Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Another historian interviewed about the 1619 Project: Richard Carwardine (Oxford)

Here.  An excerpt:

I understand where this [1619] Project is coming from, politically and culturally. Of course, the economic well-being of the United States and the colonies that preceded it was constructed for over two-and-a-half centuries on the labor and sufferings of slaves; of course, like all entrenched wielders of power, the white political elite resisted efforts to yield up its privileges. But the idea that the 1619 Project’s lead essay is a rounded history of America—with relations between the races so stark and unyielding—I find quite shocking. I am troubled that this is designed to make its way into classrooms as the true story of the United States, because, as I say, it is so partial. It is also wrong in some fundamentals.

I’m all for recovering and celebrating the history of those whose voices have been historically muted and I certainly understand the concern of historians in recent times, black and white, that the black contribution to the United States has not been fully recognized. But the idea that the central, fundamental story of the United States is one of white racism and that black protest and rejection of white superiority has been the essential, indispensable driving force for change—which I take to be the central message of that lead essay—seems to me to be a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past.

Deja vu all over again? Remembering America in the early 2000s

Back in 2004:

Less than nine months after fundamentalist religious zealots inflicted mass casualties on the civilian population of the United States, and only about six months after the U.S. toppled the regime that harbored them, a country of no consequence or relevance to the safety of the United States--a country hated by the fundamentalist religious zealots for its secular ideology and its Western treatment of women, a country with a devastated economy and crippled military, a country that the U.S. and Britain regularly bombed (since it didn't even have sovereign control over all its own territory), a nation half of whose population were children, a country which the US outspent on military might 400 to 1--this country was suddenly declared the most pressing threat to the U.S. and world peace.

In an American version of Ionesco's Rhinoceros--the brilliant, "theater of the absurd" rendering of the mass insanity that beset Germany in the 1930s--the American population was progressively whipped in to war frenzy through a series of lies, more or less brazen, to the point that, while no one in their right mind in the summer of 2001 would have described Iraq as a security threat to the U.S., by the late fall of 2002, a large portion of the U.S. population actually believed that. (It's worth noting that the lies, and the cover-up that followed them, were heavily abetted by the blogosphere, despite its self-important, but simply self-serving, claims to be a force for accuracy in news coverage.)

Despite the breathtaking propaganda campaign--the most frightening in the United States during my lifetime--significant portions of the U.S. population remained opposed to the lunatic belligerence of the current Administration; they were joined, of course, by the vast majority of the world's population, though in a signal victory for democracy, their voice was ignored by numerous "democratic" governments, who quickly joined the Administration's "Coalition of the Billing."

Will it happen again?  I'm hopeful it won't, but....

Less than nine months after fundamentalist religious zealots inflicted mass casualties on the civilian population of the United States, and only about six months after the U.S. toppled the regime that harbored them, a country of no consequence or relevance to the safety of the United States--a country hated by the fundamentalist religious zealots for its secular ideology and its Western treatment of women, a country with a devastated economy and crippled military, a country that the U.S. and Britain regularly bombed (since it didn't even have sovereign control over all its own territory), a nation half of whose population were children, a country which the US outspent on military might 400 to 1--this country was suddenly declared the most pressing threat to the U.S. and world peace.

In an American version of Ionesco's Rhinoceros--the brilliant, "theater of the absurd" rendering of the mass insanity that beset Germany in the 1930s--the American population was progressively whipped in to war frenzy through a series of lies, more or less brazen, to the point that, while no one in their right mind in the summer of 2001 would have described Iraq as a security threat to the U.S., by the late fall of 2002, a large portion of the U.S. population actually believed that. (It's worth noting that the lies, and the cover-up that followed them, were heavily abetted by the blogosphere, despite its self-important, but simply self-serving, claims to be a force for accuracy in news coverage.)

Despite the breathtaking propaganda campaign--the most frightening in the United States during my lifetime--significant portions of the U.S. population remained opposed to the lunatic belligerence of the current Administration; they were joined, of course, by the vast majority of the world's population, though in a signal victory for democracy, their voice was ignored by numerous "democratic" governments, who quickly joined the Administration's "Coalition of the Billing."

