Elon Musk: 'Cis' is a Heterosexual Slur

The word “cis” is a heterosexual slur. Shame on anyone who uses it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 30, 2023

No it isn't.

  It's nauseatingly stupid...but it's no kind of slur.

   I mean, sure, all sorts of words (even prefixes, I guess) can be used to convey antipathy. But 'cis'...what's the full version of that? 'Cissexual'? 'Cisgendered'?...anyway. It's not like the n-bomb. Nor like 'kraut.' 

   If somebody uses the term unironically, odds are you're dealing with an idiot. But that's a different matter entirely.

   Incidentally: boy, the lefties sure hate Elon. Makes me like the guy even more.

Review: Lukianoff and Schlot, The Cancelling of the American Mind

link

IDF Advances in Gaza, Frees a Hostage

link

It's all terrible. But I honestly don't know what else Israel can do.

They also found partial remains of another hostage. 

Kelly Jane Torrance: "Hamas Horrors You Luckily Won't See"

link

Hamas broadcast its sadistic, murderous rampage of 10/7.

Israel is too civilized even to release some of the footage. Instead, it was shown to a few journalists to report on. 

The two parties to this dispute are not the same.

"Why Trump's Drastic Plan to Slash the Government Could Succeed"

This could be a good idea...but it makes me nervous.

   I certainly couldn't support anything that radical without knowing a lot more than I do about it.

If I could push a button and eliminate the Department of Education, I think I'd do it. But the FBI??? For all its flaws, I certainly don't know enough about it to even make that a real option.

   As for the Deep State theory...I fear that it's true. And am pretty sure that it's at least a little bit true. We have nontrivial evidence for it. There is certainly a Deep Academy. It grabs every leftist idea and runs spastically for the end zone...but finds every way to oppose and delay the implementation of conservative ideas. Strategies for getting around the Students for Fair Admissions decisions were openly discussed (e.g. on the front page of the Chronicle). "Diversity" began as a way of getting around Bakke.

   Ramaswamy has some interesting and similar ideas. 

   Anyway. As usual, I'm roughly on the side of Bill Barr: the idea is promising, but Trump isn't the man to implement it.

   I guess.

   I don't know.

   I guess I don't know.

Erwin Chemerinsky: "Nothing Has Prepared Me For The Antisemitism I See On College Campuses Now"

Chemerinsky explicitly asserts one of the most important relevant facts: criticism of Israel does not entail antisemitism. To pretend otherwise is to fall into the same sophistry that the left uses as a tactic at every turn: any criticism of group x, or anything closely associated with group x, is x-ism/anti-x-bigotry. It's absolutely imperative to call bullshit on this kind of loathsome sophistry.

   But, as a matter of fact, there just does seem to be a lot of antisemitism running through anti-Zionism / criticism of Israel. 

   Antisemitism is like some kind of evil spirit that possesses this or that group. It apparently used to be very common on the right--and without a doubt still is on its insane extremes. When there was an actual Klan, Jews were its Public Enemy #2... Currently, though, it seems most prominent on the left--perhaps, again, largely just because the left is more visible, controlling all our prominent institutions. And the contemporary progressive left basically goes overboard with everything. In particular, it loathes the groups it imagines to be oppressors. What began as egalitarian feminism turned into aversion to men. What began as a concern to advance the interests of blacks now prominently manifests itself as aversion to whites. (Hence all the talk of "dismantling"--i.e. destroying--"whiteness.") In fact, being successful is nearly sufficient to be loathed by the left. Jews are a minority...but a very successful one. They're already halfway to oppressor status. Add the Israel/Palestine situation...and you get what we have.

   I don't know and don't know how to find out how prominent antisemitism is on the anti-Israel left. I certainly don't want to paint legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism. But we're seeing defense of and outright praise for brutal Hamas terrorism (including positive laudatory representations of the ultralights used on 10/7 and tearing down posters of the kidnapped) and mob attacks against groups of Jews even in the U.S. (as at The Cooper Union). And Hamas terrorism didn't produce the mass demonstrations that Israel's response has produced.

   I don't have anything insightful to say about this.

   But I'm officially concerned.

James E. Campbell: What Must the President Have Known (About the Biden Family Influence-Peddling Operation)?

So on the influence-peddling hypothesis I've gone from "this is possible but unlikely" to "this is very probably true." As Campbell argues, (a) it's extremely unlikely that Biden didn't know about this extensive operation going on right under his nose for years, and (b) it's extremely unlikely that the parties on the other end of the transactions were coughing up tens of millions of dollars for nothing in return.

   He says that influence-peddling is not impeachable, but bribery is. That sounds plausible to me...but...not a lawyer right here.

   But: given (a) and (b) (above): it's beginning to look a lot like bribery.

