Friday, February 24, 2017


I remember Christmas 2015, when some humor writer suggested that he could become a hero to his nieces by simply picking a random object from his house, say, an ironing board, spray-painting the word "Frozen " on it, and wrapping it for Christmas.

I had a parallel example at the independent bookstore in Concord, NH yesterday.  Looking at the "staff recommended," "new arrivals," " bestseller," "political," "humor," and magazine sections, I decided one could make a little spare cash pretty quickly these days by writing just about anything, going to a publisher with the idea of putting an anti-Trump title on it, and getting those presses rolling.  He's orange.  He's hateful.  He's unprecedented.  Americans are stupid. He's stupid. It's the end of the republic.  He's much worse than any president ever. God, he's funny-looking.  And obnoxious.  Lots of his people are obnoxious, too.  Or maybe just stupid. It's noble to oppose him.  Let's stand up and say we don't like him. So people will know. 

I admit that we are operating in the categories of "Concord, NH," and "independent bookstore," so this is entirely predictable, but still.  It's a real place, these are real people. 

Approval Ratings.

Harry S Truman started with an 88% approval rating - okay, people were rooting for a VP who was suddenly thrust into the presidency.  But even after his first election, he started with 70%, far more than the number of votes he got. Republicans were apparently willing to get behind the president and give him a shot.

Eisenhower started at 32%, suggesting that Democrats were not willing to get behind the president and give him a shot.  Caveat:  That 32% does seem to be something of an outlier.

JFK started with an approval rating of 73%, suggesting that Republicans were willing to get behind the new president and give him a shot.

Johnson started with an approval rating of 78% (and at his inauguration, 70%) suggesting that Republicans were willing to get behind the president and give him a shot.

Nixon started in 1969 at an approval rating of 60% - pretty good by modern standards but not much then, suggesting that Democrats were sorta willing to get behind the new president and give him a shot.

Gerald Ford started at 70%, which, even though that dropped off quickly, suggests that Democrats were quite ready to at least briefly get behind the new president and give him a shot.  YAY! We will never know what his January 1977 numbers would have been had he been elected on his own.

Jimmy Carter began his presidency at 67% approval, suggesting... well, you know the drill.

Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 both started at 52%, just a few points above their margins of victory, suggesting that very few Democrats were willing to say "Oh, all right, he's the president and I support him."  Both did rise in popularity fairly quickly, however, suggesting that this idea of "Americans get behind the president" was not completely dead.

1992 was a three-way race, which is obvious in the memory of those who were of voting age then, but seems to not be remembered much by those younger than that. Bill Clinton started with a 58% approval rating despite getting only 43% of the vote.  That might be only the 18% of the country who voted for Perot which was getting behind him and giving him a chance.  The Perot voters I knew don't fit that, but I recall that national numbers were different. Still, 58% is pretty good.

George W Bush also started with 58% - pretty good - which surprised me, but according to Gallup, there it is. I recall things being much more strident and divided, but that may be a function of where I live and who I read.

Barack Obama started his presidency at a 69% approval rating. This suggests...

I am sensing a trend here.  At least some Republicans subscribe to the value that "He's the duly elected president, and he deserves a chance to prove himself," and have done so for 70 years. Very few Democrats have held that view for 50 years.  So when Trump's low approval ratings are cited, it could be reframed as the Democrats falling to a new low, not Trump. And well, yeah, when it's that low it's clear that even some Republicans aren't subscribing to the old value either.

Trump may well have earned his low ratings.  But again, I find it significant that there is no bounce after the inauguration.  I have likely telegraphed my own prejudice on the matter. Trump is the duly elected president and deserves a shot at governing according to his own lights.  There will be plenty of time to hate him later, there's no hurry. Disagreeing with him and opposing him are not illegal, certainly.  Yet when I hear, decade after decade that it is the Republicans who are dividing this country, and keep putting up such divisive figures, I have to say that another interpretation of the data is possible.

Thursday, February 23, 2017


CS Lewis wrote a version of an older argument in Mere Christianity.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.
I have always found it powerful, but many find it unpersuasive. There is a significant amount of back-and-forth discussion about it by people with more intelligence, learning, and focus than I have. This can be found online in many places if any of you feel compelled to pursue it with more rigor.  However, my experience is that in the end they do come to the same place. The usual objections are 1) Jesus did not actually claim to be God and 2) The possibility that he was neither deceptive nor mad but simply wrong is still in play.

