If you haven’t yet seen it, check out this New York Times editorial by Harvard Professor of Psychology, Steven Pinker. It is an analysis of (perhaps) why Chief Justice Roberts bungled the inaugural swearing-in.
The Assistant Village Idiot has a rather strange rebuttal. The author seems to believe Pinker’s editorial was a political commentary. Well, it is, but Pinker is concerned about the politics of language (something he’s worried about for a long time, as anyone who has read his books knows), not Supreme Court politics. The writer continues:
Pinker seems unable to restrain himself from injecting his political opinions into his discussions of language and thought. I wonder what that means?
One might ask the same question right back.