CIA employees are rightly worried about a Trump purge. He’s attacking not only the intelligence community, but intelligence itself. (More)
“Trump won’t like the truth, and he will without question seek to destroy those individuals or organizations that say or do anything that he thinks harm his precious grandiosity”
The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman reports on CIA employees’ fears:
Fears of retaliation rose within US intelligence agencies over a tense weekend that saw Trump publicly dismiss not only the assessment but the basic competence of the intelligence apparatus.
“When the president-elect’s transition team is attempting to discredit the entire intelligence community [IC], it has never been more important for the IC and Congress to guard against possible political pressure or retaliation against intelligence analysts,” Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, told the Guardian.
Senator Wyden wants President Obama to release the evidence of Russian hacking before the Lapdog-elect’s inauguration, lest it be buried forever. And former CIA officer Glenn Carle offers the quote of the day:
“There is not just smoke here. There is a blazing 10-alarm fire, the sirens are wailing, the Russians provided the lighter fluid, and Trump is standing half-burnt and holding a match,” said Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer and interrogator.
“The facts hurt, Trump won’t like the truth, and he will without question seek to destroy those individuals or organizations that say or do anything that he thinks harm his precious grandiosity.”
But the Lapdog-elect isn’t merely attacking the intelligence community. He’s attacking the notion of intelligence itself.
“Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows”
In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Trump said he’s “very open-minded” on whether climate change is underway but has serious concerns about how President Obama’s efforts to cut carbon emissions have undercut America’s global competitiveness.
“I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows,” Trump said. “Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something that’s so hard and fast. I do know this: Other countries are eating our lunch.”
In this Orwellian doublespeak, “open-minded” translates to not convinced by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. That’s the polar opposite of “open-minded.”
But he’s “somebody that gets it.” That is, he defines “intelligent” as “what I believe.”
“We embrace diversity of all kinds except for ideological”
And the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof thinks we need more people like Trump teaching at colleges and universities:
After Donald Trump’s election, some universities echoed with primal howls. Faculty members canceled classes for weeping, terrified students who asked: How could this possibly be happening?
I share apprehensions about President-elect Trump, but I also fear the reaction was evidence of how insular universities have become. When students inhabit liberal bubbles, they’re not learning much about their own country. To be fully educated, students should encounter not only Plato, but also Republicans.
Yes, because those poor Republicans are soooo oppressed:
Bias incidents on both sides have been reported. A student walking near campus was threatened with being lit on fire because she wore a hijab. Other students were accused of being racist for supporting Mr. Trump, according to a campuswide message from Mark Schlissel, the university’s president.
That’s from another Times article last week, but the link is to Vox to spare you the Times’ firewall. In other words, there’s no difference between recognizing that voting for a candidate who explicitly advocates racist policies is itself an act of racism … and threatening to light someone on fire for wearing a hijab.
Facts about the merits of criticism don’t matter. Only the hurt feelings that criticism might cause.
We champion tolerance, except for conservatives and evangelical Christians. We want to be inclusive of people who don’t look like us – so long as they think like us.
Ahh, that old chestnut. Okay, let me put this in a nutshell, because squirrels like things in nutshells: progressives are intolerant of conservatives and evangelical Christians because conservatives and evangelical Christians are intolerant of women, people of color, LGBTs, Muslims, and anyone else they don’t like. And I don’t mean they’re “intolerant” merely in the sense of “I don’t want you as a friend,” but in the sense of denying basic legal rights: the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to make your own health care decisions, the right to practice your religion, the right to protest corporate land-grabs or police misconduct….
No, progressives do not “tolerate” that, nor should we. The lofty ideals of education do not require “open debate” on the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution or man-made climate change, or debunked theories of racial or gender superiority.
The purpose of university education is not solely to spark intellectual exploration. It is also to ground that exploration in Reality as best we understand it. That’s why every dissertation or thesis project begins with a literature review: a comprehensive analysis of published research on the topic. The lit review helps prevent students both from duplicating prior research … and also from wasting time on half-baked ideas that have been disproved.
So no, our campuses do not need a ‘diversity’ that ‘tolerates’ people who treat facts as opinions, opinions as facts, and advocate denying rights to those they deem less worthy and indeed less human …
… and solipsistic arguments that we should – because ‘inclusion’ – are yet another attack on intelligence.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Good day and good nuts