Why did I begin Mx. Chevalier Regina?

This is going to be a rather short post.

I began this blog because I just wanted to share things which I was already researching, and which I was already interested in, and creating documents and resources about. I originally wanted to just share some information about Trump’s Cabinet, it’s members and turnover.

But even in the few short weeks that have passed since I established this website, I have paid more attention to the news and have begun to feel a burning moral outrage, which you may or may not have noticed in the posts. I think that this may become more obvious in the posts to come. This blog may become a confusing jumble of points, issues, and positions, and to an extent, I would apologize for that.

 

Universal Basic Income: Stockton Tests an Old Idea

The idea of Universal Basic Income is a few hundred years old, and has been endorsed by figures such as Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon, Martin Luther King Jr, and Elon Musk. One city in California, Stockton, is going to give it a try. 

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the idea that everyone, even if they are not working, will receive a certain amount of money each month or year. The idea itself is not new. It finds its roots in Thomas More and his friend Johannes Ludovicus Vives, who died in 1535 and 1540, and has found proponents in Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon, Martin Luther King Jr, and Elon Musk, among others.

Why Stockton?

I think Stockton is absolutely ground zero for a lot of the issues we are facing as a nation.

In 2007, Stockton was declared California’s “foreclosure ground zero”. In 2012 Stockton declared bankruptcy after overextending itself on a series of image projects, created to draw investor’s attention to the city.  In 2016 the median income was only $45,000, less than the national average. The murder rate has even surpassed Chicago’s. Clearly, something needed to change.

Enter Michael Tubbs, the new mayor of Stockton, elected for his promise to improve the local economy.

“Twenty five percent of our population lives in poverty,” Tubbs said, “but I would argue that another 25-30% are just one paycheck away.”

Mayor Tubbs is quick to dispell the notion that it would encourage people to be idle. “People don’t stop working. They actually get into the workforce more.”

This has been borne out by programs like the Alaska Permanent Fund, the Mincome project under Pierre Trudeau, and Negative Income Tax pilot programs.

Republican President Richard Nixon tested UBI in several cities from 1968 to 1971 and found it did not negatively affect work ethic.

Tubbs continues, “We see bad things go down like drug use. Good things go up like education. People report feeling happier, feeling less stressed. You see more productivity.”

The Stockton Program

It turns out, the program won’t cost Stockton a dime. The whole pilot is funded by a grant from the Economic Security Project, chaired by one of the co-founders of Facebook who has a strong interest in UBI.

The grant, about $1M, would fund an 18-month project (the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration) which will give around 100 families a no-strings-attached $500 per month. Depending on the effect this has on their families, the city might consider a tax-payer funded expansion of the pilot.

The criteria for choosing families has not yet been decided.

UBI in the Future

It should come as no surprise that technology industries are among the strongest supporters of UBI. Silicon Valley especially supports the idea, which is understandable, given their clear ability to see how machines will replace human workers in the future — in fact, they are the ones creating those them.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, has praised the UBI of the Alaskan Permanent Fund, and encouraged other states and cities to imitate the model.

He explains his reasoning in this way, “When you’re losing money, your mentality is largely about survival. When you’re profitable, you’re confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest.”

Elon Musk, of Telsa and SpaceX fame, has argued that UBI will eventually be necessary as jobs worldwide are replaced by robots. “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen.”

Even President Barack Obama saw the looming dangers of automation, warning Congress that up to 50% current American jobs could be automated by 2030.

“There are all kinds of mysteries and potential flaws with regards to universal basic income,” says former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “But it’s inevitable. We’re going to have to seriously consider universal basic income.”

The Issue

The problem with UBI, like all things in life, is that it costs money — a lot of money, maybe even more than $3T according to Prof. Laura Tysons who works in the Economics department of UC Berley.

Tyson says even if every other social safety net program was cannibalized to pay for it, the math still won’t add up.

For example, $10,000 a year X 300 million people is $3 trillion. “That’s three-fourths of the entire federal budget,” she said.

“There are trade-offs. In order to finance something meaningful as a basic income for truly poor people, would require us to find a significant amount of additional revenue. Where would we find that?”