Over at Neoneocon, I used the analogy of a Pachinko game, in which the balls do eventually have to fall down into one of the holes, but upgraded that to a pinball machine, where there is one ball, and effort by the player can prevent it from falling into one of the holes for some time. I still like that image. Ultimately, the ball does go into one of the slots. Yet this is only learned by experience, and it is not foolish for person new on the scene to believe that a ball can be kept aloft, bouncing between alternatives skillfully for an indefinite period, or even forever.

The first objection looks as if it could be solid if one could artfully show that some texts may be unreliable, or others misinterpreted for a dozen reasons, including translation or cultural misunderstanding. Yet like the pinball, I think that even the strongest version of this becomes a quibble.  It is all well and good to say "Jesus never exactly came out and said..." but by any account he directly said many things that come awfully darn close to whatever one might put out as a description of deity - Whoever has seen me has seen the father, before Abraham was I am, claiming to be able to forgive sin.  Others rent their clothes as one does in the presence of blasphemy "calling himself equal to God," or claiming to be the Son of Man, so the people on the scene certainly thought so as well.  Whatever verses textual critics may uncover that are suspect or better translations found for, it is not merely a verse or an episode here or there which must be discarded, but huge swaths of the Gospels. Yet those closest to him, though far separated in distance after his death, continue to be martyred for the claims we are asked to question.  We begin to get into the territory of what Woody Allen said about another set of texts: "Shakespeare never wrote all those plays.  It was somebody else named Shakespeare."

Most claims that Jesus didn't exactly say He was God derive - no, first, most claims derive from people who don't really know what Jesus said, but have picked up some vague knowledge about legends and folk-tales and hero-worship and assume that something of this nature must be what happened with Jesus, which I find no need to answer but note in passing - from verses about the difference in roles among the persons of the Trinity, that the Father does this and the Son does that.  I don't pretend to sort that out for anyone, because I haven't sorted it out form myself.  But puzzling* is not the same as false.  It is as if some definition of being God is thought to include wearing a blue cap, but we have no record of Jesus wearing a blue cap, so he can't be God.  It is up far enough into deity range that I can't tell whether it's one star or a galaxy with the naked eye. The flippers finally miss.  down the hole it goes.

The second objection can similarly be held aloft for extended periods. History is full of religious figures making claims about themselves that we consider overblown and excessive.  Yet we still regard some of them as being generally sane, even wise persons, worth listening to on many other topics. We are unwilling to declare them lunatics, or demonic, and don't see any compelling reason to believe they were trying to deceive others in any way. Those who object to the Trilemma think that Jesus falls into this category.  I can see why they might think so.  Yet this requires not only a superficial reading of Jesus, but a superficial reading of all the other nice guys and gals as well. Charles Taze Russell put in a lot of effort, but he was a man with questions who didn't ask them of anyone else, just decided that he could do fine on his own and would not listen to criticism. He ultimately had to tell people he was a Hebrew scholar even though he was unable to identify all the letters in its alphabet. Joseph Smith seems to have intentionally set out to create a story.  (His immediate followers were considerably more honest and honorable, though perhaps not so demanding of evidence as they should be.)

Down through the long, sordid list, back through Sabbatai Zevi relying on a forgery, even to Simon bar Kochba, who had Jews who refused to join him executed, many of these innocents were not so.  I must be fair and note than many seem to have been simply killed before they showed anything liar or lunatic about themselves that I could find.

Jesus, on the other hand, made larger claims but doesn't seem to have done much from an objective viewpoint that would disqualify him.  He beat the moneylenders out of the Temple.  He withered a tree.  He spoke harshly to many people. Yet he provoked people to dramatic hatred wherever he went. The other possibilities of the trilemma occurred to them quickly.  They thought demon or possessed by demons was a possibility.  His own family thought he was crazy and came to bring him home where he wouldn't any trouble anymore. We don't have much in the way of examples of people sitting down with Jesus and saying "See here, son.  A lot of this doesn't add up and you seem to be going too far. Here's what God is like, agreed? Are you following me here?" Nicodemus, a teacher of the law and among the very few best equipped to do that, asks questions instead.  Perhaps only Pontius Pilate comes near that sort of reasoning, concluding "I don't see what all the fuss is about here.  Nice young man, perhaps misguided.  Why don't we just punish him a bit and be done with it?" Though of course, he'd received inside information from his wife that something more was up with this one, but he didn't want to pursue it. He drew no conclusion, hitting the flippers for a bit before walking away and saying "Wherever the ball goes, it goes.  Nothing to do with me anymore."

