Mugabe should read the Wall Street Journal

According to the AP, Robert Mugabe's party in Zimbabwe isn't about to bow to outside pressure. "They can't impose anything on us," they brag. Meantime, it is estimated that by early 2009, almost half the population will need food aid.

And where, pray tell, is that food going to come from? Perhaps from the people who produce a surplus beyond the food needs of their own people, many of them white. Such people are likely to get a little tired of being asked to save a people whose government denounces them incessantly for, pretty much, being white.

It's also going to become more difficult not to notice the obvious feedback loop facing anyone attempting to solve the food crisis in Zimbabwe. The reason the government is to keen in staying in power is that it is enormously profitable. There aren't a great many of them at the top, but they can extort money from anyone with hard currency who wants to help the people. This river of cash is what allows them to stay in power, oppress the people, destroy agriculture, and create the need for continued food assistance.

It's interesting to note the deep silence on Zimbabwe in the "progressive" press, compared with their concern over Darfur. In the Eugene Weekly, the acknowledged voice of the hard left in Eugene, Oregon, a Google search turns up more than 200 references to Darfur, and seven to "Mugabe," of which six refer to a local band.

It's not hard to understand their quandary. A couple of decades ago, the EW was probably full of approving comments about Robert Mugabe, a black leader, steeped in the tradition of Marxism, leading a government whose leaders called one another "comrade," and devoted to redistributing wealth so that landless blacks could get the prime farms "stolen" from them by the colonialists.

Now that the redistribution of wealth has run afoul of the related destruction of wealth, Mugabe has turned out to be a ruthless dictator, and the black-run governments of subsaharan Africa to be generally spineless, this is not a story that plays well. The Left seems to want America to jump into the mess in Darfur, with no clear idea how this is going to improve things. But not Zimbabwe, where the obvious question is going to be, why did we force Ian Smith to turn everything over to Mugabe?

Do we speak English or that one?

It appears the John McCain has angered some people by his use of "that one" during the debate. To quote from an article on the subject:

Don Hammonds of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also took offence.

"Regardless of intent, it showed Senator McCain to be culturally ignorant, and completely unaware of the implications of what his off-the-cuff statement meant to people of colour," he wrote.

"Whether Senator McCain meant it that way or not, if you are a person of colour, and someone trots out the 'that one' remark, you instantly take it as racist. I know that I did."

OK, I'll bite. What are the implications to a person of color? These are two extremely common English words. I had never heard of them having racial overtones. "That?" "One?" Put together as "That one?"

It wasn't perfect style. The contrast should have been "Him and me," or "That one and this one," but instead he said first, "That one" and later "me." But apparently this transcends rhetorical style and reflects, somehow, on McCain's psyche.

In fact, it says nothing about him at all. It says much more about the people who have taken offense. McCain was indeed trying to show that Obama was the "risky" candidate but not because he is black. He's the Democrat. McCain would have tried the same tactic on Hillary. It's simply politics.

The word "racist" springs immediately to the lips of many people with holier-than-thou attitudes towards anyone they consider to be less sensitive. The effect has been to trivialize the word, and by extension the reality of racism. Kathleen Parker, who wrote in the Washington Post that, "McCain supporters have tried to explain what he meant, but there's a reason it was so stunning in the moment. I'm don't think it was racist, as some have argued. But it was objectifying. "That one" isn't the same as "that man." One is an object; the other is a person. A human being. 'That one' has a dehumanizing effect and one is right to recoil."

He used a freaking pronoun. What exactly does "objectifying" mean? A "dehumanizing effect?"

Obama wants the big one. Many people don't want him to get it, and would think so if he were defined by his 50% whiteness rather than his 50% blackness. They are not obliged to give him special treatment. I rather think Obama knew this going in, although his supporters don't. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

In an election year, it's cut taxes and spend

The Senate has decided to upstage the House with its own version of the bailout, which is going to include tax breaks. So much for the notion that the crisis was going to impose a new fiscal discipline on America.

Granted the "tax cut" is a fix to the alternative minimum tax which was flawed when it was written because it wasn't indexed to inflation. Nevertheless, it adds more to the estimates of the federal deficit. For the moment, the feds have managed to create so much anxiety that everybody wants their debt, but if that ever changes, the U.S. government is just going to be a large scale version of Lehman Brothers.