Two Representatives from California at Odds over Interference Investigation

Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Dave Nunes are both US Representatives from California, they both serve on the House Intelligence Committee, and they used to have a warm working relationship. During the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election party, divides in the traditionally non-partisan committee emerged and the relationship between the two men deteriorated rapidly. Once friendly towards each other, the chairman and ranking member now find themselves completely at odds.

The “Midnight Run” and it’s Consequences

On Tuesday the 21st of March 2017, Nunes was sharing a ride with a staffer when he took a phone call. After that call ended, he switched to another car and left, without telling his staff where he was going. It turns out that he was headed to the White House where he would meet with Ezra Cohen-Watnick and  Michael Ellis, the National Security Council Senior Director for Intelligence and White House National Security lawyer. During this meeting, he was briefed and given documents about the incidental collection of information relating to Trump and his associates.

[I]ncidental collection happens when court-approved surveillance of an intelligence target picks up communications involving US persons who are not the formal target of the surveillance.

In Schiff’s opinion, the midnight run “really changed the trajectory of the committee’s work.”

The Unexpected News Conference

The day after the midnight run, on Wednesday the 22nd of March, Nunes called a press conference without telling his staff why.

During the news conference, Nunes revealed that he had seen unmasked documents from FISA surveillance which incidentally collected information about Trump and his associates. In other words, the intelligence community was watching foreign nationals who talked to the president or his transition team at some point, and that the names of these people were in the document. Nunes would later tell Schiff that “most of the names in the intercepted communications were in fact masked.”

Incidental collection, like that experienced by the president and his team, is very normal. If you record one person’s phone calls, then you also record the person whom they are calling. Because of that, this incidental collection is not surprising and doesn’t, in and of itself, incriminate anyone.

A Briefing for Trump and Second Press Conference

Rep. Nunes didn’t share this intelligence material with his committee before the news conference and didn’t share it with them directly afterward either. Instead, he went to the White House and personally briefed Trump on the materials. “I had a duty and obligation to tell him because, as you know, he’s taking a lot of heat in the news media.”

After this briefing, he held another press conference, this time on the White House lawn.

Schiff’s Reaction

Schiff considered these actions by Nunes to be “beyond irregular”, and shortly after the second press conference he released a statement which explained that Nunes had shared this information with the Press and the President before members of his own committee. This fact, Schiff felt, had put “quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work”, threatening the credibility of Intelligence Committee investigation.

“The chairman will either need to decide if he’s leading an investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House. Because he cannot do both.” 

Nunes has been described by Steve Bannon as Trump’s second strongest ally in Congress.

“Stepping Down”

Monday the 27th of March, Schiff called on Nunes to recuse himself. The next morning, Nunes publically declines, saying that if Democrats think he is too close to Trump, that it “sounds like their problem”. House Speaker Ryan was inclined to agree, saying he saw no reason for Nunes to recuse himself.

However, just over a week later on the 6th of April, Nunes was forced to temporarily step down from a leadership position in the Interference investigation due to an Ethics investigation into his “apparent secret coordination with White House officials”. He claimed that the allegations against him were “false and politically motivated”. Rep. Conaway was temporarily left in charge while Nunes was under investigation.

Schiff says that isn’t the full story. “The reality was that he never stepped aside.” According to Schiff and other committee members, Nunes continued to issue subpoenas and send his staff on investigative trips. When members attempted to ask Rep. Conaway to do things, he would say that he had to “run that up the stain” to Rep. Nunes. During this period, Schiff began his own parallel investigation in secret.

Nunes was cleared by the Ethics Committee in December of 2017 and returned back to his position as head of the committee. This surprised some who had thought he recused himself, rather than temporarily excusing himself from his duties on the committee.

Internal Discontents

During this period with Rep. Nunes as “shadow” chair and after, the committee suffered conflicting goals.  Starting at the beginning of the investigations, many of the Republican committee members did not show up to the witness interviews. Those who did would ask witnesses questions in a plain and bold manner.

[Rep. Gowdy] would ask witnesses if they knew the definition of “collusion, coordination and conspiracy,” and then whether they had evidence Trump campaign associates had done any of the above. Exchanges, like one between Gowdy and Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser, who was then the target of an FBI investigation, often went nowhere.