We could keep the flippers going with other messiahs and seers as well.  The ones we think saner, like the Buddha, made no claim of divinity, nor anything like it.  The ones who did make those claims fall into the other Trilemma bins, quickly or slowly. Looking more closely at the data, we find that the others drop off or move aside (such as Baha'u'llah, a nice-enough fellow who claimed to be a Manifestation of God, which is pretty high up there - but even he claimed was not the same thing as Deity), Jesus moves up into another category. Perhaps if went about in history more, we would find one...

Have a go at it, if you like. I'm taking the trend as enough to go on at this point.

*Or more exactly, mysterious.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Rednecks, White Socks, and Blue Ribbon Beer

How things change, and how poor memory is.  I could swear I first heard this song at Frank's Truck Stop on Rte 143 outside Williamsburg in early 1973, but Wikipedia tells me it didn't come out until October of that year, so I am wrong on that.  I first went to Frank's in late 1971, my freshman year at William and Mary.  It was my introduction to any real southern culture, as Williamsburg was 70% college/Mid-Atlantic bubble. I went with Sam Jones, Don Harvey, and John Daniel Porter, all of them Virginians who objected to my talking too fast and putting maple syrup on grits.  "Dayviyd! Yer roonin' 'em!"

I thought all of us were going in mockery, but I gradually learned that this was only partly true for the Virginians, and not true at all for those from farther south, who relished this chance to get something much like what they grew up with. (William & Mary was/is a state school of 80% Virginians. At the time it drew very few students from New England or west of the Appalachians.  North Florida to North Jersey was its out-of-state draw.) I saw this title and had to include it among my three choices for a quarter at the table jukebox.

I was in a band, Carroll County, which was following CSN&Y, the Eagles, Loggins & Messina, and a host of others deeper into country music. This was still too far ridiculous for us, and we never quite embraced this, but the irony was gone almost as soon as we sniggered.  Stephen Still's Manassas had long been out and the Flying Burrito Brothers were on our turntable nightly.

I went back anti-country after the 70's, because too much of evangelical culture seemed to regard that as God's True Music. Still, I do like close harmony, and country music has always been strong on that. Bluegrass, anything with a fiddle, and anything that hearkens back to Scots-Irish roots are about as far as I'll follow now.  Creedence Clearwater Revival seems to have won the day, bringing rock into country and country into mainstream, which persists to this day.  Okay, until the year 2000 anyway, because I don't really have much solid information after that.

To top it all off, PBR is fashionable now. Oh, and you know Russell from an earlier song, covered by the Beatles, "Act Naturally."

Drongo Versu Meerkats

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Worship Music

The topic came up over at Maggie's and people there were strongly negative about what is called "worship music" these days. Definitions are elusive, but people pretty much know what you are talking about, especially when defined in the negative. Not classical, not traditional hymnody, not old gospel songs. It might be either acoustic or electric, lean toward country, rock, or folk, but it's definitely new, it is often accompanied by special effects, and a whole lot of people complain about it. I used to complain about it myself, as I am left cold by summer-camp songs and "Jesus is my boyfriend" lyrics. I can use the other styles for the work of worship reasonably well at this point, except perhaps much older liturgical music, such as what the Orthodox or Melkites use. Perhaps you have to either grow up with those or be really determined to make an entire lifestyle change to embrace those. We tend to love the music played when and where we first loved Christ. We can learn to love other styles over time. I am fortunate that because my conversion was sporadic, traditional Protestant hymns, choir music, gospel black or white, Jesus Freak music, Lutheran liturgy from the 50's-80's, prayer meeting choruses, and the 90's contemporary Christian music that my sons listened to all work for me. I'm not even sure that's a complete list. Actually, Christmas carols are a whole separate category, but may be my heart language for worship.

The temptation to settle on one and secretly believe that it is the real deal, in contrast to what other people like, just isn't there for me. Plus, I don't listen to much of any of it at this point.  I sing whatever they put in front of me on Sunday with joy, partly because I like it, but also because I don't have to choose it, rehearse it, and lead it as I used to. Also, I hum to myself a lot.

