Thursday Open Thread

You know what to do.

Comments

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know what to do."

Be polite to each other?

[Don Nico]

That would not hurt!

[Allutz]

I have already consumed 3 tubs of popcorn watching the Pragmatists trying to justify their New Hampshire coup over the elected Mises caucus members. Every leader of the Pragmatist caucus called for Trump to "accept the results" of the election after they nominated perhaps the most embarrassing presidential candidate in LP history in the bumbling Jo Jorgenson who barely cracked 1% when pitted against and angry cheeto and a senile potato.

[David Nieporent]

most embarrassing presidential candidate in LP history in the bumbling Jo Jorgenson

Um, the LP nominated drug warrior Bob Barr in 2008 based on his promise that he had repented. He… hadn't.

They nominated Michael Badnarik in 2004.

[Bill Poser]

I'm wondering whether there aren't federalism issues with Texas' plan to continue building Trump's border wall. The federal government is charged with the national defense, not the states. Furthermore, the federal government now owns much (?) of the land along the border and the Biden administration is presumably not going to grant easements or transfer the land to Texas for this purpose. (There is also the fact that Texas doesn't have access to the military funding that Trump was using, but that isn't a legal issue.)

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was thinking: Isn't this going to run into the exact same problem Arizona did, where the Supremacy clause was interpreted as requiring states to not thwart an executive branch decision to not enforce immigration laws?

Which was really messed up, since it's those laws themselves, not policy contrary to them, that the Clause makes supreme.

Then there are the practical issues you mention. But I suppose there's enough border where the federal government hasn't already obtained ownership or easements, that Texas can build a significant amount of wall.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm not sure. All Texas is really doing is building a wall. And states are well within their power to build a wall.

The Arizona case was different, in that Arizona was attempting to enforce immigration law, and passed laws to allow it.

But just building a wall? Hard to make a federal case that Texas can't build a wall.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Biden DOJ says, "Hold my beer." in 3, 2, 1...

They'll build a wall, but under the terms of the ruling against Arizona, they won't be allowed to prohibit anybody from climbing over it; They'll have a physical barrier whose evasion is compelled to be legal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That depends on whose land it is. If it's state land, they'd be well in their rights to issue a "No trespassing" or "no wall climbing" law. One equally applicable to all people, US citizens and illegal immigrants.

Is the Federal government really going to tell the State of Texas it can't build a wall? Or it can't prevent people from trespassing by climbing a wall?

[swood1000]

That depends on whose land it is. If it’s state land, they’d be well in their rights to issue a “No trespassing” or “no wall climbing” law.

So people get convicted of a misdemeanor (or does Texas make this a felony?). But after they spend their 30 days in jail Texas can’t apply some understanding of the immigration laws that is different from what the Federal government is doing, so they will have the same status as all the other people who crossed the border. Except that they will now have a criminal record, which could impact their status.

Of course it would discourage illegal immigration somewhat, depending on how hard it is to climb over. Maybe they’re going to put razor wire at the top.

[rsteinmetz]

Seems one someone was arrested for trespassing or vandalism or whatever they could simply call up ICE and say "We have a guy (or girl or kid) who doesn't have any ID or address, would you like to take them off our hands?"

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. Once they're arrested for a charge (that any person would be potentially under arrest for), then their immigration status could be looked up.

[JonBlack]

Texas may not be able to enforce immigration law, but they can enforce laws against unauthorized climbing on the state's wall, no? Unauthorized climbing of high walls can result in serious injury and/or death. State should be fine to regulate that behavior.

As long as the five-year prison sentence for unauthorized climbing is applicable to immigrants and citizens alike, they should be all set.

[ducksalad]

A few comments:

1. The land along the Rio Grande is mix of private, state, and federal land. I don't have the exact numbers for miles of river frontage but pretty sure the order is private most, federal second, state least. So the parts the state can build without using eminent domain or getting federal permission are relatively small.

2. If they just build on state land, the "wall" is going to be mostly hole.

3. Any eminent domain would be in state courts where the judges are elected by local border residents. The takings are not even a little bit popular around here...

4. The fact that Abbott wants to fund this off donations tells you how serious he is.

[swood1000]

The takings are not even a little bit popular around here…

How popular is unconstrained illegal immigration?

[ducksalad]

Not many people would vote for "completely unconstrained" but there are many possible choices besides useless wall and unconstrained.

People who live down here understand that randomly taking little bits of land for short segments of wall that are easy to walk around doesn't help anything. The only purpose of the bits-o-wall is to please immigration hardliners who like it more as a way to say "f*** you" rather than for any negligible effect it has on unauthorized entries.

[rsteinmetz]

I wonder how unpopular they really are, especially if the State is willing to pay a fair price for a minimal strip of land. I've also heard some residents along the border are pretty concerned about the illegal activities and criminals on their land. I'm not talking about the immigrants so much as the coyotes.

[ducksalad]

I live in a border county and spend roughly zero minutes a day being "pretty concerned" about illegal immigrants. If I lived directly on the river and they were crossing my property, yes that's different, but that trespassing could be stopped easily and inexpensively by letting them cross at the bridge. Or by putting up my own fence if it bothered me that much.

[Paladin_44]

I hear the former guy is still raking in lots of money from the deluded faithful. Maybe he could donate some of it...

[Kazinski]

Let me repost this from the other thread and say that the Wuhan Lab leak theory has been proved by at least the preponderance of the evidence.

Documentary evidence showing Coronavirus researchers handling bats at the Wuhan laboratory in a dangerous and slipshod manner.
And the following documented facts:
Dr. Shi Zhengli was a coronavirus researcher in the Wuhan lab.

She isolated the SARS-Covid-1 virus in 2017 from a bat population 1000km away from Wuhan.

She studied the virus in the Wuhan lab.

She kept bats in an unsafe and haphazard manner in the Wuhan lab. See the picture I linked to above if you dispute that.

2 years after she isolated the virus, and had been “studying” it at the lab, it first shows up in people and capable of human to human transmission within a very short distance of the lab.

From Time Magazines profile September last year:
“In January, Shi Zhengli led one of the first scientific teams that isolated SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that went on to ravage the world. The virus was new to science, but Shi could see where it had come from: bats. Sixteen years of virus hunting had prepared her for that epiphany.

In 2003, another corona-virus unleashed the SARS epidemic. To find its origin, Shi and her colleagues traveled to caves in southwestern China. There, they found bats infected with SARS-like viruses. Over the subsequent years, Shi—a virologist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gone spelunking into more caves and found many more bat coronaviruses. In 2015, Shi and her colleagues warned that it was just a matter of time before another bat coronavirus spilled over the species barrier and wreaked havoc. Five years later, SARS-CoV-2 proved her right.”

There has been some handwaving trying to say that those facts prove nothing, but I think they are damning enough to need to be refuted rather than just claiming that they are not absolute proof.

[Sarcastr0]

And let me reply that none of that is probative.

You've got a scenario and you're enthusiastically fixing evidence to conform to it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Him, and the former CDC director, and even Jon Stewart....

Face it. The virus most likely leaked from a lab.

[Queen Amalthea]

I love the 'even a populist comedian says so' line of argument. What science minded person could fail to be convinced!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hey when even the populist liberal comedian realizes the truth, the science minded people should realize it a long time ago.

[Queen Amalthea]

That really shows the dearth of level of argument in many of those pushing the lab leak theory. There's thousands of famous left wing celebrities, one says they buy the lab leak theory, that's evidence the lab leak theory is true!

Terrible reasoning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, you don't trust evidence, you don't trust science, so I'm appealing to your innate trust of Jon Stewart.

But if that doesn't convince you, consider this.

1. The host animal for both MERS and SARS were found within months of the original outbreak. Yet...they just can't seem to find it for COVID, for some reason....

2. The closest virus to COVID is known as RaTG13...it has 96% similarity. It was found in a bat cave over a thousand kilometers from Wuhan. Bats which have nowhere near the range to get to Wuhan. Oh, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology just happened to have samples of it...in downtown Wuhan.

3. Of course the Chinese said they never worked on RaTG13...they just stuck it in a freezer. Except the evidence shows the Chinese HAD been working on it in 2017 and 2018....

But here...read more.

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke-wuhan-lab-story-embarrassed-media-1596958

[Queen Amalthea]

"Again, you don’t trust evidence, you don’t trust science, so I’m appealing to your innate trust of Jon Stewart."

You likely don't know what you're talking about re: your 'evidence'. On the other hand, I trust qualified scientists to judge the evidence, when they come to a conclusion then I'd defer to them. They most certainly have not come to this conclusion at this time. But keep up the very impressive 'even Jon Stewart says so!' argument...

[Armchair Lawyer]

So....you don't trust the evidence. You don't trust liberal icon Jon Stewart. You don't trust qualified scientists like, oh, the former CDC director.

Seems like you have an extremely selective number of people you trust. Perhaps just Peter Daszak and some Chinese scientists....

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't trust that you know what you're talking about. Why would anyone? There are experts who work in this field, if your evidence is so persuasive there will soon be a majority saying you're right. Right now there is not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

" there will soon be a majority saying you’re right"

Wow....

Seems you can only jump on the bandwagon once it's left

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I'm definitely not citing Jon Stewart as evidence, a decent comedian, but not my go to for science or fact checking.

It's was the video SkyNews Australia unearthed, that was shot a few years ago in Wuhan when nobody cared that provides the evidence of what was going on there and it's damning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The evidence is out there that demonstrates that Covid most likely leaked from a lab.

The fact that even Jon Stewart can see it should be indication that people of a certain belief structure who can't follow the evidence should reconsider their beliefs

[Sarcastr0]

Your appeal to authority is noted, and discarded.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you can't believe the expert scientific opinion of the former CDC director, who can you believe?

Perhaps Peter Daszak and the scientists he "convinced" to sign a letter?

[Sarcastr0]

Switching your appeal to authority does not make it less of a fallacy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The fact you don't appear to know who Peter Daszak is, and the role he played speaks wonders....

Basically, you just appear to have a blind belief without science, facts, or authority to back up any of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Look up appeal to authority sometime.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm well aware. I'm also aware you have...lets say a limited...comprehension of the facts and players on the ground.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, that's why you're wallowing in fallacy. It's my fault!

[Kazinski]

Well then please address yourself to the SkyNews report which describes the video they unearthed as:

"An official Chinese Academy of Sciences video to mark the launch of the new biosafety level 4 laboratory in May 2017 speaks about the security precautions that are in place if “an accident” occurs and reveals there had been “intense clashes” with the French Government during the construction of the laboratory."

The Official Chinese video touting the lab safety shows exactly how the lab leak could of occurred with live bats being mishandled by top virologist Dr Shi Zhengli.

Explain that fallacy please.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's see which false argument Sarcastro uses...

1. The "direct evidence" argument. "That's not direct evidence that it leaked. There's no direct evidence. Doesn't mean anything"

2. Change the goalposts. "There's no evidence of genetic manipulation. So that means it didn't leak".

[Queen Amalthea]

"The Official Chinese video touting the lab safety shows exactly how the lab leak *could* of occurred with live bats being mishandled by top virologist Dr Shi Zhengli.

Explain that fallacy please."

Explain the fallacy indeed. Showing something is possible is not showing that it occurred. Holy crap. That the lab leak people here can't see this speaks volumes about their arguments.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you think this proves?

Yeah, it sucks China is closed down, but this kind of Internet sleuthing doesn't establish a damn thing to anyone who isn't already convinced.

It's like Clinton death-list levels of anecdote-plus-handwaving.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Looks like Sarcy went with option number 1.

[Commenter_XY]

So Kazinski...Let's accept everything you wrote at face value. But since this is a legal blog....

Q: What legal responses does the United States have?

[iowantwo]

Of course. Unless you can sue someone or charge them with a crime, the scientific process of finding the origin of a virus that has killed millions, has no value.

[Commenter_XY]

To the contrary iowantwo...There is plenty of value in finding the origin of the virus that killed 600K of our people. It is what you do afterward, once you establish the origin, that matters.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hmmm. Here's an idea.

1. Sue China in court.
2. Get a very large judgement against China for negligence resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Perhaps a trillion US dollars. Perhaps more.
3. Enforce the judgement.

[Ben of Houston]

Number 3 is a bit of a problem. How do you enforce a judgement against one of the most powerful countries in the world? What court could you possibly trust to be neutral?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hmm.... How would the US get a hold of over a trillion dollars in Chinese assets?

Say, how much in US treasury bonds do the Chinese Government hold?

[Commenter_XY]

That is a potential fiscal nightmare = arrogate China's bond holdings.

The only way I see something like that happening is simultaneous moves by the EU, the UK Commonwealth, and Japan in coordination with the US.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, the EU, UK and Japan all have claims against China, if Chinese negligence released the virus....

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed. And Australia is currently locked into a cold war with the Communist Chinese. They're on the front line. China has threatened them directly.

I would much rather go down the legal and diplomatic path and obtain compensation, rather than retribution (which involves kinetic responses).

