Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Yet Another Installment In The Made-Up-Psychology-Of-Conservatives Genre

Since progressives can't defend their positions with reasons, they commonly fall back on ad hominems--which is all bullshit like this amounts to. Jesus what nonsense. These people are freaking unhinged. As pissed off as I've become at conservatives over the past 25-ish years, they're nothing compared to what's happened to the left in the past 8-ish years.
And as for chaos: Trump can't hold a candle to the contemporary progressive left. They've gone completely off their rocker. Nobody can really tell what crackpot cause they'll adopt next.

Another Progressive Call To Pack The Court

Jeez these people.

AOC-Style Challengers Looking To Unseat The Dem's Top Brass In 2020?

In case the blue team isn't crazy enough for you now.

Cokie Roberts, Dead At 75

I always liked her.

Merriam-Webster Adds "Nonbinary" Definition Of 'They'

This is stupid, obviously.
I'm not even that opposed to the singular 'they'--but there's no such thing as a "nonbinary" person. A distribution can be "non-binary," I suppose...which would mean, basically: non-bimodal. But not a single person. Someone who actually is neither male nor female is intersexed. There need be--and, in fact, should be--no word for someone who "identifies" as neither--which means: merely says they are. The left, being relativist at its core, doesn't quite reject the idea that saying makes things so. To the left, "identifying" as x merely means: saying you're x. But, since thinking or saying you're an x doesn't make you an x, this is just dumb. Look, you can say that your a rabbit or an asteroid if you want to. That's up to you. It makes you delusional or a liar or some combination of the two...but that's generally your business. Though it certainly doesn't make you an actual rabbit or an actual asteroid.

Best Aftermarket Glock Barrels?

So embarrassing that I've been shooting with a stock barrel all these years...
My Glock is stock as a rock.
Well...Glocks, plural...I've got to be one of the few people on Earth that owns both a 20 and a 29. My first was a 26, but I couldn't shoot that for shit, so I gave it to my brother. Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it wasn't the gun, but user error. Everything was going low and to the left...I just kept adjusting the sight until it was, ridiculously, all the way over to the left. My brother saw me shoot like one mag and said "You're jerking the trigger, jackass." I've always been a weirdly, naturally good shot, but somehow I picked up that habit. Once that went away, I was back to form. And, of course, once you actually start learning stuff and really practicing, it's a whole different world. But my brother also about that time got me my first Glock 10mm...and it was luuuuuuv at first shot. Now my only 9 is a Kahr K9...which, I gotta say, is a damn sweet firearm for a 9mm...

InstaGlenn: Andrew Yang Is Right: To Decarbonize, Nuclear Power Is The Way To Go

Nuclear power is reliable, safe and well understood. If you oppose nuclear power but call climate change a crisis, then you’re speaking nonsense, unless you simply want to reduce energy consumption in America to something like what’s seen in current day Venezuela, in which case you’re just speaking a different kind of nonsense.

Joel Gilbert: The Trayvon Hoax

I read the free Kindle sample of this, and immediately bought it.
If even half of what Gilbert writes is true, this is a bombshell.
   I initially went back and forth, but settled into the anti-Zimmerman camp pretty early on. But eventually I came to the conclusion that Zimmerman's account was more likely to be true than the prosecutor's account. But then there were all the crazy Zimmerman incidents. After them, I decided that they probably constituted better reason to think that Zimmerman was a lunatic than my reasonings constituted for thinking Trayvon was the attacker. So I sorta changed my mind back...but never really quite felt it. To some extent I just didn't want to be one of those people on the Zimmerman side.
   Though I've read a sketchy synopsis, so I kinda know where this is going, the only bits I've actually read thus far show--if true--that neither Zimmerman nor Martin was the person he was made out to be. According to what Gilbert reports, Zimmerman was a good guy, but...well...so was Martin, really. But he'd recently gone down a very bad road. Furthermore, according to Gilbert, recent events in Zimmerman's neighborhood had been a lot worse than they were made out to be--including a daylight home invasion just a few houses away. Turns out the neighborhood is only nominally "gated." Actually, it lacks a wall along one entire side.
   So I don't know whether any of this is true, but two things are sure:
1. If it IS true, it's a bombshell.
2. If it's false, it'll be easy to refute, and will be refuted very soon.
3. If it's true, there's very little chance that significant malfeasance by the media wasn't a major factor.

