Trendlist: Althouse

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Althouse

"That was exciting. He was so puffed up."
Cornered by a direct question, Kamala Harris says "I don’t think America is a racist country."
Sheltie love.
"It’s ridiculous. Obviously they’re very ungracious people. I did the vaccine. They like to take the vaccine. But even the fake news isn’t giving them credit for that."
"The single worst part of this was where the totally unfathomable 'word' from a non-famous Queen song title was sitting right next to a 'high-earning Tik-Tok personality' (there's not one word of that phrase that isn't glistening with inanity)..."
"I began to evaluate what I really enjoyed doing and what I valued about interactions with friends."
"The question before the court on Wednesday was whether the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, holding that public school officials can regulate speech that would substantially disrupt the school’s work..."
Highly recommended — "The Father" (the film Anthony Hopkins won the Oscar for).
What's the "boyfriend loophole"?
I didn't watch Biden's speech last night.
Devil's Lake.

"That was exciting. He was so puffed up."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 12:51 PM PDT

Cornered by a direct question, Kamala Harris says "I don’t think America is a racist country."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 10:30 AM PDT

But you have to hear her say it, so click through to "Kamala Harris: 'I Don't Think America is a Racist Country' BUT…" (Mediaite).

As the "BUT" in the headline indicates, she moves on as quickly as possible to what amounts to an assertion that America is a racist country: "But we also do have to speak truth about the history of racism in our country, and its existence today."

I'm sure there's a way to make a distinction to save her from the charge of incoherence. The term "racist country" can be defined narrowly so that a country with a lot of racism in it is still not a "racist country."

But it's the way she sounds saying it that gets me. The pitch changes and the laughing scream insincerity.

And here's the transcript of Tim Scott's speech from last night, in which he asserted "America is not a racist country." Context:

Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they're an oppressor. From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven't made any progress. By doubling down on the divisions we've worked so hard to heal. You know this stuff is wrong. Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country. It's backwards to fight discrimination with different discrimination. And it's wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.

Aside from the "America is not a racist country" incantation that was foisted on Kamala Harris, it's easy to see that Harris and Scott differ about what to teach schoolchildren about America. Will it be love for country and optimism about their potential to flourish here or will it be critique and wariness?

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

Sheltie love.

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 10:08 AM PDT

I encountered these incredibly beautiful dogs yesterday (at Devil's Lake State Park):

They could not have been sweeter. Could they have been more beautiful? I have to say yes, because there was a third one, the prettiest of the bunch, but I didn't catch him on camera.

I love the way the one in back comes to the fore. And I love the way the black one has a swath of white across the chest that continues onto the leg.

"It’s ridiculous. Obviously they’re very ungracious people. I did the vaccine. They like to take the vaccine. But even the fake news isn’t giving them credit for that."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 09:49 AM PDT

"We did the vaccine, saved tens of millions of lives throughout the world by coming up with a vaccine. If I weren't president, vaccine, you wouldn't have a vaccine for five years, three to five years would be the minimum. I got it done in less than nine months. And that's only because of me."

Said Trump on Fox News this morning, talking to Maria Bartiromo, who asked him how he feels about "how they're blaming you on everything and they do not attribute the successes that you had to your administration" (Mediaite).

Did Trump give Obama credit for any accomplishment? Did Obama give George W.? I could go back further, but I think it wasn't always this bad, but it's been bad — this extreme partisanship and crude blaming and refusal to give credit — and Trump contributed to the badness. Obviously, he knows it, and he's simply committed to doing his own P.R.

"The single worst part of this was where the totally unfathomable 'word' from a non-famous Queen song title was sitting right next to a 'high-earning Tik-Tok personality' (there's not one word of that phrase that isn't glistening with inanity)..."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 09:13 AM PDT

"... and then both of those ran straight through The Crucial Word in the damn 'poem' (i.e. HAIKU). The very worst fill at the most important point in the puzzle—again, winning. I resent this kind of self-indulgent, no-concern-for-solving-pleasure, make-your-theme-work-at-all-costs construction. I would've been somewhat quicker getting through this section if I could've remembered SERRANO sooner (31A: Pepper between jalapeño and cayenne on the Scoville heat scale), but the real added difficulty whammy came from *two* wrong answers that seemed to fit their clues perfectly: ICE for 28D: Finalize, as a deal (INK) and (worse) SHYER for 38A: Less forward (COYER)."

Rex Parker is so right about what's wrong with today's NYT crossword. That was exactly my experience, down to the "ice" and the "shyer."

I have a long streak of finishing all the NYT crosswords, and I thought today was the day I'd have to break it. I made it in the end, though. Damned Thursdays. My favorites are Fridays. So, move on...

