Displaying posts published in

August 2017

The Left Opens Fire on Columbus Statues New York mayor Bill de Blasio has placed the Columbus Circle monument under review. By Kyle Smith

When the going gets stupid, the stupid turn pro. On Monday, in an essay due to appear in the forthcoming print edition of National Review, I wrote, “The Christopher Columbus protests are coming.” That very day, a vandal in Baltimore took a sledgehammer to what is believed to be the oldest Columbus monument in the United States, a 225-year-old work whose cornerstone was laid in 1792. For maximum publicity value, the vandal or an associate brazenly posted the video of his handiwork to YouTube as he gleefully narrated. If you’re not disgusted by the horrific damage to the monument, you might be a member of the “concerned activist” community that enjoys making its political points by smashing things to bits.

On the same day, the Christopher Columbus statue towering 76 feet over New York City’s Columbus Circle learned that his status is under review because he triggers the most powerful two officials in town.

As George Orwell saw it, in 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

New York City in 2017 is a one-party place where high elected officials literally parade down Fifth Avenue next to terrorists who were convicted of shocking crimes in the 1970s, but where an inanimate hunk of metal commemorating Christopher Columbus that has stood in the city for 125 years is declared a menace to society. The hard-left city-council speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito — who last made headlines when she appeared next to convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera on a float at the head of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June — called for taking down the Christopher Columbus statue that stands on a column overlooking the vast roundabout named after him. The statue has been a proud symbol of the city since 1892, when it was first installed in honor of the 400th anniversary of his landing in the New World, and is closely associated with New York’s large Italian-American contingent.

“There obviously has been ongoing dialogue and debate in the Caribbean — particularly in Puerto Rico where I’m from — about this same conversation that there should be no monument or statue of Christopher Columbus based on what he signifies to the native population . . . [the] oppression and everything that he brought with him,” said Mark-Viverito on Monday.

That inspired the equally far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, who marched behind Lopez Rivera in the Puerto Rican Day parade, to chime in that the Columbus statue “obviously is one of the ones that will get very immediate attention because of the tremendous concerns about it.” De Blasio has announced a 90-day review of “all statues and monuments that in any way may suggest hate or division or racism, anti-Semitism — any kind of message that is against the values of New York City.” One assumes that when de Blasio orders Columbus to be toppled from his perch, he’ll do so in the middle of the night (à la removals in Austin and Baltimore) for our own safety.

Start pulling on one strand, and pretty soon the cloth becomes unrecognizable. If the statue over Columbus Circle must go, why should the name Columbus Circle remain, or New York’s annual Columbus Day Parade? Why should that federal holiday be named after him anyway? Why indeed should the District of Columbia retain its name when calling it the District of Cesar Chavez would be so much more in tune with our times? Shifting political currents already forced one name change on Columbia University (when Alexander Hamilton was a student, it was King’s College). Once was seemingly enough. But administrators had better think twice before they order new stationery.

Advocating for Nuclear Power: The Time is Right August 22, 2017 by Milton Caplan

We live in strange times. Globally, populism is growing in response to a deep-seated anger with so-called liberal elites. Experts are no longer respected over louder voices that support peoples’ strongly held views. There are no facts, only beliefs. http://www.theenergycollective.com/mzconsulting/2411298/advocating-nuclear-power-time-right

While most of the world continues to support the Paris agreement on climate, there is a reluctance by some to include nuclear power in the tool-kit to help meet this global challenge. There is wide spread belief that Germany is going down the right path as it eliminates nuclear from its mix and drastically increases its use of renewables. The only problem is that fossil fuel use is also increasing and emissions are not going down. This has not stopped other countries like France, which has one of the lowest emissions in Europe due to their nuclear fleet, setting out a policy to reduce reliance on nuclear. And now Korea seems to be going down the same path even though it would probably be hard to find another country that has benefited more through successfully implementing its nuclear program.