Howard Kurtz: "How I Realized The NYT Kavanaugh Story Was A Train Wreck"

   For years I ridiculed the idea of "liberal" bias in academia and the media. (Actually I'd actually still ridicule that charge specifically--as I don't think either institution is liberal anymore, but, rather, illiberal leftist. But it's a spectrum, so.) Years ago, long before the left's recent lurch leftward, the truth about academia finally started to dawn on me. Then I few years back--at the time I still listened to NPR all the time--it began to dawn on my how far to the left Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and the rest leaned. I had to stop listening to them a few years back, as I'd just end up mad and stewing about it. That's a pattern with me--I want to still read and listen to whichever side I think is wrongest at any given time...but if they're too bad, it doesn't so much make me see their point of view as it does just make me madder at them. I'm not proud of that, but it's a fact. 
   Anyway. Then the bias of the media overall started to come into focus for me. Oh, sure, I long ago recognized Fox News's bias. But then the more-or-less equal and opposite bias of CNN, the NYT, and the rest started to dawn on me. Slowly, Fox started to seem almost like a welcome corrective...
   I keep saying that these things "dawned on me" because I can't think of a better locution. That's the way it happened--sometimes in jerky, rapid realizations...but more often gradually.
   Of course I'm wrong a lot, as are the vast majority of us. But I'm sure I'm not completely wrong about all this. By now we have way, way more objective evidence of pernicious bias in the "MSM" than we need.

39% Of Americans Can Name 3 Branches Of Gov't; 22% Can Name 0

Monday, September 16, 2019

C. Blasey Ford's Friend Leland Keiser Doesn't Believe Her

Whelp, that makes at least two of us.

Does The Road To Abolishing The Electoral College Run Through Texas?

Maybe.
Stay strong, Texas. The EC is one of the things standing between us and a dystopian progressive future.

How Black Farmers Were Robbed Of Their Land

This'll break your heart, but there's a happy ending.

A Must-Read: Katherine Kirkpatrick: "How Oregon Built A Transgender-Industrial Complex On Junk Science"

Holy shit.
   It's astonishing to me that the left--obsessed with the hermeneutics of suspicion and quick to trumpet any even imagined confounding self-interest on the part of its political opponents--is completely unconcerned with this.
   Though, honestly, I tend to avoid such "external" arguments, in part because they're so often overblown, especially by the left. Trangender ideology is a train wreck. Any rational person should be able to see that. There should be no need to rely on arguments about hidden economic motives. TI is about as plausible as, oh, say Scientology. Anyone who takes a look--and not necessarily a long look--at it has to see that it's almost entirely nonsense. (Honest question: how long do you think it'll be before you can be fired from a public university for pointing that out?) Experience seems to show that I have a slightly more finely-tuned bullshit detector than most people, fallible though it is. But my God...the radical implausibility of this stuff just hits you upside the head as soon as you hear about it. And it's so weirdly similar to the Satanic Panic! How is it that that social/cultural humiliation was purged so quickly from our collective memory? How is it that we're doing something so bizarrely similar not 30 years later? I honestly would have laughed in your face if you'd have told me about all this ten years ago. (Hell, less than ten, actually.)
   One of the most amazing things in that Federalist piece is the way in which they cooked up the 3% nonsense. The mind, it reels.
   This is why I think political correctness is the most dangerous thing in American (and Western) politics--once you begin to assiduously and systematically subordinate truth and evidence to political dogma--especially wacky, quasi-religious political dogma--things start going to hell fast.

