I thought that this series might be COMMON SENSE from a right , or libertarian perspective, and written by Bari. However, Nellie might just as well take a FOX news transcript and publish it. Sorry, cancel my subscription now. Bowles might as well as Steve Bannon for his opinions and put them in print. You lost me with this column Bari.
I have recently been educating myself about this confusing topic. I imagine most Common Sense readers are familiar with Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage”. If not, please consider reading it. To my understanding the ACLU is hard at work trying to get this fine book banned. In response I purchased 5 copies and have been lending them out to my friends currently raising young children. I also recommend “Trans” by Helen Joyce. If you are a parent, grandparent, athletic coach, etc. please educate yourself on this topic. Both books offer a well written, compassionate, extremely well researched look at all of the dangers surrounding the use of the synthetic hormones now being injected into the bodies of young children in alarming and increasing numbers. I find this current trend to be nothing short of terrifying. My daughter is 11 years old. She attends a Catholic parish elementary school in one of the most “woke “ cities in the country. So far, the staff and parents have managed to keep this confusing and divisive gender ideology curriculum out of our school. But, I’m very nervous that it will creep in. My guard is up! In the meantime, my friends’ children at the public school are coming home very confused! Apparently the third grade class spend time EVERY SINGLE morning discussing sexual orientation and pronoun use. My friend’s 8 year old son is now super stressed out because he thinks he might be “asexual “. My friend told him not to worry, as being asexual at the age of 8 is perfectly normal. In the meantime, she’s searching for a new school. This nonsense has absolutely got to stop. Requiring 8 year olds to talk about their sexual orientation as part of the school curriculum? Give me a break, it’s absolutely absurd.
We didn't come here to listen to Nellie Bowles. She's the one who slandered Heterodox Intellectuals and the Intellectual Dark Web as a cesspool of white supremacists. She was the original cancel culture warrior. Bari Weiss is reasonable but her wife is NOT.
"Parents are tyrants. Let the radical NeoMarxists have their way with children." is one of many hills leftists will die on.
"How about bringing back nuclear power?" The number one obstacle to nuclear energy is females, who are, statistically speaking far more terrified of it than any partisan difference on the matter. This is what happens when women dominate all areas of academia except Physics/Chemistry/Math.
You write: "To the small but meaningful movement of the ethnonationalist right, Russia is the last great white, Christian nation with solid gender-norms and 19th-century race relations. If your vision of owning the libs means embracing authoritarian regimes that hate America and its people, you’ve lost the plot."
Those words demonstrate your genuine cluelessness. They are offensive, they are unsupported and unsupportable, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Do you wake up in the morning with hate in your heart? Honest to god, you are an insane person, no doubt living on one of the coasts as out of tuen with America as any human of recent memory.
“When it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression”: Antony Blinken
“The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence. But let’s also recognize the unique nature of the sanctions that we have outlined.”: Kamala Harris
“no one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening.”: Joe Biden
I'm sure Putin would never call You a racist or even threaten to fire you for disagreeing with him, but You might actually have a little accident, like falling out of a window or getting run over by a car if You disagree with him too much, let's say as much as You disagree with Joe Biden. So, for Your own good, stay in the US, where You can enjoy Your fool's freedom.
Having said that. Yes, Putin is a despicable politician and a authoritarian despot, I get that, but it's still not a good idea to corner the old bear in the way the west has been doing since the days the Cold War should have ended, since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think any other Russian leader than Putin would have basically the same objections against bringing NATO right up to the Russian border and would strive to stop that. No other Russian leader would have given up the Crimean with the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet without a fight, just like the US has its Monroe Doctrine thus rather go to war than accepting any hostile foreign troops in what the US considers its backyard, which includes the entire American Continent. The last time someone tried that our world ended up on the brink of an all out nuclear war.
Yes, Putin has overreacted vastly, but the whole conflict should have been ended long ago, by acknowledging the annexation of the Crimea after a peaceful referendum and negotiating with the breakaway regions in Ukraine's east about a status everybody can live with. And of course do not have Ukraine join NATO, that means accepting that Russia can have a "Monroe Doctrine" of its own.
The war now underway was not provoked by America, NATO, Ukraine or anybody besides V. Putin. The idea that he has legitimate grievances is ridiculous. What he's mad about is that so many countries and peoples, e.g. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, escaped the suffocating embrace of the Russian imperium. Putin wants to recreate that imperium. Taking measures to make sure that will never happen, e.g. expanding NATO, was not some terrible act of aggression against Russia. Sure, Putin claims otherwise, but that's just propaganda. He knows that NATO doesn't threaten Russian national security. Anyhow, why should a despotic thug like him have any say at all in the composition of NATO?
So please, let's stop pretending that Putin was provoked into this act of aggression. It was his free choice, and his stated reasons for making that choice are all lies.