Will it happen again?  I'm hopeful it won't, but....

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: The Groundhogs, "Cherry Red," 1971

Long-lived British rock band, this comes from their most successful period (at least in the UK):

 

The U.S. "act of war" against Iran

How bad will this turn out to be?  No one knows, but it's hard not to be filled with a sense of dread.

ADDENDUM:  See also.

Hindu fascists in India are becoming more brazen

This is horrifying, a further step along the way to mass murder by the state.

(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer.)

Colorado summer seminar in philosophy for 2020

Philosopher David Boonin (Colorado/Boulder) writes:

I’ve just now finalized the topic for this summer: “Agreement, Disagreement, and Uncertainty” and am ready to start accepting applications. The link to the site containing all the information is here:

https://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/events/summer-seminar

I’d greatly appreciate it if you’d again post something on your blog about it.

I've always heard good things about this summer program, so I urge undergraduate readers to take a look!

The decline of white Christianity in America

Interesting, and hopeful, especially since the biggest declines appear to be in the most conservative Christian sects; an excerpt:

I noted that the percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points....

In addition to white American Christianity crossing the majority-minority threshold, the last decade also saw a particularly significant decline within one subgroup: white evangelicals. While the ranks of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics have been shrinking for decades, white evangelical Protestants had seemed immune to the forces eroding membership among other white Christian groups.

But since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. While white evangelical Protestants have enjoyed an outsized public presence over the last four years because of their predominance in President Donald Trump’s unshakeable base, it is notable that today they are actually roughly the same size as their white mainline Protestant cousins (15 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively).

Blast from the past: Harvard and Princeton philosophy faculties, 1955-56

Noted back in 2012.

Everything is bigger in Texas...

...including the morons.

Have you been rejected in a search requiring a mandatory "diversity statement"?

I've received permission from the lawyer (alluded to here) to share his information, which he also posted at Professor Coyne's blog.  Here it is:

If anyone was rejected for a position in such a search or any other search requiring a mandatory diversity statement, please reach out to me. I am an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that offers pro bono representation and am looking to challenge the University of California Policy.

Daniel Ortner
Pacific Legal Foundation
dortner@pacificlegal.org

UPDATE:   PLF is a libertarian legal organization; they are on the wrong side of some issues, and the right side of others, as in this case.   But here is the remarkably dishonest gloss of philosopher Chris Bertram (Bristol) on Twitter on the preceding:

I wonder whether Professor Bertram also supports the McCarthy-era loyalty oaths?  And surely this political philosopher might agree that not just any means are acceptable for promoting worthy ends?   Presumably the University of California could not forbid hiring white people, even though that would be a "diversity-promoting hiring practice."

There's a context to this pathetic display, that I’ll post below the fold for anyone who is interested.

Philosopher Ned Hall (Harvard) talks with physicist Sean Carroll (Caltech) about laws of nature, counterfactuals and possible worlds

Here.

Berkeley "Diversity Statements" in action in a life sciences search

Biologist Jerry Coyne (Chicago) has the gory details.  This is a lawsuit for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination (and maybe also race discrimination) waiting to happen.  From Professor Coyne's post:

893 applications were...vetted for diversity statements alone, rating the statements in three areas: knowledge about diversity, track record in advancing diversity, and plans for advancing diversity if hired. The published Berkeley diversity-evaluation rubric was used, rating candidates on a 1-5 scale for each of the three areas, so that the minimum score was 3 and the maximum 15.

Statements were evaluated blind to the candidate’s names, getting rid of some clues to sex and race. But these data would have been clear, I suspect, from the diversity statements alone (at least for minorities), so I highly doubt that candidates were evaluated “blind” in this respect. No cutoff in scores was described in the description of this search, though there one was in the second search (see below).

New Books in December

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

Uncertainty:  How It Makes Science Advance by Kostas Kampourakis & Kevin McCain (Oxford University Press, 2020).

Nietzsche's Free Spirit Works:  A Dialectical Reading by Matthew Meyer (Cambridge University Press, 2019).

On Trade Justice:  A Philosophical Plea for a New Global Deal by Mathias Risse & Gabriel Wollner (Oxford University Press, 2019).

