Exactly. These politicians are using state governmental power to put in place laws that label & criminalize "other" with the added "bonus" of encouraging hate & ostracism.
Ken Duncan, being a judge whose words represent the law when he writes an opinion or speaks in a courtroom, was doing the same.
Reading the Charles Cooke op ed in the National Review, I (as a Dem) held my breath and opened up the comments. I think everyone at the Bulwark would appreciate this snippet from reader shoffer:
-->If Never-Trumpers had not helped keep Trump out, we would have been over and done with Trump and moved on. Now we are positioned with the horror of another 4 years of democrat destruction <--
IOW, it's the Never Trumpers' fault that we are dealing with Trump right now, certainly not the sycophantic House and Senate GOP who refused to impeach him when he tried to burn down the house. The deflection is getting so convoluted that it's becoming impossible to follow.
“They will accuse the prosecutor of abusing his office for partisan purposes without seeing the irony behind the charge.”
I think Wigderson misses the point here. It’s an article of faith in this crowd that *everyone* in politics is just as bad as they are and does the exact same dirty tricks they do. That everyone in politics plays “the Game” by the same underhanded rules, which means they’re all morally on the same level.
It’s not that they’re blind to the irony. It’s that they believe irony is dead. That that’s just how everyone plays “the Game.”
I appreciate your well written article comparing right wing pundits and left wing students shouting down Kirk and Owen's and Judge Duncan. To me they are not equivalent.
When DiSantis uses the law to punish Disney, ban books in schools and forces colleges to change their curriculum because he doesn't want discussion of Black History or any mention of gay people. These are permanent consequences for the people he is shutting down.
When College students protest speakers they don't like, they are doing what college students have been doing for years. College students are supposed to be passionate about what they believe. It's not because it's hurtful speech, it's because they are young and pissed off. I believe Judge Duncan will get over it, especially if still gets paid. And Kirk probably loved that dozens of heckling him.
Yet, if we were to go back in time, I believe you would still vote Against a "peace" President Carter, and For a "war" President Bush. And once Trump is gone, and Bulwark coffers are full, you'll be right there Front and Center at CPAC for PR.
As a proud graduate of the University of Chicago, I was dismayed to see you identify it (twice counting the reference to U of C) as an example of an illiberal approach to free speech. The article you cite indicates that the incident took place at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. Ironically, the University of Chicago has often been applauded as a defender of free speech. (Otherwise I enjoyed reading what you had to say.)
I think the point being made in good-faith criticisms of the attempts to stop speech on campuses is not that it is equivalent to what GOP-led governments are doing in limiting free speech. Rather it's that angry progressives trying to shut down these events on campus help the right-wing agenda by reinforcing their narrative that the left is authoritarian and intolerant.
Given I am Jewish with a post graduate degree, I 100% supported and would have died on my sword to allow the Skokie Nazi March. Colleges should be a free speech haven. If you protest fine if it done without shutting down the speaker. I went to UCLA. We had alot of activists that I joined but never interfered with a speaker.
I think you give Ken White's piece (which is great and funny writing) too little credit. His "no heroes" point was not to diminish the illiberialism by Stanford, but to point out that the "victims" are hardly First Amendment defenders, or "heroes". He also notes that this has been long-standing (the Nazis in Skokie). But campuses used to be different (and while unsaid, so were courts). However, because we had "academia" on both sides, it is worth pointing out that both sides are ghouls. Academia no longer protects free speech. Each side protects speech it approves of and this, historically and arguably, is different.
Trump is summoning the mob with language more vile and apocalyptic than ever before—because he got away with 1/6, which is another matter—but how receptive and malleable are his followers this time? I’m curious as to whether there has been “chatter,” not that we would hear about it. One would think the schtick—albeit amped up—is getting tiresome. At least to some. Recall the sad little protests following the Mar-a-Lago search.
Progressives should not stifle speakers with opposing viewpoints. For one thing, it’s bad politics.
As far as Donald Trump and the law goes, I am not wasting too much attention on Alvin Bragg. I am paying Fani Willis a bit more attention...but what I really think is really bad news for Tangerine is the story Kim Wehle wrote about regarding Truth Social and the SEC. If the wealthy Russian close to Putin is actually one of Putin's "wallets", then this puts that issue on a whole new level. That is because "wallets" do not act independently of Putin. They are merely caretakers of the money. This situation suggestions that VVP gave Donald Trump a significant amount of money. He did not do it for the business opportunity...it was done for ownership. Once a person like VVP literally owns you, you have to do their bidding. To me, that reads that Trump is a profound security threat to the United States...and if you think he would not sell out this nation for money, think again.
For a long time, since the 1960s at least, doctors have refrained from diagnosing public figures they have not examined in person. In this case, this doctor had access to many hours of videos of Trump. I suppose he was able to observe Trump's behavior as much as he would have if Trump had come to his office for an examination. In the 1960s, you could not find hours of unscripted videos of public figures, so the rules established back then are no longer as applicable as they once were.
.
Huh . . .
How did they manage to transfer Rudy's dripping hair dye to Rhonda Santa's pic?
.
Exactly. These politicians are using state governmental power to put in place laws that label & criminalize "other" with the added "bonus" of encouraging hate & ostracism.
Ken Duncan, being a judge whose words represent the law when he writes an opinion or speaks in a courtroom, was doing the same.
