Tuesday, August 04, 2020

Project Debate Dodge Kicks Into Second Gear

The very last thing the new new left wants is for their ideas to be scrutinized. The second-to-last thing they want is for the other side to get a chance to present its case. For people stuck in the progressive / media echo chamber, this may be the only fair hearing Trump's ideas get.
   Not that it'll be a good hearing...nor that it'll be particularly rational nor informative...because they really aren't. And I doubt Trump'll acquit himself particularly well. His Trumpery will likely be on full display. Which is to say: he'll be bloviating, bullshitting jackass. All I said was that it'll be fair
   A minimally competent debater could shred Biden, even if his mental decline has, as I suspect, been exaggerated by conservatives. The Dems have just gone too radical. Not only are they shredable, they're shred-worthy. As we know, even pretty good debaters can't shred Trump...he's like some interdimensional bullshit shadow-walker. It's not that he's smart or technically adept at debate...but it's hard to respond like an adult to somebody who calls you "four-eyes" or "goofy Senator what's-yer-name"... 
   Come to think of it, Biden really is probably doomed.
   I guess dodging the debates may actually be the Dems' only hope.

George Floyd Body Cam Video Leaked

As I suspected, there's a lot more to the story than was shown in the initial videos, and more than we've been told.
   We were told initially that he didn't resist arrest, for example. That was a lie. 
   Also, he had been saying that he couldn't breathe from the get-go, and repeated it every minute or so the entire time that the police are struggling to get him into the car. 
   The initial video looked horrible. When the backstory--and the autopsy report-is added, the case against Chauvin looks weaker and weaker. 
   Nobody wants to say this because it will inevitably bring false accusations of racism from progressives. But since we're going to be falsely accused of racism no matter what we do, we might as well speak the truth.
   I'm willing to wait for a legal decision--but this certainly isn't the slam-dunk case that it looked like initially. Chauvin has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion--it's common for people to refer to the incident as a murder. But, as I understand it, Chauvin was using a legally-approved restraint technique against a big, strong, resisting suspect that was clearly either mentally disturbed, or under the influence, or both. The autopsy shows no neck trauma. Floyd claimed to be unable to breathe from the beginning, long before the neck restraint was applied. The toxicology report showed more than enough Fentanyl in his system to kill him. And his death is consistent with Fentanyl overdose--which often kills via asphyxiation (hence the term 'Fentanyl asphyxiation').
   Facts don't matter to the progressive PC left...but they should matter to us. I'm sorry that George Floyd died--I really am. And I'm sorry he died like that. But I rather doubt that Officer Chauvin killed him.
   Needless to say, if Chauvin is acquitted, there'll be another round of riots. So be prepared for that.

BLM: Mostly Non-Mafia-Like

Biden Moves Far Left...But Sneakily

Possibly the worst combination.

White Women Are The Left's Newest Target

First they came for the straight, white males...
   Then it was gay dudes, who were called something like "the straight people of non-straight people" or some nonsense like that--I can't remember the exact stupid phrase now. Then there were some trial balloons against black dudes because something something privilege something as compared to black women. Somewhat relatedly, there's been complaints about lesbians who don't want to have sex with guys pretending to be women...because transwomen are women and there are feminine penises, bigot! So...transphobia!!! There's been similar grumbling about straight dudes...but of course nobody cares about them...
   Now they're apparently targeting white women...and "woke" white women no less!
   TBF, this comes around the same time that there's grumbling among some conservatives because women seem to be a big factor in leading us down the leftward path to destruction... They seem to be more susceptible to that stuff than guys are.
   At any rate, one can't but be reminded of the old (SNL?) skit (only on a record, not on tv, so far as I know) about the Woodstock festival of peace, love and death, and Belushi's line about how (roughly) if you're not a black, disabled, Spanish-surnamed lesbian unwed mother, you're an oppressor, Jack.
   How something as ridiculous and as clearly on a path to abject madness as Progressitarianism can attract so many adherents is horrifying. It's like the Scientology of politics--utterly daft, but with some strange power over people. 

Monday, August 03, 2020

The Riots Weren't Riots But Justified And Mostly Peaceful Protests Except/Unless White Supremacist(s) Started The Whole Thing And Deserve All The Blame...Or Credit...Or...Uh...

They really make no sense at all anymore.