The New Science by Giambattista Vico, trans. & edited by Jason Taylor & Robert Miner, introduced by Giuseppe Mazzotta (Yale University Press, 2020).

Eros, Wahrheit und Macht:  Anatomie eines #me-too-Falles in der Wissenschaft by Bernd Hüppauf (Schwabe Verlag, 2019).

2019: Philosophers who passed away

The passing of the following philosophers was noted on the blog during 2019:  Stephen Barker, Myles Burnyeat, Tom Campbell, Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias, Michael Detlefsen, Randall Dipert, John Gardner, Gary Gutting, Rom Harre, Agnes Heller, Tony Honore, Pamela Huby, Jaegwon Kim, Bryan Magee, George Mavrodes, Brian McGuinness, Ruth Anna Putnam, Anita Silvers, Karola Stotz, Barry Stroud, Kenneth Taylor, A.S. Troelstra, James D. Wallace, Mary Warnock, Richard A. Watson.  You can find more information, including (often) links to obituaries by scrolling through the "Philosophy Updates" category (in which this post also appears).

Is this really the feminist interpretation of this story?

The NYT ran this very sad and moving story the other day:  a couple married a half-century, the husband devoted to his wife, even as Alzheimer's robs her of her sense of self and knowledge of her own family; he refuses help from his adult daughters, who are the main source for the story; finally, diagnosed (unbeknowst to his daughters) with metastatic cancers, the husband kills his wife and then himself.   The story provoked this reaction from Twitter's resident feminist philosopher.   I leave it for readers to ponder (and they might find interesting some of the Twitter pushback here from philosophers Michael Ostuka [LSE] and Lisa Shapiro [Simon Fraser], among others).

(Thanks to several readers who shared both the original story and this striking Twitter response.)

UPDATE:   From a philosopher elsewhere:  "Well, I guess one could argue both sides of the case, but interpreting the story in terms  of himpathy does not seem especially enriching.  If all one has is a hammer...."

Academic life in the UK vs. the US

Interesting reflections by philosopher Richard Yetter Chappell (now at the University of Miami, previously at the University of York in England).   Comments are open at Professor Chappell's site for those with additional perspectives.

A grim forecast for the UK under the Tories

Here.  The threat in England is actually worse than than in the US under Trump:  without a federal system, the check on centralized power is much less (contrast the U.S., where more than 100 million people live in solidly Democratic, anti-Trump states, with all branches of state government aligned against the Trump agenda); the universities (and even much of the major media) are still largely hostage to the public purse, and thus the malign plans of Tory bureaucrats; and the "unwritten Constitution" (combined with the supremacy of parliament in constituitional matters) depends far-too-heavily on informal norms of restraint by the legislative and executive branches which will be non-existent under Boris Johnson's regime.  

Bad times.

(Thanks to S. Wallerstein for the pointer.)

Non-sequitur watch, political science edition

Two British political scientists writing in the NYT about the "realignment" of British voters, in particular, the ability of the Tories to carry traditonal Labour strongholds in northern and central England:

Why is this happening? The popular answer on the left is that this is about economic insecurity, economic globalization and imports from China. But when you zoom in to look not just at areas but individual voters, attitudes toward immigration are in fact the strongest predictor of support for Brexit.

Britons’ anxieties about the pace and scale of immigration, something that Mr. Johnson pledged to restrict, lie at the heart of Britain’s political realignment; many voters are now putting their cultural preferences ahead of their once-tribal party political identities.

But why do voters have these attitudes towards immigration?  Are they just "brute"?  Or could they be a misguided response to economic insecurity and globalization?   The question doesn't appear to occur to the authors.

An entry for the Black Book of Capitalism

Here.  (Some background.)

(Thanks to Justin Schwartz for the pointer.)

Buffalo philosopher Newton Garver and "loyalty oaths"

I've been doing some research on the constitutional fate of the "loyalty oaths" in the various states (prompted by this), and discovered that longtime University at Buffalo philosophy faculty member Newton Garver was one of those who challenged, successfully, the constitutionality of New York's "loyalty oath" in a decision that paved the way for the California Supreme Court to find California's version also unconstitutional later the same year (1967).

