|
Friday, July 1, 2022
Strong is an UNDERSTATEMENT
4 Things You Must Know To Brew The Perfect Cuppa ☕️
|
Althouse
Althouse |
- Sunrise — 5:13, 5:22, 5:26, 5:28.
- "A group of educators in Texas proposed referring to slavery as 'involuntary relocation' in second-grade classes..."
- "Are We Still Monogamous? And 6 Other Questions to Ask Your Partner."
- "New York City suddenly removed its color-coded coronavirus alert system on Thursday just as newer Omicron subvariants are fueling another rise in cases and hospitalizations."
- What does "suggests" suggest? It makes something sound untrue, but you haven't shown anything untrue.
- Is it wrong to confront the witnesses against you?
- "Following the Supreme Court decision to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling... 59% of voters think that Congress should pass a law legalizing the right to abortion."
- "Biden With Higher Approval Than US Congress & Supreme Court."
- "[T]he framers believed that a republic— a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'"
- "We have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, we provide an exception for this, or an exception to the filibuster for this action."
| Sunrise — 5:13, 5:22, 5:26, 5:28. Posted: 01 Jul 2022 06:16 PM PDT     Write about whatever you like in the comments. |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 07:40 PM PDT "... before being rebuffed by the State Board of Education.... Aicha Davis, a Democratic board member representing Dallas and Fort Worth... told The Washington Post on Friday that when looking through a hefty package of recommendations, she saw the proposed language the group wanted to suggest, and 'I immediately questioned it. I am not going to support anything that describes the slave trade as 'involuntary relocation'.... I'm not going to support anything that diminishes that journey.' Part of the proposed draft standards for the curriculum directed students to 'compare journeys to America, including voluntary Irish immigration and involuntary relocation of African people during colonial times,' the Texas Tribune reported and Davis confirmed to The Post. She said that such comparisons were 'absolutely' not fair. 'The journey for the Irish folk is totally different from the journey of Africans,' she said, adding that any comparisons 'will distort a lot of things in a young child's mind.'" It was an invitation to the children to compare things, that is, to think for themselves. Why wouldn't you imagine that the children could grasp how much worse it is to be forced into slavery? What is wrong with teaching the tragic story of the Irish? Why diminish their suffering and slough them off as "Irish folk"? History isn't a matter of deciding which people suffered the most, then only telling their story and forbidding all comparisons, but what school boards do never has much to do with ensuring that history is taught in a soundly professional way. |
| "Are We Still Monogamous? And 6 Other Questions to Ask Your Partner." Posted: 01 Jul 2022 04:52 PM PDT A NYT piece. I've extracted some snippets of advice for you if you're in a couple: The article assumes you have something it calls a "monogamy agreement." Is this a document? We're told it's supposed to be "specific":
If you're specifying and multiply all the ways in which it's possible to be nonmonogamous, does that mean you're awfully monogamous or awfully nonmonogamous? ADDED: Yeah, what about online conversations? |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 01:48 PM PDT "Mayor Eric Adams and health officials quietly took down the city's high profile alert system that warned New Yorkers when they were at a greater risk of catching the virus and should consider taking more precautions.... Under the color-coded alert system introduced by Mr. Adams in March, certain health policy measures were recommended at each level of risk. At the high risk level, the mayor was encouraged to require face masks in all public indoor settings and to bring back a vaccine mandate for restaurants and bars that was in place under the last mayor, Bill de Blasio. When the city reached the high risk level in May, Mr. Adams chose not to reintroduce mask and vaccine mandates...." Maybe you don't want policy choices too tightly to the facts about the virus. There are other factors to consider — the economy, the psychology of the people, the political risks. Looking at all the factors — that's science too. |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 08:24 AM PDT I'm trying to read — at Politico — "Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are developed using cells of 'aborted children'/Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing." Maybe there was an earlier draft of this article that made more sense, but the way it is now, what Clarence Thomas "suggests" happened is the same thing Politico tells us really happened. What's not true is that the vaccines contain cells from aborted fetuses or cells derived from cells from aborted fetuses, but Thomas didn't say that. He said that some litigants opposed to a vaccine mandate "object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children." You can read Thomas's whole opinion — dissenting from a denial of a grant of certiorari — here. He is joined by Alito and Gorsuch. Only 4 votes are needed to take the case. The issue is whether the mandate can be considered a "generally applicable" policy when it has some exceptions — medical exceptions. |
