Based on the latest info I could find, here's why what happened on Jan. 6th was worse than we thought.

It was coordinated. This was not merely a crowd of protestors accidentally incited to storm the Capitol by the intemperance of the President & other speakers at the rally.

The New York Times article about SlateStarCodex is finally out and it is...bad. There's a lot I could parse, but let me just walk you through one paragraph that is so misleading as to be

Take the first sentence of this paragraph. Now, technically the clause--"who proposed a link between race and IQ"--could simply modify "Murray" and have nothing to do w/ SSC.

But 99% of readers are going to assume that the clause actually defines SSC's alignment with Murray. In other words, the author is strongly implying that SSC shares Murray's racist beliefs.

And that would be big(!)...if it were at all true. It is not. Indeed, if you go to the hyperlink, you'll find that SSC's purported "alignment" has nothing to do with Murray's "Bell Curve."

What SSC & Murray agree about is that poverty is partly hereditable and thus very sticky, so much so that the proposition job retraining programs will meaningfully address mass economic disruption is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Having spent 2020 telling covid denalists that they were overly optimistic about the pandemic, I now look forward to spending 2021 telling covid maximalists that they are overly pessimistic about the end of the pandemic.

Telling a denialist in May that we shouldn't open bars back up = telling a maximalist in February that we should open schools back up.

Look, folks, the math is straightforward. ~13% of Americans have been vaccinated as of this

And the 7 day average continues to rise; we're approach 2 million vaccine doses per day. Meaning that we'll double that ~13% much faster than the two months it took us to get there.

So it's entirely reasonable that absent any other intervention, we should expect to hit ~30% vaccinated by the end of March.

If a critical mass of people on twitter generate enough Section 230 hot takes, all that energy fuses to create renewed interest in the #FairnessDoctrine.

I wrote a book on the FD so let me walk you through why reviving it would be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea.

First, the Fairness Doctrine was responsible for the most successful episode of government censorship of the past half century. While the Fairness Doctrine was technically created to encourage fair and balanced coverage of “controversial issues of public importance"...

...in the 1960s the Kennedy administration weaponized it to punish conservative radio critics. You see, fairness is in the eye of the beholder--which is the FCC--and the person who appoints the commissioners--the president--gets a say in what looks fair or foul.

(JFK also launched targeted IRS audits of his right-wing radio antagonists; the power to tax is the power to destroy, after all.) Stations responded to the secretly government-organized pressure by dropping conservative broadcasters in order to avoid Fairness Doctrine complaints.

And lest you think this Fairness Doctrine stuff is just conservative bellyaching, bear in mind that the Nixon administration used the threat of Fairness Doctrine enforcement to help bring television network heads to heel.

I wrote a book about the Fairness Doctrine and how it was responsible for one of the worst episodes of government censorship in US history.

So I am somewhat alarmed at the calls percolating on Twitter for a new, internet Fairness Doctrine. This is a thread about why that is.

Let's start with what most people think when they hear "Fairness Doctrine." They imagine a time at an indeterminate point in the past when mass media was reasonable, balanced, equitable, and fair. It was a veritable golden age of mass media and the Fairness Doctrine was to thank.

Back then, radio & tv stations couldn't just air their opinions, spreading unchecked misinformation. No, they had to let the other side of any given issue have a say, giving the good guys a chance to check the bad guys when they told bald lies.

However, the problem with this narrative is that it is almost entirely a myth. In actuality, the Fairness Doctrine was a tool wielded by political interests in order to suppress dissident speech & prevent activists (from both Left & Right) from exposing the lies of the powerful.

But telling that story requires going back before the first major test of the Fairness Doctrine in 1963, before the rules were created in 1949, all the way back to the first meaningful attempt at federal regulation of radio in 1927.

Here's 100 confirmed conspiracies from the last 75 years. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Purpose: To indicate why we have a RIGHT to be skeptical and critical to our governments, corporations and other large institutions.

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).

I am bemused by those who demand that we repay the UK government’s debt. It makes me wonder, do they know what it is? And how do they think it can be repaid? And do they appreciate the consequences? A thread is coming on......bear with me, because I think you need to know this.

First, what is the UK government’s debt? I’ve immersed myself in this issue and can confidently say the Office for National Statistics’s figures are wrong, most especially because they claim that the UK government is in debt by owing money to itself. That’s not possible.

Whatever the Office for National Statistics like to claim, money you owe yourself is not debt, and so quantitative easing cancels about £800 billion of UK national debt right now. There are other mistakes in their numbers, but I’ll just stick with this one for the moment.

So, if the ONS claim the national debt is around £2.1 trillion at present, it isn’t. Allowing for the UK government owning around £800 billion of its own debt the figure reduces to maybe £1.3 trillion, give or take a bit. But that, I hasten to add, is not the end of the story.

It’s important to understand that the ONS includes some things few would think of as debt in their figures. For example, around £200 billion (£0.2 trillion) of National Savings balances are included in the national debt. Whoever knew Premium Bond holders were such a burden?

Talking with Georgie about the horrible crime committed against Brittany Higgins.

I hope Brittany finds some justice, somehow.

Here's the thing: nothing that matters will change.

A thread:

Two side notes:
* Content warning for trauma and sexual assault
* I initially drafted this and was going to delete it because it's too cynical and very bleak, but it's also the truth and Georgie asked me to be brave and post it.

A Royal Commission has changed nothing.
Paris Street's revelation about St Kevin's changed nothing.
Grace Tame's bravery has changed nothing.
The Pell case has changed nothing.
The Wilson case has changed nothing.
The Redress Scheme has changed nothing.

Georgie burning two careers to jail a serial child rapist has changed nothing.
The National Apology has changed nothing.
The hundreds, if not thousands, of people who report sexual assaults each year have changed nothing.

Because the rules don't apply to the people at the top.

If you're at the top, it doesn't really matter if you're a politician, a political staffer, a journalist, a senior police officer, an ADF officer, a bishop, a business tycoon, or anything else.
If you're in the club, you're in the club.

Keir Starmer giving his most important speech yet-laying out his vision for the future.

“The Conservatives say they want to build back. But I don’t want to go back. You can’t return to business as usual. And certainly not back to an economy rooted in insecurity and inequality.”

"The foundations of our society have been weakened over a decade...even before the pandemic life expectancy had stalled for the first time in a century. Child poverty had shot up to over 4 million. A child growing up in a deprived areas of the North East can expect to live for.."

"...five fewer years than a deprived child brought up in a deprived area of London. What sort of legacy is that for a party which has been in govt for a decade? That life itself got cheaper. And shorter."

"During the last year my thoughts have returned time and time again to the wartime generation. Those who suffered the horrors of WW2, who rebuilt Britain from the rubble of the Blitz, created the NHS and built millions of homes fit for heroes. And I contrast that...

"...to those exposed to Covid in underfunded care homes, unable to say goodbye to families and to loved ones. How can the PM look those families in the eye and say 'we did everything we could'? When the truth is the Tories failed to fix social care for a decade?"