Character assasination

After the mob has moved on, we learn Nobel scientist Tim Hunt isn’t a sexist monster says Mary Katherine Ham.

Sir Tim Hunt, a scientist rather renowned for his skills, as his title suggests, in the United Kingdom before he spoke to a room full of scientists in Seoul, South Korea at the World Conference of Science Journalists in June. During a short speech or toast, Hunt made comments about women in science that perfectly fit into the left-leaning cultural critique of the scientific community as plagued by institutional sexism fueling underrepresentation of women.

A leaked report from an EU official’s investigation into the incident suggests there was much more to his comments and they bear out Hunt’s version of events and that he prefaced them by self-deprecatingly calling himself a “chauvinist monster” and rounded them out with a commendation of women scientists

The outrage industry made a stand, claimed a reputation, and moved on. End of Discussion. Someone should write a book about it.

The problem with such a smear is the same as the problem with climate change and many other issues: people accept the charges with no questions and do not consider the implications, sources, or evidence. Then they become attached to their alternate reality in such a way they must defend it at any cost. The result is tragic on all fronts.

Leave a Comment

Government burning man

Ed Morrissey notes an example of government wielding its power in an extortion attempt to provide for the luxury of its bureaucrats. BLM: Say, maybe our demand that Burning Man supply us with on-demand ice cream was a little much.

For almost thirty years organizers have staged the Burning Man festival, starting off on the beaches of San Francisco and then out to the desert in northern Nevada. It’s akin to the Woodstock festival, focusing on both art and music where “radical self expression” meets “radical self-reliance” to form an intentional but temporary community. The use of the desert emphasizes the self-reliance, but it also requires Burning Man to get permits from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Organizers wanted to move the festival to a larger area thanks to its growing popularity, and BLM said, sure — as long as Burning Man builds them a compound for BLM staffers with washers, dryers, and an endless supply of food (via The Hill).

Burning Man doesn’t sound like my cup of tea, but neither does strong-arming citizens for the use of public land as an excuse to pamper a bunch of public servants. Perhaps this part of radical self-reliance will rub off on BLM officials — and maybe it will prove instructive for those who see government as a solution to everything, especially land management.

When you go out to get in touch with nature, notice who has the best equipment, the newest trucks and toys, the fanciest gear. It is the same group that is always crying about a shortage of funds and charging you exorbitant fees to use public lands. And woe be unto you if you don’t toe the line!

Leave a Comment

Just what is science, anyway?

Matt Ridley worries about The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science. Scandals and politics and ideology all wreak havoc.

None of this would matter if it was just scientific inquiry, though that rarely comes cheap in itself. The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods. They want us to spend a fortune getting emissions down as soon as possible. And they want us to do that even if it hurts poor people today, because, they say, their grandchildren (who, as Nigel Lawson points out, in The Facts, and their models assume, are going to be very wealthy) matter more.

Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern. That seems wrong to me.

On the bright side, there is debate based on intellectual integrity and reality. It just isn’t in the usual and normal – old school – methods the establishment still holds dear such as ‘scientific’ journals. The topic is also polluted by a propaganda machine pushed by the MSM and activist groups. Getting through the noise is perhaps a tougher challenge than it has been in the past but that may be that now we can just see the noise a bit better. 

Leave a Comment

The red Pope?

Two comments regarding the Pope’s latest encyclical provide a bit of understanding about weakness and humanity.

Warner Todd Huston thinks that It is Now Indisputable That Pope Francis is a Risible Communist.

From now on, Pope Francis should be utterly dismissed as an important leader of the world. His latest global warming “encyclical” has proven he subscribes to a risible, anti-western and anti-capitalist theology and is less a Catholic than a communist.

In this message–which lays out this terrible pope’s absurd ideas on his new religion of global warming–says that we need to stop buying things and turn the world back several thousand years to a time when life was brutal, uncomfortable, and short. He is essentially calling for an end to capitalism in this rambling paper.

Pope Francis goes on to claim that wealthy countries need to stop being wealthy and give away everything to the supposedly poorer nations but he doesn’t spend a second coming to term with why they are poor. He just assumes that rich nations are greedy and evil and must stop being so wealthy. This is quite a communistic theme.

On a bit less heated level is Dr. Tim Ball wondering Is The Catholic Church Burned By The Sun Again?.

The distorted headline provides context for disturbing evidence that the Vatican does not know its science, any more than it did 400 years earlier. Their position is a matter of faith not facts, evidence, or science. With great irony, lack of knowledge about the sun is central again. Item 23 of the Encyclical provides all the information we need to show they don’t understand the science and, therefore, cannot understand how it is misused.

the position of the Vatican set out in the Encyclical is a matter of faith, not science. It appears that they are getting burned again, which sadly suggests they didn’t learn from history.

