Defense of Truth

 [Image connected to Daily Mail article here ] Everyone has seen the clip from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in which NY Republican Rep Elise Stefanik deftly corners three prestigious university presidents into revealing their ambivalence toward not just garden-variety antisemitic rhetoric, but to genocidally antisemitic rhetoric.  It's an instant classic in which smart and powerful folks feel so trapped by the easy moral "yes" they could have unequivocally offered on a question of whether calls for genocide constitute bullying or harassment that the only escape hatch they see under the light of scrutiny is "it depends on context ".  As if calling for genocide is somehow not inherently a call to violence. Harvard President Claudine Gay's testimony is not technically inaccurate that Harvard's recently revised anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies and procedures don't operationalize a way to address even strong speech callin

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her

  I generally love Star Talk.  I don't have tiktok because I limit my social media, but Facebook's creepy spy algorithm knows I'm interested in the sciences, astrophysics especially, and enjoy deepening my understanding of the vastness and marvels of God's creation by watching educational documentaries every now and then.  It's a genuine interest, but it also partially stems from a barely conscious need I have for a counterbalance to the constant stream of subjective, often barely coherent arguments to which I am constantly exposed in the literary, political, moral, and ideological realms in which my ideas almost constantly swim in my professional environment. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of my favorites.  He offers keen insights in his field, often with pedagogical panache, attention to current events, and doesn't just know how to make a point, but how to ground it in the history of ideas so that its impact has context.  He delivers epic smackdowns on flat-earthe