John Hanna

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

@rationalyankee The problem is Oswaldo.

Oswaldo came up in 2022 and briefly gave us some good vibes, while the team was struggling.

Though he’s apparently a good guy everyone likes, Oswaldo is in no way a MLB caliber player either as a hitter or fielder. He shouldn’t be on any MLB roster.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

Conventional thinking about same-sex marriage and Obergefell was that it was a permissive, libertarian type decision, allowing what was supposedly "forbidden." That wasn't it at all. No one needs to get "married" in the United States to live any way they want.

What Obergefell actually forbid and declared unconstitutional was granting any unique recognition to the male-female bond. Giving the male-female relationship, with its unique life-giving characteristic, its own name, i.e., marriage, was ruled, “demeaning,” “hurtful,” “imposes stigma and injury,” “deprives dignity,” “diminishes personhood,” and “works a grave and continuing harm to gays and lesbians.”

In order to uphold the "dignity" of same-sex couples, same-sex marriage insists that man-woman and same-sex unions are themselves “the same.”

Despite same-sex marriage’s most earnest efforts to bring about such "inclusion" for all, there remained the highly problematic fact of life that only a man and woman can make a baby. In that regard, the relationships are still decidedly not "the same." Pretending that same-sex couples were medically burdened by "infertility" and merely needing insurance-mandated "treatment" still didn't get us to truly inclusive sameness, freeing us from the "hurtful" (Obergefell's word for marriage laws recognizing sexual difference) limitations of our sexed bodies.

As an extension of the malice attributed to the recognition of the male-female union, male and female themselves are claimed to be oppressive social constructs to be liberated from.

Ultimately, being rid of the sexual binary, reducing everyone to generic humans with replaceable and malleable body parts, with pregnant “men," "women" with penises, menstruators, birthing persons, cervix-havers, etc., is the only way all marriages could be “the same.” And here we are. Given its demands, from its inception, same-sex marriage was a movement of "queering" and deconstruction, devoid of any limiting principle.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

Woke isn't dead. It's not close to dead, but the opposite. What’s different over the past couple of years is a willingness by those opposed to Woke to speak up. But its capture of institutional power across societal structures remains, and might be more firm than ever.

It's a strange and annoying habit of some conservatives to prematurely declare "victory" in response to the slightest hint of movement in their favor, even as that which they oppose maintains a stranglehold on power. This is the exact opposite of leftists, who regard any thing less than the total eradication of any and all opposition as a mortal danger, threatening their existence.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

@Katy_Faust I thought you'd be interested in this, related to the Obergefell Court's wholly emotional and unprincipled decision, detached from principles of sound legal reasoning.

Here's a more lengthy engagement written back in 2015, explaining how the Court's detachment of marriage from the male-female bond's life-giving potential, rooting it instead in supposed "identity," renders marriage meaningless. https://t.co/DysnsWSDrP

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

Antonin Scalia dissenting in Obergefell 11 years ago.

While Obergefell's goal was to achieve a certain outcome - requiring states to recognize same-sex unions as marriage - its reasoning to arrive at its desired result has no limiting principle whatsoever. As Scalia points out, the Court opens its decision by asserting the Constitution requires allowing persons to "define and express their identity." At least with respect to "marriage," this prevents the state from having any definition or limitation, since such could hinder any subjective claim expressing "identity." Not only with respect to marriage, but, according to the Supreme Court's blanket assertion, which it never qualifies in its decision, any limitation or definition the state enacts in law is vulnerable to expressions of identity it might hinder.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that by rejecting the goodness, truth, beauty, and meaning of the union of male and female woven into the fabric of reality (finding granting unique recognition to the joining of man and woman to be"bigoted"), the Supreme Court deconstructed the law itself, reducing it to solipsistic, meaningless nonsense.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

Antonin Scalia dissenting in Obergefell 11 years ago.