[Artifex]

Q: What legal responses does the United States have?

I suspect this will be greatly complicated by the fact that it appears that the US was funding the research that blew up. If I was preparing the Chinese defense, it would go something like this ...

You funded gain of function research in China because it was too dangerous to do in the US. When this blew up and escaped containment you blamed the researchers instead of the people pushing the research. The primary responsibility should lie with US funders. Further, though you blame China for cover ups and misinformation, when Daszak was making statements about it being unlikely being a lab breach you didn't say anything about his conflict of interest as one of the funders of this research and all the US virologists who knew that he was talking out of his ass were completely silent. Get your own house in order before accusing us of conspiracy and coverup.

[Sarcastr0]

it appears that the US was funding the research that blew up

Also unestablished.

[Artifex]

You are like one of those creationists who claims that evolution is entirely unproven and this time that photograph of the human footprint in the dinosaur track must be the real thing.

The model I have for what happened at the Wuhan lab is pretty compelling and fits all the evidence. If you want to engage and argue in scientific fashion about what is actually known and how it fits together, by all means do so, it might be interesting. It would also be a first. You should wave your hands less, you might put out an eye.

[Sarcastr0]

What's your evidence it was US-funded research?

'The model I have is pretty compelling and fits the evidence' is not really comparable to the science of evolution.

[Artifex]

What’s your evidence it was US-funded research?

That Daszak was funding gain of function research in Wuhan is a matter of record. Does this prove Wuhan lab release ? Nope, but the composite data seems to points that way. An honest argument would be to provide data or a theory that points a different way. You are not doing that are you ?

... is not really comparable to the science of evolution.

Of course not. That's really not point isn't it ? The point is that you are a blustering blowhard that argues like a creationist just with a different narrative. It's the dishonest argumentative mode, not the subject matter that is the point. If you want to defend an alternate theory go ahead, but my guess is you are not going to do so as honest argument isn't your style.

[Sarcastr0]

the composite data seems to points that way

This is, again, not evidence. You've got an opinion. Fine; back it up.

Plenty of evidence to back up evolution.

[Artifex]

This is, again, not evidence. You’ve got an opinion. Fine; back it up

Your post-moderist games are silly. I presented an objective fact:

That Daszak was funding gain of function research in Wuhan is a matter of record.

Not something you want to discuss preferring rhetoric. I invited discussion of other data or theories. Being a hack, you dodge, weave, present nothing. So far your disagreement with the lab escape theory has zero substance. If you want to add some substance, go for it.

[Sarcastr0]

You said 'US-funded research.' No new goalposts.

[Artifex]

You said ‘US-funded research.’ No new goalposts.

Are you arguing that no US funds went though Daszak to the Chinese lab or are you invoking some dimwitted Sarcastrian strawman where you pretend I meant funds transition directly to the Chinese so that you don't have to face the issue ?

[Sarcastr0]

Funding the lab is not the same as funding the research that 'blew up.'

[Artifex]

Funding the lab is not the same as funding the research that ‘blew up.’

Ahh so this is the latest strawman presented with usual Sarcastrian honesty. Still allergic to facts aren't you ? You somehow believe that your rhetorical gaslighting of what occurred somehow effects what is real. Perhaps you too should try for a grant from the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. I hear they are giving them out to real winners.

Here is what we know:

1. Dr. Shi Zheng-Li was working on gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Technology specifically on coronaviruses.

2. This research was funded by the US Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases with Daszak as prime subcontracting to Shi.

3. She was specifically working on CoV inter-species transmission using a variety of animals and humanized mice. We know this because it is in her grant.

4. We know the research was carried out in a facility with an insufficient safety level to stop Covid (a BSL2 facility). We know this because her research says so. So if she got what she was looking for and it could jump to humans, there is a great chance it could get out.

I can go on like this for a while with even more if you like. With what we know, it seems most likely that this is the escape route and political hacks playing rhetoric games aren't going to change that. Don't you have other things to do like spout conspiracy theories about Russians and Hunter Biden's laptop ?

[Queen Amalthea]

"composite data *seems to points that way*"

Again, such a certain ground for a firm conclusion!

[Artifex]

Again, such a certain ground for a firm conclusion!

I simply shrug. The best we are ever going to do is relate the facts that we know to the whole in self consistent fashion as an attempt to understand what's going on. That's the nature of scientific thought. I'm not a Progressive so if you have new data or a theory that fits that data, I will listen.

That being said, if all you have to offer is a vacant eyed look and a thin stream of drool issuing from your lip while muttering about "experts we cannot hope to understand" , you really don't add much to the conversation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Who is Peter Daszak?
What is EcoHealth Alliance?
Why were they funding Gain of Function Research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/who-is-peter-daszak-exec-who-sent-taxpayer-money-to-wuhan-lab/

[Sarcastr0]

. Classy.

I do not believe there is yet an established money stream to the US gov for gain of function by EcoHealth. I don't see otherwise in your link (which is full of trashy tabloid implications and unstated qualifications that should be a red flag to anyone who cares)

If you want to argue the US paid EcoHealth and money is fungible, so the US effectively funded everything they did, do so. But blithely saying the US funded the creation of the Coronavirus is nonsense.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I do not believe"

Based on what evidence? You apparently didn't know who Peter Daszak was, or the role he was playing....

Why do you "believe" what you do?

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one with the claim. I'm saying it's not established. Burden is on you, chief.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You said "I don't believe"

Why? What's your evidence for "not believing"....

Come on.... Fess up.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the thesis: "it appears that the US was funding the research that blew up."
My statement: "I do not believe there is yet an established money stream to the US gov for gain of function by EcoHealth. "

Burden is still on the thesis proponent. You haven't helped.

No one else, especially not you, have provided relevant supporting evidence, just innuendo and tendentious readings.

Maybe that thesis is right. But that's surely nowhere near proven by you lot.
Amusing you don't think I know who EcoHealth Alliance is. Part of my Biz, chief.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Really...

You don't believe...

Here's a paper for you.... Check out the funding information...

https://ecohealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Zeng-etal_Bat-SARSlike_2016.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Our results demonstrate for the first time that the unique ORFX in the WIV1 strain is a functional gene involving modulation of the host immune response but is not essential forin vitro viral replication.

This is clearly not the research that "blew up." Try again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Watch the goalposts move again....

Sarcastro: "I do not believe there is yet an established money stream to the US gov for gain of function by EcoHealth."

Me: Look, here's a paper that literally says that the EcoHealth was using US based funds to do genetic modification research in COVID research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Sarcastro...."Move goalposts"..... Well it wasn't THIS research that resulted in the COVID outbreak.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, I did not believe there is yet an established money stream to the US gov for gain of function by EcoHealth. That paper seems to establish that. Glad I avoided using the broad statement claiming I knew exactly what the facts were, because I didn't.

Except, Oh wait, I Googled to see if anyone disagreed. Turns out there's some facts you are leaving out.

1) Grant for research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology didn’t fall under the NIH’s definition of gain-of-function research: "Molecular characterization examines functions of an organism at the molecular level, in this case a virus and a spike protein, without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism. At no time did NIAID fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at WIV.”

2) It was looking at pathogenicity in bats, no humans. There is no evidence that coronaviruses were engineered to be more dangerous for humans

Do some research on what the other side says sometime. It'll turn you from a propagandist to someone having a discussion.

Plus, of course Artifex's post about the US funding the research that created COVID remains fucking nuts.

[Artifex]

Plus, of course Artifex’s post about the US funding the research that created COVID remains fucking nuts.

This is getting more than a little pathetic. You are dodging and weaving to try and preserve your politically motivated rationalizations and of course in Sarcastrian fashion, accusing everyone else of having your own motivations. Let take a bit more focused look at the data

in 2018, Daszak was awarded a grant parts of which were subcontracted to Shi. From this grant:

Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanised mice

In 2019 we have this:

We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.

Using google if you so desire or are honest enough you can trace them back to the awarded grant online. So when the colossal tool says this:

2) It was looking at pathogenicity in bats, no humans. There is no evidence that coronaviruses were engineered to be more dangerous for humans

He is as full of shit as usual. This research was directly targeting exploration of cross species jumps. Further, the follow on research in 2019 with the S-protein is likely your viral spike.

Does this mean I know that Covid was a lab release of this work ? Nope. It could be a release from a different lab with similar work. It could be random chance. It could have been introduced by Russian trained Yeti's from Afghanistan. However, all things being equal, I am going to bet that it was released by a Wuhan lab near where it originally appeared by a team who's stated research purpose was trying to create something like it and funded in part by the very funding sources that the political hack is trying to deny.

[swood1000]

Grant for research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology didn’t fall under the NIH’s definition of gain-of-function research

Reverse genetics, which everybody acknowledges is what was being done at the WIV with the U.S. grant, involves modifying a genome in order to study what changes result to the phenotype. Any experiment involving a genetic alteration is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the goal is a loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

[swood1000]

The U.S. government’s definition of gain-of-function describes it in terms of “human-pathogen interactions.” This may be how they get around saying that the WIV experiments did not involve gain-of-function: they weren’t experimenting on human pathogens but on bat pathogens.

[swood1000]

“It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety. …“It is also clear,” Ebright said, “that, depending on the constant genomic contexts chosen for analysis, this work could have produced SARS-CoV-2 or a proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.” “Genomic context” refers to the particular viral backbone used as the testbed for the spike protein. …“It is clear that some or all of this work was being performed using a biosafety standard — biosafety level 2, the biosafety level of a standard US dentist’s office — that would pose an unacceptably high risk of infection of laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2,” Ebright says. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

[Kazinski]

The Washington Post says straight out we were funding the research:

"For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. The article reported the discovery of novel coronavirus backbone and spike combinations that do not exist in nature and are capable of replicating efficiently in human cells with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the protein that provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human tissue.

The article, under its list of funders, included: the National Institutes of Health.

The NIH grant that funded the project said it would study “the risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China.”

What's disputed is whether we funded any gain of function research. I think we probably did, but now that we do know almost certainly where the virus came from, that's a topic for continued investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

now that we do know almost certainly where the virus came from

No, we don't. Just because scientists are saying it's no longer unreasonably unlikely doesn't mean it's proven.

And the number of suppositions you jump through is ridiculous.

[Kazinski]

"And the number of suppositions you jump through is ridiculous."

None of what I said was suppositions it was all documented facts, except my conclusion, which is well supported.

Here, read this part again:

"WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines."

[Sarcastr0]

And yet, COVID-19's spike protein was different from anything before seen in the lab.

Almost as though your handwaiving about research in the area being a smoking gun.

It's not. You're down a rabbit hole.
Talking about nuking China is a clue.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"COVID-19’s spike protein was different from anything before seen in the lab."

We don't know that. WIV took their database offline....September of 2019....

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how basic research goes. It's an international collaboration via published research papers.

You think China secretly leapfrogged the current research, somehow hid it from collaborating scientists working in the same lab, and then released it? That appears to be what's required for your scenario to work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Somehow hid it from collaborating scientists working in the same lab"

China? Hide information? NEVER.....

Seriously, how much is the Chinese Government paying you....

[Sarcastr0]

Seriously, your fan fiction sucks.

[Kazinski]

I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me, but I'd probably just nuke Beijing, since that's where the root of all the evil comes from.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hardly all evil. Just a great deal of it.

[Aunt Teefah]

"nuke Beijing"

I'm agnostic on the lab leak theory and will wait to see the evidence, but it's pretty telling that the theory's loudest adherents all seem to be psychotic neocons itching for a war with China.

[swood1000]

but I think they are damning enough to need to be refuted rather than just claiming that they are not absolute proof.

“Damning enough to be refuted” is in the eye of the beholder. China has said that the case is closed. Absent a whistle-blower or some other dramatic evidence it’s going to be difficult to proceed very far. The main problem is that China plays hard ball with those countries who make trouble. In May of 2020 Australia promoted an unwanted inquiry into China’s handling of covid, which China responded to by banning beef from Australia’s four biggest abattoirs and placing tariffs of over 80% on Australian barley. (This sort of approach could have something to do with the NBA’s failure to denounce China’s human rights abuses the same as they do those of North Carolina.) No doubt the lesson was not lost on others who rely on the Chinese market.

The part I still don’t get is how the WIV and Peter Daszak can maintain that they were not involved in gain-of-function research when they admit that they were doing “reverse genetics” and creating “chimeric” viruses.

[rsteinmetz]

I think we have a pretty solid evidence that the Chinese Government can't be trusted, whether through their human rights abuses, or their apparent abrogation of their commitments on Hong Kong or any number of other issues..

