal College Campuses With Coulter, Limbaugh, LevinBreitbart News Ann Coulter cancels Berkeley event amid protests, says decision 'a dark day for free speech in America'Fox News all 282 news articles »

Originally posted here:

Next to Berkeley's fascists, Ann Coulter is a liberal - New York Post

Its a done deal, right?This election is over before its even begun.Or is it?

The story of the election campaign so far has been pretty straight forward; the UKIP vote has collapsed dramatically into the Tory column.I know because I made the switch myself.A large majority of the 3.8 million people who voted UKIP in 2015 look poised to vote for Theresa May.

But there are also signs of another shift underway.As Labour support continues to fall, some of it seems to be gravitating towards the Liberal Democrats.

If the idea of a Lib Dem surge seems far fetched, note that Tory campaign chiefs will now be as focused on not losing votes to the Lib Dems as they will be on hovering up ex-Kippers.

Why?

Continue reading here:

Don't laugh off the Liberal Democrat threat just yet Jeremy Corbyn makes them look good - Telegraph.co.uk

|

Posted: Apr 28, 2017 12:01 AM

The totalitarian left is emboldened by its selective suppression of speech. Just as scary is the deluded thought process that inspires its Stalinism.

Recognizing its inability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, the left has been chipping away for years at the concept of free speech. You have to give leftists points for cleverness, not to mention persistence, because they don't openly advocate censoring conservative speech as such. They pretend to be protecting some greater good or preventing imminent harm to certain groups.

When they failed in talk radio, they resurrected the Fairness Doctrine, which is euphemistically disguised as a policy to ensure the presentation of all viewpoints but is actually a sinister ploy to dilute the power of conservative talk. They always have some excuse -- and plausible deniability.

They protest conservative speakers or those easily demonized as conservatives on college campuses, arguing that conservative "hate speech" can lead to violence against certain groups. No one wants violence, so we must muzzle conservative political speech, right?

But it's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. It is pernicious nonsense. What's worse is that these speech cops don't acknowledge their own hypocrisy in committing violence -- the very harm they claim to be preventing -- to prevent speech that allegedly could lead to violence. Let's just burn some buildings down and smash some skulls in to show just how adamant we are about preventing violence. I wish I were exaggerating.

But the thought control zealots are now coming up with even more bizarre rationalizations to curb competitive speech. In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University provost Ulrich Baer argues: "The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections -- not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities -- should not mean that someone's humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned."

You may consider that to be psychobabble. What would you expect from an academic who describes himself in the same piece as "a scholar of literature, history and politics"? But I digress.

Let's try to decipher what he's saying. To do so, we must understand that like so many leftists, Baer cannot avoid viewing these matters through the grid of identity politics; everything must be evaluated in terms of how it affects minorities or historically oppressed groups.

Even though one could define unfettered freedom of expression as "guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges," we shouldn't support it, Baer also says in the piece. Specifically, we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." He seems to be saying that if you discredit groups of people with your speech, then you unlevel the playing field to the point that any speech these groups express will be less valuable and effective.

We must weigh the "inherent value" of ideas against the dangerous possibility that these ideas could discredit other groups and thereby effectively silence them, he says. Thus, a "pure model of free speech" presents a "clear and present" danger to our democracy.

So the republic is better-served if we allow certain ivory tower elites, with their worldly wisdom, to weigh the "inherent value" of speech to determine whether it should be protected. If it arguably demeans a certain group -- and there are newly defined groups all the time in the left's world -- it is not worthy of protection.

Thus, the liberal thought police can decree that because anything conservative firebrand Ann Coulter would say at Berkeley on immigration or other topics would diminish other groups, it should not be protected. She's a conservative, and conservative ideas don't have much inherent value to liberals and, in their distorted world, also discredit certain groups. Voila! Shut her down. The sophistry is astounding.

I urge you not to miss the most stunning aspect of Baer's specious analysis. The thrust of the left's message against conservatives across the board is that because of our toxic ideas, we should be discredited and delegitimized "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas."

Just as leftists support the commission of violence in the name of preventing speech that could arguably lead to it, they would muzzle us because through our speech, we would discredit and then effectively muzzle them. Insanity.

We don't want to muzzle liberals; we want to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. We don't want to commit violence against them, but they often want to do so against us. Boy, how they project.

Let me ask you: In their world, who would decide whether certain speech has inherent value? The federal government, no doubt, provided Democrats are in control at the time. The true acid test of Baer's preposterous arguments would be to ask how liberals would feel if Republicans were allowed to make such decisions while in control of the federal government. How would they feel if a conservative had written this silly, scary op-ed?

It is precisely because we can't have certain self-appointed groups deciding what speech is worthy that we must vigorously protect "robust" political speech in this country. The Founding Fathers knew this, and everyone with common sense understands it. But the crazy modern left wants us to unlearn it -- and leftists call us conservatives a danger to democracy.

Whatever you do, don't casually dismiss Baer's ideas as fringe. This is the way leftists think today -- and they are the people teaching our university students, producing Hollywood movies and largely controlling the mainstream media. Wake up and be vigilant! And fight back!

