Is it right for an officeholder to use the legal machinery to target opponents? This is a serious question, and the pundits are right to suggest that what we now call “lawfare” establishes a dangerous precedent. However, you don’t have to like Mr. Trump to believe that in his case, at least, the question has been misframed.
In view of the “No Kings” disturbances, I had better begin this post by making clear that I was not thinking of Mr. Trump when I wrote it. It has no more to do with him than with Mr. Biden, or any other recent president, or, for that matter, any recent president’s handlers.
Let’s get on with it.
Isn’t it ironic that encouraging people to deny their own biological sex is called “affirming their gender”?
Isn’t it ironic that surgically mutilating them, hormonally wrecking them, and encouraging them in their delusion is called “care?”
Isn’t it ironic that abortion, which prevents reproduction, is called a “reproductive right”?
I’ve read your recent post Is Taxation Theft? When It Is and When It Isn’t (Monday, 09-08-2025). You suggest that although the government has its own proper work, this doesn’t include redistribution.
If you don't mind, is it coherent for there to be such a thing as an "unwanted desire"? Or would that be an oxymoron? Someone might say that to desire not to desire P means nothing more than not desiring P -- but that seems wrong.
I am delighted to announce that my new book Pandemic of Lunacy: How to Think Clearly When Everyone Around You Seems Crazy is now available for pre-order from Creed & Culture.
