Skip to main content

Three cheers for David Brooks and the New York Times!

Yesterday I had this to say about the Orwellian events at Google, where an engineer was fired for writing a nuanced, carefully documented, and eminently reasonable memo suggesting, among other things,  that while men and women are equally intelligent and that there are individual men and women are every bit as good at just about anything you can think of, science does increasingly conclude that male and female brains are wired differently, that men as a class and women as a class may each tend to have different strengths and weaknesses, and that to some unspecified extent that-not even "rather than" but "as well as-"   discrimination, might explain why there are more men in certain jobs and more women in others.

James Damore also touched on another ideological third rail in his memo. He acknowledged the degree to which his company had become a political and social echo chamber, noted that this has serious consequences for any enterprise in which objectivity was important, and suggested   that political and ideological diversity might be a concern to which Google might do well to address.

As soon as the story hit the wires, the libel and slander against Damore began. The overwhelming majority of the news accounts I've seen misrepresented the memo and claimed that he had questioned the competence of his female colleagues or suggested that there were jobs which women were inherently incapable of doing as well as men simply because they are women. To be sure, there has also been a push-back from the right, accurately characterizing Google's action as an attempt to punish thoughtcrime which offended against leftist ideology but in fact constituted nothing more than a sober acknowledgment of objective reality. But as usual, the smaller and less-influential conservative journalists of the nation have been largely drowned out in a chorus of "progressive" outrage.

Today, however, they got an ally, and in the last place, I would have expected. David Brooks wrote an objective and eminently reasonable op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he defended the memo, accurately described what it said and what it did not say, explained the scientific background of the controversy, suggested that Google CEO Sundar Pichai had mishandled the entire incident and called for his resignation.

I commend the article to you. It's one of the most sensible things I've read on an op-ed page anywhere, let alone in the Times, for a very long time.

It's good to see that there are "progressives" who are able to transcend the demands of an orthodoxy which rejects science and objective reality in order to insist that war is peace and that freedom is slavery.

Yes, "progressive" friends.  One of your own has finally admitted that sometimes you guys do that, too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

A third party President in 2020?

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Searsby, the campaign manager for Evan McMullin last year, at an event for Evan here in Des Moines during the campaign. Here's an interview with Joel by Jon Ward of Yahoo News on the ways in which centrist French President Emmanuel Marcon's out-of-nowhere landslide election last year may serve as an example for the inevitable bid to elect a rational, moderate third party candidate in 2020.

I have a feeling that it will be Evan McMullin again. But names like John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham also keep popping up. Word is that Kasich may challenge President Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, an endeavor in which I'd wish him well but hold out very, very little hope for his success. I sadly expect that my conviction that the Republicans are dead as a vehicle for rationality and the reuniting of our fractured and divided country to be confirmed by the easy renomination of the most unfit and unqualified preside…