[jb]

I think this is pretty good evidence that there's a reasonable probability that the virus leaked from the lab (and I think that's roughly the scientific consensus right now), but it doesn't feel like it meets the bar to say that there's a preponderance of the evidence that the virus *did* leak from the lab. Maybe it's even more likely than not, but feels more like a coin flip than a slam dunk.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

Thing I recently learned: in a movie where J-Lo is supposed to be some learned professor who gets stalked by a student, early in the film she is floored to receive as a gift from the student/stalker a First Edition of …. wait for it … The Iliad!! (h/t GLoP podcast)
In case this link doesn’t work, just search “Iliad first edition” on YouTube. https://youtu.be/DsG_yPKAor4

[Brett Bellmore]

Every time I'm going through the flowers section with my wife, I can't help thinking: Shouldn't it be the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bromeliad? (Odysseus brings foreign flowers back to his wife on his return!)

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

For some additional context, the book in the movie is by appearance some late 20th-century, English printing (of a work that’s thousands of years old), and the student boasts that his parents found the book for $1 at a yard sale, when more sophisticated parents would automatically recognize it was a very valuable.

[jb]

Since the Iliad was "written" in Greek, any English version is going to be a translation, and there are definitely first editions of each translation.

As an example, if you were digging around in a church in England and came across a 1611 printing of the King James bible, you and everyone else would probably feel pretty okay about calling that a first edition even though the Bible was written long before 1611:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-13160552

[AmosArch]

Whenever I pull up the latest Biden speech I cringe in secondhand embarrassment. He seems barely sentient in many of them.

But the funny thing is I notice people around me no longer seem as agitated by politics and world events constantly so much anymore. Because the media is no longer reporting everytime Trump farts in the wrong direction. For the most part...I've seen some orange man bad stuff resurface in the past few days.

But even I'm feeling a little calmer on this front. I mean its not really any better when I actually take the time to dig things up. Biden makes Trump look like a good public speaker and we know that isn't exactly his biggest strength and we've exchanged being a loudmouth for a wimp in foreign policy. But wow, its amazing how calm you can feel now that all the ugly business is being buried. Imagine how it is for all the people who are actually ignorant and swallow everything being fed to them.

[Krayt]

The rage is a tool used by the elites to direct you in voting so they can be elected and their fortunes mysteriously go up at multiples of their official salaries.

RGBs were friends with Scalias. Soros and a Trump kid recently invested in a startup together. Bush is friends with Michelle Obana and Ellen Degeneres.

The rage is for you. It is the same phenomenon as religion, because it is a religion, for the same purpose. Their purpose.

[iowantwo]

It is not really a debate the Dems rule by emergency. "never let a disaster go to waste". So the dems need villains, and then need eminent disaster.
It is also not a debate that the propagandist infrastructure, loosely refereed to as 'media', are Democrat Party operatives. Happily tasked with creating the illusion of impending doom (Catastrophic, Anthropological, Global Climate Change) unless Dems take the wheel

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe you aren't objective in your evaluation of the other side, Amos.

[Commenter_XY]

You can be sure that our adversaries are making their own evaluations, based on what they see and what POTUS Biden does, Sarcastr0. We will know shortly (by years end) what their verdict is, by virtue of their actions.

When you get a prostate cancer diagnosis, the normal course of action is 'watchful waiting'. That is the analogy I would suggest to you. The 'watchful waiting' period by our adversaries is almost over. They will act.

[apedad]

You're confusing 'wimp' with 'tact.'

U.S. foreign policy is not a short term, win - lose scenario.

It's a complex, multi-layered, interconnected, multi-player sphere where goals and players constantly change.

[Ben_]

"… I notice people around me no longer seem as agitated by politics and world events constantly so much anymore. Because the media is no longer reporting…"

The people around you are easily manipulated. Encourage them to improve their character.

People want strong, resilient, thoughtful leaders but then they're shallow and flighty themselves. What makes them worthy of good leaders?

[Gasman]

Yeah. Biden referring to a head of state (Queen Elizabeth) as 'reminding him of his mother', is a major social gaffe. What next, he wants to bounce Trudeau on his knee like a younger Beau Biden? And Putin is a stern uncle he once remembers?
He's not being an effective world leader.

[Randal]

Trump IS a good public speaker. That is his strength. He's not good at speeches, but he's a brilliant communicator.

Most of the critiques of Trump's style fell into two categories. First, that he spoke in an unsophisticated way. Well, that's what was great -- very accessible. And second, that he was constantly making gaffes, like just wild or unbelievable claims. But that too was very successful. He's not trying to be taken literally (a trap his detractors fell in every time), but that also means his followers are free to assign their preferred interpretations to his ramblings. Everyone hears what they want to hear and either loves it or hates it.

No, the reason people are no longer agitated is that Trump isn't around to agitate them. Trump's whole style was to keep everyone on high alert (and focused on him) -- his supporters as well as his detractors. For better or worse, Biden has brought us back to the essential style of every other president in my lifetime: carefully curated messaging that's designed to advance an agenda with minimum risk / chaos.

[Josh R]

Rather than characterizing Trump as a good public speaker, I think his appeal is his charisma. I do however agree he wants people to be focused on him because he doesn't care about anything or anyone but himself.

[Krayt]

Huh. That's odd for a politician.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't think Trump is a good public speaker as much as he's a speaker saying things the Right has *really* been wanting their guys to say. His skill, and it is a skill, has been and is in realizing that his base has *really* been wanting to say the things he does on a national stage. That he does it in a boorish, unprofessional manner then triggers the liberals and that also pleases his base.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump speaking style is that of a salesman. His goal is get you to buy the product. This is good for sales but not good for much else and there is the problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A salesman of shoddy goods. The qualities needed to be a successful peddler of sketchy dietary supplements, or a high-income faith healer, differ from those associated with sellers of high-quality products.

[mydisplayname]

The Washington Post today has an interesting article regarding the placebo effect of hygiene theatre -- the use of practices that do little to prevent the spread of the coronavirus but which may make some anxious consumers feel safer.

I'd underscore that acknowledgement of _real_ health risks on university campuses is absent from the current CoViD fetish. US university students are 200 to 500 times more likely than non-university members to suffer from hepatitis C (HCV), mumps, mono (Epstein-Barr), nororvirus, STDs, and meningitis (MenB). Transmission of mumps should have been (but has not been) reduced in proportion to claimed reduction in CoViD transmission due to airborne attenuation measures. Transmission of HCV should have been (but has not been) reduced in proportion to claimed reduction in CoViD transmission due to surface hygiene measures. [The theatrics didn't work.]

Hep C is particularly troubling as it will affect far more university members than will CoViD. Students can help reduce the risk of HCV transmission by avoiding intranasal cocaine use, avoiding sharing drug injection equipment, avoiding the sharing of body jewelry, and avoiding contact between personal items (such as nail clippers, razors, toothbrushes, body jewelry, et c.) and surfaces which may have come in contact with the personal items of others.

[Sarcastr0]

Some food for thought for the discussions about what CRT is and is not. Some of this might be familiar to those who read Bernstein's race posts:
Edited from:
https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1403281208889511936

"Basically, CRT was first used to examine and study the law through the lens of race. But "critical theory," doesn't just examine social structures, nor should it. If the smart, educated arson investigators showed up to examine a fire, wouldn't you want them to try to put it out?

So CRT has a few premises.

1. Racism exists

2. Racism is "ordinary": This is the part that people get wrong. Tucker Carlson and Tim Scott would have you believe that CRT teaches that "America is a racist country" While that might be true, CRT does not say that. It proposes that racism is "ordinary," or "not remarkable" For instance, everyone in the US does not carry the cold virus. But the reason that doctors don't freak out when a patient has a cold is that they know having a cold is not remarkable. It is normal.
If racism and white supremacy weren't "ordinary" then why do so many white people disagree with CRT while MOST Black people think it's important?

3. Racism and white supremacy serve a purpose: Racism exists because a certain segment of society benefits from its existence. And because it serves a purpose, white people don't really have an incentive to get rid of it even if they don't agree with it. For instance, if you are in a boardroom or at Thanksgiving dinner and heard someone do or say something racist, you might think it's despicable. But if you like your job, your position or simply didn't want to upset your aunt Becky, you might not say anything.

4. Race is a social construct: Now, here is where I have a slight (not major) disagreement. I would argue (and I have taught) that race is an ECONOMIC construct (and I'm not just talking about money. I'm talking about supply, demand and the material manifestation of resources). But in any case, I agree that race is just some shit that people made up. It has no basis in science, biology or genetics. It's arbitrary to believe a person from Southern Italy, a person from Eritrea, a person from Saudi Arabia & a person from Thailand are in 4 different races.

5. The interpretation and socialization of races evolve. Irish and italians were once not considered to be "white people." To keep a white majority, Hispanic people may soon be considered "white." Also, what is Hispanic, anyway? How are Dominicans "Hispanic" but Haitians "Black"? How are Mexicans "Hispanic" but Pueblo Indians considered "Native American" just because they are separated by a river? I don't know either

Now, CRT was MOSTLY used to examine the law. For instance, to understand why enslaved Black people were counted as 3/5ths of a person in the constitution, you could point to the fact that there were more slaves in the South. You could look at congressional representation, or You could say: "Oh yeah, there were only white men in the room when they agreed to include that in the Constitution."

And one of the things that critical race theory says is that the idea of race-neutral "colorblindness" actually invigorates white supremacy: if white supremacy exists, and it is normal, and it benefits white people, then pretending as it doesn't exist, failing to eradicate it, or acting as if it ISN'T normal not only allows white supremacy to flourish, it FURTHER NORMALIZES it.
Take Plessy v. Ferguson for instance. For years, the US acted as if it was possible for public accommodations to be "separate but equal" because, the south believed in the idea of race, thought that separating races was "ordinary" and that policy benefitted white people.
Until Brown v. Board said "separate cannot be equal," white supremacy was so ordinary that we are STILL trying to undo its ordinariness.

This is a VERY VERY simplified explanation, but ask yourself this:
DO YOU THINK SOMEONE IS TEACHING THIS CONCEPT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL?
Hell no.
What may be true is that there are people who learned CRT and looked at the way history is taught and said: "These books are filled with lies. They pretend to be colorblind but they don't include a true perspective of history."

[MP]

🙂 Was in the middle of composing my own post. Would have made a nice reply to yours. Ah for the lack of an edit.

[Josh R]

The juxtaposition of your two posts is fascinating.

Sarcastr0 says CRT posits that racism and white supremacy have permeated our history and impact the present. MP says it is dumb to teach kids that racism plays a dominant role in America.

I would hope we could agree it is beneficial to debate these two opposing viewpoints in school rather than to insist (if you will, indoctrinate) that either one is correct.

[Krayt]

Whatever happened to textualism, or meme theory for that matter, that point out these are just the latest streams of words to get you to behave in manners that benefit this or that group of leaders.

Ultimately, follow the money, which needs power, and not for the reasons espoused, which are the manipulative cover story. The mind need not even be aware it is being misused in this process "by their betters" on both "sides".

Gosh, an age where politicians beat the drum for a new concern for you to think about, elect meeeeeeee! Now novel.

Meet the nee boss. Same as the old boss. Family incomes of the leaders continue to increase at multiples of their base government salary.

[Krayt]

Interesting. My typo at the end also kinda works.

[Kazinski]

"Race is a social construct...It has no basis in science, biology or genetics. It’s arbitrary to believe a person from Southern Italy, a person from Eritrea, a person from Saudi Arabia & a person from Thailand are in 4 different races."

Yeah, I was taught that too in my diversity training, in the first section. But the second section rather saying that we should be colorblind and ignore race in our decision making and and treatment of others, comes to the completely opposite conclusion and insists we take race into account in every decision and personal interaction.

Well I disagree.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, thank you. I have yet to read a concise summary of what CRT is, and what it is not. Now I know what frame of reference you are using when you make comments about it.

I'll tear it shreds later, but wanted to thank you for posting this first. 🙂

[MP]

Harriot is completely missing the point. As McWhorter lays out...this isn't really about being "anti-CRT". It's about CRT derived / DEI style "equity" and "inclusion" ideology that has crept into K-12 education.

Effectively, it's applied CRT.

[Sarcastr0]

Funny the laws and discourse don't say that.

What I see is CRT is being used as a signifier on the right - a symbol of white oppression, regardless of what it actually is.

[Brett Bellmore]

But what you also see are laws banning specific activities in the name of banning "teaching CRT", and they're specific activities that ought to be banned in public schools.

Here's the Texas ban.

"(4)A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school may not:
(A)Be required to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of race or sex;
(B)Require or make part of a course the concept that:
(i)One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(ii)An individual, by virtue of the individual ’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(iii)An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race;
(iv)Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(v)An individual ’s moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex;
(vi)An individual, by virtue of the individual ’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(vii)An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex;
(viii)Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
(ix)The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or
(x)With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality; and
(C)Require an understanding of The 1619 Project.
(h-4)A state agency, school district, or open-enrollment
charter school may not accept private funding for the purpose of developing a curriculum, purchasing or selecting curriculum materials, or providing teacher training or professional development for a course described by Subsection (h-3)(3).
(h-5)A school district or open-enrollment charter school
may not implement, interpret, or enforce any rules or student code of conduct in a manner that would result in the punishment of a student for discussing, or have a chilling effect on student discussion of, the concepts described by Subsection (h-3)(4)."

