Althouse |
- "How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?"
- "It’s the main reason why I worked so hard to keep Robert Bork off the Court. It reflects his view almost — almost word — anyway."
- "Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century could transform the court into an institution like any other in Washington, where rival factions disclose secrets in the hope of obtaining advantage...."
- "At least half of humanity combs their hair every day, and yet almost no one pauses to think deeply about it."
- "Mr. Vance’s win will likely come as a disappointment to some Republicans who have been quietly hoping that Mr. Trump’s grip on the party is slipping."
- Dave Chappelle attacked on stage.
- "Elizabeth Warren is one of the only national Democrats I've seen even come close to channeling the rage so so so so many are feeling."
- "'Take to the streets and fight as one, this is how Roe was won,' they chanted throughout Downtown."
- At the Hawk's Dinner Café...
- Colin Wright has drawn the perfect political cartoon.
- "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement Tuesday that the leaked draft opinion that proposes overturning Roe v. Wade is authentic but not final..."
- "Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said 'f-ck it! Let’s burn this place down.'"
- "Democrats need — but so far lack — a consistent national message for the midterm elections.... Even the abortion rights movement has seemed distracted by semantics..."
- "Disinformation Governance Board?... I can see how disinformation requires monitoring. I can see how it requires fact-checking and refutation. But governance? How do you govern lies?"
- "[Emily’s Law] passed in 2018... allows prosecutors to charge dog owners with felonies... [It] is in memory of Emily Colvin, who at 24 years old died after being attacked by five dogs..."
- What the Court's opinion draft said about the reliance factor as it analyzed whether to adhere to precedent.
- A boy and his mom.
- “Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows.”
- At the Sunrise Café...
- "Estranged parents often tell me that their adult child is rewriting the history of their childhood, accusing them of things they didn’t do, and/or failing to acknowledge the ways in which the parent demonstrated their love and commitment."
- "But there is one thing I haven’t done. Will not do. Will never do. Will grow angry enough at you to throw spitballs at you if you ask me to do."
- "For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests..."
- "What a fucking joke -- that this person is now running a so-called 'anti-disinformation' Board inside the Department of Homeland Security."
- "Many students today go quickly to the position that there is such a thing as hate speech, that they know it when they see it that and it ought to be outlawed."
- A "very distinguishable voice."
| Posted: 04 May 2022 09:19 AM PDT Straight-out misogyny from Matt Gaetz:
Gaetz is himself a millennial — he's 39 — so what can account for his creepy nastiness? Was he under-educated, over-loved, and excessively catered-to by his happy wife Ginger Luckey, and too easily accepted on that Seeking Arrangements website? I don't know. I'm just trying to keep up with his free-wheeling, hilarious approach to the psychoanalysis of people he loathes. |
| Posted: 04 May 2022 08:49 AM PDT "Look, the idea that — it concerns me a great deal that we're going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have a right to choose within the limits of the Supreme Court decision in Casey.... But even more equally as profound is the rationale used. And it would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. I realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates I had with Robert Bork was whether — whether Griswold vs. Connecticut should stand as law. The state of Connecticut said that the privacy of your bedroom — you — a husband and wife or a couple could not choose to use contraception; the use of contraception was a violation of the law. If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question.... who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions — whether or not — how you raise your child — What does this do — and does this mean that in Florida they can decide they're going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, that it's against the law in Florida?" |
| Posted: 04 May 2022 08:37 AM PDT "In an editorial last week, The Wall Street Journal expressed concern that Chief Justice Roberts was trying to persuade Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett to take his narrower approach. The point of the leak, then, may have been to lock in the five-justice conservative majority. 'I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning Roe v. Wade,' said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.... Professor Hasen said there was another benefit to the right from the disclosure of the draft opinion. 'This kind of leak could in fact help the likely future majority overturning Roe if it deflects the conversation to the question of Supreme Court secrecy and the danger of leaks to the legitimacy of the process'...." From "A Supreme Court in Disarray After an Extraordinary Breach/The leak of a draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade raises questions about motives, methods and whether defections are still possible" by Adam Liptak (NYT). MEANWHILE: Alan Dershowitz tells Fox News: "I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who is trying to change the outcome of the case – either by putting pressure on some justices to change their mind or by getting Congress to pack the court even before June, which is very unlikely." |
| Posted: 04 May 2022 07:56 AM PDT Said Harvard scientist L. Mahadevan, who studies mathematics, physics, and organismic and evolutionary biology, quoted in "Scientists Unravel Mysteries Of Brushing Tangled Hair --- Researchers at Harvard, MIT use math, lab work to develop pain-free techniques" (Wall Street Journal).
