Pompeo redacted Clinton dossier, says source

…or something like that. I’m sure I heard that on NPR, or somewhere. Shocking.

If you can’t get enough from the news, here’s a headline generator:

PROPER NAME: Trump Comey Mueller Stormy Pompeo Clinton Obama McCabe Pelosi DOJ FBI ABC NBC CBS NPR BBC Zukerberg Putin Russia Cohen Florida Man
VERB PAST: redacted Googled investigated leaked named
OR
VERB FUTURE: to leak to investigate to pardon to indict to appeal to prosecute to appoint to name to fire
PROPER NAME
‘S
NOUN: dossier report investigation appointment prosecution indictment
BOILERPLATE: says claims
SOURCE: report source insider memo dossier

Advertisements

Thought experiment

What true thing can you not safely say, unless you say it anonymously?

Comments are off.

This video is vulgar, kind of stupid, and has significant philosophical limitations, but I still like it: Die Gedanken sind frei

Micro-aggression

I may have discovered a new micro-aggression. As a man, my overcoat is heavier than some. It’s also larger than some, and so takes up more space. The hangers in the closet at work are cheap plastic, so I use two, compounding the offense. All that’s needed is a compelling name.

It’s surprising to see so many liberals and media figures accused of sexual misconduct. A few weeks ago the media turned on Antifa; that surprised me too.

Crazy, but not merely crazy

“Elwood P. Dowd not only has his invisible friend, the six-foot-tall rabbit named Harvey, but will take you to court unless you shake Harvey’s hand and register Harvey in at the hotel. Harvey must be your friend too, or else. Christian bakers who have retained their hold on reality can tell us what will happen to you if you say, ‘But there is no Harvey here, nor will I pretend that there is.'” — Pronouns, Ordinary People, and the War over Reality, by Anthony Esolen

Senator Gregg speaks

“‘It’s every person for himself or herself right now,’ former senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said.”

Good thing the senator didn’t say “every man for himself,” like men did back in the bad old days. Whatever else happens to the Republican Party, at least they haven’t stooped to micro-aggression. Going forward they’ll need to get a handle on those binary-normative verbal structures, and I’m sure they will; but one step at a time.

This way to the Swegress

“In fact it is entirely possible that Scotland would find no EU to join after it had taken the trouble to break the shackles with the UK. Should the British exit be followed by a Grexit, Deutschit, Departugal, Italeave, Czheckout, Oustria and Buh-byelgium the best Scotland can do is join France and revive the Auld Alliance.” — Forget the Lifeboat, It’s the Iceberg that Counts, by Richard Fernandez

Here’s the list of member states of the European Union. Be creative.

“Over the line”

To commit an outrage is to overstep bounds, for the word comes to us from the French outré (meaning excessive) and the Latin ultra (meaning beyond). It is an accident of etymology that the word seems to indicate a feeling of rage, although raging against outrages is common enough, and convention permits us to say we are outraged by the outrageous. — Over the line by JMSmith

Three things some people hate

  • The law of identity: Everything is identical with itself.
  • The law of non-contradiction: No thing is both black and not black.
  • The law of the excluded middle: Every thing is either black or not black.

When one of these foundational principles of logic is pointed out to those people in a context in which they must respond (ignoring it being their preferred option), they respond with blather, denial, or force — of one kind or another and in combination. Maybe the blather takes the form of endless demands for dialogue; the denial might involve two activists making contradictory assertions while claiming to agree with each other; the force starts with name-calling and escalates to whatever it takes.

I’m not sure who those people are exactly. Maybe liberals, or progressives, or leftists; maybe elites, or politicians, or The Man; maybe simply anyone who begins by thinking “What should I say to get what I want?” Maybe it’s almost everyone at one time or another. Errors are easier to see in other people than in ourselves, and we’d rather not draw attention to the logical failures and sophistry of someone who is “on our side.” Anyway, it’s probably a mistake to put all human discourse into one of three categories.