And Ben Shapiro applauds.
The only good thing about Trump as a candidate is that he’s not afraid to go after the media’s pet incompetent criminal.
And Ben Shapiro applauds.
The only good thing about Trump as a candidate is that he’s not afraid to go after the media’s pet incompetent criminal.
This is a timely new book from James Bennett, on the eve of the Brexit vote. Haven’t read it yet, but I will. I’ll be curious to see what, if anything, he says about space.
I’d be more gratified by being in this stratosphere if I could see more things happening that I’m actually influencing. But maybe I’m being too impatient. I also wish that being an influencer paid better.
[Wednesday-morning update]
The most amusingly ironic thing about this is that I'm in an ongoing war on the phrase "space exploration." https://t.co/USEAb5wfRJ
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) June 21, 2016
Who at the White House sends them out to be humiliated on national television?
My guess would be woman of color Valerie Jarrett.
Twelve questions about climate that he refuses to answer.
Because this actually has very little to do with actual science.
The British elites cannot continue to ignore the masses:
Somehow, over the last half-century, Western elites managed to convince themselves that nationalism was not real. Perhaps it had been real in the past, like cholera and telegraph machines, but now that we were smarter and more modern, it would be forgotten in the due course of time as better ideas supplanted it.
That now seems hopelessly naive. People do care more about people who are like them — who speak their language, eat their food, share their customs and values. And when elites try to ignore those sentiments — or banish them by declaring that they are simply racist — this doesn’t make the sentiments go away. It makes the non-elites suspect the elites of disloyalty. For though elites may find something vaguely horrifying about saying that you care more about people who are like you than you do about people who are culturally or geographically further away, the rest of the population is outraged by the never-stated corollary: that the elites running things feel no greater moral obligation to their fellow countrymen than they do to some random stranger in another country. And perhaps we can argue that this is the morally correct way to feel — but if it is truly the case, you can see why ordinary folks would be suspicious about allowing the elites to continue to exercise great power over their lives.
It’s therefore not entirely surprising that people are reacting strongly against the EU, the epitome of an elite institution: a technocratic bureaucracy designed to remove many questions from the democratic control of voters in the constituent countries. Elites can earnestly explain that a British exit will be very costly to Britain (true), that many of the promises made on Brexit’s behalf are patently ridiculous (also true), that leaving will create all sorts of security problems and also cost the masses many things they like, such as breezing through passport control en route to their cheap continental holidays. Elites can even be right about all of those things. They still shouldn’t be too shocked when ordinary people respond just as Republican primary voters did to their own establishment last spring: “But you see, I don’t trust you anymore.”
Brexit is Britain’s Trump, but it’s a much healthier response to the “elites” (they’re not particularly elite in matters of knowledge or competence) than ours has been.
I think that these are a cruel fraud on a young generation.
Would it be moral to send one?
There are at least two flawed assumptions in this piece.
I agree with Michael Totten, banning either of them is not the answer to Orlando.
A new definition of research misconduct:
My previous post illustrated numerous ethical conflicts that can arise for researchers. But when it comes to conflicts between your conscience and your colleagues, or the public and your colleagues, any perceived responsibility to your colleagues has to take a back seat.
But it seems that in academic science, responsibility to your colleagues and their opinions, their declarations of consensus, their reputations, is apparently regarded by many researchers as the paramount consideration, viz. the circling of the wagons that occurred in Climategate.
This concern about ‘responsibility’ to your colleagues seems only to extend to colleagues who happen to agree with you.
Academic science, and academia in general, is very, very sick.