Rep. Mike Quigley stated that many “Republicans were pissed that these interviews were going so long.” He didn’t agree with that attitude, stating that the interviews were so long because witnesses wouldn’t answer the questions asked by the committee.

The Nunes Memo

Due to the information which Nunes received in March of 2017, he and his staff created a four-page memo which alleged that the FBI “may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources” to obtain the 4 FISA warrants for Carter Page which ended up collaterally collecting on Trump and his associates during the campaign.

The Nunes memo’s core allegation is that the FBI and Department of Justice misled at least one federal judge on a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court during the Trump-Russia investigation.

Originally private, in January 2018, the public pressured for its release with the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign on various social media platforms. Despite containing some classified information, the memo was publically released on 2 February 2018. It later came to light that Russian bots helped spread the campaign.

“Schiff Memo” as Rebuttal

Democrats on the committee objected to the release of the Nunes memo because they considered it to be “deeply misleading”.  An outside commenter stated, “This embarrassingly flawed memo is a disgrace. House Republicans should be ashamed. ”

In response, the Democrats of the Committee prepared a 10-page rebuttal, which was originally stalled by Trump, though eventually released on 24 February.

The Democrats’ rebuttal memo, written by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), argues that the Nunes memo is full of “distortions and misrepresentations” that don’t stand up to scrutiny based on the underlying classified evidence […] Schiff makes his case. He quotes key FBI documents that explicitly contradict the Nunes memo’s core arguments.

Allegations of White House Meddling

Schiff alleged that Rep. Nunes “never stopped being a member of the Trump transition team”. As evidence of his claim, he points to what Nunes said during the hearing to determine if the “Schiff Memo” should be released.

“Nunes was asked repeatedly during the hearing whether he or his staff coordinated with the White House,” Schiff said. “He refused to answer. At the end of the hearing, he issued a one-sentence statement that said the White House had not been involved in ‘drafting the memo.’ That statement looked like it was written by the lawyer for the committee.”

The End of the Investigation

Despite Democrats objections, arguing that there were lines of investigation to be explored, the Republicans on the Committee voted to end the Interference probe. The final report, released April 2018, found no evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, and shockingly denied that Putin had even attempted to help Trump.

During the course of the investigation, the committee interviewed most of the key witnesses in the Russia investigation such as Don Jr. While they had promised to release all of the interview transcripts at the end of the investigation, they failed to make good on that promise.

Schiff was not amused. “Apparently the public will have to wait until the majority changes to see what kind of investigation the majority was doing. I think probably the reason why the Republicans decided to renege on their commitment is, the transcripts reveal among other things how often the majority acted as defense lawyers for the president rather than true investigators. And I think they’re embarrassed by that.”

Pressure to Release Transcripts

In late June 2018, Schiff began to pressure Rep. Nunes to release the interview transcripts, believing they would aid the Mueller investigation by shining “additional light on the issues of collusion and obstruction of justice.”

Because testimonies given by many are “inconsistent with the public reports of meetings, conversations and other facts that have now been established”, Schiff believes that some of the witnesses might have lied to the committee, and he wants Mueller to “consider whether perjury charges are warranted.”

Republicans have refused to release the transcripts, stating that they are “protecting the Special Counsel’s investigation”. Schiff disagrees with this justification and says that when he spoke with Mueller, Mueller had no objection to the committee releasing the transcripts.

A Continued “Secret” Investigation

Begun during Rep. Nunes’s ethics investigation, the “secret” democratic investigation led by Schiff continues. Without the help of Republicans, they are not able to issue subpoenas, but they continue to quietly collect documents and interview willing witnesses.

For his part, Rep. Schiff continues to make television appearances. “I am deeply alarmed at what I see the president doing to the country, and what I see as the complicity of my colleagues,” Schiff says. “It’s really hard to overstate the significance of what they’re doing. I don’t want people to assume that because I’m calm, it doesn’t mean that I’m not desperately concerned.”

A GOP aide who requested anonymity to speak freely about the investigation said he doesn’t think Trump “has ever faced an adversary quite like Schiff, and it’s freaking him out.”