Does this mean that nuclear power is getting ready to move over and cede the future of energy supply to a fully renewable world? Not even close. With 58 units under construction there are now more new nuclear units coming into service each year that in the last 20 years. The UAE is nearing completion of its first units, a four-unit station as it becomes the newest entry into the nuclear club.

On the other hand, in the USA units are struggling to stay in service in de-regulated states and one of two new build projects has been stopped in the face of Westinghouse bankruptcy.

In the midst of all of this apparent chaos, there is a bright light. People are standing up saying – don’t close my nuclear plants. People are recognizing that removing large low carbon emitting stations from the energy mix is no way to improve the climate. And most of all these people are ready and willing to fight. In the more than 35 years we have been in the nuclear industry I don’t remember a time when there were strong vocal pro-nuclear NGOs. Yes, that’s right – there are those who are not directly in the nuclear industry who have taken up the fight for nuclear. Not because they have any great passion for the technology, but because (as we discussed in May), they see nuclear plants as the ultimate solution to important issues. They want to save the environment. They want plentiful economic energy and they know that nuclear is an important part of the solution.

More vocal pro-nuclear NGOs today than we have had in 35 years

These organizations include a growing list of environmentalists such as Environmental Progress, Energy for Humanity, Bright New World and Mothers for Nuclear – to name a few (this list is not meant to be exhaustive so if your organization is advocating for nuclear power, please comment with your name and a link). What they have in common is an understanding that nuclear power is not the evil that some think it is and that in fact it can help to make the world a better place. And of more importance they are willing to advocate for it.

Culture, Not Culture Wars The Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra stands by its invitation to Dennis Prager—and the audience is rewarded with an evening of great music.Heather Mac Donald

Dennis Prager conducted the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra last Wednesday night, and what had threatened to become another dispiriting episode in the culture wars turned instead into an evening of passionate advocacy for high culture and classical music. Santa Monica is one of the most liberal cities in California, so it was not wholly surprising that when the orchestra’s conductor invited Prager, a conservative talk radio host, to conduct a Haydn symphony for an orchestral fundraiser, a rebellion broke out among some musicians and the city’s political class. Two violinists in the ensemble, both UCLA professors, penned a letter suggesting that their fellow musicians boycott the upcoming performance. “A concert with Dennis Prager would normalize hatred and bigotry,” wrote Professors Andrew Apter and Michael Chwe in their March 27, 2017, letter. A webpage asked readers to urge their friends not to attend the concert, since attending would help “normalize bigotry in our community.” Local politicians weighed in. Councilman Kevin McKeown warned that the orchestra’s decision to invite Prager may “affect future community support for the Symphony.” Mayor Ted Winterer sniffed that he had “certainly . . . not encouraged anyone to attend.”

Fortunately for the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra, the boycott attempt, despite sympathetic coverage in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, was a dud. And the concert was a rousing success that ideally won new converts to classical music and to the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra itself.

On Wednesday evening, no protesters showed up outside or inside Disney Hall, Frank Gehry’s famed curvilinear eruption of steel designed for the Los Angeles Philharmonic. The orchestra’s affable full-time conductor Guido Lamell polled the house, virtually full, before the music began. How many audience members were Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra attendees? he asked. A good number of people clapped in affirmation, leading Lamell to offer his sympathies for their having made the “cross-country trip” from Los Angeles’s Westside to downtown. How many were attending their first classical concert? Another burst of applause. Then came the key demographic question: Are there any fans of Dennis Prager here? The response was thunderous. “OK, I get the message,” Lamell laughed. “I won’t keep you away from him for too long.”

