Had a few thoughts about whether we should stoop to the right's level and engage in personal attacks, or take the high road and stick to a policy message. And the answer is yes.

Yesterday I bothered to look it up, and apparently the conference pear is named for the National British Pear Conference of 1885 where it won first prize. OK, but. I haven't heard of this conference ever happening again (no Wikipedia article for the event itself), and there aren't any better pears as far as I know, so is it possible humanity achieved a fairly satisfactory pear 140 years ago and then lost interest?

Again the BBC demonstrate that by their criteria, criticising established power is bias, but sucking up to it is impartial, since sucking up to established power is normal and natural and a completely morally neutral thing to do. Exercising journalistic power against the more powerful is right out: a resign or be fired offence. It's *taking sides*, you see. Wielding a journalistic platform carelessly against those without power is, again, normal and natural therefore impartial.

What i find frustrating about people sucked into the right wing populist hate vortex is there's something so obviously missing. Why can't they see it? Is it missing in them too? The whole vibe is negative. No positivity, no vision for improvement. Despite slogans about making things great again, there's no proposal to even make them better. No plan to train and hire enough doctors, nurses and teachers, build enough houses, run enough trains. It's all stopping, cutting, banning, deporting.