The matter is that of false witness as described in Exodus 20:16. If you cannot accurately testify to the nature of God’s work, including the progress of man away from poverty and in stewardship of the planet, there is indeed reason to question your motives and ability to serve as a reliable witness.

Leave a Comment

Explaining the Pope

Gene M. Van Son explains why Francis is not the Left’s Pope.

In fact everything Pope Francis has said regarding marriage, family, divorce, contraception, homosexuality, women’s ordination — and economics — has been perfectly in line with traditional Catholic teaching. And while he is all for helping the poor and is against greed and crony capitalism, he does not support liberation theology, and he is not a socialist or a communist.

The issues have nuance and it is easy to suffer misperceptions if words are used in more of an ideologic manner without appropriate care. For instance:

Regarding economics, in a January interview in the Italian journal La Stampa, Francis — yet again — clarified his views on capitalism, saying, “When money, instead of man, is at the center of the system, when money becomes an idol, men and women are reduced to simple instruments of a social and economic system.” He added that “We need ethics in the economy, and we also need ethics in politics.”

The problem here is that capitalism, as Professor Walter Williams explains, is an economic system based on service to individuals. The very core of the economic system is that man, not money, is at the center of the system. Yes, capital is needed in order to provide the entrepreneur the resources to provide a service or product but, unless that service or product does not serve individuals who make choices one a a time, the capital will not yield any return. You can clarify views on capitalism all you want but unless you make it clear that fundamental basis of the system and its primary reason for its contributions to humanity is service to people and not money gamemanship, one will remain misunderstood.

A capitalist who makes money his idol looses focus on his market. When that happens, the capitalist looses his money as well as his market. He forgets that his business success in based on providing people with something they want or need and that wealth, both financial and otherwise, comes from that service to humans. Confusing the need for funds with the use of those funds is a propaganda tactic often used to malign capitalism. One needs to be careful with how one uses words and associates them with other concepts and it is this area that the Pope has created sufficient worry for articles trying to clarify his point of view.

Leave a Comment

Marking the decent

Victor Davis Hanson on Building the New Dark-Age Mind. “America’s descent into the Dark Ages will not end well. It never has in the past.”

Current popular culture is not empirically grounded, but operates on the premise that truth is socially constructed by race, class, and gender concerns. … Science, logic, probability, evidence — all these cornerstones of the Enlightenment — now mean little in comparison to the race, class, and gender of those who offer narratives deemed socially useful.

Eric Holder called the nation “cowards” for not holding a national conversation on race. But Holder did not wish a freewheeling discussion about the break-up of the black family, the epidemic of violence and drug use, the cult of the macho male, the baleful role of anti-police rhetoric and rap music — in addition to current racism, a sluggish economy, and the wages of past apartheid. Instead, the ground rules of racial discussion were again to be anti-Enlightenment to the core. One must not cite the extraordinary disproportionate crime rate of inner-city black males, or the lack of inspired black leadership at the national level. One most certainly does not suggest that other minority groups either do not promote leaders like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or do not seem to have a need for national collective spokespeople at all.

In our current Dark Age, logic is ignored in lieu of ideology.

Scary stuff: Toss the Western Civilization we inherited and go for tribal Africa as a model. 

Leave a Comment

Trying to figure out what is bothersome

Jazz Shaw finally found it. Something about the Hastert case didn’t feel right but couldn’t pin it down until Connor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic provided the proper analogy. So evading government scrutiny is a crime. Why?.

Let’s toss in one more hypothetical from Friedersdorf just to drive the point home.

What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?

That’s it in a nutshell.

This is behind why the extension of the PATRIOT Act caused so much rancor. The telephone records data mining effort is like the surveillance cameras and it bothers people that there is no way to get out of sight, to take another route, to avoid getting hassled for trying to avoid governmental snooping. The abuse of prosecutorial discretion in going after political enemies is a realized fear and the Hastert case is looking to be another example in such efforts. 

Leave a Comment

The little red book

Whether it’s Hitler’s Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, or The Little Red Book, the name commonly known in the West for the pocket-size edition of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, there is a guide for the social movements and it purpose is often other than elucidation. Scott Johnson takes on an example in a look at The deep secrets of racial profiling about Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

Alexander’s book represents the state of the art in the assault on law enforcement in the name of racial disparities.

the book comes in a scholarly wrapping. It footnotes assertions of facts and data with citations to sources in the traditional style of legal scholarship, but the footnotes frequently fail to support the text. Moreover, and more to the point, basic scholarship that contradicts her theses goes missing. Following David Harris’s tack in Profiles In Injustice, Alexander’s scholarship is a pretense.