   Campbell also notes something I've griped about many times: Biden, by his own admission, got prosecutor Victor Shokin fired by threatening to withhold $1billion of U.S. aid if he wasn't. Sokin was investigating dirty dealings at Burisma, which was paying Hunter Biden--who has no relevant expertise--$1 million / year. Trump was impeached merely for asking Zelensky to look into the situation. This boggles the mind. The Democrat is allowed to get away with more-or-less open crimes; the Republican (or Trump, at any rate) is impeached for merely asking for an investigation to determine whether the crime was, in fact, a crime.

   I just want to know the truth about this. And: I want justice done. Whatever it is and whatever that amounts to here.

Laptopgate (and WMDgate, and Russiagate) and Belief Over-Persistence

Leon Panetta and many others on the left continue to insist, suggest, believe, etc. that Hunter's laptop was Russian "disinformation." Even despite--as Turley notes--the fact that Hunter has admitted that the laptop was his. This sort of thing happens a lot in politics, as people are loath to admit error. It's possible to just insist that you've been right all along, even when the evidence shows clearly that you weren't. Admitting such a bone-headed and consequential error comes at a psychological cost. Admitting that it was all a lie--or semi-lie--would be even more costly. The strategy here seems to be: keep lying for awhile. Eventually the thing will start to fade away. Then you can just not mention it. Even if you're forced to admit error somewhere down the line, doing so after no one cares (or perhaps even remembers) anymore will be less costly.

   But at any rate, one is reminded of the Iraq WMD debacle, in which the neo-cons, GOP, and other invasion cheerleaders simply refused to acknowledge that they were wrong. We looked high and low, and couldn't find any evidence of significant sores of "WMDs." (Note: 'WMD' was apparently a made-up term used to blur the distinction between nukes and bio-weapons on the one hand, and chemical weapons on the other.) It got so bad that we'd get breathless reports that some UXO unit somewhere had found a chemical artillery round embedded in the dirt somewhere, left over from the Iran war. We were right all along!!! Madness. Similarly with Russiagate. Progressives and liberals all over the internet insist that Trump was colluding, no matter what Mueller reported. He wasn't exonerated! They shared polling data!!! INTERNAL polling data! The Senate report! The Senate Report!!! In short: no evidence will ever be enough for them, because they don't want the theory to be false. They are so emotionally and ideologically committed to the Russian collusion conspiracy theory that they will never, ever let it go... (See also: Amanda Marcotte and the Duke lacrosse false allegations of rape). 

   Anyway, for the record: the laptop is Hunters. We basically knew it was Hunter's at the time. There was no appreciable evidence that it was Russian disinformation. And, as is only slightly less clear: the 51 formerly intelligent officials signed the letter for political reasons, to lower the odds of a Trump win and boost the odds of a Biden win.

   So, yeah, we have a massive conspiracy to subvert democracy across all our institutions, and involving the vast majority of our so-called elites...

   But no mean tweets!

"What Did You Think Decolonization Looked Like?": The Truth About The Woke Left Dawns on (Some) Progressives

I don't understand why it took this.

Political Correctness / Woketarianism is a cult. Progressivism has been openly unhinged for about a decade now. I would have thought that repeated, dogmatic, spittle-flecked insistence that black is white and night is day would have been sufficient. For those who don't care much about truth per se, there's the mass brainwashing and sexual mutilation of children. Still not enough? I don't know what to tell you. You've got a problem, man. But anyway: if support for a terroristic death cult that massacres, rapes, tortures and beheads innocent people including babies is the bridge that's too far for you...well...I guess that's better than there being no bridge that's too far at all...

Sowell on Israel - Palestine: Cease the Ceasefires

Calls for ceasefires always seem to come after Israel begins to retaliate.

"Postmodern Medicine May Superficially Resemble Modern Medicine, Yet It Seeks To Dismantle Its Underlying Philosophy"

"A Pediatricians Manifesto for the Modernization of Gender Medicine."

Remember when 'modernize' meant, roughly, bring from the past into the present? Here it means: go back to the point where medicine was sane, before it became Lysenkoized.

Hawley: Not One Taxpayer Dime For Gaza Until Hamas Frees All The Hostages

Well, I agree with this, too.

Aiding Gaza seems to me to be rather like aiding China or Iran.

James Esses: "The Fall of Scientific American" (aka Lysenkoism Monthly)

Not news.

But true.

The piece in question, "The Theory that Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather is Wrong," is just what we've come to expect from Lysenkoism Monthly. It's a pastiche of politically correct Newspeak, obvious falsehoods, not-so-obvious falsehoods, and long stretches of semi-scientific babble that even a non-specialist can tell conceal copious lying and cheating. 