Progressives' Central Strategy Is Suppressing Honest Discussion / Debate

Are Dems panicking about debates?
They have good reason to panic.
But look: by this point, do you honestly think it's a coincidence that every time they are expected to defend their positions they come up with some excuse? Some story about why they shouldn't have to do so? A story about how it would actually be wrong for them to do so... And it's always some variation on: We're so right that it would be wrong to allow the other side to speak
The very act of openly discussing our positions on race and "gender" is violence! Questioning us is killing us! Openly discussing climate change will kill us all because we can't be wrong and if we don't implement all of our policies right now we all die! Expressing non-progressive views creates a hostile environment, bigot! Questioning Black Lives Matter means that you don't believe that black lives matter! Our violence is free speech; your free speech is violence!
And now: our candidate should be president...but how can he be expected to defend our positions against your guy? Hillary was right about everything in every debate, and he won anyway! He's a master liar! To debate him just gives credibility to his lies! 
This is really just a variation on the old Your guy is both dangerously stupid and fiendishly clever position. 
They've lost their collective mind.

Otoh, I do think that the Pubs are likely exaggerating Biden's mental decline. That makes it easier for him to come out and muddle through and win on the basis of radically lowered expectations. And, of course, no matter what Trump says, he'll be hit with a tsunami of "fact"-checks by the progressive media by the next morning. Though, TBF, he'll probably say a lot of false shit...

VA's U.S. Senators Introduce Sweeping Gun-Control Bill

As I've said before, my current inclination is just about the opposite of my former inclination toward compromise. My current view is: oppose everything they introduce, especially on guns. My reason is: they'll never stop. There's no consensus position that will constitute a stable resting-point. Dems have been taken over by progressives, and they'll never stop. Every concession to them simply moves the Overton Window further left and moves us closer to even more Draconian laws. Furthermore, we know how progressives operate; any power we give them will be warped. Give them "red flag" confiscation powers, and suddenly psychologists will discover that all sorts of non-progressive and pro-Second-Amendment attitudes are indicators of mental illness. Maybe, someday, if sanity ever returns to the left, we can reconsider. But as for now, my own view is: fight them on every point.

Does Trump Lead The Race?

But it's an outlier, of course.
Trump's campaign slogan ought to be: Vote The Frying Pan, Not The Fire 2020

Julian Christopher: Hurtling Toward Totalitarianism

The "Cancel Culture" Myth Myth: All The Bad Things About The Left Actually Don't Exist! Except They're Not Bad, Either. Bigot.

Political correctness doesn't exist, cultural Marxism doesn't exist, Pantyfa doesn't exist, "cancel culture" doesn't exist...none of that bad stuff about the left exists, bigot! Except it isn't bad! They're good! Pantyfa is anti-facist activists! What could be better than being anti-fascist? Huh? Like the Allies! And Churchill! And political correctness just means expressing your opinion about stuff like racial slurs! That's all! So it's good! Except...it doesn't exist. But if it did, it would be good. So why don't we do it? Shut up, bigot! And "cancel culture" just means that if you do something against our psychotic, hard-left dogma...like...state facts...then we express our disapproval...to your employer. And anyone who might think about being your employer some day. And local...um...activists who might be interested in your contact information. And if your employer happens to express his opinion by firing you, well, it's just like...uh...free speech or something. Which we are against, BTW. But we're for firing you. And if your employer doesn't choose to fire you, well, then, maybe we'll choose to rally the loon mob and boycott his business until he decides to exercise his free speech in a way that's acceptable to us. Not, again, that we're for free speech. Because we are not
   Anyway. This guy's experience is basically my own...except I started this blog when anonymity on the interwebs was still a thing. 
   Oh, also: PZ Meyers has long been a dumbass. It came as no surprise to me at all that he eagerly joined the Lysenkoist mob. 
   In fact--to my mind--one of the most amusing / horrifying / disgusting / baffling things about the progressive left is that it's rabidly anti-science in spirit and in actual fact...but it constantly trumpets this line that it's the party of science and the other guys are anti-science. In my entire lifetime, the only other faction that has been anywhere near as (de facto) anti-science as the contemporary progressive left was (is?) the religious right. In fact, in my estimation, the PC / progressive left is much, much worse. The religious right always had the status as outsider, and, at its worst, threatened to basically upend and distort a few things here and there--notably how evolution is taught. Even if they'd won, the victory would have been limited and temporary. The progressive left has spread rot throughout public discussions of science, and seems to have driven it down into actual science itself. Imagine what kind of delusion it takes to proclaim that male and female are not biological categories, but that they are simply social statuses that one can change at whim and by fiat? That is probably the single most unscientific view that's become popular with any significant group in my entire lifetime of observing this stuff. It makes intelligent design theory seem like Newtonian mechanics. Hell, at least ID was kinda interesting. At least it was an opportunity to discuss the teleological argument. "Social constructionism" is just magic--but not even honest magic. It's magic that denies that it's magic, pretending that it's science by spewing a fog of bullshit. "Word magic" as one of my old profs used to put it. Nobody'd buy it if it weren't politically correct to do so. I'd say that it's evidence that philosophy is worth something because competent philosophers would never fall for such idiocy...but apparently like all the philosophers on the internet have...for whatever that's worth. If the arguments were even vaguely plausible it'd be one thing...but they simply aren't. 
   Anyway, remember: the PC left survives by shrieking hysterically, lying, personally attacking dissenters, and generally just shutting down criticism of itself. That's not what a group does if it can win--or even compete--in the public debate.

