Many and various thoughts 1/15/22

Seeking to destroy the liberal framework

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, on a network news show, responded to a question about January 6 thusly:

“As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states,” Rounds said, noting that none of the irregularities brought to his attention would’ve changed the outcome in any state. “The election was fair, as fair as we have seen. We simply did not win the election, as Republicans, for the presidency.”

45 did not appreciate that:

Trump, who in a statement Monday morning accused Rounds of going “woke” on the “fraudulent” 2020 election. “Is he crazy or just stupid? The numbers are conclusive, and the fraudulent and irregular votes are massive,” Trump continued, lying. “Even though his election will not be coming up for 5 years, I will never endorse this jerk again.”

The Morning Dispatch

I could not comprehend how any sensible person, whatever his grievances against our traditional political elites, can think that this vengeful narcissist is a suitable Presidential candidate. But Damon Linker has now explained it:

By the time Trump burst on the scene in the summer of 2015, the traditionalist right had nearly given in to outright despair, even in public, with many moving into a purely defensive position. No longer hoping to reverse the direction of the culture, they now hoped they might merely receive modest federal protection from persecution at the hands of emboldened secular liberals.

At first Trump’s campaign didn’t inspire much cause for optimism among disaffected traditionalist conservatives. He was, after all, a personal paragon of moral decadence. Yet once Trump seized the GOP nomination, and then the presidency itself, a rethinking began among the most pessimistic conservatives. Might his unexpected triumph open other, more radical options for the future? Could his aggressive, unapologetic hostility to liberal norms and institutions signal an openness among American voters to a fundamental rethinking of ideological premises, cultural limits, and the range of political possibilities?

For a series of pessimistic conservatives — especially the "integralist" Catholics (Adrian Vermeule, Gladden Pappin, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Chad Pecknold) and the philosophically anti-liberal and anti-progressive writers at the Claremont Institute and the American Greatness website — Trump came to represent a new way to achieve old ends. Instead of encouraging Republican presidents to struggle within a liberal framework against the inexorable drift of the country, including its government and its culture, toward the secular left, conservatives could cheer on a political and cultural demolition project that would seek to destroy the liberal framework itself.

"A political and cultural demolition project that would seek to destroy the liberal framework itself." That’s fancy-talk for what I feared was the motivation in 2016 — "To hell with it! Let’s tear it all down!" — which is notably nihilistic rather than conservative.

These traditionalist Christian "conservatives" might justify that as desperate measures for desperate times (responding to an existential threat, another Flight 93 Election, but one mark of conservatism has been sober recognition that bountiful crops don’t grow in the scorched earth of revolution.

What a difference a day makes

My Friday reaction

Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, has been arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy in the attack on the U.S. Capitol, authorities said Thursday.

Ten other people also were charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the attack on Jan. 6, 2021, when authorities said members of the extremist group came to Washington intent on stopping the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

AP Report.

That’s close enough to a domestic terrorism charge to satisfy my curiosity (and desire for retribution) about why nobody had been charged with terrorism in the January 6 whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

My Saturday course correction

We have an adversarial legal system because there are often two plausible sides to a case.

Did the Oath Keepers commit seditious conspiracy? I thought so, and so did a law prof. An ex-prosecutor, who has actually convicted seditious conspirators, says not so fast, pal.

I’m with the second now. And the reason why, in a nutshell, is that the President of the United States sent them off to "stop the steal" — ritually disavowing violence but almost assuring it by his inflammatory "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" rhetoric. To those foolish enough to believe Trump, the notion that if we don’t stop the steal, we won’t have America any more is a potent incitement to "any means necessary."

This all matters because unless the prosecutors have filed multiple counts, including counts that don’t require proving that the Oath Keepers consciously were trying to overrule a legitimate election rather than gullibly trying to stop the nonexistent steal, they could well be acquitted. Since they are dangerous fiends or fools who need to be out of circulation for a good long time, both for safety and to deter others, I don’t want that.

Go for the easy single, guys, not the home run.

No particular place to be

I can take a virtual tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing, or of the deepest underwater caverns, nearly as easily as I glance across the room. Every foreign wonder, hidden place, and obscure subculture is immediately available to my idle curiosity; they are lumped together into a uniform distancelessness that revolves around me. But where am I? There doesn’t seem to be any nonarbitrary basis on which I can draw a horizon around myself—a zone of relevance—by which I might take my bearings and get oriented. When the axis of closer-to-me and farther-from-me is collapsed, I can be anywhere, and find that I am rarely in any place in particular.