   Esses quotes perhaps the most obvious absurdity, the now-orthodox leftist dogma that man and woman have nothing to do with sex, but are, rather, social roles associated with "identification." As I've said for a decade now: that's the most obviously false claim that's been propagated in American politics in my lifetime.

   Another one of many: 

If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait—males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S. Sometimes female athletes compete in these races while attending to the needs of their children. In 2018 English runner Sophie Power ran the 105-mile Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc race in the Alps while still breastfeeding her three-month-old at rest stations.

Now, I've often heard that women "do better than men" in such races. We all have, I'm sure. That's the kind of thing the establishment wants to be true. Most of us do, in fact. We all like a good underdog story...and women are, athletically, the underdogs. But I found the claim that "Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events..." to be suspicious.

   First, of course, it's multiply ambiguous. "Dominating" more regularly than men? More regularly than they used to? More regularly than other sporting events? Because the first is the one crucial to the authors' case...but it is also the most implausible.

   Second: dominating? Really? Not just winning? 

   So I randomly picked the Trans Am cycling race to check. Here are the historical results. You have to look pretty hard to find any women in there at all over the past four years or so. I didn't look back farther than that. There is no "domination" to be found...and little placing in the top 25.

   I'll admit, if you don't think about it much, it would be easy to think that "man, the hunter" means that only men hunted. Now, two seconds of reflection by even non-specialists would bring to mind the obvious correction that undoubtedly men also gathered, and women must have helped hunt at least sometimes. It's perfectly find to make sure people recognize that. But that requires nothing more than a sentence or two. It certainly doesn't require a highly misleading Woketarian puddle of nonsense like that SciAm piece.

   tl;dr: par for the new course.

Barack Obama: Thoughts on Israel and Gaza

I may not agree with him about as much as I used to, but I still admire his intellectual demeanor.

And I generally agree with this.

No real need to fight over details.

Biden Administration Finally Finds Some Free Speech Worth Defending: Pro-Hamas Protests

I don't know anything about First Amendment protections for foreign nationals. But pro-Hamas speech seems clearly protected for citizens (and legal immigrants?), no? I mean, pro-CCP speech is protected. The ceaseless anti-free-speech nattering of the progressive left is protected. Barring some immigration-related complication, there just seems to be no question here. 

So, anyway. I'm certainly not saying that the Administration is wrong about this.

I'm saying it's pretty odd that this is the issue about which it decided to get all Constitutional.

Which is, again, not in any way to disagree with their position on this.

"There Could Be Crimes Trump Committed That Are So Secret It [sic] Isn't [sic] Worth Charging [sic]"!!!!: "Experts"

Though the text says this is because they are so "serious," not "secret."

But details, shmetails when ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!

Instead of speculating about possible past crimes by the previous President...how about we follow up on the actual crimes of the current President?

Also note: they're not so secret--nor so serious--that we can't make up bullshit speculation about them, of course!...we just can't be asked to prove them...

Turley: Biden's Taunt to Show Him the Money May Have Just Backfired

...given evidence of a $200k "loan repayment" from his brother to his personal account. 

But, as Turley notes, the media will move the goalposts again. Whereas Russiagate was built and perpetuated on the basis, basically, of no evidence at all, the media will never acknowledge that anything counts as evidence of Biden corruption. Or, rather: nothing short of video of Chinese businessmen handing Joe a suitcase full of money...

Harsanyi: Violent Attacks on American Jews Prove That "Anti-Zionism" is Antisemitism

Not sure.

Woketarians use roughly this same form of argument at almost every turn. E.g.: racists are against BLM; you are against BLM; therefore you are a racist.

   There does seem to be a lot over overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism--more overlap than, say, between racism and anti-BLMism. I suppose there's no real denying that there, at least often, seems to be quite a bit of overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. But, as Hirsanyi notes, a lot of Jews are critical of Zionism, and of Israel. Of course a Woke-style response to this would be: That is the Jewish face of antisemitism...  But we are not Woketarians. And we can't stoop to their level.

   There's an obvious empirical question afoot: how much overlap is there?

   But it's clear enough that not every pro-Gaza protestor, and not every anti-Zionist is antisemitic.

   OTOH, it seems (to me, anyway) that quite a few are. 

   I tend to think that the former is more important...but that may be a philosophical quirk. 

Campus Anti-Israel / Pro-Gaza/Hamas Protests

I'm not exactly sure what's going on with these. I just want to mention that there's chatter on the non-left that seems to come dangerously close to suggesting that such protests should be suppressed. Much about some of these protests is reprehensible. But I haven't heard of anything yet that isn't protected speech. 

   Relatedly: there're a lot of suggestions that this may constitute a turning point with respect to the illiberal progressive left / identity politics / Wokeness. That is: that campus support for Gaza...which blurs into support for Hamas...reveals the true core of that movement, and, furthermore, that this is so ugly that it will finally convince fence-sitters and the silent majority to turn against the larger movement.

