Ronald Bailey on the Progress Movement; Peter Gray on schools' 20-minute lunch hour; Ben Thompson on AI; Rod Dreher on how the Natcons were treated in Brussels
"Or if they mention it, they will emphasize the “controversial conference,” not the rights that were trampled upon."
One thing I've noticed about a lot of mainstream / respectable anti-left commentary in the past few years is an interesting psychological tendency to fail to update their worldview or adjust their priorities and approaches when observing a steady stream of such incidents, preferring to mentally doing to the increasingly untenable delusion that things are more or less what was thought to be 'normal' 25 years ago and that they can carry on debating and discussing and advocating for things in what was a "business as usual" manner as if it was still safe to assume the continuation of many features about institutions in terms of ethics, values, fairness, public spiritedness, tolerance for disagreement, etc. which disappeared by means of ideological convergence, capture, corruption, and degeneration a long time ago, for example, that they would be fair, neutral, trustworthy, politically non-weaponized, etc.
So, for example, you have non-progressive lawyers arguing the legal merits of political show trials in conditions of rampant abuse of discretion, selective prosecution and favoritism-based non-prosecution. It is frankly embarrassing as a mockery of a genuinely legal framework to take the law seriously as if one was operating in a system where rule of law still matters when it no longer does matter. One might as well argue that Stalin's lawyers made some valid arguments when dispatching some poor dissidents to the gulag.
In Europe there are several famous old bridges that because of all the foot traffic became attractive spots for merchants who literally set up shop on top of them. Examples are the Ponte Vecchio in Venice and the Kramerbrucke in Erfurt. Imagine being a merchant on that bridge and watching another merchant's shop drop into the river because the bridge gave way underneath him, then overhearing the city inspectors say that the the stone in that place was poor quality and also the barge shippers who are prohibited from operating downriver kept intentionally ramming into the piers to try to bring the bridge down despite its public benefit because it literally stood in the way if where they wanted to go. And then, instead of prudently panicking, evacuating the site, and at the very least examining the durability of the stone under one's own store and considering a collective defense plan against the barge operators, one just went about negotiating prices with vendors and customers and carrying on business as usual, because, well, the bad thing happened over there, not here, and to that jerk cheater who had it coming, not to good and decent me, and after all the barge owners were rich and powerful and ruthless and one needed their shipments and ought not make an enemy out of them.
You would snap your fingers in front of the face of that person to try to break his self-hynosis of rationalized deep denial, "Wake up! Do you not see what is happening? That it is ridiculous to discuss business as usual when business is not usual?"
I do get that respectable public intellectuals have a hard time internalizing and integrating these facts because it is considered kind of rude and the position of a conspiracy-theorist kook or crank to announce that the whole system they specialize in is fundamentally broken and compromised, one is supposed to publicly keep up the pretense that the system is fine and the people who work in it are good and fair and that one ought not to throw around such accusations or undermine public trust without the strongest of evidence at a standard of rigor impossible to meet, that these instances are all just rare anecdotes that don't reflect any trend, that those people had it coming, that the """laws""" - which are loose enough and intentionally misinterpreted enough to not qualify as law at all - are arguably being followed in a technical sense, yadda, yadda, yadda.
This is kind of like the story (I don't know if true) of Saddam Hussein refusing to believe until the last minute, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the US wasn't just elaborately sabre-rattling and regime-replacing invasion and occupation of the whole country for no good reason was imminent. Imagine him having a serious and well- argued discussion about the best way to renovate the landscaping of the presidential palace when a month later that whole area would be reduced to mud and rubble tread tracks.
Concerning the near-banning of the Brussels meeting of European politicians of the right, the event was widely covered in Belgium: the police was called in by the mayor of the local municipality; the prime minister subsequently defined the attempt to ban the meeting unacceptable as well as contrary to the Belgian constitution.
It might be noted that secret collusion between antifa and law enforcement to coerce private entities to silence dissent such as that in Brussels but common throughout the United States is exactly the behavior the Supreme Court will sanctify as constitutionally-mandated in its upcoming Murthy vs Missouri (previously Missouri v. Biden) Biden decision. At least in Belgium, Prime Minister Alexander de Croo denounced the behavior of the Brussels authorities as unconstitutional.
I taught AP Drivers Education for a number of years at the local high school. And, 70% of the time I always deviated from the AP curriculum. You can’t teach your students how to get out of a potentially dangerous hydroplaning situation unless you can first teach them the joy of doing donuts in the parking lot.
Will the developers be allowed to convert their unused cow pasture to a new city that checks all of the green boxes in terms of walkability and high density housing? Stay tuned and grab some popcorn. This could get interesting.
PS Stop giggling Texas!
***
There are obvious challenges. Chief among them is that California Forever would violate the county’s long-standing voter-approved General Plan and Orderly Growth Initiative, which restricts new development to existing cities and sets aside most of Flannery’s 60,000 acres for agriculture and open space. Changing the designation requires voter approval, which the company hopes to get on the November ballot.
It’s going to be a tough sell. Public reaction has been harsh at a series of public hearings held by the company. People are deeply skeptical, challenging whether California Forever can find enough water, will pay its fair share for expensive highway upgrades and if the homes will be as affordable as promised. Many in Solano County are receptive to the need for more housing but suspicious of the whole enterprise.
"Or if they mention it, they will emphasize the “controversial conference,” not the rights that were trampled upon."
