If you were to ask most people to name the least dangerous, most beneficial branch of the Federal government, I suspect many would name the Food and Drug Administration. After all, the desire to have a safe and clean food and water supply is the #1 argument fielded in favor of a strong regulatory state. Those whose family members might have benefited from drug treatments or other therapies banned by the FDA might not view it in such a positive light, of course. Still, even there the FDA's reputation is one of being overcautious in keeping Americans safe on average -- though in effect they condemn many to death who might at least have a chance with some experimental therapy.
Should your opinion of the FDA be roughly aligned with this view, you will find this report in Scientific American to be shocking.
Irritating New Spin: It's Tyranny to Jail One's Opponent
Well, yes it would be, if jailing her were done as an exercise of political will.
No, if it was done because she broke the law. It's the President's job to see that the law is faithfully executed, a fact apparently forgotten in recent years.
Tyranny lies just as much in not enforcing the law on the connected as in any potential for unfair enforcement against the disfavored. Tyranny, and its attendant corruption, are just what we are witnessing in Clinton's case now.
No, if it was done because she broke the law. It's the President's job to see that the law is faithfully executed, a fact apparently forgotten in recent years.
Tyranny lies just as much in not enforcing the law on the connected as in any potential for unfair enforcement against the disfavored. Tyranny, and its attendant corruption, are just what we are witnessing in Clinton's case now.
Wonderful
Both presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton have ties to convicted pedophile and Democratic donor, billionaire Jeffery Epstein and "Sex Slave Island."
Clearing Browser Tabs to the Right
I haven't had much time to write for the last couple of months, but when I've come across articles I thought might make a good post, I've kept the tab open. So, now I have about 50 million tabs to open when I start my browser -- time to clear them out.
Oh, look! I can see you don't have enough links! Here, let me help ...
The Claremont Review of Books has a round-up of their articles on the election, which includes Angelo M. Codevilla's excellent "After the Republic," which we discussed here, as well as Publius Decius Mus's "The Flight 93 Election" and a bunch of other good stuff I've been working through.
Christopher Caldwell in the article Les Deplorables explores the rising use of censorship against the right in France. Coming soon to a former republic near you! (And he includes the lovely phrase panier de pitoyables.)
Here's a 2004 article you've probably seen explaining how FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
Arthur Chrenkoff is back!
R. R. Reno at First Things argues that "Globalization has a unifying dimension, which we rightly applaud. At the same time, though, globalization is associated with economic and cultural changes that are dissolving inherited forms of solidarity—the nation foremost, but local communities, as well, and even the family. This dissolution encourages an atomistic individualism, which in turn makes all of us more vulnerable to domination and control."
George Will argues that Congress should impeach the IRS commissioner.
Until Phyllis Schlafly passed away, I hadn't heard of her Eagle Forum.
The Myth of the Southern Strategy (from 2006).
Neo-neocon's "The Essential Trump," a collection of her writing on the man.
Dr.'s Mayer and McHugh's recent report on gender and sexuality: "Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence. The report has a special focus on the higher rates of mental health problems among LGBT populations, and it questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex. More effort is called for to provide these people with the understanding, care, and support they need to lead healthy, flourishing lives."
Prof. Paul Gottfried at the Imaginative Conservative gives CINOs a good old-fashioned "How dare you, sirs!"
The End of the Liberal Tradition? A New Paper Suggests Young Americans Are Giving Up on Democracy
Today's Tech Oligarchs Are Worse Than Robber Barons (they're more like Skynet ...)
Whew! Well, that's a start.
Oh, look! Another article ...
Oh, look! I can see you don't have enough links! Here, let me help ...
The Claremont Review of Books has a round-up of their articles on the election, which includes Angelo M. Codevilla's excellent "After the Republic," which we discussed here, as well as Publius Decius Mus's "The Flight 93 Election" and a bunch of other good stuff I've been working through.
Christopher Caldwell in the article Les Deplorables explores the rising use of censorship against the right in France. Coming soon to a former republic near you! (And he includes the lovely phrase panier de pitoyables.)
Here's a 2004 article you've probably seen explaining how FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.
Arthur Chrenkoff is back!
