As Trump seems determined to move the Dakota Access Pipeline forward, the controversy about this project is bound to reignite. I used to be agnostic on the merits of the claims made by the opponents of the project until after it was halted, but then I started doing some research about it and found that almost everything they said was demonstrably false. This article on Facebook is the best thing I have found on that issue.
Robert Parry just published a great article in which he takes stock of Obama’s record on foreign policy. It seems to me that, unlike so many people on both sides of the aisle, he gets things exactly right. I think Obama was a pretty bad President, but it’s really striking to me that, of all the things he got wrong, he is almost systematically criticized for the few things he got right, especially on foreign policy. The fact is that, although he was never willing to strongly oppose Washington’s foreign policy establishment, he at least dragged his feet on many occasions when they wanted him to do something crazy.
You may have heard people say things like “studies have shown that, by increasing racial/gender diversity in a group of people who work together, we also increase the efficiency of that group”. Well, like 90% of sentences that start with “studies have shown that”, it’s false. Alice Eagly explains why in this quick review of the literature.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a good article on whether the rural voters in Wisconsin who voted for Trump en masse in 2016 will swing back in 2018 and, beyond that, in 2020. My personal view, which I will probably defend in details at some point, is that the uneducated whites who voted for Trump are unlikely to swing back and vote Democrats.
Meanwhile, the New York Magazine published this piece about the Women’s March, which is exactly the kind of things which makes me think that American liberals still haven’t understood why Clinton lost and that the uneducated whites who voted for Trump in droves aren’t coming back any time soon.