tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1991795135413049764..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: A War Against ExpertiseDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81089480953508023812014-07-30T05:46:03.266-07:002014-07-30T05:46:03.266-07:00I personally take issue with "scientists"...I personally take issue with "scientists" who ignore when other "scientists" enter into paid political advocacy instead of dealing with the real world as it is. Plenty of "science" is conducted as a means of enriching "scientists" by following the political money trail to support a "politicized" social agenda. The mere idea that all "science" is pure and only for the sake of knowledge and the betterment of mankind is naive at best, just as it is naive to presume that every member of the religious establishments is a selfless servant of their system of belief.<br /><br />People have human motives. The desire to control and direct other people has been with the species throughout recorded history (and witnessed in many other species in the animal kingdom). Scientists are no less prone to it than clergy, politicians, militaries, or other places where people gather to have more influence over others. Even George Orwell recognized this in his work "Animal Farm" when the "Pigs" put themselves in charge because they were smarter than the other animals, and thus most suited to lead.<br /><br />As an independent who has never been registered with any political organization or party, I can see that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are only concerned about convincing people to keep putting them in charge. Neither one can be trusted as reasonable stewards of the power they have. Neither one can be trusted to even keep from expanding the national debt beyond the currently ridiculous levels.<br /><br />Sometimes the government isn't the solution, it is the problem. People who side with one part of the problem over another part of the problem are still not too wise in my estimation.zmortishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09425638876144857518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21543871658297147422014-07-26T11:20:51.657-07:002014-07-26T11:20:51.657-07:00onward
onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57181298512094529662014-07-26T11:08:53.473-07:002014-07-26T11:08:53.473-07:00The Branden Affair was a stunning exhibition of gu...The Branden Affair was a stunning exhibition of guru-tantrum justification. A sure sign that a movement has become a cult.<br /><br />My own contribution to Rand scholarship is to decrypt how very Marxist who whole dialectic truly is. Her version of the Labor Theory of Value is polar opposite to Karl's, but it remains LTV. Her predicted and ordained cycle of industrial/social development is exactly that of Marx, only with the penultimate phase declared to the the good and final phase.<br /><br />She prevents Marx's final phase, proletarian revolution... by applying to the masses a new religion!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91449049702883461452014-07-26T08:12:29.052-07:002014-07-26T08:12:29.052-07:00I know this isn't an Ayn Rand thread, but I...I know this isn't an Ayn Rand thread, but I'm on a roll. Sorry.<br /><br />It doesn't surprise me that Randists get their interpretation of reality ass-backwards. For someone who prided herself on recognizing objective reality, Rand herself often missed her own point.<br /><br />When her married lover, Nathaniel Branden, had another affair with someone else, she screeched at him for betraying his highest ideal (Rand herself). Did she question her premises and reconcile actual evidence with the fact that there are no contradictions?<br /><br />Dr Brin, we've discussed Rand before, and I'm not saying anything new, but I find the climax of "Atlas Shrugged" to be more significant (in what it says about Rand's philosophy) than even your personal bugaboo about her characters not reproducing. Namely, in order to do a happy ending to her adolescent adventure story, she has to have her good characters heroically "act for the sake of another"--exactly what they swear not to do throughout the entire novel.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55917448276022996682014-07-26T08:00:02.550-07:002014-07-26T08:00:02.550-07:00Maybe the political atmosphere was different in th...Maybe the political atmosphere was different in the 1940s and 50s when Rand was writing her major novels, but from a 1980s-to-present perspective, she seems to have interpreted the players exactly backwards. Her "villains", the ones who use inherited wealth to game the system, are the "collectivists" who do everything in the name of the People. Her heroes, the thinkers and engineers who work thanklessly while producing society's real value are the individualists who care for nothing but their own profit (which she sees as a morally good motivation).<br /><br />In real life, at least in today's world, the players are almost the exact opposite. The Koch brothers <b>are</b> James Taggert; Sheldon Adelson is Ellsworth M Toohey; and Rupert Murdoch is Gail Wynand. The climate scientists and Krugmanesque economists who diagnose real problems and propose real solutions as well as the progressive legislators and civil servants who <b>would</b> carry out those solutions if allowed are the ones being spat upon to the point of going "on strike".<br /><br />I see great irony in the present right-wing apprpriating Ayn Rand as one of their own as the latest in a line of failed attempts to morally prop up their agenda. In that, I hear clear echoes of Rand's own villains appropriating John Galt in the same manner. Either they never read the exchange following Galt's long radio speech (where a flunky asks Mr Thompson in disbelief "Do you want them to think we agree with that?" to which Mr Thomspon replies "Do you want them to think we <b>don't</b>?) or they took the entirely wrong lesson from it.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5152028468618193312014-07-25T22:10:14.841-07:002014-07-25T22:10:14.841-07:00I agree. Were they not hypocrites, they would agit...I agree. Were they not hypocrites, they would agitate for actual deregulation of captured regulatory apparatus.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36724494027533715492014-07-25T18:36:17.599-07:002014-07-25T18:36:17.599-07:00Dr Brin:
Re Rand. let's be fair. The villains...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />Re Rand. let's be fair. The villains in her tales are ALSO "captains of industry"... old money fobs who use captured government to squelch any new or rising stars. It is the old story of resenting the old ruling class... but assuming it can only be replaced by a NEW ruling class.<br /></i><br /><br />Exactly like the Koch Brothers, you mean?<br /><br />And yet, today's Rand-worshippers like Paul Ryan shill <b>for</b> the modern day James Taggerts, while doing unto the real-life Hank Reardens and Howard Roarks as Rand's bad guys do.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12090169834090071002014-07-25T16:56:55.447-07:002014-07-25T16:56:55.447-07:00LarryHart without doubt I agree more with Maddow t...LarryHart without doubt I agree more with Maddow than with the oligarchy shills at Fox. Still, it is a Nuremberg Rally and proof that liberals are more broad minded than rightists or leftists can be seen in the viewership figures. MSNBC has maybe 10% the ratings of Fox and barely breaks even. Liberals wander away.<br /><br />Re Rand. let's be fair. The villains in her tales are ALSO "captains of industry"... old money fobs who use captured government to squelch any new or rising stars. It is the old story of resenting the old ruling class... but assuming it can only be replaced by a NEW ruling class.<br /><br />THAT is the reason why AR never ever ever shows any of here heroes procreating or even discussing having children. Because then the logic would become a tiresome circle.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63249198505842180632014-07-25T16:19:06.489-07:002014-07-25T16:19:06.489-07:00Alfred Differ:
The danger I see when expert opini...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />The danger I see when expert opinion is attacked the way the Right currently tries is that they are trying to undermine the dignity of those who discover the knowledge we accumulate. Do that for long enough and people won't want to engage in the tasks because an important social reward will be removed.<br /></i><br /><br />There's irony at work here, because the Ayn Randroids make that very argument about captains of industry. The world falls apart in "Atlas Shrugged" because the industrialists refuse to participate in the society that impugns them, and this is supposed to be a lesson to the reader to suck up to the Koch brothers. But they have no truoble similarly turning those who best understand reality away. <br /><br />Doubly ironic because Randroids pride themselves on understanding and living by objective truth (They think every moral precept follows from "A = A").LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87049166990717434932014-07-25T16:03:42.780-07:002014-07-25T16:03:42.780-07:00Dr Brin:
Leftists love MSNBC. Liberals like Jon S...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />Leftists love MSNBC. Liberals like Jon Stewart. I need say no more.<br /></i><br /><br />Is MSNBC really the boogie-man the right portrays it as? I'll grant I don't spend a lot of time watching any television, but I've been lured into spending some hours watching Rachel Maddow, and if anything, I'd say she goes in for in-depth reporting of the type I wish more news organizations would indulge in.<br /><br />Where FOX is 24-hour propoganda, whether you're watching a news show, a commentator, or a commercial, my sense of MSNBC is that their news is pretty straight news, and their prime-time commentators are liberal/progressive/pick-the-label, but they acknowledge that right off the bat, rather than pretending to be "objective" or "fair and balanced". It's also the case that their full lineup is not devoid of right-wingers. To paraphrase our host: Joe Scarbarough. I need say no more.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7750880139020575352014-07-25T15:34:10.631-07:002014-07-25T15:34:10.631-07:00Occam... fair enough.
daddyoho... sounds to me as...Occam... fair enough.<br /><br />daddyoho... sounds to me as if you are a liberal. Do not accept the guilt trip that you are somehow "leftist lite" and therefore less passionate. You are passionate for the Enlightenment that gave us every hope that humanity has. Liberals made it happen. Leftists at-best want some good things (feed all kids) that liberals also want. But their mysticism and bossiness makes them very different beings.<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14278961584065877072014-07-25T13:17:10.507-07:002014-07-25T13:17:10.507-07:00I consider myself a leftist although I've had ...I consider myself a leftist although I've had many arguments with friends on the left over the years because I have stubbornly stuck with the validity of the scientific method and have been wary of New Age Mysticism, which put me in a lonely cohort when I was an L.A. Hippie in the sixties. Many of my friends were seduced by Jacques Derrida and deconstruction. Their extreme relativism crossed the line, I believe, into solipsism. I highly recommend watching a debate which you can find online between the two leftists, Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky. I think that Chomsky just took Foucault apart. In my hippie days I would often hear from friends that they now believed in esp or other paranormal phenomena after a psychedelic trip. I would respond that hallucinogens, if anything, made me more skeptical because it was so clear how easily the mind could be tricked. daddyoyohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694802874831650381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33744044373627929302014-07-25T13:16:21.731-07:002014-07-25T13:16:21.731-07:00Re Lefist anti-vaxxers.