   Maybe.

   I'm not sure that's a very reasonable argument against the movement, as I'm not sure that support for Hamas really is integral to it. Perhaps we should be happy to use any weapon available against it at this point. I don't know. Of course I think that the movement is so crazy that there are plenty of very strong reasons to reject it. And I think the reasons for rejection matter. Though perhaps not as much as the rejection itself.

   At any rate, there have been a lot of assurances that we've passed peak woke, that the pendulum is swinging back, etc. I'm not sure of that, either. Certainly the opposition to it has got its boots on now. So that's worth a lot.

   My own suspicion is that this battle won't really end. The ideas that motivate political correctness / Woketarianism have proven to be powerful and dangerous. They have the ability to grip hearts and minds. I agree that, to some extent, Marxist ideas are at its core. And those have gripped much of the left for going on 200 years... I don't see that the battle against crackpottery of the extremist left will simply be won, any more than the battle against crackpottery on the extremist right will simply ever be won. 

Third Thoughts on Chauvin and Floyd

I have been assuming that asphyxiation always shows up as such in autopsies. If that's false, then we can't conclude from what we've been told about Floyd's autopsy that Chauvin didn't kill him. So now I think I was wrong about that. We'd have to know facts about autopsies that I, anyway, don't know.

   What we can know is that the investigation was not objective. It was subject to political pressure, and the original medical examination report was changed in response to that pressure. What we--or I, at any rate--don't know is whether the medical examiner is permitted to take other information into account--e.g. the video of the arrest. And, of course, what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from whatever information the medical examiner is permitted to consider. I was assuming that the M.E. wasn't permitted to take such collateral information into account. That is, I was assuming that the M.E. is supposed to tell us only what he can infer from the condition of the body of the decedent. That could easily be false.

   The general situation is as many of us thought all along--that pretty much no one was going to say or do anything to put them at odds with the spasm of anger and indignation that was consequent on the video. And what we seem to have learned is: that's exactly what happened. 

   Per the testimony of former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy:

“I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd,” said Sweasy under oath. “He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy added.
By day two, Baker knew the risks involved in telling the truth. Sweasy continued, “He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’” Although Sweasy knows very well why Baker altered his diagnosis, Carlson may not. This story bears retelling in the light of Sweasy’s unwitting confirmation.

There was, of course, a second autopsy. It concluded that Floyd did die of asphyxiation. But it was commissioned and paid for by Floyd's family. So that's a separate can of worms.

   Some modest conclusions: we have strong reason to doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd. We also have good reason to doubt that Chauvin received a fair trial. Needless to say, both of these conclusions are compatible with the proposition that Chauvin killed Floyd.

 

Derek Chauvin Did Not Murder George Floyd...And The Prosecutors Knew It

No he didn't...and yes they did.

Return of the Neo-Cons, or: If You Liked Iraq, You'll Love Iran

Jesus Christ these guys again.

   Of course there are circumstances under which such an attack would be reasonable. And I'm willing to be convinced that those circumstances are actual. But it's going to take substantial convincing.

   Whatever Trump's multitudinous faults, "America First" is one of his many pithy slogans that points to an important truth. Not: America Only. But: America First. (Here I assume that the history of the term is largely irrelevant.) Among the good things I take that to mean: no more forever wars. It's only just now occurred to me that Bill Kristol's apostasy from the GOP wasn't so much a principled stance against Trump's jackassery as a tantrum over Trump's rejection of neo-con warmongering. Maybe, anyway.

   That's not an endorsement of Trump. It's just another admission that he gets a lot of important shit right.

   Finally: It does seem to me, shaky as I am on foreign policy, that the Biden administration is getting things approximately right in Ukraine and Israel / the ME. I'm starting to think that that there is no moving forward for that war. Putin won't quit, and the Ukes can't advance. It's beginning to seem like a meat grinder to me. Perhaps it'd be best to face the facts and stop the carnage. There's been almost no change to the battle lines since Russia's initial landgrab. But, of course, I don't know.

   But anyway. 

   

"Sydney Powell Tells The Truth"...Sort Of..

I'm not sure that saying the words to avoid jail really counts...but it at least sort of counts.

   The press conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping really was a great moment in political humor.

Apparently It's "National Pronouns Day"

link

Of course they don't mean pronouns. This isn't a day dedicated to pronouns. What they mean is: it's a day to further progressive-left (trans)gender ideology, by focusing on their crackpot view of pronouns. It won't be about learning about pronomial reference in actual languages--which is somewhat interesting, actually. It's about a tiny slice of the subject...and a made-up, non-actual slice at that. This is like declaring a day "story day," when it's really an effort to promote drag queen story hours. Or declaring a day "race day" when it's really about one crackpot leftist view of race. Or saying "Tuesday is clothing day!," when it's really dedicated to pushing the political argument that if you dress like a woman, you are a woman...