Out here on the Oregon Coast, our little local governments have to keep expenses within revenues. Probably the same in Alaska. Maybe Palin has more credentials for running the national government than I've given her credit for.

Just kidding.

EmX doesn't really cost money, cuz its federal

On Sunday, Andy Vobora, a spokesman for the Lane Transit District wrote in the Register-Guard that the cost of new EmX bus station at Gateway was only $2 million and, most importantly, none of it was local money. It was being paid for by the federal government.

It's true in the sense intended, that the local transit budget is not being drained for pay for construction. But, just as all politics is local, so are excise taxes, and the federal dollars provided for mass transit are due to some driver filling up at some gas station. Or more accurately, it's a penny each from 200 million drivers, none of whom is specifically aware of the fact.

The same newspaper editorialized earlier that the impact of RideShare, which is LTD's program to provide public transit services to people who can't ride buses, should not fall on local taxpayers, even though the disabled are Lane County residents. Since the federal government noted the problem and required a solution, the argument goes, they should pay for it.

A reasonable idea on the assumption that the feds have unlimited cash. That seems to be the popular belief. It underlies the notion that we can run a trillion dollar deficit and it won't matter. The LTD money is a little different, since it comes from a designated source, but in fact that source is rapidly running out of cash. The treasury overall is broke and borrowing madly to cover Iraq and Wall Street, stealing the money that Social Security will need in future years for current consumption.

Foreigners are not amused. Which is too bad because we need $2 billion daily from them to stay afloat. The US dollar is in decline, and it has a lot farther to fall.

Impoverishment at the highest levels

It seems that one of the sticking points in our bailout of Wall Street is how much should we pay the bankers who come asking for help. John McCain is on record that bankers who ask for our tax money to get themselves out of their pickle should not expect to earn more than the highest paid person in the federal government. That being the President, who takes in $400,000 per year.

Secretary Paulson has responded that we can't make this work if we include "punitive" provisions like this. Punitive? There are no government employees in America, outside of college athletic coaches, earning that much. Are the banks pretending they couldn't get the talent they need? That you can't make ends meet, after years of 7 and 8-figure salaries, if you're reduced for one year to $400,000? Punitive?!

It should be clear now that the people running the financial world are not amazing geniuses. They just had really large sums of other people's money to gamble and, although they often did well, they once too often have done badly. They are probably reasonably bright and some of them may be good technicians, but they are not irreplaceable.

The free market advocates are all keen on Darwinian selection in the corporate world. Let's see it work. Let's see which banks are willing to throw some of their bloated executive salaries out in order to survive. Those that aren't, won't. Sounds good to me.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon ...

Older people will remember when Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois said (or was supposed to have said): "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." We've moved into a new era; when we talk about government disasters, the unit is trillion rather than billion. First the Iraq War, now housing and mortgages.

The figure of 700 billion is now being used for the bailout of Wall Street, but these are always low ball at the outset. It comes on top of $200 billion for Fanny and Freddie, plus 85 further billskis for AIG, plus whatever for Bear Stearns and sundry. Detroit wanted 25 billion, but they now probably realize that such an amount is chump change in the new landscape of public subsidies.

The long term impact on America is going to be horrendous, as people with real economies decide that we are addicted to government spending without taxes and that the dollar will become, if not worthless, then greatly depreciated. This will be unfortunate, as the American economy depends on such people exchanging their own hard currencies for greenbacks still damp from the printing press, at a rate of some $2 billion daily.

In the short term, I can only predict that the Democrats will pile on, asking for more unemployment benefits and other middle-class benefits. Oh, and I think I can safely predict that no politician will suggest the anyone should actually pay for any of this with taxes.

Here's hoping Ike hits New Orleans

People are worried about Ike making landfall somewhere along the Gulf Coast. In general, this would be a bad thing but there's a possible silver lining. It might hit New Orleans and take the city out of its misery. It wouldn't need to be a direct hit, just something close enough to cause another evacuation and perhaps a minor breach of a levee.