Not even Karl Kraus could have imagined James Bennet, the NYT editorial page editor

This account is horrifying.  If the quotes are accurate, the man is both illiterate and an imbecile.  Here he is commenting on Brett Stephens, the worst NYT op-ed writer since Abe "I'm writing as bad as I can" Rosenthal:   "I just think he’s an exceptional writer and thinker.”   Only someone not familiar with writing or thinking could say this.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: the five best finds of 2019...

...in my opinion, anyway.  Glad to hear yours in the comments (click on the category, "Great Moments in Obscure Rock 'n' Roll" to see this year's selections).  Here's mine (with apologies to Warpig, Toad and U.F.O. who almost made it):

Sir Lord Baltimore, "Hard Rain Fallin'"

Jeronimo, "Understanding"

Band of Joy, "I Got to Find My Baby"

Fat, "Country Girl"

Dirty Tricks, "Wait Till Saturday"

 

Historian Gordon Wood's response to the NYT's failure to take criticisms of the 1619 Project seriously

This is well-said; an excerpt:

I have no quarrel with the idea behind the project. Demonstrating the importance of slavery in the history of our country is essential and commendable. But that necessary and worthy goal will be seriously harmed if the facts in the project turn out to be wrong and the interpretations of events are deemed to be perverse and distorted. In the long run the Project will lose its credibility, standing, and persuasiveness with the nation as a whole. I fear that it will eventually hurt the cause rather than help it. We all want justice, but not at the expense of truth.

I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776....

There is no evidence in 1776 of a rising movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade, as the 1619 Project erroneously asserts, nor is there any evidence the British government was eager to do so....

How could slavery be worth preserving for someone like John Adams, who hated slavery and owned no slaves? If anyone in the Continental Congress was responsible for the Declaration of Independence, it was Adams. And much of our countrymen now know that from seeing the film of the musical “1776.” Ignoring his and other northerners’ roles in the decision for independence can only undermine the credibility of your project with the general public....

2019 in review, 4th quarter: October, November, December

October

More on whether evolution really selects for veridical perception

Philosopher Jamie Edwards (St. Norbert) interviewed

A documentary about Paul Robeson

Philosophical Gourmet Report, 2019-20

Berggruen decides philosophers aren't really worth $1 million after all

Letters of recommendation are essential

November

Pedigree and quality

Philosophy graduate student at Berkeley gratuitously (and rather stupidly) insults rural Americans

What are cover letters for?  (Do's and don't's)

Where untenured tenure-track faculty got their PhD at the U.S. "top 20" programs

A "mathematical proof" that "diversity trumps ability" turns out to be more diversity blather

"Violence is sometimes the answer"

Obviously correct, as even the over-hyped "Founding Fathers" of the United States realized.

2019 in review, 3rd quarter: July, August, September

July

I've been keeping some of the lesser minds in philosophy busy "for decades"

Statement in defense of the academic freedom of philosophers to discuss sex and gender

Twitter is not the real world, an on-going saga

Tuvel-style mobbing comes to sociology

August

On the replication crisis in psychology

As I first observed more than five years ago (i.e., the toxic "Rachel McK's")

Philosopher's Annual Top Ten from the 2018 literature

What it's like being a transgender woman

The latest stupidity about gender critical feminists

July

I've been keeping some of the lesser minds in philosophy busy "for decades"

Statement in defense of the academic freedom of philosophers to discuss sex and gender

Twitter is not the real world, an on-going saga

Tuvel-style mobbing comes to sociology

August

On the replication crisis in psychology

As I first observed more than five years ago (i.e., the toxic "Rachel McK's")

Philosopher's Annual Top Ten from the 2018 literature

What it's like being a transgender woman

The latest stupidity about gender critical feminists

This Xmas day, let's remeber the medieval barbarians ruling Bahrain...

...who like to execute political prisoners on days when the Christian West won't notice.

Nikole Hannah-Jones and Shell Oil

Now isn't this interesting.

A military veteran returns to college (at Yale) at age 52

This is a charming essay.  (Philosopher David Charles [Yale] also makes a brief appearance.)