Reading the Charles Cooke op ed in the National Review, I (as a Dem) held my breath and opened up the comments. I think everyone at the Bulwark would appreciate this snippet from reader shoffer:
-->If Never-Trumpers had not helped keep Trump out, we would have been over and done with Trump and moved on. Now we are positioned with the horror of another 4 years of democrat destruction <--
IOW, it's the Never Trumpers' fault that we are dealing with Trump right now, certainly not the sycophantic House and Senate GOP who refused to impeach him when he tried to burn down the house. The deflection is getting so convoluted that it's becoming impossible to follow.
“They will accuse the prosecutor of abusing his office for partisan purposes without seeing the irony behind the charge.”
I think Wigderson misses the point here. It’s an article of faith in this crowd that *everyone* in politics is just as bad as they are and does the exact same dirty tricks they do. That everyone in politics plays “the Game” by the same underhanded rules, which means they’re all morally on the same level.
It’s not that they’re blind to the irony. It’s that they believe irony is dead. That that’s just how everyone plays “the Game.”
I appreciate your well written article comparing right wing pundits and left wing students shouting down Kirk and Owen's and Judge Duncan. To me they are not equivalent.
When DiSantis uses the law to punish Disney, ban books in schools and forces colleges to change their curriculum because he doesn't want discussion of Black History or any mention of gay people. These are permanent consequences for the people he is shutting down.
When College students protest speakers they don't like, they are doing what college students have been doing for years. College students are supposed to be passionate about what they believe. It's not because it's hurtful speech, it's because they are young and pissed off. I believe Judge Duncan will get over it, especially if still gets paid. And Kirk probably loved that dozens of heckling him.
Oh Charlie,
Heard You with Susan Glasser. Great conversation.
Yet, if we were to go back in time, I believe you would still vote Against a "peace" President Carter, and For a "war" President Bush. And once Trump is gone, and Bulwark coffers are full, you'll be right there Front and Center at CPAC for PR.
I don’t know, maybe there should be a full throated anti-fascist party?
As a proud graduate of the University of Chicago, I was dismayed to see you identify it (twice counting the reference to U of C) as an example of an illiberal approach to free speech. The article you cite indicates that the incident took place at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. Ironically, the University of Chicago has often been applauded as a defender of free speech. (Otherwise I enjoyed reading what you had to say.)
I think the point being made in good-faith criticisms of the attempts to stop speech on campuses is not that it is equivalent to what GOP-led governments are doing in limiting free speech. Rather it's that angry progressives trying to shut down these events on campus help the right-wing agenda by reinforcing their narrative that the left is authoritarian and intolerant.
Given I am Jewish with a post graduate degree, I 100% supported and would have died on my sword to allow the Skokie Nazi March. Colleges should be a free speech haven. If you protest fine if it done without shutting down the speaker. I went to UCLA. We had alot of activists that I joined but never interfered with a speaker.
Charlie,
I think you give Ken White's piece (which is great and funny writing) too little credit. His "no heroes" point was not to diminish the illiberialism by Stanford, but to point out that the "victims" are hardly First Amendment defenders, or "heroes". He also notes that this has been long-standing (the Nazis in Skokie). But campuses used to be different (and while unsaid, so were courts). However, because we had "academia" on both sides, it is worth pointing out that both sides are ghouls. Academia no longer protects free speech. Each side protects speech it approves of and this, historically and arguably, is different.
best comment ever, "but I do know that, in the colloquial sense of the word crazy, he is as crazy as a sack of ferrets" the best.
Trump is summoning the mob with language more vile and apocalyptic than ever before—because he got away with 1/6, which is another matter—but how receptive and malleable are his followers this time? I’m curious as to whether there has been “chatter,” not that we would hear about it. One would think the schtick—albeit amped up—is getting tiresome. At least to some. Recall the sad little protests following the Mar-a-Lago search.
Progressives should not stifle speakers with opposing viewpoints. For one thing, it’s bad politics.
As far as Donald Trump and the law goes, I am not wasting too much attention on Alvin Bragg. I am paying Fani Willis a bit more attention...but what I really think is really bad news for Tangerine is the story Kim Wehle wrote about regarding Truth Social and the SEC. If the wealthy Russian close to Putin is actually one of Putin's "wallets", then this puts that issue on a whole new level. That is because "wallets" do not act independently of Putin. They are merely caretakers of the money. This situation suggestions that VVP gave Donald Trump a significant amount of money. He did not do it for the business opportunity...it was done for ownership. Once a person like VVP literally owns you, you have to do their bidding. To me, that reads that Trump is a profound security threat to the United States...and if you think he would not sell out this nation for money, think again.
Luckily JVL can write his secrets in the Triad, safe in the knowledge that Sarah will never ever read them
In 2017 a specialist wrote in the medical journal Stat:
"I’m a brain specialist. I think Trump should be tested for a degenerative brain disease"
He listed several readily observable symptoms of brain disease that Trump exhibits, such as inappropriate fidgeting. See:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/07/donald-trump-should-be-tested-for-brain-disease/
For a long time, since the 1960s at least, doctors have refrained from diagnosing public figures they have not examined in person. In this case, this doctor had access to many hours of videos of Trump. I suppose he was able to observe Trump's behavior as much as he would have if Trump had come to his office for an examination. In the 1960s, you could not find hours of unscripted videos of public figures, so the rules established back then are no longer as applicable as they once were.