I've done many programs over the last 2 weeks about the push for and dangers of a New War on Terror & how to stop it: talked to @briebriejoy, @virgiltexas, @OwenJones, @RaniaKhalek, @megynkelly.
Here's my segment on it last night with
Much of what Dems will do will be in alliance with people like Liz Cheney, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney. It's not how it works:
Those factions play with each other "within the 40 yard lines":
https://t.co/qfeOqG7UAB
https://t.co/a8dO01oj0M
A trans-national coaliton in defense of civil liberties can stop the Schiff/Liz-Cheney push for a New Domestic War on Terror.
https://t.co/47Me8VpUky
In all of New York and California, a single protester showed up at the state capital to protest. So terrifying. pic.twitter.com/cwiQRx2dqF
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) January 20, 2021
https://t.co/j2egMbv27E
More from Government
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?