Lamell opened the program with a lively reading of Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro overture, which he rightly introduced as one of the greatest opera overtures of all time (actually, its only competitor for first place is the Don Giovanni overture). Then he turned over the podium to Prager. Two string players joined the welcome, clapping with their free hand on their knee. Prager told the audience about attending his first classical music concert, which brought him to tears and led to a lifelong love affair with Haydn. The Classical period, he said, represents “controlled passion,” in contrast with the Romantics, who did not control theirs—yet passion will break out in the fourth movement of this Haydn symphony as well, Prager explained. Wonderfully, Prager had chosen a work from the criminally underperformed middle period of Haydn’s prodigious symphonic output. These so-called Sturm und Drang symphonies contain some of Haydn’s most pathos-filled, dramatic writing, and the Symphony No. 51 in B-flat major, composed in 1771, was no exception. It opens innocently enough with a brief, quizzical exchange between frisky strings and mournful horns before bursting forth into agonizingly poignant and dark harmonies. Cleverly syncopated passages in the first movement make the rhythm tricky. Major and minor keys interweave, adumbrating Schubert’s bittersweet longing.

Toronto-Based Wealthsimple Launches Shariah-Compliant Portfolio Firm broadens its product offerings in the crowded robo-adviser marketBy David George-Cosh

Toronto-based automated investment provider Wealthsimple Financial Inc. introduced a Shariah-compliant portfolio targeting U.S. and Canadian investors on Wednesday in a move to expand its product offerings in an increasingly crowded robo-adviser market.

Robo-advisers have recently emerged as a popular segment of the market among passive individual investors seeking lower management fees and a reliable return on investment. However, the space has become crowded, with companies such as Charles Schwab Corp. and Bank of America Corp. launching their own robo-adviser offerings alongside startups such as Wealthfront Inc. and Betterment.

Robo-advisers are likely to report double-digit growth in assets under management in coming years from a base of less than $100 billion in 2016, according to a report released by Fitch Ratings Inc. last month. The Fitch report cited a recent study by KPMG that estimates robo-advisers’ assets under management will total more than $2 trillion by the end of 2020.

Wealthsimple’s Halal Investing portfolio is aimed at setting the company apart from its peers, said Michael Katchen, the company’s chief executive and co-founder.

“The Muslim community in North America is extremely large and underserviced,” Mr. Katchen said. He expects the portfolio’s interest to closely mirror the company’s socially responsible products that began as a niche offering and grew to one of its biggest services.

The new portfolio will track a group of 50 companies traded in the U.S. and Canada that don’t generate more than 5% of their revenue from alcohol, tobacco, gambling or pork production, and don’t make significant income from interest. Wealthsimple’s fees are a flat 0.5% for the first $100,000 invested and drop to 0.4% on any additional investment.

Mr. Katchen said there is a lack of affordable options aimed at Muslim investors, which opened the opportunity for the company to develop its own offering. He cited the Global Iman Fund managed by Global Growth Assets Inc., with a management fee of 2.82%, as a competitor. Another rival is New York-based Wahed Invest, which offers Shariah-compliant investments with management fees ranging from 0.29% to 0.99%.

“This is a way for people to achieve their long-term goals and make it acceptable to a group which hasn’t had that kind of option in the past,” Mr. Katchen said. CONTINUE AT SITE

First Hurdle in Trump’s Mideast Peace Gambit: Persuading Adversaries to Talk Jared Kushner leads delegation to try to advance talks between Israelis, Palestinians—but two sides are stuck over basic question of statehood By Rory Jones in Tel Aviv and Paul Sonne in Washington

President Donald Trump, who has pledged to broker the “ultimate deal” between the Israelis and Palestinians, faces major obstacles to getting them to even negotiate as his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner arrives in Israel this week.

The White House says the discussions will focus on “the path to substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks,” combating extremism and economic and humanitarian issues in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Mr. Kushner’s delegation is set to meet with Israeli and then Palestinian officials separately on Thursday.

But the U.S. hasn’t received assurances that the two sides will talk to one another—let alone take steps to resolve the decadeslong conflict. A White House official emphasized that the U.S. is still in the initial stages of the process and has yet to formally propose a new peace dialogue.

The Palestinians’ quest for statehood is among the biggest hurdles to direct negotiations.

Many Israeli officials won’t support the creation of a Palestinian state; Palestinian officials don’t want to negotiate without statehood as the goal. The White House hasn’t said how it plans to bridge the gap, say Israeli and Palestinian officials.

