« Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. | Main | About the recent unpleasantness »

June 15, 2018

Comments

McKT has got a point - rules on what you can and can't do have to be independent of outlook.

Maybe I've been in far too many bars in my life, but almost every one I've been in has rules, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, about who they want to be there and who they don't. If you don't realize that, maybe you need to get out a bit more.

Now, maybe if it is pharmacies, we can talk

BLM T-shirts

Here's a BLM story. Apologies if I've told this already, I've been saying the same stuff here for 15 years now, I'm bound to repeat myself.

A friend of mine opened a cafe, two towns over from me. It's a typical past-its-prime New England mill town. Immigrants, blacks, blue-collar white people who are generally pissed off about the immigrants and blacks. Not a lot of money, lots of typical hollowed out former manufacturing city problems. The place is kind of bumping along, trying to get its groove back.

They're trying to get a good downtown vibe going. That's worked for other places in the region. My friend's place was kind of part of that. Good food, a really interesting music and art program. Vinyl Tuesdays, where you could bring your records and play them. Bluegrass and traditional music sessions. Some good write-ups in the local press.

Basically, a good local hang. Hipsters, but also old-timer locals. Artists and musicians, but also people getting coffee and a bagel on their way to the commuter rail. A place that attracts regulars, and a place that will draw folks from out of town in for a meal or a drink and some entertainment that isn't what you're going to see in every other joint.

If you're trying to build a viable downtown, places like this are freaking gold.

My friend's daughter worked for her. My friend's daughter had strong views about the relationship between cops and black people, and expressed those views on social media, under her own name, unrelated in any way to the cafe business.

Some folks put two and two together, figured out that my friend's daughter worked at the cafe, and fucking hammered the place into the ground on social media.

My friend did her best to recover lost ground. Fired her daughter, made apologies on social media and elsewhere, expressed her support for the local cops.

No dice.

My friend lost her business, lost all the money she had put into it, which was basically her life savings. Lost her condo. She's kind of all right, she has a really good network of people who love and support her personally.

But at the age of 50-ish, she's back to square one. She Ubers and does some other stuff to pay the bills.

Hounded out, by the anti-BLM flying monkeys.

McK will say, well that sucks, too. And it surely does.

So hell yeah, a BLM t shirt might deprive you of a beer. Being related to, or employing, a vocal BLM supporter might lose you your livelihood, your business, and your home. It cost my friend hers.

That's the environment we're in.

So I'm just not that upset if a guy doesn't get a beer, or if Sanders was politely asked to leave a restaurant. It's a shame that it's come to that, but it by god has come to that.

Trump is a toxic, malevolent presence. People are going to resist that, because they aren't freaking insane, and they want to preserve a way of life that isn't based on toxic resentment and malice.

If that is going to rock your boat, go find a place to hide for a while.

Enjoy your tax cut.

McKT has got a point - rules on what you can and can't do have to be independent of outlook.

I'm fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.

I'm also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. ...

I'm more or less in agreement with that, too.

If you can be barred from various establishments for (e.g.) not wearing a tie, or wearing jeans, it would be very strange if the silly/offensive hat couldn't also be a reason.

The dining thing is a different case, excluding someone for who she is rather than how she behaved at the time - and Pro Bono's suggestion that rather than 86ing Sanders, telling her how she makes you and your staff feel is arguably the better, and non-litigable alternative.
But again, this comes down to power imbalances, which McKinney's counterexamples ignore... and Sanders had no compunction about using her official position to whinge about her treatment.

I'm not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s, so Trump is by far and away the most divisive President I can remember. That the woman the White House employs to lie on his behalf should catch some flack is not exactly a surprise.

Something about what Russell said reminded me of Grahme Frost

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html

That was during the Bush presidency. Funny how we forget.

i'll say it again: what happened to Sanders is "conservatives" getting a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.

it's bitter?

yeah, no shit. now learn the lesson, stupids.

I'm not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s

I was.