"I began to evaluate what I really enjoyed doing and what I valued about interactions with friends."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 08:30 AM PDT

"I did not like standing for prolonged periods of time, for almost any reason. I did not like waiting in line for food. I did not like anything that included the word 'networking.' I did like getting drinks or dinner in a place where we could really talk, or lounging in someone's living room, or going to a party if there were going to be lots of people I knew there and ample seating room.... Especially now that people are making plans with frenzied abandon, saying yes to all manners of activities without a second thought because they are so starved for socializing. Yes to that group sound bath! Yes to the wine-cooler tasting! Yes to the early morning rave! Oh honey, no. No. No. Be honest with yourself. If you like the energy of a big crowd, say no to that intimate coffee and parry with a trip to a concert. If you hate going out, invite people to come over. Tell people the real reasons you're saying no for things you say no to. This has two benefits: it will give you deeper intimacy with friends who will know you for the true crank you really are. And it will mean that they stop inviting you to things that you really don't like to do."

From "If You Don't Want to Go, Say No/Most social obligations would be best left in the Before Times" by Jessica Grose (NYT).

I had to look up sound bath — here ("I Tried a Sound Bath — Here's What This Meditative Practice Is Really Like" (Allure)).

Anyway... Grose gives some good advice. It's advice I figured out for myself — half a lifetime ago, when I was in my 30s, and at the time, I was rather amazed that I hadn't noticed the precise problem earlier. But I realized that I had mixed together what people in general tend to like and what I specifically liked. You get a strong message from the culture that there is fun to be had and that group activities are highly gratifying. You may need to force yourself to ask, yes, but do I like that?

Grose speaks of "deeper intimacy with friends who will know you for the true crank you really are," but that might be too rosy. What if these friends/"friends" decide they don't like this new crank you've revealed yourself to be or they decide you don't really belong in their group? You don't like parties. You're not fun-loving.

That's why facing up to the question what do I really like? isn't that easy. It takes courage. You can lose what you — by merging your preferences with the group's — were trying to keep. I'd say, do it anyway, but if you don't, it's easy to see why you don't.

"The question before the court on Wednesday was whether the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, holding that public school officials can regulate speech that would substantially disrupt the school’s work..."

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 09:58 AM PDT

"... applies to speech by students that occurs off campus. Arguing for the school district, lawyer Lisa Blatt told the justices that Tinker should apply off campus because off-campus speech can also cause disruption, particularly when it comes to social media. 'Time and geography are meaningless' when it comes to the internet, Blatt emphasized.... Justice Stephen Breyer described [the student's Shapchat] as using 'unattractive swear words' off campus. But, Breyer continued, he didn't see evidence that the snap caused the kind of 'material and substantial disruption' that Tinker requires. If Levy can be punished for this snap, he suggested, 'every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.'... The court, Alito proposed, could reiterate that Tinker applies in school, without saying more about a school's power to discipline off-campus speech. And the court could make clear that although the comments in Levy's snap are 'colorful language,' they 'boil down' to disliking the cheer team and her private softball team, and the school can't discipline Levy for having no respect for the school...."

From "Justices ponder narrow ruling in student speech case" (SCOTUSblog).

Here's the transcript.

FROM THE EMAIL: rrsafety writes:

I think Kavanaugh is asking the right questions here. This case is about coaches, not schools. School athletes have often been told they will be held to a higher standard of behavior than other students and are responsible for doing their part in support of team unity and team chemistry. Off-field behavior has always been part of a coach's calculus and the courts should (generally) not intervene.

I notice you said "behavior." We're talking about freedom of speech, and the young woman only wrote something. Searching the transcript, I notice that only Amy Coney Barrett used the term "behavior":

And let me ask you this, in so far as the policy concerns go, nothing in the First Amendment prohibits soft discipline, right? Like in this case, the cheerleader coming to school and rather than being kicked off the team and punished, being told, "We're aware of the Snapchat, this is not good for team cohesion. This is not respectful of your coaches. If we see any of this kind of behavior on the field, or at practice, or undermining morale, there's going to be a consequence," but not imposing one yet. That would be okay. Right?

What Kavanaugh said was:

[T]he context here is a team and a coach, not the school more generally. But as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent too, it seems like maybe a bit of a overreaction by the coach. So my reaction, when I read this, she's competitive, she cares, she blew off steam like millions of other kids have when they're disappointed about being caught from the high school team or not being in the starting lineup or not making all league.... So maybe what bothers me when I read all this is that it didn't seem like the punishment was tailored to the offense. Given what I just said about how important it is and you know how much it means to the kids. I mean, a year suspension from the team just seems excessive to me, but how does that fit into the First Amendment doctrine or does it fit in at all in a case like this?

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 09:40 AM PDT

We watched this on Amazon Prime last night (paying $20 for the privilege). If anyone is wondering why the Oscar went to Hopkins, they need only watch the movie.

