Andrew Sullivan Recommends How to Beat Trump in 2024

In my view, Joe Biden is out energy and out of ideas. He should not run in 2024. I would also abhor another blow-hard narcissistic sunder-headed, divisive Trump run at the presidency.

Biden's recent marathon press conference is why he should not run. Andrew Sullivan has commented at length on what is ailing Joe Biden and the Democrats in an article titled: How Biden Lost The Plot: Listening to interest groups and activists is no way to get re-elected.

Here's an excerpt:

Here’s what hurts Trump. Biden doing sensible deals with Manchin and Sinema on tangible areas of agreement, instead of castigating and alienating them. Insisting that our election system is, in fact, solid and legitimate. Celebrating the re-opening of schools. Firing the heads of the CDC and FDA, after their appalling performance during Covid. And imagine if Biden had given a tub-thumping speech last week not on why it’s still 1964 in America, but on why he is appalled by the soaring murder rates in many cities, especially in poor and minority neighborhoods, and opposes the catastrophic soft-on-crime policies Democrat DAs are promoting around the country. Go visit the NYPD with Mayor Adams. Work with Romney on childcare assistance. Head to San Francisco to support Mayor Breed’s attempt to rein in anarchy. Now that would hurt Trump.

Biden also seems incapable of grappling with the cultural leftism — from critical race theory to the replacement of biological sex with subjective gender — that is increasingly defining the Democrats as a party. He’s just absent, distant, irrelevant on these issues, even as they have shown to be deeply unpopular and deeply divisive. Has he said anything about education and the rights of parents, a burgeoning issue for many suburban voters? Not that I’ve noticed. Meanwhile his party becomes more and more associated with the teachers’ unions, whose refusal to teach children in person for two years is now legendary.

His capitulation to the cultural left — from federal funds for abortion to “equity” across the federal government — is puzzling. I can’t believe that Biden really thinks that deliberate discrimination in favor of some races but not others is an American value, but that is what he is doing everywhere he has authority. I doubt he believes that the United States remains in its essence a slavocracy, whose true origin was 1619 and not 1776, and that this should be taught as fact in high schools across the country. But he will not say a word against the poisonous canard that helped deliver Virginia to the GOP. I doubt he thinks there is no biological difference between men and women — but that’s what his policies on trans issues reflect. Has he ever used the term “Latinx” in private? Again I doubt it, but he mouths that linguistic absurdity in public speeches.

His silence on all these things offers a chance for a future pivot, of course, to remind us that he was once Barack Obama’s vice president, and not merely Ibram Kendi’s tool. But he’s as cowed by these fanatics as the rest of his party. And I doubt he hears a smidgen of criticism of wokeness from his advisers. I mean he appointed Susan Rice to impose it on the entire federal workforce. All he hears, I suspect, is that opponents of wokeness are just racist, transphobic bigots.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan Recommends How to Beat Trump in 2024

NYT Offers a Real Conversation about Transgender Medical Treatments

Andrew Sullivan points out that the NYT has finally decided to have a mature reasoned discussion about transgender medical treatments. Hopefully, reasoned discussion involving pro's and con's and real evidence will be the new narrative on this topic, now that Abigail Shrier has been treated like a piñata for two years for the crime of doing what the NYT is finally now doing.

An excerpt from this NYT article:

The new standards state that clinicians should facilitate an “open exploration” of gender with adolescents and their families, without pushing them in one direction or another. But the guidelines recommend restricting the use of medications and surgeries, partly because of their medical risks.

Puberty blockers, for example, can impede bone development, though evidence so far suggests it resumes once puberty is initiated. And if taken in the early phase of puberty, blockers and hormones lead to fertility loss. Patients and their families should be counseled about these risks, the standards say, and if preserving fertility is a priority, drugs should be delayed until a more advanced stage of puberty.

[Added Jan 14]

Andrew Sullivan:

"Here’s the truth that the NYT was finally forced to acknowledge: “Clinicians are divided” over the role of mental health counseling before making irreversible changes to a child’s body. Among those who are urging more counseling and caution for kids are ground-breaking transgender surgeons. This very public divide was first aired by Abigail Shrier a few months ago on Bari’s Substack, of course, where a trans pioneer in sex-change surgery opined: “It is my considered opinion that due to some of the … I’ll call it just ‘sloppy,’ sloppy healthcare work, that we’re going to have more young adults who will regret having gone through this process.” Oof.