The deadlock underscores the tough task Mr. Trump faces in forging Middle East peace—a signature foreign policy goal that has eluded American leaders for decades. Mr. Trump in February backed off the U.S.’s longstanding commitment to a two-state strategy, saying he would support whatever solution both parties prefer.

Mr. Trump has deputized Mr. Kushner, a 36-year-old former real-estate developer with no experience negotiating foreign conflicts, to spearhead the peace efforts.

In leaked comments from an off-record meeting with congressional interns this month, Mr. Kushner said “there may be no solution” to the conflict but said he would try because it was “one of the problem sets the president asked us to focus on.”

Accompanying Mr. Kushner on the trip is Jason Greenblatt, a former Trump Organization lawyer turned White House special representative for international negotiations, and Deputy National Security adviser Dina Powell. They will also meet with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt over the peace process and other issues. CONTINUE AT SITE

Egypt Criticizes Trump Administration Aid Cutbacks Aid moves come amid disapproval of Egypt’s human-rights situation and Cairo’s ties to North Korea By Dahlia Kholaif in Cairo and Felicia Schwartz in Washington

Egypt lashed out Wednesday against a decision by the Trump administration to slash and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid to Cairo, in a rare sign of friction between two leaders who have lavished each other with praise.

The administration is cutting $95.7 million in military and economic aid and putting another $195 million in military assistance on hold because of unhappiness over Egypt’s human-rights situation, a State Department official said.

Washington also wants to pressure Cairo on its ties with North Korea, a person familiar with the decision said.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has lauded Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, calling the former army general a “great friend and ally” and a partner in the fight against terrorism.

When the two leaders met in April in Washington, U.S. officials were assured by their Egyptian counterparts that legislation restricting the activities of nongovernmental organizations wouldn’t take effect. The following month, Mr. Sisi signed the bill into law.

The Egyptian law imposes strict regulations on nongovernmental organizations, and human rights groups have said the law essentially amounts to a ban of their work. U.S. officials see the Egyptian law as part of a crackdown on dissent under Mr. Sisi.

“People in the administration felt misled,” the State Department official said. “We definitely wanted to send a message that they need to do better on human rights.”

The U.S. moves came as White House special adviser Jared Kushner held separate talks in Cairo with Mr. Sisi and Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri as part of a Middle East tour that aims to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, Egypt is seen as an important player in any resumption of talks.

The State Department official said the steps on aid weren’t timed to coincide with Mr. Kushner’s trip, and weren’t connected.

The $195 million in withheld military funds won’t be disbursed until the U.S. sees “progress from Egypt on key priorities,” said the State Department official, who declined to specify what Cairo must do to get the aid resumed.

In a statement Wednesday, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry criticized the measures as harmful to “Egyptian and American common interests” and said they represented a misjudgment about the nature of historic U.S.-Egyptian strategic ties. They also reflected Washington’s “lack of understanding about the importance of supporting the stability and success of Egypt.”

The U.S. has supplied Egypt, a key ally in the Middle East, with nearly $80 billion in military and economic aid in the past three decades, and the decision to use U.S. aid to express its displeasure over Egyptian government policies is a major shift for the Trump administration.

Mr. Trump raised his concerns about North Korea with Mr. Sisi in a call last month, according to a White House account. Mr. Trump stressed the need for countries to stop hosting North Korean guest workers and providing economic or military benefits. CONTINUE AT SITE

Funding Trump How does the party of an unpopular president continue to beat the competition? James Freeman

Hillary Clinton’s memoir of the 2016 presidential campaign will arrive this fall, and NBC News has a preview:

In audio clips of Clinton reading from the book, “What Happened,” which were first obtained by MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, Clinton recounted her thoughts as she toyed with the idea of telling her Republican rival to “back up, you creep” as he stood behind her during the second presidential debate.

“My skin crawled,” Clinton said.

No doubt a lot of reporters have similar reactions to America’s 45th President. Tuesday night in Phoenix must have presented a particular challenge for any journalists who are still trying—or at least pretending to try—to cover Mr. Trump objectively. That’s because he spent much of the evening criticizing the news media.

