theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Thursday, May 31, 2018

What Hillary's DESIRE to RUN FACEBOOK Really Tells Us




 ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The first question that comes to mind when hearing that Hillary Clinton would like to be CEO of Facebook is: How would they fit all their servers into her bathroom?
We learned about Clinton’s desire to run the social media giant from a question posed to her during an event at Harvard University where she was receiving an award for her “leadership.” This for a woman who didn’t even have the courage to face her distraught supporters on election night 2016, own the defeat and tell them the truth. As her lackey John Podesta was lying to the confused and crying crowd at her election night party about it not being over, she was on the phone conceding to her rival Donald Trump.
“Speaking at Harvard University before receiving an award Friday, Clinton was asked a hypothetical. … If Clinton could be chief executive of any company right now, which company would she choose? ‘Facebook,’ Clinton said without hesitating,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
Clinton said that she’d want to be in charge of the social media giant because of the immense power it has over the world’s flow of information. ‘It’s the biggest news platform in the world … but most people in our country get their news, true or not, from Facebook,” according to the newspaper.
It makes sense that the woman who set up bootlegged email servers and installed them in her bathroom while secretary of state would like to run Facebook. It’s apparent her goal, since she was guaranteed to win the race (you know there are insurance policies for that, right?), was to make sure she controlled the flow of information.
She accomplished this by resorting to those unofficial (and unprotected) servers, roping off media like cattle, refusing interviews, and trusting in her legacy media sycophants to make sure the party line was never disturbed.
Then there was that damn internet. Her media put up with being roped off, but then pictures of it hit the Web, and folks in flyover country weren’t impressed. Then, looking wobbly and unwell two months before the election, she had to leave a Sept. 11 event, collapsing into the back of a van. But that was OK because the press pool was told to not follow her, and they obeyed.
But then there was some guy with a damn phone who didn’t get the order to not see anything, and his video of her being obviously ill and apparently fainting ended up on, yes, the damn internet.
The Clinton effort during the campaign to weave an alternate reality failed, in large part because social media didn’t let her get away with it.
The Clintons understand the deleterious impact of the Internet on scoundrels. In 1998, Newsweek dutifully spiked a story about Bill Clinton having an affair with a White House intern. Then some unknown blogger named Matt Drudge had the gall to publish it. A nobody (at the time) on the internet ruined their control of information. Twenty-one years later, millions more nobodies (you can call them deplorables) continued the American tradition of speaking truth to power.
The difference in a generation was the addition of Facebook and Twitter to the equation. Her excited Facebook admission reveals her ongoing obsession with controlling what people are allowed to know. We know Hillary Clintonwell, and it’s fair to say that her interest in running the news and social media entity has nothing to do with defending and increasing the free flow of information.
The twice-failed presidential candidate was receiving “Harvard’s Radcliffe Medal for her leadership, human rights work and ‘transformative impact on society,’ ” the Daily Mail reported. The people of Libya would probably be surprised by that. As would our abandoned heroes in Benghazi, who were murdered. Fewer voices generally do make it easier for the establishment to give itself awards.
But Clinton didn’t stop at musing about CEO jobs. She had a dire warning for the crowd at Harvard: “Right now we are living through a crisis in our democracy. … I say this not as a Democrat who lost an election [um, yes, she is], but an American afraid of losing a country.”
Let’s look at what Clinton and her Democratic Party pals consider a crisis. Since the election of President Trump, we’ve accomplished:
• The destruction of ISIS.
• The release of 17 American hostages who had been held across the globe.
• The largest tax cut in history.
• Record low unemployment overall.
• Record low unemployment of women, blacks and Hispanics, specifically.
• Rising wages.
• Consumer confidence at an 18-year high.
• Household income at a 50-year high.
• 2.5 million people off food stamps.
America is blossoming again, and the fact that it’s a crisis for the establishment tells you everything you need to know.
Source>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/hillary-clinton-and-her-desire-to-run-facebook/

CNN's ACOSTA, Two Faced HYPOCRITE

CNN star Jim Acosta rips Kim Kardashian's prison reform meeting with Trump, but lauded John Legend's activism on same during Obama year

CNN senior White house correspondent Jim Acosta has been slammed for hypocrisy after condemning Kim KardashianĂ¢€™s White House visit.
CNN senior White house correspondent Jim Acosta has been slammed for hypocrisy after condemning Kim Kardashian’s White House visit.



