1)
Follow the pen.

At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate…

Thread:
I'm thinking about Tim Keller's influence.

There is the curious fact that Keller is well-regarded among the culture elite (or at least has not suffered the sort of vilification one might expect given his influence). How can we explain this?

Looking at Prodigal God and other writings, you see that his approach to urban ministry is deeply political in a way that appeals to Democrat-heavy cities. It involves two moves:

1) equalizing sins: elevating the sin of hypocrisy, "moralism," and "religion" (the sins of "conservatives") and equating these with the sins tolerated among liberal (e.g., homosexuality)
&
2) emphasizing "self-righteousness" as a sort of chief sin (the sin of "red states").

Keller effectively downplays the sins that liberals tolerate while elevating the sins of their political enemies, the red state conservatives.

But the greatest appeal to liberals is that critiquing the "self-righteous" vilifies political action, particularly the action of social conservatives (e.g., anti-gay marriage). And the equalization of sins eases concerns over changes in social policy (e.g., gay marriage).

Ever since 9/11, we've been instructed that tiny minorities of extremists are solely responsible for their reprehensible actions. There was no greater sin than blaming law-abiding people who share some of their beliefs.

That's how we got the "lone wolf terrorist" cliche. A great herd of lone wolves swept across the world, each completely isolated from anything but the most direct support for their heinous deeds. "Tiny minorities of extremists" were blamed for "hijacking" the beliefs of millions.

The Western world did backflips to completely firewall the actions of terrorists from the larger bodies of people they claimed to represent. We hired a legion of consultants to show us exactly where the line between extremism and legitimate belief was drawn.

We wouldn't even name the adversaries of civilization. We declared a "global war" on their methods, to avoid criticizing their beliefs. The Obama administration launched a huge, expensive "Countering Violent Extremism" initiative that pointedly treated extremism as generic.

The greatest of pains were taken to draw very sharp and bright lines between violent extremism and even the most provocative and incendiary acts of legitimate speech and political organization. This was true of the race riots in the Obama years, as well as terrorism.

CAPITOL RIOT QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKER PELOSI: There is no group in America more interested in the safety and security of the Capitol than members of Congress. To that end, members have asked @SpeakerPelosi to answer these basic questions:

1/ What was your role in authorizing or denying National Guard support before and after Jan. 6?

2/ Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and James Comer R-Ky., on Feb. 15 asked you five pointed questions about your role in Jan. 6 and your preservation and compliance with document requests. Will you answer them?

3/ After the 2011 shooting of now-former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., what changed with regard to security?

4/ After the shooting of Republican House Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., were any changes made to security?

THREAD: British people are so thick that they will watch the government make exactly the same mistake for a fourth time, and carry on cheering. Ok, yes, you're being lied to in the press. But the opposite of "opening up as quickly" is not "lockdown forever". Here's why: 1/

In fact, opening up as quickly as we can will lead to more lockdowns, and worse restrictions over the course of the next year. Or to put it another way an extra week of lockdown now saves us from an extra month of lockdown in the Summer or Autumn.

How does that work? Right 2/

now the number of infections is declining quite fast. But the number of cases is still quite high. If they are still quite high (or even medium) when we lift restrictions this will lead very quickly to a massive spike in cases, and then we will have to lock down again, 3/

probably for a long time.

Sounds familiar doesn't it. It's exactly what we did in November through to now. First we went into lockdown, then we released it too early (at the beginning of December). As a result, cases spiked. By the end of December there was an enormous wave 4/

of infection, which killed tens of thousands of people. In the first weeks of January the government put in the current lockdown restrictions. They didn't really have a choice: about 80% of the British public supported restrictions. But here's the thing: after six weeks of 5/

A thread on... where we are as Americans.

Since I was a kid, I've been a 'news junkie'. Read both local newspapers every day, all the newsmagazines, and watched every local & national newscast. I even wrote & voiced a national financial news broadcast for several years.

1/

Even after I left broadcasting, I continued to consume all the news within reach. Religiously watching all the Sunday shows, writing letters to the editor, and plowing into Social Media- when it first started! I even watched all the late-nite comics for their witty snark.

2/

Now, for the first time in my life, I don't. I keep up with events, and still read voraciously, but I just can't watch or read the majority of the corporate news. Because most of it ISN'T news anymore, but a sad self-parody akin to the 1976 Movie 'Network'.

3/

Paddy Chayefsky wrote a scathing satire of a news network so consumed with ratings that it eschewed journalistic ethics in favor of sensationalism and pushing narrow corporate and political interests. That sadly, is no longer parody.

4/

The line between 'hard news' and opinion was erased at most outlets long ago. We no longer talk of 'objectivity' or hearing both sides'. People refer to most (formerly) 'hard news' outlets by their ideological slant, and the agenda they push.

5/