OK, so if none of this actually IS CRT, what part of it do you think should indeed be taught?

[Sarcastr0]

Some of it appears to ban talking about affirmative action.

And banning the idea of unconscious racial discrimination is absolutely banning CRT.

And we already discussed the ambiguity in meritocracy as a concept, and as practiced.

With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality is full-on requiring revisionist history.

(C)Require an understanding of The 1619 Project.
This is an attack on a specific scholarly work. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be okay with targeted censorship like this.

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely none of it is a ban on talking "about" affirmative action. Change my mind.

As long as it's the government's own schools, they can ban use of a specific text.

[Sarcastr0]

An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race

According to the right-wing view of affirmative action, this means you can only speak against AA, not in favor of it.

[ducksalad]

I don't see that the usual pro-AA arguments are banned. It's pretty rare to hear an AA advocate claim they are in favor discrimination because of race.

Almost invariably the argument is that AA reduces discrimination by correcting or compensating pre-existing problems, and I don't see that saying that would run afoul of the law.

[Sarcastr0]

1) The adverse treatment language is a tell this is broader than you take it for.

2) Many on the right - including those in the Texas government - say that AA is discrimination because of race, and they'll be implementing the law.

[ducksalad]

Many Texas state agencies - including the university I work for - have AA programs even if the names have evolved to something like diversity action plan, EEO advocacy program, etc. It's unlikely that they've banned even talking about those things.

Yeah, with this law somewhere a rural social conservative school district superintendent will misinterpret it and do what you say. Just like without the law, somewhere an urban progressive superintendent will try to the implement the full Bailey CRT rather than the limited Motte CRT you've been defining elsewhere in this thread.

Either way it would be an outlier which wll be blown out of proportion by outrage seekers. However, as of today, I haven't seen any credible stories of school districts banning discussion of AA, and I have seen a few about CRT that appear to cross over into problem territory. So I'd say the people drafting the law are worried about a minor problem, but you're worried about one that hasn't even happened yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Texas civil servants agencies won't be the one's implementing a law this political.
It'll be superintendents, until the AG wants to do some partisan red meat.

[ducksalad]

Well OK, you have a point that Ken Paxton is just the kind of person to do a combination of grandstanding and deliberate misreading of laws.

But we can't stop passing laws just because Paxton is the current AG. If it makes you feel any better, he already has significant opposition for the 2022 primary. And that's if he doesn't go to jail first.

[Sarcastr0]

With speech, you should assume a perfidious implementer - you don't pass speech regs that have within their discretion the ability to forbid viewpoints you don't want forbidden.

[ducksalad]

I'm viewing this a curriculum regulation. Once you agree there's going to be any curriculum at all (aside from the teacher's whim) you're already necessarily deeply into content restriction, and it's not easy to avoid viewpoint restriction.

For example, personally I'm fine with mandating that public schools teach evolution. Not as a debate, but as fact: I'm fine with making facts about evolution or the age of the earth the correct answer on a required exam and taking off points for incorrect answers. If it makes someone feel better we can add some fine print on the first day of class that correct only means "correct as taught in this course" and that giving the answer does not imply personal belief in its correctness.

I'm also OK with curriculum prohibitions, for example a law that forbids public school teachers from teaching that one political party is superior to another, or that one religion is superior to another. No one interprets that as banning any discussion of politics or world religions. I don't see a huge problem in extending that to a prohibition on teaching the superiority of one race over another.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't seen other curriculum-based laws, but this seems extraordinary and targeted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race

According to the right-wing view of affirmative action, this means you can only speak against AA, not in favor of it."

This would appear to be a ban on teaching that any form of racism is desirable, not just AA. But it doesn't mean that you can't talk about AA, any more than it means that you can't talk about other forms of racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you can teach about AA, but only that it's bad.

Do you realize how fucked up that is for the government to force?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Possible, but I'm curious why you're singling out AA. The provision you're talking about applies the same way to old-school peckerwood racism. Do you have a similar objection to a ban on advocating that?

[Queen Amalthea]

" should indeed be taught"

This is kind of important. It seems like what many conservatives mean by this 'be taught' is something like 'told to the kids this is the Truth.' But what about telling the kids 'there's a debate about these issues, here's the arguments people make on both sides?' The problem with the language used is that it can be interpreted to prevent the latter and that's chilling.

"what part of it"

vii-x can certainly be disagreed about by reasonable people. I was recently reading William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass and they (or 'teaching' them or what they said) could be seen as falling into those prohibited areas, and when you can't teach Garrison or Douglass somethings is messed up.

[Ben of Houston]

Almathea. Except that is not how it's taught. It's not "there is a debate". In fact, saying that there is a debate would get you excommunicated from many "woke" crowds.

We have had literal "White man is the devil" lectures being given to schoolchildren. Literal, outright racism and segregation.

[Sarcastr0]

We have had literal “White man is the devil” lectures being given to schoolchildren

Where is the evidence of that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We're demonizing white people for being born."

[Sarcastr0]

That's hearsay, at best.

You'd think if it was actually happening, there'd be evidence uncovered everywhere. And yet it's the same couple of tired indirect anecdotes.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Except that is not how it’s taught. It’s not “there is a debate”. In fact, saying that there is a debate would get you excommunicated from many “woke” crowds."

1. Is there non-anecdotal evidence for that?
2. Even if there were this law is so broad it would ban or chill teaching it in the way I mention, and that's a problem. If you value a more honest debate why not tweak the law to say that this stuff can be taught as long as it is part of a debate?

[Archibald Tuttle]

Some food for thought for the discussions about what CRT is and is not.

Good post. But to be useful, the definition needs to be nearly universal. But the impression I get is that in hundreds of hot spots all over the country, people are fighting over their personal definitions of CRT. In a post yesterday, the author said, "academics define CRT different than politicians."

The worst kind of fights are those where the participants have divergent ideas on what they are fighting about.

[Sarcastr0]

Lets not go full post-modernist. There is some prescriptiveness in definitions.

Let CRT folks define CRT, and not right-wing populists.

[AmosArch]

You can either believe Twitterati, edgy blue haired transgender youths, and airhead teachers memorize and follow Sarky's essay length paragraph vomit definition of CRT or you can believe its the much simpler definition of 'Everything yt does and did is racist.' Theres what CRT defenders say CRT is and what CRT actually is. I'll leave it as an exercise to you which definition is more likely to be practiced in the real world.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't like the answer, so you replace your own.

And LOL that Michael Harriot is an edgy blue haired transgender youth. You really don't worry about doing any kind of cognitive lifting, do you?

[AmosArch]

I would be very happy if the Left wasn't mentally unbalanced and as sane as you want people to believe they are. Unfortunately simply wishing something was true doesn't make it so.

[iowantwo]

You explanation is very, uhm, academic.
The glitch is not so much of what CRT is, but what the proponents are using it for. Breaking society down to skin color, ethnicity, and assigning them oppressed, or oppressor status is not something a healthy society can thrive on.

[Queen Amalthea]

We shouldn't teach an academic theory because people who don't understand it misuse it? That might sweep in a lot more theories than you wanted.

[Ben_]

Doesn’t seem like a healthy society is the objective.

[swood1000]

…would have you believe that CRT teaches that “America is a racist country” While that might be true, CRT does not say that. It proposes that racism is “ordinary,” or “not remarkable”

To the extent that you are suggesting that the term “racism” in CRT is not intended to be defamatory you are simply misstating the facts. CRT, according to Robin DiAngelo, says that racism is: “White racial and cultural prejudice and discrimination, supported by institutional power and authority, used to the advantage of Whites and the disadvantage of peoples of Color.” According to DiAngelo, racism happens at the group level. If one is White then we swim with the racism current. A person of color swims against that current.

The first problem is that this is not the definition of “racist,” which refers to a belief that one race is superior to another. You seem to be saying that they use a disparaging term but when questioned they reply that no individual disparagement is intended because they have redefined the term to only apply at the group level, as if they are saying that they want to use a term that has acquired a powerful and extremely negative connotation because of a certain meaning, but then they say that they have defined away the individual action responsible for that powerful and negative connotation.

The second problem is that their assertions are stated as axioms, not requiring proof. Anyone who asks for proof is in denial. Can you point me to a source that logically defends the proposition that all Whites are racist and no Blacks are, or that “economic, political, social, and institutional actions and beliefs systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources, and power between Whites and peoples of Color”?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think racism is only systemic, as your DiAngelo quote implies, but note that it does not attribute individualized guilt.

Using a definition of racist that only applies to individuals to get an absurd result by applying it to institutions is not an argument, it's just propaganda.

An academic discipline having some foundational principles is not really crazy. If you want to argue against one of them, I think that'd be a great way to attack CRT.
I think it's telling no one is doing that, preferring to swing at strawmen.

[swood1000]

An academic discipline having some foundational principles is not really crazy. If you want to argue against one of them, I think that’d be a great way to attack CRT.

I take it that what I refer to as axioms you are referring to as foundational principles. Let's take the following statements:

1. “Until white people understand that racism is embedded in everything, including our consciousness and socialization, then we cannot go forward.”

2. “White supremacy describes the culture we live in, a culture that positions white people and all that is associated with them (whiteness) as ideal. White supremacy is more than the idea that whites are superior to people of color; it is the deeper premise that supports this idea—the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as a deviation from that norm.”

Are you saying that if disagree with any part of the above the burden is on me to prove it to be false, and that otherwise it should be assumed to be true and there should be no objection to teaching it in the public schools? I think that a person who makes such statements needs to demonstrate it to be true, or at least supply some kind of a rational argument. CRT believes that such arguments are unnecessary and I have been unable to find one. Have you? Do you believe that the mere assertion of the above is sufficient?

[Sarcastr0]

In general, when you disagree with a statement the burden is on you to come with an argument.

Here are some tenets of sociology:

Social interaction is the basis for the construction of societies.
How we interact with one another reflects what we believe and what we value as group members.
Societies are organized into distinct social units (e.g. family, government, education, and religion) that tell us what the rules are.
Our patterns of behavior reveal unequal social relationships.
Social change is a necessary and essential part of our survival.
We must attempt to explain our social behavior.
We must strive to provide evidence that supports our claims about social behavior.
We can use our scientific work to improve the human social condition.

Or what about the assumption in science that we live in a patternistic universe that can be predicted?

Foundational axioms abound in just about any discipline.

[swood1000]

In general, when you disagree with a statement the burden is on you to come with an argument.

When someone makes an accusation or urges change the burden is on him or her to justify it. Plenty of people are urging all kinds of changes to our government, for example. However, unless a convincing rationale is given a particular proposed change will not take place. In place of the logical rationale the CRT people have substituted accusations of racism and threats of social vilification. This won’t do. It leads one to conclude that they don't have a logical rationale or that the actual facts are not as CRT would have people believe.

[Kazinski]

Just a few things about how CRT is actually implemented:

Separate training or group training where you treat people separately on the basis of race is illegal in context of mandatory work or school training. If you tell a white person they are privileged and the black person next to them they are oppressed that is illegal discrimination on the basis of race. Separating the class in different groups on the basis of race is illegal.

Telling an entire class that white people have one type of personality characteristic and blacks have another is illegal.

Lawsuits would be flying if a math teacher separated his class on the basis of race and started teaching Asians calculus, Whites algebra, and Blacks basis arithmetic on assumptions of their racial characteristics. Or even if he is teaching the class as a group and said, you Asians will probably get this better than the rest of the class, or since you women probably won't go into STEM anyway this probably won't interest you.

[Sarcastr0]

Just a few things you've decided to post are true.

Nice.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Racism and white supremacy serve a purpose: Racism exists because a certain segment of society benefits from its existence."

Who benefits from racism? What's the evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

Really?!

When distributing resources, if you give one group less, who do you think benefits?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's zero-sum thinking, Sarcastro. I mean, I could live with getting paid more because of my skin-color, but I'm not nuts about paying other white people more because of their skin color.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The interpretation and socialization of races evolve. Irish and italians were once not considered to be “white people.” "

Not this again. Irish and Italian people were always considered to be white people.

[swood1000]

Irish and Italian people were always considered to be white people.

Not by a considerable number of people in the 19th century.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's a considerable number? Six? I've heard a small amount of anecdotal evidence of people making cracks like that, but no evidence of a systematic exclusion of Irish or Italians being excluded from anything on the basis of not being white.

[swood1000]

I agree that race is just some shit that people made up. It has no basis in science, biology or genetics.

Most people understand skin color to be a racial characteristic that has a basis in genetics. The children of indigenous sub-Saharan Africans all have the same skin color and the children of Chinese all have a different skin color. Members of these two groups also have many other genetic characteristics in common, such as hair texture, though the differences between the groups are perhaps not as great as many people believe. Are you saying that “African” is an incoherent concept from a genetic standpoint and that upon no rational scientific basis can the Africans be said to differ genetically in some uniform way from the Chinese? When people send their sample to 23andMe and get back the information that some of their genes come from sub-Saharan Africa and some come from Ireland do you think that such determinations have a valid scientific basis?