Since they are fighting g...Re Lefist anti-vaxxers.<br /><br />Since they are fighting government mandates to vaccinate, aren't they by Dr. Brin's definition NOT Leftist?Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30851860913772159932014-07-25T13:12:00.128-07:002014-07-25T13:12:00.128-07:00David
I took no offense at the "florid langua...David<br />I took no offense at the "florid language". <br /><br />But to the general point you are trying to make " But do not stop casting your wary glance leftward, now and then. There is sickness there, as well." I agree.<br /><br />In fact i would put like this:<br />I see a lot of monsters on the right and I see some monsters on the left and I know there is potentially a monster in the mirror. And that last monster is one tricky SOB.<br /> <br /> <br />occam's comicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44849149125171794902014-07-25T12:42:11.097-07:002014-07-25T12:42:11.097-07:00My personal experience with anti-vaxxers is that t...My personal experience with anti-vaxxers is that they come in many varieties. The folks on the right tend to object to others telling them what to do or object on faith grounds. The folks on the left tend to object because they believe the experts are simply wrong and as a result are doing harm. I view the left-leaning crowd as more dangerous because they work to undermine expert opinion by calling it group-think. The folks on the right side aren't that well organized. This is ONLY for the anti-vax crowd, though.<br /><br />The danger I see when expert opinion is attacked the way the Right currently tries is that they are trying to undermine the dignity of those who discover the knowledge we accumulate. Do that for long enough and people won't want to engage in the tasks because an important social reward will be removed.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24490052172668122912014-07-25T12:40:33.304-07:002014-07-25T12:40:33.304-07:00Occam's Comic, Your are courteously raising ar...Occam's Comic, Your are courteously raising arguments and I apologize for earlier florid language. Still, I think you are obstinately missing the point. If liberals are inherently different than leftists, then much is explained. <br /><br />They overlap in many policy aims... civil rights, feed all poor kids, spend of education. But I earlier showed a number of deep, psychological differences that matter a lot. Moreover, it is insulting and misleading to claim the difference is because liberal moderates are pallid "leftist lite."<br /><br />"But if you are saying that liberals are more likely to think that vaccines are dangerous than moderates or conservatives, ..."<br /><br />No, I said that LEFTISM contains a fair number of nostalgia junkies and anti-science types who include vaxxers. Those tendencies are almost absent from LIBERALS, who are the only consistently pro science group in America. <br /><br />Not ALL leftists fit this bill. They vary a lot and anti science is not an official leftist dogma... yet. But it is a disturbing tendency that goes back to hippie mysticism and includes hostility toward crewcut engineering, military engineering and Space. <br /><br />And yes, in all such cases there are examples meriting criticism. Industrial pollution, for example and military-industrial wastage. Specific criticisms from the left are often correct! But that does not make me un-wary of the propelling impulse: hatred of modernity.<br /><br />I gave the example of campus lefty bullies, who did fantastic amounts of harm in the 70s, 80s, 90s... Let me add that the madness continues, with leftist professors having taken over hundreds of soft studies departments, all over american academia. Their output is generally mountains of utter (taxpayer supported) drivel, while tormenting and enraging students and turning them into Republicans.<br /><br />And yes, part of my anger is simple to explain. These lefty flakes are intensely hostile to science fiction and have ensured that SF scholars almost never get tenure at any university in America.<br /><br />These are the idiots who supply Sean Hannity with his anecdotes, which he then uses to support his Big Lie that "all liberals are like these idiots." And that, in turn is how they rally tens of millions in the New Confederacy in their war against intellect.<br /><br />No, I have PLENTY of reason to despise leftism. I need leftists as allies against the far worse danger to the republic and civilization that I love. But do not stop casting your wary glance leftward, now and then. There is sickness there, as well.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89290879875231445552014-07-25T12:33:05.685-07:002014-07-25T12:33:05.685-07:00@Dr Brin:
