Quote of the Day: “Wherever you get enough far-left people in power, you can find a similar willingness to force everyone into collectivist conformity at all costs.” Thomas Sowell
Every single day, TheRecord must have access to thousands of columns and op-eds to fill their Editorial pages. I have no idea what resources they have or the cost of these resources. So just what does it take to have your op-ed published on the Editorial or Insight (Huh?) Pages? Well, if it’s a Monday and you have nothing good to say about Conservatives but would rather discuss some totally useless, over privileged people named Harry and Meghan, well then, step right up Geoffrey Stevens. And if you no issues at all with locking down your church for absolutely no reason, well then, step right up Rev. Michael Brooks. And if you were a columnist with TorStar but now you’re “freelance” and are on an animal “rights” campaign, well then, step right up Thomas Walkom, Ph.D And if you want to ask just plain stupid questions like: “Do we have the will to save the planet?” and write nonsense like: “Global warming is harming us now, but it could also be civilization-ending sooner than we think.”, well then, step right up Jeffrey Atkinsom, Ph.D And if you’re a 20-something fourth year student at WLU, and only want to criticize the American GOP and President Donald Trump, well then, step right up to the Insight (Huh?) Page, Caleb Duffield. Seriously, we have had to endure Stevens’ column every Monday for years now – but another nonsensical global warming end of the world crisis and another animal “rights” activist and some student trying to analyze Trump’s Presidency – all on the same day? I think this is what water boarding is like – the torture is all in your mind with no lasting affects, except for the memory…
And speaking of Caleb Duffield, his op-ed looks like an assignment for a course he’s in. His article is titled: “Donald Trump was a symptom of a more pernicious problem”. Nice. The President is a “symptom” of a problem. Oh my. He starts off his course paper by suggesting that there is “extreme polarization” in the U.S. Congress “and what, if anything, can be done about it remain nebulous.” Oh my. He continues: “The answer cannot simply be explained by the actions and policies of former president Donald Trump.” Unfortunately, Caleb doesn’t tell us just what these actions and policies are and I’m not sure why. I guess we are just supposed to “know” what they are. He suggests that: “It might be more accurate to view Trump as a symptom of a more pernicious problem: the incremental expansion of hyperpartisanship in the United States. This is grounded in historical party realignment, changing societal values, cultural cleavages, and negative campaigning enhanced through print and social media.” So, Caleb uses “nebulous” and “pernicious” in the last few sentence. It looks like Caleb got a thesaurus for Christmas and he can’t wait to try it out. He then goes on the make this observation: “A recent study observed that 55 per cent of Democrats and 58 per cent of Republicans viewed each other unfavourably, a statistic that only 30 years earlier was measured at 21 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively.” Of course, Mr. Duffield doesn’t tell us where he found this study so I went looking for it. The only place my friend Mr. Google showed me is here: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/ But this isn’t a “recent” study – it’s five years old. Unless Caleb found another study that I missed and there have been no changes (55% of D and 58% of R) in the unfavourability percentages, this is probably the study he is referring to. Ouch. Talk about cherry picking 5 year old data!!! He then goes on to try to explain his hyper-partisanship theory by suggesting: “The enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act meant that the previous electorate and ideological bases of each party flipped 180 degrees – whereas the Democrats pushed left, and Republicans pushed right.” Now, I’ve read this statement about 10 times and I still have no idea what point he is trying to make. Of course, I have no idea how GenZ’ers define “right” and “left” anymore because the definition seems to change on an hourly basis. So is he trying to say that Democrats were more conservative (right wing) in the early 1960’s and Republicans were more liberal (left wing) and because of the Civil Rights Act, then switched directions on the one dimensional, political line? Is he suggesting that Eisenhower was somehow on the left and that Kennedy was on the right? He then makes this just ridiculous statement: “Such realignment has blended with increasing sociodemographic shifts and value changes to prompt a push from the left toward racial and gender equality, secularism, and immigration. Conversely, from the right this has encouraged a ‘…countermobilization of White, conservative, and evangelical voters …’ who have expressed discontent for ‘undeserving’ immigrants and minorities. These two starkly opposing perceptions of what it means to be a ‘true American’ — the Christian alt-right conservative versus the multiracial accepting liberal — has given rise to irreconcilable cultural cleavages between the two parties.” What absolute nonsense. To pigeon hole the 90 million or so Americans who identify themselves as Republicans in such derogatory terms is basically the true reason why there is (maybe) a hyperpartisanship divide. And notice that he quoted another sentence. I tried to find that quote as well. I checked google, bing, duckduckgo – and the only reference that came back to me was his column. So, did he actually make up this quote? I could go on and dissect his column – by why? This type of nonsense is just pathetic. Is Duffield related to someone at TheRecord? Am I getting my money’s worth?