[Sarcastr0]

Your examples of race were skin color and national origin.

We've decided those tell you race. No need to classify people like that; that's the made up part.

Also, read any of Prof. Bernstein's posts about federal racial classifications.

[swood1000]

No need to classify people like that; that’s the made up part.

Certain races have a predisposition to certain genetic diseases. Knowing that a person is of a certain race could lead to early detection and treatment. You’re against the classification because it has been used to discriminate against people. But regardless of whether you think there is a “need” to classify people this way you haven’t denied that there is a collection of genetic traits common to east Asians and a different collection common to Africans, that these traits are what is called race, and that contrary to your original assertion it does have a basis in genetics.

[swood1000]

Oh yeah, there were only white men in the room when they agreed to include that in the Constitution.

The purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to denigrate Blacks. It was to penalize the slave states by reducing their congressional representation. The alternative was to have two countries.

[Sarcastr0]

The purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to denigrate Blacks

Still pretty clear it was not involved in the drafting of that clause.

[swood1000]

What drafting change do you think they would have urged? Would it have helped their cause to demand changes that would have eliminated the possibility of a federal government? Nothing done at the constitutional convention was going to change the fact of slavery in the South.

[MP]

You are not a racist to criticize Critical Race Theory

Latest rant from John McWhorter where he attempts lay out what's really meant by the "anti-CRT" uprising in the context of schooling. Money quote:

Rather, what most of us (as opposed to the Establishment in schools of education) think, and are correct about, is this:

1. Young children should not be taught if white to be guilty and if black to feel a) oppressed and b) wary of white kids around them (and if South Asian to be very, very confused …).

2. Young children should not be taught that the American story is mainly (note I write mainly rather than only, but mainly is just as awful here) one of oppression and racism. Not because it’s unpleasant and because sinister characters want to “hide” it, but because it’s dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

You can criticize it - I don't think it's got it right myself - but you need to figure out what it is first.

It's very much not telling white people that they are individually guilty nor that black kids should be wary around white kids.

And it doesn't say the American story is mainly one of oppression and racism, either! It says you shouldn't neglect it, and then itself focuses on that aspect. I'm surer there are some scholars who exchange focus for essentialize, but I don't think 'America is and has always been mainly about white supremacy' is a correct characterization of what CRT is.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yeah, McWhorter's gone full Tom Sowell or Walt Williams this day. Sad to see it.

[MP]

You know you want to say it. C'mon...just say it. It's right there on the tip of your tongue.

[Queen Amalthea]

I don't want to trigger any quasi-religious anti-racist responses from you today....

[swood1000]

McWhorter’s gone full Tom Sowell or Walt Williams this day.

How does this statement differ from what McWhorter has been saying for a long time?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, McWhorter’s gone full Tom Sowell or Walt Williams this day. Sad to see it."

That's a racist thing to say. But you've used racial slurs against McWhorter before, IIRC.

[rsteinmetz]

Except I have seen people say exactly those things and not be countered by "their side" who mostly just stand by and act dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, people are less likely to want to make waves to police their side, especially when their side is currently being attacked.

Sucks, but that's humanity.

It does not, however mean that people saying nonsense suddenly own what CRT is.
Just like I'm not going to tar you with whatever the latest Akteberg's eugenics is true, women shouldn't vote, it's Pinochet time take is, even if you don't affirmatively dissociate yourself from it.

[apedad]

Driving to work this morning in the Great State of Northern Virginia, I saw a guy drop a cigarette out of his Jeep.

He had a Don't Tread on Me license plate (the Gadsen flag that some Libertarians and right-wingers use as a symbol representing individual rights and limited government).

Anyhoo, to me that was an example of why we need laws - in counter of the Gadsen flag's message.

If we didn't have laws (e.g. environmental, traffic, bldg codes, etc.), then there a plenty of assholes who would simply dump poison into rivers, drive 100 MPH through congested areas, and install dangerous wiring in apartments.

The problem isn't that we have too many laws; the problem is we have to many assholes.

[apedad]

AAAAGH Edit function please! too many assholes.

[Ed Grinberg]

We most definitely do have too many laws.
You may think I'm an asshole for doing / saying X. I may think you're an asshole for doing / saying Y. The libertarian approach is to only criminalize the few things that everyone agrees on (e.g., violent crime), but otherwise just leave people alone.
I think most people agree with criminalization of littering, environmental pollution, 100-mph driving in residential areas, and installing faulty electrical wiring in apartments. But you'll get plenty of disagreement on other things like hate-speech laws or minimum-wage laws (and various other labor laws).

[Archibald Tuttle]

I request that one of the law professors who post on this blog should write an overview of campus power balances for the benefit of non-academics. I'm having a hard time understanding how a supposedly small minority of vocal students have the administrations and the faculties so cowed. It wasn't always that way.

How did it happen? When did it happen? Is it related to affirmative action? the Internet? Is it generational? Is it driven by the Democratic/Republican split?

[Queen Amalthea]

This kind of thing is vastly mis-represented by conservative press (think about how if all one's news about, say, the police or military came from left-wing equivalents of Breitbart). There are thousands of colleges operating 24/7 and when FIRE, a self interested party in finding these btw, did a survey of these kind of things occurring over a multi-year period they found several hundred.

Anyone who works on a campus today knows the real story is that STEM, Business and professional programs (nursing, teaching, occupational therapy, etc.,) are taking over. There's certainly a diversity window dressing push going on (especially after what happened at UVA), but it's pretty peripheral.

[Sarcastr0]

Main areas of disagreement about both CRT and this whole ban racism in education thing.

1) Focus is not essentialism. CRT focusing on the racist aspects of America's past and present is not the same as saying America is only about racism and white supremacy. Despite right-wing strawmen, I don't know many beyond brain-poisoned tankies on twitter who say that.

2) I have yet to see an “America is racist” lesson plan, nor a student who said they learned to hate white people in class. This is propaganda, not a problem.

A major political party in the United States has declared a scholarly discipline to be un-American and is using every available lever of government - and they control many of them - to ban it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"CRT focusing on the racist aspects of America’s past and present is not the same as saying America is only about racism and white supremacy."

Yeah, don't confuse "doesn't have to be" with "never is". We have too many accounts from people who've been subjected to this to buy the idea that CRT is never taught in that manner.

[Sarcastr0]

If it's happening with any sort of frequency, I'd expect direct evidence. You seem to be arguing we should ignore that requirement, and just suppose.

Nonsense.

[Queen Amalthea]

Yeah, extreme partisans who get their info from extreme partisan sources are always going to think there are so many accounts of outrage x for their side going on.

I'd bet even money that on a daily basis more students face violations of the Establishment clause in the form of teachers sneaking religious ideas into lessons than experience these CRT horror stories.

Hell, my kids big 'CRT' moment was that the elementary school updated its decade old cafeteria mural of famous Americans to include one black guy (MLK) and one Native American (Seqoyah).

[Cal Cetín]

When there are bills that govt - run schools should not teach racist doctrine - as in, not tell the students such doctrines are true, then one might think the Democratic legislators would sign on, explaining that it's no skin off their nose since the schools *don't* teach racist doctrines.

Instead, these bills are denounced as wicked, and one commenter here said it would violate academic freedom to forbid those agendas from being pushed on kids.

Indicating where the shoe pinches, and that maybe these bills are necessary after all.

[Queen Amalthea]

"When there are bills that govt – run schools should not teach racist doctrine "

This begs the question. Whatever the merits, banning the teaching of the idea that, say, ideas of meritocracy have been/are tainted with racism or that the 'authentic' Founding was tainted with racism is not obviously about banning 'racist doctrine.'

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the clever trap for Dems you think it is, because you have a lot of facts wrong, or believe things that are unproven.

CRT isn't what you think it is.

The Texas bill goes a lot farther than you claim it does.

What's being taught in school is not established to be what you think is happening.

[Cal Cetín]

Well, I'll provide some actual facts.

Here is a copy of a post I made some time back about the Texas bill.

Well, here’s the new law –

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0

Suggest which specific parts are wrong, oh critics.

(I’ll grant that the parts about “sex” are vulnerable to misuse by feminists. Anything else?)

[Cal Cetín]

And the primary comment I made about CRT was that if it *doesn't* teach the things banned in those bills, you have nothing to worry about.

I recall one criticism of a similar Oklahoma bill was that it would stop teachers from telling students how racial preferences (for the "right" people) are good and color-blindness is bad. So if CRT means teaching these things, by all means ban it.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/17/thursday-open-thread-42/#comment-8953396

[Cal Cetín]

"Some of it appears to ban talking about affirmative action."

You mean the part that students shouldn't be taught the virtues of racial discrimination? Sounds like it.

"And banning the idea of unconscious racial discrimination is absolutely banning CRT."

You mean the idea that it's OK to practice overt discrimination in retaliation for alleged unconscious discrimination?

"And we already discussed the ambiguity in meritocracy as a concept, and as practiced."

I'm going to go all Potter Stewart on this one and suggest that I (and perhaps you) know what this concept means.

"This is an attack on a specific scholarly work. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you should be okay with targeted censorship like this."

The "censorship" is that the 1619 project shouldn't be *required.*

[Queen Amalthea]

You really think that teaching, say, arguments for and against affirmative action should be banned (well, the for parts I guess)?

"“And banning the idea of unconscious racial discrimination is absolutely banning CRT.”

You mean the idea that its to OK to practice overt discrimination in retaliation for alleged unconscious discrimination?"

"The “censorship” is that the 1619 project shouldn’t be *required.*"

What's barred is a requirement of an *understanding* of the project. I mean, that could bar explaining what it is and that there is a controversy about it. Pretty illiberal.
Uh, what you said is clearly not what he said.

[Cal Cetín]

According to the law, what they *cannot* teach is that anyone "should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race"

...and here's your summary:

"You really think that teaching, say, arguments for and against affirmative action should be banned (well, the for parts I guess)?"

Did you read the bill? Reading it, did you not understand it?

The bill lets them teach that there were debates over Jim Crow and slavery and racial preferences, what you *can't* teach is that the proslavery or pro-Jim Crow or pro-preferences side was the *correct* side.

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think the law makes it clear that teaching common arguments for affirmative action is not prohibited?

[Cal Cetín]

You can teach about COVID-19 without spreading the virus.

[Sarcastr0]

Whether you like AA or not, banning talk supporting it is pretty screwed up.

You mean the idea that it’s OK to practice overt discrimination in retaliation for alleged unconscious discrimination?
Not what the law says.

I’m going to go all Potter Stewart on this one and suggest that I (and perhaps you) know what this concept means.
Ambiguity in the Constitution is one thing. Ambiguity in a speech-based statute is another.

The “censorship” is that the 1619 project shouldn’t be *required.*
Required, as in included in classes. That's a ban in my book.

[Cal Cetín]

"Whether you like AA or not, banning talk supporting it is pretty screwed up."

So you think children *should* be taught that people in certain races “should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race”? Just so long as the targeted races are white or Asian or other nonfavored races?

*Teaching* such concepts to kids is what's screwed up.

[Sarcastr0]

I wasn't born yesterday, and it's dogma on the right that support for AA is saying whites “should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race.”

I don't think that's true, but I can see what this law is coming for.

So don't pretend otherwise.

[Cal Cetín]

"So don’t pretend otherwise."

I've been consistently opposing racial preferences in this discussion. The only pretending I see are people pretending that the bill bans discussion of racial issues, when it does the opposite.

[Ben_]

No true scotsman comes for "affirmative action".

[Sarcastr0]

I pointed to the language, Cal: "An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race."

You think this is coincidence that it mirrors the arguments people have on these forums and elsewhere about affirmative action?

No, you don't. But you can't think too hard, lest you take this bill for what it really is.

[Cal Cetín]

I really don't know what you're insinuating, except that I can only assume you're projecting your own bad faith onto others.

You specifically claimed that the law's provision on the 1619 project was :a ban of [sic] teaching anything about racial problems." This is not only not correct but the reverse of correct as a quick glance at the text of the legislation will show.

[Sarcastr0]

The entire GOP says AA is this thing.

This GOP-passed law bans speech in support of this thing.

You're not dumb, I think you can work it out.

[Cal Cetín]

First off, you can kiss my ass.

You're not dumb, you just act like it when you say the bill means the opposite of what it actually says.

You see, I don't support bills simply because the Republicans support them. This may confuse you - you seem to oppose bills because the Republicans support them, so you assume I'm the mirror image of that.

I'm relieved when any party occasionally comes up with a semi-decent idea. I was relieved when President Obama (who, as I recall, was a Democrat) reduced some sentences of people who had paid their societal debt. It's not because I like him, but that I think he did this one thing right (in general, I'm not endorsing every case he commuted).

