I was up at 5 a.m. as I went to bed early with an incipient cold (or some other virus), and the insomnia is still with me. This morning I leave for Utah, but will put up here two articles I read yesterday as well as a clip from Bill Maher’s “Real Time”. I am still baffled that so many science-oriented skeptics think that one’s biological sex is what one thinks it is, regardless of other traits and despite the truth that what one “thinks” is based on biology (neurons and the like). Onwards and upwards.
Niall Ferguson, who happens to be married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and is also seen as a conservative, has what I thought was a good article in The Free Press, which you can access below or find archived here. It’s about Israel’s continuous refusal to follow America’s marching orders in the Middle East. I’ll give a few quotes (indented):
First, of course, I have to give the usual disclaimer that I’m not a huge fan of Netanyahu, but I do give him credit for prosecuting the war successfully despite repeated American objections. An excerpt (the essay Ferguson refers to is Jake Sullivan’s “7,000-word essay published in Foreign Affairs one year ago”).
Since then, the region has been in a state of upheaval not seen in half a century—since the last surprise attack on Israel almost exactly 50 years previously, on Yom Kippur 1973. And at every single major hinge point of Israel’s war with Iran’s proxies, the U.S. has been as wrong as Sullivan was in that essay.
The White House said don’t go into Gaza. Israel did, and in a sustained campaign killed a high proportion of Hamas fighters. Team Biden-Harris said don’t go into Rafah. Israel ignored those warnings, too, and in February liberated two hostages there. Ten days ago, a routine Israeli patrol in Rafah spotted the mastermind of the massacre, Yahya Sinwar, who was killed soon after. Washington said don’t send troops into Lebanon. Israel sent them anyway and in a matter of weeks has inflicted severe damage on Hezbollah’s positions there.
Biden and Harris said “Ceasefire now!” but Israel had no interest in a ceasefire that gave Hamas breathing space to regroup. Finally, the U.S. warned against Israel directly attacking Iran. An as yet unidentified U.S. government official even appears to have leaked Israel’s plans to Tehran—a scandal that ought to be front-page news. You know what happened next.
The past year has revealed many things—not least the moral confusion of many young Americans—but two major points stand out. First, Israel has pursued a strategy of targeted retaliation of impressive precision and effectiveness. Second, the United States has lost all but a shred of the influence it once had over Israeli policy. Fact: As a share of Israeli national income, U.S. aid peaked at 22 percent in 1979. It’s now down to 0.6 percent.
The political consequences are twofold. First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has successfully outmaneuvered his critics at home and abroad, who wrongly assumed that, by relentlessly exaggerating the collateral damage of Israel’s campaign against Hamas, they would prevent Israel from exacting vengeance—and from reestablishing deterrence.
Second, the Biden-Harris administration has been left looking even more hapless in its national security strategy than Jimmy Carter’s did in 1980, when Ronald Reagan swept to victory with a promise to achieve “peace through strength.” The Iranian revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, combined with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, had made 1979 an annus horribilis for Carter.
*************
Andrew Sullivan despises Trump, and has declared that he’ll vote for Harris, but that doesn’t stop him from calling her out. I’d say that such criticism is fair, since it’s designed not to defeat the Democrats but to correct them. Read by clicking below, or see the piece archived here . “Project Fear” refers to what appears to be Harris’s main campaign strategy: to continuously diss Trump (fair enough, and her criticisms are correct) but not to advance her own policies (not a good tactic). Read the transcript of Harris’s town-hall interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who also dislikes Trump.
An excerpt .from Sullivan:
And so the few undecideds are looking for a positive reason to vote for Harris. And this is the best she could do in her truly pitiable CNN town hall:
I think that the American people deserve to have a president who is grounded in what is common sense, what is practical, and what is in the best interest of the people, not themselves.
Weak. Lame. This is the first presidential candidate who doesn’t seem to want you to know what she’ll actually do, or what she really thinks about anything much, and who responds to every direct question with a meandering digression. Blathering about an “opportunity economy” and a “middle-class background” doesn’t cut it. With Anderson Cooper — who was superb — she memorably crashed and burned.