Gilbert T. Sewall: "How Modesto Became An American Dystopia"

I'm not sure what to make of stuff like this.
It does, however, strike me as being the sort of thing progressives should at least read occasionally and think about. The mad dash to dissolve the culture and tear down...what? Social guard rails? Guide rails? Is that a thing?...comes at a price. 

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Climate Hysteriacs Get Carried Away

No, no, no.
You can't become so hysterical as to say that it's already too late! Jesus, did you not get the talking points? It doesn't do any good if it's too late! If it's too late, then it makes no sense to implement all the progressive programs like "free" college and "free" housing and socialism and gun control and white men suck. Jesus, even I know that much--it's always got to be ten years away. Not so far off as to allow people to actually think about it, nor not freak out, but not so soon as to make it impossible to implement the wish list. Ten years is just about right.

Respect For a d00kie: Plumb3 In The Rangers

Wow.
Super cool.
I thought he'd have more success in the league, but this is waaaay cooler.

Racial Resentment As Pedagogy:

Behold, the plague of bullshit in Academia:
This weekend, more than 14,000 academics will gather in Toronto to share their research for the American Educational Research Association’s annual conference. In past years, I’ve documented the focus of AERA academics on matters that seem only obliquely connected to curriculum, instruction, and policy. It looks like more of the same this year, from the symposium on “Liberating Oppressed Ontologies and Cosmologies for Transformational Praxis” to the paper “Queer Evolution: (Re)invigorating Environmental Education through Queer Interpretations of Evolutionary Onto-Epistemological Choreography.” But this year’s conference has especially lofty ambitions. Under the title Leveraging Education Research in a ‘Post-Truth’ Era: Multimodal Narratives to Democratize Evidence, the event’s promotional poster features a lighthouse inscribed with the words “Trust, Integrity, Methodology, and Reliability,” which looks out over a sea of “Post-Truth, Propaganda, and Fabrication.”

New Kavenaugh Allegation: Alleged Victim Has No Memory Of Alleged Incident

Ah.
Well, there ya go.
I'm kinda embarrassed at having fallen for that.

Harris Calls for Kavenaugh Impeachment, Castro Calls For Investigation

Another Sexual Misconduct Allegation Against Kavenaugh

Egad.
Ok, I really didn't believe C. Blasey Ford. But I didn't see a lot of reason not to believe Ramirez--and this sounds a lot like her allegation.
Also, even under the prevailing conditions, if enough such allegations stack up, it becomes less rational to doubt them.
"#MeToo" madness, however, does matter. And the left has made it clear that it's willing to use such allegations as political weapons, truth be damned. That's what it does with accusations of racism, to take the paradigm example.
I really don't want to have been wrong about this, needless to say.

Althouse On Reich's TDS: Dems Should Find "A Candidate Who Isn't Scarier Than Trump"

Well, that basically summarizes my current view.
Reich says Trump is terrifying and unstable and getting worse. Althouse responds that he actually seems to be calming down--which I hadn't thought of, but seems right to me. Then:
Reich's imaginationland is pretty weird. But I guess articles like this need to be written. There's a market for it. I wonder how big, though. Personally, I've never liked Trump (other than that I enjoy his humor and jolliness), but the Trumpophobes are worse — more "seriously, frighteningly, dangerously unstable." They'd do better to settle down and work on getting a Democratic Party candidate who isn't scarier than Trump.
Trump scares me because I'm not sure what he might do. The newly-progressive Dems scare me because I do know what they'll do. Trump scares me because of his personal attributes. The Dems scare me because they are religious zealots--or, rather, they're all running for chief prophet of a completely insane new religion. It's the religion--the idea--that's scary. Of course it's scary that they all some combination of actually believe it and are willing to pretend they do. But I'd bet that a lot of them would be ok if they were preaching to a different choir, in a different church.

