Blue Management

Workers have too much freedom, or something:

Fifty-one percent said Americans enjoy "somewhat" to "far too much" individual freedom. (Note: by contrast, 57% of voters say the government exerts too much control over their lives, but 16% actually agreed with the federal managers.) Sixty-eight percent of Democrat federal managers felt the country had too much freedom at the "highest levels of the survey." Thirty-three percent of Republican managers concurred. Fifty-four percent of federal managers maintained that they would issue new regulations after "carefully researching" an issue even if voters opposed it. Broken down by party, that number accounts for 49% of Republican-leaning managers and 60% of Democrats.

Your freedom ends at their office doors...

Russian Return

"Disinformation" is back:

the last time the intelligence community asserted something was Russian misinformation, the main scream media instantly jumped to their bidding to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop; they were just as anxious to push the pee tape and the Alfa Bank email story. All of which were indeed disinformation — directed against Trump. I'm not generally one to fall for conspiracy theories. Among other things, it's hard to tell a conspiracy from simply a bunch of people of the same mindset. Trotsky called them poputchik, "one who travels the same path," a term that became common in English as "fellow traveller." It doesn't quite apply here since poputchik meant someone in agreement with the Party's aims, but not a Party member, and these are mainly Party members — Democrat this time, but see what I did there? — who are pushing this. The point is that if you have a bunch of people with the same goals and similar intentions, they can look co-ordinated.

It's still always Russia, Russia, Russia...

Joe's Review

Sorry, Kamala:

NBC News reported Monday that DeSantis was denying phone calls from Harris' team. "People are in desperate need of support right now and playing political games with this moment, in these crisis situations, these are the height of emergency situations, it's just utterly irresponsible, and it is selfish," Harris told reporters Monday. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, President Joe Biden's opinion about the GOP Florida governor's response to Hurricane Helene and his preparation for Milton, diverged substantially from that of his vice president's. "The governor of Florida has been cooperative. He said he’s gotten all that he needs. I talked to him again yesterday, and I said – no – you're doing a great job, it's all being done well and we thank you for it," Biden said at a press conference from the White House Tuesday. "There was a rough start in some places, but every governor, every governor – from Florida to North Carolina – has been fully cooperative and supportive."

One good shiv deserves another...

Sports Science

Sports is sexist, or something:

The journal has become somewhat of a left-wing propaganda machine in recent years, focusing heavily on liberal perspectives and findings within science. In September, it endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the upcoming election. A piece from Scientific American went viral on Sunday, October 6. Focusing on ultrarunning, the article claimed, “inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of bias in how they are treated in sports”. “As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best,” the article continued. “Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women’s events because of the belief that they will make the women ‘artificially faster,’ as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.”

It still doesn't change biology...

Voters Wanted

Citizenship not necessary:

Reading And Learning

No books, no problem:

As students are looking for shortcuts rather than having an appetite for complex ideas, simple, reductionist ideas are better able to take hold. The result is that as opposed to layered and nuanced ideas and concepts being dominant on campus, identity politics and reducing individuals and their lives, historical moments, and social change to little more than crude representations of power, race, sexuality, and gender, have been embraced by so many. Countless students would have formerly rejected these simplistic conceptions about the human condition acknowledging that this wipes out unique personalities and a real understanding of history and change. But that is no longer where we are today; not reading books and, more importantly, faculty accepting that students in higher education do not have to embrace and struggle with complex ideas has created a have a sophomoric worldview about life and humanity. Not reading deeply has regrettably helped create campuses which are fractured, segregated, anti-intellectual centers of activism and victimhood as opposed to sacred spaces of scholarship, debate, viewpoint diversity, and opportunity. A second idea missed in this discussion around college students not reading books is the question of why so many faculty have accepted this new norm. The Atlantic article mentions that faculty have altered their courses in response to students’ inability to read heavy volumes of literature. Columbia Professor Andrew Delbanco, for instance, now teaches a seminar on short works of American prose as opposed to an earlier survey course on literature, opining that “One has to adjust to the times.” The article notes that faculty have also been surprised by this change citing another Columbia professor being amazed by the fact that students who came to his class were no longer “prepared to read books.” Only recently did he ask a student why undergraduates were unprepared, and upon learning that they had not been taught, his “jaw dropped.” The article offers no clear answer as to why have faculty ceded this sacred ground and overlooked their essential duty of helping students learn to read deeply and critically. One can argue that this superficial approach helps scholar-activist faculty promote their political agendas but the skill of reading is a foundational component of liberal education and that does proficiency not impede but may even enhance their inappropriate activist mission. Sadly, it appears that numerous faculty are actively allowing their students to coast through their collegiate years, shifting their expectations rather than addressing the problem.

Laziness breeds contempt...

Honest Liars

Honest government never exists:

Despite scandals stretching generations, Americans are still encouraged to believe that the next election will result in honest government. Are citizens supposed to believe that elections automatically redeem democracy, like a buzzard that magically transforms into a unicorn every four years? Are we supposed to presume there is an automatic moral rebirth of representative government three days after vote-counting ends, like a resurrection after crucifixion? Are we supposed to believe that next time that presidents and members of Congress will finally honor their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution? But, as former US senator Bob Kerrey explained in 2013, “The problem is, the second your hand comes off the Bible, you become an asshole.” The absurdity of expecting a presidential election to produce honest government is obvious from public revulsion during recent campaigns. Shortly before the 2016 election, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of voters believed Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy, and only 35% trusted Donald Trump. The Clinton-Trump tag team made “post-truth” the Oxford English Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year. Since 1952, every rebirth of political decency proved a mirage. But good Americans are exhorted to believe that this election will be different. Political purity is almost always an illusion—a stage trick courtesy of the media or shameless PR wizards. Most Americans pay more attention to political personalities than to the vast coercive machinery of government. But it is far easier to detect whether a law or policy permits arbitrary power and constitutional travesties than to perceive the full venality of rascals hustling for votes. Americans cannot expect to have good presidents if presidents are permitted to make themselves czars. Instead of asking, “Whom should we trust with all this power?’ Americans should ask, “How much power can any politician be personally trusted with?”

As little as possible...