Racial preferences against whites and Asians are wrong. Even if the Republicans say they're wrong. And such preferences should not be taught as right in government schools. Not even if the Republicans say they shouldn't.

[Queen Amalthea]

"“Whether you like AA or not, banning talk supporting it is pretty screwed up.”

So you think children *should* be taught that people in certain races “should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race”? "

So you do think it bans teaching arguments for AA.

[Cal Cetín]

The quality of the arguments here against the Texas bill are really bad, and are based on, to put it mildly, an unfamiliarity with the legislative text.

For instance, you claimed the bill would ban using the works of Frederick Douglass in class, even though the bill's text listed his *North Star* newspaper among American founding documents which had to be taught.

If you want to teach *about* racism, just be sure you don't do it in a way that *endorses* racism.

Given the quality of some of the discussion I may as well go full Godwin. You can teach that Hitler rose to power by scapegoating Jews, and then proceeded to murder them, without thereby saying Hitler was right. Teachers accomplish this all the time.

[Ben_]

"You mean the idea that it’s OK to practice overt discrimination in retaliation for alleged unconscious discrimination?"

Their belief seems to be that one group of Americans is First Class and must never be allowed to feel negative (or even neutral) emotions in any social context. The other group of Americans is Second Class (at best) and can be treated badly sometimes. Or must be treated badly sometimes because not treating these Second Class Americans badly doesn't satisfy justice. If these Second Class individuals suffer, their tormentors just make fun and name-call.

That's the behavior and rationale I've seen.

(And no, this comment isn't about what anything is named or the text of any specific law.)

[Sarcastr0]

Truly, I want people like Ben to have the weapon of this law in their pocket.

Won't be used for political persecutions of teachers at all.

[Ben_]

Do you think schools exist to benefit teachers?

[Sarcastr0]

I think political persecution of teachers is a bad thing.

[Ben_]

Lots of people think lots of things are bad. You seem to think protecting teachers from any possibility of [something you are calling "political persecution"] is the most important thing. That’s an interesting value choice.

I’d say schools weren’t primarily created to make teachers' lives risk-free. So I’d want to weigh the schools' actual mission goals against some story about how teachers might have a negative experience.

If teachers are unable to conduct lessons without stigmatizing people based on race, maybe we don’t need them that bad. Or let them teach P. E. or shop class and give the riskier subjects to someone more able.

[Sarcastr0]

Political persecution of teachers is a bad thing.

You like it when it's in favor of your side.

Because you are bad.

[Ben_]

And you apparently think teachers' emotional needs matter and everything else is secondary. Especially the students — because they’re just American children and foreign replacements are readily available. Some of the American children aren’t even of one of your preferred races.

[Queen Amalthea]

"Their belief seems to be that one group of Americans is First Class and must never be allowed to feel negative (or even neutral) emotions in any social context. "

Lol, the least self aware man hasn't read the bill he's defending!

[Queen Amalthea]

I did that above already.

"vii-x can certainly be disagreed about by reasonable people. I was recently reading William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass and they (or ‘teaching’ them or what they said) could be seen as falling into those prohibited areas, and when you can’t teach Garrison or Douglass somethings is messed up."

[Cal Cetín]

"when you can’t teach Garrison or Douglass somethings is messed up"

OK, but you realize the bill says they have to teach about "the founding documents of the United States, including...writings from Frederick Douglass ’s
newspaper, the North Star"

Not only can they teach Douglass, they *must.*

[Queen Amalthea]

But what if Douglass' writings make an individual feel uncomfortable because of their race or question that slavery was part of the 'authentic' Founding etc? That's my point in part, the Bill leads to contradictions.

[Cal Cetín]

Well, other than the fact that the particular prevails over the general in a law, is there even any conflict here? Assuming good faith in the teacher - that is, (s)he's not trying to say white students should deem themselves collectively guilty - then I don't see how Douglass' statutorily-mandated works can be seen as hostile except of course to slavers and their supporters (you know, Democrats).

[Moderation4ever]

I can not help but think that so much of the effort to ban CRT is an effort to ban teaching anything about racial problems. To create the environment where it is simpler to avoid the subject than to deal with the minefield. In a similar way that lawmakers have made it hard to teach about sex or evolution, they seek to do the same with racial problems.

Will we simple drop American History from the school curriculum because so much of it will now be unteachable?

[Cal Cetín]

Have you checked the Texas bill and the various aspects of America's often-tragic racial history whose teaching the bill actually *requires*?

They're fine with this history being taught, they're not fine with students being called racists.

[Cal Cetín]

...or members of an oppressor race, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

They specifically target the 1619 project. Which is not about students being called racist, but is a ban of teaching anything about racial problems.

[Cal Cetín]

"a ban on teaching anything about racial problems"

A curious way to ban such teaching, when it requires the following be included in teaching about the founding documents of the US:

"(F) writings from Frederick Douglass ’s
newspaper, the North Star;
(G) the Book of Negroes;
(H) the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850;
(I) the Indian Removal Act;...
(K) William Still ’s Underground Railroad
Records;"

And look what else has to be taught:

"(6) historical documents related to the civic
accomplishments of marginalized populations, including documents
related to:
(A) the Chicano movement;
(B) women ’s suffrage and equal rights;
(C) the civil rights movement;
(D) the Snyder Act of 1924; and
(E) the American labor movement;

"(7) the history of white supremacy, including but not
limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and
the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong;

"(8) the history and importance of the civil rights
movement,"

You've really let your zeal run away with you if you think this bill bans teaching "anything about racial problems."

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, so you can talk about racial problems, but only in approved ways.

That's not better. And it's still a ban on teaching about racial problems, just not a ban on all teaching about racial problems.

[Cal Cetín]

It's the very opposite of a ban on teaching about racial problems.

"only in approved ways"

Sure, it literally says they have to teach that white supremacy is bad. I don't really have a problem with that.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you keep changing the subject from banning teaching about the 1619 project.

[Cal Cetín]

...which you interpreted as "a ban of teaching anything about racial problems."

I corrected you.

You're welcome.

[Cal Cetín]

But somehow I guess they'll have to do what the bill requires - teach about Frederick Douglass, slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, and so forth - without cribbing material from the 1619 project. No great sacrifice, since there's plenty of other material out there about those subjects.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, I'll concede the anything.

But a ban on teaching the 1619 project is absolutely partisan targeted viewpoint-based censorship nonsense.

Pointing to the other stuff they include does not change that.

[Cal Cetín]

You have a problem with a clause in a lengthy bill? That's fine.

Maybe the 1619 Project is really a good way to teach all the things specified in the bill, without teaching racism etc.

Maybe it's an unfortunate pedagogical error to take that curriculum off the table.

I doubt it, but it's possible.

But in the end, it's a minor error since there are so many *other* sources for the material which, the bill's text specifies, have to be covered.

Let's be clear that the main criticism of this bill is on the order of what you and Queenie said in the discussion here - that it would prevent the teaching of racial issues in Texas schools and ban the works of Frederick Douglass. This criticism is of course against the specific text of the bill, but if you're trying to rile up the masses, it's more emotionally effective to make fact-challenged assertions like that than to complain that it gives unfair treatment to a specific curriculum and requires the curriculum to be developed elsewhere.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a problem with a clause in a lengthy bill? That’s fine.

Yeah, who cares if there's a little censorship in the bill, it's only a clause or two!

Fucking listen to yourself defending this!

[Cal Cetín]

Defending it? Screw you, I was stipulating for the sake of argument that it was wrong. I just don't think this clause, even if wrong, means much in the broad scheme of things. They can teach the wrongness of white supremacy (as required in the bill) without using this particular curriculum.

[Moderation4ever]

While they are fine with history being taught have they laid out such a minefield that it will have the practical effect of making easier to avoid discussing the subject.

[Cal Cetín]

This law requires teachers to teach about white supremacy, the civil-rights movement, and certain specific documents about the country's racial history. If teachers "avoid discussing the subject" they'll be violating the law.

[Cal Cetín]

And yes, this law will, *for the first time,* turn the teaching of history into a minefield.

/sarc

[swood1000]

CRT focusing on the racist aspects of America’s past and present is not the same as saying America is only about racism and white supremacy. Despite right-wing strawmen, I don’t know many beyond brain-poisoned tankies on twitter who say that.

But you acknowledge that CRT does say that “racism is embedded in everything, including our consciousness and socialization,” that “white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy,” and that “a white supremacist worldview…is the bedrock of our society and its institutions,” right?

[swood1000]

I have yet to see an “America is racist” lesson plan, nor a student who said they learned to hate white people in class. This is propaganda, not a problem.

Try this lesson plan, which teaches that “racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society.”

[swood1000]

I have yet to see an “America is racist” lesson plan, nor a student who said they learned to hate white people in class. This is propaganda, not a problem.

Or try this lesson plan which describes being committed “to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” as an ideal and as a component of Black Lives Matter, which students are urged to support.

[swood1000]

I have yet to see an “America is racist” lesson plan, nor a student who said they learned to hate white people in class. This is propaganda, not a problem.

Or try lesson 7 here, which is titled: “Think About It George Washington: The Beginnings of 273 Years of Hypocrisy in America.” This is said to be for grades 7-8: First Days of School Lessons.

Also, a core component of CRT is that whites are racist and blacks aren’t. This doesn’t teach the students to “hate” white people but it does set them apart for some opprobrium, wouldn’t you agree?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I join work at a new company in a week, and the company has explained to me that because there is a laptop shortage, I have to remote in using a personal laptop. I politely explained that I am a software developer. Not being able to supply software developers with computers is a major red flag.

Its an established company, but still.

I've a friend of a friend who works for Amazon, and his project is to design an app that tracks drivers and adjusts their pay based on how well they drive. Now, being right of center, I dont have much of a problem with that app. Most of my friends, who are left of center, do. I do wonder sometimes how they find people who are simultaneously very progressive and also willing to engage in these sort of business practices.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"is project is to design an app that tracks drivers and adjusts their pay based on how well they drive."

Sounds intrusive

[rsteinmetz]

A number of insurance companies already have apps that calculate your premium based on your driving.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But they aren't tracking my driving hour by hour, day by day.

[Sarcastr0]

I do wonder sometimes how they find people who are simultaneously very progressive and also willing to engage in these sort of business practices.

Hypocrisy knows no party. Hypocrisy in service of profit...well, that's as American as apple pie.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, the US media is covering for Biden. But not the international media...

And it shows from the G-7 coverage.

1. Biden "re-introducing" the South African president....
2. Biden getting lost...Jill had to save him.
3. Biden confuses Libya for Syria

And my favorite

"During the same press conference, Biden told reporters "I'm sorry, I'm going to get in trouble with staff if I don't do this the right way," before selecting Bloomberg to ask him a question."

I mean...wow.

[Sarcastr0]

All this shows is your confirmation bias.

[ThePublius]

no, it shows Biden is obviously in cognitive decline, and he's being very aggressively "handled" by his staff.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously!

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed

[Armchair Lawyer]

Confirmation bias of what exactly?

[Sarcastr0]

Of Biden being senile.

It's the exact same thing as seizing on every Obama hesitation or mispeaking to declare he's actually super dumb, only the narrative is slightly different.

Also works for Trump being physically or mentally infirm.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Actually, I said the US media was covering for Biden. Which...they are.

Biden was a bumbling fool at the G-7, with world leaders laughing at him. But you'd barely know it from the US media.

If it was Trump, the US media would've criticized the hell out of him. It would be page 1 on the NYT and Washington post.

[Sarcastr0]

You gave some specific moments, and decided they define everything. And by not dwelling on this nonsense, the media is doing a coverup.

This is tan-suit crap all over again.

I've had as many mispeaks as you've cited by Biden thus far this morning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"I’ve had as many mispeaks as you’ve cited by Biden thus far this morning."

That doesn't actually demonstrate what you think it does....

[Kazinski]

It is telling that the Australian media is making fun of the US media for all the softball questions they hand Biden and his flacks.

I don't think there is any doubt that Joe Biden is way past his prime. It is somewhat humorous that there is even speculation that he'll run again in 2024, when he will be 82, the same age as Breyer is now, who of course should immediately retire, even though Breyer is obviously way more in top of his game than Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

It is telling that the Australian media is making fun of the US media for all the softball questions they hand Biden and his flacks.

Was it telling what the foreign media said about Trump?

[Moderation4ever]

What constitutes international media? Are President Biden's gaffs covered broadly or by selected media?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What constitutes international media?"

Non-US based media. British, German, Australian, French media organizations, for example.

[Krychek_2]

Whenever there is a conversation about affirmative action, those opposed to it make the argument that it is racist. I recently ran across a cartoon that expresses the problem with that argument:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/06/16/i-never-paid-attention-to-the-fence-until-now/

[Queen Amalthea]

The idea that affirmative action is racist is up there with the level of thinking that shooting someone with malice aforethought and shooting them in self defense is the same thing, both shootings.