She had taken a day off to prep and yet still could not tell us what her first Congressional priority would be, what policies of the last four years she would change, how she would prevent illegal immigration, why Biden had not issued this year’s executive orders three years ago, and why she was now in favor of building a wall she once called “stupid, useless, and a medieval vanity project.” When asked to name just one mistake she’s made over the past four years, in life or in office, she said:
I mean I’ve made many mistakes, um, and they range from, you know — if you’ve ever parented a child, you know you make lots of mistakes. Um, in my role as vice president, I mean I’ve probably worked very hard at making sure that, um, I am well versed on issues, and, um, I think that is very important. It’s a mistake not to be well versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question.
Calling Michael Scott. Her entire performance was a near parody of why normal people hate the way politicians talk. Every answer seemed to be a form of damage control, not conviction. And her body language … well, a near-literal defensive crouch isn’t confidence-inducing. Nor is it reassuring to think someone who cannot crisply answer a straight question will have to make split-second, life-and-death decisions as president. She seems like a party functionary who has never known real political combat — maybe a decent low-level cabinet member. But president? C’mon. Even the Dem strategists after the town hall were bewildered by her “word salad city” — to quote David Axelrod. Substacker Adam Coleman wrote:
There are moments when she physically squirms as she searches for a canned response to give Anderson Cooper. She’s in a friendly environment on CNN, and Anderson Cooper absolutely hates her opponent, but even his basic questions made her squirm.
No one wants a president who squirms, laughs, and prevaricates on her meandering way to a calculated, canned response. The undecideds don’t. And the base is given nothing really to speak of, apart from abortion and the filibuster. She’s neither persuading the center nor rallying the faithful. Her final trump card is celebrity concerts and endorsements. Have the Dems learned nothing? And no serious presidential candidate should have a closing message like this one:
Let me, if I can, just speak to what people are feeling. We cannot despair, we cannot despair … Let’s not let the overwhelming nature of all this make us feel powerless, because then we have been defeated, and that’s not our character as the American people. We are not ones to be defeated.
Not exactly “Fired up! Ready to go!” is it?
Sullivan speaks the truth here, and I am truly baffled at those who think that Harris is a great candidate and will likely be a good President. Yes, she’s miles better than Trump, but that is still a long distance from “excellent”. I will be glad it she beats Trump, but I will still worry how Harris, who was roundly beaten the last time around, will handle the world’s most important job. No, I feel no “joy”, just disappointment about how the whole thing was handled, from Biden refusing to bow out early enough to allow a proper selection of a Democratic candidate to Harris pretending that she has “earned” the nomination when in fact she inherited it.
******************
Finally, here’s Bill Maher’s latest news-and-humor clip saying that what Harris needs is a “Sister Souljah moment“. You remember that moment, right? The Wikipedia link just above describes it, as does Maher in the video below. Maher even provides several SS moments that Harris could use.
(I do think that Maher’s comment about Monica Lewinsky was out of line.)
“…I am truly baffled at those who think that Harris is a great candidate and will likely be a good President. Yes, she’s miles better than Trump, but that is still a long distance from ‘excellent.’ I will be glad if she beats Trump, but I will still worry how Harris, who was roundly beaten the last time around, will handle the world’s most important job. No, I feel no ‘joy’, just disappointment about how the whole thing was handled, from Biden refusing to bow out early enough to allow a proper selection of a Democratic candidate to Harris pretending that she has “earned” the nomination when in fact she inherited it…” Wonderfully stated; I couldn’t agree more.
Did I miss your review of the Bacchanal Buffet at Caesar’s? Even if your virus has masked tastes, I would love to see your impressions of the “event” itself…when you get a chance please.
Yes, I have two or three photos that I’ll put up. There’s a 90-minute time limit, so I was too busy stuffing my face to take photos, and I forgot! I will give a review and a few pictures in a day or two when I can download photos from my point-and-shoot camera. My review: good stuff and worth the high price, but go when it’s not too busy AND don’t eat for a day beforehand. The seafood and lamb t-bone were the best, but the desserts were also great.
Project fear is not enough — I think the great frustration we all feel is that for Trump voters, it *is* enough. They have never pressed him for a single detail of his policy agenda, and would vote for him any day no matter what it actually was.