As you know, if you've combed tangled hair with any competence at all, it doesn't work to start at the top and comb down. You work up from the bottom. Mahadevan, despite being a genius, couldn't comb his 5-year-old daughter's hair. But it percolated in his head for 20 years, and he ultimately did some sophisticated research (as you can see) that explains why you're going to want to start from the bottom and work your way up. Most of us observe and guess and do trial and error, but there's a place in this world for the genius, even if he can't comb a little girl's hair intuitively. We're told he has also studied "why Cheerios clump in a bowl of milk." |
| Posted: 04 May 2022 07:13 AM PDT "They see the midterms as an existential moment for the party. They are acutely aware that if the candidates he endorsed do well, the feeling of inevitability that he will be the party's nominee in 2024 increases, annihilating any hope of reconstituting a political coalition around anything other than fealty to Mr. Trump.... He has remade the Republican Party in his image.... In his endorsements, Mr. Trump appears to be hedging against any narrative failures by placing his chips all over the table. So far, in 2022, he has endorsed over 150 candidates. Generally speaking, Mr. Trump has made two kinds of endorsements. Standard incumbent endorsements are the first... On the national level, some of Mr. Trump's marquee endorsements seem risky. Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.... [I]n Georgia... the former football star Herschel Walker... Many people in Georgia love Mr. Walker without reservation and will forgive him any indiscretion. When I raised the issue of Russian roulette, a Georgia man responded, 'He keeps winning.'... Whether Mr. Trump's handpicked candidates win or not, the Republican field that will emerge from these primary battles will be overwhelmingly Trumpy.... [T]o blunt Mr. Trump's wholesale takeover of the party... scores of candidates endorsed by Mr. Trump who win their primaries will need to lose in the general election...." Writes Sarah Longwell, "the executive director of the Republican Accountability Project and the publisher of The Bulwark," in "J.D. Vance Is More Proof That Trump Is King of the Republican Party" (NYT). I haven't been reading enough about Herschel Walker to have seen, until now, that he's talked about playing Russian roulette more than 6 times! Is that anything but crazy? The oldest use of the term "Russian roulette" — according to the OED — is a 1937 short story by George Surdez. Here's a passage from that story, quoted in the Wikipedia article "Russian roulette":
Ooh! That's playing with very different odds. I thought you only put one bullet in, but they took only one bullet out. I'm sure Walker, who survived 6 times, must have had only one bullet in. I just recently watched a movie with a Russian roulette scene. No, not "The Deer Hunter." "Unfaithfully Yours":
Here's something else from the Wikipedia article, something that might have inspired Walker:
In assessing Walker's fitness for the Senate, would he be a better candidate if he palmed the round 6 times and tricked onlookers or if he played real Russian roulette 6 times and lucked into survival? The "Russian roulette" article links to "Counterphobic attitude." If Walker was not palming the round, then we might ascribe this attitude to him as we consider whether he'd make a good Senator:
Oh, but you came here to talk about J.D. Vance! |
| Dave Chappelle attacked on stage. Posted: 04 May 2022 04:48 AM PDT
Deadline reports: "Dave Chappelle Attacked Onstage While Performing During Netflix Is A Joke Festival At The Hollywood Bowl."