This doesn't mean affirmative action is good policy (I don't think it is) or constitutional (not sure about that), but it's silly, something done for those who really need to extol about white victimhood.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why do you think affirmative action is needed?

Is it because some races need the extra help? Because they don't have enough of some implicit characteristic that the other races do? That's what Krychek's cartoon implies.

[Krychek_2]

Because they're still catching up after centuries of exploitation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"they’re still catching up after centuries of exploitation"

"Catching up" in what regards? Are you implying there's some genetic factor they need to "catch up" on?

[Krychek_2]

Did I say genetic factor?

[Armchair Lawyer]

You implied there were "centuries" of exploitation and something that carried over generations....Some implicit factor...like height that you referenced in your cartoon.

What other implicit factors would you think there are that carry over generations?

[jb]

Catching up from the fact that America is still incredibly segregated, and that in general the infrastructure that supports people of color is much worse than the infrastructure that supports white people. That's not a problem of fifty or a hundred of fifty years ago, that's a problem of today.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"the infrastructure that supports people of color is much worse than the infrastructure that supports white people."

Is it?

Seems to me that black and white people share the same roads. The same power lines. The same airlines. The same water lines.

Are you suggesting there's one power line for black people and one for white people, and a third for other groups?

[M L]

Well it depends how you define "racist" doesn't it.

Any preferential treatment based on race could be described as racist. I wouldn't agree with that characterization, as I think of organizations like churches and other nonprofits that work on having diverse racial groups as part of their mission. But -- such a characterization is 100x more defensible than the constant, steady onslaught of false accusations of racism from the left in every political policy subject area.

[AmosArch]

The, 'our bigotry is okay because of xyz reason' is the ultimate admission of defeat. You're basically saying there is nothing inherently wrong with racism/sexism etc.

[Krychek_2]

The idea that you think it's bigotry tells us far more about you than it does about affirmative action.

I'm with Queen Amalthea. I'm far from convinced that it's good policy. But bigoted, or racist? Nope.

[Illocust]

The belief that any individual is less deserving of help because someone else who shares a superficial feature with that person has an advantage is bigotry. The belief that any individual is more deserving of help because someone who shares a superficial feature with person has suffered a hardship is bigotry.

Affirmative action say that Obama's daughters don't need to score as high on the SAT to get into college as a kid who has two crackhead for parents, because Obama's daughters share a superficial feature with other people who have crackhead parents but the person who has actual crackhead parents shares superficial features with the children of millionaires. Affirmative Action is the act of substituting the reality of a individual's real life (hardships, financial backgrounds, parents) with stereotypes based on skin color, which is racist and wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure you want to go down the disparate impact rout of what's bigotry.

[Krychek_2]

So means test it. Obama's daughters don't need affirmative action; the black child of a crack mother in South Chicago probably does.

[Illocust]

Or you know, target people for benefit based on if they have crackhead parents. If we want to take into account people who have had disadvantages in college admissions, there are a thousand non-racist ways to do it that will actually target people with disadvantages as opposed to just people who shares superficial characteristics with other people who have disadvantages.

[Sarcastr0]

That's what I thought until a couple of years ago, but there are specific racial reasons why blacks are disadvantaged and it's hard to argue against a specific racial solution to address that.

Of course, class and background should also be in the mix, but thinking race should be in there there is not bigotry.

[MP]

There are certain specific racial related historical reasons why certain subsets of individuals with darker skin have a higher hill to climb than others.

I think though it's quite easy to argue that, unless you wish to continue to reify race as a thing, creating bureaucratic structures that do so does not help us on the path to the elimination of "racial reasons". Race as a concept is bad. Very bad. Historically demonstrably bad. And yet the solution is to sort by skin color?

Easy to argue against that.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that skin color is reductive is indeed a good argument, based on what I've heard and seen.
In other words, not attacking the purpose behind the policy, but rather the heuristic it relies on.

I could buy that. Though the question becomes one of cost-benefit to being overinclusive versus abandoning any kind of AA policy entirely, and I don't think the answer to that is clear.

(BTW I think there's a pretty good argument women in physics/engineering/CS are an even better fit for such policies).

Race as a concept is bad, but it has been bad in deep social and policy ways for a long while, You can't climb out of where we are on race by deciding to suddenly ignoring it.

[rsteinmetz]

How about the whiet girl raised in a trailer park by a drunken mother?

[AmosArch]

Its bigotry plain and simple. By definition you're effectively making assumptions entire gr/treating everyone in entire groups because of their skin color/sex/etc.

Now If you're going for orwellian redefinition of racism/bigotry etc so in vogue with progs nowadays where its not racism if you have 'good reasons' then racism et al moves decisively from objective existence far into the real of opinion. Everyone believes they have 'good reasons' for their lump judgements of groups and we can argue about it far longer than than when we had a definition that is cut and dry.

[Krychek_2]

Right, and attending a church service is exactly the same as hijacking an airplane and flying it into the World Trade Center since they are both the practice of religion.

You're hanging your hat on a very superficial definition of bigotry. But this is one of those times when two things that superficially look the same are actually very different.

[Cal Cetín]

Racial discrimination which *you* support cannot be racist, by definition!

[Sarcastr0]

As K2 said, you’re hanging your hat on a very superficial definition of bigotry.

[Cal Cetín]

Before it became Merriam-Wokester, the Merriam-Webster dictionary had a definition of racism as "racial prejudice or discrimination."

Thank goodness I have a print copy of one of their old dictionaries, at least until the Party Central Committee has me turn it in.

[Queen Amalthea]

That's a pretty silly definition then, good thing they updated. By that definition the NAACP and United Negro College Fund are not only racist, they were racist when they were *first formed* (after all, they 'discriminate' by only extending assistance to people of color).

[Cal Cetín]

You might want to look up the NAACP brief in Sipuel v.Board of Regents (c. 1948) and the color-blindness language employed there. I believe it was written by Thurgood Marshall.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, you might want to read what the acronym NAACP stands for!

If you want to die on the hill of arguing that the NAACP historically discriminates in favor of helping people of color over whites, charge, brother, charge.

[Cal Cetín]

You're not aware that the brief in the Sipuel case invoked color-blindness? Fighting racism, in those days, was their idea of how to advance "Colored People." Advancing people by *using* racism came later.

[Krychek_2]

I agree with the Queen that that's a half baked definition, but even if I accept it, it still doesn't get you much.

Is it racial discrimination to recognize the reality that some people have more melanin in their skin than others? Or that that has been the basis, both in the past and to a lesser degree now, to treat such people differently? Because as you're quoting the definition, I'm not sure it's not racist to even recognize the reality that racial prejudice exists.

Since that would be an obviously absurd result, the question then is: What racial realities am I allowed to acknowledge without being a racist? Get back to us when you figure that one out.

[Cal Cetín]

"What racial realities am I allowed" etc.?

I don't know...how about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L104LViQeIw

Seriously, the bill forbids teaching the idea that "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual ’s race." Isn't that a good thing to forbid?

[Queen Amalthea]

"orwellian redefinition of racism/bigotry etc so in vogue with progs nowadays where its not racism if you have ‘good reasons’ "

It's not Orwellian to think that intent can define an act, see my murder-vs. justified homicide example. And AA can be discrimination without being bigoted since the latter depends largely on intent.

[Cal Cetín]

"I recently ran across a cartoon"

The party of science!

[Ben_]

Science is just a flag they hold. The one who they choose to hold the "science" flag has authority. That's all "science" means in these contexts.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you are about science, you know cartoons can never say useful or true things to discuss.

That was a particularly lame attempt at a dunk.

[Cal Cetín]

Calling yourself sarcastro doesn't give you a monopoly on sarcasm.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I could tell it was sarcasm - you weren't arguing the Dems were the party of science.

I stand by that this was a particularly lame attempt at a dunk.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The problem with your cartoon is the following.

1. It shows people of three different heights. That is an implicit characteristic in the people.

2. Equality (no affirmative action) would give them each a box to stand on. However, the shortest person still can't see the game.

3. "Equity" (affirmative action) gives the shortest person two boxes to stand on, while the tallest person doesn't have any boxes. Now "everyone" can see the game.

The problem with the analogy is this. It assumes there is an IMPLICIT characteristic about the short person on why they can't see the game. So, they need the extra help to improve their implicit characteristic.

What that analogy parallels to is the following.

1. If you assume all races are equal, than equality in distribution of resources should be enough to help everyone over the barrier.

2. However, if one groups of people "need" a boost because they have implicit characteristics that prevent them from getting over the barrier, that assumes the races...implicitly...are not equal. That some "races" are better than other "races" in some characteristic. And because of that, the "worse" races need extra help.

3. By correlation, if you assume affirmative action is NEEDED for equity, you also need to assume the various races are not equal. That some are really better than others. That is a position I fully reject.

[Krychek_2]

No, here's what you're missing. Race may not tell us anything useful about an individual, but there have been plenty of people in the past (and some even today) who consider it determinative of whether someone is a worthwhile person. The perception that race is an implicit characteristic that decides whether someone is good or bad has done just as much harm as if it were actually true.

In other words, the building doesn't have to actually be on fire for lots of people to be killed or injured in a stampede if the crowd believes the building is on fire.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"but there have been plenty of people in the past (and some even today) who consider it determinative of whether someone is a worthwhile person. The perception that race is an implicit characteristic that decides whether someone is good or bad has done just as much harm as if it were actually true."

OK, let's look at that statement for a second.

Imagine the PERCEPTION that race decides whether someone is good or bad.

Now, imagine the PERCEPTION involved, that people of a certain race need an "extra boost" in order to compete successfully.

The very ACT of affirmative action reinforces the very perception that you're attempting to eliminate. Affirmative action is literally part of the problem you're trying to get rid of, and you don't see it.

[Krychek_2]

Only because that's how you choose to look at it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You've got a catch-22 here Krycheck...

You're arguing that it's the perception of race that causes discrimination, but simultaneously arguing that affirmative action designated towards one race won't somehow be perceived as discriminating.

It doesn't work.

[Kazinski]

That fence cartoon is great, and brilliant they used a fence in it, but I don't think it means what you think.

As Chesterton said, you shouldn't tear down a fence until you know why it's there. Well in a baseball game it's to separate the fans from the players and the ball, and that toddler should not be out in the field where he could get hit by the ball or be run over by a player trying to make a catch.

Yeah, I know it's just an illustration, but let's think of some of the 'fences' they want to tear down and why they are there, like say bar exams are they there to restrict entry or try to ensure lawyers are qualified? Some of both, so that may need some work. How about SAT and LSAT tests? They are actually good predictors of who will succeed in college or law school, so we should be careful about tearing down that fence. Same with credit scores to secure loans.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "a conversation about affirmative action"
1. Private companies should be able to do whatever they want. If they want to discriminate against blacks -- let them. If they want to discriminate against non-blacks (and call it "Affirmative Action") -- let them.
2. The government should not discriminate by race. Period.
3. Providing "supports" to people is not a legitimate function of government (unlike, say, protecting the border).
4. Funding sporting events (which, I think, is what the last panel is getting at) is not a legitimate function of government.
I think that covers it.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Private companies should be able to do whatever they want. If they want to discriminate against blacks — let them. If they want to discriminate against non-blacks (and call it “Affirmative Action”) — let them.

History has shown this creates an nightmare with the order of the day being anything but liberty.

[Bob from Ohio]

Such a stupid cartoon.

The last panel should not show any game because if you can just watch for free, there will be no money for a game.

[Queen Amalthea]

Two sports questions:

1. Pro tennis player refuses to do pre-post match press conferences at French Open citing current mental health issues. She's fined and then withdraws from the Open. Should this have been handled differently? Some argue this doesn't show the proper care for the well being of players, others that this is a fundamental (or just important) part of the professional sport.

2. Soccer player in the Euro collapses with cardiac event. Game is stopped, co-players distraught as he's rushed to hospital. Game is re-started and played. Should this have been handled differently? Some argue game shouldn't have been restarted that day.

[Illocust]

The show must go on comes from the place that if there is no show there is no money coming in, thus there is nothing to pay you with. The tennis player is a entertainer, and dealing with the press is an essential part of her job as an entertainer. If she's not in the mental place to do her job, then withdrawing from the open is the appropriate action to take. The soccer players made the right decision in finding the game.

[Kazinski]

I can see the players point. Marshawn Lynch had a similar problem, and they way he handled it made him richer and a cultural icon.

But perhaps it should be handled more systematically so the player has advance permission to skip interviews supported by medical authority for the waiver. Then the league or association can be sure that it's more than just hating those assholes in the press, which isn't an affliction, but a normal response to dealing with the press.

[MP]

1. Contractual obligations don't leave a lot of wriggle room for "I don't feel like doing it". Levy the fine. Appeal the fine. Deal with the nuance in the appeal.

2. I'm not sure I see the point of an enforced period of mourning that's longer than "a moment of silence". Shit happens. And then we move on.

[Bob from Ohio]

Tennis and soccer. People have opinions on them? Weird waste of time.