According to the Washington Post:

“I mean truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media, they make up stories,” Trump said. “ … They don’t report the facts. Just like they don’t want to report that I spoke out forcefully against hatred, bigotry and violence and strongly condemned the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists and the KKK.”

The Post described the scene inside the Phoenix Convention Center:

Three times, the crowd burst into chants of “USA! USA! USA!” And once, at the mention of Trump’s former rival Hillary Clinton, they chanted: “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!” Several parents put their young children on their shoulders so they could get a good look at the president.

But as the night dragged on, many in the crowd lost interest in what the president was saying.

Hundreds left early, while others plopped down on the ground, scrolled through their social media feeds or started up a conversation with their neighbors. After waiting for hours in 107-degree heat to get into the rally hall — where their water bottles were confiscated by security — people were tired and dehydrated and the president just wasn’t keeping their attention.

This seems plausible. Political speeches that run more than an hour are almost always tiresome, even when the audience is hydrated. Still, given the fact that Mr. Trump’s opponents constantly seem to be able to field energetic, angry crowds at public events all over the country, it is bound to cause more chatter about which political party’s base is more energized.

By one important measurement, it’s still not close. With the arrival of July fundraising reports for the major parties, it appears that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez may be on his way to setting a record—but probably not the one he intended. According to the Post:

After a strong $12.2 million raised in March — the first full month of Perez’s chairmanship — fundraising has dried up considerably. The $4.7 million it raised in April was the lowest for that particular month since 2009. The $4.3 million raised in May was the worst for that month since 2003. And now the $3.8 million raised in July is the worst for any month since January 2009.

Edward Cline :Politically Correct Speech IS NEWSPEAK

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. From the Appendix of Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, “The Principles of Newspeak.”

Orwell does not delve very deeply into the subject, but one of the shared chief goals of politically correct speech and NEWSPEAK is to literally shrink the epistemology of the mind. It is not merely a matter of “mental habits,” but to mold the preferred stunted mind of totalitarian activists like Antifa.

It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.

Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Without exaggeration, this is the shrunken state of mind of Antifa and its political allies in the Democratic Party. The new “thoughtcrime” is now to be suspected of harboring alleged sympathies with Nazism and racism, even though the accusers are grossly ignorant of the roots and practices of Nazism and even of “racism” or “whiteness,” and of the etymological roots and meanings of the words, even though there is not a shred of evidence that “racism” or “Nazism” exists in the fabric of a person’s words and actions. But evidence of innocence

Dr. Leonard Peikoff discusses the “mental state” of Nazi Germans and their Brown Shirts in The Ominous Parallels:

“The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich,” said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. “There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state… The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.”

Peikoff, writing in the chapter “Hitler’s War Against Reason” in The Ominous Parallels, goes far, and long before the appearance of Antifa and the statue-smashing Social Justice Warriors:

The voluntarist worship of mindless action may be designated by the term “activism.” Activism is the form of irrationalism which extols physical action, based on will or instinct or faith, while repudiating the intellect and its products, such as abstractions, theory, programs, philosophy. In a very literal sense, activism is irrationalism – in action. “We approach the realities of the world only in strong emotion and in action,” says Hitler. (p. 52 of the book)

Ayn Rand wrote in 1971:

Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason.“All within the state; nothing outside it,” proclaimed Benito Mussolini.

Imbibing PC speech and writing, and applying it to any and all issues, achieves the same ends as Orwell’s description of NEWSPEAK, one of which it to inculcate unswerving conformity in thought and deed. Not to mention automatic. And thoughtless obedience, and thoughtless action. One is initially dumbfounded by the crass ignorance of those who censor freedom of speech and the right of assembly. Thus it is fruitless to accuse an Antifa thug of practicing what he purportedly and loudly opposes – Fascism, or the suppression of freedom of speech and assembly – when he physically assaults those with whom he opposes. Anyone who disagrees with him is an “enemy.” Argumentation with the street totalitarians is impossible. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” said Mao. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Perons, Mussolini, and other dictators could have said it, just as well. It is doubtful that Antifa thugs have ever heard of Mao’s “Little Red Rule.”

