Labor Day 2025

HHS

America at last has its own Trofim Lysenko, a crank whose screwy ideas about science gained influence over policy not because of their methodological rigor but because their contrarianism reflected the prejudices of a feral populist revolutionary movement. … You tell me: Is a country that’s transitioning from relying on vaccines to prevent disease—including brain cancer, perhaps—to relying on Ivermectin and beef tallow more or less of a sh-thole than it used to be?

The only good news is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is unlikely to rack up a body count as large as his Soviet predecessor. But he’s sure gonna try.

…

[A] first-world public health agency, the most well-known of its kind on Earth, is about to become a third-world soapbox for voodoo and superstition.

…

The best-case scenario for public health until 2029 is that no one except the populists pays the slightest bit of attention to the federal government’s medical recommendations. Mass resignations would encourage that.

But if that’s not enough, I think resigning is also compelled by basic dignity. Refusing to participate in a corrupt enterprise is a mark of good character and an act of moral hygiene. What Trump and Kennedy are doing is indecent, and decent people being involved in it both obscures that fact and subjects those people to temptations to behave indecently themselves.

Nick Catoggio, Our Own Lysenko

TGIF

Here’s a pet theory of mine: The Democrats’ struggle to cobble together a winning message is at least partly a result of Democratic strategists and spokespeople sucking at their jobs. They expect favorable coverage from the legacy press and have an irksome habit of talking to reporters as though they’re essentially lower-rung party employees.

For example, a guy named TJ Ducklo—a truly fantastic name for a party hack—was briefly a deputy White House press secretary under Biden until he reportedly accused a female reporter of “jealousy” and threatened to “destroy” her. He presumably expected he’d get away with it, because he thought the press worked for him …

Or take Ian Sams, a top Democratic spokesman who was tasked with reassuring reporters that Biden, despite his visible decline, was sharp as a tack. He was in the news recently after he admitted that he met Biden face-to-face only twice. But I’ll always think of him as the guy who, while working for Kamala Harris’s 2020 campaign, became furious when a BuzzFeed journalist tweeted something mildly critical of one of Harris’s debate performances.

As reported by The Washington Free Beacon, he went whining to BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief at the time, Ben Smith, that the critical tweet was “whiteness manifest,” whatever that means, and a “really bad look” for the publication. Smith’s reply was spot on: “Do you seriously not have real problems? This text makes me think you are totally, totally unready for an actual presidential campaign.”

Will Rahn, filling in for Nellie Bowles at TGIF. Rahn contrasts Republican press relations, where the GOPsters don’t expect fawning coverage, but I don’t want to borrow too much.

Rahn then pivots to this:

A shooting in Minneapolis: The biggest news of the week is a mass shooting at a Catholic school in Minnesota called Annunciation, and there are no jokes to be made about it. It horrifies me. It’s demonic. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand the Democratic impulse to diminish the power of praying for the victims, children who were shot while praying. It’s like a preprogrammed, knee-jerk reaction that, especially in this instance, is just bizarre and offensive.

Those who seek solace in prayer pray in these situations. We pray for the dead and wounded. We pray for the families. We pray for ourselves. Some might even pray for the soul of the shooter.

I get that you want to make this about gun control. My suggestion is that you shut up about the prayer stuff and just make it about gun control.

Amen! He’s not as funny as Nellie, but I wouldn’t mind too much if Nellie took more time away, leaving him in charge.

He can’t unsee it; I’m trying to bring it into focus

The reason I feel such a tinge of discomfort by the Center Gai scene is not because I care what travelers do, but because I can’t unsee: the forces driving mass hyper-consumptive tourism are the same ones fomenting fascism, science skepticism, kleptocracy, billionaire veneration, labubus, and entertaining ourselves with little colored bubbles until the very second before we die.

Craig Mod via John Brady.

That’s a big claim that I need to chew on a bit. I thought you might want to as well.

Lone-wolf violence in America

In recent years, certain supporters of transgender rights have developed a public language of militancy and conflict, in which familiar habits of left-wing activism — attempts to shut down controversial speech, claims that contrary opinions are fascist or genocidal — are supplemented by an armed-and-dangerous iconography that’s usually associated with the American right.

