Someone actually said this: Republicans, cities, and small government

In today's New York Times, we read why Republicans no longer compete in America's big cities and how they could do so:

“If you compete in cities, you don’t have to win in them,” said Thomas Ogorzalek, a political scientist at Northwestern. “If you go 70-30 in Chicago, instead of 90-10 like Trump is going to do, you can win Illinois. That’s not a bad strategy.”

Mr. Goldsmith, the former Republican mayor of Indianapolis, says the idea isn’t far-fetched. Picture a Republican who runs on effective government instead of against government: a Michael Bloomberg type minus the nanny-state laws. Or a school-choice advocate, but not a culture warrior. Or someone who talks about crime without caricaturing the communities that confront the worst of it.

Which Republicans are running against government? When last I checked, Donald Trump was not doing so.

Also, how would the hypothetical Republicans be running "on effective government instead of against government"? A Republican who did not follow Bloomberg on nanny-state laws, the socially conservative take on the culture wars, or law-and-order conservatism would be running against government on those issues, or at least against increased government. It seems that those hypothetical Republicans would run "on effective government instead of against government" by jettisoning some of the GOP's big-government excesses.

Peter Thiel is no true gay Scotsman.

A while back, I wrote about the no-true-Scotsman fallacy and its use to argue away dissent in the LGBT community:

Orthodox queer people also use [the fallacy] to dismiss any viewpoint diversity within the LGBT ranks. People have answered my disagreement with the party line by saying, "Yeah, but you're not really gay."

Now, in The Advocate, Jim Downs writes,

Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who made news this summer for endorsing Donald Trump at the Republican convention, is a man who has sex with other men. But is he gay?

* * *

By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.

* * *

The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term "gay" and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.

Regardless of one's views on Thiel's politics, it remains that case that last paragraph, Downs effectively admits to pulling a no-true-Scotsman on Thiel. The good news is that even on a site like The Advocate, the commentariat is overwhelmingly calling shenanigans on Downs's reasoning.

The rule of blame

The rule of blame: All of the credit goes to our side; all of the blame goes to someone else.

Corollaries:

1. If one politician of the other party has any role in a matter, no matter how minor, everything automatically becomes that other party's fault. Perhaps we should call this one Hogan's law.

2. If a profit-making entity has any role in a matter, no matter how minor or how rent-seeking, everything automatically becomes the fault of free markets.

3. If by following this rule, you contradict yourself, just remember the power of doublethink

Schrödinger's Gay Man

Schrödinger's gay man is extremely picky about whom he's attracted to and simultaneously is willing to sleep with whatever moves.

Schrödinger's gay man wouldn't be caught dead in jeans and a T-shirt and simultaneously makes that his uniform.

Schrödinger's gay man disdains physical activity and simultaneously spends all of his free time working out.

Schrödinger's gay man imposes on the rest of us the culture that he has developed (and no, you may not ask how he does so) and simultaneously has developed no culture of his own.

Schrödinger's gay man cannot be monogamous to save his life and simultaneously imposes heteronormative standards of monogamy on the queer community.

Schrödinger's gay man is attracted only to hypermasculine men and simultaneously is attracted only to ephebic, unmasculine twinks.

Schrödinger's gay man uncritically latches onto any big-government leftist idea and simultaneously limits his interest in politics to what will protect his investment portfolio.

Schrödinger's gay man shirks his duty to become involved in the LGBT movement and simultaneously has completely coopted the LGBT movement.

Schrödinger's gay man shirked his duty to push for marriage equality, instead leaving it up to lesbians, and simultaneously pushed marriage equality on lesbians, who were too enlightened to want it.

Schrödinger's gay man lives down to the stereotypes, thus proving how morally deficient he is, and simultaneously doesn't live down to the stereotypes, thus proving how self-loathing he is.

Schrödinger's gay man is part of the economic elite and is simultaneously part of the net-tax-consuming economic underclass.

Schrödinger's gay man wants nothing to do with sports and simultaneously thinks of nothing else.

Whatever position you take on the controversy between radical feminists and the transgender community, Schrödinger's gay man takes the exact opposite position. It therefore makes perfect sense that both sides blame each other on Schrödinger's gay man.

People actually say this: Larry Hogan and the blame game

Now that Maryland has a Republican governor, it is a truth universally acknowledged that everything bad that happens in Maryland is his fault. No, you may not ask about Maryland's not exactly deep red legislature, its previous governors, local councils and executives, or things beyond politicians' control. Once, when I brought up the composition of the General Assembly with someone espousing that view, that person first appealed to ridicule and then pointedly refused to acknowledge that Maryland even has a legislature. I suppose that Hogan has been the absolute monarch of Maryland since the dawn of time.

Faux News op-ed: I Am Down with the Working Class

One might think that as an undergraduate majoring in identity studies at Uxbridge University, I would consider the concerns of working-class people to be beneath me. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I pride myself on being down with the working class.

I make a point of acquainting myself with working-class culture by asking the working-class people I know: at home, the maid and the gardener, and on campus, the cafeteria workers and the maintenance people. They seem less pleased to answer my questions than I assumed they would be and sometimes downright resentful. For this, I blame false consciousness engendered by capitalism.

I believe that this is important because, like all of my friends, I grew up in the banal environment of upper-middle-class suburbia. I can now connect to the more vibrant and authentic cultures of people who are free from this burden.

It also helps me see the solution to their plight. Just as my parents pay my tuition, room, and board and give me a healthy allowance, surely society can afford to do likewise for working-class people.

I have one classmate, however, who inexplicably does not see things my way. Given where he came from, he cannot expected to be so enlightened as the rest of us, but would it kill him to keep his stupid redneck hick opinions to himself?

If we talked about the entire Bill of Rights the same way we talk about the Second Amendment

First Amendment: In 1791, "speech" meant just speech, and "press" meant a single-sheet, manually operated press. The framers couldn't have imagined that today, with the click of a mouse, you could communicate with millions of people worldwide and send them hate propaganda to incite violence and hate. If only one life is saved, it will all have been worth it.

Third Amendment: That was then, but in today's more complex society, we have a standing army to protect us, so get out of the way and let it do so.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people" clearly refers to a collective rather than individual right, or the framers wouldn't have used the term "the people." Also, in 1791, "papers" literally meant just papers. The framers couldn't have imagined easily portable devices storing gigabytes or even terabytes of information, which could concern terrorist plots or child sexual exploitation, things that government could stop if given unfettered access to that information. Are you with me, or are you with the terrorists and the kiddy fiddlers?

Fifth Amendment: Never mind what we just got through saying about what words meant in 1791. "Due process of law" means only what Diane Feinstein thinks it should mean today, with no reference to what it meant back then.

Sixth Amendment: This gets in the way of locking up bad guys who could otherwise roam the streets and kill people, so if you oppose reasonable restrictions, you must be some sort of death cultist.

Seventh Amendment: This needs common-sense regulation because the framers couldn't have imagined how much less $20 would be worth today than in 1791.

Eighth Amendment: It's just common sense that government should get to decide what otherwise vague terms like "excessive" and "cruel and unusual" mean.

Ninth Amendment: Don't you think I have a right not to have bad people do bad things to me because they abused their rights under the other provisions of the Bill of Rights? If this right doesn't come under "others retained by the people," I don't know what does.

Tenth Amendment: This is just empty verbiage because government is just giving itself the right to do things that it already had the right to do.