The divisions were not necessarily determined by party affiliation, and there were more options, for example, on Vietnam

1) Bomb them to stone age
2) Rep Peace with honor
3) Dem Peace with honor
4) Surrender to Ho with Jane (my choice)

There were more, but issues were actually discussed, within and between groups, rather than being only converted into affiliations and identity markers. Another example, it wasn't only MLK vs Malcolm, there were many other places to be. And of course internationally there were a larger number of national positions available, like Pan-Arabism and Bandung

I am not sure if the megaphones were fewer and quieter, but there was obviously more energetic street activity, so to speak, leading to the adventurism and quixotic failures of the Red Brigades etc in the 70s.
Violence and its threat were globally ubiquitous.

My first political memory:probably the daisy ad. I was 13, and I knew who Goldwater was, that he was a dangerous hawk, and at the least an apologist for segregation. I hated him, in an extended family that was Republican and racist. I cannot understand any 17 year old not knowing, and condoning, although some I suppose make more concessions to sociality than I.

I thought Bush II set a level of incompetence and evil in the POTUS which would not be repeated in my lifetime. But Trump is plainly worse, albeit luckier. Who knows what the Republicans will manage to get elected next.

Wherever they go, I want our side not to follow them.

Wearing a MAGA hat is a choice.

Being the press secretary to a POS is a choice.

Having brown skin is not a choice.

Holding unpopular views and assembling to express them is protected by the Constitution.

Conservatives in this country have gotten on board with the idea that you can discriminate against people who have attributes they did not choose to have based on their "deeply held moral convictions."

They have opened the doors to the gates of Hell.

I imagine many readers here have seen this.

Have indeed, bobby.

While there's merit in this:
The Very Serious People who serve as tone police in DC need to decide what they value more: democracy or civility. Because we're just sliding, sliding, sliding down this slope, pretending all the while that things are still Normal. To get off the slide ...

The issue to me is not whether these folks deserve to be treated with civility, but what will win in November, and the one a couple of years after that.

The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls. Fail at that and things will get truly ugly.

The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls.

As a child of the sixties, I disagree.

1) Is it about Trump, or about the policies, some of which are partially shared by Democratic leadership. The policies can be resisted in many ways independently of the Party.

2) Making it about Trump only, and electoral politics only, makes one dependent on and complicit with the Party

3) And what if we lose? As "we" lost in 1968 and 1972.

Only One Clear Way to Get Rid of Trump Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson, white man

"It should now be obvious, almost beyond dispute, that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders in 2016. During the primary, he polled better in match-ups against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton did. The argument made by Clinton supporters was that this was only because America did not yet fully know Bernie Sanders. This argument turned out to be false. The more America gets to know Bernie Sanders, the more it likes him: Since Trump’s election, Sanders has been the most popular politician in the country, and a poll from last year showed he “would defeat Trump by 13 percentage points if a general presidential election was held at that time.” Suggestions that only white people like Bernie Sanders are also false: In fact, his favorability rating is far higher among people of color than white people and “is highest among hispanics (66 percent) and African-Americans (77 percent).” The phrase “Bernie Would Have Won” can be a bit of a nasty, unhelpful taunt, but it seems to be the case. That’s especially true considering how important turnout was in deciding the 2016 outcome. If Democrats are to win in 2020, they don’t just need someone with high favorability ratings, they need someone people will show up for"

As much as would enjoy the establishment watching Sanders giving the Inaugural address in 2020, showing what could have been, what should have been, what might have been avoided...

...they will never let it happen. They'd rather lose.

Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn't going to change any minds.

Ah. A point made by more than one of the lefty assholes on this blog. Then again, as JanieM mentioned, maybe the bar-owner just wanted the guy out and couldn't have given a rat's ass about changing his mind.

But let's not blur the lines any more than they necessarily already are between practical political considerations, social norms, and what should or should not be legal. (Unless doing so is just a rhetorical device for keeping your opponents off balance.)

https://www.ft.com/content/75319cee-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f?segmentId=ea1dd4c0-c7c8-c198-8a10-2ba258aa73e0

So many restaurants in the world, and so many fascists dining in them.

So little time to kick their asses to the curb.

You can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders because he would (supposedly) have won.

On the same type of alternate history, you can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Hilary Clinton in 2008 instead of Barack Obama. She would also have won, but wouldn't have polarized the country over the race of the President.

The trouble with this kind of alternate history is that it's really hard to make a convincing case that the alternative would actually have worked out as you believe.

In my copious spare time, I'm participating remotely in the ICANN meetings. (Didn't want to brave Panama City this week.)