In the wake of the murders of Catholic school children in Minnesota, the second attack in three years carried out by a transgender shooter against children at a Christian school, it would be relatively easy to write a column holding such militancy responsible for the carnage. All I would have to do is adapt the scripts so often used to blame conservatives for violence, from the J.F.K. assassination (which the scribes of Camelot quickly attributed to the angry rhetoric of Dallas right-wingers) down through the Tea Party and the Trump eras.

If I were making that argument, I would insist that words have consequences: If you tell people that they’re facing “trans genocide,” and that religious conservatives especially are agents of their fascist subjugation, why wouldn’t you expect some troubled souls to opt for vigilante action?

Likewise, if I were laying blame this way, I would insist that violent images inspire violent action: If you sport a shirt with the slogan “Protect Trans Kids” underneath a hunting knife (as the lieutenant governor of Minnesota did in 2023), or if you put a transgender writer toting an AR-15 on your magazine cover (as an alternative weekly in the Pacific Northwest did just two months ago) with a headline asking “Are You Triggered?” you bear some responsibility when the trigger actually gets pulled. Especially when the Minneapolis killer’s own manifesto reportedly trafficked in the same imagery, featuring a “Defend Equality” sticker overlaid with an image of a machine gun.

But I’m not making that case, because it would betray a consistent theme of this column, going all the way back to the attempted assassination of Representative Gabby Giffords in 2011: namely, that all attempts to blame extreme political rhetoric for mass shootings should be treated extremely skeptically, because the phenomenon of lone-wolf violence in America rarely attaches easily to either left-wing or right-wing ideology.

…

“Diabolos” in Greek means accuser, and in that sense the dark spirit that inspires these crimes suffers a defeat when we react with unity and solidarity rather than immediate recriminations.

Whereas it gains a victory every time we respond by immediately blaming our political rivals, and trying to prove over the bodies of the dead that, yes, our ideological opponents are even more evil than we thought.

Ross Douthat, Politics Rarely Explains Mass Shootings (gift link)

Grand Jury Nullification

A federal magistrate found that there was probable cause to support the charge. Yet, on three occasions, a grand jury in the District of Columbia declined to indict. Instead, the U.S. Attorney filed an information for a misdemeanor violation of Section 111. A writer at MSNBC suggests that the grand jury’s refusal to indict may be due to a weak cases being brought by the U.S. Attorney.

Since the failed indictment for Reid, there have been two more grand juries that failed to return a true bill.

It is possible that these juries are carefully attuned to the gradation between felonies and misdemeanors. May I suggest another possibility? Federal grand juries in the District of Columbia, made up (almost) entirely of critics of President Trump, are engaging in nullification of the Trump Administration’s law federal enforcement efforts. I imagine this sort of active resistance will increase as more federal officers are fanned throughout the District of Columbia. …

Historically, at least, the concept of jury nullification was viewed as a popular check against tyrannical governments. I imagine an average D.C. resident who can take time off from work to serve extended periods of federal grand jury duty may see himself in that fashion.

Josh Blackman. This is all the more remarkable because the received wisdom is that prosecutors can get grand juries to indict anyone for anything.

Occam’s Razor

Whenever the White House announces a new criminal investigation into one of Donald Trump’s enemies—an event that occurs with Stalinesque frequency—the administration and its allies have a go-to line: “No one is above the law.” FBI Director Kash Patel, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, and others have gleefully deployed the tagline. It’s a smirking, knowing stand-in for the claim that Joe Biden did the same thing to Trump while insisting that Trump was not above the law, and so turnabout is merely fair play.

[Account of why that dog don’t hunt omitted.]

The Occam’s-razor account of how it is that Trump became the first ex-president to face criminal investigation is that Trump is the first professional crook to be elected president. This would also neatly explain why he invented the idea of locking up the president’s enemies. Crooks are generally cynics who think that everybody in power is a criminal, and the only difference is that some people are hypocrites about it. (“My father’s no different than any other powerful man,” Michael Corleone says in The Godfather.)

Barack Obama did not threaten to lock up John McCain or Mitt Romney. The idea that the law is a weapon the president uses to protect his friends and harass his enemies was brought into American politics by one man. He now happens to be the one man who is very definitively above the law.

Jonathan Chait, MAGA Has a New Favorite Slogan

Summing up

[A] critical mass of the American people … no longer want[s] to govern themselves, … are sick of this republic and no longer want to keep it if it means sharing power with those they despise.

Nick Catoggio

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite social medium.

