When he told me he was doing this a few weeks ago, I was tempted to think that Tim Sandefur had too much time on his hands, but it’s actually an interesting essay.
[Saturday-morning update]
Megan Geuss binge watched the whole series in order for the first time. It’s an interesting take.
[Bumped]
I haven’t had time to write much about it, but fortunately, I agree pretty much with everything Jonah writes:
Yes, I know Trump has declared himself pro-life. Good for him — and congratulations to the pro-life movement for making that the price of admission. But I’m at a total loss to understand why serious pro-lifers take him at his word. He’s been all over the place on Planned Parenthood, and when asked who he’d like to put on the Supreme Court, he named his pro-choice-extremist sister.
Ann Coulter wrote of Newt in 2011: “If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich — like recent favorite Donald Trump — is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt’s not your guy.” Now Ann leads a chorus of people claiming that Trump is our only savior. Has Trump changed, or have Ann and her followers? Is there a serious argument behind the new thinking, or is it “because he fights!”?
It is entirely possible that conservatives sweat the details of tax policy too much. Once in office, a president must deal with political realities that render the fine print of a campaign pamphlet as useful as a battle plan after the enemy is met. But in the last month, Trump has contemplated a flat tax, the fair tax, maintaining the current progressive tax system, a carried-interest tax, a wealth tax, and doing nothing. His fans respond, “That shows he’s a pragmatist!”
No. It shows that he has absolutely no ideological guardrails whatsoever. Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Trump is close to the reverse. He’s a mouth at the wrong end of an alimentary canal spewing crap with no sense of responsibility.
In his embarrassing interview with Hugh Hewitt last night, Trump revealed he knows less than most halfway-decent D.C. interns about foreign policy. Twitter lit up with responses about how it doesn’t matter and how it was a gotcha interview. They think that Trump’s claim that he’ll just go find a Douglas MacArthur to fix the problem is brilliant. Well, I’m all in favor of finding a Douglas MacArthur, but if you don’t know anything about foreign policy, the interview process will be a complete disaster. Yes, Reagan delegated. But he knew enough to know to whom to delegate.
I am as mystified by otherwise-intelligent people supporting Trump as I was by the Perot phenomenon.
Ashe Schow has a warning:
Students, especially male students, need to stop viewing sex merely as pleasure or as an expression of affection or love, and begin seeing it as a potentially life-ruining moment. And as someone who has never advocated abstinence, that is a painful thing to have to say.
The situation has gotten so bad that one parents’ group has begun distributing flyers on California campuses warning students of how easy it is to be accused and expelled.
The reality of it is this: There is little trust anymore between the sexes. Women are being told that men, especially men they believe are their friends, are waiting to get them drunk and rape them. This in turn is leading men to believe that women are going to accuse them of sexual assault for just about any reason, even for consensual sexual encounters.
I’m glad I’m not attending college these days.
[Update a few minutes later]
Defining deviancy up: Remarks about physical appearance now constitute “sexual violence.”
A comprehensive round up from the invaluable Cathy Young.
It’s not the Puppies, it’s the monoculture.
Though I think another big problem is that it has one too many “F”s.
This is what I’ve been tweeting this morning.
There's never a good time to call for gun control because it's always a bad idea. https://t.co/qJitSn3J95
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
FYI Legal gun ownership is up in Detroit, with the blessing of the new police chief. Murder/burglary rate is down. http://t.co/gSIgcs7OeL
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist The numbers are so small that any "trend" is statistically meaningless. https://t.co/fbG4f3sZxY
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
@TheEconomist According to your stats, Americans had a one in a million chance of being involved in a mass shooting last year. What crisis?
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 26, 2015
[Afternoon update]
As usual, the White House lies about “gun violence.”
This post is a few days old, but I didn’t link it at the time. I think that Keith is right. It’s largely been a failure, and will probably continue to be. We have to make it profitable.
…is headed for disaster:
America will always plant crops and need chemicals to service those crops. And it will always need payment, delivery and data services. But will it always need Facebook and Twitter? Cisco runs a large proportion of the Internet; Facebook hosts your grandma’s pictures. You do the math.
There won’t be any suicides in Silicon Valley – the most dangerous thing to happen in northern California occurred last month when an angel investor’s Birkenstocks got caught in the BART elevator – but the whole edifice on which the delicate San Francisco ecosystem is based is about to come crashing down all over again.
If so, I won’t shed a tear, after all the damage those people have done to the state of California and the country.
Burning down the field in order to “save” it:
…while I am not upset at the results (except insofar as it proves a large number of my field is running the Marxist malware to such an extent that it will vote a slate to avoid an imaginary slate) I am upset at the display of infantility or senility or perhaps roboticity in my field yesterday (Though who would program robots that way?) No one watching that live stream — and there was a lot of it captured and it will be replayed — can imagine that those who proclaim themselves the “intellectuals” of our field have an IQ above room temperature. And certainly no one can imagine they have an emotional maturity above that of a toddler displaying to one and all the magnificence of the turd just deposited in the middle of the floor.
Related: And you cheered:
We saw those no-awards coming from a mile away. By voting no-award, you proved the Sad Puppies’s point. And most of you are too damn stupid to know it.
You’d rather no one win, than see someone you don’t agree with walk across that stage.We only wanted a fair ballot; real diversity among the Hugos, books by authors who don’t all think the same way. Books that tell stories rather than try to force-feed us messages. But you couldn’t have that.
It was you, not us, who brought the Hugo Awards down last night.
And you cheered while you did it.
A lot of this is why I haven’t read much science fiction in the past couple decades.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Uh oh. Hitler found out what happened [language warning, but only in subtitles]
[Update a while later]
See? I told you so.
People have asked me if I’m disappointed in the results. Yes. But maybe not in the way you might expect. I’ll talk about the slap in the face to specific nominees in a minute, but I can’t say I’m surprised by what happened, when it was just an extreme example of what I predicted would happen three years ago when I started all this.
I said the Hugos no longer represented all of Fandom, instead they only represents tiny, insular, politically motivated cliques taking turns giving their friends awards. If you wanted to be considered, you needed to belong to, or suck up to those voting cliques. I was called a liar.
I said that most of the voters cared far more about the author’s identity and politics than they did the quality of the work, and in fact, the quality of the work would be completely ignored if the creator had the wrong politics. I was called a liar.
I said that if somebody with the wrong politics got a nomination, they would be actively campaigned against, slandered, and attacked, not for the quality of their work, but because of politics. I was called a liar.
That’s how the Sad Puppies campaign started. You can see the results. They freaked out and did what I said they would do. This year others took over, in the hopes of getting worthy, quality works nominated who would normally be ignored. It got worse. They freaked out so much that even I was surprised.
Each year it got a little bigger, and the resulting backlash got a little louder and nastier, culminating in this year’s continual international media slander campaign. Most of the media latched onto a narrative about the campaign being sexist white males trying to keep women and minorities out of publishing. That narrative is so ridiculous that a few minutes of cursory research shows that if that was our secret goal, then we must be really bad at it, considering not just who we nominated, but who our organizers and supporters are, but hey… Like I said, it is all about politics, and if it isn’t, they’re going to make it that way. You repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.
It isn’t about truth. It is about turf.
#ProTip to journos trying to cover the Hugo story: We know from experience that the Puppy kickers will lie to you without compunction.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 24, 2015
[Evening update]
Why the “war on nereds” is a war on art.
I haven’t posted much about him here (though I’ve had a lot to say over on Twitter), but yes, he would be a disastrous president.
I doubt if he’s ever even read the Constitution.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of Trump, go read Jonah Goldberg’s evisceration of him.