R. R. Reno at First Things argues that "Globalization has a unifying dimension, which we rightly applaud. At the same time, though, globalization is associated with economic and cultural changes that are dissolving inherited forms of solidarity—the nation foremost, but local communities, as well, and even the family. This dissolution encourages an atomistic individualism, which in turn makes all of us more vulnerable to domination and control."
George Will argues that Congress should impeach the IRS commissioner.
Until Phyllis Schlafly passed away, I hadn't heard of her Eagle Forum.
The Myth of the Southern Strategy (from 2006).
Neo-neocon's "The Essential Trump," a collection of her writing on the man.
Dr.'s Mayer and McHugh's recent report on gender and sexuality: "Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence. The report has a special focus on the higher rates of mental health problems among LGBT populations, and it questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex. More effort is called for to provide these people with the understanding, care, and support they need to lead healthy, flourishing lives."
Prof. Paul Gottfried at the Imaginative Conservative gives CINOs a good old-fashioned "How dare you, sirs!"
The End of the Liberal Tradition? A New Paper Suggests Young Americans Are Giving Up on Democracy
Today's Tech Oligarchs Are Worse Than Robber Barons (they're more like Skynet ...)
Whew! Well, that's a start.
Oh, look! Another article ...
The Killing Machine
Here's an interesting, longish article on Che Guevara's bloody life. One thing that stood out that seems relevant to us today was:
How successful have the leftists been in implementing change here?
The urge to dispossess others of their property and to claim ownership of others’ territory was central to Guevara’s politics of raw power. In his memoirs, the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser records that Guevara asked him how many people had left his country because of land reform. When Nasser replied that no one had left, Che countered in anger that the way to measure the depth of change is by the number of people “who feel there is no place for them in the new society.”
How successful have the leftists been in implementing change here?
We Don't Know Each Other
I started thinking about this when Ymar and I got into a bit of a tiff. He made some incorrect assumptions about me that were irritating. After going back and forth a few times, it occurred to me that there's no particular reason his assumptions about me should have been right: We don't really know each other.
It isn't just that we've never met. Most of us post anonymously here because we don't want to be known. At the least, there is some group of people, co-workers or family or potential future employers, that we don't want to know our thoughts.
I don't know about anyone else here, but in addition to using a pseudonym, I also do a few things when I write or comment that I hope help to obscure my analog identity. For example, there are subjects I don't comment about because I'm known in professional circles for expertise in them. I avoid using examples from my life or talking about jobs I've had. I also don't post photos of named places geographically close to where I live.
So, it only makes sense that we don't know each other because we don't want to be known by random strangers, or by people who may be looking into our analog lives. And yet, I think we do want the regulars here to know us, and we want to know them. We may even think we do know them. Many of us have been commenting here for 10 or 15 years. I consider all of the regulars here friends, although it's a strange sort of friendship.
I also believe that this has contributed to some of the intractable disagreements we've had over the years. In analog life, I would probably know a lot more about a friend, where they grew up, what work they'd done, something about their family, etc., before I got into serious political or philosophical discussions with them. Knowing things like these doesn't often change what I say to friends, but it does change the way I say them. And, of course, the whole dimension of non-verbal communication is cut out.
There have been some significant disagreements in the comments over the years, and at those times I have regretted that we weren't at the pub or in the park hashing them out where we could more easily make ourselves understood, and where we could have a good idea of where things stood between us when the discussion was over. There have been some arguments, especially I think with Cass and Tex, where, at the end, we all just abandoned the thread, and I wondered if I had offended someone.
Analog discussions provide immediate feedback that can quickly be used to adjust our expectations for what comes next. If I unwittingly say something that's going to cause trouble, there's usually a facial reaction that warns me we might have a disagreement or misunderstanding. Then I can act accordingly, maybe explaining more or quickly analyzing what I said to look for problems, and I will know to take my interlocutor's next comment with the understanding that we may have a problem. Not so in blog comments, when I may unknowingly post something that's going to cause trouble and not have any warning of that fact until reading the reply. Blog discussions leave so much out that we normally depend on.
In the last few years I've tried to adjust the way I comment to account for these things, but especially when I'm tired, I still forget and comment as if everyone here knew me and I knew them.