Jeez these people.

Harsanyi: Hate Trump All You Like, The Gag Order Is Still Wrong

Not a lawyer!

But this does seem puzzling to me.

Despite the fact that probably anything that gets Trump to STFU, even a little bit, is good.

Court Documents Reveal 'Extreme' Pressure on Prosecution in Floyd / Chauvin Case

link

I don't have a single, settled view about the Floyd / Chauvin case. But (a) I'm inclined to think there was clear, reasonable doubt, and (b) I am strongly inclined to think that Chauvin did not receive a fair trial (and the same, I'd guess goes for the other defendants). The fact that Chauvin wasn't granted a change of venue, alone, seems to be sufficient reason to believe (b). (Though, as always, I am not a lawyer, and don't actually know what the conventions and laws are like...so I should probably soften that stance.) 

   The fact that the medical examiner's conclusion--that there was no evidence of asphyxiation--was ignored also seems like it, alone, could be decisive. Instead, the trail emphasized the results of a private autopsy paid for by the family.

   It's hard to resist the conclusion that Chauvin was railroaded because almost everyone involve seems to have been afraid that there would be an explosion of violence if he were found guilty. 

   What would happen if Chauvin received a fair trial, I do not know.

   But, again: this is the kind of question that someone like me really isn't in a position to answer. But, from a layperson's perspective, I just can't see how the trial could be considered fair, nor how one could conclude that there isn't reasonable doubt. If I had to bet significant money on this--and I'd rather not--it sounds to me like it was mainly an overdose + Floyd's preexisting heart problem. (And don't forget the COVID...) OTOH, perhaps those things wouldn't have led to his death if not for Chauvin's actions. OTOOH, according to this piece, no one has ever (at least previously) died as a result of being in the restraining technique employed by Chauvin. And, don't forget: that was the technique endorsed by the Minneapolis PD, and that Chauvin had been trained to employ. 

Is Biden Classified Documents Scandal Connected to the Biden Influence-Peddling Operation?

possibly

DeSantis Draws Red Line On Gaza Refugees, GOP Follows Suit

link

I've traditionally thought that we should set aside more of our immigration slots for asylum-seekers. 

Currently, though, my guiding idea is: no additional immigration of any kind until illegal immigration, especially across the Mexican border, is stopped.

Daniel Calingaert: Go Big on U.S. Political Reform

I might agree with some of this, but mainly disagree.

I certainly disagree with eliminating the Electoral College, which would put us at the mercy of urban leftist in perpetuity. The national popular vote would be the end of us. Once again, the Founders have managed, thus far, to save us from ourselves. I certainly disagree about "redistributing" wealth--as if wealth were a fixed pot, and economically more successful people had just illicitly grabbed more of it.  I'm against "expanding voter participation," as it mainly means getting even less-well-informed Democrats to vote. I want to reduce participation by going back to voting on election day, and absentee ballots only for good reasons. 

   Some of the other stuff in the piece are negotiable.

Ryna Workman is an Idiot, But Her Pro-Hamas Bullshit is Protected Speech

But NYU is threatening to investigate her.*

*Ryna is obviously female, but alleges that she is "nonbinary," and prefers to be referred to as "they." Obviously that's all stupid.

Matthew Schmitz: Trump the Normal

Well, there seems to be some truth in this.

He's not really a Republican anyway.

Rich Lowery: The Trump Docrine, or: You'd BETTER Fear the Freakin' Madman

I used to not have sympathy with such arguments, but then, independently of anything about Trump, developed a higher opinion of him. The appearance of irrationality is often something it's smart to cultivate. Actually being irrational...less so. 

   And, of course: Trump's actual acts, policies, appointments, and results were often better than one would have predicted that they would be.

   But, damn, the guy is a loon.

Andrew Stiles: What I Learned at the Stop Trump Summit

aka TDScon '23.

Turley: New Evidence May Destroy Biden's Defense in HIs Classified Documents Case

Link

   The walls: closing in?

   

Sam Harris: Israel and Palestine--What Would Each Do If It Had The Power To Do So?

A simple test, but valuable. 

In short:

What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants.
What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen.
There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible.

Charles Portis, True Grit

Read it while we were staying in a cabin in Best Virginia recently. 

Possibly my new favorite novel...not that I'm sure that I have an unequivocally favorite novel. Though for a couple of years I've tended to say it's All The Pretty Horses. 