Alexander William Slater: "Why Progressivism Wins"

Interesting and fairly plausible, but I haven't thought about it much.
My pet hypothesis / partial explanation is: it encourages acceptance and suppresses dissent rather as Christianity does, by running a kind of moral ad baculum: If you don't accept the view, you're evil. Failure to accept the position doesn't just make you wrong, or lead you into error. Rather, criticism and disbelief are morally wrong in themselves.
Then of course you add the ordinary ad baculum: criticize or reject progressivism and we will make your life miserable. 
Fear of being seen as evil (or, as what's currently thought to be worse: racist) and of actually being evil combine to suppress dissent and fuel acceptance. It's a powerful combination.

An Argument Against The Institutional Neutrality Of Libraries

   Such arguments seem weak to me, as do these in particular. But some of them are worth considering. I think there are unavoidable matters of degree in play, and favor erring on the side of institutional neutrality. I don't know the details of this case, so I can't say much about it. Libraries, like many other institutions, seem to have been colonized by the progressive left, and so seem to have the attendant tendencies. I'm not sure why the author thinks that closing the libraries on the day of the protest was...well, I'm not sure what she's saying, exactly. She seems to argue that libraries shouldn't be institutionally neutral about such cases, and that closing them was some sort of expression of such neutrality. It sounds as if the idea was really that the rally was going to be violent or elicit violence. In that case the question of whether to close them seems orthogonal to the neutrality question.

Progressives Don't Believe Their Own Climate Hype (The GND Alone Proves That), So Neither Should The Rest Of Us

Obviously they don't.
In fact, as I've argued for awhile now, the "Green New Deal" itself proves that--as do the admissions of its creators.
So let's figure out some rational, moderate way forward.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

In Memo Veritas


God Bless Andrew Sullivan, Again

That guy's great, as you know.
On the NYT "1619 project": It's shit.
On drag queens: Well...I have no doubt he know more than I do.
On Brexit: not unreasonable, and it's a democracy, you realize.

Beta Is A Disaster For The Gun-Control Movement

Anybody who'd seriously consider that crack-brained phony is...is...WELL THEY'RE WRONG THAT'S WHAT.
   Over the longish run, I've been ambivalent about additional gun-control measures. I suppose my view currently is: no freaking way. Not while the left is rabid, that's for sure. If/after this dies down and some semblance of sanity returns, we can think about it. But that has to be done in light of the recognition that the left does periodically go insane, and that influential sectors of the left absolutely positively will never be satisfied until they've taken our firearms. Thanks, incidentally, to Beta for making that even clearer than it used to be.
   Also, phony is kind of a cheap insult. It gets flung at almost everybody at some time or other. The right called Obama a phony, and I think that was extreme BS. I think that guy was pretty up-front about who he is. I like him--maybe you don't--but I don't see how anyone can think he isn't pretty open about who he is. But Beta's a phony. It's just true, ergo I say it. Actually, he's so lame that it may be better that he's a phony. I'm actually not sure which would be worse: being authentically Beto, or not being, but thinking that being Beto is something worth aspiring to. Yeesh. 
   And, sure, he only said that he fantasizes about taking our ARs and AKs...but c'mon. Can we not pretend that things would stop there? Handguns kill a whoooole lot more people than MSRs. And you know how the left operates. Even if they did magically take away everyone's MSRs, they'd almost immediately argue: Hey, we took away MSRs...and handguns kill lots more people...so... That's the fundamental logic of the left: always push leftwarder.

O'Rourke Loses His Mind About Race At Dem Debate 3

   Wow that guy is an idiot.
   Kind of hard to believe that this NYT 1619 nonsense may actually have legs. But, then again...not hard at all giving what fertile ground the progressive left is for stupidity. It seems to take root and flourish there at the drop of a hat...or seed...or however you finish a thought like that.
   And racism is "endemic" to America? In which common sense of 'endemic,' one wonders?
   We used to have something called "liberalism." It wasn't perfect, but it generally wasn't batshit crazy, either. Gosh, I miss those days.
[Oh, and I almost forgot: racism is "foundational" to America. If, y'know, you date our founding from an event that had nothing to do with its actual founding... These people really do hate the U.S. Jingoism is just about equally unlovely, as goes without saying. But those aren't the only two options, as should go without saying.]