This is a very cleverly structured depiction of elderly dementia, where what we see is the point of view of the person whose perceptions are deeply impaired. I won't say more than that other than it does the opposite of insulting your intelligence. It's not a heart-warming, sympathetic portrayal of unfortunate disease. I saw one review that criticized it for relying on horror movie tropes. There's truth in that, but it should not be a criticism, but high praise.

FROM THE EMAIL: Leland writes:

This is straight from Florian Zeller's own play Le Pere. It provides an uncomfortable and thought-provoking evening under all circumstances. Remy Bumppo Theater in Chicago did a fantastic production of the play a few years ago with David Darlow in the leading role. In each scene there was less furniture in the room, and actors appeared in new roles as the father's memory slipped away.
The play is a landmark in the Theater of Unease.

Thanks! We knew it was base on a play and talked a lot afterwards about how it might have been done on stage. The changes in the set design — reflecting the deterioration of the mind — were fascinating to watch. I feel I need to watch it again before my $20 rental expires. Also, I'm buying the text of the play.

What's the "boyfriend loophole"?

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 09:32 AM PDT

In his big speech last night, Biden proposed legislation to "close the boyfriend loophole to keep guns out of the hands of abusers." I'd never noticed the phrase before, and I can't understand it from the context. He was talking about amending the Violence Against Women Act, and he added:

The court order said this is an abuser, you can't own a gun. It's to close that loophole that exists. You know it is estimated that 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in America, 50 a month. Let's pass it and save some lives.

But what is the loophole? This doesn't read like a written script. I had to look up the term "boyfriend loophole." It has its own Wikipedia page.

The term boyfriend loophole refers to a gap in American gun legislation that allows access to guns by physically abusive ex-boyfriends and stalkers with previous convictions. While individuals who have been convicted of, or are under a restraining order for domestic violence are prohibited from owning a firearm, the prohibition only applies if the victim was the perpetrator's spouse, cohabitant, or had a child with the victim. The boyfriend loophole has had a direct effect on people who experience domestic abuse or stalking by former or current intimate partners.

FROM THE EMAIL: Owen writes:

I guess one lesson is that whenever you see "loophole" you know that it's the rhetorical warm-up move to justify some big new demand. (Previous similar usage: "gun show loophole," "bump stock loophole," "private transfer loophole.") Emotionally "loophole" is catnip because who wants a hole in their cabin wall? Even if it was deliberately made to allow you to defend yourself from attackers?

Good point. And you made me think about the original meaning of "loophole" for the first time!

More seriously, I would be interested to know how many people would be affected by this new power to strip them, ex parte I guess, of their Constitutional right. Obviously the set of ex-boyfriends* is much larger than that of ex-spouses and ex-cohabitants; but how much larger? Presumably the set would be limited to ex-boyfriends who had been convicted of domestic violence or were under a judicial order; but are those judicial processes conducted (or can they be conducted) with adequate awareness and weighing of such a consequence; one that would materially affect the former boyfriend long into the future?

*Please note that in referring to "boyfriend" I don't mean to endorse Biden's misandry. Women should be subject to the same rules. Increasingly it is they who buy and use firearms.

I share you worry about the due process of taking away an individual's right to self-defense, but not your concern about sex discrimination. Despite the title of the law, the text is gender neutral. It addresses "gender-motivated" violence.

I didn't watch Biden's speech last night.

Posted: 29 Apr 2021 06:19 AM PDT

I see — reading the NYT this morning — that he made "costly proposals" that "amount to a risky gamble that a country polarized along ideological and cultural lines is ready for a more activist government." Was that something America voted for last autumn? Obviously, not. It doesn't seem fair to spring this on us now.

Invoking the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mr. Biden unveiled a $1.8 trillion social spending plan to accompany previous proposals to build roads and bridges, expand other social programs and combat climate change, representing a fundamental reorientation of the role of government not seen since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and Roosevelt's New Deal.

He should have had to run on that plan. Why did he beat Bernie? If this was to be the plan, we deserved a chance to vote for Bernie — or not. But the moderate, Biden, was pushed to the fore, pushed out in front of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who forthrightly represented this kind of government. Maybe one of them would have beaten Trump, but the Democratic Party edged them aside and gave us the seemingly innocuous Biden. It was an offer to get us back into balance, back to normal. It was a con.

Oh, but perhaps, everyone knew it was a con, so America really did vote for this.

"We have to prove democracy still works, that our government still works and we can deliver for our people," Mr. Biden said in his first nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress.

Prove democracy still works by only doing what you told us you'd do, back when we voted.

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, one of the more moderate Republicans that Mr. Biden needs if he has any hope of forging bipartisan support, used another metaphor. "Maybe if he were younger, I'd say his dad needs to take away the credit card," Mr. Romney told reporters.

(To comment, you can email me here.)

Devil's Lake.

Posted: 28 Apr 2021 04:11 PM PDT