| Is it wrong to confront the witnesses against you? Posted: 01 Jul 2022 08:06 AM PDT This is in the L.A. Times:  I was struck by the choice of photographs. I'm used to the stereotypical witness photo with the hand raised to take the oath, but this side view highlights an extreme color difference between the hand and the face.I don't know if it says anything about a witness's credibility, but you should choose a foundation that matches your skin tone. And choose a photograph that doesn't call attention to a deviation from that rule... unless you want to make a person look unforthcoming. But I don't think the L.A. Times wants to tear down Cassidy Hutchinson. I think it wants to impugn anybody who attempts to counter the deficiencies of the January 6th Committee by challenging the witness's narrative. ADDED: Politico also chooses a photo showing a big hand/face discrepancy for "New details of Jan. 6 panel's mystery messages emerge/Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the committee she was contacted by an intermediary for Mark Meadows, according to a person familiar with her final deposition." And if anyone is thinking of criticizing me for raising this subject, first check to see if you've ever discussed the artificial coloration of Donald Trump's face. |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 07:32 AM PDT Well, that's poorly written, by Emerson College Polling. What does it mean to "legalize a right"? The statute would legalize abortion. Or you could say the statute would create a right to abortion or make a statutory right out of what once was recognized as a constitutional right. But there's no need to "legalize a right." There's no law against an abortion right that needs removing. The states are free to make laws that give women the right to have an abortion. That may not always be the case. It might be that if Republicans of a certain sort win enough seats in Congress, they will pass a federal law proscribing laws that create a statutory right. At that point, if you wanted to get that law repealed, just to leave it to the states to make their own abortion laws, it might make sense to speak of "legalizing the right to abortion." But even then, it would be awkward. I downloaded the full poll and I see that was the question: "Should Congress pass a law legalizing the right to abortion?" Did anyone respond, "What do you mean?" Not only is it not colloquial or ordinary legal jargon to speak of "legalizing a right," you can't tell what specific federal law they're talking about. What were respondents picturing: A law that overrides all laws against abortion, permitting abortion at all stages of pregnancy? A law that tracks the Supreme Court's line, outlawing any undue burden on abortions up until the point called "viability"? A law that gives any opportunity to have an abortion, including a law with a very short time frame, like 6 weeks? Who's supposed to say yes to the question "Should Congress pass a law legalizing the right to abortion?" What if I think a federal law should guarantee access to abortion in the first 10 weeks, but after that, it's a matter of state law? Do I answer "yes" or "no"? I suspect that most people are not thinking in those terms and answered as if they'd been asked, Are you unhappy with the Supreme Court's decision? I suspect that most people, reading this blog post, would simply be puzzled — what am I talking about?! — or exasperated and annoyed. I'd like to see a poll that asked something like this: |
| "Biden With Higher Approval Than US Congress & Supreme Court." Posted: 01 Jul 2022 06:30 AM PDT "The latest Emerson College Polling national survey of US voters finds..."
That's a very nice way to deliver Biden's low approval rating. Everyone else is even less popular. And Democrats seem to be stuck with him:
And we seem to be stuck with 2024 as a repeat of 2020:
What a nightmare! I think the January 6th Committee is horrible, but I can't help hoping it does succeed in knocking Trump out of the 2024 contest. Aren't the Democrats caught in a trap of their own making? They are stuck with Biden. They can't get him out of their way, and they are concentrating on getting Trump out of the way of Republicans.
But the Dems have got to keep pushing Trump out, because it's far too likely that if he runs he will win. They're kind of making it compelling to root for the beleaguered, abused, but ever fighting Trump.