Alexander’s book is not itself a work of scholarship. it is a polemic. It is, more accurately, a work of obfuscation in the service of political propaganda. As propaganda, it is an unsavory piece of work at that.

Ideology blinds and that wants social acceptance. Little red books are after that ‘pat on the back’ and, all too often, seem to get it. The expense in civility is often huge.

Leave a Comment

Politicizing prosecution

Several cases have surface recently that raise questions about the motivation behind the search for criminal misconduct. Scott Horton describes The Thin Gruel of the Hastert Prosecution — “We should all be concerned about Dennis Hastert’s strange indictment“.

The fundamental problem in the Hastert case is simple: what, exactly, is the crime? As presented, the crime consists of a series of structured withdrawals supposedly designed to avoid a reporting duty, about which Hastert misled federal agents when they questioned him. This is not only extraordinarily thin gruel, it is also ripe for abuse. Keep in mind that the prostitution scandal that was manipulated by a Bush-era prosecutor to end the career of Eliot Spitzer was also triggered by similar bank payment reports.

Another case is described by Armstrong Williams suggesting that a South Dakota ‘voter fraud’ case deserves more attention.

The 43-year-old Sioux Falls physician was accused by State Attorney General Marty Jackley of having committed what is commonly referred to as “voter fraud.” Specifically, she had been indicted for having turned in nominating petitions that include the names of people whose signatures she did not personally witness.

That she did so is not in dispute; how the doctor has been treated very much is. According to ballot access activist Paul Jacob, Mr. Jackley’s “threatened penalty is the most severe any American has ever faced on a petition-related charge,” while “the transgressions alleged against Dr. Bosworth are arguably the least sinister” the activist has ever seen brought to trial.

Then there’s the Oregon case where the allegation is that the prosecution colluded with an LGBT group in going after a $135k discrimination claim. The Orange County disqualification of all of its lawyers in the district attorney’s office in a capital murder case is another problem in this vein.

These prosecutions are only the active half. The other half can be seen in Baltimore, New York, and other places where Police are inhibited in their efforts to tackle crime by political demands. Then there is the judicial front such as in the suit to stop the mainlining illegal immigrants. The war is on many fronts in may different ways.

Leave a Comment

And the fools rush in

Robert Merry describes The cheap currency of judging historical figures by today’s standards.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins is on a tear. Her sense of civic rectitude oozes from her prose. Her characteristic breezy haughtiness is on full display. The moral imperative that has caught her fancy and led to two columns in as many months: Getting that angular-faced Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and replacing him with a woman, preferably an African-American or American Indian.

One might wonder why, in a world beset by ISIS, rampaging debt, growing inequality and venal soccer officials, anyone would even care whose faces grace the U.S. currency, whether it be Ms. Collins or myself.

But the currency of any nation reflects its heritage, and the heritage of any nation deserves respect. Indeed, a nation that attacks its own heritage with excessive abandon is likely heading for decline. And the American heritage is under assault these days from many quarters.

So, sure, Ms. Collins is free to malign Jackson in her simplistic way and bring forth any number of historical women, however obscure, whose money visage would tickle her feminist sensibilities and Gloria Steinem‘s. But she ought to step back sufficiently to give an honest portrayal of the man she wants off the twenty. Her country’s heritage is worthy of at least that.

A foolish idea backed by ignorance seems to be in vogue. Whether the face on a twenty dollar bill or the trashing of the police while watching the crime rates skyrocket, it does seem the fools rush in. The consequences are often tragic.

Leave a Comment

Your leaders sound like the opposition?

There are times when one should take a stand. These times seem to be fading in many circles. George Neumayr note the White Flags in the Culture War – “The Left’s unimpeded toppling of institutions.

The ease with which the Left is toppling institutions is explained by such figures as Bob Gates. They aren’t fighting the culture war themselves and don’t want anyone else to fight it either. It is clear that an institution’s demise is imminent when the statements of its enemies and its “leaders” become indistinguishable.

The Left is making progress in the culture war not in spite of “conservative” opposition but because of it. Before the battle even begins, leaders like Bob Gates and Diarmuid Martin are waving the white flag. To paraphrase Yeats, the conservatives lack all conviction while the liberals are full of passionate intensity.

Another report noted that many of the countries, such as Ireland and Spain, that have undertaken governmental approval of redefining marriage have a significant Catholic Church presence. That isn’t a minor legal thing, it is a biblical thing wherein the Church has abandoned its foundations. 

