Is Climate Change a priority with voters?

"This survey from Morning Consult comes out at a particularly apt time. We’ve just finished the “climate strike” where students and teachers walked out in protest of a lack of action by the government to combat global warming. There was a big meeting at the UN on the subject. A teenage girl has been scolding the leaders of the free world and the cable news networks have been eating it up. The 2020 Democratic hopefuls were up in arms because there wasn’t a separate debate dealing only with that subject."

A survey conducted by the nonprofit American Council for Capital Formation along with Morning Consult showed the top five priorities among likely 2020 voters are (in order, with percentages): the economy (19), health care (16), national security (8), gun policy (8), and seniors’ issues (8).

After those issues, climate change was tied with immigration at 7 percent.

A slight majority of respondents also said they had no opinion, or had not heard, of the Green New Deal, the sweeping climate plan originally proposed by freshman representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) in February and championed by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/09/25/poll-climate-change-isnt-priority-voters/

A majority of voters don't know about or have no opinion on... the proposed takeover of the energy resources utilization of the United States? That's either scary or hilarious and I haven't decided which.

About St. Greta... From another thread: I pity the poor girl. She's not only developmentally challenged, she has obviously been pampered, groomed, indoctrinated and shamelessly used by her adult handlers.

First they try to use her as club to beat down opposition to their agenda of subjugation. Then when the agenda is challenged by bona fide grownups, her handlers and newly developed sycophants retreat behind her like her youth and innocence were some kind of shield.

She's the modern day Samantha Smith. I pray she doesn't die in a similarly mysterious accident after her usefulness to the left has run its course.

Leftist radicalization is a disease that incubates in school

This is a long post. If you’re not ready to spend about 20-40 minutes reading it, here’s the tl;dnr version for Facebookers and Twitterers: What’s happening in today’s universities is dangerous, it has happened before, and the Republicans are not the fascists you are looking for.

Get a cup of coffee, turn off the music.

Ready?

When the National Socialist German Workers' Party came to power in the 1932 elections, one of their first orders of business was the passage of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which made sweeping changes to civilian public service for everything from federal bureaucrats in Berlin to town dog catcher in Vilseck. Everyone had to become a Nazi if they ever hoped to have a job in the new Reich, and they had to either toe the party line, or…

The entire educational system in the country was caught in that net, including some of the oldest and most classically liberal universities in the world. From these universities flowed influential literature, philosophy, theology and science that had shaped western civilization for centuries. The change was a monumental paradigm shift that contributed in part to the largest conflagration in history.

Peter F. Drucker was an influential Austrian economist and business management pioneer who developed many of the business management concepts that are—for now—still being taught in major western universities. He fled the Nazi regime in 1933 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1943.  From 1931 through 1933, he was an economics lecturer at his alma mater, the University of Frankfurt. Below, he describes the first faculty meeting held at the school after the civil service act went into effect:

Frankfurt was the first university the Nazis tackled, precisely because it was the most self-confidently liberal of major German universities, with a faculty that prided itself on its allegiance to scholarship, freedom of conscience, and democracy. The Nazis knew that control of Frankfurt University would mean control of German academia. And so did everyone at the university.

Above all, Frankfurt had a science faculty distinguished both by its scholarship and by its liberal convictions; and outstanding among the Frankfurt scientists was a biochemist-physiologist of Nobel-Prize caliber and impeccable liberal credentials. When the appointment of a Nazi commissar was announced . . .  every teacher and graduate assistant at the university was summoned to a faculty meeting to hear this new master, everybody knew that a trial of strength was at hand. I had never before attended a faculty meeting, but I did attend this one.

The new Nazi commissar wasted no time on the amenities. He immediately announced that Jews would be forbidden to enter university premises and would be dismissed without salary on March 15; this was something that no one had thought possible despite the Nazis’ loud antisemitism. Then he launched into a tirade of abuse, filth, and four-letter words such as had been heard rarely even in the barracks and never before in academia. . . . [He] pointed his finger at one department chairman after another and said, “You either do what I tell you or we’ll put you into a concentration camp.” There was silence when he finished; everybody waited for the distinguished biochemist-physiologist. The great liberal got up, cleared his throat, and said, “Very interesting, Mr. Commissar, and in some respects very illuminating: but one point I didn’t get too clearly. Will there be more money for research in physiology?"