Clippings, 12/3/18

1

[T]he whole Trump operation, now lying exposed on Mueller’s table — the shady business empire, the constant practice of deceit, the dim-bulb hangers-on — screams corruption in a way that few politicians’ circles do. With Trump there is no pretense of respectability or rectitude. There is only the open, shrugging grift.

This shrug makes it hard for his critics to fathom how the Trump campaign ever persuaded anyone that its candidate would actually “drain the swamp.” Some of the liberal fixation with fake news reflects an attempt to explain Trump’s anti-corruption pitch as just a fraud that voters swallowed (or were force-fed by the Russians). And indeed, a portion of Trump’s supporters choose to live the fantasy worlds of Pizzagate and QAnon, where the most impeachable of presidents is as a white knight taking on a fictive ring of pedophiles.

… [T]here is one odd way in which Trump’s supporters have gotten what they wanted. Trump isn’t draining the swamp himself, but the shock of his ascent has created swamp-draining conditions — in which other corruptions have suddenly been exposed, and there have been many deserved falls from grace.

… [I]n many cases the newly-exposed scandals were open secrets, known to those in the know, and in some cases they were as baroquely grotesque as any Reddit fantasy. (Like, what if Harvey Weinstein’s whole movie empire was just a procurement agency, and what if he hired ex-Mossad agents to stalk one of the stars of “Charmed” … ?)

The story of rich-guy pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, just written up in exhaustive detail by The Miami Herald, is a perfect example — a pedophilia scandal hidden in plain sight, in which a wealthy abuser got off with a slap on the wrist because he had a bipartisan group of allies and there was an incentive not to embarrass the powerful people who might have frequented his parties or taken rides on his plane. A crucial player, the prosecutor who let Epstein slide, is now the Trump administration’s labor secretary — but instead of being a seedy Trumpworld figure, Alexander Acosta is an eminently respectable, big-law figure. Not a grifter; just an exemplar of the American elite.

As, of course, is Epstein’s pal Bill Clinton, who hasn’t been exposed in the Trump era so much as finally acknowledged, by a growing number of liberals, as a sexual predator who survived impeachment because the establishment went into a panic about the specter of puritanism and either smeared or ignored the women credibly accusing him. Not a grifter, the ex-president; just a pillar of the establishment who happened to have a plausible rape accusation lying there in plain sight all the time.

…

In fact our elite is rotten and deserves judgment, yet Trump’s mix of kleptocracy and kakistocracy is worse. So the question of how you replace a bad elite with a better one, not just with something more corrupt, is what both left and right should be pondering while this particular purgation runs its course.

Ross Douthat

2

“What scares me the most is Hillary’s smug certainty of her own virtue as she has become greedy and how typical that is of so many chic liberals who seem unaware of their own greed,” Charlie Peters, the legendary liberal former editor of The Washington Monthly, told me. “They don’t really face the complicity of what’s happened to the world, how selfish we’ve become and the horrible damage of screwing the workers and causing this resentment that the Republicans found a way of tapping into.” He ruefully worries about the Obamas in this regard, too.

Indeed, in the era of Trump, greed is not only good. It’s grand. The stock market is our highest value. Mammonism rules.

But watching the Clintons hash over their well-worn tale of falling in love at Yale Law School, I realize that it’s not only about the money.

Some in Clintonworld say Hillary fully intends to be the nominee ….

Maureen Dowd. Hillary and Bill can’t fill an auditorium any more. They’re toast.

3

In talking about the death of Christianity in Europe, Murray — an atheist who calls himself a “cultural Christian” — says that Christianity was Europe’s “founding myth,” and that without it, Europe doesn’t know what it believes or what it’s for. “Human rights” is weak tea without some sort of transcendent source. Murray also talks about how difficult it is for Europeans to believe in anything, having lost their religion and made a ruin of themselves with political substitutes. And, on the immigration question — which is truly an existential one for Europe — the continent’s elites have across the board lied for decades to the people. I was somewhat aware of this prior to coming to Murray’s book, but to read the details gathered in one place like this was genuinely shocking. The startling thing is not that there are riots in the streets of Paris, but that it took them so long.

Rod Dreher, What Happens When Trump Falls?. I had read the Douthat and Dowd columns nearly 12 hours before I saw this blog commenting on them, but I was unaware of Douglas Murray or his book The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.

