You write that conservatives want to dismantle the administrative state as if that is obviously intrinsically absurd and evil. In fact, the administrative state has been found by the Supreme Court to be substantially unconstitutional, as many scholars have maintained for decades. You need to get outside your bubble, my friend. Speaking of the Constitution, you seem to be advocating criminal penalties for opinions and speech you and your fellow travelers find distasteful or inconvenient. That is a bizarre position in an essay supposedly about preserving liberty.
Much of your rhetoric is self-refuting. If all the federal workforce bloat is so essential, why has our educational system declined so precipitously…declining test scores, loss of proficiency in core skills, declining IQs….in inverse proportion to the number of taxpayer-funded employees overseeing it and the amount of money being spent? It is also embarrassing (and, frankly, insulting to your readers who haven’t their skulls hollowed out by climate change hysteria propaganda) to assert that a single heat wave can be attributed to “pollution.” That’s bad science, pure speculation and confirmation bias. And this: “Most observers agree we have precious little time left to change; others are certain collapse is unavoidable” is the same fact-free fear-mongering we have been hearing all along while climate model after climate model has proven wrong. Are you really so gullible that you believe this stuff, or are you deliberately trying to mislead others? This year in particular the climate change doomsayers have reluctantly conceded that the data, the science and reality doesn’t support their theories. And yet you still wrote this. I remember you as being rational and analytical. What happened to you?
There has been no response from Bobo, and with any luck, I won’t have to deal with him again.
Ethics Alarms 
Horrible writing overlays horrible thinking. And this is an excellent example of the latter.
Sentences the logically undercut themselves: “Put a bookmark in place to visit…”
Pure flab: “amplified unimaginable lies, perpetrated false claims, and exaggerate ludicrous conspiracy theories”
Stock phrases: “dark money moguls,” “ripe for prosecution,” “criminal disinformation is rampant,” etc.
Vagueness and unfalsifiable: “these bad actors,” “far too many Americans,” etc.
Writing meant to sound righteous, not to hold up. Even without bringing up Platner, which puts a pin in all of it, it still doesn’t hold up on even its own terms. But Platner does add some spice to his self-delusion:
“in defiance of the rule of law and the norms of decent, honest behavior”
This is the writing of a huckster. Whether he’s fooling himself too (what other party can make a scoundrel think he’s a saint?) or has some underlying awareness of himself in context (absolutely not in my opinion), you should waste another second with him.So, Harvard can graduate both a Jack Marshall and a Bud Wilson. That proves that the name of the school doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
Let me clarify the last sentence (and forgive the prior typos please): That Harvard can graduate both good thinkers (JM) and bad (BW)… sorry that might not have been clear.
Gee, am I that hyper-sensitive? That’s how I read it: no apology necessary.
There’s plenty of proof of that last conclusion. Harvard depends on the perception that it means something.
Kawaii wrote: “This is the writing of a huckster. Whether he’s fooling himself too (what other party can make a scoundrel think he’s a saint?) or has some underlying awareness of himself in context (absolutely not in my opinion), you should waste another second with him. So, Harvard can graduate both a Jack Marshall and a Bud Wilson. That proves that the name of the school doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
It reminds me of the emotional thinking of my friend I wrote about today in another post who is ultra-Liberal and scold me for certain non-PC terms I use. The curious thing? She went to school in Boulder and lived there for years.
As to “not wasting time” I disagree. The admirable thing about Jack is that he dismantles the erroneous concepts that inform bad conceptions and perceptions. They are rhetorical castles that when exposed as such, collapse. I cannot think of any other way to counter the strange ideas