“First off, he’s a skilled prosecutor with an acid tongue, and a command of all the facts including the most deeply held classified information,” the aide told me. “Second, he’s not in leadership and therefore doesn’t have to consider being at the negotiating table like [Chuck] Schumer or [Nancy] Pelosi do. Third, he’s got a squeaky clean record (wouldn’t have ascended to that position if he didn’t) and comes from a district where when Trump lashes out at him, it only makes him more powerful and popular.”

But despite his methodical nature and determination, Schiff has struggled to “say something with bite”. Maybe his evidence will speak loud enough for the both of them.

 

 

Was Kaepernick’s First Amendment Right Violated?

Could President Trump’s actions around the National Anthem protests have violated Colin Kaepernick’s freedom of speech?

NFL Quarterback Colin Kaepernick is less known for his abilities as a football player, and more for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality — and the ire that has drawn from President Trump and various members of his administration, both on television and on Twitter.

NFL flag

Despite being a skilled quarterback, one of the best in the league, Kaepernick has not played a single game since 1 Jan 2017. Currently a free agent, he is free to be signed by any team, but in the last 2 seasons, no one has. A few teams initially showed interest but backed out after he refused to promise that he would end his national anthem protest.

Kaepernick is suing, alleging that Trump’s comments and private conversations with NFL owners lead them to blacklist him. His legal team is interested in the content and spirit of these discussions, as well as discover if the administration put pressure on the NFL. Depending on their findings, they might attempt to subpoena the President and other officials, including Vice President Mike Pence.

While NFL executives have admitted that Trump influenced their new anthem policy, that doesn’t mean he influenced it directly, or that he has influenced any other decisions by the league.

If Kaepernick’s allegations are true, it would mean that members of the Trump administration, including the President himself, violated his right to free speech. A government official is barred from using the power or influence of their office to stifle political expression or to punish those who express themselves politically. Things could get complicated from there.

 

Illinois’s failure to care for mentally-ill children

This article is a summary and response to The Atlantic’s article, “The Kids Who Are Cleared to Leave Psychiatric Hospitals — But Can’t“.


In Illinois, some children in Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) custody are being held in psychiatric hospitals much longer than medically required. 

mental health scrabble

The goal of psychiatric hospitals is to stabilize children and create treatment plans for outside doctors and centers to follow through on. Once a child is stabilized, they are supposed to be released. These facilities are not meant to handle long-term treatment, but in Illinois, they are increasingly being used to do just that.

DCFS is required to move the children in their care to foster homes or residential treatment centers as quickly as possible, but they have been struggling for years to find placements for children in a reasonable amount of time, so children suffer in these psychiatric hospitals which are not designed for long-term care.

While there are not good statistics available about how states nationwide handle children’s stays in mental health facilities, the data available does suggest other states also have issues relating to placement. However, some have suggested that the situation in Illinois is one of the most pressing in the nation.

Through information received via FOIA requests, it has come to light that between 2015 and 2017, on average, 1 of every 5 days spent in treatment were not medically required. This overstay, which includes about 30% of DCFS’s roughly 6K psychiatric hospitalizations of children in their care, totals about 27K days, or almost 75 years.

Of the more than 800 children who were held past their ability to be released, 80%  were held at least 10 days more than needed, 40% were held at least 1 month, and 15% had to wait at least 2 months, and sometimes significantly longer.

“There was a girl who spent so much time in one [psychiatric hospital] that hospital staff were asked to bring her a winter coat. She had been admitted in the summer.”

These needlessly long hospital stays have a number of negative consequences for children. Children can fall behind in their social development very quickly, and develop severe emotional challenges which make them more difficult to place. They can also lead to educational delays, which can be very difficult. Children receive infrequent visits from teachers during their stay, and while some have an hour or two of instruction per day, many receive less. The school work they do often consist only of worksheets. In some cases, children are hospitalized so long past when they were eligible for discharge that they are forced to repeat grades in school.

And importantly, these children are being denied their right to live in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate to them, a right which is guaranteed to them by Illinois law.

Beyond the negative effects on children’s lives, and the abuse of their rights, this failure by DCFS is expensive. Between 2015 and 2017, DCFS has wasted about $7M on hospitalizations that lasted longer than medically required. The alternatives, like residential treatment and foster care, are better for children AND less expensive.