The meeting broke up shortly thereafter with the commissar assuring the scholars that indeed there would be plenty of money for “racially pure science.” A few of the professors had the courage to walk out with their Jewish colleagues, but most kept a safe distance from these who only a few hours earlier had been their close friends. I went out sick unto death—and I knew that I was going to leave Germany within forty-eight hours.

What followed was a systematic purging of any notion of the free exchange of ideas. Matters once discussed in open, free debate were at once settled. There would be no rebuttal to Nazi ideology on any subject. A famously open university renowned for its cultural influence became a powerful part of the Nazi propaganda machine. “The science was settled.”

In his book, The Closing of the American Mind, University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom describes a process in the American university that began in the late 1950’s and accelerated through the 1960’s. Bloom argues that the changes in the American university have led to a snuffing of debate and critical thinking. Ideas that one may rightly or wrongly judge as abhorrent are no longer defeated by superior science or logic, but by force.

Today, no conservative speaker, lecturer or professor is allowed to step foot on a major university campus without facing angry and often violent protest. Student associations, led and egged on by leftist faculty, will go to almost any means necessary to prevent the sharing of ideas that do not comport to their ideology.

Bloom also draws compelling parallels between what occurred in 1930’s Nazi Germany to what’s occurring today. What may surprise many readers is that Bloom’s book was first published in 1987. What should not surprise anyone is that far left critics reacted to the book as a demon would react to holy water and a cross.

In 1930’s Germany, books by Jewish authors or books with classically liberal ideas were systematically burned by the Deutsche Studentenschaft (German Students' Association) in large ceremonies held in town squares. Today, exactly three copies of Bloom’s book are still available at Harvard University’s Library. Conversely, there are hundreds of copies of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.

Some people argue that the rise of computer technology, the internet and electronic social media have fundamentally changed modern culture and that any parallel between Nazi Germany’s seizure of university thought and today’s university thought are invalid. This is false.

If anything, technology has only accelerated the propagation of politically correct propaganda. Indoctrination took years before radio and motion pictures. It took months before the advance of the net. It only takes minutes now.

A contemporary of Peter Drucker was Martin Heidegger, who was appointed rector and chancellor of Freiburg University in April 1933. He formally joined the Nazi Party one moth later. Heidegger espoused a policy that held that free expression, dialogue and open debate were selfish, irresponsible and counterproductive. Instead, faculty and students were expected to fulfill their obligation to promote Nazism in both “in both thought and deed.” 

The modern university may be better connected than ever before, but the university is still the place where young minds are taught how to think. If you’re going to appropriate and control how society thinks, school is the place you start.

What happens if Mueller’s Russia probe finds nothing?

And… from this Politico report, it sounds like Robert Mueller is likely to hand anti-Trumpers a big fat nothingburger. This highly likely outcome is not at all what the left had hoped for when the probe was launched. The left was so convinced that Hillary Clinton would ascend the throne that 2016’s outcome just had to be the result of a grand scheme. Should the special counsel’s report not indict someone, anyone that implicates the President in an impeachable offense, oh my.

And should that report not be made public by Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, the outcry is going to be epic.

For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term.

Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.

Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.

Oh, the temper tantrums.

There’s another link I’d like you to follow, but it’s a tad longer of a read than most Tweeters and Facebookers might be willing to concentrate on. The author describes a category of Democrats and Democrat-leaning folks that I have been calling WHELPs—White, Highly Educated Liberal People.

WHELPs are liberals that don’t like playing by any rules other than their own. They make the rules, and they apply the rules however and whenever they want to (or find them useful) and ignore them whenever they want to (or find them unhelpful). This is anathema to people who subscribe to the rule of law concept.

WHELPs set the rules for the 2016 election. To their shock and horror, Donald Trump broke every single one of those rules and was still sworn in as our 45th President. But they had a mulligan, they thought. They thought that surely, the election was a sham and Mueller would prove it.

Unless he doesn’t. And he won’t. 

So, we can expect a pandemonium of protest when Mueller’s report finds no evidence of an impeachable offense. When the WHELPs learn that there will be no Senate Trial presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; that President Trump will remain in office until at least January 2020, they will be in the streets. It’s gonna be a hot mess.

I believe that if Mueller had found evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, he would have followed his mandate and reported them to his superiors already. The left will not get what it wants.

I also believe that the national embarrassment of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation will be made to look like a kindergarten donnybrook.

These are people who like to make their own rules.  They refuse to live life on terms that are set by someone else and are the same for left and right alike before the game begins. They regard any outcome short of total victory under such terms to be illegitimate.