I have decided I am tired of those articles by Christians disliking modern worship expressions as shallow or repetitive or simplistic or whatever it is that's bothering them.  I've had forty years of complaints, I know what the general outline is, and I know where the comments are going to go after.  Failure to abandon the old and take up the new was one of the reasons my last church collapsed. (I'm still not over it six years later,)  We had lots of people who were musicians, they appreciated and understood older, more complicated music in various styles, they made a strong effort to sing lustily (even though this is New England, and pretty Northern European), and it never quite worked. Perhaps we could not have done otherwise, for it was not in our nature.

My son has moved to a different church in Houston, with mostly modern styles.  He makes videos and directs worship, and also does concert videos of the bands (plus some of their separate professional work.)  This is a good time to send you over to the videos of what he does in Texas.  The video at the top is one of his.. Most of it is original music, which if you haven't done that for worship, you probably don't know how hard that is. I suspect that a lot of this is exactly what some of you are trying to get away from.  But I've learned to like it just fine. If you do like it, he links on to the whole of the concerts, albums, or services that he presents part of.

Budapest and Romania 2001

Castle Peles, in the Carpathian Mountains.
How do you tell parents that you didn't bring back their sons because you thought it was a good idea to let them play with a lion?

The Assistant Village Idiot tries to restrain communism at Szoborpark, outside Budapest.

They dealt with the socialist-art statuary left over from communist days in an intriguing manner. They didn't want to destroy it, as that seemed to be just doing what the USSR had done, only in reverse. But they didn't want these visual and philosophical monstrosities around anymore either. So they moved them into a field in a suburban neighborhood outside of town. You can see the houses in the background. The park is work the trip, if you are ever in the area.

A Bit About Sweden

Maybe other people thought Trump's comment came out of left field, but I was certainly aware of the problems they are having in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. I have a son who has lived in Norway the last five years, who is very aware of immigrants arriving and causing problems from the very beginning.  Chris is an immigrant himself - doubly an immigrant actually, having come to New Hampshire at age 13 and moving to Norway after he got out of the USMC. Thus, he compares his own behavior and work ethic with theirs, not to their advantage.  He is probably too easily irritated and jumping to conclusions when he talks about them arriving at the bus terminal and harassing the women or demanding apartments immediately, but his aren't the only reports.  And he is way, way up north in Tromso, where they are only beginning to have large numbers of immigrants.

Also, I am of Swedish extraction on one side, so I have kept half an eye on what is happening there since childhood. That has brought me in contact with websites that report what it is apparently not allowed to be reported in Sweden. (See Staffan on my sidebar, for example.  Or catch up on Hjernevask, the Norwegian 7-part series about inheritance and behavior.  There are subtitles, don't panic.) Crime statistics are not broken down by whether they are committed by natives or immigrants, and in the second generation you get classified as a native anyway.  But you can look at the cities that have had more immigration and compare crime rates, using only arithmetic. Thus, Malmo, right down on the southern tip and across from Copenhagen, now has a school population that is 52% 1st or 2nd generation immigrant. Coincidentally, this is where the bombs are going off.  Very unSwedish.

Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are prone to attributing this to Islam.  I am not so convinced of this. Yes, I have read many of the quotes from the Koran about how observant Muslims are supposed to act toward the infidels and the rest of the world. But not all one billion Muslims seem to be putting much energy into obeying those particular passages. Certainly the terrorist attacks usually have some element of Islamic rhetoric.  But the crime and general violence I think is simply primitive.  For those who follow Pinker's subtext in The Better Angels of Our Nature, it is one specific area of the world that has low intracultural violence, while everyone else has higher (sometimes much higher) rates.  There's that Hajnal Line again. It is lack of violence which should surprise us, not violence.  If anything, I think that Islam has been a moderating influence on the deeply tribal Middle-East. Not enough, but some.

Monday, February 20, 2017

More Trump

I'm going to sound like Scott Adams over at his Dilbert blog. When I first read his predictions about Trump early in the primaries, describing him as a Master Persuader, a wizard, and all that. I thought it overblown.