However, Illinois DCFS has struggled to improve. It has gone through about 10 directors in the last 8 or 9 years, leading to haphazard policies enacted with each new crisis. In the end, it’s the children who continue to suffer.

[E]ven when there are beds available in other facilities, some of them refuse to admit children who have spent months at a psychiatric hospital—their extended stays are apparently taken as a sign that the children are particularly difficult to treat. In these cases, the longer they’re held in psychiatric hospitals, the more difficult it becomes to move them to the proper settings.

UN Condemnation of US Child Seperation Policy

United Nations

America’s new “child separation” policy, separating children and their parents of families who are immigrating, has been in the news lately. This morning, The UN released a clear and reasonable statement condemning this policy and urging the United States to reverse it.

The United Nations Statement

The statement is entitled “Press briefing note on Egypt, United States and Ethiopia (5 June 2018)“. These are not the nations I want the United States to share headlines with. Section 2, which is about the United States, reads as follows:

We are deeply concerned that the zero tolerance policy recently put in place along the US southern border has led to people caught entering the country irregularly being subjected to criminal prosecution and having their children – including extremely young children -taken away from them as a result.

The practice of separating families amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a serious violation of the rights of the child. While the rights of children are generally held in high regard in the US, it is the only country in the world not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We encourage it to accede to the Convention and to fully respect the rights of all children.

The use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles. The child’s best interest should always come first, including over migration management objectives or other administrative concerns. It is therefore of great concern that in the US migration control appears to have been prioritised over the effective care and protection of migrant children.

Children should never be detained for reasons related to their own or their parents’ migration status. Detention is never in the best interests of the child and always constitutes a child rights violation.

Information from various sources suggests that several hundred children have been separated from their families since last October. The practice of separating children from their parents is being applied to both asylum-seekers and other migrants in vulnerable situations, and we note that the American Civil Liberties Union has brought a class action case on behalf of hundreds of parents who have been forcibly separated from their children.

The majority of people arriving at the U.S.’s southern border have fled Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador – in many cases either because of rampant insecurity and violence, or because of violations of a range of other rights, such as health, education, and housing.

The US should immediately halt this practice of separating families and stop criminalizing what should at most be an administrative offence – that of irregular entry or stay in the US.

We call on the US authorities to adopt non-custodial alternatives that allow children to remain with their families and fulfil the best interests of the child, their right to liberty and their right to family life.

What Can Be Done?

I do not believe this to be a partisan issue, instead, I think it is a moral one. We can agree that separating young children from their mothers without due process is immoral while failing to agree on anything else.

For my part, I am writing my representatives and will be calling them if the situation continues. If you are an American and this issue is important to you, I would suggest you do the same. If you are not an American, you might consider speaking about your own officials about putting pressure on the US to adopt the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

american seal

Jordan Peterson’s “Pre-Interview”

Jordan Peterson

Before the Munk Debate on political correctness began, the moderator interviewed each participant individually. This is a paraphrased summary of Peterson’s pre-debate interview.


What have you been doing for the last few months?

Since I’m a psychologist, I’ve been concentrating on psychological work at the individual level. I’m on a tour right now, and I’ve talked in about 26 cities, and there are about 60 more.

When I talk with people afterward, they tell me about their attempts to put their lives together– that they were unhappy in their relationships, not doing very well in their careers, or in a dark place for one reason or another. They tell me that reading and listening to what I have been saying has been helpful to them. So, that’s great, you know?

 

How do you think your work relates to this debate tonight? You’ve talked a lot about political correctness.

That’s right, I’m no fan of the radical left. And just because I’m no fan of the radical left doesn’t mean I support the radical right. It’s just that Universities are dominated by left-wing thinking, and the collectivist doctrine that unites them is unacceptably harmful in the long term, and that disturbs me.

There’s every reason to have a left-wing. It’s not going away because it’s partly temperamental, but also because our society produces hierarchies and the people who are inevitably stuck at the bottom need a voice, which is the left.

But, just as the right can go too far, so can the left. But when the left has gone too far is not well defined, and to me, that’s not acceptable, because we know the left can go too far, and are going too far in Universities right now.