There are also reports that "Chris Rock, who performed earlier, came on stage w/ him & joked: 'Was that Will Smith?'" After the Will Smith incident at the Oscars, there was a lot of talk about whether it would inspire other attacks on performers, whose vulnerability on stage had been so vividly exposed. |
| Posted: 04 May 2022 04:50 AM PDT
|
| "'Take to the streets and fight as one, this is how Roe was won,' they chanted throughout Downtown." Posted: 04 May 2022 06:33 AM PDT From "1,000+ people rally in Downtown Madison to protest seemingly-imminent overturn of Roe v. Wade" (Wisconsin State Journal). ADDED: I feel a little critical of that chant, both formally and substantively. Formally, I don't like the non-rhyme of "one" and "won." Identical sounds are not rhymes. Substantively, I don't like the violence implied by "fight." There are ways to fight that are not violent, but "fight" combined with "Take to the streets" seems way too much like an endorsement of rioting. And I don't think "Roe was won" by taking to the streets in either peaceful or violent protests. Here's my quick rewrite of the chant: "Take to the law and fight in court/this is how we can abort." AND: There are 2 problems with my rewriting of the chant — substantive and formal. The substantive problem is the idea itself, that it is preferable to fight in court. The pro-abortion side has experienced a devastating loss in court — though perhaps the appearance of loss is a phantom. Maybe the Court will reject the draft. But the fighting in court over this case is over, and the street protests might still affect the Justices. All you need is one person in the draft majority to shift. Maybe a chant directed effectively at Brett Kavanaugh would be the best choice — something like "Justice Brett Kavanaugh/You can make Roe the law." The formal problems is my assertion that "Identical sounds are not rhymes." From the Wikipedia article "Rhyme." There's a subsection on the concept "Identical rhymes":
|
| Posted: 03 May 2022 06:46 PM PDT
... you can write about whatever you want. |
| Colin Wright has drawn the perfect political cartoon. Posted: 03 May 2022 09:03 AM PDT And he's writing about it — here — in The Wall Street Journal:
Excerpt: When my cartoon went viral, it resonated with many people—and caused dissonance in the left-wing media. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent called it a "silly chart" that has been "brutally debunked." His colleague Philip Bump described it as "simply wrong" and an "obvious exaggeration." Mr. Bump even provided a series of actual silly charts showing "the average ideological score (using a metric called DW-NOMINATE)" and "evaluations of ideology as measured in the biennial General Social Survey (GSS)." So many people — including me! — identify with that drawing. Maybe not completely. For me, the years are way out of whack. But who is Wright? I am an evolutionary biologist, and from 2008 to 2020 I worked to become a university professor. But while working as a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State in 2018, I found myself ostracized by scientific colleagues and people I thought were my close friends because I was unwilling to promote scientifically inaccurate claims about biology to avoid offending those who identify as transgender. ... Ah! The transgender movement. |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 08:42 AM PDT "... and he is opening an investigation into how it became public. 'To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,' Roberts said. 'The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.'" Robert Barnes reports (at WaPo). A witty comment at WaPo: "It's almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy…." |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 07:58 AM PDT Wrote Ian Millhiser, of Vox, quoted in "Before Finally Overturning Roe, Supreme Court Must Block Yet Another Insurrection Attempt" by Mollie Hemingway (at The Federalist). Hemingway continues:
Why does the headline say "Another Insurrection Attempt"?
I had to look it up. The protest was entirely outside the court building, and there was pounding on the doors:
Everyone chooses what evidence to point to and when to emphasize similarities and when to emphasize differences. You've got the anti-Kavanaugh protest at one building and the January 6th protest at another. They are alike and different, and the likenesses and differences are perceived through a partisan lens. As for leaks, there are lots of leaks. But this leak of the opinion draft — how different or similar is it from other leaks we have known and loved or hated?