A speaker just ran a little experiment, supposedly to show how much we trust technology.
"Who do you trust, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, or Sophie (an AI)?"

1 person for Zuckerberg, nobody for Trump (hey, it's an international gathering and pretty much everybody has a college education). And a fair number for Sophie.

Which just goes to show how much support you can claim if you carefully pick the alternatives you are polling about.

Your mind boggle for today:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/25/the-eye-popping-definition-of-what-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-increases-again/

"Low income," per HUD (thank you Dr Carson!), is now $117k for 3 counties in my local area. My mind boggles.

So much for politely addressing someone:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/maxine-waters-political-violence/

A fairly informative discussion of the Sanders thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/06/25/was-sarah-huckabee-sanders-denied-public-accommodation-when-a-restaurant-kicked-her-out/
“Restaurants and stores turning away queer and trans people is part of the systemic discrimination that these customers face in all facets of their life,” Brodsky said. “Sarah Sanders is one of the most powerful people in the country right now, and the ideology she espouses and for which she was asked to leave is the reason we have public accommodations laws for other people.”

Those laws often differ on a state-to-state basis, though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes race, religion, national origin and color as factors that make discrimination illegal everywhere, according to Washington University law professor Elizabeth Sepper. While political affiliation is a protected trait in the District, the same cannot be said for Lexington, Va., where Sanders visited the Red Hen. According to the ACLU, only the District, Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology…

And from the Left:

https://www.salon.com/2018/06/25/nancy-pelosi-turns-on-maxine-waters-criticizes-her-unacceptable-anti-trump-rhetoric/

My favorite (the comments are great!):

https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/1011282252087611393

Well, after all, the point everyone has been trying to make is that Maxine Waters is incapable of saying anything stupid ever.

So much for politely addressing someone

Is Maxine Waters commenting here?

For that matter, did Maxine Waters actually call for political violence, as the author claims, or is the author full of crap?

When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15's to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for "2nd amendment remedies" from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent, I'll take your concern for national civility more seriously.

You cannot simultaneously crap all over social and political norms of tolerance and civility, and then complain when they aren't observed to your benefit. Not in good faith, anyway.

You can expect to see more stuff like this. It's called "push back". Just like you said.

And from the Right:

We need to be able to discriminate against gays based on whatever ever-changing and conveniently-GOP-strategy-aligned "deeply held religious convictions" we're sporting today.

shove it, right.

When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15's to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for "2nd amendment remedies" from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent, I'll take your concern for national civility more seriously. I'll start hoping again.

Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.

Why Clinton Does Not Deserve the Black Vote Feb 2,2016 pro-Sanders without endorsing, cause:

"The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires.

I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

I'll start hoping again.

bob said it better.

PS: I have put my Redenbacher's in the microwave, waiting to push the timer because the last 2-3 NYT columnist hires have elicited lengthy outrage from LGM...

...but they have not said one word about Alexander, either in posts or comments.

What ya think, the NYT handing some of their prime real estate to a black woman scholar...is just not interesting cause it happens all the time or sumpin? Heck, she is from the Northwest and has relatives at the University of Oregon. Loomis and Lemieux might know her personally.

Their silence is embarrassing. Damning.

Poor, poor, put-upon Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, insulted with impunity by those terrorists on the left.

Not.

Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.

Hyperbole and bobm, a match made in dialectical materialism heaven.....I look forward to her stuff. Should be a refreshing change....if I can get far past their paywall (usually I am beyond 10 articles by the 3rd of the month).

...if I can get far past their paywall

Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.

I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.

This is news? LOL! I am inclined to believe that the US version of "The Left"* needs to get its head out of its ass, but that is a topic for another day.

*A term that is in dire need of clarifying definition, but definitely includes armchair socialist revolutionaries (many varieties) who speak blithely about the "working class" undertaking "violent revolution" in the USA as a currently viable political strategy.

Hey, what the hell, I'll beat the dead horse.

Everything - every damn thing - I've tried to say in this thread, is said better in the piece I link to here. People should read it.

If anyone takes the time to read it and assumes I'm all about sticking it to the man, and venting my self-righteous anger on J random dudes wearing MAGA hats, save it. I'm a pretty well paid white upper middle class straight married white man in my early 60's with a pretty good 401k and a not-bad household income and net worth.