Link:

Liberal Thought Police Getting Scarier - Townhall

Perhaps its evidence of how liberals project their own behaviors onto others when leveling accusations. Or maybe its just nonsense. Whats for sure is that hard left-wing New York Times and CNN, along with more moderate Fox News, are being sued for it: racial discrimination.

CNN has raised the most hackles of the three, with up to 175 present and former employees interested in joining a class-action racial-discrimination suit against the network. The Times case was filed last year on behalf of two black female employees by New York attorney Douglas Wigdor. Wigdor, apparently a very busy man, is also representing a total of 13 employees in two separate lawsuits against Fox.

The Times suit alleges that CEO Mark Thompson created an office culture of deplorable discrimination based on race, sex, and age. The plaintiffs claim the paper favors young, white, single staffers over older black and female employees.

As the Guardian reported last year, Unbeknownst to the world at large, not only does the Times have an ideal customer (young, white, wealthy), but also an ideal staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family) to draw that purported ideal customer, the lawsuit, which the womens lawyer said could be extended to up to 50 similar alleged victims, states. In furtherance of these discriminatory goals, the Times has created a workplace rife with disparities.

As for the lawsuit against CNN, it alleges that the companys Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism, the New York Post informs.

The paper continues, Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as Its hard to manage black people and Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves? according to two ex-workers.

The first Fox lawsuit is a class-action complaint by 11 employees who accuse the network of abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination. The second was brought by black ex-payroll employees Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright. They say their boss, who eventually was fired, trafficked in ugly stereotypes, including implying that black men were women beaters, the Post also tells us.

It certainly wouldnt be surprising if the leftist Times and CNN were preaching but not practicing, a common progressive phenomenon illustrated well in Don't listen to the liberals Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows. Nor would it be a shock to learn the plaintiffs are paranoid, are opportunists, and/or are seeking revenge. Yet our response should regardless be the same.

Who cares?

This isnt to say ugly discrimination isnt just that or that it may not warrant remedial scorn and ostracism, only that weve forgotten a simple principle that, if adhered to, would eliminate all these expensive lawsuits: freedom of association.

Its not hard to argue for and is as American as apple pie. Consider: We would agree that you can include in, or exclude from, your home whomever you wish for any reason you please, whether it because hes male, black, white, thin, boring, a coffee drinker, or simply because you dont like his face.

Why should you lose that right merely because you decide to erect a retail faade and sell food, cakes, flowers, or photographic or wedding-planning services?

Its still your property, paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. To say that, somehow, you lose your rights because you want to use it to engage in commerce is tyrannical and a sort of economic blackmail: If you want to earn a living, you have to accept rules based on Big Brothers ideology.

There is no sound moral argument against this, only a shallow legal one: Some judges decades ago rationalized that businesses are public accommodations. Of course, this doesnt bring us all the way to Marxisms abolition of private property, but it does blur the distinction between the public and private.

Its a slippery slope, too. With freedom of association held in contempt today, weve not only seen American businesses forced to accommodate Islamic norms, but Christian businessmen persecuted and sometimes put out of business for refusing to service events (faux marriages) they find morally objectionable.

Moreover, through all the regulation, lawsuits, government fines, and billions poured into lawyers coffers, a simple question is seldom asked: Is all this tyrannical government intrusion worth it just to stop one percent of the population from engaging in unjust commercial-arena discrimination?

In reality, such private-sector trespasses are what private-sector remedies (e.g., market and social pressure) are for. An example is baseball, whose 1940s racial integration occurred completely absent government coercion.

Complicating this matter is that racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination is sometimes justifiable. As I wrote in 2015:

How is the government qualified to determine what constitutes unjust discrimination? One may say that the racial variety is an open-and-shut case, but is this really true? Consider that a German or West Indian restaurant might wish to hire, respectively, only white or only black waitstaff for the purposes of authenticity. Some might object, saying that the establishment should retain the first qualified person who comes along. But what constitutes qualifications?

I know of a female gynecologist who will only hire a woman assistant because she assumes this will make her exclusively female patients more comfortable. Its also conceivable that daycare centers might prefer hiring women. And the top 10 female fashion models earned 10 times as much in 2013 as did their male counterparts. Unjust? The ignoring of qualifications?

Maybe not. A models qualifications involve far more than the ability to parade up and down a runway. The job actually involves attracting and pleasing amarket. This is why being attractive, and not ugly, is a qualification. And given that women models obviously have a more lucrative market, its why being female is integral to maximizing modeling success. Likewise, if male staff members make customers less likely to frequent a gynecological office or daycare center, are they as qualified for that role as female staff?

Now, what of having waitstaff of the wrong race in a restaurant? If the reduction in authenticity diminishes business, isnt being of the relevant race integral to the job qualifications?

And, of course, such judgments are often tolerated, as no one takes up the cudgels for men who might apply for jobs in daycare centers or gynecological offices. Its only politically incorrect racial and sex discrimination that gets attention.

I dont know if the Times alleged hiring standard (young, white, unencumbered with a family) has any basis in market realities. The paper would be better served if it just started reporting the truth. But this brings up another point: If its illegal to discriminate based on age and race, why is it legal (federally and in half the states) to discriminate based on marital status?