1984 doesn't count.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE CHRONICLES: WE MAY NOT MAKE IT THROUGH SEPTEMBER EDITION

All the panicky panic of the panic-mongers is no longer sufficient. YOU NEED TO HYPER-PANIC, RIGHT NOW, OVER THE SEPTEMBER PANIC NUMBERS.

Or maybe not.

I dunno.

Gabriel Andrade: Race and the Ancients

The left's claim that the ancients had no conception of race has never been at all plausible. 

As Andrade recognizes: even if it were true, it would in no way prove that races are not real, nor that they are not biological. 

At any rate, Andrade crushes the predicate of these arguments, showing that yes, of course the ancients recognized racial differences when they observed them.

Frank Meile: Trump Did Not Call For Milley's Execution

Even as serious as this matter is, I've been ignoring it because this sort of thing is rife on the left.

   As usual: I'm not exactly defending Trump here. He shouldn't have said what he said. It was stupid and way over the line--also as usual.

   But no, he did not call for Milley's execution.

   The left, of course, loves victimhood, and playing the victim is one of its most cherished and effective tactics. It commonly counts all sorts of non-death-threats as death threats. For example: "I hope you die" is not, ordinarily, a death threat (though you can always think up a context that will change a meaning). "In the past, the penalty for what he did would be death" (oh, sorry: DEATH!) is also not a death threat. And, as Meile points out: it's plausibly true in this case. 

   This playing fast-and-loose with "death threat" is something we saw in, e.g., GamerGate. There may have been some, but the few alleged death threats actually made public weren't death threats at all. Again: not excusing actual death threats. And not excusing people saying awful things to people for shit reasons. But the latter is not the former--even if death is mentioned. 

   Similarly, "you should kill yourself," a go-to type of harassment by Teen Web Leftists, isn't a death threat. Though, for all I know, it's illegal for other reasons. And it's stupid and shitty.

   This is a well-known pas de deux by now: Trump says something (often dumb, but often not); leftists (including, of course, the media) pretend he said something much worse. Repeat ad nauseam. See also when he didn't say that all Mexicans were rapists...and when he didn't say that white supremacists are very fine people.

Michael Tomasky: "I Never Thought I'd Live to See Democracy Die. Now I Wonder"

An opposing view from the now-in-tatters New Republic. Man, remember when TNR was great? I used to eagerly read that thing from cover to cover back in the day.

Now it's TDS-ridden and just generally bad.

I do agree that chaos and instability are enemies of democracy. And I agree that Trump is, to a large extent, an agent of chaos who went out with a chaotic bang. 

OTOH, and not to retreat to a tu quoque: I think the left has promoted more chaos and instability than Trump has. Mass illegal immigration, COVID madness, the imposition of gender ideology and CRT in grade schools, BLM riots, the ideological capture of all our institutions by radical pseudoscientific views including climate apocalypticism...and the ceaseless push for radical, irrational, ill-considered change...Trump's a piker, chaos-and-instability-wise, compared to the left.

Which doesn't mean that he's ok...

Anyway.

Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

[Insert vague grumbling about pallets of cash here. Though TBH I've never really understood much about this situation.]

Israeli death toll now stands at ~700.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady: How to Solve the Illegal Immigration Crisis

Back before illegal immigration became an existential crisis, I used to say roughly this. Focus our aid on countries in our hemisphere, especially Mexico. Now, of course, we need first and foremost to build the wall.* But focusing resources on Mexico and parts south is still a good idea. We're going to help somebody--might as well get something out of it.

   Though since so much of Western Europe seems hell-bent on committing suicide by immigrant, and since we can't let that happen, and since Africa and the ME are much bigger problems... I don't know. Sure would be nice if we hadn't let the Uniparty get us in this mess. Yes, of course, it's mostly been the Democrats. But the Republicans have their own stake in keeping illegal immigration high. Another thing Dubya botched. Though Reagan botched it, too.

* Actually: Radically expand radically improved fencing!**

** Not a very snazzy slogan...

Taibbi: "Have They Gone Mad? Hilary Clinton Suggests 'Formal Deprogramming' for Seventy Million"

link

Again, I can't believe she was serious. Though, as Taibbi writes--reasonably:

These people are truly Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, and this would be funny, if Hillary Clinton’s mouth were not such an accurate weathervane for establishment thinking.

"America's [Actually: the Democrats] Betrayal of Israel

I've never really understood Obama's Iran policy.

So I don't know what to think about this.

But I have my suspicions.

Turley: Investigations are Uncovering the Bidens' Influence-Peddling Dynasty

It tells you a lot about the contemporary left that the orthodox Democratic position on this is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST BIDEN WHATSOEVAAAAR!!!!1111ONE

But in the actual world of actual facts...well...the walls are closing in...