George Packer: "When The Culture War Comes For The Kids"

This is really good.

Does The New Head Of The DCCC Think Men Shouldn't Run For Office?

Maybe.
   The real problem isn't so much this kind of occasional stupid comment. The real problem is that these are the kinds of ideas that are currently motivating the progressive left. This particular idea--preventing or impeding male candidates from running for office--may not have quite burst out into the open yet. But no one could pretend to be particularly surprised if it did. This sort of comment may as well be a "trial balloon," even though I doubt that's how it was intended. It's certainly been discussed. And it's the kind of idea that might well grip the contemporary left by next month or next year. It could be the We're gonna take your AR-15 of 2020. Or of October 2019. God knows. And that's kind of the thing: contemporary progressivism is already gripped by innumerable flat-out insane ideas. In away, the question is just: which new ones will it add in the relatively near future? Because we absolutely know there will be more. There is no chance whatsoever that it's going to stop here; no chance of some kind of dawn of sanity on the left.
   Though also: the problem isn't so much that there is a list of particular nutty ideas that have gripped the left. The problem is that some kind of general tendency of thought has come to predominate over there, and it's largely the source of the insanity. It's not like they just went around randomly picking up a bunch of harebrained ideas. It can't be random. Something about progressive thought creates or constitutes a tendency to adopt these ideas. Whatever it is, it obviously isn't good.

Friday, September 13, 2019

So O'Rourke Is Going To Try To Take Away Our AR-15s...

My God.
I just keep thinking back to election night 2016, and think that, had someone told me that in 2.5 years, the Dems would have so completely lost their minds that Donald freakin' Trump would start to look like the lesser evil... I'd have laughed my ass off. There's just no way I would have believed it.
And yet, here we are.

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Dem Debate

Ok, I really just can't listen to O'Rourke.
Jesus Christ that guy is full of shit.

Transgender Converstion Therapy Linked To Psychological Distress

Astonishing.
So why is this sort of therapy considered permissible by the cultural powers that be, but conversion therapy that aims to turn homosexuals heterosexual is out? Sexual preference has to be a lot, lot easier to change than sex...which is, after all, completely impossible to change at our current level of technology. People have been modifying their sexual preferences largely by force of willpower for, well, ever... As just about anyone who's monogamous can testify. You could try saying that their preferences don't change, they just control them. Certainly that's a lot of what happens, but not all of it. Another part of the phenomenon involves just directing your attention away from temptation, which is, basically, diminishing your own desire for sex with other people.
   Not saying that gay conversion therapy is a great idea--don't have an opinion on it, really. Though mostly I'd rather that everybody could be happy with who they are (within reason) in that way. Just saying that, as is so often the case, our cultural overseers have an inconsistent position.

[Looks like Reynolds and everyone else got this backwards; it's alleged that trying to get people to accept their sex (i.e. their biology) is what's alleged to cause the harm. Which is much less plausible--but, hey, could be.]

Joel Kotkin: "Common Sense Vs. Climate Hysteria"