Sunday, August 02, 2020

Dragon Splashes Down

James Lindsay: "No, The Woke Won't Debate You"

(They stuck one of those irritating trailers that are everywhere now to the end of it: "Here's why." Why do they do that? Is it not clear from the first part of the article that he's going to explain? Is the article just the word 'because'? I don't know why this has started to annoy me so much.)

More importantly: this is really, really good.
There's probably no such thing as being exactly right about such things, because you're trying to bring order to such hopeless chaos. But he's in the bullseye. 
Absolutely worth a read, IMO. 
Actually, I was just talking to myself...er...I mean...a friend...about some of these points recently. It's absolutely crucial to realize that woketarians reject the very idea of rational discussion, and see it all as a sophistical, rhetorical contest for power. I think Lindsay's wrong to say that they are committed to the idea that they can't win a debate with ordinary people. They just don't think it's anything more than a power struggle--one front in the overall clash of the powerless (them) against the powerful (us). Thus they don't think of themselves as bound by the kinds of rules we consider ourselves to be bound by. That's one reason they rely so heavily on racism ad hominems: they know they're rhetorically effective. We tend not to use them (when they're false) because we think we're engaged in a process of inquiry and rational discussion. Thus only rational persuasion is permissible. They don't believe that Not only do they think that any persuasion is permissible, they don't even think they need to be limited to persuasion. If violence works better, they should use violence. If you didn't realize they believed that before two months ago, you should realize now that they do. At any rate: they do. 
   Of course lots of people on the progressive left don't understand all of the implications of the view they've accepted. Some genuinely don't understand it, and some don't let themselves understand it. Besides, consistency is the hobgoblin of little--liberal--minds. It's exactly the kind of straight white male Western Enlightenment superstition that they're trying to abolish...
   Anyway. I say you really ought to read the Lindsay piece.

Saturday, August 01, 2020

When People Tell You What They Want, Consider Taking Them At Their Word


del Toro Will "Fight To His Grave" To Make "At The Mountains Of Madness"

"America's Yard Sign Discourse"

I thought this made a good point.
My neighborhood has long had some of those "We're glad you're our neighbor" signs. Then came the wave of Biden and BLM ones. 
I'm not sure about putting up a Trump sign, for these reasons:
1. JQ is swinging anti-Dem, but probably not pro-Trump.
2. It'd put me on several of my neighbors' shit lists.
3. I'd have to up our DefCon, and vandalism would not be a not-unlikely consequence of such a sign. 
And oh, yeah:
4. I don't think Trump is fit to be President...
That last point has become irrelevant, given what's happened to the Dems. But you can't really fit "I don't think Trump is fit to be President, but he's only about half as bad as you crackpot lefties think he is, and at least his policies and appointments are good, whereas the blue team has lost its ever-lovin' cat-dang mind and become an actual danger to the republic..." on a yard sign."
Also, this sort of bizarrely silent yet ostentatiously public advertising of one's political views...something really messed up about that.