Fortunately, elections and courts of law are conducted by rules set by mature, (usually) rational adults. While impeachment is a political process, it is one that already has a set of rules prescribed by the Constitution. It even has precedents. This game is not played by WHELP rules.

WHELPs are fortunately a minority of a minority. They nonetheless make the most noise and cause the most trouble and they are their noisiest and most troublesome when the game doesn’t go their way. This one probably won’t, just like 2016. Just like Kavanaugh.

On the controversy over the “Redskins” name

As you are probably fully aware, the controversy over the use of the term “Redskins” for the Washington NFL franchise has reignited with greater fury than perhaps ever before. A group of Native Americans filed litigation with the US Patent and Trademark Office to have owner Dan Snyder’s trademark on the name and logo associated with the franchise revoked.

USTPO sided with the plaintiffs, ordering that the trademark be squished like a bug, reasoning that the name and logo was disparaging to a significant enough degree that it violated the Trademark Act.

The Redskins organization will no doubt appeal the decision, just as it did in 1999 when the USTPO tried to void the trademark.

This is an irresistible topic for me, because it melds two things I am passionate about: Sports and politics.

Predictably, many on the politically correct left are hailing the decision as a decisive victory for civil rights. Also predictably, many on the right (and probably a vast majority of ‘Skins fans) are deriding it as an unnecessary intrusion into an NFL owner’s right to conduct business as he sees fit.

In my opinion, I think Hotair.com’s AllahPundit has the correct take on this issue. The money quote from his post yesterday:

---

The weird thing about “Redskins” is that it’s so closely associated with football and the team in the public’s mind, I think, that over time the sports meaning has completely overtaken the racially derogatory meaning. If someone walked up to you today and said “What do you think of the Redskins?”, you’d assume without a second thought that he was asking you about the NFC East, not casually slurring Native Americans. Hard to argue that the word’s “disparaging” in that context. On the other hand, if you let the mark stand for that reason, then theoretically “Washington Blackskins” would and should also stand as long as it’s been in use for a long enough time that the underlying racial meaning has basically melted away.

---

Essentially, the argument comes down to how one would answer this question: Was there an intent to disparage Native Americans in adopting this name, or is it the intent of certain segments of the population to feel disparaged and demand action? Put another way: Was the franchise determined to disparage, or are those who claim disparagement determined to be disparaged?

AllahPundit’s angle on the question is also valid and raises another important question: Has the sports context of the name overtaken the potentially derogatory meaning, or is the derogatory meaning so overarching that it trumps the long evolution of the sports context?

If the USTPO decision is upheld during the federal appeals process (the mark remains enforceable throughout the appeals process), then Snyder will have no good business choice than to change the name of the team. Otherwise, he stands to lose precious sums of money from the inability to protect the trademark. Plus, his well-known obstinance means that he’s probably taking this all the way. He ain’t gonna quit.

It will be years yet before this matter is finally settled but my exit question is simply this:If there is no intent to offend, why can’t we as a society simply choose not to be offended?

Is the left trying to take over sports coverage now?

I would argue that liberals have already done so, but Matt Lewis over at Daily Caller makes the case that it’s still work in “progress.”

“It’s funny to listen to sports commentators on the radio who have clearly been brought up through public schools and state university journalism programs talk about class and race and gender like a sociology major from Smith or Dennison,” says R.J. Moeller, a conservative who also writes about sports and culture. “They hate any strong male coaches. They hate any sort of patriotism associated with the sport. They’re treating sports and holding what goes on in locker rooms to the same standard they would a diversity and social justice mediation seminar on Google’s campus.”

Moeller’s not alone in feeling this way. Others cite the “feminization” of sports and the liberal tilt of modern sports coverage as cause for concern.

And if conservatives are upset about this, it may be because this is all they have left. Progressives have long owned Hollywood, and (except maybe for Nashville) most of the popular music industry. Sports were perhaps the bastion for conservative entertainment — the final refuge for the patriotic, beer-guzzling, macho male who just wants to forget about his day job and watch a game — without hearing a lecture. Those days may be over.

The concussion issue is a serious one, but the others—particularly the “bullying scandal” at the Miami Dolphins and the fake brouhaha over the Redskins name—are classic examples of leftist, progressive political correctness.

The problem: There aren’t any un-politicized journalism programs left in the country.

I was bullied while playing on a championship soccer team when I was in elementary school. My tormenter was bigger than I was, and I was a chubby little pre-teen with mild self-esteem issues but a fiery hot temper (that my beloved still tells me I need to control sometimes). My father explained that there is only one way to deal with a bully—confront him and let him know that you aren’t going to tolerate it.