I was a skeptic for along time. But at this point, it takes a really resolute form of PC blindness to deny that that guy very likely was into some shady shit.

Biden Administration's Suboptimal Statement on Hamas Attacks

facepalm

   "Both sides"???

   And: violence solves a lot of things, you stupid jackasses.

   I'll bet a shit-ton of violence would solve the Hamas situation.

Turley on Clinton on "Formal Deprogramming" of Trump-Supporters

Turley: I don't know whether she was serious.

Me: She almost almost certainly wasn't serious.

Biden Abuses His Dogs?

This is hearsay about hearsay, plus one ambiguous video.

Most likely is that the dog is tripping him up--as especially young dogs often do--and Biden (a) semi-trips and (b) kinda shoves the dog out from under him. Any (big) dog owners out there who haven't had such an experience?* 

OTOH, abuse can make dogs aggressive...and the Biden dogs have apparently bitten about 10 USSS agents... I love GSD mutts--one of my dogs is a GSD-Rottweiler (plus maybe something else) mix/mutt. But purebred GSDs are, if memory serves, pretty high up on the list of dogs that bite humans. 

   Anyway. Judicial Watch is a bit of a loose cannon. I'm no Biden fan, but these accusations are basically completely unproven.

* The dog is big, not the owner.

HRC: Trump Supporters Should Be "Formally Deprogrammed"? / GOP Base Made Of Bigots

facepalm

   There are, of course, some cultish Trumpistas. As there were cultish Obamatrons. Don't even get mestarted on the Woketarians...

   The "formal deprogramming" remark was ill-advised, and I don't believe that she believes that. It was an off-hand remark. People say "maybe we need to x" in roughly such contexts all the time without really meaning it. As in "Maybe we just need to split from Blue America--I dunno." I think such utterances are more like expressions of frustration than serious policy proposals.

   Of course the GOP base isn't mainly bigots--though there's some bigotry everywhere. Again, anti-white, anti-male bigotry is front and center on the left now--it's a bug on the right and in the center, but a feature on the progressive left. Whole academic disciplines accept and teach it.

   And, of course, way too much stuff like this has been said by the Blue Team. Way, way too much. When combined with the progressive left's totalitarian tendencies, penchant for indoctrination, etc....eh...it's a bad thing to say. It's gotten to be a little to plausible.

   But I find it hard to believe it's HRC's considered opinion.

Israel

I've basically been reading about and watching footage of the Hamas terrorist sneak attack against Israel since about 2:00 (3:00? I dunno) this morning. 

   What is there to say? 

   I suppose it's not irrational to hope that the death toll isn't as high as it looks. And that some of the hostages can be freed. And that Palestinian civilian casualties are kept reasonably low.

   And, of course: that every member of Hamas is reduced to a red smear on the sand.

Judith Curry: Global Warming Is Not The End Of The World

I find Stossel a bit annoying. But Curry is great, as usual:

(1) MSDNC BOMBSHELL--TRUMP ADMITS HE COULDN'T GET MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL!!!1111; (2) Also: Republicans Don't Really Want to Stop Illegal Immigration; (3) Mayorkas Admits We Need the Wall

(1) God these people are embarrassingly petty and ridiculous. Nobody really thought Mexico would pay for the wall. I don't know why Trump ever said such a thing (repeatedly, no less). And I never cared about it. Building the wall (or, rather, expanded and improved fencing) was/is the important part. Treating Trump's admission that he couldn't get Mexico to pay for it as some kind of bombshell is just dumb. But, then, saying that Mexico would pay for it: also dumb.

(2) But the author is right about this bit: Republicans don't seem serious about stopping illegal immigration. Business profits, and Republicans fear sounding like meanies and being called racist. Conservative complains about "the Uniparty" seem pretty close to the mark sometimes.

(3) Now the Biden administration admits that we need the wall--or, rather, improved and expanded fencing.

So question: does that mean that Biden and the Dems are racist now?

Differential Standards of Evidence: Trump-Russia Collusion Was "The Only Explanation" of the Evidence in the Steele Dossier; But There Is "No Evidence" of Biden Influence-Peddling

Trump was declared obviously guilty by the progressive establishment on the basis of the laughable Steel Dossier. Which is to say: on the basis of wildly implausible hearsay evidence. 

   There is, however, substantial credible evidence of Biden influence-peddling. Layer after layer of foreign bank accounts, Biden lying about his knowledge of his son's business dealings, Biden's own words on video about the Ukrainian prosecutor, his calls to Hunter during business meetings, etc. Influence-peddling isn't the only possible explanation, of course. But the available lines of evidence can be plausible drawn so as to converge on that hypothesis. Enough so as to warrant an investigation--obviously.

   However, in this case, the progressive elites have declared that there is "no evidence" implicating Biden--which is obviously false.