If this were a movie, Trump would be the exciting hero. He must be stopped! Can't the Dems be heroic by stopping him? No, because as soon as he's out of the way, the Republicans get their formidable new hero, Ron DeSantis. And he's a monster who keeps rising from depths of the ruins.... That's what I said back on October 16, 2016: "Hillary Clinton leads Trump 47 percent to 43 percent among likely voters in a four-way race, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post national poll."... [S]he's only got 4 points on him. She must be truly loathed. I know she wants to win, but imagine winning like that, knowing you are not wanted. |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 06:33 AM PDT Writes Neil Gorsuch, citing Federalist No. 11, concurring in yesterday's case, West Virginia v. EPA. He continues:
That footnote goes to an attack on Woodrow Wilson (I've replaced the citiation with a hot link and added boldface): For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that "popular sovereignty" "embarrasse[d]" the Nation because it made it harder to achieve "executive expertness." The Study of Administration. In Wilson's eyes, the mass of the people were "selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish." He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups, defending "[t]he white men of the South" for "rid[ding] themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant [African-Americans]." He likewise denounced immigrants "from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland," who possessed "neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence." To Wilson, our Republic "tr[ied] to do too much by vote." Sometimes the Critical Race Theory comes from the right! That's at page 4 of his opinion. At page 16, attack the dissent, he brings back Woodrow Wilson:
Back to the discussion on page 4:
(That's my Amazon Associates link on Philip Hamburger's book. Don't buy the book that way unless you want to support this blog.) Gorsuch stresses democracy as a structural safeguard, intended by the framers to protect us from abuse by the elite, who would prefer to do what they, in their wisdom, think will be best for us. He nudges us to feel that those who argue for executive law-making — like Woodrow Wilson — regard the people as "selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish" — deplorables. |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2022 04:46 AM PDT Said President Biden, quoted in "Biden, Chiding Court, Endorses Ending Filibuster to Codify Abortion Rights/The president called the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade 'destabilizing' and said Congress needed to act to codify it into law" (NYT).
A critical, critical piece of what? I'm sure he left it hanging. The NYT would not edit him into less articulateness. Here's the full statement at the White House website: "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference/Madrid, Spain." Ah! An entire press conference. Interestingly, Biden had already used the phrase "critical, critical." Earlier in the press conference, a NYT reporter asked him "How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?" He said:
Later in the press conference, he was asked "What further specific executive actions are you considering in response to the Roe ruling?" He said:
I think he was trying to say "a critical, critical piece of the right of privacy." To continue with the text: At that point, Kelly O'Donnell observed that he "just made some news saying you would support changing the filibuster rules," but instead of pursuing any details, asked: "What is your sense today about the integrity and the impartiality of the Supreme Court? Should Americans have confidence in the Court as an institution? And your views on abortion have evolved in your public life. Are you the best messenger to carry this forward when Democrats — many of them, many progressives — want you to do more?" The official transcript tells us the President laughs. Like Nixon of old, he asserts "I am the President":
It seems obvious to me that he knows a lot of would-be Democratic voters are critical — critical, critical — of his relatively weak response to the death of Roe. He needs to emote: I feel extremely strongly.... But is there much chance of voting the filibuster out of the way? Back to the NYT article: [T]he president and his allies in the Senate have so far failed to rally enough support to make such exceptions to the filibuster. Among those who have expressed staunch opposition are two moderate Democratic senators: Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. Both senators condemned the court's ruling when it was handed down last Friday and said they would support legislation to put Roe v. Wade's protections into law. But Ms. Sinema has balked at undoing the filibuster threshold to accomplish that.... ADDED: As for Joe Manchin... is he really in favor of abortion rights? In early May, after the leak of the draft opinion, Vanity Fair published "JOE MANCHIN VOTES AGAINST PROTECTING ABORTION RIGHTS DESPITE CLAIMING TO SUPPORT ABORTION RIGHTS/Senate Democrats' attempt to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law failed Wednesday with Manchin as the lone Democrat to join every Republican to tank the bill." |
| 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 | |
What makes an Instant Coffee "Premium"?
It's in the beans and packing process͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
admin posted: " [Download] Abdul Bari All Courses for Free Download - Google Drive Links [Abdul Bari] Learn Core JAV...