Ctrl-Lefties Complaining Because The Alt-Right Invented Some Jargon

Members of the group that has created a fantastical array of ridiculous, politically-loaded terms, pretended they were academic, and then badgered everyone else to accept them...is complaining because some guys on the right did something similar on a much smaller scale.
   What the alt-right is I still am not sure. Of course the lefty tactic would be to deny that the "alt-right" even exists... I mean...we have no set of clear, universally-accepted, necessary and sufficient conditions for being alt-right...so it doesn't exist! Like political correctness! And it has no official organizational structure...so it doesn't exist! Like pantyfa! 
   Since the left gets to say what words mean now, they've basically defined 'alt-right' as racist...but then it doesn't cover Breitbart (neither the person nor the publication) nor Milo. So then we ought to have another term for the large population of non-racists who think of themselves as alternatives to the traditional right.
   They've also conflated the alt-right with the militant incel crowd. This allows them to claim that the alt-right is inherently sexist. 
   Anyway. Seems pretty unsurprising that there'd be some unsavory characters on the fairly far right. But whatever and whoever they are, you're not going to understand them if you rely on the progressive left to tell you about them.
   Also: wake me up with the alt-right has made up 1/10th as many idiotic neologisms as the ctrl-left.

The Honest Pre-Flight Safety Video

Sounds pretty plausible, but what do I know?:

St. Louis Prosecutor Secretly Re-Opens Michael Brown Investigation

So we're that much closer to being a banana republic...

Dems' Radicalization Is No Surprise?

I've worried about basically this, though.
I doubt that it matters right now. Right now we have to beat them and break their hold on the institutions of power. If the left can be moved back toward the center, we might then have to think harder about whether they have a tendency to radicalize "in their DNA." But right now, we just have to beat them before they wreck the republic.

Friday, July 31, 2020

Shellenberger: I Was Invited To Testify On Energy Policy; Dems Didn't Let Me Speak

Remember, the two most important principles of the PC left are:
1. Politically incorrect facts must be subordinated to leftist dogma.
2. Disagreement with that dogma is not permitted.
IANA climatologist, obviously. But since I busted out of the liberal/ progressive echo chamber and actually begun reading and thinking about it semi-seriously, I've moved further and further away from the lefty orthodoxy. As I understand it, there has been some global warming, but there's little reason to believe it's largely anthropogenic. There's no imminent tipping point--not even the IPCC thinks there is. It's not the biggest problem we face--by far. In fact, it's not even the biggest environmental problem we face. Even if it were, it couldn't be fixed by renewables--only nuclear could possibly do the trick. So, given that it's unnecessary and ineffective, $2 trillion spent on renewables would be mostly wasted money. And--not that there's every a good time to waste $2 trillion, but--this is not a good time for us to be doing that.
   One thing that's become extremely clear to me over the course of the last two-or-so years: even relatively more centrist progressives have been ensnared in the left's web of mistakes, lies and delusions. As conservatives are wont to say: what matters to progressives is the "narrative," not the facts. And the orthodoxy is enforced mostly via public denunciation and character assassination. Police and white people are indiscriminately murdering blacks! Point to data that falsifies that "narrative" and you're a racist, racist! The Earth is fast approaching a climate tipping point! Only a complete shift to renewables...and climate "justice," somehow...can save it! Point to the copious countervailing evidence and you're a "denier"--you're helping lead us to disaster. You're killing us all! Just do as we say! No time to explain! Point out the obvious fact that men can't be women and vice-versa and you're a "transphobe"! A brand new form of bigotry we just invented! We made up some other words, too! "Transwoman!" "Misgendering!" "Deadnaming!" Also, if you object to us shooting your kid full of hormones and sexually mutilating him, we'll take him away...
   These aren't just policy views to the left. They're moral crusades. If you express skepticism you're not just wrong, you're a bad person. Being right, of course, is not even a conceivable option.

So If You Think The WaPo Is Too Reasonable And Objective...

...then I've got some good news for you.
They're hiring a diversity kommissar!
That should be enough to mop up the last vestiges of pesky epistemophilia that might still be lurking about in some neglected corners of the organization.
"Diversity," like "social justice" really means leftist/progressive/PC politics. It's hard to see how the Post can get a lot more PC...but I guess we'll see.

Keeping College Closed More Likely To Stop The Spread Of Communism Than Of COVID

sigh
There's way more truth in this than I'd like for there to be:

Trump On Delaying Election Day

Jeez that guy. 
Not only is this a terrible idea, it's a really terrible idea for the President of the United States to express out loud. 
Incidentally, it's also the kind of thing that the TDS crowd will throw into their teeming vat of Trump-the-fascist delusions. 

Heather Mac Donald: BLM Is Based On Falsehoods

The same information that she's been telling us about for years.
Ever heard the PMSM report it?

