Month: November 2011

Newtie and the sweet spot

by digby

To those wondering why Newt is doing so well, read this piece by Ben Adler at The Nation. There is one thing he does better than any other politician in America: articulating conservative contempt for liberals. And I do mean liberals, not liberalism. This is about bad people not bad ideas, and that is an important distinction:

The answer lies in what many in the mainstream media tend to perceive as a weakness, rather than strength, of Gingrich’s: his over the top rhetorical condemnations of Democrats and liberals. Gingrich’s various pronouncements that strike moderates and liberals as odd are actually effective dog whistles. Here are some examples:

-In September, 2010 Gingrich told National Review that Dinesh D’Souza’s widely mocked Forbes article on President Obama provided him with the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama….What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

-In an October, 2011 presidential debate Gingrich, responding to why no one on Wall Street executives was arrested after the financial crisis, said, “If you want to put people in jail, you ought to start with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd.”

-Gingrich has repeatedly denigrated the Occupy Wall Street movement with language that oscillates from dismissive to paranoid. On November 20, he instructed them to “Go get a job, right after you take a bath.” Just a few days earlier Gingrich had decried “the destructive, hostile, anti-civilization of the so-called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ crowd…. They want to tear down our country.”

To most people these sorts of comments seem divisive, foolish and un-presidential. To a movement conservative, though, they hit the sweet spot.

This is what the hardcore base craves now more than ever and Newt can give it to them. In fact, it’s the only thing he has to offer. His organizational abilities are nil, his only example of leadership as Speaker of the House ended with a failed coup from his own lieutenants and eventual resignation. He has caused endless headaches among the establishment elders and his ego is so inflated that it threatens to explode him at any given moment.

But when it comes to an overarching theory of conservative righteousness and snarling contempt for liberals, he’s the only politician in the party who can do it with the kind of panache the folks usually only get from wingnut giants like Limbaugh and Coulter. He just sounds like one of them. He’s the original Glenn Beck, but smarter and without all the Mormonism and kooky conspiracy mongering.

The base wants someone to tell them a story, or maybe a fable, about how they are mankind’s saviors from the enemy of all that is good and decent. (That would be liberals.)

It’s their own version of that ode to American narcissism: “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Nobody delivers that better than Newtie. Perhaps his time really has come.

Update: For more on Newtie’s unique appeal, read this fine piece by Elias Isquith:

If the man had truly wanted to be President from the start of this campaign — if, instead of hawking books, he had devoted himself to amassing the campaign infrastructure (and cash) so vital in winning a major electoral contest — he very well may have been able to topple Romney. Because, again, he “gets” it. As a recent Times report makes plain, Newt knows how to talk to these people with an uncommon authenticity and intimacy. He effortlessly weaves winks and nods toward the far-right id into his pronunciations, and taps into enduringly powerful themes that make-up the GOP base’s worldview. read on …

.

Signs of a sick culture

by digby

At least he wasn’t tasered:

Michael Davis is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD. His mother says it has led to fights at school. But when the school district said it had a plan to change Michael’s behavior, his mother says things went wrong…

[She] says the school, Rio Calaveras Elementary of Stockton, wanted to change that behavior by having Michael meet with a school police officer.

“He could come out and talk to Michael and the kids are normally scared straight,” said Gray, describing how she says the school district proposed the meeting.
But the meeting didn’t go as planned.

Gray says Michael was agitated when the officer entered the room, and the whole meeting ended with Michael arrested and cuffed, with zip ties on his hands and his feet.

“I was led to believe that Michael saw a police officer and attacked a police officer on sight,” said Gray, adding that that’s not what happened.

She knows because she ultimately obtained a copy of the police report.

In it, the officer, Lt. Frank Gordo, says he placed his hand on Michael’s and, “the boy pushed my hand away in a batting motion, pushed papers off the table, and kicked me in the right knee.”

When Michael wouldn’t calm down, Gordo cuffed Michael’s hands and feet with zip ties and took the boy to the Stockton Kaiser Psychiatric Hospital in the back of a squad car.

He had not called Michael’s mother or father at that point.

Michael was cited for battery on a police officer.

The good news:

A juvenile court judge eventually dismissed the battery charges against Michael

.

That’s nice. He is, after all, only five years old.

But then they’re now prosecuting six year olds as sex offenders for playing doctor — so I guess that’s par for the course.

How does it happen that people come to believe that tiny children should be dealt with in the criminal justice system anyway? Why would that idiotic school think a five year old can be “scared straight” by a cop? He’s a baby!

We are so twisted that we’re infantilizing adolescence and turning tiny children into adults.