Cite and quote the criminal statute. I'm coldly resistant to arguments that something must be a crime because it gives you that crime-y feeling. There are lots of leaks in Washington, but somehow some people seem to think that the Supreme Court is extra-special when it comes to how much it deserves freedom from leakage. Why? Is it because the side you prefer is hurt by this leak? Is it because your side has such a hefty majority at the moment? Meanwhile, Ian Millhiser and his ilk are hurting. Millhiser called for destruction of the building by fire. He despairs that the Supreme Court will favor his side anytime soon, so he calls for zero respect for the institution. He's cheering on the leaker. The Supreme Court, in his view, doesn't get special deference among the institutions, and the leaker can be another national hero in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 07:13 AM PDT "... moving, for example, to replace the phrase 'a woman's right to choose' with 'a person's right to choose.' That well-intended inclusion of transgender and nonbinary people unfortunately blurs the essential message that the coming abortion ban is a frontal assault on women's rights. Instead of playing into the talons of the opposition, let's make sure every voter knows what these toxic turkeys are up to as they shrug off sexual assault and push for a nationwide abortion ban: They are vitiating a half-century of progress for women." From "The turkeys of toxic masculinity strut their stuff" by Dana Milbank (WaPo). 1. The reference to turkeys has to do with an actual turkey that has been biting and scratching people on Anacostia Riverwalk Trail in Washington D.C. There's an analogy there. It's intended to be funny. An aggressive bird. Like the bird is a jerk. But surely the Republicans are jerks. 2. Milbank wrote "the coming abortion ban" just before the draft opinion leaked. I don't think he had any idea how soon it was coming. 3. There's a price to be paid for all the speech control that been undertaken to display superficial deference to transgender and nonbinary people. We've been suppressing awareness of the difference between male and female bodies, as if the vulnerability to pregnancy does not dramatically affect life for a woman. Life isn't just about how you feel inside about things you think of as gender. There's an outward reality that has to do with a very particular right that we fought so long to get acknowledged, struggled for 5 decades to keep, and lost just yesterday. And we're supposed to modify how we speak and not say "woman"! |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 06:48 AM PDT Writes Eugene Robinson in "The Disinformation Governance Board is a bad name and a sillier idea" (WaPo). I agree that "governance" is a ludicrous term here. The first word in the phrase that bothers me, however, is "disinformation." I've noticed that, lately, Democrats and others of the left have forefronted a concern for misinformation, offering it as a counterweight to the interest in freedom of speech. Misinformation is a much larger category than disinformation. Is this new board concerned narrowly with the deliberate use of bad information to manipulate or just everything than anybody is saying that's wrong? Misinformation is everywhere. We live in it and must learn to deal with it. The only way for the government to go about its "governance" is to be selective and to choose which wrong statements to go after. Obviously, it should concern itself with the disinformation the enemy spreads in wartime, but you wouldn't set up a "disinformation governance board" to perform that function. Setting up the board is a theatrical show of going after something... but what? Claims of election fraud? Claims of election fraud made by Republicans but not claims of election fraud made by Democrats? Robinson writes:
Ha ha. Robinson's problem with the board is that Republicans are benefiting from attacking it. If only it worked better to help Democrats!
Ironically, that strikes me as disinformation.
Imaginary? Really? Again, that smells like disinformation. Maybe we need an Irony Governance Board. |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 06:10 AM PDT "... outside her home in northeast Alabama in December 2017.... A week before Colvin's death, another woman, 46-year-old Tracey Patterson Cornelius, also was killed by a pack of dogs. A second woman was seriously injured in the same incident.... Similar fatal instances in the state happened in 2020 to a 36-year-old mother of four and in 2021 to a 70-year old man. [Jacqueline Summer] Beard went to the Red Bay area Friday to investigate a dog attack that occurred Thursday afternoon when a woman on a walk was mauled by the animals.... Investigators said Beard was attempting to contact the owner of the dogs when she was killed." From "While investigating a dog attack, a state worker was killed by the pack" (WaPo). I opened the WaPo comments with the expectation of seeing condemnation of the deplorable people who live in Alabama, but my expectation of high politicization was wrong:  |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 06:40 AM PDT As someone who has taught Planned Parenthood v. Casey many times, I turned first to the part of the draft that analyzed reliance on the right to abortion. The Casey Court, looking at precedent, said reliance is one of 4 factors taken into account when deciding whether to overrule a case. But then it conceptualized reliance in a new way. I've spent many hours forcing students to see this problem in Casey and to look for a way to deal with it, so it's striking to read the Court's proposed opinion forthrightly pointing at the problem (boldface added):