The Truth About Policing And Race Is Too Hot For YouTube

The left subordinates truth to dogma as a matter of principle.
Every movement does that to some extent. But it's a bug, not a feature.
The PC left is unusually dangerous because, in their case, it's a feature not a bug.
The longer they control the national conversation, the more truth they suppress, the more dogma they propagate, the more difficult it becomes to defeat them.
Beating the cult absolutely has to be job one.

[And with respect to this topic in particular: they're demanding that we radically remake the country on the basis of their blueprint...and their case for this revolutionary change rests on lies that have been conclusively disproven. But they have arrogated to themselves the power to make rules for the national conversation--and rule 1 is: if we accuse you of racism, you shut up. There is no possibility whatsoever for this road to end anywhere but disaster.]

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Why Only In Liberal Cities?

Is America Entering Orwellian Territory?

Entering?
We entered, broseph.
The progressive left basically now tells us what we can and can't talk about, what words we can and can't use, which opinions we can and can't hold, and which science we can and can't accept. Oh and: which pseudoscience we must accept.
So anyway: yeah...we're already there.

Aliens?

This far into 2020, aliens would surprise me just a little bit less than they would have last year.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Woketarianism Is A Mental Disorder

Barr talked over US!!! ESPECIALLY DE WIMMINZ!!!!!!!!11111ONEONEONE!!!!!
He "was flanked by ten staffers..."....wait for it....wait for it...wait for it...."NOT A PERSON OF COLOR AMONG THEM"!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111WONWONWONWONWONWON!!!!!1111!!!!!1111
   They have absolutely lost their fucking minds.
   It's not even funny anymore. 
   They joined the cult, drank the Kool Aid, and now they have driven themselves outright insane.

Totally Peaceful Social Justice Riots For Peace And Justice: Totally Peaceful Except When It's WHITE SUPREMACISTS!!!!!1111

These people are unbelievable.
Speaking of their unbelievability:
   “The protest was promoted in social media and flyers to be destructive, ostensibly to support protests in Portland. We are concerned about groups that promote destruction and violence co-opting important social justice reform movements.”
   Rao went on to say: “VCU supports free speech and stands in solidarity with those peacefully expressing messages of social justice and equity for all people. VCU does not condone — under any circumstance — acts of violence or vandalism, regardless of the purported cause. Violence against people and deliberate destruction of property are contrary to the values of our community and will not be tolerated.”
Uh...on the bright side, at least VCU finally supports free speech...?
   They realize that this "important" "social justice" "reform movement" has been violent from the start...right? 
   So...if VCU really does "not condone"--though it apparently doesn't condemn...--"violence or vandalism" "regardless of the purported cause"...well, you see where I'm going with this...
   Note also that the pervasiveness of relativism in academia has left them with no way to express their condemnation--oh, sorry...I mean their not condonation...--of violence and vandalism other than the lame: they're "contrary to the values of our community"... Which community has some very extremely fucked-up values...so who cares that something is inconsistent with them?
   Note also that the more-or-less mythical "Boogaloo Boys" make an appearance, too...which I suppose means: some guys with guns and Hawaiian shirts, who the press didn't talk to, and who were inexplicably marching with their bitter enemies to support a left-wing cause... 

"One Voter, One Vote" Would Keep Cities From Controlling The Country

This seems like a great idea. 
It seems utterly nuts to me that illegal aliens count for apportioning seats in the House.

Ryan Streeter (AEI): "When The Culture War Comes For Affordable Housing"

