a lot of people stick their careers on the exactopposite, that we are all part of the universal human family and if you ve written three books like that , so what sets these causes is of course the anxiety of antagonism and this is the last point i ll before i close on the question because the anxiety of antagonism is something that it s interesting to me as i travel the world. i have had to deal with the anxiety of antagonism in teaching young people in the united states in germany or in south africa and that is the anxiety of being presented with a problem for which there s no imaginable solution even though if there is a solution it cannot be theorized at this moment so the anxiety of antagonism produces responses which are redundant and unread and emotional rather than analytic. that has a lot to do with the work in 1869, he changed the british public school system and one of the things he did, he said we can t be teaching but p
the other is the 6-foot three toddler. one left in his pajamas every afternoon. the other would appear that they began their career by the tariffs. the other by opposing them. one was that bright soaring author. with the western civilization. you find the men had remarkable similarities. with the relationship with the media. with their own political party. both had predecessors. so there are actually incredible parallels. with unanimous support it s a disruptor. they decided to do things a different way. they do everything they can to stop it. it was written in the mid to late to 1930s. they were referring to winston churchill. and it was about donald trump. so similar out of criticism and the accusations. both men lacked judgment. that they don t listen to anybody behind them. that they are overconfident. too optimistic. all of the things with the last few years. they were both parties switchers as well. winston churchill was fluid. it really was a lifelong politician. he ha
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, our program is about to begin. please take your seats. thank you. [inaudible conversations] good morning, ladies and gentlemen. to kickoff the 14th annual values voter summit please welcome to the stage tomasa ceremonies and stanley cup champion st. louis blues fan, mr. gill mertz. yeah, baby. stanley cup, st. louis blues. listen to you guys. good morning. i m just trade, anyone over here, get your team win a a stanley cup this year? no? how about the middle come anywhere near win the stanley cup this last year? no, okay. anybody here, your team win the stanley cup? no? the year before. well, i waited 52 years. you had had your glory. you be quiet. i waited 52 years for the st. louis blues to win the stanley cup, and here it is, baby. not exactly what i thought it was but i m happy with it. and now the st. louis
voter discrimination. today s hearing on evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination is part of the series of hearings of the house judiciary subcommittee on constitution several rights and liberties, for this year. the current need for reinvigoration of the preclearance requirement of the section five of the voting rights act. to consider other ways to strengthen the civil rights. i m not sure why we say reinvigoration. that seems to be one of the words we toss around. it s not really reinvigoration. it s degradation. section four was cut out so we need to have a section for to activate section five. section five is made dormant because of the supreme court staying section four wasn t adequate. so we need to find a new section. awaken the dormant power of section five. it s widely considered the effective civil rights statute ever enacted on congress. enormously successful and expanding federal authority to present protect the fundamental right to vote. when the
welcome everyone to today s hear ing. evidence on current and ongoing voting discrimination, i recognize myself for opening statement. today s hearing on evidence of current and on going voting discrimination is part of hearings on house judiciary subcommittee to assess the current need for a reinvigoration of section 5 of voting rights act 65 to consider other ways to strengthen the civil rights extension, i m not sure why we rereinvigoration, that seems one of the words that we toss around, not really invigoration, degradation, section 4 was cut out, so we need to have a section 4 to activate section 5, section 5 has been made dormant by the supreme court so we need to find new test to awaken the dormant power of section 5. voting rights act of 65 widely considered the most effective civil right statutes enacted by congress. the act was successful and in expanding federal authority to protect the fundamental right to vote, one of the central enforcement provisions section 5