Dreher suggests that “America is not (yet) Europe in terms of losing our religion,” but just yesterday he aptly noted that the residuum of Christianity in Europe tends to be far more thoughtful than that of the U.S.:

Lilla talks about the meaning of the massive La Manif pour Tousmovement to block same-sex marriage, on the grounds that every child needs a father and a mother. Though we American Christians are supposed to be so much more religious than Europeans, nothing remotely like La Manif happened in America.

…

Maybe you can understand why I feel so much more at home when I’m in Europe with Christian intellectuals like these people than I do anywhere among American conservatives ….

See this, too.

I, too, think I’d prefer French-style Christian Nationalism over naïve “America is a Christian nation” chest-thumping, thank you, in part because the chest-thumpers are disconnected from authentic, historic (versus notional, post-enlightenment) Christian roots.

Dreher concludes:

What I’m getting at is asking what comes politically when most Americans lose faith in the ability of our elites to make things better? I fear that on the Right, we’re going to have to deal with the myth that Trump would have succeeded had the swamp not stabbed him in the back.

Oh, dear! That sounds all too plausible!

Do you see a path to expanding the subjects on which there’s a working majority about the common good when we split over stuff like this?

4

Writing in the New York Times, Parker Malloy offers the pristinely Orwellian argument that the prohibition of speech is a necessary condition for free speech: “Things like deadnaming, or purposely referring to a trans person by their former name, and misgendering — calling someone by a pronoun they don’t use — are used to express disagreement with the legitimacy of trans lives and identities.” I am not quite sure those sentences mean what Malloy means (reject the legitimacy, I think), and things get worse from there. Deadnaming and misgendering, Malloy writes, are a way to force the trans advocate into “a debate over my own existence. I know many trans people who feel the same. If this isn’t harassment, I don’t know what is. Aside from the harm it does to trans people, it also impedes the free flow of ideas and debate, in the same way that conservatives often accuse student protesters of shutting down speech on college campuses.”

If we could for a moment tighten up and focus on the question of what words actually mean, this is a group of common English words put into an order that doesn’t add up to anything sensible: Nobody is denying that Parker Malloy exists. Nobody, to my knowledge, is denying that trans people exist. We are once again ill served by an excess of metaphor and a refusal to look at the thing itself.

…

“I’d like to henceforth be known as Chelsea rather than Bradley, and to be socially accepted as a woman,” is a sentiment that demands universal tolerance; “I’m not so sure about that,” is a crime against humanity. That is not a sentiment that deserves to be taken seriously. It is not, I suspect, one that is taken seriously: But people can be terrorized into accepting it as a matter of social self-defense.

Kevin D. Williamson (hyperlink and boldface added).

A wretched “excess of metaphor” is at work every single time a person with gender dysphoria poisons the well with an accusation that “looking at the thing itself” denies their existence. My immediate reaction to that sort if thing is that I’m dealing with an hysteric and had best walk away (but not capitulate).

5

On a recent episode of the Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy podcast, sci-fi author Andrew Duncan argued that the depiction of the orcs in Lord of the Rings is racist and will have “dire consequences . . . for society.”

“It’s hard to miss the repeated notion in Tolkien that some races are just worse than others, or that some peoples are just worse than others,” Duncan said. “And this seems to me — in the long term, if you embrace this too much — it has dire consequences for yourself and for society.”

First of all, I think that it is important to point out that orcs are A) not people and B) not real, so starting some sort of social-justice movement over their treatment is probably the biggest, most idiotic waste of time that I’ve ever seen — and this is coming from an adult woman who spends time playing a game called “Pet Shop” on her phone.

Katherine Timpf. You can’t make this stuff up.

6

It used to be that people would marry across party lines – people with very different political views – but would almost always marry someone who shared their faith. Now, almost 40 percent of marriages are to someone of a different faith tradition, but only around 23 percent of people who are getting married, or even cohabiting with someone, are doing so with someone of a different political party. In many ways, political affiliation is now seen as somehow more intrinsic to our identities than our faith commitments.

Baker, Harder, & Wear, The New Morality Dilemma (H/T Alan Jacobs). This insanity is becoming common knowledge.

7

For what it’s worth. My confirmation bias is so strong that I dasn’t say a word more.

* * * * *

Follow me on Micro.blog, too, where I blog tweet-like shorter items and … well, it’s evolving. Or, if you prefer, those micro.blog items also appear now at microblog.intellectualoid.com.