Matthew B. Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head

We’re all experts now

When Covid hit, we were knee-deep in spoofed phone numbers slamming our cellphones about fake car warranties. We were wading through emails trying to steal our identities. We were triangulating Yelp reviews and Consumer Reports summaries with testimonials and marketing research just to buy a new mattress or an air fryer. We were checking out our own purchases at the grocery store and waiting on hold to replace the credit card that got hacked for the umpteenth time. We were staring, bleary-eyed, into apps that promised less “friction” in our everyday lives if we would just consent to tracking — not that we had a clue as to what exactly we were consenting to. The tiny boxes to “sign up” are labeled “terms and conditions,” after all, and not “Here is how we are going to farm your personal data for profit.” And when we complained — to a manager, to a clerk, to our spouses, to the internet — someone was all too glad to tell us how we could have prevented all of this if we had just become an expert in everything.

It is no wonder that so many of us think that we can parse vaccine trial data, compare personal protective equipment, write school policy and call career scientists idiots on Facebook. We are know-it-alls because we are responsible for knowing everything. And God forbid we should not know something and get scammed. If that happens, it is definitely our fault.

Tressie McMillan Cottom, ‌We’re All ‘Experts’ Now. That’s Not a Good Thing.

I have friends who, based on doing their own research, skipped vaccine and treated with Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine when they contracted Covid.

I have friends who, based on doing their own research, are convinced that the CDC is sluggish and wimpy and that it’s vitally important that we get vaccinated, boosted, and put on our N95 masks and quarantine until the end of January.

I value my friends, but having fallen for pseudoscience more than once in my long life, I’m trying to trust the CDC directionally, titrating with common sense. I’m 73, and I’m going to die of something some day. Meanwhile, I don’t want to live in irrational fear or with irrational exuberance.

Trafficking in racial animosities

There are strong incentives to provoke the left on race, and that provocation can often take the form of rhetoric that looks a lot like outright racism. Take, for example, this comment from Tucker Carlson regarding immigration and the alleged Democratic effort to “replace” the American electorate with immigrants:

I know that the left and all the gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement, if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters, from the Third World. But, they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually. Let’s just say it: That’s true.

Carlson says his comments have nothing to do with race—with the so-called Great Replacement theory (a white-supremacist theory that, in its current American incarnation, holds that Democrats—often led by Jews—are trying to replace white voters with nonwhite immigrants). “This is a voting-rights question,” says Carlson. “Every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter,” he claims.

David French, How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs . If you can show me a meaningful difference between "new people, more obedient voters, from the Third World" and "nonwhite immigrants," I’ll buy you a burger at your favorite burger joint.

Tucker Carlson is definitely trafficking in racial animosities.

Hospitalized with Covid or hospitalized because of Covid?

New data published by New York’s Department of Health show that, although the state’s topline COVID-19 hospitalization numbers are near record highs, 43 percent of COVID-positive patients currently hospitalized were admitted for another reason, and only tested positive for COVID-19 incidentally.

The Morning Dispatch, 1/1/22

Human motivations are rarely unmixed

"Admission changes to [Loudon County Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson High] were driven by jealously infused xenophobia and racism against the Asian community,” says Mr. Jackson. “Most of the internal deliberations focused on a tailored solution to get just enough black and Hispanic kids in to open the floodgates for rich white affluent families, the primary beneficiaries."

William McGurn, quoting Harry Jackson, former president of the Thomas Jefferson PTA.

Worthy new center-left Substack

I believe it was on this blog that I solicited suggestions for left-leaning honest brokers on the internet, since so much of my reading has become, at least in popular parlance, right-leaning, Several of the writers still identify as liberals or even, in one case, communist — but their honest brokerage gets them branded otherwise. I read them more for the delight and reassurance that I and other conservatives aren’t the only ones who "get it."

Well, the center-right Dispatch recommended a new Substack from Josh Barro, Very Serious, just such a center-left figure, as a likely counterpart to the Dispatch. And the introduction is promising:

The conversation that gets erroneously called a “national conversation” — conducted among select journalists, operatives, activists and academics — is essentially a conversation by and for people who supported Elizabeth Warren. It reflects the values and preferences and linguistic quirks of one minority part of one political party’s coalition. And sure, I am contrarian in relation to that subculture, but not to our overall politics or society, within which I sit closer to the median than most other people you will hear from in the press.