I agree. I am not real enthusiastic about a Harris presidency. On the other hand, I will be quite happy if she beats Trump because I am hoping that will be the end of Trumpism, though, unless it is a landslide, Trump will be around for a long time whining about a rigged election.
I think a solution to many of our problems of governance including the poor slate of candidates is to go to some form of ranked choice voting. I think Derrick of Veritasium has good take on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk
The title is a bit click-baity, but I thought it was interesting.
Thank you for posting on these important topics. Israel and the election hit my bullseye for what matters at the moment—and the two are related. Sadly, Vice President Harris doesn’t seem to be up to the task of either getting herself elected or defending Israel against Hamas terrorists or domestic terrorist wannabes. No. She’s not normal either, but on the axis of normal she’s closer to that distant point than is former President Trump, so she may win anyway. Or not. It has been said that we get the government we deserve. If so, what we have before us is a sad commentary.
And I agree. Maher’s piece would have been just fine without the reference to Ms. Lewinsky’s physiognomy.
Is Hili sleeping in today?
Matthew went for a walk and forgot about Hili, but I quickly called Malgorzata and got today’s. It’s up now, right above this post. I’m glad people noticed her absence!
Biden Trump popular vote in 2020:
81,283,501 74,223,975
I am taking even-money wagers that Trump will for the third time lose the popular vote, and for the second time become the POTUS. $100 limit 🙂
Just as a reminder for all WEIT readers:
On Real Time with Bill Maher, the interview guest this week was the conservative journalist Megyn Kelly. Maher asked her why she will be voting for Trump. She explained: immigration and the transgender issue (transgender youth medicine in the USA, women’s rights). Then Maher asked “What about democracy?” Her reply: This is democracy. In other words, you vote for the person who is closest to your policy preferences. Or: the Democrats’ regard for democracy has been rather selective during Biden’s term. That’s the Dems problem in a nutshell: They have pushed too many woke policies that alienate centrist and right-of-center voters. If Harris loses, this will be the main reason.
To give an example of the policy malfeasance of the Dems: This week we learned from an article in the New York Times that researchers who received several million dollars of taxpayer m,oney to study transgender youth medicine will delay the publication or or not publish the results of their study of puberty blockers because the results do not support the gender-affirmative approach. The Dems could have reacted the same way that Republicans reacted: This is wrong. We will investigate this. But what we got from the Dems was crickets.
Peter – right on. Many of my friends and colleagues keep wondering how anyone could vote for one of the most despicable persons in the US. But they miss the point. Yes, there are cult members that basically wish that they had the power, privilege and wealth of Trump. But they ignore the millions of other Trump voters who are voting on abortion, inflation, Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, government overreach, and as mentioned immigration and men in women’s sports.
Kelly’s reasons are the same two reasons why for the first time in 40 years I will probably vote for a Conservative candidate in the next Canadian federal election. Mass immigration (proportionally greater than in the USA) pushed down Canada’s GDP relative to other OECD countries and made housing more scarce & expensive in all our cities. Genderism requires sane people to pretend to believe and support things that are biologically nonsense and cause harm to mentally ill people (cf. our “safe consumption” drugs policy). The only difference (a big one) is that in Canada if I want to vote against those two policies I don’t have to vote for someone like Trump.
Azeen Ghorayshi: U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor [Johanna Olson-Kennedy] Says. New York Times, Oct 23, 2024
The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care.
Republicans to Investigate Study on Gender Treatments for Minors after Researcher Admits to Concealing Results. National Review, Oct 25, 2024
https://archive.ph/GSbwp
JK Rowling tweeted about this New York Times article this summary (Oct 23, 2024):
‘We must not publish a study that says we’re harming children because people who say we’re harming children will use the study as evidence that we’re harming children, which might make it difficult for us to continue harming children.’
The Bioethicist Moti Gorin (University of Colorado) tweeted this (Oct 23, 2024):
When results [of medical studies] are negative [for the gender-affirmative approach], they are suppressed due to concerns about political/legal “weaponization.” When there is weak data suggesting positive outcomes, it is published, touted in the media, introduced in court, etc. But that does not count as weaponization? Patients as pawns.