I did just that. When the bastard turned his back on me one day, I ran over and grabbed a sandbag that held the goal down and hit him square between the shoulders. When he fell, the coaches started running toward us but they didn’t get there before I swung that 10-lb “weapon” twice more, getting him once in the chest and a second time to the face. He started crying.

But that’s not how the political correct crowd wants to deal with bullies.

Dan Patrick has dedicated a ridiculously large amount of time on his program in the last two weeks since the non-scandal in the Dolphins locker room erupted.

Getting back to the concussion issue—it’s my opinion that advancing helmet technology and improved tackling technique are the answers to the problem. The so-called “targeting rules” in college and pro football are not. What those rules will end up doing is causing more knee injuries. If you can’t hit high, you have to hit low, and knees are going to be destroyed. While knee injuries are capable of being overcome with surgery and rehab, and while chronic brain trauma is incurable, there is little evidence that the targeting rules can significantly reduce brain trauma.

But that’s not the politically correct point of view either, is it?

Football is a violent sport. There are no current, former or future college or NFL players who are being forced to play it, and with very few exceptions they have been playing this macho, testosterone-influenced, impact sport since they were old enough to pee standing up. Ask any former player that, knowing what they know now about the risks of future encephalopathy, if they would do it all over again. The answer has been an overwhelming “Yes.”

But choices like that are not supposed to be made by individuals in the philosophy of leftists. Decisions are to be made by the Enlightened.

The only thing that’s important is what happens between the lines. Injuries have always been a part of all major sports and that is never going to change, unless the Enlightened Ones on the left convince commissioners and the public that the sports need drastic rules changes that will, effectively, do just what Matt warns about—deny us Neanderthals the respite that comes from drinking beer and watching the damned game.

In Defense of Samantha Steele

Before anyone accuses me of chauvinism in even suggesting that Samantha Steele needs defending, let me point out that she absolutely needs no help at all. I’m only writing this post because it touches on the two subjects that have driven this blog since its inception just over a year ago—sports and the hypocrisy of the modern American left.

Samantha Steele is a sports reporter for Fox Sports. Joakim Noah was fined $50,000 by NBA Commissioner David Stern for uttering the word “faggot” at a fan during Sunday night’s conference finals game between the Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat. This follows a $100,000 fine imposed on Kobe Bryant of Los Angeles Lakers, who had used the same term when at an official.

Yesterday, Steele asked a simple question via Twitter:

“Can someone please clarify these Kobe/J Noah fines.. What is the rule? You can't say anything offensive? Offensive to whom?”

The reaction from a politically correct NBC Sports blog—which I will not link to—was as swift as it was predictable. The blogger mocked Steele, accused her of bigotry, twisted the context of her question and suggested that her upbringing and religious beliefs were to blame for her alleged intolerance. The blog post reeks of the hypocrisy normally seen on Daily Kooks diaries.

First of all, in none of her writings or Fox Sports broadcast segments has Steele ever cast herself as a political or social conservative. However, her bio indicates that in all likelihood, she’s pretty right of center in how she views the world. Secondly, she’s getting the same treatment other attractive, successful conservative women get.  Good looking female conservatives are a favorite target of a breathtakingly misogynistic left. They think absolutely nothing of attacking them by twisting their words, taking them out of context and accusing them of holding absurdly extreme points of view.

Ms. Steele, welcome to a world inhabited by Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Dana Loesch. The left simply can’t get past the fact that these women are successful and conservative. They are viewed as a threat and rather than engage in honest discourse, the left—like the hypocrite blogger who slandered Steele—gets personal.

Steele’s question is a valid one and members of the media should be allowed to ask these types of questions without idiots from MSNBC trying to shout them down. Discussing the matter raised by her question means discussing the poisonous environment of political correctness the left is trying to maintain. Lefties want no part of that, because the racism, sexism and homophobia cards are the most valuable cards in their hand. Get rid of them, and they no longer have control over the dialogue. See how that works?

If no one lets the F-word or the N-word offend them anymore, then the left can’t accuse their targets of racism or homophobia.

Was Stern right to fine Bryant and Noah for their inability to control their anger? Probably so, but I think the severity of the fines are backwards. A referee expects a certain amount of verbal abuse. That’s why he makes the big bucks. Fans are customers and you just don’t treat customers that way.

The paragraph above is just one good answer to Steele’s question. There are sure to be others. But attacking her for asking the question is not.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.