Dissenting from and complaining about this subculture is not novel; it’s become a cliché to jump to Substack and complain about it. But my beef with this subculture isn’t quite the usual one, and that’s why this newsletter is going to be different. I don’t feel oppressed by the subculture. But I do think it has caused certain influential people to become badly misinformed in ways that have been damaging to the interests of both the press and the Democratic Party.

Josh Barro, in his introductory post in his new Very Serious.

(I believe his is a Substack blog — it certainly looks like one in the invitation to paid subscription — but the domain is Barro’s own, which presumably gives him control of the content should he ever leave Substack.)

Riddle solved

[T]here’s a simple solution to the seemingly complicated riddle of Hawley, Cruz and Pompeo. And Marche provides it: Right now their surest path to power, or firmest grip on it, involves the theatrical trashing of their own trappings, the reinvention of themselves as characters in a story other than their own. They haven’t had some post-Ivy moral or philosophical epiphany. Their makeovers are fundamentally commercial: They sized up the current marketplace and manufactured what sells best.

And for them — as for too many people in this age of runaway vanity — brand dictates belief.

Frank Bruni, ‌Trump’s pride goeth before our fall

Bait and switch

This week, the writer Colin Wright posed on Twitter the following question: “What rights do trans people currently not have but want that don’t involve replacing biological sex with one’s subjective ‘gender identity’?” And the response was, of course, crickets. The truth is: the 6-3 Bostock decision places trans people in every state under the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s done. It’s built on the sturdy prohibition on sex discrimination. A Trump nominee wrote the ruling.

What the trans movement is now doing, after this comprehensive victory, is not about rights at all. It is about cultural revolution. It’s a much broader movement to dismantle the sex binary, to see biology as a function of power and not science, and thereby to deconstruct the family and even a fixed category such as homosexuality. You can support trans rights and oppose all of this. But they want you to believe you can’t. That’s the bait-and-switch. Don’t take it.

Andrew Sullivan, The Trans Movement Is Not About Rights Anymore

Sully on Biden

The appeal of Biden was that he understood the Senate, represented a moderate middle, and wouldn’t polarize the country with divisive, incendiary rhetoric, as his predecessor had. The reality of Biden is that he has lost the Senate’s trust, has been an enabler of the far left, and is now seeking to call all those who object to a Democratic wishlist of electoral reforms the modern equivalents of the KKK. The speech was disgusting. It will do nothing but further alienate the Senators he needs. It sure alienated me. It could have been written by a Vox intern on Adderall.

I’d wax more eloquently on this but don’t feel I can best either Jonah Goldberg or Peggy Noonan. I voted and supported Biden as the least worst option — in the primaries and general election. I favor an urgent reform of the Electoral Count Act — to avoid a 2020 scenario next time. I’d be open to some of the Democratic proposals. So I should be the kind of voter Biden is appealing to.

But Biden’s polarizing rhetoric, as McConnell made clear, has made compromise on any of this toxic.

Andrew Sullivan again (third topic by my count)

Getting the run-around

Alan Jacobs had a few questions on his University’s health insurance. Nobody would admit that they had answers:

It’s important to recognize that what I went through in both of the circumstances did not result from bugs in the systems, but from features — from purposeful design. The goal of all our contemporary Departments of Circumlocution is simply this: To make us give up. To bring us to the point of shrugging our shoulders and crossing our fingers in the hope that whatever illness we have will somehow get better; or to the point that we pay for medicine ourselves because we can’t figure out how to get the insurance we pay for to cover it, and don’t dare try to get by without it. The object of these systems is the generation of despair. Because if the systems make us despair then the companies that deploy them can boast of the money they have saved the organizations that purchase their services.

Wherein I brand myself

J Budziszewski chose an unusually provocative title: Novelists as Pimps. That I agree with him enthusiasticly no doubt brands me as some sort of comic caricature.

Pretty good book

I’m not going to oversell it, but this was a book I felt well warranted the time to read it:

The origins of this book lie in my curiosity about how and why a particular statement has come to be regarded as coherent and meaningful: “I am a woman trapped in a man’s body.”