I have often wished we could have a Hall gathering somewhere, a day or a weekend of getting to know each other. Unlikely, given the distances I think lie between us and the problem of coordinating our varying schedules. We can't even seem to schedule a book-club-style discussion. But maybe not impossible.
It isn't just that we've never met. Most of us post anonymously here because we don't want to be known. At the least, there is some group of people, co-workers or family or potential future employers, that we don't want to know our thoughts.
I don't know about anyone else here, but in addition to using a pseudonym, I also do a few things when I write or comment that I hope help to obscure my analog identity. For example, there are subjects I don't comment about because I'm known in professional circles for expertise in them. I avoid using examples from my life or talking about jobs I've had. I also don't post photos of named places geographically close to where I live.
So, it only makes sense that we don't know each other because we don't want to be known by random strangers, or by people who may be looking into our analog lives. And yet, I think we do want the regulars here to know us, and we want to know them. We may even think we do know them. Many of us have been commenting here for 10 or 15 years. I consider all of the regulars here friends, although it's a strange sort of friendship.
I also believe that this has contributed to some of the intractable disagreements we've had over the years. In analog life, I would probably know a lot more about a friend, where they grew up, what work they'd done, something about their family, etc., before I got into serious political or philosophical discussions with them. Knowing things like these doesn't often change what I say to friends, but it does change the way I say them. And, of course, the whole dimension of non-verbal communication is cut out.
There have been some significant disagreements in the comments over the years, and at those times I have regretted that we weren't at the pub or in the park hashing them out where we could more easily make ourselves understood, and where we could have a good idea of where things stood between us when the discussion was over. There have been some arguments, especially I think with Cass and Tex, where, at the end, we all just abandoned the thread, and I wondered if I had offended someone.
Analog discussions provide immediate feedback that can quickly be used to adjust our expectations for what comes next. If I unwittingly say something that's going to cause trouble, there's usually a facial reaction that warns me we might have a disagreement or misunderstanding. Then I can act accordingly, maybe explaining more or quickly analyzing what I said to look for problems, and I will know to take my interlocutor's next comment with the understanding that we may have a problem. Not so in blog comments, when I may unknowingly post something that's going to cause trouble and not have any warning of that fact until reading the reply. Blog discussions leave so much out that we normally depend on.
In the last few years I've tried to adjust the way I comment to account for these things, but especially when I'm tired, I still forget and comment as if everyone here knew me and I knew them.
I have often wished we could have a Hall gathering somewhere, a day or a weekend of getting to know each other. Unlikely, given the distances I think lie between us and the problem of coordinating our varying schedules. We can't even seem to schedule a book-club-style discussion. But maybe not impossible.
So Obvious It Shouldn't Need To Be Said
Nevertheless, of course, it is very much in need of saying: Politicizing the FBI is very dangerous.
Men of the West, Rangers of the North
Headline: "ISIS Calls for Random Knife Attacks in Alleys, Forests, Beaches, 'Quiet Neighborhoods.'"
Aragorn:
Aragorn:
If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?
'And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names.... Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.
'But now the world is changing once again.'
If Kurt Schlichter Did Parody Videos of Famous Hollywood Actors Acting Influential ...
Ranger Up language warning for the next video (NSFW).
Good Piece, Colonel
A defense, not exactly of Trump the man, but of the phenomenon. It was written for a German audience, so it's got an enviable level of detachment -- what you get from trying to explain the thing to outsiders.
Probably most important is the anger at being treated like suckers by a corrupt establishment:
Still, what caught my eye about this piece is the author's comment on the shift toward isolationism. It's partly about a failure of allied governments (and, frankly, allied nations' populations) to be willing to stand up and suffer for allegedly shared values. But it's even more about a loss of trust in our own leaders to defend our sacrifices:
Our leaders have not taken either of those factors seriously since George W. Bush left office. The nearly complete erosion of the American position in west Asia and the northern Middle East is a consequence. I doubt it will be the only consequence.