It's not that I don't like New Orleans. On the contrary, I've been there, enjoyed myself, and look forward to a city named New Orleans, on essentially the present site, continuing long into the future. But the premises behind all reconstruction conversations I've heard are foolish.

Much of New Orleans lies below the level of the surrounding waters of the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain. Until Katrina, it contained many poor people. Their homes have been devastated and now the theory seems to be that there should be some way in which New Orleans can be rebuilt so as to house a lot of poor people.

Sorry, but building a city below sea level is intrinsically expensive and nobody is going to do it on behalf of poor people. Nor should they. Many more poor people could be given decent housing elsewhere for the cost of doing so in New Orleans, assuming that the package included enough civil engineering to ensure that the new housing would not be flooded like the old.

The lowest portions of New Orleans should never be rebuilt. We should stop thinking of New Orleans in terms of the Florida Everglades and switch to Amsterdam or Venice. This is prime land for development, both residential and commercial, provided that some of it is moved up and surrounded by sturdy walls and the rest excavated to a level that would allow small craft to ply the newly created lakes and waterways.

This wouldn't be cheap, but we're the country that built the Grand Coulee Dam and this is certainly doable. And the result would be fabulously valuable. People will pay tons of money for waterfront, and New Orleans could have oodles of it.

What about the poor people? Well, what about the poor people? Is anyone building their housing today? Will they tomorrow? Let's get real, build subsidized housing somewhere on naturally-occurring dry land, and get over the sentimental attachment. Subsidence happens.

The Real Message about McCain and Palin

I don't normally pay much attention to Andrew Sullivan but his comments on Sarah Palin, coming from a conservative, are on point. It's not whether Sarah Palin actually will ever turn out to have the talent for the job. It's that nobody has any reason to believe she does. We'll skip the fact that there are reasons for a progressive, or just somebody who thinks teen pregnancy is not a desiderata, to be actively skeptical. Even those who think she may pan out must admit that she hasn't proven anything. Yet, the GOP has nominated her to be VP. For no reason except that a large portion of their followers, who vote based on litmus tests rather than ability, love the idea.

Sitting out here in Florence, on the Oregon Coast, I have come to know a number of elected city officials. We have about the same population as Wasilla AK. I like these guys, but I wouldn't nominate any of them to be President of the United States.

And governor of Alaska? That's been for 20 months. When you're an executive, you make decisions and time tells whether they were right. There hasn't been enough time. Alaska has a budget surplus and worries mostly about who to give it away to, although they are not shy about asking the lower 48 to subsidize them. Put simply, there has been nearly nothing about her resume that demonstrates her ability to handle the job she's running for.

So first, it's scary that McCain might croak and she'd replace him. Then it's scary that he might not and this is the sort of considered judgment we can expect from him. Either way, it's Obama '08.

Sarah Palin is not riveting

Writing for Newsweek, Howard Fineman suggests that Sarah Palin's performance tonight will be riveting, because we'll have a complete unknown in a situation where she will sink or swim and nobody knows what to expect.

I know what to expect. She'll be coached that she doesn't need to capture the right wing, which is hers already, so she'll use the opportunity to talk about silly things and make herself more human and appealing. None of this will have any real bearing on her ability to lead the world's largest economy, nor will it truly reflect anything that would be likely to result from her eventually becoming president. Remember the W. ran as a compassionate conservative, only to turn out in reality to be just another frothing-at-the-mouth fascist. Likewise the lovely Sarah, regardless of what sugar-coating she applies to her scanty resume in the speech.

Someone has remarked that Ms Palin is probably the first national candidate ever to know how to dress a moose. I can't speak specifically about moose, but I'll wager that some of the early 19th century candidates knew how to handle a knife to dress game. It was once an important qualification for dealing with life.

She may, however, be the first candidate for national office for whom that ability ranks high on the list of qualifications to hold the office.

Appalachia, the Ozarks, and evidently Alaska

Levi Johnston's mom, commenting on the marriage plans of the children, said that they had planned to get married all along and that the pregnancy was a "bonus."

There are certain attitudes towards life that we have come to identify, fairly or unfairly, with hillbillies. Mrs. Johnston shows that they are alive and well in Alaska. Levi, a fine strapping youth, is not evidently attending high school. His mother says she doesn't know whether he graduated. We deduce that he's not planning on college. Apart from hockey, there's no evidence of an ability to support a wife. Yet he will be trotted out in St. Paul at the convention for everyone to cheer.