…

To put it bluntly: we are all expressive individuals now. Just as some choose to identify themselves by their sexual orientation, so the religious person chooses to be a Christian or a Muslim. And this raises the question of why society finds some choices to be legitimate and others to be irrelevant or even unacceptable.

Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. If you are comprehensively familiar with Philip Rieff, you can skip it.

Worthy book, but I passed up a favorite annual conference this weekend even though Trueman was one of three keynoters.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here (cathartic venting) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real). Both should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Thursday Tidbits 12/16/21 (remember that date)

Brevity is the soul of opacity

Although the parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, our caselaw, and even IDEA itself contain an alphabet soup of administrative acronyms, we will spell things out for the sake of clarity. E.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i) (referring to an “individualized education program” as an “IEP”); Appellants’ Br. (using no fewer than twenty-two unique initialisms); Appellee’s Br. (similar). Given their frequency and intelligibility, we nonetheless will continue to abbreviate IDEA and RISD.

For those who prefer acronymic efficiency, however, our holding is roughly as follows: RISD did not violate IDEA with respect to K.S. because, as the SEHOs correctly found at the DPHs: (1) the ARDC’s IEPs for K.S., which included PLAAFP statements, TEKS goals for K.S.’s grade level, various accommodations, and a transition plan, were appropriately individualized in light of K.S.’s SLD; and (2) no actionable violation resulted from wrongly excluding K.S. from the Sept. MDR, which reviewed K.S.’s prior FIEs, FBA consultations, his IIE, Ms. H.’s reports of K.S.’s ADHD (an OHI), TBI, and mood disorders, and concluded that K.S.’s SLD did not cause him to commit the assault for which he was assigned to DAEP. And, in sum, the D. Ct. did not err in holding that K.S. received a FAPE in the LRE in compliance with IDEA.

Footnote 2, Leigh v. Riesel Independent School District, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, November 22, 2021. H/T Advisory Opinions podcast

Cloning S.B. 8

California Governor Gavin Newsom may need to wash some egg off his face after his preening announcement that he’s going to imitate Texas S.B. 8 but in the context of chilling gun sales:

In oral arguments last month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Texas’ solicitor general if allowing S.B. 8 to stand would incentivize states to pass similar laws infringing upon other protected liberties. “It could be free speech rights, it could be free exercise of religion rights, it could be Second Amendment rights,” he said. “If this position is accepted here, the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights.”

That’s the theory that Newsom is now hoping to put to the test in California, but constitutional scholars warn that his proposed gun control legislation may not be analogous to what Texas did with abortion.

“I think the Court would treat similar legislation dealing with guns or free exercise or what have you the same way. … So there’s nothing about this unique to abortion,” said Will Baude, faculty director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School. “That said, I don’t think Gavin Newsom … fully understands what S.B. 8 is and how it works. For it to work—at a minimum, for instance—he would have to eliminate the ability of the state to prosecute people for those assault weapons or ghost weapons and things like that. I don’t know that he really means that. My guess is nobody will actually try to replicate this law’s particulars because it’s pretty complicated how it works.”

“To replicate this law and its effects in other contexts, you’ve got to pretty much do almost everything the law does,” added Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “It’s not merely private enforcement, and it’s not merely retroactivity. You have to, for example, divest state officials of any authority to enforce the same law. There are a whole bunch of other things you’ve got to do. Is California willing to do all of those things with regard to guns or with regard to assault weapons or whatever? Maybe, maybe not.”

‌The Morning Dispatch: Newsom Vows to Model Gun Legislation on Texas Abortion law

The dumbest audience in America

Sean Hannity, radio host and off-the-books Donald Trump adviser, demands to know. After all, Hannity points out, there have been scores of riots, some of them deadly, over the past couple of years. Why fixate on that one?

Sean Hannity apparently believes that he has the dumbest audience in America.

The sacking of the Capitol on January 6 by a gang of enraged Trump acolytes acting on the president’s complaint that the election had been stolen from him is different from other riots because of its particular political character. Stealing Nikes is one thing, and stealing the presidency is another. Hannity knows this. Most of you know this.

But, apparently, some people need to have it explained to them.