This is interesting and (seemingly, at least) reasonable.
It reminds me that I don't have much right to speak on such policy issues. 
He writes:
In his rambling press-conference-cum-campaign-rally in the Rose Garden on July 14, President Trump said Joe Biden wants to “abolish the suburbs.” He was referring to Biden’s embrace of the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which would tie federal funds to how well local communities are desegregating neighborhoods and reducing inequality. On July 23, the administration terminated the rule. Trump defended his action in multiple tweets and public statements on the grounds that Biden’s goal is to force suburban neighborhoods to build low-income housing, thereby bringing down housing values.
   The Obama AFFH rule would actually do much worse things than that. It would give the federal government the authority to penalize localities if they were not diverse enough, according to however the feds define diversity. This is part of a longstanding plan on the left to make the suburbs more like the city, or at least penalize the suburbs for contributing to urban problems. Trump seized upon the rule as a way to appeal to suburban voters against the backdrop of his law-and-order initiative to send federal troops into American cities.
   The irony in these developments is that Trump’s administration, under his forgotten and invisible cabinet secretary Ben Carson, had been working on a rewrite of the AFFH rule into a sensible proposal aimed at increasing housing affordability by encouraging localities to increase housing supply. The rule was not perfect, but it was a sensible step to conditioning, not mandating, federal funding (that we are spending anyway) on how well communities are allowing more privately produced housing.
   There is broad agreement among economists and housing policy experts that restrictive local zoning and land-use policies drive up housing prices. Local governments, including in the suburbs, have a habit of restricting the amount of housing that can be built in a fixed geographic area. The winners are those with enough income to live in those areas. The losers are those who don’t — which often includes young families and workers without college degrees, many of whom are minorities.
   Tying federal funding to how well communities are matching housing supply with demand is sensible policy. One might argue the AFFH rule was not the right vehicle, but in principle, a federal rule along these lines would be a step in the right direction. Localities expect the federal government to pay for considerable social welfare costs in their communities. Asking them to do their part by not driving up housing costs on lower-income families is a reasonable policy goal. Even though the federal role in housing prices is relatively small, it can still support better local decision-making by awarding a greater share of resources to localities that implement more flexible building requirements.
Progressives sound crazy when they talk about this stuff--e.g. VA Dems bring to the conversation their bizarre, racialist zealotry. And since "diversity" is an open-ended, unpredictable progressive cover story for doing anything they want,  you definitely don't want to let them apply it to the zoning of your neighborhood. There's simply no doubt about that. But, if Streeter is right, and there are reasonable options short of that...well...I'm certainly willing to listen. 

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.: The NYT Disapproves Of You Knowing The Truth--But At Least It's Up-Front About That; And I Add: This Is PC Progressivism--It's Not About The NYT

It, like the rest of the PMSM, is still suppressing Russiagategate.
How did it report on the Danchenko revelations?:
   So how did the New York Times handle the outing of Mr. Danchenko this week? As if somebody definitely did something wrong, and it was whoever brought Mr. Danchenko’s identity to light.
   “Trump Allies Help Expose Identity of F.B.I. Informant,” went a headline over a 2,200-word story, exuding disapproval that Congress and members of the public were holding a previous administration to account when the Times had chosen not to.
   Don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say. The paper’s coverage of the Danchenko outing is everything a Freudian slip should be—a full-blown Technicolor revelation of neurosis. But that doesn’t mean the newsroom is not full of curious, persistent and hardheaded people who are trying to find out things. You can see it in much of their reporting. But in the perfumed ranks of senior editors, where this story was likely reshaped to meet institutional and political needs, something else prevails: fear. Fear of the loss of status, fear of being thrown to the wolves in the next social-media eruption.
   I might even be tempted to say that everyone involved in the paper’s pathologically revealing treatment of the Danchenko story should be frog-marched out of journalism on principle. Except for one thing: At least the Times reported the story, and even confirmed Mr. Danchenko’s identity after it was exposed by diligent volunteers on the web. Other news outlets almost uniformly ignored the latest revelation despite its centrality to the melodrama that engulfed the country for three years. If you think something is wrong with American journalism, you’re right.
And: some commenters suggest that this is a shot across the bow of the WSJ's news division for also not covering the story. Others say: if you want to know what's going on, you have to read the WSJ...but you have to read the editorial page...
   One other thing, to harp on the point:
This isn't about the NYT nor even the MSM generally: this is political correctness. This is the PC left--PC progressivism. The problem is the political view that has taken over the American left. Its central tenet--or, rather, attitude or commitment--is: facts must be subordinated to dogma. This attitude or commitment simply becomes most notable in its application to institutions that are supposed to be devoted specifically to finding and disseminating truth: academia and journalism. There the application of the view is most notable, in part because it requires the suppression of rational discussion and criticism, and in part because something more like an iron fist is needed to do that there. 
   But don't blame the Times. Nor the Post. Nor NPR. Nor the rest of the PMSM--blame progressivism and its central commitment: the idea of the politically correct and incorrect.
   Well, you can, of course, blame the media and those who comprise it for accepting such an evil, inhuman, antirational view... But don't fixate on the fact that they have the courage of their convictions.
Blame the convictions.

Bill Barr Is A Beast

I'm no lawyer...and many of the relevant matters have depth beyond what I understand...but so far as I can tell, Barr is a smart, honest guy. And that means, inter alia: he's head and shoulders above the Democratic Congressmen trying to show him up. The parts of the testimony I've seen make him look like a man among boys. Or, rather: reveal him to be.