For Miguel Estrada

JD Vance also thinks Trump should nominate Miguel Estrada.

It’s very unlikely he’s going to nominate a man after what was done to Kavanaugh, of course. But I’m still for Estrada. What was done to him was also absolutely terrible.

6 thoughts on “For Miguel Estrada”

  1. I don’t care what JD Vance thinks, but people I actually care about like the idea too. I hear hype for Rushing as well (idk much about her), and Barrett would be fine. I just hope they don’t spring Lagoa on us. Altogether I don’t have strong views. I don’t have the same political priorities as most of the people who are really into SC nominations (right wingers almost all have abortion as one of their top criteria; yawn) and I don’t know much about most of these people anyway.


    1. I’m opposed to Lagoa, too. I don’t think she has anything interesting to recommend her. This would be a wasted opportunity. Trivial, superficial libertarianism.


  2. I remember you using the Russian concept of intelligentsia in the most positive way, as I’ve been accustomed to perceiving it myself, so the latest Rod’s post really shocked me. What do you think of the below definition of an intelligent and of Rod’s deeming ultra-woke ‘American ‘Intelligents’’?


    An intelligent is defined by three characteristics, says Morson. First, they primarily identify as an intelligent . Second, they are devoted to particular styles and manners (e.g., deliberately poor hygiene, sexual debauchery as an ideological statement). And third:

    “Most important, and of greatest concern, was how intelligents thought. An intelligent signed on to a set of beliefs regarded as totally certain, scientifically proven, and absolutely obligatory for any moral person. A strict intelligent had to subscribe to some ideology—whether populist, Marxist, or anarchist—that was committed to the total destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a utopia that would, at a stroke, eliminate every human ill.”

    Chernyshevsky’s characters hardly engage in ‘sexual debauchery,’ unlike many conservatives Rod himself has written about, so this line of attack at least is dishonest.

    I also perceive Russian intelligents as smarter and more correct in pointing at real problems than today’s American crop of ultra-woke.


    1. The author of this piece has a lot more in common with Ibram Kendi than he thinks. Both are very typically American drama queens.

      The reason why the intelligentsia in the Russian Empire supported the revolution was because tsarism was horrid. The revolution they supported was the February revolution. They wanted democracy and not absolutism. They wanted civilized life. Any decent person at that time would be against tsarism. You would be, too.


      1. // Any decent person at that time would be against tsarism. You would be, too.

        I know. It is a shame and one of the signs of Russian decline that Nicholas II and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. I honestly think he deserved to be burned alive for what he did to Jews alone, without even mentioning entering WW1 and killing around 2 million Russians as a result. And from what I read his wife supported various bad policies of the last tsar.

        Btw, have you seen this Rod’s post about “The Coming Social Credit System”?

        Somebody linked to “Keep It Clean: Social Media Screenings Gain in Popularity” about 70% of employers checking social media “during the hiring process, and about 43% of employers use social media to check on current employees.”

        What kind of frightened me was that not being on social media was not OK either:

        // “The three main platforms that most employers check are LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter,” …
        About half of employers – 47% – said they wouldn’t call a person for an interview if they can’t find them online. More than one-quarter of employers say it’s because they like to gather more information before calling a candidate, and 20% say it’s because they expect candidates to have an online presence.

        “Whether it’s intentional or not, this [not having a profile] always feels like you have something to hide,” said Sims. “Either you’ve specifically taken steps to make sure you can’t be found or you’re using a childish byname – neither of which feels very professional.”

        Professionals shouldn’t ease up on ensuring their online presence is positive once they land a job. The study found that 48% of employers use social networking sites to research current employees. Of those, 34% have found content that caused them to discipline or even fire an employee.

        I do not (want to) have LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram profiles.
        Especially when one would need to treat those profiles as another job and work hard to keep them 100% fake … sorry, ‘clean’ in Newspeak.


        1. I agree completely in Tsar Nicholas and the extremely shameful act of his canonization. The guy was a degenerate. A disgusting, vicious bastard.

          Not only do you need to be on LinkedIn to find a job, your profile needs to be just so. There’s a whole science to it. So yeah, totally LinkedIn for any job that has a future. I’m participating in a month-long “redesign your LinkedIn profile” challenge right now.

          I’ll write a separate post about how it works in academia.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.