What episode offers you “spice that ramps up the palate, carried forward by the full body, hearty proof, and mouth-coating texture”? This edition of the Three Whisky Happy Hour, if the latest reviews of our choices in the Whisky Advocate are any indication. Alas, we remain unable to resolve our “peat-versus-sweet” single malt debate. In any case, we know the magazine is just a shill for Big Whisky, and we have some suggestions for a better periodical title.
Speaking of periodicals, Lucretia and I take aim at a lugubrious article in The New Republic (a former magazine) that reveals what’s really behind the left’s need to attack the 1776 Commission report, and by implication bolster the 1619 Project’s wrecking crew. As listeners know, the 1619 Project caught a lot of flack from major “mainstream” liberal historians like Sean Wilentz and Gordon Wood, so what does the left need to do? Destroy liberal historians. That’s what William Hogeland attempts in “Against the Consensus Approach to History.”
As we go through the bad motivation and telling omissions from the article, we pivot to a new short course of sorts that we’re calling “Jaffa 101,” as Harry Jaffa had the number of leftists like Hogeland decades ago. We barely got started in this philosophy-mining project before our whisky glasses ran dry, so we’ll continue with more next week.
Take in your lucubrations here, or down the road at that other saloon. And for a special challenge, go to your favorite podcast source and write a review in the style of The Whisky Advocate.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.