Get a load of this odious practice:

They should have put that mom in zip ties and thrown her in the back of a police car.

What is going on here?

.

Nudging Enron

by digby

Remember when we were all up in arms about Dick Cheney’s energy task force? Grist reports on disturbing data that shows this sort of thing became standard operating procedure in both the Bush and Obama administrations:

When former Harvard Law Professor and eclectic intellectual Cass Sunstein was named administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), conservative, industry-oriented Wall Street Journal editorial writers enthused that his appointment was a “promising sign.” A slew of subsequent events has proved their optimism well placed, as we have noted repeatedly in CPRBlog.

But nothing beats hard, empirical evidence. In a report released yesterday, CPR announces the results of an exhaustive six-month analysis of the barebones information OIRA has eked onto the web regarding 1,080 meetings held over a 10-year period (October 2001-June 2011) with 5,759 outside lobbyists, 65 percent of whom represented industry and 12 percent of whom represented public interest groups. The results were shocking even to us, long-time and admittedly jaded observers of OIRA’s one-way ratchet toward weakening public health and other protections.

Read on for the depressing details.

This seems to be a bureaucratic problem as much as anything, with regulatory policy being centralized in the White House instead of the agencies assigned to that task. Until now Republicans were more likely to do this but it seems to have been continued under Obama rather seamlessly.

Industry has a great deal of sway under this secretive approach, which is understandable under GOP reign since that’s their stated goal. It’s a little bit surprising under a Democrat, but probably shouldn’t be. The naming of Sunstein to this post was the tip off. He’s very popular with neo-liberals and European conservatives (basically the same thing) for his “nudge” theory, which is interesting but of doubtful utility in opposition to the profit motive. It’s one thing to “nudge” consumers into making better decisions for themselves, it’s quite another to “nudge” industries into foregoing growth and profit for the greater good.

This stems from he calls “libertarian paternalism” the name alone fairly describing the absurdity of the idea. Here’s how Wikipedia defines it:

Soft paternalism (also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism) is a political philosophy that believes the state can
help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will as well as the sharpness of mind. But unlike ‘hard’ paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.

The term libertarian paternalism is intended to evoke the idea that soft paternalism is an approach to public policy that can be endorsed by some self-described libertarians because it does not abridge individual freedom, though other libertarians are firmly opposed to it.

This seems to me to be an idea from someone who has very little real knowledge of human nature. (Or someone who doesn’t like regulation of business and seeks to give cover to neo-liberals who can’t get elected if they come right out and say it.)

Sunstein is an iconoclast with a whole lot of ideas about everything, many of which are odious, others provocative and interesting. He’s a good friend of the president whom everyone assumed would end up in the administration. But if I had to pick the one area in which his philosophy would likely do the most harm, it would be running a secretive executive branch organization with the power to make- or unmake — government regulation. So naturally that’s where he ended up.

.

What’s the matter with Mitt?

by digby

I wish I fully understood why so many commentators are unwilling to admit that this is part of Mitt Romney’s problem:

More than four in 10 American voters say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon in the White House, a reflection of the steep challenge facing Mitt Romney in the GOP primary.

According to a survey released Tuesday (Nov. 8) by the Public Religion Research Institute, Romney faces an identity problem among those who already know he’s a Mormon, and those who don’t but generally have qualms about the faith…

Among white evangelical voters, 47 percent expressed discomfort with a Mormon president, compared to 42 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of white mainline Protestants. Among Americans overall, the figure was 42 percent.

42% of Americans of all stripes have discomfort with a Mormon? That’s a lot of people. And yet, as Romney continues to be the presumptive nominee among the chattering classes, he cannot seal the deal. And everybody assumes it’s because he’s wishy-washy or has some other obscure personality defect that turns people off.

When Perry slid in the polls it was immediately assumed to be because of his semi-humane approach to illegal immigration rather than his uncanny George W. Bush impression. Now Newtie has taken over the Great Conservative Hope role and recently committed apostasy on the same subject. So far he seems to be hanging in there in the polls. I think the commentators got that wrong.

Similarly, I think people have been misreading Romney’s weakness as being his flip-flopping or his suspected moderation. In his case, the underlying suspicion that he isn’t “one of them” meaning — Christian. And what’s interesting about it is that it’s politically incorrect to even mention it.

Has there ever been a more fascinating GOP primary? I don’t ever want it to end.

.