Because the government hasnt ended discrimination, an impossible task since it simply means choosing one or some from among many (also known as hiring). It has merely decided what type of discrimination will be allowed, as it creates protected classes and, by extension, essentially unprotected classes.

In other words, it discriminates among types of discrimination.

The only good news in this story is that, after years of playing the race card and promoting political correctness, the New York Times and CNN are being hoisted on their own petards. What goes around comes around and sometimes thats a beautiful thing.

Go here to see the original:

Liberal Hate? Times, CNN, and Fox News Sued for Racial Discrimination - The New American

Former quarterbacks and ESPN announcers Trent Dilfer, left, and Steve Young work before an NFL football game between the Tennessee Titans and the New York Jets on Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, in Nashville, Tenn. CREDIT: AP Photo/Wade Payne

Yesterday was a horrible day at ESPN, and for sports journalism as a whole.

The company reportedly laid off 100 of its reporters and analysts, and while names are still trickling out, the casualties of this cut include ESPN giants like NFL reporter Ed Werder; NFL analyst Trent Difler; espnW and NFL reporter Jane McManus; college basketball expert Andy Katz; and analyst and radio host Danny Kannell. The list goes on and on.

ESPN tried to dress up the cuts with corporate buzzwords, but ultimately, this was about the bottom line. ESPNs business model is dependent upon people purchasing cable subscriptions, and thanks to Hulu and Netflix and the streaming culture in general, fewer people are doing that in todays world.

But that didnt stop extremely vocal factions of the internet for inventing their own reason for the cuts: ESPN has become too political. The liberals are ruining everything. The network is being punished for not sticking to sports.

I truly wish this went without saying, but apparently it doesnt: Reports of ESPNs political agenda have been greatly exaggerated, and politics are absolutely not to blame for the cuts this week.

ESPN is not a political network. Its analysts do not spend hours debating the latest poll numbers, reporting on proposed legislation, or counting down to lawmakers town halls in their home districts.

ESPN covers sports. It just doesnt pretend that those sports happen in a vacuum.

That means ESPN will cover stories like Colin Kaepernicks protest during the national anthem, a team of WNBA players wearing Black Lives Matter t-shirts during warm-ups, and the domestic violence allegations against an potential NFL draftee.

Sports are an escape, yes, but they are also enriched and impacted by the real-life events happening around them. Covering these topics accurately and fairly when they directly intersect with the sports world isnt politics, its journalism.

The word politics has become too all-encompassing, SportsCenter host Jemele Hill said on the Sports Illustrated Media Podcast with Richard Deitsch in February. Mike and I arent breaking down the Affordable Care Act. Thats politics. Understanding somebodys right to speak out against injustice, oppression, and police brutality, isnt a political matter. Its right or wrong.

Dont hit women is not politics, her co-host Michael Smith added.

Sorry we dont tolerate bigotry here. Why are you taking offense to us suggesting that African Americansbreaking newshave been treated differently and unfairly for the entirety of this country? Thats not a hot take.

Of course, what Hill and Smith are touching on here is that when people complain about anything getting too political, its a safe bet the criticism is actually that its too liberal. And that usually implies its too diverse or too outspoken about inequality.

The president of the company has pushed back against this idea, too.

The Walt Disney Company and ESPN are committed to diversity and inclusion, ESPN President John Skipper said last year in response to similar accusations that the company had gotten too liberal. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance. We do not think tolerance is the domain of a particular political philosophy.

ESPN has gotten notably more diverse over the past few years. Nothing exemplifies the advancements made in that area more than Hill and Smith, a black woman and black man, who co-host the 6:00 p.m. ET SportsCenter.

But its still a company run by rich white mennot exactly the most liberal demographic. It still has many commentators on the air with conservative viewpoints, be it Outside the Lines host Bob Ley, host Sage Steele, or Will Cain. And even more importantly, it has thousands of other front-facing employees whose political leanings are unknown to the general public.

A Media Matters study released this week found that coverage of domestic violence and sexual assault took up less than.35 percent of ESPNs programming during the first quarter of this year, and a third of that coverage came from airing of a documentary about the false allegations against the Duke Lacrosse team. Furthermore, 74 percent of the time, men were the ones on air talking about domestic violence and sexual assault. Those arent exactly statistics that scream liberal agenda.

Thats not meant to knock ESPNs treatment of domestic violence and sexual assault cases, which has at times been nuanced and thorough. Its just an example of how perception and reality dont always match.

Looking at the list of names of those who were fired, there are no overarching political viewpoint that ties them all together. I dont know who most of these people voted for in the last presidential election. I dont know their stance on big government vs. small government, or their position on tax cuts for the rich. I dont know whether they support the fight for $15 movement to raise the minimum wage, or their thoughts on health care reform.

I do know that they worked hard, respected the subjects they reported on, and added nuance, color, and context to the world of sports, both on the field of play and off of it. Sports fans, whether they lean left or right, are worse off without them.

Here is the original post:

The myth of 'liberal' ESPN - ThinkProgress