Casey did innovate a new form of reliance that was not like the reliance involved in structuring property transactions and forming contracts. Even if you assume that decisions about whether to devote your body to pregnancy and childbirth are more profound and important than economic transactions, there is less reliance on a stable set of legal rules. But Casey created a reliance on this new idea of reliance, that women could look forward on the path of life and believe that they will be, if they choose, free from unwanted pregnancy, that their body could only be subjected to this ordeal if they consent. There was a way to think about your life that was enshrined as a constitutional right, and, if this opinion goes through, that will be gone. The self-image of entitlement to sovereignty over your body — if you are one of the human beings with the capacity to become pregnant — is suddenly ripped away and replaced by access to political fighting — "influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office." Get into the arena and fight for what you want, even if all you want is control over your own body. I know it is not just the woman's body that the woman choosing an abortion controls. It is also the tiny, vulnerable body of the the unborn child. That child is innocent of everything, but possessed of an interest in using another person's body because that body is its only path of entry into the world. Casey and Roe left that child's interests in the hands of the conscious, thinking person whose body fate had appropriated for this function. Somebody has to decide, and the Roe/Casey answer was to reserve the decision to the individual. Women relied on that idea of their autonomy in life. Now, the Court congratulates itself for its staunch restraint as it plucks that idea of personal autonomy away from women and tosses it to legislatures: Courts are not "equipped" to handle this "novel and intangible form of reliance." But it answered the reliance question 30 years ago in Casey, which decided that the 20-year reliance on Roe was a factor counting against overruling it. It's been 50 years of reliance, including 30 years of relying on that once novel concept of reliance. |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 04:48 AM PDT At the Met Gala:
|
| “Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows.” Posted: 02 May 2022 06:50 PM PDT Politico reports with a link to a long draft opinion of the Court written by Justice Alito. This is so shocking I have difficulty believing it's real. The top of NYT is blithe coverage of the Met Gala, replete with a photo of Hillary Clinton in a shiny vivid red dress, Hillary who would have had 3 Supreme Court nominations giving the Court a 6-3 liberal majority averting this calamity… this seeming calamity. ADDED at 8:41: The NYT is now covering the story in "Leaked Supreme Court Draft Would Overturn Roe v. Wade/A majority of the court privately voted to strike down the landmark abortion rights decision, according to the document, obtained by Politico."
The leak seems designed to create pressure on the Justices to step back from the precipice. |
| Posted: 03 May 2022 06:57 AM PDT  ... you can write about whatever you like. It was an awfully dull sunrise today, so let me give you this photo of the rabbit in the rye — not ryegrass, rye, the grain — that we planted in our front yard:
|
| Posted: 02 May 2022 12:17 PM PDT "Adult children frequently say the parent is gaslighting them by not acknowledging the harm they caused or are still causing, failing to respect their boundaries, and/or being unwilling to accept the adult child's requirements for a healthy relationship. Both sides often fail to recognize how profoundly the rules of family life have changed over the past half century.... Deciding which people to keep in or out of one's life has become an important strategy to achieve that happiness.... "In my clinical work I have seen how divorce can create a radical realignment of long-held bonds of loyalty, gratitude, and obligation in a family.... One of the downsides of the careful, conscientious, anxious parenting that has become common in the United States is that our children sometimes get too much of us—not only our time and dedication, but our worry, our concern. Sometimes the steady current of our movement toward children creates a wave so powerful that it threatens to push them off their own moorings; it leaves them unable to find their footing until they're safely beyond the parent's reach.... From the adult child's perspective, there might be much to gain from an estrangement: the liberation from those perceived as hurtful or oppressive, the claiming of authority in a relationship, and the sense of control over which people to keep in one's life.... [O]ur American love affair with the needs and rights of the individual conceals how much sorrow we create for those we leave behind. We may see cutting off family members as courageous rather than avoidant or selfish. We can convince ourselves that it's better to go it alone than to do the work it takes to resolve conflict....."From "A Shift in American Family Values Is Fueling Estrangement/Both parents and adult children often fail to recognize how profoundly the rules of family life have changed over the past half century" by psychologist Joshua Coleman, author "Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict" (The Atlantic). |