"Gator, likewise, thinks I do this ...@Dr Brin:<br />"Gator, likewise, thinks I do this simply in order to maintain my "cred" as a person who can turn his neck and look at danger in all directions. You have it backwards. Because, unlike you, I CAN turn my head, I can see the potential for real danger in left wing fanaticism, even if -today - it is far less dangerous than the insane, undead thing that has hijacked conservatism."<br /><br />You assume too much sir. Perhaps I did the same of you.<br /><br />However, today, here in the USA, there is no leftist political force equivalent to the rightist, crazy anti-reality GOP. We can worry about the left when the pendulum starts to swing. I am much less worried about potential danger than I am about actual, real, causing-damage-today danger.<br /><br />Again, the fact that you have to point to anti-vaxxers (which as Occam'd comic points out are not actually leftist) makes my point above crystal clear.<br /><br />BTW -- I'm curious about the scientists in the GOP stat. You point to something that points to something that points to a 2009 Pew poll. Do you know of anything more recent? My few minutes of googling did not find anything...Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64001369480489282532014-07-25T10:23:59.733-07:002014-07-25T10:23:59.733-07:00UGGG trying to turn my fused neck;-)
But my monom...UGGG trying to turn my fused neck;-)<br /><br />But my monomaniacal devotion to the motto "Criticism is the only know antidote to error" is forcing me to respond. If all you are saying is that folks on liberal side can have some wrong (even crazy)ideas I completely agree. If you are saying that I believe some wrong (or even crazy) ideas, I would have to say yes you are most likely correct. but in my defense I am not sure which my beliefs are the bad ones. <br /><br />But if you are saying that liberals are more likely to think that vaccines are dangerous than moderates or conservatives, the evidence I linked to does not support that idea. That survey found that liberals, moderates and conservatives all had about the same level of concern about vaccines. (The same survey found that political beliefs are related to how dangerous Climate Change, guns in the home, and marijuana legalization are viewed.) occam's comicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37348659070954955732014-07-25T08:34:28.929-07:002014-07-25T08:34:28.929-07:00@locumranch (...) the ‘expert’ (most specifically...@locumranch <i> (...) the ‘expert’ (most specifically the ‘scientific expert’) should possess and exercise disproportional power and political authority over those social issues which fall within their purview, proposing (in a most undemocratic fashion) that the expert and/or scientist should rule the general (non-specialist) population (...)</i><br /><br />Funnily enough, the libertarian, Virginia Postrel, makes a very similar argument in her book "The Future and its Enemies". Which makes a) David not a libertarian, b) Ms Postrel not a libertarian, or c) you constructing an incorrect statement about David's arguments.<br /><br />My sense is that the last is mostly true, as I do not see David making the argument that experts should rule, bu rather that their advisory role in supporting sound decision making is not undermined by denigrating that expertise.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89229848788935096652014-07-25T07:26:59.649-07:002014-07-25T07:26:59.649-07:00Huffypost is downright sane compared to Daily Kos....Huffypost is downright sane compared to Daily Kos. I still read Huppypost (as a news aggregator) and take it with a grain of salt. If I realize something is DK, I won't use it as an argument point because it inevitably is leftist biased.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83762883451034846092014-07-25T06:51:30.481-07:002014-07-25T06:51:30.481-07:00I'm not so sure that "reality has a liber...I'm not so sure that "reality has a liberal bias"; it may be that conservativism has an anti-reality bias. For it is the essence of conservativism that the truth is already known and need only be applied to any given situation; whether the truth is contained in the Bible or the Koran or Atlas Shrugged or Das Kapital or even The Origin Of Species is a matter of taste. Whatever your choice of holy writ, you need learn no more because you have the truth dad gum it! <br /><br />An essence of liberalism, on the other hand, is that our knowledge is imperfect and we are constantly learning new things and therefore must change our prescriptions. This sets up a conflict between the professional practices of scientists and their personal political beliefs<br />---<br />Dr. Brin's harping on the distinction between leftist and liberalism makes me uncomfortable, and that's a good thing. I don't know that I agree with him, but knowledge is imperfect and some cautionary warnings in that area is a small insurance premium to pay against the risk of disaster.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I'm pretty sure that the fascists (yes, that's the word) have no problem attacking liberal divines. They revere learning that justifies their desires. <br /><br />rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86548351905311194822014-07-25T06:40:15.084-07:002014-07-25T06:40:15.084-07:00I couldn't help wondering what Mr. High IQ Blu...I couldn't help wondering what Mr. High IQ Blue City racist would think of the tribe of low-IQ Anglo-Saxon Baptist-by-proclamation alcoholic trailer-trash crackheads barely hanging on because they are contrarian pissants who sabotage every venture they are briefly employed to attempt, and just as quickly shudderingly disposed of by the unfortunate capable Randian heroes who still with honor try to keep our industry running...<br />......................<br /><br />For a general sampling of the loony left, see HuffPo, where a large number reside, although, granted, in company with some saner heads.<br /><br />Worst,<br />JumperJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39136713353092695772014-07-24T20:02:48.533-07:002014-07-24T20:02:48.533-07:00Leftists love MSNBC. Liberals like Jon Stewart. ...Leftists love MSNBC. Liberals like Jon Stewart. I need say no more.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66423245487493112342014-07-24T20:01:43.227-07:002014-07-24T20:01:43.227-07:00