Kevin D. Williamson

The Morning Dispatch is favorably impressed by both Williamson and Michael Brendan Dougherty:

There are a pair of pieces up at National Review about the recent January 6 Select Committee disclosures. First, Kevin Williamson makes the case that comparing January’s Capitol riot with the riots that subsumed American cities in the summer of 2020 is a false equivalence. “There were 21,570 homicides in the United States in 2020. If one of the victims had been the president of the United States, we would have made a pretty big deal about it,” he writes. “What has been clear to some of us for a long time—and what is becoming more difficult to deny every day—is that the events of January 6 were part of an attempted coup d’état. … A riot that is part of a coup d’état is not very much like a riot that is part of a coup de Target.” Second, Michael Brendan Dougherty looks at how right-wing narratives about that day have shifted over the past year. “In the months after January 6, the politically correct move for Trump’s cable-news apologists has been to ignore the fact that the people who set about ‘investigating’ the supposed vote fraud have turned up nothing of consequence or merit,” he writes. “But the riot at the Capitol happened because President Donald Trump simply lied, and lied, and lied. … Treating Trump like a baby whose feelings had to be coddled at the end resulted in Ashli Babbitt’s getting shot as she tried to break into Congress against a lawful order to desist. He could no more Stop the Steal than make Mexico pay for the wall. But, pay for his actions? Some people did.”

And Jonah Goldberg, recently resigned from Fox, lays it on:

A "law and order" conservatism that says, "As long as liberals fail to condemn thuggish violence for their side, we feel no obligation to condemn thuggish violence on our side," cares neither about law and order nor conservatism.

Desperate times call for desperate nonsense

The left’s argument this week is that adoption is so traumatic for a child, who bonds in utero with the mother, that abortion is a mercy. The idea that the fetus can bond with the mother in utero seems to make the implicit case against legal abortion but no matter. Last week, a New York Times piece written by an adoptee argued this: “Babies bond with their mothers in utero and become familiar with their behaviors. When their first caretaker is not the biological mother, they register the difference and the stress of it has lasting effects.” Interracial adoption is apparently especially problematic: smells of white colonization.

The other issue is that good progressives are having a hard time talking about abortion as a women’s rights issue, since men can and do become pregnant (remember, the phrase now is “pregnant people”). …

Nellie Bowles, ‌Abortion, Guns, and Other Polite Topics of Conversation

Bowles also mentions:

This week, Lia Thomas, who competed for years on the men’s swimming team before joining the women’s team, has broken several women’s swimming records and finished one race a full 38 seconds before her nearest rival.

The Turn(s)

[A]fter 225 long and fruitful years of this terminology, “right” and “left” are now empty categories, meaning little more than “the blue team” and “the green team” in your summer camp’s color war. You don’t get to be “against the rich” if the richest people in the country fund your party in order to preserve their government-sponsored monopolies. You are not “a supporter of free speech” if you oppose free speech for people who disagree with you. You are not “for the people” if you pit most of them against each other based on the color of their skin, or force them out of their jobs because of personal choices related to their bodies. You are not “serious about economic inequality” when you happily order from Amazon without caring much for the devastating impact your purchases have on the small businesses that increasingly are either subjugated by Jeff Bezos’ behemoth or crushed by it altogether. You are not “for science” if you refuse to consider hypotheses that don’t conform to your political convictions and then try to ban critical thought and inquiry from the internet. You are not an “anti-racist” if you label—and sort!—people by race. You are not “against conformism” when you scare people out of voicing dissenting opinions.

When “the left” becomes the party of wealthy elites and state security agencies who preach racial division, state censorship, contempt for ordinary citizens and for the U.S. Constitution, and telling people what to do and think at every turn, then that’s the side you are on, if you are “on the left”—those are the policies and beliefs you stand for and have to defend.

…

So look at the list of things supported by the left and ask yourself: Is that me? If the answer is yes, great. You’ve found a home. If the answer is no, don’t let yourself be defined by an empty word. Get out. And once you’re out, don’t let anyone else define you, either. Not being a left-wing racist or police state fan doesn’t make you a white supremacist or a Trump worshipper, either. Only small children, machines, and religious fanatics think in binaries.

Liel Leibovitz, ‌The Turn

We need people to abandon the right as well for its betrayal of conservative principle, and the Trump era has produced a bumper crop of them.

Now we need to figure out how to build a home for the politically homeless from both ends of the political spectrum.

(For what it’s worth, I keep stumbling onto good stuff at Tablet magazine. I may feel honor-bound to contribute if this keeps up.)