The question is: “who will stand?” Nobody wants war but look what you get when you don’t stand for basic principles. Nobody wants that either.

Leave a Comment

Manufacturing data: climate alarmists

Fist up is John Cook on Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus.

Scientists have observed distinctive greenhouse patterns such as winters warming faster than summers and a cooling upper
atmosphere. This consilience of evidence has resulted in overwhelming agreement among experts — 97 per cent of climate scientists
agree that humans are causing global warming. But where does the 97 per cent figure come from?

Then there’s Ross McKitrick answering the question that the Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported.

In my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon.
John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases
definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.

He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.

Who is it that is going psych by putting up the issue of denial as an item of interest? Who is carefully defining terms and issues? Who is alleging “cherry picking” without specification or rebuttal?

Yes behavior is an important factor to consider. But rather than label that behavior in derisive terms (e.g. “denier”), look for choices of words and manner of reasoning. There is a good comparison here.

Leave a Comment

More on the nature of man and the implications of different beliefs

Dennis Prager starts with underlying beliefs about the nature of man in looking at the Differences Between Left and Right: Part I.

Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. … To those who argue that we all have goodness within us, two responses: First, no religion or ideology denies that we have goodness within us; the problem is with denying that we have badness within us. Second, it is often very challenging to express that goodness. Human goodness is like gold. It needs to be mined — and like gold mining, mining for our goodness can be very difficult.

This so important to understanding the left-right divide because so many fundamental left-right differences emanate from this divide.

Material poverty doesn’t cause murder, rape or terror. Moral poverty does. That’s one of the great divides between left and right. And it largely emanates from their differing views about whether human nature is innately good.

One of they key understandings in looking at this is that the belief starts at home. The belief that all people are basically good means a belief that the self is intrinsically good as well. That mean’s one motives must be good ones and the impulse to control the behaviors and thoughts of others must also have ‘good’ motivations. That also leads to the idea that ‘since I an basically good then those who don’t agree with me must be bad.’

The striving to overcome one’s own evil tendencies leads to introspection of one’s motivations and to skepticism about one’s conclusions. That is one reason why science and reason has flourished in a Christian environment as science requires taking a close look at reality and weighing one’s observations against a greater whole.

Leave a Comment

What you are up against: climate alarmists and sociology

Matt Manos gets into Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists from the perspective of a sociologist. Note that he doesn’t get into the bigotry of the warmists in derisive labels for all who disagree and that he sticks to specific ideas and hypotheses that can be discussed and evaluated.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

 … If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.

Behind this is the basic dilemma: how do people whose interest is in talking about measure and logic get a debate where feeling, emotion, and ideology are the primary factors defining conclusions? Many suggest that the Bellwethers undertake their position for reasons of influence and control. Climate change is a tool for them. The only way to change their views is to remove the potential for warmist alarmism as a path towards control and power. That would require removing the underlying governmental regulatory mechanisms that use weather and climate to rationalize new regulation. 

What that comes down to is the argument for a limited government as a government that does not have the power to tack on a little here and there is not so susceptible to those seeking power and control via corruption and regulatory misuse. 

Leave a Comment

The nature of man

Mike Konrad provides his take on Why Official Christianity Is Dying. The basis of this is in the story of Adam and Eve. It is the difference between the belief that Grace can be earned compared to the idea that Grace is given. It is about the fundamental nature and redemption of man, of ourselves.

In this both the liberal Marxist, and the overly strict cleric, make the very same error. They deny that man is evil, and somehow insist that man must improve himself, rather than trust what the Bible says, and realize that man is not improvable. He might be educated, better fed, better cared for — and these are all laudatory, and to be sought; but human nature remains pretty rotten.

It is this depravity — a concept well known to 18th century Americans — which informed their revolt against Britain so they could set up a limited constitutional republic. If men were evil, why on earth would you give power to the government beyond what is minimally necessary?

This view did not inhibit charity, but rather informed how charity was applied. Charity was a response to an already achieved salvation through faith, rather than a means of acquiring salvation. God was gracious to us; let us be gracious to others. Improvement was a result of meeting God, not a way of getting godly. If the concept of a free salvation sounds airy, and nebulous, the observed consequence of the principle has practical applications: Namely, man is totally rotten; don’t trust men.

When this gets to the real world, e.g. economic systems, many get thoroughly confused. Capitalism is not seen as a mechanism to control to basic “rotten” nature of man but rather as the evil thing itself. Or look at the conundrum seen currently in mob rule and the diminishment of the police. That is a Democracy versus Republic debate with minority protections surfacing raw.

Accept one’s sins. Repent. That is Christianity. It is dying because many cannot see what they have to repent.They are too busy trying to hoard moral merits to establish self esteem and social position.