Brian Flood

CNN star reporter Jim Acosta slammed Kim Kardashian West’s meeting with President Trump regarding prison reform on Wednesday as “not normal,” but media watchers quickly pointed out his hypocrisy by pointing to Acosta's sitdown with singer John Legend's in 2015 during President Obama’s administration to talk about the exact same subject.

Video
Kardashian, Kushner, and prison reform: What to know

“She shouldn’t be here, talking about prison reform, it’s very nice that she is here but that’s not a serious thing to have happened here at the White House,” Acosta said on CNN Wednesday in the middle of a rant about Trump’s tweet regarding Roseanne Barr’s recent firing.

Acosta took issue with Kardashian West and Trump reportedly discussing prison reform and the possible pardon for a great-grandmother who is serving a drug-related life prison sentence. However, in 2015 Acosta sat down with Legend for a lengthy feature on mass incarceration and the criminal justice system.

When Legend declared that prison is not the solution to every problem, Acosta nodded approvingly before noting that prison reform is “personal” for the musician. Legend and his celebrity wife, Chrissy Teigen, visited the White House several times during the Obama administration and once hinted that they had sex at an “Obama thing.” Acosta never objected to any of Legend’s meetings with Obama.

CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding when Acosta changed his mind about celebrities discussing prison reform and visiting the White House.

The double standard didn’t go unnoticed. Mediaite’s Joseph Wulfsohn penned a column headlined, “Jim Acosta Trashes Kim Kardashian’s Prison Reform Efforts As Not ‘Serious’ After Taking John Legend’s Seriously in 2015,” which examines the CNN star’s abrupt change in attitude.

“If your argument is that Legend is some intellect singer-songwriter and Kardashian is some air-headed reality star, that misses the point. Look at what they have in common; they’re A-list celebrities with huge followings who have sincere passions that involve politics and in this case, both are using their celebrity status on prison reform,” Wulfsohn wrote.

Wulfsohn gave Acosta the “benefit of the doubt” that sexism isn’t a factor in the reporter’s flip-flopped views on celebrities using their star power in an attempt to impact prison reform.

“Perhaps it’s his disdain for Donald Trump, a president who he essentially admitted doesn’t take seriously,” Wulfsohn added.

Wulfsohn wasn’t the only watchdog to notice Acosta’s Hypocrisy. Fox News contributor Stephen Miller tweeted contradicting screen grabs of various tweets the CNN reporter has sent over the years, while countless others took to Twitter to mock Acosta.




Stephen Miller
✔@redsteeze
Hi @Acosta, Meet @Acosta

10:51 PM - May 30, 2018
4,499
2,031 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Glenn Greenwald
✔@ggreenwald


Everyone knows the real reason people like @Acosta are mocking Kim Kardashian for working for the release of an unjustly imprisoned woman: because her husband praised Trump. Just be honest about that at least. They care more about the partisan angle than Alice Marie Johnson.

8:11 AM - May 31, 2018
551
255 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Jim Acosta
✔@Acosta
May 30, 2018

Artist @johnlegend to @CNNsotu - "I'm going to push the president to get more involved in criminal justice reform."


The Wokaine Cowboy@wokaine

Lol why is cool for John Legend to do this but not Kim Kardashian?
4:52 PM - May 30, 2018
51
See The Wokaine Cowboy's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Paige Hymson
✔@PHymson
May 30, 2018

John Legend: “We don’t need prison as the solution for every problem.” Now on @CNNsotu with @Acosta


QuesaDilla@azdilla31

Acosta: Absolutely outrageous Kim at the White House! Celebrities shouldn't be commenting! John Legend, what's your political take?

5:11 PM - May 30, 2018
29
See QuesaDilla's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Lori Hendry@Lrihendry

Jim Acosta slams Kardashian’s White House meeting saying she has no business being there but thinks John legend’s meeting with the president a year earlier on the same issue was appropriate and a good thing.

