A Curious Little Blog

I have many opinions on politics, but one of my firmest principles is that language should not be abused.  You may be aware of George Orwell's famous essay, " Politics and the English Language ," in which he argued that people use language to obscure political realities more than to clarify them.  I can't speak for his day, but it is certainly common now, when you commonly hear "speech" equated with "violence" and violence (by the correct side) equated with legitimate protest. This morning, I was eating breakfast in a hotel and I saw a segment on CNN about the Capitol "insurrectionists" on January 6th.  (I can't find an article that uses that word in the headline as the news story did, but there are many articles on CNN that make liberal use of that word, e.g. this one .)  CNN has put a lot of effort into maximizing the potential danger from the riot that day, but I don't think any amount of rationalizing would equate what happene

Someone posted the following to Twitter recently:  As a social psychologist, I understand why using women’s sports to argue against transgender rights works. But it is tough to imagine a more morally bankrupt position: ‘I’m going to make you sit in a gender that doesn’t fit you so my daughter can win her soccer game.’ When it comes to moral bankruptcy, it’s hard to beat “All of society needs to treat delusional individuals as a different sex than they actually are, to the detriment of people actually of that sex.”

Biden has now rejoined the Paris climate accords.  Back when Trump withdrew from them, there was a lot of talk about how there was no need to withdraw since all the targets were voluntary anyway.  (One wonders what the point of being party to the agreement is in that case, but we'll leave that aside.)  In what I believe to be an unprecedented developement, private organizations in France sued the national government for failing to live up to its commitments under the agreement and actually won in court.  This is unusual on multiple levels.  For one, I'm not sure what standing any group could possibly have to sue its government over an international treaty.  Perhaps that is a nicety of common law as opposed to Roman law; I don't know enough to say.  For another, it is hard to see exactly what this suit achieves for the plaintiffs.  The court ordered the government to pay one franc as a fine, and I don't see any other remedies included, so it is difficult to tell if the

I have mixed feelings about whether Biden should have taken China to task for its treatment of the Uighurs (and Hong Kong) in his first talk with president Xi Jinping .  I do not have mixed feelings about how he explained his failure to do so in a town hall:  his responses are reprehensible.  “Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” Biden said.  Yes, we are aware that China has no respect for human life and this is normal for their government, but that is emphatically not a justification for their actions. Biden made it sound like China's human rights abuses are just a natural extension of their history of trying to stay strong and unified.  There is some truth in that, but historical continuity is never considered exculpatory, or even a mitigating circumstance, among Americans ready to denounce human rights abuses in other countries.  I don't always agree with the human rights gadflies, but in this case, I do:  China

 I am sick of wearing a mask, and sick of shutdowns and everything that goes with them.  It is obvious now that there is no danger of covid killing large numbers of the population under the age of 60, and the younger one is, the less vulnerable one is.  That's not to say that young people haven't died, and won't die in the future.  People die of all kinds of things, but rightly pay little attention to the things with a very low chance of causing death.  Even if you tried to protect yourself against every possible cause of death, you would still die, and you would lead a miserable existence in the meantime.  That's why I think we should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and letting the rest of us judge our own need for safety and willingness to take risks. When we are finally free of these covid restrictions, we should declare a second national independence day, and we should declare that we will not allow ourselves to be restricted like this in the future in the

 In these divisive times, it is import to cherish moments when we agree with those on the other side of the aisle.  This is such a time.

 Outside of Minneapolis and conservative news outlets, you won't see much about this.  Most of the top hits I got searching for "Minneapolis police funding" were about the money they cut last year, not the most recent news. Minneapolis to spend $6.4 million to hire more police  

Remember, right-wing violence is the major threat to the US.    Violent BLM protest in NYC leaves two NYPD cops injured, 11 arrested     (Edit:  is this reported on any MSM site?  I can't find it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or other.  I'm not saying it isn't there, but I would appreciate it if anyone can find it they would post links.)

This is brilliant.  Everyone on the Right has been listening to aggressive rhetoric from the Left for years and can see the absurdity of charging Trump with inciting violence.  This is the best answer.

I understand the Democrats made a lot of use of video from the Capitol riot while making their case for removal.  It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't:  no amount of video evidence of the damage done by rioters counts at all against Trump.  The gist of the case is to show that Trump incited the riot, and even if the rioters burned down the Capitol and everyone in it, it would not have the slightest bearing on whether he did or not. They have also used evidence from some of the rioters who said that they were following Trump's instructions.  From what I have read here , those instructions consisted of marching to the Capitol.  Well, there is no doubt that Trump encouraged his supporters to do that.  It should be needless to say, but, again, here it is:  marching to the Capitol is not the same as attacking the Capitol.  If it were, practically every Democrat who ever led a protest would be guilty.  It doesn't even matter if rioters thought Trump wanted them

I was surprised to hear Joe Biden making the following comments during the swearing in of his new staff: I'm not joking when I say this: If you're ever working with me and I hear you treat another with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot On the spot. No if, ands, or buts...And it's not hyperbole. The only thing I expect with absolute certitude is honesty and decency. Let's leave aside the irony that Biden himself has repeatedly insulted people while campaigning and has a history of dishonesty . The thing that strikes me about this is that it is illegal. You cannot fire someone on the spot like that. It is possible that, because we're dealing with political staff, Biden is exempt from the usual federal rules regarding employment, but still. It might sound nice to promise to fire people who "talk down" to other people, but that's a pretty vague standard. Even if the case is obvious, it is still hardly