The Republicans must be just busting their buttons with pride.

Sarah Palin is the .... Words fail me.

It seems that Sarah Palin's problems are all due to the liberal media. Reminds me of the line, that no girl ever got pregnant from reading a book. It seems to me that Bristol Palin didn't get pregnant from watching CNN. However, more relevantly, she may have got pregnant because in the Palin family nobody talks about how to avoid pregnancy and in schools in Alaska, if it happens, it happens against the opposition of Sarah Palin and her ilk.

I wasn't going to get involved. I was just going to write in Paris Hilton and let it go. It seemed like I could handle either candidate and with neither candidate saying anything I particularly liked with respect to war, this was going to be one that I could sit out.

Not anymore. Sarah Palin opposes everything I believe, which is that the world needs to be managed on the basis of evidence. She's George W. Bush without the deep intellect. There aren't a lot of people that I would not be happy to take over the White House after W. but given the decent statistical prospect that if we elect McCain, it will be her in less than four years, I find her frightening. What are we frightened of, the right wing asks querulously. You wouldn't understand, I reply. I'm sending a check to Obama.

Betrayal in Zimbabwe

The Voice of America reports that supporters of Mugabe's opposition in the spring elections now fear they will be betrayed in the negotiation process.

Of course, they will be betrayed. These are "negotiations" with Robert Mugabe, who only sits at the table because he waged war on his people in order to steal the election results. The people behind him need to keep control in order to continue to steal the small amount of hard currency that the economy generates. It's a small amount compared with the 12 million or so citizens (hard to say who lives there since so many have fled), but it's enough to keep a handful of powerful and ruthless men living in great personal wealth. Negotiations with them mean sharing this crime. It certainly doesn't mean bringing to Zimbabwe a government that will be sensitive to their needs and will try to restore the economy.

There is no government bureaucracy to speak of in Zimbabwe, just a kleptocracy. This will not change as a result of negotiations that include ZANU-PF.

The Edwards Affair

It appears that Senator John Edwards had an affair a couple years ago. I see three lessons from this.

One is that powerful men attract good looking women and, when temptation presents itself, are generally unable to resist. Our political system would be much better if we simply acknowledged this fact and left it between husband and wife to sort out in whatever manner they prefer. The Edwardses seems to have done so, and it's not clear why it's anyone else's business.

Two is that men will always lie (or at a minimum, prevaricate) when first confronted, hoping that the evidence will turn out to be insufficient. This means that when a man denies having had an affair, it is not newsworthy and should not be reported. If he confesses, that's unusual enough to merit attention, but denial definitely falls in the "dog bites man" category.

Third is that those who most strongly denounce the moral turpitude of philanderers are fully as likely as the rest of the crowd to be doing so already, or to do so in the future. John Edwards is just one more example. There should be a similar rule to that above. When a politician decries the immorality of another, it is meaningless and should be ignored by the press.

Of course, none of this is going to happen. Men will be caught in sex "scandals," which in mature societies would simply be ignored, and the press will hound them. They will deny everything. Eventually they will be unable to wriggle free and they will issue some mea culpa. Other prominent men will pontificate, although they are probably banging their secretaries. It's boring, really.

Ivins, Anthrax, and Guarding Tess

Everybody remembers the resourceful Secret Service agent Doug Chesnic shooting the weasly chauffeur in Guarding Tess, thereby forcing him to reveal the location where Tess was being held? It all worked out fine, but remember what the chauffeur had said a few minutes earlier? I don't remember the exact words, but the gist was, "I know how this works. You people have to pin this on somebody and that person doesn't have to be guilty."

In the movie, of course, it worked out marvelously because he was guilty. But if he hadn't been? Then agent Chesnic of the federal government would have left him unable to walk without a limp for the rest of his life. He was already in a hospital, so I'm assuming he wouldn't have died.

