• So Ibram Kendi (whose real name at birth was Ibram Henry Rogers) turns out to be a “transphobe.” Speaking on a Zoom conference before the New York State Association of Independent Schools on the topic of “How To Be An Antiracist School” (for which he was undoubtedly paid a five-figure appearance fee), he let fly with this:
“I think it was last week my daughter came home and said she wanted to be a boy. You know, which was horrifying for my wife to hear — myself to hear. And so, of course, we’re like, ‘OK, what affirmative messages about girlhood, you know, can we be teaching her to protect her from whatever she’s hearing in our home or even outside of our home that would make her want to be a boy?'”
I thought “intersectionality” meant we were all “allies” of everyone else on the identity bandwagon, but then don’t intersections always involve cross-traffic by their nature?
• It’s amazing some times how old comedy can become topical again. Although as we know, a lot of old comedy couldn’t be made today (cough cough—Blazing Saddles—cough cough), and here’s another example from Laugh-In in 1968 worth taking in (with a few seconds of Goldie Hawn thrown in at the end as a bonus):
• This 2:35 long video from our friends at Reason is a nice short tutorial on the doctrine of unintended consequences:
• Everything you always wanted to know about “Aztec cannibalism.”
• Survey finds that half of New York Times employees don’t think they can speak freely. Only half? I’m sure the Times‘s KKK (Kancel Kulture Kommisars) will get to that other half shortly:
About half of New York Times employees said in a recent internal survey that they don’t believe they can speak freely at the paper.
In response to the statement, “There is a free exchange of views in this company; people are not afraid to say what they really think,” only 51% of Times employees responded in the affirmative.
Chaser: The Times‘s own internal media critic, Ben Smith, says the struggle sessions will continue. And adds this:
I think it’s a sign that The Times’s unique position in American news may not be tenable. This intense attention, combined with a thriving digital subscription business that makes the company more beholden to the views of left-leaning subscribers, may yet push it into a narrower and more left-wing political lane as a kind of American version of The Guardian.
The Times becoming The Guardian would be an improvement at this point. (But that’s a low bar even on a relative scale.)