Another thing that bothers me about political correctness is the idea that someone can use it to say that they are the only ones with empathy. First of all, empathy is not even close to enough, and too much of it can lead to terrible things. Second of all, no, no one has a monopoly on empathy.

And to combine all that with a philosophy that assigns people their identity via group membership and to read battles between these groups into history and our current society is obviously dangerous if you know anything about history.

 

What do you think of the idea of privilege? The idea that certain people, because of their race, class, or gender, have enjoyed historical privileges, and that we need to share with those who did not have those historical privileges?

I think it’s a good example of conflating empathy with ideology. The majority in any society has privilege because society is set up so that the majority of people can do well, then you have to build in protections for minorities. To conflate that with race is not acceptable.

And when we talk about “historical” privileges, what span of time do you mean? If my ancestors 150 years ago were privileged, does that mean I should pay for that now in some way?

How can you be sure that my specific ancestors were privileged? My grandmother was a cleaning woman for farms in central Saskatchewan in the 1930s. She cooked for threshing crews, she chopped wood piles that were a big as the damn cabin to get through the winter. My father grew up in a log cabin until he was 5. It had like 3 rooms. Where is the privilege?

I see, it accrues to me as a consequence of my race, so we have to have a discussion about race. Within the toxic left, everything is about group identity. And even if we say that someone is differentially privileged from a historical perspective, then what? Are we’re going to make everybody, on the basis of their race, pay for some historical iniquity?

And they also view the history of the relationships between men and women as fundamentally one of oppression. They don’t believe that men and women fundamentally cooperated throughout history to bring themselves out of catastrophes. They don’t see it that way despite the fact that in 1895 the typical westerner lived on less than a dollar a day in today’s terms, far below the UN’s guidelines for abject poverty. Despite all that, they say that the fundamental reality of the world is that men oppressed women.

 

There is an idea that men need to check their privilege, and that women are awakening to their power in society. What is your response to that?

Discussions about power send a shudder down my spine because part of the post-modern doctrine is that everything is about power. Hierarchies are only about power when they’ve already transformed into tyrannies.

Reliable birth control and menstrual sanitation opened the playing field for women. Women were fundamentally welcomed into every position of authority and competence that could be opened to them. They were opposed, but fundamentally welcomed. It’s at the point where almost ¾ of humanities and social sciences students are women, and they dominate the healthcare field. Some will argue that it would not have happened without political pressure, but that’s not the case. It’s transformed utterly in 50 years. How fast do you expect the transformation to take place?

I’m not against equality of opportunity. I’m not sure what would have to be wrong with you for you to be against equality of opportunity. Even if you were fundamentally selfish, equality of opportunity would be in your own benefit. As for equality of outcome, well…

 

Where do you think the debate goes from here? Do you think this is a cultural spasm, or do you think there is something more fundamental happening here, a new tribalism?

It depends on how we each behave in the next 10 years. Things could get better everywhere really fast, or we could degenerate into our 20th-century tribalisms.

There’s a lot of pressure in both directions. I’m glad that people are taking the material I’ve produced to heart. I’m saddened that everything is presented as a political argument when it’s not. Despite the fact that the discussion around political correctness is presented in political terms, it’s not actually political, it’s theological and philosophical. It’s presented that way because radical leftist collectivist ideology views everything through the political lens, as hierarchies at each other’s throats in a power struggle.

The free speech discussion is interesting because from that ideological perspective you can’t have free speech. It’s just each group making statements in order to advance their own power. That’s the basis of the whole system.

In a very, very dark way, the funny thing about this post-modern insistence on identity is the emergence of intersectionality. You have all of these groups, but how do their identities interact? Gender and ethnicity are considered almost infinitely divisible, so how are you going to try to control for all those variables? But they will try to do that before they give up their ideology.

The reason the West decided on a radical individual perspective is because everyone is so unique that you can split their group right down to the level of the individual.

I’m not sure what’s going to happen, but I think the Universities have done themselves in.


You can read a transcript of Peterson’s interview here. It has been edited for style, meaning that things such as “um” and “you know” have been removed, and grammar corrected.

You can view the original video of the interview here. 


This is part of a larger series focusing on the Munk Debate on Political Correctness.