One thing I've noticed about a lot of mainstream / respectable anti-left commentary in the past few years is an interesting psychological tendency to fail to update their worldview or adjust their priorities and approaches when observing a steady stream of such incidents, preferring to mentally doing to the increasingly untenable delusion that things are more or less what was thought to be 'normal' 25 years ago and that they can carry on debating and discussing and advocating for things in what was a "business as usual" manner as if it was still safe to assume the continuation of many features about institutions in terms of ethics, values, fairness, public spiritedness, tolerance for disagreement, etc. which disappeared by means of ideological convergence, capture, corruption, and degeneration a long time ago, for example, that they would be fair, neutral, trustworthy, politically non-weaponized, etc.
So, for example, you have non-progressive lawyers arguing the legal merits of political show trials in conditions of rampant abuse of discretion, selective prosecution and favoritism-based non-prosecution. It is frankly embarrassing as a mockery of a genuinely legal framework to take the law seriously as if one was operating in a system where rule of law still matters when it no longer does matter. One might as well argue that Stalin's lawyers made some valid arguments when dispatching some poor dissidents to the gulag.
In Europe there are several famous old bridges that because of all the foot traffic became attractive spots for merchants who literally set up shop on top of them. Examples are the Ponte Vecchio in Venice and the Kramerbrucke in Erfurt. Imagine being a merchant on that bridge and watching another merchant's shop drop into the river because the bridge gave way underneath him, then overhearing the city inspectors say that the the stone in that place was poor quality and also the barge shippers who are prohibited from operating downriver kept intentionally ramming into the piers to try to bring the bridge down despite its public benefit because it literally stood in the way if where they wanted to go. And then, instead of prudently panicking, evacuating the site, and at the very least examining the durability of the stone under one's own store and considering a collective defense plan against the barge operators, one just went about negotiating prices with vendors and customers and carrying on business as usual, because, well, the bad thing happened over there, not here, and to that jerk cheater who had it coming, not to good and decent me, and after all the barge owners were rich and powerful and ruthless and one needed their shipments and ought not make an enemy out of them.
You would snap your fingers in front of the face of that person to try to break his self-hynosis of rationalized deep denial, "Wake up! Do you not see what is happening? That it is ridiculous to discuss business as usual when business is not usual?"
I do get that respectable public intellectuals have a hard time internalizing and integrating these facts because it is considered kind of rude and the position of a conspiracy-theorist kook or crank to announce that the whole system they specialize in is fundamentally broken and compromised, one is supposed to publicly keep up the pretense that the system is fine and the people who work in it are good and fair and that one ought not to throw around such accusations or undermine public trust without the strongest of evidence at a standard of rigor impossible to meet, that these instances are all just rare anecdotes that don't reflect any trend, that those people had it coming, that the """laws""" - which are loose enough and intentionally misinterpreted enough to not qualify as law at all - are arguably being followed in a technical sense, yadda, yadda, yadda.
This is kind of like the story (I don't know if true) of Saddam Hussein refusing to believe until the last minute, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the US wasn't just elaborately sabre-rattling and regime-replacing invasion and occupation of the whole country for no good reason was imminent. Imagine him having a serious and well- argued discussion about the best way to renovate the landscaping of the presidential palace when a month later that whole area would be reduced to mud and rubble tread tracks.
"Many elementary schools allot only 20 minutes for lunch"
As a non-American I have to ask. Is this real?
How common is "many"? 10%? 90%?
https://open.substack.com/pub/ayaanhirsiali/p/mayor-with-turkish-islamist-links?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1hp7xr
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on NatCon:
Concerning the near-banning of the Brussels meeting of European politicians of the right, the event was widely covered in Belgium: the police was called in by the mayor of the local municipality; the prime minister subsequently defined the attempt to ban the meeting unacceptable as well as contrary to the Belgian constitution.
It might be noted that secret collusion between antifa and law enforcement to coerce private entities to silence dissent such as that in Brussels but common throughout the United States is exactly the behavior the Supreme Court will sanctify as constitutionally-mandated in its upcoming Murthy vs Missouri (previously Missouri v. Biden) Biden decision. At least in Belgium, Prime Minister Alexander de Croo denounced the behavior of the Brussels authorities as unconstitutional.
I taught AP Drivers Education for a number of years at the local high school. And, 70% of the time I always deviated from the AP curriculum. You can’t teach your students how to get out of a potentially dangerous hydroplaning situation unless you can first teach them the joy of doing donuts in the parking lot.
California Forever
Will the developers be allowed to convert their unused cow pasture to a new city that checks all of the green boxes in terms of walkability and high density housing? Stay tuned and grab some popcorn. This could get interesting.
PS Stop giggling Texas!
***
There are obvious challenges. Chief among them is that California Forever would violate the county’s long-standing voter-approved General Plan and Orderly Growth Initiative, which restricts new development to existing cities and sets aside most of Flannery’s 60,000 acres for agriculture and open space. Changing the designation requires voter approval, which the company hopes to get on the November ballot.
It’s going to be a tough sell. Public reaction has been harsh at a series of public hearings held by the company. People are deeply skeptical, challenging whether California Forever can find enough water, will pay its fair share for expensive highway upgrades and if the homes will be as affordable as promised. Many in Solano County are receptive to the need for more housing but suspicious of the whole enterprise.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/california-forever-launch-plans-maybe-00133145