Displaying posts published in

February 2021

China Buys Western Academics by Giulio Meotti

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17122/china-buys-western-academics

“The inaugural conference assured [everyone] that Tibet was never annexed, [and] that the Chinese intervention of 1950 had been requested by the Tibetans,” Nicolas Nord, a law professor, recalled.

[T]he proposed new head of the CIA, William J. Burns, said that if it were up to him, he would close Confucius Institutes in Western universities.

Seventeen schools in the UK are already owned by Chinese companies, and that number is destined to skyrocket. In additon, The Times revealed that the University of Cambridge received a “generous gift” from Tencent Holdings, one of the largest technology companies in China involved in state censorship.

Today, we know a lot about the Chinese cruelty, including the mass murder by the Wuham virus that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forced upon the world….resulting in the murder of more than 2.5 million .

We also know about the number of people locked up in the laogai, the Chinese “administrative prisons” (estimate, 50 million)….

“Places inhabited by ethnic minorities, such as Xinjiang and Tibet, have stood out as shining examples of China’s human rights progress”, Wang said hours before addressing the…United Nations Human Rights Council. Probably even the Soviet Union could not have thought that one up.

A shocking investigation was just published by the French weekly Le Point on how Beijing is buying the favor of Western universities. An Italian associate professor, for example, Fabio Massimo Parenti, at the Lorenzo de Medici International Institute in Florence,

Beware the linguistic Trojan horse: Lionel Shriver

https://spectator.us/topic/beware-linguistic-trojan-horse-dictionaries/

Print dictionaries used to act as drags on popular misunderstandings (no, ‘notorious’ does not mean ‘famous’)

It’s the bane of many an author these days: those newspaper-filler Q&As. One I recently filled out included the question: ‘What’s the book you’re never without?’ Of course, there’s no book I lug about with me everywhere, but inanity comes with this territory. I responded: ‘A tattered, duct-taped blue hardcover of my Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (based on Webster’s Third) published in 1969.’

Lame? Actually, no. Access to older analogue dictionaries has become politically invaluable.

Pre-internet, august dictionaries such as Webster’s and the OED functioned as linguistic anchors. Beneficially slow to adapt and resistant to vernacular fashion, print editions that were expensive to reissue acted as drags on popular misunderstandings (no, ‘notorious’ does not mean ‘famous’). By calling us to shared agreement on what words did and didn’t mean, hard-copy dictionaries helped facilitate clear, precise communication. But online dictionaries have jettisoned this conservative purpose. Capable of being updated daily, digital definitions change with the wind, and are eternally playing catch-up with galloping popular ignorance. The hoi polloi, not the fuddy-duddies, are in charge.

This leaves English susceptible to witlessness, yet also to deliberate manipulation. We’re not talking merely about rapidly evolving slang, but about the meaning of staple, commonplace vocabulary, revised definitions of which can slyly import partisan ideological baggage to everyday discourse.

The political effort to limit free speech attacks our own values By Jonathan Turley

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/540235-the-political-effort-to-limit-free-speech-attacks-our-own-values

English essayist Samuel Johnson wrote that “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” I thought of Johnson’s words in preparing to appear before a House committee exploring limitations on free speech, including a campaign by some Democratic members and activists to remove networks like Fox News from cable carriers. As someone who just came over to Fox News as a legal analyst from CBS and the BBC, the hearing concentrated my mind “wonderfully” on the future of free speech and the free press.

Increasingly, free speech in the United States is described as a danger that needs to be controlled, as opposed to the very value that defines us as a people. While I am viewed as a “free speech purist” by many, I maintain what once was a mainstream view of free speech. I believe free speech is the greatest protection against bad speech. That view is, admittedly, under fire and may even be a minority view today. But history has shown that public or private censorship does not produce better speech. It only produces more censorship and more controlled speech.

There is no disagreement that we face a torrent of false, hateful, extremist speech on social media and in other public forums. This speech is not without cost: It fuels those filled with rage, victimizes the gullible, and alienates the marginal in our society. It is a scourge, but not a new one.

The Constitution was written not only for times like these — it was written during times like these. Politics has always been something of a blood sport, literally. At the start of our Republic, the Republicans and Federalists were not trying to “cancel” one another in the contemporary sense; they were trying to kill each other in the actual sense, through measures like the Alien and Sedition Acts. There also were rampant false conspiracy theories about alliances with Great Britain, France, Spain, and other foreign powers. Newspapers and pamphleteers were highly biased and partisan.

Members of Congress are now pushing for public and private censorship on the internet and in other forums. They are being joined by an unprecedented alliance of academics, writers and activists calling for everything from censorship to incarceration to blacklists. For example, an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Joe Biden’s Cabinet Nominees Prove His Unity Claims Are Garbage Unity to the left means playing God and governing like kings and queens. By Gabe Kaminsky

 https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/26/joe-bidens-cabinet-nominees-prove-his-unity-claims-are-a-lie/

In his first address on Nov. 7 to the nation after being prematurely crowned “president-elect” by the legacy media, Joe Biden called for “a time to heal” and urged for “unity.” At his January inauguration, President Biden did the same.

“With unity we can do great things. Important things. We can right wrongs. We can put people to work in good jobs. We can teach our children in safe schools. We can overcome this deadly virus. We can reward work, rebuild the middle class, and make health care secure for all. We can deliver racial justice,” Biden said.

Then Biden signed the most executive orders (15) in his first day than any other U.S. President in history—notably eliminating the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission to properly educate students about America’s founding. His cabinet nominations also do not spell unity. They indicate the opposite.

Throughout this week, the secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Xavier Becerra sat before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Senate Finance committees for his confirmation hearings and notably dodged questions on his partial-birth abortion stance, and about suing nuns to force them into abortion coverage in 2017. The California attorney general is a far-left radical with zero public health experience or expertise.

Is BIDEN back in the BASEMENT?

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/is-biden-back-in-the-basement/

Joe Biden appears to be the first president to skip doing a State of the Union Address which is typically done by the end of February by tradition. However, it is not uncommon that a president skips the State of the Union Address during the year in which they were inaugurated. Both Washington and John Adams delivered the address but Thomas Jefferson abandoned that practice in 1801, in favor of a written message. It was about 100 years later that the message was delivered by a speech before Congress by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. That was an important year for it was not just the creation of the Federal Reserve, but also the Income Tax.

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech in 1934, the annual speech has become a tradition. Before 1934, it used to be more of a year-end speech delivered in December. However, the President would also take office in March rather than January. The 20th Amendment changed the opening time for congress moving the speech to January/February. Pelosi will forever be remembered as the only Speaker of the House to tear up Trump’s State of the Union Address, which was probably the most disrespectful treatment of the office of the president by anyone in history.

The Constitution requires the president to provide an update on the country. It does not specify any precise timing. What normally happens is the House and Senate set the date for the joint session of Congress. What has everyone concerned about is that in fact, Joe Biden said in January that it would be forthcoming. Then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Feb. 16 that Biden’s first appearance before a joint session “was never planned to be in February.” This has led to rumors that he is back in the basement with bouts of dementia since Psaki is clearly trying to revise history. This is only made more plausible when members of the Democratic Party ask for Biden to relinquish his codes to launch nuclear weapons. That in itself raises serious questions about Biden and now no State of the Union after he said he would.