The NYT piece also concedes another key fact: that puberty blockers are neither harmless nor totally reversible . . .

I would think that, just as a general rule, minors making permanent, life-changing decisions should receive more psychological treatment than adults. How on earth is this not the default? In what other field of medicine do patients diagnose themselves, and that alone is justification for dramatic, irreversible medication?"

Continue ReadingNYT Offers a Real Conversation about Transgender Medical Treatments

John McWhorter: Beware “Anti-Racism” Programs that do not Diminish Racism

John McWhorter urges all of us to do real work instead following the suggestions of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi to lower standards, which has the effect of infantilizing those who have fallen behind. Just because someone calls a program "anti-racism" does not mean that it actually helps to eliminate racism.

The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity. McWhorter is one of the many dedicated people serving on the FAIR Board of Advisors.

Continue ReadingJohn McWhorter: Beware “Anti-Racism” Programs that do not Diminish Racism

The Woking Class

I know this sounds overbroad and over-ambitious, but I would like to know what the loudest members of the Woke have ever done in their lives to alleviate suffering of others. I know people who actually pour their life energies into helping desperate people survive. I don't see any such benefit resulting from Woke ideology. I see a lot of young people with lots of energy and frustration. How many of these idealistic people have ever worked a job where they need to fix something physical? How many have ever worked a job where they served a customer well? Yet they claim that they know how to burn down our entire political/economic system without any meaningful blueprint of what happens next.

Is that why so many of them spend so much time digitally grooming themselves on social media? And, BTW, the people who have spent a lot of time providing valuable goods and services to others are working class Americans who do seek community with other Americans, who value a hard day's work and who have been abandoned by the modern Democratic Party.

Glenn Greenwald:

If your only sense of purpose, self-esteem and political identity comes from how you posture online, then you will of course want to create a framework in which one's character and values are determined by everything *except* what you do with your life. That's online leftism.

Consider the recent work of Batya Ungar-Sargon:

We are hiding a class divide in America," she said. "We are hiding disgusting levels of income inequality in America. We are hiding the total dispossession of the working class of all races by focusing on a very highly specialized academic language about race.

Continue ReadingThe Woking Class

Richard Dawkins: Race is on a Spectrum, Sex is “Pretty Damn Binary.”

Richard Dawkins answers the "dangerous" question he asked in April 2021, the question that caused him to be disowned by the American Humanist Association. The title to his article at Areo: "Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty Damn Binary."

Were race not a spectrum, Rachel Dolezal’s critics should have spotted that she wasn’t “really” black, simply by taking one look at her. It’s precisely because black Americans are a spectrum that it wasn’t obvious. With negligible exceptions, on the other hand, you can unwaveringly identify a person’s sex at a glance, especially if they remove their clothes. Sex is pretty damn binary.

If I chose to identify as a hippopotamus, you would rightly say I was being ridiculous. The claim is too facetiously at variance with reality. It’s marginally more ridiculous than the Church’s Aristotelian casuistry in identifying the “substance” of blood with wine and body with bread, while the “accidentals” safely remain an alcoholic beverage and a wafer. Not at all ridiculous, however, was James Morris’s choice to identify as a woman and his gruelling and costly transition to Jan Morris. Her explanation, in Conundrum, of how she always felt like a woman trapped in a man’s body is eloquent and moving. It rings agonizingly true and earns our deep sympathy. We rightly address her with feminine pronouns, and treat her as a woman in social interactions. We should do the same with others in her situation, honest and decent people who have wrestled all their lives with the distressing condition known as gender dysphoria.

Sex transition is an arduous revolution—physiological, anatomical, social, personal and familial—not to be undertaken lightly. I doubt that Jan Morris would have had much time for a man who simply flings on a frock and announces, “I am now a woman.” For Dr Morris, it was a ten-year odyssey. Prolonged hormone treatment, drastic surgery, readjustment of social conventions and personal relationships—those who take this plunge earn our deep respect for that very reason. And why is it so onerous and drastic, courageously worthy of such respect? Precisely because sex is so damn binary! Changing sex is a big deal. Changing the race by which you identify is a doddle in comparison, precisely because race is already a continuous spectrum, rendered so by widespread intermarriage over many generations.

Continue ReadingRichard Dawkins: Race is on a Spectrum, Sex is “Pretty Damn Binary.”