S’il n’y a pas de solution, c’est qu’il n’y pas de problèm

Two choristers tested positive between Monday’s Lessons and Carols rehearsal and Wednesday’s. Rehearsal cancelled.

Sunday’s performances? Who knows. Brings to mind this oldy:

(If there’s no solution, there’s no problem.)

The decade of ideological fantasy

The years 1991 and 2001 are commonly treated as breakpoints, markers that inaugurate distinctive chapters of history, the first labeled “Post-Cold War,” the second “Post-9/11.” Yet there is a strong case to be made for amalgamating the two decades into a single period: call it the “era of ideological fantasy,” when U.S. self-regard and Washington’s confidence in its ability to remake the world in America’s image reached unprecedented heights.

Bacevich, Weyrich, Lind et al, The Essence of Conservatism

Not at all sure I agree (but then I wouldn’t be, would I?)

The characteristic feature of the loser is to bemoan, in general terms, mankind’s flaws, biases, contradictions, and irrationality-without exploiting them for fun and profit.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes.

How would I monetize flaws, biases, contradictions, and irrationality? Rupert Murdoch already founded Fox, back around 1988 (I remember where I was when I heard, and scoffed, that he was starting a fourth network).

Mythbusters

Second, Amar explains how the Chief Justice and Justice Sotomayor misread Marbury.

And what does Marbury v. Madison really mean? Marbury got invoked today by the United States Supreme Court. They don’t actually cite Marbury v. Madison in every single case. So they ratcheted up the stakes today, they meaning John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor, and this is what I teach Marbury vs. Madison isn’t just ConLaw, it’s FedCourts, you know, 101, and this is what I was hired actually at the law school to teach so so I want to actually go through it with just a little bit of care here. Here’s what Marbury does not say, quote, "The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpret the Constitution" unquote. It doesn’t say that at all. Our audience will put the will put the case up on our website, so they can do a word search, they will not find that they will find if they go online, the Supreme Court at least half a dozen times in the 20th and 21st century, citing Marbury for that proposition, but never with a page cite. The Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Marbury actually didn’t say that. It actually didn’t say much at all about the Supreme Court as such. It actually talked about courts in General, the judicial department which includes, at a minimum, all federal courts, maybe state courts as well, which which Ed invoked.

Amar is 100% correct. This mythical account of judicial supremacy comes from Cooper v. Aaron, and not from Marbury v. Madison. I explain this history in my article, The Irrepressible Myth of Cooper v. Aaron.

Josh Blackman (based on an Otter transcription of a podcast)

Misplaced sentimentality

Americans are a little sentimental about revolutions, because we had one of the very few good ones. But the revolutionary family tree gets pretty ugly pretty quickly: The American Revolution helps to inspire the French Revolution, with its purges and terror; the French Revolution provides a model for Lenin and his gang; the Russian Revolution informs the Iranian revolution. The line from the Boston Tea Party to the Iran hostage crisis is not a bold, straight one, but it can be seen, if you want to see it. Revolutions are dangerous, often in ways that are not obvious at the time and become understood only decades later.

Kevin D. Williamson, March of the New American Leninists

The January 6 insurrectionists vigilantes

The problem with treating every Republican more supportive of Trump than token GOP committee members Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) as an existential threat to the republic is twofold. One, the reason the more serious legal efforts to overturn the election failed is because there were people with fidelity to the Constitution working for Trump. Sidney Powell wasn’t White House counsel. The second is that strengthening Capitol security — the riots were quashed the moment they were met with an appropriate level of response — is probably a better deterrent than trying to marginalize eccentric but widely held political views.

Republicans should take Jan. 6 more seriously, but they are also correct to resist treating ordinary members of their party as horn-wearing, violent extremists.

Damon Linker, The dangerous vigilantism that fueled Jan. 6

Rain Man

I thought Dustin Hoffman was brilliant in Rain Man, but then I’m a sucker for autism spectrum movies (Mozart & The Whale is another). Particularly effective was the bit about him memorizing the phone book — and then card-counting.

This came to mind as I overheard a 59-year-old Aspie of my close acquaintance recounting some trivial event that occurred when he was 7, on December 16, 1969 (see the post title, above).

The human mind is a marvel.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff at here. It should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly, should you want to make a habit of it.