2019 in review, 2nd quarter: April, May, June

April

Anti-lesbian discrimination at Facebook group for LGBT philosophers

Books you should have read but haven't

Hate apparently also never means having to say you're sorry

DePaul University students embarrass themselves with frontal assault on academic freedom

The Stanford Encyclopedia's coverage of Marxism and feminism:  a revealing study in contrasts

May

Cambridge University fires post-doc who was target of Internet campaign last fall

Unethical philosophers who participated in harassment and defamation of Rebecca Tuvel issue "white paper" on "publication ethics"

Twitter "believe it or not," part 4:  juvenile jackass confronts adult on-line

Moral psychology with Nietzsche, at the LARB

Speaking of irrational political beliefs

The quest for "relevance" by some analytic philosophers and their ignorance of the post-Kantian traditions in European philosophy

How to cite Hobbes:  the debate continues

Best introductory texts in political philosophy?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM DECEMBER 19--I KNOW IT'S THE HOLIDAY PERIOD, BUT THIS DESERVES MORE COMMENTS (THANKS TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY WEIGHED IN)

Continuing with our new series about introductory texts, I now invite readers to name what they think are the best introductory texts in politcial philosophy. As before, don't just name a text, but say something about why you think it's particularly notable or valuable.  Although you don't have to sign  your comment, I do think signed ones will carry more weight with readers.

An interview with Adolph Reed about the NYT 1619 Project

Here; this isn't the best interview I've read with him, but it has a few good points.  An excerpt:

Q. We’ve spoken to a number of leading historians, including James McPherson, James Oakes, Gordon Wood and Victoria Bynum, and Hannah-Jones launched into a Twitter tirade against them, dismissing them as “white historians.” She is not a historian, but she is the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “genius grant,” just like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi have been in recent years.

A. I have spent most of my adult life trying to avoid the kind of old-fashioned Stalinist conspiracy theory, but it’s getting hard. My dad used to say that in one sense ideology is the mechanism that harmonizes the principles that you want to believe with what advances your material interest.

And so I understand that the people of MacArthur, for instance, think they're doing something quite different. But when they look for voices, the voices that they look for are the voices that say ultimately, “Well it's a tragedy that's hopeless. We have to atone as individuals. Do whatever you can do to confront disparity.”

I've been joking for a number of years that here at Penn the university administration has three core values: Building the endowment, already at $16 billion. Buying up as much on the real estate as they can on both sides of the Schuylkill River. And diversity. And they're genuinely committed to all three of those because they think that part of their mission is to make the ruling class look like the photo of America.

I made a reference once to Coates being an autodidact, and what I meant by that was that he did not know history, that he’s not a historian. Kendi’s book, I don’t know anyone who has actually read it.

2019 in review, 1st quarter: January, February, March

January

John Finnis and Hastings Rashdall

Is the tide finally turning on the New Infantilists and "thought police" in academic philosophy?

Philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT) on the idea of "gender identity"

Wittgenstein's letter of recommendation for "Mrs. Geach" (i.e, Anscombe)

The American Academy of each other's friends in the Arts & Sciences

February

Per student value of university and college endowments at the end of 2018

The real diversity problem in Anglophone philosophy

Steven Salaita today

Yale-NUS's Robin Zheng interviewed (and the Tuvel case redux)

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: U.F.O., "Prince Kajuku," 1971

Early U.F.O. once again, still with guitarist Mick Bolton, from their second "space rock" album:

 

In Memoriam: Stephen Barker (1927-2019)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM DECEMBER 18--UPDATED

A longtime member of the Johns Hopkins Department (where he was emeritus), Professor Barker was noted for his work in philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, and logic.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  The Johns Hopkins memorial notice.  (Thanks to Steven Gross for the pointer.)

Mathematician Abigail Thompson (UC Davis) on the "diversity" loyalty oaths

Here.  I'm optimistic there will be a legal challenge to these diversity statements as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, the precise grounds on which the original loyalty oaths from the 1950s were finally struck down:   the state can not demand allegiance to a sectarian political creed as a condition of employment.

UPDATE:   The journal where Professor Thompson's original essay appeared has now published many letters (including some group letters) about her article.  Many, happily, support her.