link
Count me in:
  Common sense is really what we need. No amount of virtue-signaling by governments, celebrities, royalty or the media can make up for the fact that virtually all growth in greenhouse gases comes not from the West but from China, easily the world’s champion emitter, India and a host of poorer countries. Driving a Tesla or Prius is not going to change much, and many green-backed policies, such as in Germany and California , have done little, if anything, for the climate, but have succeeded in hurting middle- and working-class people far more than the affluent.
   Given these realities, the logical course is to focus an intelligent economically sensible transition to a lower-carbon economy while pushing for resiliency measures to deal with the possible results of higher GHG emissions. Rather than seek to turn people into insect eaters and permanent apartment dwellers, perhaps we should push for measures in the new infrastructure bill before Congress to bolster coastal defenses, underground power lines, improve dams and water systems.
   The future belongs not to the most self-righteous but the most adaptable. This is gradually taking root in the policy discussion. After years of opposition, some environmentalists now accept that poorly managed forests in states like California must be trimmed to forestall massive firestorms. Others propose more expenditure on coastal walls, dispersed power systems, desalination plants and better storage of water.
   The Netherlands provides a compelling role model here. After experiencing a massive flood in the 16th century, the Dutch embarked on a successful and extensive expansion of coastal berms to prevent future floods and bolstered their economy ever since. In contrast places that failed to address climate-related risks led to the decline of numerous cities in ancient Mesoamerica, the Indus Valley, Cambodia and, more recently, New Orleans.
   Ultimately, the climate issue can be best addressed not by fueling anxiety but by adopting a practical and economically feasible approach. Quasi-religious hysteria may provide meaning for activists, but given the global nature of the problem, we need to address it not with panic but reason, and careful consideration about consequences, something in all too short supply today.
I'm in no way inclined to ignore the threat and do nothing. But I've begun to think that AGW hysteria may be a bigger threat than AGW itself. This is kind of a pattern on the contemporary left; I think something similar about diversomania in academia.

"Genderless" Penguin To Be Raised By Same-Sex Penguin Couple At London Aquarium

None of this makes a single bit of sense. It's an embarrassment that the public mind has degenerated to a point such that this is taken seriously enough to not be laughed out of the goddamn room...but here we are.
It's all so idiotic that it's a huge mistake to dignify it with criticism...but I can't resist saying: one prominently stupid aspect of such things involves the diligent campaign by the left to confuse the sex/gender distinction. When feminism and the left benefitted tactically from sticking to the distinction, they stuck to it. Now that they've gone "trans" and, hence, benefit from confusing the distinction, they confuse it. In fact, they basically now say whatever they want to say about "gender," using the term to mean three or four different things (including just: sex)...or, just as often, to mean nothing at all. In this stupid story we get all sorts of stupid confusions, including: (a) confusing the sex/gender distinction, ergo (b) confusing sex with gender, ergo (c) ending up with the belief that penguins have gender, and (d) thinking that gender is something which is somehow real, yet also fictional--because if it comes and goes just by saying so, then it's a fiction, and (e) ending up, apparently, with the view that the penguin's sex is indeterminate...and (f) indeterminate simply because the aquarium doesn't reveal it.
Find something stupider than this--I dare you.
Yet the progressive left, our new cult/religion/superstition also continues to see itself as the faction of science.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Beta O'Rourke Thinks Living Close To Work Is A Right, Wants To Micromanage The Demographics Of Your Neighborhood

The Dems are routinely saying things that are crazier than anything Trump has ever said...but since they say it with the right demeanor, and they're on the right side (of history...), it's ok. 
O'Rourke is so full of shit I can't bear to listen to him for more than the 30 seconds it usually takes to hear a new reason to revile the guy.
Compare Trump's hurricane dipshittery with Beta's bullshittery; the latter is spewing climate totalitarianism--because a th' glob'l warmin' 'n' whatnot; progressives should get to tell you that you have to build low-income housing in your neighborhood. Oh, and also, it's a right anyway. That's blatant totalitarian stupidity...but it's consistent with progressive superstition, and fuck you and your neighborhood, bigot. People have a right to live there whether they can afford it or not. So the gub'mint gets to shoehorn them in with your tax $$. Complaining is hate speech, bigot...

28% Of Democrats Say It Should Be Illegal To Join The NRA???

Rasmussen, but still... Half that would be insane.

Trump Fires Bolton

Well praise Jesus.
link

Sheila Jackson Lee Introduces Restrictive Gun Legislation

A non-starter, one hopes.