Probably most important is the anger at being treated like suckers by a corrupt establishment:
At the same time, rampant corruption among those connected to the liberal establishment – most shockingly with Hillary Clinton being cleared of charges of misusing classified material when the same facts would have doubtlessly led to the imprisonment of unconnected Americans – opened a path for Trump. This was especially disruptive because so many Republican politicians, while ideologically conservative, culturally identified with prosperous coastal, urban elites over the suffering citizens of “flyover” America and tried to enforce the same “political correctness.”It makes sense that people are tired of having their government run by self-dealing liars who treat them like fools, while also subjecting them to social pressures designed to shame them into knuckling under.
Still, what caught my eye about this piece is the author's comment on the shift toward isolationism. It's partly about a failure of allied governments (and, frankly, allied nations' populations) to be willing to stand up and suffer for allegedly shared values. But it's even more about a loss of trust in our own leaders to defend our sacrifices:
The non-elite Americans who make up the military have suffered greatly in wars they see as perfectly justifiable morally, but which were fought without a commitment to victory and therefore led to an inexcusable waste of soldiers’ lives.If we can't trust either our allies or our leadership, why go off to die in foreign lands? For adventure, perhaps, or for glory; those are good things, to be sure. But more important than either adventure or glory is the sense of being engaged in a moral purpose, especially in war where you will often have to do morally difficult things, or watch good men die. It needs to be worth it, and that means you need to be able to have confidence both that there is a moral purpose, and that the sacrifices will not be in vain.
Furthermore, Trump has given voice to the feeling that those America has fought to free – and keep free – are ungrateful and unwilling to shoulder the burden of their own defense. His recent heresy on NATO’s Article 5 was not based upon a misunderstanding of America’s treaty obligations but upon the widespread feeling that America’s allies have had a free ride on America’s largesse, and that this must end. Having served in the U.S. Army in Germany in the Cold War, I understood my mission in case of a hot conflict would have been to kill Russians until either the reserves arrived or I died, and this was fine – I knew a large and powerful Bundeswehr would be fighting by my side. But today, Germany and Europe have allowed their militaries to wither into near uselessness. Trump embodies the question on many Americans’ minds – if the Germans don’t think defending Germany is worth German money and lives, why is it worth American money and lives?
Our leaders have not taken either of those factors seriously since George W. Bush left office. The nearly complete erosion of the American position in west Asia and the northern Middle East is a consequence. I doubt it will be the only consequence.
Quaker City Night Hawks
Listening to BRMC ever since Grim posted it and this popped up on YouTube's recommendations this evening. Good stuff.
I get pretty odd sets of YouTube recommendations. Three on the same screen tonight were BRMC, a Dwight Yoakam tune, and the Royal Navy's "Heart of Oak." I'll bet most of you get sets like that.
Gosh, I've Seen This Movie Before, Too...
Obama DOJ drops charges against weapons smuggler to avoid political embarrassment for himself or Hillary.
Yeah, I've Been Getting That Impression
While media outlets endlessly poll and probe the American people to understand why they feel so disenchanted with their government, Professor Benjamin Ginsberg and Senior Lecturer Jennifer Bachner instead looked at America's political ruling class for answers. The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told."I have an amusing counter-proposal.
"Gender-Based Misconduct"
The biggest thing I didn't realize about this story was the fact that it happened in the "elementary" section of a rather difficult foreign language (Chinese, I assume Mandarin). This is a point at which you're lucky if you can say much of anything at all, and may be struggling to come up with any of the phrases you know under the pressure of being called upon in front of the class.
UPDATE: Related.
He got in trouble for doing something completely inoffensive: he referred to himself as handsome in a class.... According to Sweetwood, the incident happened in his Chinese class. He was supposed to say something in Chinese, and that's what he picked. The professor later told him she thought it was a funny remark, but one student had complained. That was just the beginning:If the phrase is so offensive, by the way, why was it among the first things taught to students?Later that day, my advising dean emailed me to say, "The University's Gender-Based Misconduct Office contacted us because they received a complaint about your behavior towards your Elementary Chinese II professor. It is important we meet to discuss this as soon as possible." I responded in a defiant tone, denying any wrongdoing, though I agreed to meet the next day.Sweetwood's dean made him promise never to make any upsetting remarks. When the student refused, he was sent to the Gender-Based Misconduct Office, where an administrator attempted to persuade him to abandon his micro-aggressive ways.
UPDATE: Related.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)