I believe You would be amongst the first calling for an immediate intervention by the US military if, let's say Cuba, would exercise its right to choose what alliance to seek and invite, let's say China, to build a military base or two on its northern coast. The last time something like this was tried was back in 1961, if I remember it right, and the US was willing to start a nuclear war over that. One can only hope that Putin turns out to be less determined to prevent military bases of a hostile entity that close to home than Kennedy was in 1961. Because then we are right at the brink of a nuclear war.
Well, there are no NATO bases on Ukrainian territory, are there? Anyhow, if V. Putin’s worried about a NATO “threat” he’s chosen a funny way to deal with it because his invasion of Ukraine has caused NATO to deploy more military forces to its front-line member states. So if we take your explanation of his actions at face value, then Putin is a fool.
But we’d be foolish to take Putin’s stated reasons for invading Ukraine at face value. He’s not fearful of NATO aggression. That’s a lie carried over from the Cold War, when the USSR made the same false claim. Putin is attempting to recreate the defunct Russian imperium. And that pattern of aggression is bound to galvanize opposition. So Putin’s actually responsible for the “threat” he complains about. But you seem determined to find excuses for what he’s doing. Why is that?
I'm just trying to fill You in on the context of everything.
But at least there is some good news now, that just broke a few minutes ago. The office of the Ukrainian president announced that Ukraine agreed to peace talks with Russia now on the border between Ukraine and Belarus. Let's hope this can bring an end to this war.
Woah Nellie... that opening couple of paragraphs was about as poorly-thought-out as it gets. Nice cherry-picking of Tucker Carlson, by the way, to make him sound like a lunatic when he's done nothing but condemn Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Everything after that was much better.
That was more like the person who willfully took Jordan Peterson out of context to paint him as some kind of dangerous alt-right loon instead of the person we've come to know here who's been more fair-minded. I guess it really is difficult to break old prejudices though, and I know Carlson really gets under some people's skin.
How about when she writes that she is more likely to trust Matt Taibbi for apologizing, and praising NYTimes for their stellar coverage of the Freedom Convoy. I try and read her tgifs with an open mind, but every single word oozes of prejudice. At this rate I will soon unsubscribe.
Well, you do what you feel is best for you, but I would caution you, because the purpose of this site, as I see it, is to provide a variety of voices, and that of course will mean coming up against people with whom you disagree.
Leaving because you disagree instead of continuing to engage is how we've gotten into the trouble we're currently facing as a culture. No one is willing to enter into honest discourse anymore. No one wants to hear contrary ideas. When you allow yourself to be siloed, you're only hurting yourself in the end.
I'm a fairly liberal guy, maybe a bit of a contrarian liberal, definitely more moderate, and I see I lot of other moderates here and a lot of conservatives, too. The one thing we seem to share, because we definitely don't agree on everything, is a willingness to read and listen, even when we disagree.
I think Nellie makes some good points on some issues, and I think she is wrong on some issues. I'll voice my opinion on both, and then I'll go about my day and not let it affect my own disposition. That's the way these things should go. That so many people allow disagreement and agreement to affect them in any kind of meaningful way in their actual lives is just absolutely ridiculous, and again, a big reason as to why our culture seems so broken right now.
Well said Matthew, and I did think about that, am I just looking for voices I agree with? I think it may be Nellie’s writing that I find so disingenuous. I find her lacking a depth of knowledge that I found from other writers on this Substack and others. Or perhaps I am expecting too much, this substack is a series of opinion pieces, and journalism sometimes gets lost.
On February 23, just one day before Putin launched his all-out invasion in Ukraine, a country that he does not believe has the right to exist, a protest by “anti-war” organizations such as Code Pink, ANSWER Coalition, and other groups, was held in Washington, D.C.
This protest was against the “war” that the US was supposedly ready to unleash to protect Ukraine and it was also meant as a counterweight to a protest by Ukrainians in the US.
Do you get it? The war-mongers are the US and NATO. The “anti-war” protesters are hard at work to make sure that Putin gets to start his war and massacre the relatives of the group of Ukrainian protesters without any disturbance or interference from the evil US government.
In your American, politically-correct lingo, we have to say that these valiant “anti-war” protesters have “an arguable position” and we have “a different set of values”.
In down-to-earth East European lingo, we would call those people “a bunch of spoiled morons who don’t know their country, don’t understand anything about this world and are probably to stupid to survive in it on their own”.
Holy smokes where do you get the time to write that much that well?
Reminds me of Time magazine at its peak, and they had staff.
I thought that this series might be COMMON SENSE from a right , or libertarian perspective, and written by Bari. However, Nellie might just as well take a FOX news transcript and publish it. Sorry, cancel my subscription now. Bowles might as well as Steve Bannon for his opinions and put them in print. You lost me with this column Bari.