[Ben_]

Biden skin-color discrimination update:

A judge issued an injunction against the Biden Administration’s scheme to govern for some races of Americans and against other races of Americans.

Race-based restaurant relief was stopped by courts in May, now race-based farm relief has been stopped as well.

If you or your family or friends are not the preferred race of the Biden Administration and Biden's partisan enablers, you may wish to consider voting for people who don't govern against specific races of Americans.

[Bored Lawyer]

Lately, I have noticed that Spam calls have become more and more fraudulent. The latest gives an announcement that "you are under federal investigation," that a "court has issued a warrant against you," and that if you don't contact them immediately, you may be arrested. Another states it is the Social Security Administration, and you need to speak to them or you will lose all of your benefits. While most people probably realize these are scams, they probably do snag some naive people. (I sometimes dial in and then tell them they are criminals and am reporting them to the FBI, just to get them nervous.)

This seems to me a non-partisan issue: the feds should be cracking down on this. Maybe that is why it is being ignored, no political mileage out of it.

[apedad]

https://www.donotcall.gov/

This might help.

[ducksalad]

Do Not Call Does Not Work.

[ah....Clem]

It may well "work" for some values of "work" i.e. I think it does cut down on unsolicited calls if you're on it. And since no legitimate business ignores the do not call list, you can be assured that any spam call is a scam.

One thing that does work is nomorobo. It's not 100% but it's very effective.

https://nomorobo.com/

[ducksalad]

Suggested solution: make all calls to personal numbers "900" with a $2 charge for each minute or fraction, by default. The owner of the called phone can waive the charge by *not* hitting something like the pound key three times in a row before hanging up.

[Leaf's Chauffeur]

Yeah great plan. My firm will be racking up $$$ phone bills--no ones gonna hit that button after you told them bad news.
We need to find the people behind this, and hit them with a nuke or two.

[ReaderY]

What’s really extraordinary about the decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is that it was unanimous. I had never imagined that would occur.

All the Justices agreed that because the city ordinance involved gave administrators unfettered discretion to make exceptions to the rule, the rules were not generally applicable, and hence Smith doesn’t apply. And this is so regardless of the fact that the Justices disagree on what the standards should be on when a law becomes not generally applicable. They all agreed the the presence of unfettered discretion defeats general applicability by any standard.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another interesting part, not agreed to by all, is Roberts' take on whether the adoption services are "public accomodations":

The ordinance defines a public accommodation in relevant part as “[a]ny place, provider or public conveyance, whether licensed or not, which solicits or accepts the patronage or trade of the public or whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.” §9–1102(1)(w). Certification is not “made available to the public” in the usual sense of the words. To make a service “available” means to make it “accessible, obtainable.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 84 (11th ed. 2005); see also 1 Oxford English Dictionary 812 (2d ed. 1989) (“capable of being made use of, at one’s disposal, within one’s reach”).
. . .
Certification as a foster parent, by contrast, is not readily accessible to the public. It involves a customized and selective assessment that bears little resemblance to staying in a hotel, eating at a restaurant, or riding a bus. The process takes three to six months. Applicants must pass background checks and a medical exam. Foster agencies are required to conduct an intensive home study during which they evaluate, among other things, applicants’ “mental and emotional adjustment,” “community ties with family, friends, and neighbors,” and “[e]xisting family relationships, attitudes and expectations regarding the applicant’s own children and parent/child relationships.” 55 Pa. Code §3700.64. Such inquiries would raise eyebrows at the local bus station.

[Bored Lawyer]

And here is another smackdown, this time by Gorsuch:

When a newspaper publicized CSS’s policy, the City barred CSS from continuing its foster care work. Remarkably, the City took this step even though it threatens the welfare of children awaiting placement in foster homes. There is an acute shortage
of foster parents, both in Philadelphia and in the country at
large. By ousting CSS, the City eliminated one of its major sources of foster homes.

Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of wokeness than making it harder for orphans to receive care.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sorry, that was Alito's concurrence.

[Bored Lawyer]

The most interesting opinion, IMO, was Barrett's. I dub it the Goldilocks opinion. She clearly thinks Smith goes too far in one direction, but adopting a RFRA-like rule into the Constitution goes too far in the other direction. She is looking for a rule that is "just right."
A view that I am sympathetic to.
We will see where this goes in the future.

[ReaderY]

The opinion makes clear that Barrett is not the Alito clone that both her supporters and detractors in the Senate had assumed her to be.

[M L]

Who killed Ashli Babbit? Anyone know yet?

[rsteinmetz]

You may have noticed that Biden mention a policeman killed in the Capital whatever ir was.

[M L]

19-year-old Simone Scott was excited to get her second dose of Moderna’s Covid vaccine on May 1.

Now her mother Valerie Kraimer is arranging her funeral.

Simone, a first-year-student at Northwestern University, suffered a case of apparent myocarditis-induced heart failure on Sunday, May 16. Despite extraordinary measures to save her, including a heart transplant, she died Friday morning at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in downtown Chicago.

Now her mother and father are struggling to understand what happened to their daughter – and why they had no idea that the Covid vaccines might be anything but safe.

“I lost my only daughter,” Kraimer said in an interview Sunday night. “I never thought I’d have to give up my daughter for the greater good of society.”

Unfortunately, doctors appear to have repeatedly missed signals as Simone’s condition slowly worsened in the two weeks following her second shot – before she abruptly crashed. In mid-May, Israel, which had vaccinated more of its population with mRNA vaccines than any other country, was reporting high rates of cases of vaccine-related myocarditis in young people.

But in the United States, vaccinations had just been opened for 12-15 year-olds, and the Centers for Disease Control was still playing down the myocarditis risk in young people. In a statement May 17, the day after Simone died, the CDC reported that it had found “relatively few reports of myocarditis to date,” that “most cases appear to be mild,” and that “rates of myocarditis reports [after vaccinations] have not differed from expected baseline rates.”

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/simone-scott-oct-7-2001-june-11-2021

[M L]

Hunter Biden uses N-word apparently, but also uses Asian slurs in the context of discussing his whoremongering preferences. As with multimillion dollar deals with Ukranians Russians and Chinese, it's amazing to imagine Hunter Biden's actions having been done by Don Jr. . . just imagine.

[Ben_]

Children and teenagers have already been forced to suffer far more than necessary for Covid policy that doesn’t benefit them. Forcing them to endure the additional (small) risks from vaccinations is adding insult to injury.

Let’s stop sacrificing children.

[Archibald Tuttle]

I can't find in Google News or anywhere a balanced account of the Biden-Putin summit.

It is not reasonable that Russia would come to a summit to unilaterally listen to American complaints about Russia and threats. Russia must have had its own list of complaints, demands and threats. What are they?

[M L]

I would guess that maybe you could check RT to round out your info on this? Don't rely on Google News ever, that's for sure.

I've never gone to the RT website before or specifically looked for articles from the Russian outlet, until just now. And it seems their website isn't working properly, oddly enough. Maybe they got Parler'd....

[apedad]

https://www.dw.com/en/biden-and-putin-agree-nuclear-war-cannot-be-won-and-must-never-be-fought/a-57921072

English version of the Deutsche Welle (DW).

[M L]

COVID lockdowns killed millions of people, far more than saved, and there's no good evidence lockdowns really saved anything.

"That staggering figure -- 265 million people on the brink of starvation -- was reached by the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and an Oxford University researcher in the first detailed assessment of its kind."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/covid-could-push-265-million-people-to-starvation-if-action-not-taken-un/ar-BB16PQDq

[Sarcastr0]

Brink does not mean killed.

If we have the will, we can get those people food. But we've never really cared about worldwide starvation before, why would we now?

[rsteinmetz]

What does the crowd here think about the controversy over new movie "The Heights" where apparently some of the actors aren't black enough/

[M L]

Tucker Carlson reported that a number of people identified in Capitol protest/riot videos were not charged, some of them were in contact with the FBI prior to the events, and the reason they were not charged appears to be that they were working for or cooperating with the government when they participated in and helped foment these events.

As this information began to circulate on social media, Twitter plastered a large boldfaced wrongthink warning all over the place. If you just searched twitter .com for Tucker Carlson, for example, the warning came up filling 2/3 of the screen on mobile with search results below that.

The very curious warning label read:

“Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, despite a baseless suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some of the co-conspirators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents.”

Strange statement isn't it? First, the statement doesn't seem to contradict Tucker. As he mentioned later,

"Well, last night, clips from our show began to circulate on social media and the tech monopolies which helped get Joe Biden elected continue to work closely with the administration to control the news and information that you are allowed to see. . .

Twitter is saying that people who are secretly working with the FBI cannot be charged for encouraging others to commit crimes. Well, yes, exactly. That’s the very point we made on this show last night. That’s why they haven’t been charged because they were secretly working with the FBI. So in an effort to shut us down Twitter just confirmed what we suggested was true. Thanks, Twitter. They are morons!"

Second, the bald statement/warning was published and made by Twitter. No source is given. Is Twitter a social media platform, or a news media outlet, or a law enforcement agency, or some combination? Quite obviously, the statement was most likely written by someone in the intelligence agencies, because they largely run Big Tech, have access to all of their data tools, and dictate whatever state propaganda messages they wish to be disseminated just like a state-controlled media outlet.

[Sarcastr0]

Every crazy conspiracy theory.

[ThePublius]

"Every crazy conspiracy theory." <- every knee-jerk progressive reaction to bad news for progs/dems.

[Sarcastr0]

Tell me, was the insurrection no big deal, or was it an FBI false flag?

Because the FBI false-flagging a tourism experience doesn't really track.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was not an "insurrection", it was "no big deal" and it probably was not a "FBI false flag" but the FBI does bankroll/agitate saps from time to time to do foolish things.

[David Nieporent]

Strange statement isn’t it? First, the statement doesn’t seem to contradict Tucker. As he mentioned later,

No, it directly contradicts Tucker. He did not simply say that they were "not charged." He said that they were identified as unindicted co-conspirators. But people working for the FBI are not co-conspirators; the fact that they were identified as such proves that they were not working for the FBI.

[M L]

Greenwald:

Liberals are apoplectic about these questions regarding advanced FBI infiltration of groups involved in the January 6 Capitol riot because liberals (as polls show) now revere FBI & CIA, and thus view any suggestion that they acted nefariously or deceitfully as weird & offensive.

I realize that @DarrenJBeattie and Revolver News have been declared off-limits, but read the reporting they did to judge for yourself on whether these questions of FBI infiltration are valid. They did vastly better 1/6 reporting than most liberal outlets:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1405153100596404226

[ThePublius]

"I realize that @DarrenJBeattie and Revolver News have been declared off-limits, "

I don't get the "off limits" comment.

[M L]

The Federal Reserve is moving forward in its efforts to develop its own digital currency, announcing Thursday it will release a research paper this summer that explores the move further.

Though the central bank did not set any specific plans on the currency, Chairman Jerome Powell cited the progress of payments technology and said the Fed has been “carefully monitoring and adapting” to those innovations.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/20/the-fed-this-summer-will-take-another-step-ahead-in-developing-a-digital-currency.html

Thoughts?

Some have advocated getting rid of cash and going cashless. The tyrants want to do this of course because then the government can track and control all money, and political dissidents can be cut off just as they are with mastercard, visa, paypal, gofundme, etc.

[M L]

You would think that a story about Hunter Biden becoming an artist and selling his paintings for $500k to launder money would be a story from Babylon Bee or the Onion.

But no . . .

Hunter Biden's abstract art to sell for $500K to 'anonymous' and 'confidential' collectors says his ex-con agent, raising serious questions about WHO the buyers are

Hunter Biden, who has no professional background as an artist, will be selling off his artwork at a solo exhibition in New York City this fall
The 51-year-old's ex-con art dealer Georges Berges has priced Biden's abstract artworks between $75,000 and $500,000
All sales of Biden's artwork will be kept confidential
The staggering prices of the artwork and the revelations that buyers will remain anonymous has quickly sparked fears of bribery and money laundering
Also fears buyers with nefarious interests could pay for the artworks in the hopes of gaining access to President Biden through his son
There are concerns the sales of Biden's artwork could result in people laundering money, or anonymous buyers in places like Russia using it to avoid US sanctions
The agency representing Biden's art dealer says it is common for gallery and auction sales to remain confidential
This practice, however, has been scrutinized by law enforcement agencies in recent years

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9692421/Hunter-Bidens-abstract-paintings-sell-500K-each.html

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing to see here....move along. Anonymous buyers? LOL.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh great, just what we need, another national holid...

What's that, you say? Fried chicken, bbq pork, wilted greens, devils food cake, and various strawberry beverages?

I guess I'm having a barbeque on Saturday.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I guess I’m having a barbeque on Saturday."

I had one last Saturday, no extra paid day off for government employees required.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I had one last Saturday, no extra paid day off for government employees required."

Do you really think it's better when they go to work?

[ReaderY]

Indigo June?