| Posted: 02 May 2022 11:19 AM PDT "And that's move my seat on a plane to accommodate you so that you can sit with your friends or family or concubines or whoever else you're flying with. Your grandma's on the flight with you and you want to sit next to her? Granny should've taught you to plan ahead. Maybe Granny wants a break from her thoughtless progeny. You ever think about that? Of course not, because you're thoughtless. You're separated from your 6-year-old son? Braylin has to learn to fend for himself. Plus, this ain't Antarctica. It's an 80-minute, temperature-controlled trip to Albany on a flying couch. He'll be fine next to his new Uncle D. Your grandma's on the flight with you and you want to sit next to her? Granny should've taught you to plan ahead." Writes Damon Young, author of "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Blacker: A Memoir in Essays," in "No, I will not switch airplane seats with you" (WaPo). He had me at "Braylin has to learn to fend for himself." Anyway, though Young is extra generous to people in other situations, he hates flying. It's "a thoroughly uncomfortable experience" for him. It's "vaguely fascist." And he needs his window seat because he's got a big head that must lean against the wall. |
| Posted: 02 May 2022 10:45 AM PDT "... to raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. Boston refused. At that time, Boston admits, it had no written policy limiting use of the flagpole based on the content of a flag. The parties dispute whether, on these facts, Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, or instead opened the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. If the former, Boston is free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. If the latter, the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint. We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups' flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston's refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint 'abridg[ed]' their 'freedom of speech.' U. S. Const., Amdt. I." Writes Justice Breyer, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, issued this morning. Justice Alito has a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, and Justice Gorsuch has a concurring opinion that is joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. Justice Kavanaugh also has a concurring opinion. You might wonder whether the Establishment Clause can justify viewpoint discrimination, but that's been dealt with in the past. That's why all the Justices agree: precedent. The text (at the link) includes this photo of the site of the flagpoles, Boston City Hall, which is ludicrously ugly:
Justice Alito doesn't want to analyze the problem in terms of government speech versus private speech. Looking at whether government is "controlling" the speech can cause courts to find "government speech" in the worst cases of censorship. The majority said "Our review is not mechanical; it is driven by a case's context rather than the rote application of rigid factors." The Court's "factorized approach," as Alito puts it, considers "history, the public's perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech."
Justice Gorsuch writes to attack the old Establishment Clause doctrine known as the Lemon test:
The Court hasn't used the Lemon test in 2 decades, Gorsuch notes, and yet the doctrine still intimidates some local officials into committing free-speech violations like the one in this case. And some local officials may be using it with an active desire to discriminate against religion.
|
| Posted: 02 May 2022 09:44 AM PDT
|
| Posted: 02 May 2022 08:11 AM PDT "For me that's a topic to teach, not to simply honor or denounce. I'm revealing myself here as a person whose chords and arpeggios and scales are always the history of political thought: John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' is the place to start. He says that the line between your freedom and its end is where it impacts on another's freedom. That's the question with hate speech: When does it do that? I'll also mention Charles Murray. That's tricky, because his science has been discredited by his peers, and his conclusions are understood by many as a form of hate speech, because he makes an argument about the racial inferiority of Black people in their capacity to learn and to succeed in this society. It feels terrible to give him a podium and a bunch of students who would sit and imbibe that as the truth. I think if Murray is invited to campus, you can picket him, you can leaflet him, but I don't think it should be canceled. The important thing is for students to be educated and educate others about the bad science, the discrediting of his position, and then ask, Why does he survive in the academy, and why does that bad science keep getting resuscitated? Those are important questions for students to ask and then learn how to answer. That's what's going to equip them in this political world." Said Wendy Brown, the UPS Foundation Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ, quoted in "Why Critics of Angry Woke College Kids Are Missing the Point" (NYT). |
| A "very distinguishable voice." Posted: 02 May 2022 07:36 AM PDT I'm reading "American Idol winner Laine Hardy arrested after allegedly spying on woman/Louisiana college student found hidden audio recording device and told police she feared musician planted it there" (The Guardian).
He won "American Idol" with that voice, and now that voice — along with his confession — identifies him to the police. In happier days: |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Althouse. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.