I have recently been educating myself about this confusing topic. I imagine most Common Sense readers are familiar with Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage”. If not, please consider reading it. To my understanding the ACLU is hard at work trying to get this fine book banned. In response I purchased 5 copies and have been lending them out to my friends currently raising young children. I also recommend “Trans” by Helen Joyce. If you are a parent, grandparent, athletic coach, etc. please educate yourself on this topic. Both books offer a well written, compassionate, extremely well researched look at all of the dangers surrounding the use of the synthetic hormones now being injected into the bodies of young children in alarming and increasing numbers. I find this current trend to be nothing short of terrifying. My daughter is 11 years old. She attends a Catholic parish elementary school in one of the most “woke “ cities in the country. So far, the staff and parents have managed to keep this confusing and divisive gender ideology curriculum out of our school. But, I’m very nervous that it will creep in. My guard is up! In the meantime, my friends’ children at the public school are coming home very confused! Apparently the third grade class spend time EVERY SINGLE morning discussing sexual orientation and pronoun use. My friend’s 8 year old son is now super stressed out because he thinks he might be “asexual “. My friend told him not to worry, as being asexual at the age of 8 is perfectly normal. In the meantime, she’s searching for a new school. This nonsense has absolutely got to stop. Requiring 8 year olds to talk about their sexual orientation as part of the school curriculum? Give me a break, it’s absolutely absurd.
We didn't come here to listen to Nellie Bowles. She's the one who slandered Heterodox Intellectuals and the Intellectual Dark Web as a cesspool of white supremacists. She was the original cancel culture warrior. Bari Weiss is reasonable but her wife is NOT.
"Parents are tyrants. Let the radical NeoMarxists have their way with children." is one of many hills leftists will die on.
"How about bringing back nuclear power?" The number one obstacle to nuclear energy is females, who are, statistically speaking far more terrified of it than any partisan difference on the matter. This is what happens when women dominate all areas of academia except Physics/Chemistry/Math.
You write: "To the small but meaningful movement of the ethnonationalist right, Russia is the last great white, Christian nation with solid gender-norms and 19th-century race relations. If your vision of owning the libs means embracing authoritarian regimes that hate America and its people, you’ve lost the plot."
Those words demonstrate your genuine cluelessness. They are offensive, they are unsupported and unsupportable, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Do you wake up in the morning with hate in your heart? Honest to god, you are an insane person, no doubt living on one of the coasts as out of tuen with America as any human of recent memory.
Homeless Industrial Complex. Damn. I thought that was mine.
“When it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression”: Antony Blinken
“The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence. But let’s also recognize the unique nature of the sanctions that we have outlined.”: Kamala Harris
“no one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening.”: Joe Biden
Clown Show
Dear Tucker Carlson,
I'm sure Putin would never call You a racist or even threaten to fire you for disagreeing with him, but You might actually have a little accident, like falling out of a window or getting run over by a car if You disagree with him too much, let's say as much as You disagree with Joe Biden. So, for Your own good, stay in the US, where You can enjoy Your fool's freedom.
Having said that. Yes, Putin is a despicable politician and a authoritarian despot, I get that, but it's still not a good idea to corner the old bear in the way the west has been doing since the days the Cold War should have ended, since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think any other Russian leader than Putin would have basically the same objections against bringing NATO right up to the Russian border and would strive to stop that. No other Russian leader would have given up the Crimean with the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet without a fight, just like the US has its Monroe Doctrine thus rather go to war than accepting any hostile foreign troops in what the US considers its backyard, which includes the entire American Continent. The last time someone tried that our world ended up on the brink of an all out nuclear war.
Yes, Putin has overreacted vastly, but the whole conflict should have been ended long ago, by acknowledging the annexation of the Crimea after a peaceful referendum and negotiating with the breakaway regions in Ukraine's east about a status everybody can live with. And of course do not have Ukraine join NATO, that means accepting that Russia can have a "Monroe Doctrine" of its own.
This is such baloney.
The war now underway was not provoked by America, NATO, Ukraine or anybody besides V. Putin. The idea that he has legitimate grievances is ridiculous. What he's mad about is that so many countries and peoples, e.g. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, escaped the suffocating embrace of the Russian imperium. Putin wants to recreate that imperium. Taking measures to make sure that will never happen, e.g. expanding NATO, was not some terrible act of aggression against Russia. Sure, Putin claims otherwise, but that's just propaganda. He knows that NATO doesn't threaten Russian national security. Anyhow, why should a despotic thug like him have any say at all in the composition of NATO?
So please, let's stop pretending that Putin was provoked into this act of aggression. It was his free choice, and his stated reasons for making that choice are all lies.