Tick tock, tick tock

by David Atkins

In case you were sleeping too well lately, here’s something to cure you of that malady from Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times:

In virtually all the debates about the eurozone I have been engaged in, someone usually makes the point that it is only when things get bad enough, the politicians finally act – eurobond, debt monetisation, quantitative easing, whatever. I am not so sure. The argument ignores the problem of acute collective action.

Last week, the crisis reached a new qualitative stage. With the spectacular flop of the German bond auction and the alarming rise in short-term rates in Spain and Italy, the government bond market across the eurozone has ceased to function.

The banking sector, too, is broken. Important parts of the eurozone economy are cut off from credit. The eurozone is now subject to a run by global investors, and a quiet bank run among its citizens.

This massive erosion of trust has also destroyed the main plank of the rescue strategy. The European Financial Stability Facility derives its firepower from the guarantees of its shareholders. As the crisis has spread to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria, the EFSF itself is affected by the contagious spread of the disease. Unless something very drastic happens, the eurozone could break up very soon.

Technically, one can solve the problem even now, but the options are becoming more limited. The eurozone needs to take three decisions very shortly, with very little potential for the usual fudges.

How much time is left, according to Munchau?

I have yet to be convinced that the European Council is capable of reaching such a substantive agreement given its past record. Of course, it will agree on something and sell it as a comprehensive package. It always does. But the half-life of these fake packages has been getting shorter. After the last summit, the financial markets’ enthusiasm over the ludicrous idea of a leveraged EFSF evaporated after less than 48 hours.

Italy’s disastrous bond auction on Friday tells us time is running out. The eurozone has 10 days at most.

Oy. I don’t know if Munchau is right on the timing, but if any sort of deal is going to be done, it needs to be done soon. Otherwise, we’re looking at the implosion of the Eurozone, and a total restructuring of the Euro itself. Whether or not that’s in the best interest of Europe long-term is arguable, but it would certainly mean major economic pain in the short term.

.

I guess it doesn’t matter if they’re certifiably nuts as long as there isn’t a drum circle anywhere near them.

by digby

Here’s the story of a routine ballot commission hearing that was taken over by Orly Taiz and her followers, some of whom are elected officials, insisting on keeping Barack Obama off the ballot:

After berating the commission and telling them how to do their jobs, Taitz announced, “I have here a number of state representatives who support me.” Indeed she does, including Rep. Harry Accornero (R-Laconia), who references the “overwhelming” evidence against Obama being a natural born citizen:

When the complaint was unanimously dismissed, audience members shouted “traitors” and Rep. Accornero went ballistic and stormed out while calling out to the commission: “Why don’t you rip up the Constitution and throw it out?” “You all should be accused of treason, and we’ll get people to do that,” he jeered. Shortly after, Rep. Susan DeLemus (R-Strafford) repeatedly berated Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge:

Right wing watch reports:

Afterwards, Mavrogeorge and Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd locked themselves in an office “out of fear for their safety due to the aggressive behavior of the crowd that included several legislators.” Later, Attorney General Michael Delaney said, “No state employee should find himself in this situation, and I am asking the General Court to take whatever steps it deems appropriate concerning the standards of conduct exhibited by these elected officials.”

Well at least they have a demand. It’s a demand from another dimension, but they have one. So it’s all good.

.

A nation turns its lonely eyes to …

Update: Why? Charles Pierce examines that burning question:

I’ve cast my memory back as far as I can, and I cannot recall a major politician of either party who causes so many members of his party to spit (metaphorically, one hopes) at the simple mention of his name. And this is not a recent phenomenon. One of the few insights worthy of anyone’s time in that horrible Game Change book was the fact that, by the end of the 2008 presidential cycle, all of the other Republican candidates had come to despise Willard. (John McCain was apoplectic on the subject, even by McCain’s standards, which are considerable.) This now has seemed to transfer itself to the Republican electorate in general. Nobody likes this guy. To hell with drinking a beer with him. If they’d got stuck in a bar with Willard, the only way they’d drink hemlock with the man is if he let them go first.

.

Self-interest misunderstood

by digby

Kevin Drum wrote earlier today that he’d been radicalized by the fact that the 1% have not only profited, but “rubbed our noses in it”, which I think is what’s really fueling this populist reaction. Americans don’t usually loathe the wealthy but these Masters of the Universe and Randian CEOs have been so arrogant and greedy that even moderate people are outraged.

What could possibly go wrong?

by David Atkins

Nothing scary about this:

Idea of civilians using drone aircraft may soon fly with FAA.

The Federal Aviation Administration plans to propose new rules for the use of small drones in January, a first step toward clearing the way for police departments, farmers and others to employ the technology.

Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying terrorist hide-outs in Afghanistan, may soon be coming to the skies near you.

Police agencies want drones for air support to spot runaway criminals. Utility companies believe they can help monitor oil, gas and water pipelines. Farmers think drones could aid in spraying their crops with pesticides.

“It’s going to happen,” said Dan Elwell, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Assn. “Now it’s about figuring out how to safely assimilate the technology into national airspace.”

Some of this makes sense, of course. Using unmanned aircraft to spray crops isn’t a bad idea.

But using drones for civilian law enforcement? Creepy, scary and ripe for abuse.

.

Krugman quotes Grover Norquist making a really stupid but depressingly common economic argument and refutes it handily. He concludes with this:

And it really is very disturbing that arguments like this, arguments that were thoroughly refuted three generations ago, are playing a major role in political debate. I mean, what’s next? Will they start rejecting the theory of evolution? Oh, wait.

It reminded me of a favorite old post of mine that I think is probably worth sharing in this moment because it’s oddly just as relevant now as it was then:

Ben Adler asked a bunch of leading conservative intellectuals whether they believed in evolution. As far as I can tell only about half of them have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, and only one is definitively honest in my opinion: Charles Krauthamer, if you can believe that. Richard Brookheiser and William F Buckley get honorable mentions.

Remember, these are highly educated people. The problem is not that they may believe in God or have a religious view of the origins of the universe. That is quite easily explained. It’s the weaselly, mushy way they try to divert the question elsewhere or explain what they know is a ridiculous position. It’s as if they are all terribly afraid that James Dobson might read TNR and berate them for not having a religiously correct fundamentalist view. William Kristol, as always, is the slickest guy around.

William Kristol, The Weekly Standard

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I don’t discuss personal opinions. … I’m familiar with what’s obviously true about it as well as what’s problematic. … I’m not a scientist. … It’s like me asking you whether you believe in the Big Bang.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I managed to have my children go through the Fairfax, Virginia schools without ever looking at one of their science textbooks.”

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I’ve never understood how an eye evolves.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “Put me down for the intelligent design people.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “The real problem here is that you shouldn’t have government-run schools. … Given that we have to spend all our time crushing the capital gains tax I don’t have much time for this issue.”

David Frum, American Enterprise Institute and National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I do believe in evolution.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. … Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. … I don’t believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle.”

Stephen Moore, Free Enterprise Fund

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I believe in parts of it but I think there are holes in the evolutionary theory.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I generally agree with said critique.”

Whether intelligent design or a similar critique should be taught in public schools: “I think people should be taught … that there are various theories about how man was created.”

Whether schools should leave open the possibility that man was created by God in his present form: “Of course, yes, definitely.”

Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Sure.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I think it’s interesting. … I think it’s wrong. I think it’s God-in-the-gaps theorizing. But I’m not hostile to it the way other people are because I don’t, while I think evolution is real, I don’t think any specific–there are a lot of unknowns left in evolution theory and criticizing evolution from different areas doesn’t really bother me, just as long as you’re not going to say the world was created in six days or something.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t think you should teach religious conclusions as science and I don’t think you should teach science as religion. … I see nothing [wrong] with having teachers pay some attention to the sensitivities of other people in the room. I think if that means you’re more careful about some issues than others that’s fine. People are careful about race and gender; I don’t see why all of a sudden we can’t be diplomatic on these issues when it comes to religion.”

Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Of course.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “At most, interesting.”

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: “The idea that [intelligent design] should be taught as a competing theory to evolution is ridiculous. … The entire structure of modern biology, and every branch of it [is] built around evolution and to teach anything but evolution would be a tremendous disservice to scientific education. If you wanna have one lecture at the end of your year on evolutionary biology, on intelligent design as a way to understand evolution, that’s fine. But the idea that there are these two competing scientific schools is ridiculous.”

William Buckley, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Yes.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I’d have to write that down. … I’d have to say something more carefully than I can over the telephone. I’m a Christian.”

Whether schools should raise the possibility that the original genetic code was written by an intelligent designer: “Well, surely, yeah, absolutely.”

Whether schools should raise the possibility–but not in biology classes–that man was created by God in his present form? : “Yes, sure, absolutely.”

Which classes that should be discussed in: “History, etymology.”

John Tierney, The New York Times (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I believe that the theory of evolution has great explanatory powers.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I haven’t really studied the arguments for intelligent design, so I’m loath to say much about it except that I’m skeptical.”

James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Yes.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I could not speak fluently on the subject but I know what the basic argument is.”