Benjamin Ryan: The Global Pediatric Medicine Field Has a Clear Habit Of Hiding—And Discouraging—Inconvenient Research Findings. Oct 24, 2024
What NYT reported about Johanna Olson-Kennedy sitting on her null findings on puberty blockers is but one such story in a field in which many researchers prioritize the mission over honest science.
[article can be read for free on Ryan’s substack]
JK Rowling: perfect response, as ever.
“I am still baffled that so many science-oriented skeptics think that one’s biological sex is what one thinks it is . . . and I am truly baffled at those who think that Harris is a great candidate and will likely be a good President.”
One could extend the list of things that baffle, but I’ll refrain. I do wonder what in their constitution or experience might separate the baffled from the bafflers. It is not intelligence that does so. Here is my (unoriginal) guess: large swaths of the educated left have been felled by tribalism. They have become reactionary, not in the denigrating and self-congratulatory way they apply the term to conservatives, but in that they are viscerally aroused by the stimulus of conservative opposition to “progressivism.” The science-oriented skeptics are not the source of this “progressivism;” they are latecomers to the game, bandwagoners, following the lead of the radicals from the humanities and social studies. The radicals had long been laughed at from others on the left, often viewed as “wrong-headed” but generally held to be “right-hearted.” But the radicals, with help from their media enablers, had created an illusion that on some core issues not only did all the good people agree, but all the smart people agreed, too. Well, in that case . . ..
The antagonism stirred by Donald Trump has made matters worse, pushing many otherwise thoughtful people into a stance of “Whatever (whomever) he is for, I am against; whatever (whomever) he is against, I am for.” But it isn’t all about Trump. An intelligent man like JD Vance can stir even more animosity and provoke intelligent opponents to prove him wrong—both morally and intellectually wrong. We are in a milieu of warring parties where few can resist taking a side, and few want to be charged with aiding the enemy. Reason can be one of war’s first casualties.
It doesn’t matter in this environment whether people speak the truth; what counts is that they speak the “truth” that matters to the peer group and other social circles of most immediate importance in their lives. What matters is the declaration that “I am not like THOSE people,” particularly if those people are a bit uncouth and uneducated. What matters is that intelligent people are not immune to “my side” bias. In fact, they are probably more prone to its seductions because they are more capable of producing “reasons” for whatever position their side asserts, with disconfirming evidence damned if it is accepted by the “other side.”
Perhaps this is a long-winded way of saying that we are in a “culture war.” But the very triteness of the phrase can, I think, dull our senses to the damaging dynamics that the metaphorical war can share with a real one. Perhaps most frighteningly, it can blind us to the realization that a culture war exported can lead to real ones.
Some students asked me recently how to avoid confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. My answer, in part, was to not join any tribes, be they religious or ideological, with which you then identify. Those who don’t identify themselves as Catholic/Protestant, Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, or Dodger fan/Yankee fan have a much easier time seeing the faults in their own positions and the merits in others’.
Group identity affiliation is a gateway drug to dogmatism.
What a thoughtful comment. I agree with your observations. In times such as these I cling to and appreciate more than ever the principled thinkers among us. Without them I would feel hopeless. I was born in 1960 and maybe because of immaturity, late-blooming, too much drug and alcohol use in my youth, I tend to feel like a gen-xer more than a baby boomer though I technically am the latter. Anyway, I’ve never felt as dismal as I do today about just about every aspect of society. It’s affecting my moods profoundly. I would like to sleep for an extended period of time and wake in a different world. What a cop out, huh? Maybe dropout would be more accurate. That’s what I’ve become, essentially — a dropout.
“Project fear” is a British phrase (A. Sullivan is from the UK). It refers to the campaign of the “remainers” in Brexit vote. It did not work. “Project fear” claimed that the Pound and British GDP would crash if the UK voted for Brexit. The UK did vote for Brexit, and not much happened as a consequence. See the Wikipedia article on the subject.
“I am still baffled that so many science-oriented skeptics think that one’s biological sex is what one thinks it is, regardless of other traits and despite the truth that what one “thinks” is based on biology (neurons and the like).”
Science was a useful tool when the “enemy” was right-wing creationism. If was discarded when it became the “enemy” of “Left Creationism”. I wish I could claim to have invented that phase. However, it actually comes from Razib Kahn. See “Men are stronger than women (on average)” (Gene Expression).