The Left’s Alternate Facts


Alex Caro has an essay over at Real Clear Science that deals with how postmodernism on the Left can wind up being anti-science.

When it comes to science, the left has time and again attacked the view that science can make strong truth claims. Science, in this view, is merely one way of knowing among many, making the conclusions of science open to challenge by those who reject its methods and norms, even if they have little understanding of what it is they are criticizing. After all, these norms are arbitrarily ‘constructed’ by those with power and thus must be deconstructed by the oppressed (i.e., the children of wealthy elites attending expensive Western liberal arts schools).

Thus, activists are free to oppose the use of GMOs and vaccines—using precaution as a justification for perpetual inaction—even when these technologies demonstrably increase the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

OTOH, they are also free to pick which Science they want to see as settled. A hundred years ago, Progressives were all for eugenics. This became somewhat less popular after certain events in Europe during the ’30s and ’40s. Now, it’s GMOs and vaccines and climate and gender.

Read the whole thing.

Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine


Politico has a post up about how some bureaucrats and former bureaucrats are upset with Congress reviewing and repealing regulations under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. Toward the end of the post it has a quote from one of the regulators that shows his upside-down view of the constitution.

“I believe there’s a good chance that, in a legal challenge, that a court will overturn Congress’ actions here as an unconstitutional usurpation of the executive branch’s powers,” he said.

Uh, no. The ability of the bureaucrats to regulate does not generally flow from the President’s powers under Article II. It’s is generally derived from Congress delegating it’s Article I powers to the Executive Branch. What Congress can delegate, it can take back.

An Immigrant Writes About Immigration


Sarah Hoyt is a legal immigrant from Portugal and has an essay comparing immigration to marriage over at According to Hoyt.

It is the right of everyone who is already an American and whose futures will essentially be “married” to those of the new immigrants to ask “how will your contribution or lack thereof affect my descendants/the descendants of the people I care about?”

This is neither racism, nor discrimination, but self-preservation.  Anyone who says otherwise is trying to push you into a forced marriage.

Read the whole thing.