I DESPISE THE FAKE MEDIA!
8:36 AM - May 31, 2018
3,160
1,521 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Ray Sanders@RaySand11102604

@Acosta seems like your tune is different when John Legend wanted to get involved with prison reform. Now you say Kim K “shouldn’t be at there”. You freakin’ hypocrite!

8:37 AM - May 31, 2018 · Dothan, AL
22
See Ray Sanders's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Lee Pope@auburnlee1960

@Acosta why was it wrong for the President to have KK at WH to discuss prison reform but ok for obama in your words to have Legend there on same topic? Why also ok for obama to have multiple entertainers at WH? And your not biased? Hmmm

8:46 AM - May 31, 2018
17
See Lee Pope's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Juan Olivarez@juanoli53

@Acosta man you're a REAL HYPOCRITE aren't you. John Legend 2015 ring a bell? Now you criticize Kim Kardashian for the same thing? Do you realize how STUPID you look to us?

8:36 AM - May 31, 2018 · Alton, TX
31
See Juan Olivarez's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


David Rutz
✔@DavidRutz
21h

.@acosta going off just now on @KimKardashian being at the White House: "She shouldn't be here talking about prison reform." pic.twitter.com/5i1ZsXl3jh



wendy bradford@WendyLuvy312

I guess @Acosta forgot about the interview where he fawned over John Legend for wanting to do something similar with Obama.

9:00 AM - May 31, 2018
13
See wendy bradford's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Meredith Hope@MeredithHope

.@Acosta your comments are disgustingly sexist. Why do@you think John legend should be in politics but @KimKardashian shouldn’t be @WhiteHouse. A blatant put down of women. She has a much bigger base than u or @johnlegend ever will #sexist

8:38 AM - May 31, 2018
23
See Meredith Hope's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Diamonds@LDYDLJD20

Liberal hack hypocrite @Acosta had no problem John legend going to Obama’s to talk about prison reform but lectures the White House that @KimKardashian should not be there! That’s why your fake news! @cnnbrk @CNNPolitics

8:48 AM - May 31, 2018
13
See Diamonds's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Storm Paglia @storm_paglia

Nice, FAKE NEWS JIM. Guess it was cool back then since Obama was pres? https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/592305561447858177 …

4:53 PM - May 30, 2018
29See Storm Paglia 's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Meech
✔@michi83

That time Jim Acosta didn't have a critical opinion of celebs doing policy at the White House. https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/592305561447858177 …

5:20 PM - May 30, 2018
24
See Meech's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Acosta recently bragged that he was kicked out of the Oval Office by President Trump, saying he wears it “as a badge of honor,” while being glorified for serving as White House antagonist during an appearance on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

Earlier this year, Trump kicked the CNN star out of the Oval Office after Acosta badgered the president with racially charged questions. Last month, Acosta was forced to do damage control after he was accused of taking personal shots at Trump supporters, saying “their elevator might not hit all floors.” He defended his comments, claiming that his words were “twisted by some outlets.”

Trump has famously dubbed CNN “fake news” and pointed directly at Acosta, calling him by the disparaging moniker in the past. Last December, Acosta was shut down by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders when he tried to hijack a press briefing and he has also gotten into combative arguments with other members of the administration including former Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller.

Source>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/31/cnn-star-jim-acosta-rips-kim-kardashians-prison-reform-meeting-with-trump-but-lauded-john-legends-activism-on-same-during-obama-years.html

Stephen Miller Blames Obama, Dems for ‘CRUEL, INHUMANE’ Immigration Policies

Paul Bedard

The White House is aggressively stepping up its fight for tighter border enforcement, blaming former President Obama’s “catch-and-release” policies and legal loopholes promoted by congressional Democrats for the surge in fraudulent asylum claims and youth smuggling into the U.S.

[Trump kills Obama loophole for illegal immigrant ‘entrepreneurs’]

“When you want to talk about what's cruel and what's inhumane, we should talk about the consequence of loopholes that make it almost impossible to remove individuals showing up in our country illegally, therefore driving massive numbers to take the dangerous trek, leading to more instability in sending countries; leading to more instability in receiving communities; and contributing to the rise of very dangerous transnational smuggling organizations,” said senior White House advisor Stephen Miller.