I AM THE FUCKING MAN.

I will not be coming after anybody. It's not worth my time to hassle MAGA dudes, as long as they don't hassle me. I have better things to do. Wear your damn hat, I don't give a shit.

The people who are going to be in folks' faces are going to be much, much, much angrier than me. Much.

They're going to me in *my* face. And I will, frankly, have it coming, because I occupy a position of no little privilege.

So if you have a beef with what the author is saying, don't be bringing it to me. I'm too busy trying to make my own peace with the fucking mess we're making of the world, and of our country. I live here too, I own my own piece of this crap, and I'm obliged to answer for it. I got not time to appease your need to feel better about it all.

You cannot piss on the social and political institutions that create an open and tolerant society, and expect the benefits and protections that such a society affords.

You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy

You cannot fuck with people and not expect them to respond

You can't be a dick, and assume that others will not be a dick to you.

Get that through your fucking heads, MAGAs. Study it, learn it, tattoo it on your freaking eyelids.

Or it will be tattooed there for you.

And I will not be the one doing it, so don't give me any shit about it. I have no interest in denying you a fucking beer, I have no interest in you at all. I'm too busy trying to thread my own needle through this fucking calamity.

Enjoy your tax break.

the US version of "The Left"

The "US version of The Left" is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.

If you want to go way, way, way out to the fringe, you're talking Noam Chomsky.

Even Angela freaking Merkel is a lefty compared to the US left. Macron is a lefty compared to the US left.

By any international or historical standard, THERE IS NO AMERICAN LEFT. For good or ill.

Thanks for the link, Russell. Good stuff.

You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy

Those with "cantaloupe calves" will never forget, nor forgive. Never. Why the fuck should they?

Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.

In all fairness...not exactly. Ike was very very uncomfortable with "civil rights" and certainly was not big fan of the New Deal, and really, "massive retaliation?" LOL, lefty NOT....but he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. So there you go.

But yes, I would say there is no effective mass based "American Left", unlike that brief period prior to WWI (Gene Debs, which see). Maybe it's time we had one.

The current version of the "Green Party" is showing how NOT to get there.

Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.

Thanks, CharlesWT. I keep looking for the slot to slip in the dime. Like a 12-stepper, I may be in the grip of a higher power....the olden days.

Regards,

The other thing that works (and you may have to do it first, before starting with the incog window) is to go into the Option, or Settings, etc. and look under Privacy. Delete/clear the cookies -- either just the ones for the Times, or all of them. If you get 3 free views per month, then every after every third one. (Works with the Washington Post, too.)

You cannot argue with what conservatives believe because they believe in fairy tales.

Yes, good piece russell. That about sums it up. McKinney's drive-bys are a good example: it's perfectly clear that the right wing does not understand that we have now passed way beyond business as usual (business as usual being that RWNJs do this stuff to liberals, and liberals deplore it).

As has been noted elsewhere, Karl Popper had some thoughts on this seven decades back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant...."

...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Gee. This sounds like something.

Take that, dead horse.

This is not about punishing people for differences of opinion. We are far beyond differences of opinion.

Thank you, Nigel, for that quotation. I will be sure to read Karl Popper further. I'm familiar with his name. It seems that many of us must have learned all of this before.

You know how under the law violence is acceptable in self-defense or the defense of another? Wouldn't that be a pretty good analogy for tolerance?

I will be sure to read Karl Popper further

Not popular with Bob, I suspect.

The "tolerance paradox" was also taken up by Rawls, to some degree in response to Popper.

Rawls is for allowing more tolerance of intolerance, as it were, but also recognizes that at some point things tip.

You cannot undermine the institutions that foster a tolerant society, and also insist that you should receive the benefits and protections of a tolerant society. Not because anybody is "out to get you", but because tolerance is a mutual arrangement.

I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.

From russell's link:

Sometimes, their strategies may be poorly conceived. But there’s an abusive sort of victim-blaming in demanding that progressives single-handedly uphold civility, lest the right become even more uncivil in response.

Well and pithily said. I will keep this handy for various discussions I've been having in real life.

The next bit is interesting too: As long as our rulers wage war on cosmopolitan culture, they shouldn’t feel entitled to its fruits.