The Afghan Donut Speech by Linda Goudsmit

President Trump faced the nation last night (8.21.17) and delivered an impassioned three-part speech on American involvement in Afghanistan. The first part eloquently addressed the military from the perspective of a grateful nation. President Trump thanked the military and complimented their extraordinary service and sacrifice. President Trump promised the troops full support for the equipment they need and for the freedom of the military generals in the field to make decisions without interference from Washington politicians sitting behind desks. President Trump announced a change to the rules of engagement – he promised a commitment to winning when engaged. The President spoke at great length about the exemplary military model of cohesion – the unity of men and women from all races and religions united by common cause and commitment to their pledge of allegiance to the United States of America. We are one family – one American family. The President implored the country to follow the military model of cohesion and heal the divisiveness at home.

The second part of the President’s speech announced a powerful new shift in purpose. The United States will no longer participate in nation building – we are finally out of the business of trying to build democracies in unwilling nations. Instead, our international involvement will focus on common cause that serves American national interests. President Trump expects our friends and allies to participate in the funding of these efforts – America will no longer unfairly accept the financial burden of military engagement alone.

The third part of President Trump’s speech was directed at our terrorist enemies. The President spoke to the terrorists directly saying America will stay the course and we will prevail. Here is the problem. President Trump never identified the terrorist enemies as radical Islamists. That is the donut hole. Candidate Trump was very specific about naming radical Islam as the enemy and identifying its existential threat to Western freedom. President Trump did not. Candidate Trump understood that the misrepresentation and censorship of the colluding mainstream media gives safe haven to the radical Islamic terrorists because the void in the coverage deceitfully minimizes the Islamic threat. President Trump ignored the fake news contribution that emboldens radical Islamic terrorism.

Wars cannot be won without clarity and an explicit identification of the enemy. Worldwide Islamic terrorism is ideological. Our terrorist enemies abroad and at home are inspired by their religious commitment to Islam and their Koranic dream to re-establish the caliphate and impose supremacist Islamic sharia law worldwide. Islam is a comprehensive socio-political expansionist movement with a religious wing (mosques and imams), a military wing of jihadists (terrorists), and a political wing (Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR/MSA). Islamic terrorism is a war of ideas as much as it is a savage physical war. The war of ideas can only be won by an informed West that understands the comprehensive ideology driving the Islamic terrorism.

President Trump’s eloquent speech of determination and commitment to the troops collapses into the donut hole because without naming the ideological inspiration of Islamic megalomania the Muslim Brotherhood remains free to recruit and infiltrate every government agency in America. CAIR operatives continue to disinform the public, and the Muslim Student Association continues to infiltrate and incite violence on campuses across America. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic terrorist organization and must be designated a terrorist organization. Candidate Trump had the courage to say so – President Trump did not.

ESPN Bumps Asian Sportscaster “Offensively” Named Robert Lee Daniel Greenfield

This is Robert Lee.

ESPN, and its offering of Social Justice Sports all the time, was worried that lefties might be offended by his name. Or that they might confuse him with General Lee.

ESPN confirmed Tuesday night that it had decided to pull an announcer from calling a University of Virginia football game because his name is Robert Lee. This Robert Lee is Asian.

“We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name. In that moment it felt right to all parties,” reads the ESPN statement posted at t he popular Fox Sports college-football blog Outkick the Coverage.

I like the “collectively” part. Because that makes it so much better.

In one of those great ironies that totalitarian movements like the left seem to excel at, ESPN engaged in discrimination to prevent some sort of vague abstract “triggering” of “marginalized peoples”.

Also now every Asian man named Robert just became offensive. Maybe there should be a law passed forcing everyone named Robert Lee to change their name. For social justice.

“It’s a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and we regret that who calls play by play for a football game has become an issue,” ESPN said in its statement.

The only shame here belongs to ESPN which has utterly lost its mind.