As part of its battle, the White House cited new and disturbing numbers that detail the surge in illegal immigration and asylum claims that they say are the result of the wink and nod policies of the Obama era loopholes. Among them:

From 2008 to 2016, asylum requests surged 1,700 percent. Just 20 percent were granted.
Illegal entry attempts have tripled as immigrants have tried to get into the U.S. before new effort to stop them can be implemented.
Apprehensions of illegal immigrants are up 50,000 for the second month in a row.
There has been a 315 percent one-year increase in illegals using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the country.

In a backgrounder and conference call, White House officials pushed for changes to the law and closure of loopholes.

“The current immigration and border crisis and all of the attendant concerns it raises are the exclusive product of loopholes in federal immigration law that Democrats refuse to close,” said the backgrounder from the White House.

It added:

“It's very obvious to say that our immigration system is clearly being gamed by those who are aware of the loopholes and shortcomings of our system. Those loopholes are being used by smuggling organizations and by individuals to enter the country illegally. DHS is unable to address these loopholes because of a failure by Congress to act. The president and the administration have outlined the loopholes and the fixes required multiple times over the last 18 months and have worked with Congress to outline changes that need to take place. Yet, they have not.”

Source>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/stephen-miller-blames-obama-dems-for-cruel-inhumane-immigration-policies

Far From CAGES: Feds Pay $670 a DAY to Make Unaccompanied ALIEN CHILDREN ‘COMFORTABLE’

Children detained at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility color and draw, part of the many activities as well as meals and clothing they are provided at taxpayer expense. (Associated Press)
Children detained at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility color and draw, part of the many activities as well as meals and clothing they are provided at taxpayer expense. (Associated Press)