The real FBI is much more cautious. I doubt that any agent would risk his career to go outside policy in the defense of a third party. But it's reason to wonder, as you think about the suicide of Dr. Bruce Ivins in connection with the anthrax letters case. Not having found the guilty party in such a high profile crime was obviously a stain on the agency's reputation. Six years on and they didn't have an indictment. This guy looked like their best hope.

So they searched his place twice, his computer once, and kept him constantly under surveillance by obvious agents for a year. Let's suppose for a minute that he was everything he said he was. A faithful government employee, a church-going Christian, active in his community, devoted to science. And the FBI spends half a decade putting his existence under an unrelenting microscope. Some of us might crack.

Years ago, I had a much higher opinion of government and this line of reasoning would have seemed outrageous, but after six years, if you haven't got an indictment you have a weak case. Nevertheless, the FBI has its desired outcome. They can reveal that they were close to an indictment, which is a couple of steps from a conviction but sufficient for the popular imagination. They wanted him dead. He's dead. They didn't actually have to shoot him. Pretty neat.

There's no such thing as a free war

The Bush administration is now suggesting privately that the next fiscal year's budget will be at $490 billion. This is in the Neverland world in which the war in Iraq, which has been going on since 2003, is not a regular expense item. Add another $80 billion for that.

Then add another $180 billion of so for the Social Security surplus, which is going to be needed in another few years. If we're going to maintain that the SS Trust Fund exists, then its money is not also the general fund's. The general fund must be running a deficit of more like $750 billion. According to Wikipedia, "earmarks" are also off budget and run around $50 billion a year more.

$490 billion may be optimistic, since the administration probably expects a shallow recession, which may not be the case. I wonder how much the $490 billion depends on cheaper oil than we are now experiencing. The U.S. government is a huge consumer of petroleum products.

All of this, however, is very little compared with the rate at which the government is incurring actuarial liabilities for future retirees. It also assumes that foreigners will continue to lend America the money to fund its twin deficits while experiencing a declining greenback and low interest rates.

But why worry. It's summer. Everything's going to be just fine.

Too Big to Fail: Fannie, Freddie, Iran

If we had waited on Iraq and today faced the problem we did five years ago, I doubt we would invade. We wouldn't risk their oil production. With Iran today, it's even more important to the US economy that Iran keep pumping oil. This morning, oil prices are headed back up just because Iran didn't say nice things about their nuclear program. I'm not sure who expected them to, but oil traders get nervous just because of the perceived threat.

I'm firmly of the opinion that Iran realizes that its greatest asset is the appearance of wanting nuclear weapons. Actually having them would be futile. It would be suicidal to use them pre-emptively, probably unrealistic to expect them to be deployed if the US decided to take them out, and runs the risk of an Israeli attack. Actually, if they were known to possess them, that is probably the certainty of an Israeli attack.

On the contrary, the appearance is of great benefit. It keeps tensions high and adds to the price of their primary product. Knowing that they can't actually attack without ruining their own economies, the Western powers are offering more economic incentive to a country that is wallowing in cash already. I see no benefit to Iran in resolving the crisis, so I expect it to continue for a long time.

Too much of Fannie and Freddie debt is held outside the U.S. by people whose credit we will continue to need. The people who sold overpriced houses will keep the proceeds. The people who bought them will keep their houses. People who prudently avoided the bubble will pay for it with taxes. The music goes round and round.

Jackson, Sharpton, and the word "nigger."

When I was very young, my mother explained to me that a rhyming game I was playing, which involved the use of the word "nigger," was inappropriate (she probably used different language) and I should never use that word. So I haven't since, except within quotation marks.

There are several things that are very irritating about the current "controversy." One is that Jesse Jackson, who preaches the public avoidance of the word, uses it in semi-public. He wasn't being broadcast, but he was in a newsroom.

Next, that anyone pays attention to what Al Sharpton says about it. It's akin to listening to what Jamie Lynn Spears says about her motherhood. It irks me that such people get publicity.

Finally, that people don't know the purpose of putting a word in quotation marks. At that point, you are talking about the word as a component of English. You should be able to talk about essentially any word that way, although since there are few legitimate reasons to use George Carlin's famous seven words except to shock and offend, I can legitimately see how they should be kept out of most writing and conversation.