Well, he turned out to be spot on, so shows you what I know. During the election season I also read Taleb's Antifragile, which was similarly helpful in understanding what is going on around me. Trump is antifragile. His popularity benefits from uncertainty and chaos. He is like Antaeus, the giant who gained strength whenever Hercules threw him to earth. Legacy media sources and liberal advocacy groups have not figured out that they continue to make him more powerful by the type of criticism they are directing toward him.

I can't tell if the NeverTrump side of conservatism - National Review, Weekly Standard - is making the same mistakes.  I suspect not, because they will have somewhat different things that torque them off, but it's not impossible. I do read occasionally of Democrats sounding the alarm, and articulating clearly that they know the previous strategies aren't working.  Their message doesn't seem to be penetrating.  If you won't listen to them I can't imagine why you'd find me persuasive, but I'll have a go.

Because this should have been your finest hour, of providing good investigative reporting when we really need it, but you have basically thrown it away, and are already in the process of losing the 2018 elections.  A huge drop in the stock market and subsequent recession - that may save your chances, though it's not a guarantee. A very bad war or some catastrophe that's not handled well - that may cause some doubters to jump ship on Trump. Yet if he successfully blames those things on Democrats - fairly or unfairly - either could make things worse for you. You'll notice that I'm addressing you as if you are on the side of liberals and Democrats. Sorry, lost my head, there.  Where would I get an idea like that?

Let's start with the basics: you don't have the credibility you think you do.  I know, I know, all your friends believe you when you report bad things about Trump or his appointees, and they reinforce it in their conversations or their tweets or their news shows. That's not everybody. In fact, it's way less than 50% of the population, perhaps about a third.  Convincing those people more and more and more how bad Trump is doesn't move the dial. Sure, there are people on the other side, on the Trump side, who wouldn't believe you no matter what evidence you produce, and that strikes you as infuriating and unfair. No, not really.  It's something of a balance, actually.  You are those people, just turned inside out.

Consequently, the standard for avoiding mistakes is now the same for you as you have been applying to others for your whole career.  When accusing Trump of making some inaccurate statement, if you get that wrong once it outweighs nine times that you got it right. And, just between you and me and the lampost, you aren't close to getting it right 90% of the time just now. so in the minds of the public, you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Fresh examples are best. There was a lot of excitement this past weekend about Trump claiming something had gone wrong in Sweden, but there hadn't been any big incident that anyone could recognise.  When I first read it, I thought What the hell is Trump talking about there? I thought the story plausible, because Trump does stuff like this.  Then I saw the transcript, and without even knowing the rest of the story, I thought Unh, there's some window there. It's a little clumsy in the wording, but he could be talking about events in general in Sweden, maybe an "Every Friday night..." You shouldn't try to slam dunk these, because they keep hitting off the rim. So when I read the full response, that Trump had watched Tucker Carlson on the news Friday with a story about the increase in rape and violence in Sweden due to immigration, it made entire sense.

The people who always believe you - the people who will believe any bad thing about Trump (and his minions - don't forget his minions) will throw up their hands, roll their eyes and say "Aw come on, that's a ridiculous excuse.  You got caught out, you old windbag.  Don't try to bring that crap in here." Except it's not ridiculous at all.  That's exactly how Trump talks, and how he thinks. He's been talking like this for years. His claim is entirely plausible. It not only could be true, so you can't get your slam dunk, it is actually the most likely thing that happened.  Because why the hell else would Sweden suddenly occur to him? The news story was in his stew, it bubbled to the top, and he spooned it. 

Net result: Your pals, no change.  They still don't believe Trump but even if he had some sort of definite proof they would just scowl and wait for the next time. (We'll get him next time.) Trump's pals, no change.  Even if you had proof they'd just shrug it off.  People in the middle, that one-third of the population, most will now remember They lied about Trump again, about something really small and pointless like it was a big deal. Maybe a few will think you scored a point, but also notice that it doesn't much matter. Small potatoes. So now you need to catch him nine times, without a miss, to make up for it. Welcome to the world you made.  How does it feel to be on the receiving end?

Remember the first rule of holes.

Next basic point:  the tricks you used to use don't work anywhere near as well now.  I was in the doctor's office today and saw the last two Time magazine covers. A really unflattering, sinister head shot of Steve Bannon, and a very senatorial, senex -looking Chuck Schumer. 20-30 years ago, only a few political-bias fanatics like myself noticed such things.  The thought is that many were influenced by it without noticing it. That is much less true today. New media has drummed this home for years now, and many people notice the attempt at manipulation immediately. Not only are they no longer affected by it, they are now infuriated by it and are determined to shove this back in your face. I'm not sure whether your own people notice or not.  I suspect it merely confirms their pre-existing bias and is unnoticed.  Yet perhaps not.