Stephen Dinan

The image of two illegal immigrant children sleeping on the floor in a chain-link fence “cage” swept the internet last weekend, sparking misdirected anger from activists who blamed President Trump for the conditions — which were actually from 2014, when the photo was taken, under President Obama.
Here is another image: illegal immigrant children set up in comfy dormitories, coloring with “multicultural crayons,” watching their favorite soccer teams from back home on the extensive cable system, even kicking the ball around themselves on a beautiful new soccer field — all paid for by taxpayers.
There’s “Spanish language yoga” for those that want it and trips to go bowling, to visit museums and even to hit up the amusement park, at $49 a ticket, also on taxpayers’ tab. The children chow on three meals a day plus snacks, since federal rules say they must be fed “until they are full.”
Both images are accurate: two distinct snapshots of different parts of the massive U.S. immigration system that handles hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied alien children, or UAC, who have streamed over the border over the past five years, challenging first the Obama administration and now Mr. Trump.
The children initially are kept in stark cells at the border, where they are processed by the agents who catch them. That is what the photos from 2014 show.
The cells were designed for a different era, when nearly all illegal immigrants jumping the border were adults, usually from Mexico and predominantly male, held for a few hours while being processed and quickly sent back. It was so quick that agents would sometimes catch the same person more than once in a night.
Fast-forward to 2013, when the patterns began to change, with the flow shifting from Mexicans to Central Americans, and from men to families traveling together, or even children traveling alone — the UAC. So far this year, about a third of the people nabbed by Border Patrol agents fell into one of those special categories.
Under American law and government policy, they cannot be quickly shunted back across the border. The children can spend up to 72 hours in the Border Patrol facility, which has meant sleeping in a crowded room, with little but a Mylar blanket, in conditions so cold that the migrants call the cells “hielera,” or ice box.
But under rules that have been in place for years, illegal immigrant children traveling as part of families are sent either sent to dorm-style detention facilities run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or are released outright, where they usually disappear into the shadows with the rest of the unauthorized population.
They are supposed to be released within 20 days.
If the children are UAC, meaning they jump the border without their parents or come as a family but become separated after their arrival, release comes much faster — 72 hours at the maximum, according to court-mandated rules.
Then it’s off to a dorm run by social workers contracted by the Health and Human Services Department, which pays for the yoga classes, the multicultural crayons and all the other trappings designed to ease the UAC into a possible life in the U.S.
While the children are in the dorms, a branch of HHS, the Office of Refugee Services, is working to place them with sponsors — usually their parents, who more often than not are in the U.S. illegally.
But the government is increasingly creating unaccompanied children through the administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy for people jumping the border. Under that policy, announced in April, Homeland Security is supposed to refer every new illegal immigrant adult for prosecution, and U.S. attorneys are supposed to bring cases against every person practicable.
That means hundreds of parents end up in jails and their children are put into the foster care system as UAC, farmed out to the dorms and, perhaps later, to sponsors in the U.S.
For security analysts, the zero-tolerance policy is an endorsement of the kind of law-and-order approach Mr. Trumppromised to bring to immigration enforcement. The effects on those ensnared are no different from those of anyone else who is accused of a crime and sent to prison.
“Opponents of immigration enforcement are trying to portray immigration detention as some kind of cruel and unusual punishment when the purpose of it is to be able to enforce the law and give people their due process,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Opponents, though, spare no epithets in attacking the president.
“To target children this way is racism,” said the Rev. William J. Barber II, a black pastor and co-chairman of the Poor People’s Campaign. “What we’re seeing now, we saw in the days of slavery, where children where separated and lost from their families.”
He and other activists say family separation isn’t just a consequence of zero tolerance but is actually the goal, with Trump officials hoping to scare would-be migrants into forgoing the journey.
The administration says there is a safer avenue: Show up at border crossings and request asylum rather than break into the country between the ports of entry.
Take the migrant caravan that dominated headlines in March and April.
More than 330 migrants who came as part of the caravan showed up at the official entry points, were processed and allowed to make asylum claims, and nearly all of them have been granted initial entry into the U.S. By contrast, 122 tried to jump the border and were arrested. Many of them face criminal charges and jail time.
Exact counts of who falls into which category are difficult to come by. The New York Times reported this year on more than 700 children separated from adults at the border either because of safety concerns or, in a couple of hundred cases, because the adults weren’t even related to the children.
Then nearly 1,500 children are placed with sponsors whom the government was unable to track down last year.
Trump critics said the government “lost” those children.
“If we had lost 1,700 or 1,500 European children or Canadians from that side, there would be a tremendous uproar,” said Mr. Barbar.
During a conference call sponsored by immigrant rights activists on Wednesday, the pastor accused Mr. Trump of racism.
But another speaker on the call contradicted that sentiment, saying the children aren’t lost, but their sponsors were just unable to be contacted at one point when the government reached out to do a check-in.
Still, the criticism appears to have struck a nerve with Mr. Trump, who took to Twitter over the weekend to lament children separated from families. He blamed a “horrible law” he said was responsible and urged Democrats to change it.
His aides said that shouldn’t be read as criticism of the zero-tolerance policy his administration is pursuing, nor should he be blamed for families that are separated.
“This wasn’t a policy that was created under this administration. But unlike previous administrations, we actually enforce the law,” she said. “We actually think the law means something, and we’re enforcing it. But the president wants to see that change because he wants these loopholes closed.”
While the two sides argue over methods and motives, it’s taxpayers who are shelling out to cover the costs.
HHS paid more than $1.4 billion last year to accommodate nearly 41,000 UAC in its shelters. They stayed an average of 41 days, which means taxpayers paid about $670 a day for each child. The cost of holding someone in a federal prison — a comparison some immigration activists make to the UAC situation — is just $85 a day.
The causes of the higher costs for the children become clear from an examination of the contract documents describing UAC dormitories.
The Washington Times submitted open-records requests in 2014 for the documents, when the Obama administrationwas first grappling with a surge of UAC. The records were provided in March.
The documents described conditions at facilities run by two of the biggest shelter providers, Southwest Key Program Inc. and BCFS Health and Human Services.
Southwest Key touted its provision of “multicultural crayons,” new sets of clothes for each migrant, gym equipment and regular field trips to get away from the dorm — activities including movie nights, swimming and bowling.
BCFS, meanwhile, was effusive in describing the steps it takes to help the illegal immigrant children be prepared for permanent life in the U.S. while making sure they also remain connected to their homes through special foods, celebration of their cultural holidays and that robust cable television package to make sure they don’t miss out on their shows.
“On-site recreation may include: soccer tournaments; movie night; playing games on the Wii; bingo and board games; basketball and volleyball tournaments; and Spanish language yoga. During the summer children engage in water-based activities such as swimming, fishing, and playing in the sprinklers,” BCFS said in the documents.
They can call back home a couple of times a week, they get comprehensive health care, and under government rules, the children are guaranteed three meals a day, plus two snacks.
BCFS didn’t respond to a request for comment. Southwest Key referred questions about its policies back to HHS.
HHS pointed back to a statement from Deputy Health Secretary Eric Hargan, who backed the White House in blaming misguided American policies for enticing UAC and families to try to jump the border.
“Until these laws are fixed, the American taxpayer is paying the bill for costly programs that aggravate the problem and put children in dangerous situations,” Mr. Hargan said.
Source>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/illegal-immigrant-children-cost-taxpayers-670-day/