   House Republicans have admitted--what is clearly true--that currently there isn't enough evidence to justify impeachment. Dems seized on this as an excuse to stop the inquiry. This suggests that they think that you already have to have proven your conclusion before you begin to inquire. Which, to be fair, is similar to the way progressives tend to reason...except for the 'proven' part...

Universities Railroad Students in Sexual Assault Hearings, But Don't Pursue Faculty

There are a lot of exceptions--I'm not sure about this generalization at all. Peter Ludlow is a well-known example of a railroaded faculty-member. 

What I saw at UNC was a combination of (a) crackpot charges of "sexual harassment"--e.g. "hostile environment" "harassment" based on legitimate philosophical disagreements. E.g.: complaints brought against people for criticizing feminist philosophy. And (b) scrupulously refusing to see outright sexual harassment by famous faculty.

Kimball on Gaetz and McCarthy

link

John Kelly Confirms Trump's "Suckers," Losers Remarks About War Dead

These comments are fairly likely intended to be dark, bitter humor. But not likely enough. 

   Pretty much everyone who has worked closely with Trump, and crossed him in any way, has come away telling roughly similar stories of his shittiness. The blue team has helped prop him up by issuing a steady stream of false, absurd, unhinged accusations against him...to such a point that they just had to be ignored. Cassidy Hutchinson's accusations were rubber arrows. But these Kelly revelations are different. 

   Of course no one voted for Trump the man. But still.

Feminist Sexual Totalitarianism: "The Joy of Consent"

Except for occasional fads, women always come in last in the left's oppression Olympics. Straight white men are not even in the competition, of course...unless they're pretending to be women or whatever...in which case they can rocket right to the podium...

   But feminist sex totalitarianism is still in the mix. If you want to know what the left wants for all of society, see what they have done and are trying to do at universities. One of the things, of course, is micromanaging our sex lives, via a massive sex-bureaucracy. And, though the right wants you to behave, the left wants your soul...so they also demand that you have politically correct thoughts and attitudes about sex. One thing I can guarantee about the argument in the talk described below: it will not conclude that the left's current view of the matter is too restrictive:

The Joy of Consent: An International Perspective on Good Sex 

Manon Garcia (Freie Universität, Berlin)

Monday October 2, 6:30 p.m. (ET)
GC Room 9205/06
And online via Zoom
 

The Center for Global Ethics and Politics is excited to welcome feminist philosopher Manon Garcia at our upcoming colloquium. This talk is co-sponsored with the Center for the Study of Women and Society. The lecture will be followed by a Q&A with the speaker.

This is an in-person event that will allow for virtual participation via Zoom. The in-person talk will be followed by a reception with wine and snacks.

If you plan to attend virtually, please register in advance for this meeting. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email with information about joining.
 

---

Abstract

The Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement have thrust discussions about sexual violence against women into the global spotlight. Although feminist movements have long fought against "rape culture," the outpouring of public testimonies of #MeToo has finally captured wide-ranging attention. In this context, the concept of consent has become central in debates about gender equality, serving as the key criterion for differentiating sex from rape. Particularly in liberal democracies, the emphasis on consent has replaced an outdated moralistic framework that once stigmatized and pathologized any sexual activity deviating from heterosexual, monogamous, and procreative models.

However, this move toward consent has been sharply criticized: many conservatives think it has ruined sex, many feminists think it fails to address the problems of sexual violence, and a growing number of people all over the political spectrum are concerned about the “sex bureaucracy” created by President Obama’s Title IX regulations on American campuses. 

In this talk, I will argue that “consent” can and should be an important tool for our sexual emancipation, but that this work cannot be done by “consent” as we usually think of it. I will first show that the common view of consent is simplistic and harmful, then argue that any moral and political view of sex should understand sex as a social phenomenon shaped by structural oppression, particularly sexist oppression. This will lead me to argue that the limits of consent, the social dimension of sex, but also the phenomenological analyses of embodied subjectivity call for an understanding of consent as a conversation.
 

Speaker Bio

Manon Garcia is a French philosopher and a Junior Professor at the Freie Universität in Berlin. A Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, she has taught at the University of Chicago and Yale University. She is the author of We Are Not Born Submissive: How Patriarchy Shapes Women’s Lives (Princeton UP, 2021). Her new book, The Joy of Consent: A Philosophy of Good Sex is forthcoming in the US this October. Its French version, published in 2021, received the Prix des Rencontres Philosophiques de Monaco, the annual award for the best philosophy book in France.

Climate Hysteria: 41% of French Favor Restricting Each Person to 4 Total Airplane Flights Over Their Entire Life

Science!

Turley: Biden Impeachment Inquiry Warranted

That seems obvious even to a layperson--but Turley makes the legal case in detail.