UPDATE: A good backgrounder on this is from Jazz and Ed at Hot Air. “To argue that we are inherently evil is to deny the goodness of creation, and to provide yet another excuse for our choosing sin over God.” – There are subtle concepts here and it is easy to get confused. Care is needed.

Leave a Comment

Observing tactics: free speech tropes

Ken White has this one: How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies.

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience.

it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.

Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.

When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?

Nine “tropes” are listed and described. The key lesson is to not swallow what you are given without some thought as to its presentation, its support, and a proper amount of skepticism.

Leave a Comment

Hold your punches and let the other guy have a chance!

It’s the topic of the latest Propaganda Machine’s ‘gotcha’ issue and Professor Hanson brings in a bit of real history in addressing Were We Right to Take Out Saddam? – “Public opinion veers with every change in current conditions in Iraq.”

Iraq was by turns a brilliant victory, a debacle, a solvable problem, a great achievement, and an ISIS-infested mess — again depending on the extent of American losses, the trajectory of the Iraqi government, and the particular election cycle in the United States.

Had the U.S. Congress not cut off all aid to South Vietnam in 1974–75, and had the Saigon government survived and followed the evolutionary path of South Korea, with a Saigon now much like Seoul, our assessments of the Vietnam War might be closer to those of the Korean War, for better or worse. The Allied decision in April 1945 not to go into eastern Germany and take Berlin was seen by 1946 as a foolish missed opportunity that had ceded much of Eastern Europe to the Soviet gulag state: A war to liberate Europe that we had entered in 1941 had by 1945 ensured the subjugation of Eastern Europe. Yet in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ike’s decision to keep to the Allied plan and stay out of Berlin seemed less controversial, as the Soviet monstrosity fell by its own weight.

We should expect lots of false information and political reinvention about Iraq during the campaigns this year and next — as candidates readjust their positions to fit public opinion, itself predicated on impressions of present-day Iraq and revisionist analyses of the invasion, surge, and occupation.

There are deep roots to the U.S. reluctance to commit effectively in completing the task bought and paid for in lives and treasure. Is this effort to give the other guy a chance really the wise one?

Leave a Comment

The war within and a legacy fifty years on

The Ferguson protesters are getting a bit upset because they have not received promised payments. The history of such a paid army working in such a manner is not new. Scott Johnson introduces Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence.

The book covers the period 1969-1985 in telling the story of six homegrown radical groups that conducted terrorist campaigns against the United States. Their operations in total included thousands of bombings of skyscrapers, federal buildings and businesses from coast to coast. … The operations of the radical groups also included scores of bank robberies and assassinations of police officers. … Did I say mention that the book is exciting? It is of the can’t-put-it-down variety. It features daring jailbreaks and more close escapes than The Fugitive as well as more thrilling car chases than Popeye Doyle’s in The French Connection.

If you’re a boomer, you might remember some of this. Eastwood’s San Francisco cops movies are floating in it. The movies of the seventies take up the themes as a background reality. As is usual with the Left, persistence is a primary tactic and this is seen again in trying to foment race violence and diminution of the police. The hope seems to be that history will be cleansed and not provide any lesson for this generation’s efforts to stem the warfare inside.

Leave a Comment

Let the free market work

Terry Anderson and Donald Leal take onClimate Policy: Adaptation, Not Mitigation (Part I, Theory). They take a look at the tragedy of the commons and how many complex problems can find practical solutions in a dynamic environment driven by free market principles.

Rather than simply throwing up our hands in despair with respect to what appear to be intractable problems of establishing property rights and encouraging markets in regard to global climate, we turn to a major theme of free-market environmentalism—dynamic markets provide the best hope for human interaction with dynamic environments.

The key here is that of using a dynamic system to respond to a dynamic problem. This is not about using static (i.e. governmental regulation and mandate) to fix a ‘real soon now’ problem that may never occur. 

Leave a Comment

Gotcha! – but really bad as a source of information

Austin Bay on how Media Gotcha Distorts National Security Challenges:

The worst gotchas are framed to elicit a simplistic answer that reinforces or advances a political narrative. To do this, the talking head must either drastically simplify the past (a relatively benign act) or erase the inconvenient past (a deceitful act).

False premises shape the gotchas I’m deploring. Decision-makers in the past cannot know what we know now. These gotchas usually imply that an alternative decision would have produced a more benign alternative history. They may also presume a shared “enlightened crowd” viewpoint of current knowledge — which may indicate political or social bias.

That’s only about the latest attempt to reinforce the Bush hate syndrome and bring new candidates around to the Leftist view via intimidation

Leave a Comment