First, fuck the word "rulers." SRSLY. But it does crystallize something I've been thinking about since the start of the MAGA hat discussion the other night. My initial reaction had something to do with the difference between some ordinary bloke wearing a hat, and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. When this is all over (if it ever *is* over, and I'm still alive at that point), I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat, whereas if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.

I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat

Likewise.

if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.

I'll be happy with out of government.

But agreed that crimes deserve an accounting.

In other news, Trump's latest Muslim country travel band has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

I'd like to point out that that would likely not have happened had the SCOTUS seat not been held open for Gorsuch.

Obama, a man who was elected to the presidency with solid electoral and popular majorities, was denied the opportunity to appoint Garland to the seat vacated by Scalia.

Trump, a man who achieved that office despite losing the popular vote, and the integrity of whose election remains at this point an open question, was therefore able to appoint Gorsuch.

Denying the will of the people is not sustainable. If you think the person, policies, statements, and actions of Donald J Trump and his crew are representative of the majority of the people in the US, you should expect to be surprised on a regular basis going forward.

I liked this:

I don’t blame staff members at the Virginia restaurant, the Red Hen, for not wanting to help Sanders unwind after a hard week of lying to the public about mass child abuse. Particularly when Sanders’s own administration is fighting to let private businesses discriminate against gay people, who, unlike mendacious press secretaries, are a protected class under many civil rights laws.

The idea of mendacious press secretaries as a protected class is absurdly amusing.

Yup, that Michelle Goldberg NYT piece is good, I don't disagree with a word of it. Perhaps the McKinneys of this world will finally understand what's going on, or they won't. The outcome will be what it will be, for better or for worse, whether they do or not. Personally, I'm just hoping that a civil war can be averted.

Sometimes, their strategies may be poorly conceived. But there’s an abusive sort of victim-blaming in demanding that progressives single-handedly uphold civility, lest the right become even more uncivil in response.

Murc's law: only Democrats have agency.

Worst goddarn court since civil war

I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.

I'm willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that. Specifically for their culture overall; not about their particular biases and prejudices per se.

Personally, I think that the reality is more "ignored" than "disrespected." But I think that's where they are coming from, at least in their own minds.

I should add that the culture in question here is no "white, wealth, privileged" so much as "small town / rural."

"So much for politely addressing someone."

Yes, so goes reporting from the magazine whose founder defended the racial segregation of the racist [email protected] Southern Democrats and Goldwater's condemnation of Civil Rights legislation, not to mention harboring racist writers on their payroll until virtually last week.

That Buckley was not gunned down in the street for his contribution to the ruination of black lives in this country over a couple of generations at the very least should be counted as a miraculous blessing by his fellow travelers.

But it's not. It's just more reason for the current lot of racists and homophobes and immigrant slanderers to think they are going to make it through what is coming alive.

Waters is pushing back against a hell of a lot more than mp, Sanders and company have any cause for victimhood.

Got a question, MCTX. When you secured your visas to Costa Rica and the other Central American countries, did the leaders of those countries take time out to call you a rapist and a criminal?

I'm willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that.

My understanding is that the typical Trump supporter, statistically speaking, is a white dentist with a boat and a golf club membership.

The folks you are talking about here are, again as I understand it, the marginal Trump voters. The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but switched in 2016.

I think they have good cause to feel that their interests have been ignored. And not just, or even primarily, by "the left", such as it is.

I'll add that, for any practical purpose, there is not a whole lot of daylight between "ignored" and "disrespected".

Trump promised those folks the moon. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.

Trump promised those folks the moon. I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.

Quite. But it will take something like closing factories due to trade war to get past the information bubbles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/europe/javier-solana-us-visa.html

It's come to this. The former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US. Apparently because he traveled to Iran (he was involved in negotiating the treaty).

Note that it's not just travelling to Iran, since I work with a European who has travelled to Iran on business. He got some hassle getting a visa, but "on business" was sufficient . . . eventually.

I will be sure to read Karl Popper further

Not popular with Bob, I suspect.

Bob might get a little green about the gills regarding The Open Society, but Popper had some good stuff, esp. wrt scientific inquiry.

I also see from the Wikki that he advocated the inclusion of socialists in the Mt. Perin Society. My kind of guy!

former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US...

Strictly speaking, his ESTA application was rejected - he may well yet be granted a visa.

The comments to this entry are closed.