While Obergefell's goal was to achieve a certain outcome - requiring states to recognize same-sex unions as marriage - its reasoning to arrive at its desired result has no limiting principle whatsoever. As Scalia points out, the Court opens its decision by asserting the Constitution requires allowing persons to "define and express their identity." At least with respect to "marriage," this prevents the state from having any definition or limitation, since such could hinder any subjective claim expressing "identity." Not only with respect to marriage, but, according to the Supreme Court's blanket assertion, which it never qualifies in its decision, any limitation or definition the state enacts in law is vulnerable to expressions of identity it might hinder.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that by rejecting the goodness, truth, beauty, and meaning of the union of male and female woven into the fabric of reality (finding granting unique recognition to the joining of man and woman to be"bigoted"), the Supreme Court deconstructed the law itself, reducing it to solipsistic, meaningless nonsense.

[The Legalsaur @legalsaur]

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

@AdamWeinrib Thursday 6th inning collapse and loss had maximally negative vibes. Probably because it was Schlittler, especially against Boston, felt like worst loss of the season.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

@JusBrierley @VinesMatthew @DavidACBennett Wrote a few years ago that “inclusion” is the rejection of norms, characterizing them as oppressive and bigoted.
https://t.co/UKHQMf4gCX

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

@wokal_distance @VinesMatthew Wrote a few years ago that “inclusion” is the rejection of norms, characterizing them as oppressive and bigoted.
https://t.co/UKHQMf4gCX

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

You Be You. Not like that! We mean you be the you we demand.

Celebrate Diversity. Not like that! We mean conformity to the diversity we demand.

Celebrate Tolerance. Not like that! We mean intolerance for what isn’t the tolerance we demand.

[Sports Illustrated @SInow]

Three Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on their Pride Night caps during Friday’s game.

MLB has since issued a warning to them.

[Jay Nordlinger @jaynordlinger]

This is the way underlings, official poets, and the like talk in dictatorships. It is unbecoming of an American.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

Neil isn’t claiming there are good pints in CRT itself. He’s pointing something much more modest - that proponents of Critical Theory sometimes propound historical truths, such as, for example, the horrors of slavery. However, he then painstakingly explains why Critical Theory isn’t a good or necessary tool for understanding or dealing with either historical or present injustices.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

“These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.“

Gets me every time.

[Erick Erickson @EWErickson]

One of the greatest speeches of the late 20th century, given on the 40th anniversary of one of the most spectacular days in human history.

[Wesley Yang @wesyang]

What you actually had was a girl brainwashed into going on puberty blockers at 12, testosterone at 13, and having her breasts cut off at 15 in the vain hope that giving herself an endocrine disorder and destroying healthy body parts would turn her into a boy. And what you see here is a former vice presidential candidate trying to entrap more children into doing the same.

[Hussein Aboubakr Mansour @HusseinAboubak]

The genius of Middle Eastern politics is the improbable ability to convert colossal military defeats into political victories. The genius of American politics is the uncanny ability to convert colossal military victories into political defeats.

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

What @meganjohnston22
is claiming is not true in my experience. During 2006-7, I had direct experience with 2 men presenting as women. In neither case, could they at all understand or appreciate why they couldn’t be in women’s spaces. Despite best efforts, they didn’t demonstrate any capacity to relate to how their presence affected women or how they were perceived by every person around them. Since was before the mania of the last 12-15 years, boundaries could be enforced. In the current climate, these men would have their will imposed on everyone in their orbit.

[Steffen H #FBPE #Democracy #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 @steffenhe]

Those NYU students trying to cancel Jonathan Haidt’s graduation address aren’t just misguided—they’re a textbook case of what happens when you outsource political education to TikTok, radical campus dogma, and jihadist apologists.

The result? Peak moral certainty, rock-bottom historical knowledge, and zero tolerance for serious intellectual disagreement.

This is intellectual vandalism dressed up as activism that should not be supported.

Universities that indulge it betray their mission and produce graduates unfit for a free society.

Haidt should speak. The adults in the room need to say no.

[Jamie Bambrick @j_bambrick]

“If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments”
― G.K. Chesterton

[John Hanna @johnfhanna]

A learned man with a sharp mind, making vital distinctions concerning core theological and eternal truths in clear and concise language. It is worthy of consideration in the rarified list of “if you had one book to recommend.”

[Neil Shenvi @NeilShenvi]

I am once against asking people to read Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.