More than five million voters supported Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016

Who are they?  Not racists, obviously (hint:  racists don't vote for Black people for President).   Heavily union members, who felt economically vulnerable, and were less supportive of affirmative action than those who voted Democratic in both 2012 and 2016, but more supportive of it than those who voted Republican in both those elections.

(Thanks to Stefan Sciaraffa for mentioning this article on Facebook.)

The gloves come off in India...

...as Modi's fascists show what they're really about.

Wisconsin Repugs trying to purge eligible voters...

...since that's how Repugs win.

A new philosophy job market wiki

A reader on the job market called it to my attention and suggested I share it.  Wikis are only as good as their contributors, and bear in mind that not everything is necessarily accurate, but hopefully if enough folks participate it will provide some useful information.

Soames and Trump

Several readers have written to me about the interview with philosopher Scott Soames (USC) posted last week.  It's quite an enjoyable and interesting interview, as Professor Soames speaks plainly and candidly about so many events in his life, both intellectual and personal.   But that is not what seems to have most caught the attention of readers; instead it was this:

How do you feel about Trump's performance so far?

Very good on judges, good on foreign affairs, largely good on the economy — GDP, unemployment, work-force participation, wage growth, the stock market — but I worry that the deficits remain far too large. Pretty good on balancing the value of free trade against the need to protect certain parts of the country, certain groups of workers, and portions of our economy from stagnation or decline. I am concerned about the needs of the working and lower middle classes who have suffered economically, socially, and culturally in the last 30 or 40 years. I think they are right in seeing Trump as someone who takes them more seriously than elite politicians normally do. Finally, I suspect Trump views the vast apparatus of the administrative state with the proper skepticism.

No criticisms of Trump strike you as fair? Thoughts on impeachment?

Of course some criticisms are fair, as would true of any leader. But Trump is more sinned against than sinning. His enemies have been looking for ways to remove him, or to cripple his ability to govern, since before his inauguration. He had to fight back with equal intensity. I see no valid grounds for impeachment. I do see grounds for thoroughly investigating, and perhaps prosecuting, some of those who led the witch hunt against him.

Here's a typical missive I got about this:

I am very puzzled by Professor Soames - clearly he is a highly intelligent and extremely well educated man, far more so than your humble correspondent and yet he supported Reagan and supports Trump. I find this inexplicable (although I confess that I am also disconcerted because there is a small part of me which would echo Bob Dylan’s words “Sometimes I wonder if it’s them or me that’s insane”). So, my question to you is simply ‘Why is it so?’  If you have the time (I appreciate you are a busy man) I would be very grateful for your thoughts, either by email or perhaps on your blog - I suspect there would be many other readers who share my puzzlement.

I don't think either I, my correspondent, or Soames are insane.   As Professor Soames aptly observed elsewhere in the interview,

"The unity of the ruling class"...

...analyzed in Teen Vogue!

The ruling class in America is getting a bit nervous...

...so they take to the op-ed page of the official organ of the prudent wing of their class.

Blast from the past: What counts as "service to the profession" at your university?

Back in 2010.

What is a "predatory" journal?

The journal Nature weighs in, which hopefully will help.

(Thanks to Dean Rowan for the pointer.)

Trump's impeachable crimes in the Ukraine affair

A useful catalogue from a lawyer who worked closely with Robert Mueller during the investigation of the alleged Russia ties.   This is not a close case, and the only partisan hackery is on the pro-Trump side.

Support the "Lincoln Project"

This is an effort by some hardcore Republicans and conservatives--people with actual principles, not the fascists posing as Republicans in Congress and on Fox--to hold accountable Trump's enablers in Congress and to defeat Trump's re-election.  They explain the project here.  I've donated and I hope you will too.

Richard Marshall interview Thomas Pink (KCL)...

...at 3:16 AM.   I'm  more inclined to something like the Hobbesian view than the Pinkian view, but this interview is fascinating.

Today in Trump wickedness

Making it more difficult to maintain Social Security disability benefits.

An historian eviscerates Pinker's "Enlightenment" propaganda

This is amusing, and apt.