‘What Is An OUT OF CONTROL Woman?’

Jordan B. Peterson triggers host over female aggression data: ‘What is an out-of-control woman?’

‘I’m not making this stuff up. I studied antisocial behavior for 15 years’

Anne McElvoy, Senior Editor at The Economist and head of Economist Radio, listens to clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson during an interview for Intelligence Squared. (Image: YouTube, iqsquared screenshot)
Anne McElvoy, Senior Editor at The Economist and head of Economist Radio, listens to clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson during an interview for Intelligence Squared. (Image: YouTube, iqsquared screenshot)
 

Douglas Ernst 

Clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson has yet another viral video on his hands, thanks to Anne McElvoy, senior editor at The Economist and head of Economist Radio.

Mr. Peterson, the author of “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” made global headlines in January for his handling of widely panned questioning by British journalist Cathy Newman. A recent interview with the U.K.-based Intelligence Squared debate forum is drawing comparisons for her attempts to twist data on female aggression into a personal bias on the scientist’s part.
“Violence often pops up in your work as something that you think that drives things. I think you said relations between men are more regulated by a background threat of force in a sense. That’s why men have difficulty with women,” Ms. McElvoy said during the hourlong interview.
“That’s why men have difficulty with women who are completely out of control,” Mr. Peterson said.
The University of Toronto professor then attempted to explain how decades of scientific research shows men and women generally opt for different methods of displaying aggressive behavior.
Studies on anti-social behavior show that men often resort to outright violence while women prefer reputation destruction, innuendo and gossip.
“Who controls women? … You described yourself as a liberal and I think that a liberal doesn’t think that society controls women or men. … What is an out-of-control woman? What is this creature? How would we know when we’ve met one?” Ms. McElvoy shot back during a series of exchanges. 
“I’m sure you met one in your life that acted towards you in a bullying in detestable manner,” Mr. Petersonreplied. “It’s very difficult for women to cope with that because that don’t have any real recourse. And female bullying can be unbelievably vicious. It usually takes the shape of reputation destruction, innuendo and gossip. It’s well documented.”
“Only women? … Where is the data on innuendo and gossip?” Ms. McElvoy countered.
“Well, it’s among antisocial behavior among adolescents,” Mr. Peterson said. “It’s a well-documented field. People look at aggressive and anti-social behavior in women and in men, and in women it tends to take the expression of innuendo, gossip and reputation destruction. In men, it tends to take the form of outright physical aggression. There’s a whole literature on that. It’s not a surprise to anyone. This has been known for 30 years.
“I’m a psychologist and a scientist and I tend to base my opinions on what I’ve read in the broad relevant literature,” he continued. “I studied antisocial behavior for 15 years. I’m actually quite an expert on it.”
The Intelligence Squared YouTube channel attracted over 430,000 views since May 24 and prompted numerous others to post excerpts on their own channels.
Source>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/jordan-b-peterson-triggers-host-over-female-aggres/