Again, gator and occam…. LIBERAL is an entirely d...<br />Again, gator and occam…. LIBERAL is an entirely different kind of being than LEFTIST. They are allies, at present. But they will face off again. I am a certain kind of libertarian, who is in many ways a certain kind of Liberal. I will never be a $%#! leftist. <br /><br />Both liberals and libertarians trace roots back to Adam Smith and farther to Pericles, who both cited the human propensity for delusion and cheating and tyranny as reasons to DIVIDE POWER and create competitive systems in which cheating is checked by reciprocal accountability.<br /><br />Liberals agree with smith that the state can help achieve this by feeding and educating all children so that they can grow up and - from roughly even starting blocks - eagerly and capably compete to produce cornucopias of wonders and wealth. Liberals believe the state should regulate and break up centers of corporate and oligarchic power that threaten to cheat or get too big to fail.<br /><br />Sane libertarians have no problem with this, in principle, but they deeply worry the state itself can become a center of dangerous power abuse that grows beyond accountability. Both are right!<br /><br />Leftists (insanely) denounce competition. They relish the state as a wise, paternalistic way to force people to become and act better. They believe that small groups of elite -- inherently delusional -- human beings can prescribe and design Right Ways.. just like all the other religious fanatics who ever lived.<br /><br />State enforced COOPERATION… yum. They do not trust us to reciprocally hold each other accountable. Equalize not the starting conditions, but outcomes. Prescribe and prescribe. WHat loonies.<br /><br />Randian libertarians are saps who have abandoned Adam Smith and competition, extolling instead grand and airy platonic essences like absolute property rights… and thus pave the way for a return to oligarchy, cabals of cheater-owner-lords who crushed freedom in every other era.<br /><br />The enemies of our enlightenment are the prescribers. The right is worse… right now. I must ally myself with leftists against the New Confederacy. But I know them. They contain their own sickness.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52436530083958953732014-07-24T19:33:41.216-07:002014-07-24T19:33:41.216-07:00Brin posting from remote as anonymous:
Once agai...Brin posting from remote as anonymous:<br /><br />Once again Occam's Comic unintentionally proves his monomaniacal political fused spine disease by interpreting my very well-backed assertion that the FAR-left contains some crazies… as opposed to the ENTIRE right being presently inherently crazy… as asserting "equivalence." No, Occam, all you do is demonstrate exactly the kind of monomania that proves my point. You will allow no besmirchment of your "side." You are a fanatic.<br /><br />Gator, likewise, thinks I do this simply in order to maintain my "cred" as a person who can turn his neck and look at danger in all directions. You have it backwards. Because, unlike you, I CAN turn my head, I can see the potential for real danger in left wing fanaticism, even if -today - it is far less dangerous than the insane, undead thing that has hijacked conservatism.<br /><br />I was on college campuses in the 1970s and 1980s. I listened to Angela Davis and Herbert Marcuse defend Stalin and rationalize and excuse his murderous methods. I attended political gatherings in which lefty SOBs tirades and threatened and bullied anyone who did not toe the line. I saw offices burned and trashed, when legitimate Hayekian or Austrian school professors were chased off campus in savagely violent acts of political policing…<br /><br />… actions that the lefties smugly bragged about, never knowing how much harm they did to the world, by driving men like Wolfowitze, Nitze, Perle, Adelman… and Clarence Thomas… away from true academia, where they might have had their views moderated by give and take with colleagues, instead sending them limping and wounded and angry into the arms of faux "academes" like Heritage… where they turned their intellects into the service of Straussian "neoconservatism" and helped give an intellectual gloss to the horrid manias of the GW Bush years.<br /><br />The harm that Anita Hill did to us all, by turning Thomas into a raging reflex-hater of the entire modern American experience, cannot be calculated.<br /><br />Fug. There is no need for me to go on, other than to mention the USSR, Gawd. To deny that the left can be dangerous? Oh. Oh. Oh. You guys are living proof.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com