I believe You would be amongst the first calling for an immediate intervention by the US military if, let's say Cuba, would exercise its right to choose what alliance to seek and invite, let's say China, to build a military base or two on its northern coast. The last time something like this was tried was back in 1961, if I remember it right, and the US was willing to start a nuclear war over that. One can only hope that Putin turns out to be less determined to prevent military bases of a hostile entity that close to home than Kennedy was in 1961. Because then we are right at the brink of a nuclear war.
Well, there are no NATO bases on Ukrainian territory, are there? Anyhow, if V. Putin’s worried about a NATO “threat” he’s chosen a funny way to deal with it because his invasion of Ukraine has caused NATO to deploy more military forces to its front-line member states. So if we take your explanation of his actions at face value, then Putin is a fool.
But we’d be foolish to take Putin’s stated reasons for invading Ukraine at face value. He’s not fearful of NATO aggression. That’s a lie carried over from the Cold War, when the USSR made the same false claim. Putin is attempting to recreate the defunct Russian imperium. And that pattern of aggression is bound to galvanize opposition. So Putin’s actually responsible for the “threat” he complains about. But you seem determined to find excuses for what he’s doing. Why is that?
I'm just trying to fill You in on the context of everything.
But at least there is some good news now, that just broke a few minutes ago. The office of the Ukrainian president announced that Ukraine agreed to peace talks with Russia now on the border between Ukraine and Belarus. Let's hope this can bring an end to this war.
"Putin wants to recreate that imperium."
He's putting the band back together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_7GC8SDVqA
George Friedman also did a mea culpa. If he was right 100% of the time, I'd be more worried. I guess I won't try and cancel him :).
Excellent roundup of common sense.........many thanks from a Righty.
The minimum age for elective mastectomies and castration should be never.
Woah Nellie... that opening couple of paragraphs was about as poorly-thought-out as it gets. Nice cherry-picking of Tucker Carlson, by the way, to make him sound like a lunatic when he's done nothing but condemn Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Everything after that was much better.
That was more like the person who willfully took Jordan Peterson out of context to paint him as some kind of dangerous alt-right loon instead of the person we've come to know here who's been more fair-minded. I guess it really is difficult to break old prejudices though, and I know Carlson really gets under some people's skin.
How about when she writes that she is more likely to trust Matt Taibbi for apologizing, and praising NYTimes for their stellar coverage of the Freedom Convoy. I try and read her tgifs with an open mind, but every single word oozes of prejudice. At this rate I will soon unsubscribe.
Well, you do what you feel is best for you, but I would caution you, because the purpose of this site, as I see it, is to provide a variety of voices, and that of course will mean coming up against people with whom you disagree.
Leaving because you disagree instead of continuing to engage is how we've gotten into the trouble we're currently facing as a culture. No one is willing to enter into honest discourse anymore. No one wants to hear contrary ideas. When you allow yourself to be siloed, you're only hurting yourself in the end.
I'm a fairly liberal guy, maybe a bit of a contrarian liberal, definitely more moderate, and I see I lot of other moderates here and a lot of conservatives, too. The one thing we seem to share, because we definitely don't agree on everything, is a willingness to read and listen, even when we disagree.
I think Nellie makes some good points on some issues, and I think she is wrong on some issues. I'll voice my opinion on both, and then I'll go about my day and not let it affect my own disposition. That's the way these things should go. That so many people allow disagreement and agreement to affect them in any kind of meaningful way in their actual lives is just absolutely ridiculous, and again, a big reason as to why our culture seems so broken right now.
Well said Matthew, and I did think about that, am I just looking for voices I agree with? I think it may be Nellie’s writing that I find so disingenuous. I find her lacking a depth of knowledge that I found from other writers on this Substack and others. Or perhaps I am expecting too much, this substack is a series of opinion pieces, and journalism sometimes gets lost.
On February 23, just one day before Putin launched his all-out invasion in Ukraine, a country that he does not believe has the right to exist, a protest by “anti-war” organizations such as Code Pink, ANSWER Coalition, and other groups, was held in Washington, D.C.
This protest was against the “war” that the US was supposedly ready to unleash to protect Ukraine and it was also meant as a counterweight to a protest by Ukrainians in the US.
Do you get it? The war-mongers are the US and NATO. The “anti-war” protesters are hard at work to make sure that Putin gets to start his war and massacre the relatives of the group of Ukrainian protesters without any disturbance or interference from the evil US government.
In your American, politically-correct lingo, we have to say that these valiant “anti-war” protesters have “an arguable position” and we have “a different set of values”.
In down-to-earth East European lingo, we would call those people “a bunch of spoiled morons who don’t know their country, don’t understand anything about this world and are probably to stupid to survive in it on their own”.
It’s all semantics.
Most of these comments are too long.
I love this so much every week. It gives me hope that the world is cray - but thoughtful and good people see it, too.