But the word "nigger" is completely different. It clearly does not shock and offend Black Americans, because it is used casually. We are supposed to believe that they are shocked and offended when white people use the phrase, ever, for which reason we are not allowed to put it in quotation marks. We are obliged to refer to the "N-word" as a transparent euphemism.

When some words are so offensive to certain people that they never hear them spoken and prefer that, it's legitimate to shield them with a curtain of polite speech. But when a word itself is commonly used, this doesn't apply.

That Jesse Jackson used "niggers" to refer to American blacks doesn't bother me except for the hypocrisy. If Bill O'Reilly had used the same word in the same context, I would have thought it very bad taste. However, if people are going to get upset because in a blog, discussing the word and its political importance at this time, I come right out and skip the euphemism, then it's an indication of a complete misunderstanding of legitimate words in the language.

Out of the Iraq Skillet and into the Afghanistan Fire

Did the Surge work? Right wing commentators seem to think so and to imagine that Obama is now embarrassed at missing this golden opportunity. Think back a year, however, and recall what the Surge was supposed to achieve. We were going to send some more troops to Iraq to create a security situation in which the Iraqis could negotiate a peaceful arrangement among themselves.

A more peaceful situation has resulted, but the negotiations never panned out. Yet the "fragile" peace is looking ever better. Why? Mostly because the politicians want the money that expensive oil can bring them, but they can't publicly abandon positions of supposed principle. I don't think many of them have real principles beyond profit maximization, so this shouldn't be an obstacle to their finding a modus vivendi so we can go home.

But, alas, that's not what the Surge is going to deliver. Obama actually has something of a problem here, because it appears that with the success in Iraq, we are merely freeing more troops to go to Afghanistan. To sound pro-Jingoist, he has allowed himself to say that we should have put our efforts into Afghanistan rather than Iraq because that's where (roughly) Osama Bin Laden is.

But it's hard to say we should have in the past without being stuck saying we should now, and Afghanistan is a genuine quagmire. In Iraq, the terrain is mostly flat with little vegetation and our military can prevent the build up of any significant fighting force. Not so in Afghanistan, as we are increasingly seeing. We want the Paks to jump in. Not damned likely. They know this region and they are not fools.

It's interesting that we have so much more European support for our objectives in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Maybe it's some vast Machiavellian plot through which the United States bankrupts itself and the Euro becomes the international reserve currency. It seems to be working.

Obama, tne New Yorker, and Satire

I just read a commentary in the Sun-Times about New Yorker's cover controversy. The point of the article is that "of course it's satire." One of the public commenters noted that anyone with a fifth-grade education would realize that it's satire.

Unfortunately, this race will be decided, in the end, by the opinions of the booboisie. There may be few voters who don't actually have a fifth grade eduction, but if you include those who, as adults, have no mental acuity greater than that of a well schooled fifth-grader, then you haven't sat around in a greasy spoon cafe and listened to the banter.

Presumably the readers of the New Yorker recognize that much of what is said about Obama, and everything about his Muslim connection, is nonsense, but this is certainly not true of the electorate as a whole and some people will see confirmation in that cover. I'll certainly defend their First Amendment right to publish as they see fit, but it's also my right to say that it was tasteless and showed bad judgment.

Sandra Harding -- can anything more be said?

After my last post about Obama and the Denver convention, it followed a tortuous path through cyberspace and wound up at the Wikipedia article on Sandra Harding, a feminist theorist. The article ended with the following controversial statement by Ms Harding:

One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method. Traditional historians and philosophers have said that these metaphors are irrelevant to the real meanings and referents of scientific concepts held by those who used them and by the public for whom they wrote. But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton's mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphyiscs the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics"?

This is a woman who has spent a lifetime in academia, writing books, holding important posts, evidently generating widespread if not universal respect. I ask you to consider what any freshman, at any university in America, would be told if they wrote something like this in a paper and turned it in to a professor? An "F" certainly, and perhaps a request to enroll somewhere else. But Ms Harding is in fact Sandra Harding, PhD. That means she must be taken seriously.

Wikipedia, with its usual deference to objectivity, commented:

This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

I gave it some thought, but in the end, if this is an accurate quotation, what is left to say? Apart from editorializing, as I am doing here, I don't know what could be added that would not dignify an absurdity.