Cory Booker Introduces Legislation That Requires Gun-Owners To Get A Federal License Every Five Years, Apply To Purchase Each Gun, Submit to Fingerprinting, Background Check, Etc.

I trust this has no chance of passing the Senate.

Why It's Currently Difficult For Me To Read Progressive Publications: The Nation / Naomi Klien / GND/"Eco-Fascism" Edition

Look I still do read them...but currently they usually just fan the flames of my outrage.
Behold:
Naomi Klein Knows a Green New Deal Is Our Only Hope Against Climate Catastrophe    When I spoke with Naomi Klein in August, it was day 13 of Greta Thunberg’s transatlantic crossing on the Malizia II, a zero-emissions racing sailboat. Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who doesn’t fly because of the carbon impact, was making her way to Manhattan for the UN Climate Action summit. Klein’s new book, On Fire: The Burning Case for the Green New Deal, opens with a portrait of Thunberg and a discussion of the youth climate movement. For decades, Klein writes, children have been used as mere rhetorical devices in the discourse of climate change. We have been implored to act on climate change for the sake of “our children.” But, as Klein told me, it is “obvious that this has not worked to inspire decision-makers to do what was necessary.” Now, young people are no longer content to be treated as tropes. “They are speaking and striking and marching for themselves, and they are issuing the verdicts about the entire political class that has failed them.”
   The essays collected in On Fire also come together around a central verdict: that the climate crisis cannot be separated from centuries of human exploitation. Colonialism, indigenous genocide, slavery, and climate disruption all share a history. Not only did these historical processes establish the extractive industries that have led to climate change, but they established an extractive mindset, “a way of viewing both the natural world and the majority of its inhabitants as resources to use up and then discard,” Klein writes. Climate activism must fight both. We need a “shift in worldview at every level.”    For Klein, the Green New Deal represents precisely this. Formulated by climate activists and proposed by representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, the Green New Deal offers a way to transform our infrastructure at the scale and speed required by climate change while simultaneously transforming the economic model and underlying worldview that has caused it. Detractors may call it a random laundry list of progressive initiatives, but for Klein the brilliance of the Green New Deal lies in its supposition that its initiatives—from renewable energy to universal health care—are anything but unrelated. Ecological breakdown and economic injustice are inextricably linked. The solution must be holistic. The Green New Deal offers a way both to “get clean” and to “redress the founding crimes of our nations.”
I would like to stress, as Joe Bob Briggs would say, that I am not making this up.

Tom Tomorrow: President Trump vs. An Asteroid

The NRA Is Not A Terrorist Organization

You may hate the NRA--I haven't been a regular member since our folks signed us up when we were kids, and haven't been a member at all since the Clinton administration--but it's preposterous to even suggest that it's a terrorist organization.
There are plenty of reasonable grounds on which to criticize the NRA. Why are progressives so addicted to hysteriperbole?

Head of NWS Leads Standing Ovation For Staff Who Corrected Trump Re: Dorian Hitting Alabama

Presidenting is hard.
If you're making mistakes on gimmes, you probably can't handle the hard stuff.
link

Are "Gender Activists" Losing?

I very much doubt it.
I can't resist saying again: one of the craziest things about all this to my mind is that there seems to be an obvious and rather conservative (not in the political sense) equality argument to be made to the effect that if women can wear dresses to work, then men can wear them, too. There are obvious counterarguments, but it's not clear that they're sufficiently strong to win out. Nothing about that equality argument requires accepting any of the extravagant and implausible arguments of transgender ideology. If the Supremes give some kind of imprimatur to TI in the upcoming Harris funeral homes case there'll be no denying that the country's gone bonkers. It's the fact that we have to worry about something like this that makes me think that we'd be better off with a too-conservative court right now.
   It's depressing, of course, that the ACLU has been hijacked by the illiberal progressive left. But that sort of thing seems to be happening all over the place.