Whether schools should teach intelligent design or similar critiques of evolution in biology classes: “I guess I would say they probably shouldn’t be taught in biology classes; they probably should be taught in philosophy classes if there is such a thing. It seems to me, and again I don’t speak with any authority on this, that the hypothesis … that the universe is somehow inherently intelligent is not a scientific hypothesis. Because how do you prove it or disprove it? And really the question is how do you disprove it, because a scientific hypothesis has to be capable of being falsified. So while there may be holes in Darwinian theory, while there’s obviously a lot we don’t know, and perhaps Darwinian theory could be wrong altogether, I think whether or not the universe is designed is just a question outside the realm of science.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “It probably should be taught, if it’s going to be taught, in a more thoroughgoing way, a more rigorous way that explains what a scientific theory is. … You know, my general impression is that high school instruction in general is not all that rigorous. … I think one possible way of solving this problem is by–if you can’t teach it in a rigorous way, if the schools aren’t up to that, and if it’s going to be a political hot potato in the way it is, and we have schools that are politically run, one possible solution might be just take it out of the curriculum altogether. I’m not necessarily advocating that, but I think it’s something that policy makers might think about. I’d rather see it taught in a rigorous and serious way, but as a realistic matter that may be expecting too much of our government schools.”

Norman Podhoretz, Commentary (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “It’s impossible to answer that question with a simple yes or no.”

Richard Brookhiser, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Yes.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “It doesn’t seem like good science to me.”

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: “No.”

Pat Buchanan, The American Conservative

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Do I believe in absolute evolution? No. I don’t believe that evolution can explain the creation of matter. … Do I believe in Darwinian evolution? The answer is no.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “Do I believe in a Darwinian evolutionary process which can be inspired by a creator? Yeah, that’s a real possibility. I don’t believe evolution can explain the creation of matter. I don’t believe it can explain the intelligent design in the universe. I just don’t believe it can explain the tremendous complexity of the human being when you get down to DNA and you get down to atomic particles, and molecules, atomic particles, subatomic particles, which we’re only beginning to understand right now. I think to say it all happened by accident or by chance or simply evolved, I just don’t believe it.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “Evolution [has] been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force–it’s been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify polices which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American student should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don’t think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. … How do you answer a kid who says, ‘Where did we all come from?’ Do you say, ‘We all evolved’? I think that’s a theory. … Now the biblical story of creation should be taught to children, not as dogma but every child should know first of all the famous biblical stories because they have had a tremendous influence as well. … I don’t think it should be taught as religion to kids who don’t wanna learn it. … I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say, ‘Look the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.’ … You should leave the teaching of religion to a voluntary classes in my judgment and only those who wish to attend.”

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I think God’s responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it. … I think God is probably clever enough to think up evolution. … It’s plausible to me that God designed evolution; I don’t know why that’s outside the realm. It’s not in my view.”

On the possibility that God created man in his present form: “I don’t know if He created man in his present form. … I don’t discount it at all. I don’t know the answer. I would put it this way: The one thing I feel confident saying I’m certain of is that God created everything there is.”

On the possibility that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes: “I don’t know. It wouldn’t rock my world if it were true. It doesn’t sound proved to me. But, yeah I’m willing to believe it, sure.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t have a problem with public schools or any schools teaching evolution. I guess I would have a problem if a school or a science teacher asserted that we know how life began, because we don’t so far as I know, do we? … If science teachers are teaching that we know things that in fact we don’t know, then I’m against that. That’s a lie. But if they are merely describing the state of knowledge in 2005 then I don’t have problem with that. If they are saying, ‘Most scientists believe this,’ and most scientists believe it, then it’s an accurate statement. What bothers me is the suggestion that we know things we don’t know. That’s just another form of religion it seems to me.”

Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “Yes.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “To the extent that I am familiar with it, and that’s not very much, I guess what I think is this: The intelligent designers are correct insofar as they are reacting against a view of evolution which holds that it can’t have been guided by God in any way–can’t even have sort of been set in motion by God to achieve particular results and that no step in the process is guided by God. But they seem to give too little attention to the possibility that God could have set up an evolutionary process.”

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: “I guess my own inclination would be to teach evolution in the public schools. I don’t think that you ought to make a federal case out of it though.”

David Brooks, The New York Times (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I believe in the theory of evolution.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “I’ve never really studied the issue or learned much about ID, so I’m afraid I couldn’t add anything intelligent to the discussion.”

And these are the people who railed against campus political correctness.

What do you suppose it’s like to be intellectually held hostage by people who you know for a fact are dead wrong on something? It must be excruciating.

I’ve revised my thinking on that. They just don’t give a damn.

.