Numerous catalytic converters are being stolen in my neighborhood in the City of St. Louis. This note is from a recent meeting of my neighborhood association: "The number one crime continues to be the stealing of catalytic converters from people’s cars. These types of crimes are hard to investigate since they happen very quickly." The attached surveillance video below that it only takes 1 minute to steal a catalytic converter.
One of my neighbors was very upset to find hers stolen a couple weeks ago. To replace the converter on her Honda Element would have been in excess of $3,000, and this was more than the value of her car. How much do the thieves get for damaging or destroying your car? "Although the amount of metal in a single catcon is relatively small, a thief could expect to get from $50 to $100 out of a single poaching." This can ruin a car for many people and this is happening during the pandemic, when many people are already severely stressed.
It's a sad day when it is no longer acceptable to publicly ask the same good faith questions that any reasonable person would (and should) ask in private when fascinating new data becomes available on the topic of LGBT. Glenn Greenwald explains exactly why he was interested new Gallop Polling data. The backlash against him for asking his common-sense questions is baffling. Greenwald introduces his video:
To explore the dynamics of this strain of mob conduct, address some of the good faith criticisms from yesterday, examine the substantive questions I believe are raised by this new polling data, and emphasize what I did and did not say about these questions yesterday, I recorded the video below, roughly 40 minutes in length.
But the right, for all its chest-beating about the value of entertaining dangerous notions, is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory. It wants to eradicate them from public institutions. “
Fallacy Number One occurs in Goldberg's first three words. Goldberg knows full well CRT's critics include a large diverse group of people that includes conservatives and moderates, but that is not all. Opponents of CRT also include enormous numbers of people who consider themselves to be liberal on numerous issues. These many liberals fiercely oppose the CRT centerpiece: "fighting racism" by simplistically classifying people by color. Goldberg and her favorite type of social justice warriors seem not to understand basic psychology and U.S. history. Classifying people by color is so incredibly off-the-mark, inefficient, hurtful and nationally dysfunctional that the U.S. fought an entire Civil War to end it, enacted a comprehensive set of civil rights laws to prosecute it and designated a National Holiday in honor of Martin Luther King in order to move forward with functional and kind-hearted ways to judge each other: by evaluating each others' content of character. The idea of moving past skin color as a way to judge each other was originally a liberal idea and this are now embraced by people across the entire political spectrum.
Fallacy Number Two. Goldbert states that "the right . . . is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory," citing to Christopher Rufo's statement: "“Critical race theory is a grave threat to the American way of life.” Goldberg's claim is that critics of Critical Race Theory refuse to debate this issue. She makes this claim despite the fact that Rufo has been vigorously debating CRT on Twitter for the past year. Further,
Rufo has also presented his views in the Wall Street Journal. But perhaps Goldberg was referring to another prominent critic of Critical Race Theory, Glenn Loury? If so,
Or is Michelle Goldberg forgetting another (liberal) critic of CRT, John McWhorter who has shown that Ibram Kendi is incapable of honestly acknowledging McWhorter's precisely articulated critiques of Critical Race Theory?
If this is the kind of debate Goldberg seeks, bring on John McWhorter v. Ibram Kendi!
Goldberg is making her claim about the supposed refusal to debate while CRT's other rock star, Robin DiAngelo is busy grabbing exorbitant speaking fees for private events only. DiAngelo has avoided any and all debates regarding her defective and destructive ideas. In 2019, her speaking fees were $10,000-15,000. And see here. How do I know that she has refused to debate her ideas in a public forum? I invite you to run the following Google search: "robin diangelo debate." You will not find any evidence that DiAngelo has ever subjected her ideas to public real-time scrutiny.
Spotted this 2018 video today, and things have been getting worse ever since, especially sense-making institutions: colleges, government agencies and, most recently, Silicon Valley:
The Perseverance Mars Landing was such an incredible feel good moment. Now we have access to several camera angles so we can see how it really looked. It's so good to be reminded that there are so many intelligent highly focused scientists and engineers out there who can inspire us with their painstaking work.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