Third basic point: making fun of Trump doesn't seem to be working very well, does it?  That is, it doesn't work in moving the dial.  If anything it is working against Trump's opponents.  Every coarse and unfair characterisation of him buys another vote for him in 2020.  So keep circulating those memes, see how that works out for you.  Admittedly, I don't know what will work against him - you might be reduced to trial-and-error at this point.  It's not that you shouldn't be allowed to, it's just that it's stupid.  It's working against you.  This idea that it's some noble cause upholding democracy and preserving the republic against fascist forces is just insane.  You clutch your pearls when Trump says the press is the enemy of the people, certain that this means jack-booted thugs are going to be smashing printing presses and locking up helpless reporters.  No one is going to lock you up. We aren't on the first steps to that, we aren't mirroring 1933. You aren't heroes. Sorry the others aren't sticking to your script.  Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit used a line that must be a paraphrase of some movie or TV line a month or so ago. (Maybe he uses it all the time, I don't know.) "Do you want more Trump?  Because this is how you get more Trump."

I am going to tread into more speculative territory here.  Making fun of Trump does not "work" in the larger political sense, but it may "work" in the sense of your friends thinking you are witty, smart, in the know.  For your own personal goals of fitting in among friends and co-workers, of finding mates, jobs, friends, and resources it may "work" to make fun of Donald Trump and to find the cleverest ways of doing it. That may explain why liberals seem unable to give up what is clearly hurting them.

Look forward into how you are hoping to take votes away from Trump-by-proxy in the 2018 elections, and then into 2020 if/when he runs again.  You are very dependent on large events going against him, whether caused by him or not, and more important of your ability to pin the blame for that on him. Now look at the other side of the ledger, of where he might gain votes next time: The NeverTrump conservatives who didn't vote for him (I know at least one, myself), are very pleased with his SCOTUS nomination.  One more of those, with another vacancy or two opening after 2020, and they will vote for him in a heartbeat unless there has been something terrible that puts them off. The Hispanic vote, which already trended more to Trump that you will admit, will move even more in his direction.  The fact that the activist/more cynical/more paranoid half of the Hispanic vote hates him even more won't matter. They don't double-vote from more hatred. If jobs are better and he has shown that he's not going to kick legal immigrants around, those votes will shift.  This is doubly true of the African-American vote.  Yes, some blacks are absolutely furious or petrified about what he will do, and a core of them will not be moved.  But the white supremacist card was so wildly overplayed, and his record on race so neutral over time, that some of those votes will drift away as well.  Again, the fact that there is a core of black voters who really, really hate him, even if they write columns or get up in front of protests or get interviewed on CNN, and will never vote for him is irrelevant. If jobs are better and there actually aren't measurably deteriorating outcomes for African-Americans, some votes will drift.

Where are you hoping to make those votes up?  Native Americans turning out for Elizabeth Warren?

BTW, I'm guessing that the activist core senses this, so expect that they will attempt to make any incident into a huge deal, hoping that it will galvanise anti-Trump sentiment. It might.  This is how politics works, and they may hit the jackpot.  Problem: If they swing-and-miss a hundred times it's going to be a net loss. Remember that miss doesn't mean "we were proven completely wrong and are utterly defeated on this issue." Miss means "no new people were outraged."

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Michael Novak, RIP

I learned over at Maggie's that Michael Novak has died. Something to notice: he was a highly influential man, but you will not see his death mentioned in news feeds.

I had not known he had a new book come out in 2015, Social Justice Isn't What You Think It Is. I must not travel in the right circles. I hope to have a look at it soon.  If any of you have read it, tell me what you think.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Systemic Racism

Systemic racism is the cause of the dangerous water in Flint. We just talked about this a week ago.

Senior Scholastic Quiz: Who does the author appear to blame? What is his evidence? What does the word "systemic" imply about  agency and culpability?

Deconstructionist version of Senior Scholastic quiz: Who is not mentioned here? Do they possibly bear some blame? What liberties does the word "systemic" allow?