Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

Teachers union president dares Trump to sit in classroom amid coronavirus 'and breathe that air'
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... class-amid

Trump on Wednesday morning threatened to cut funding to schools that fail to reopen, claiming without evidence that reluctance to open was an attempt to sabotage him politically.

Jfc

[MWB]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

Good stuff. This is similar to what crews was saying in that Lemon interview as well. Silencing people, in general, is a bad idea.

[faftorial]

Tomorrow's fun:

Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tax returns, financial records to come Thursday

[Morkle]

Already ready for the bad news there.

[Troy Loney]

Already ready for the bad news there.

I saw that they could kick the case down to a lower court and ask the DA/Congress to exhibit more cause. Either way, it's kind of ridiculous to be asking SCOTUS to decide this.

[NAN]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

Good stuff. This is similar to what crews was saying in that Lemon interview as well. Silencing people, in general, is a bad idea.

[mikey]

Teachers union president dares Trump to sit in classroom amid coronavirus 'and breathe that air'
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... class-amid

Trump on Wednesday morning threatened to cut funding to schools that fail to reopen, claiming without evidence that reluctance to open was an attempt to sabotage him politically.

Jfc

A) Jfc, indeed
B) Assuming he can actually follow-through on his threats, not much funding comes from the fed gov anyhow (DOE, again, sucks up money, outputs little)
C) Jfc, this guy...

[NAN]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop ... cal-safety

WTF.

[Kraftster]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

[/spoiler]
This bolded part is what has shaped my opinion on this. There are obviously participants in this circus that don't have any interest in the actual opponent/villain that has to be confronted and are just riding the wave attention on social media. There is a cottage industry of right-wing extremists that are able to inject their toxic propaganda into a mainstream amplification by instigating conflict with this "silencing conservatives" mantra. It's not hard to find people sympathetic to the cause of the conservative voices being shouted down on campuses, who then spread messages from those bad actors (hint, here).

To me, it's just a forest through the trees. You are never going to get people to conform to your views or act according to your designs. You don't have to agree with everyone, and you can couple that with choosing to not respect their views and opinions. And to that note, saying that a point or argument is stupid and irrelevant is not "stifling" their speech. It is absolutely hilarious that people on this board have been trying to pretend that they are victims of being shouted down on this board.

There is definitely a conservative amplification of this to appeal to the fears of middle-of-the-road voters in the vein of "this could be you." But I do think this is spreading to dangerous places. Take the case of Pinker, a linguist. Harvard professor who has always struck me as nothing if not intellectually honest. An important professional organization (Linguistic Society of America) denounces racism, which leads members to say, "if you really mean it, you will kick Pinker out of our club." The case against him was largely intellectually dishonest and debunked by fellow members rather quickly. Nonetheless, this is not the only example of this thought process spreading beyond pop culture and "art"--where I think the ramifications are less severe in terms of potential damage to the human project--to academia/public discourse.

I have a hard time believing this movement is any less dangerous than Trumpistan authoritarianism that chills free speech (threats of canceling federal funding/aid, for instance). I thought the letter did a nice job of equating these two things. At a minimum, the effect is the same, even if one cause is a greater threat than the other.

What do you see as the critical difference(s) between the two? It feels like two sides of the same coin to me. And I don't think either side presents a reliable basis for its conduct, and at a minimum, any basis that can be given fails to provide a scaleable principle upon which real policy could be formulated.

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop ... cal-safety

WTF.

Give up your freedoms of thought and physical safety. Let us brainwash you into complete control.

[count2infinity]

This is shad's "SHARIA LAW!!!" level of non-sense.

[MWB]

Teachers union president dares Trump to sit in classroom amid coronavirus 'and breathe that air'
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... class-amid

Trump on Wednesday morning threatened to cut funding to schools that fail to reopen, claiming without evidence that reluctance to open was an attempt to sabotage him politically.

Jfc

A) Jfc, indeed
B) Assuming he can actually follow-through on his threats, not much funding comes from the fed gov anyhow (DOE, again, sucks up money, outputs little)
C) Jfc, this guy...

I agree, follow through is unlikely, and not something I’m really worried about. But Title I (poor schools) and IDEA grants (special ed classes) are two areas that get that federal money and don’t need it taken away.

[mikey]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

Bravo. Been saying this for years, with less eloquence...

[Troy Loney]

There is definitely a conservative amplification of this to appeal to the fears of middle-of-the-road voters in the vein of "this could be you." But I do think this is spreading to dangerous places. Take the case of Pinker, a linguist. Harvard professor who has always struck me as nothing if not intellectually honest. An important professional organization (Linguistic Society of America) denounces racism, which leads members to say, "if you really mean it, you will kick Pinker out of our club." The case against him was largely intellectually dishonest and debunked by fellow members rather quickly. Nonetheless, this is not the only example of this thought process spreading beyond pop culture and "art"--where I think the ramifications are less severe in terms of potential damage to the human project--to academia/public discourse.

I have a hard time believing this movement is any less dangerous than Trumpistan authoritarianism that chills free speech (threats of canceling federal funding/aid, for instance). I thought the letter did a nice job of equating these two things. At a minimum, the effect is the same, even if one cause is a greater threat than the other.

What do you see as the critical difference(s) between the two? It feels like two sides of the same coin to me. And I don't think either side presents a reliable basis for its conduct, and at a minimum, any basis that can be given fails to provide a scaleable principle upon which real policy could be formulated.

I don’t see the parallel between these two things to where I can differentiate. I think cancel culture is clearly public shaming and being weaponized by manipulative bad actors.

My rejection of trump and the current Republican Party is based on an entirely different context. I believe things that people take for granted as the truism of 20th century liberal democracy are social constructs and vulnerable to attack and indifferent pacifiscism will allow it to erode. The fall of the Soviet Union introduced into our consciousness the end of history. It is just accepted that liberal, market based democracy is the end goal of humankind and nothing can threaten that contract. Obviously trump is not able to move America in that direction, not due to desire, but he is not capable of imagining the next steps, nor the brutality necessary to achieve those ends. But the Overton window is being moved, to the point where the paper of record is publishing a senators opinion to turn th military against its people and its treated simply as a “difference of opinion”

I don’t have the patience to cite the examples that pushed me in this direction, but this is not the entirety of my answer to your question.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[shafnutz05]

Every day gets more ridiculous than the last

[Freddy Rumsen]

There is definitely a conservative amplification of this to appeal to the fears of middle-of-the-road voters in the vein of "this could be you." But I do think this is spreading to dangerous places. Take the case of Pinker, a linguist. Harvard professor who has always struck me as nothing if not intellectually honest. An important professional organization (Linguistic Society of America) denounces racism, which leads members to say, "if you really mean it, you will kick Pinker out of our club." The case against him was largely intellectually dishonest and debunked by fellow members rather quickly. Nonetheless, this is not the only example of this thought process spreading beyond pop culture and "art"--where I think the ramifications are less severe in terms of potential damage to the human project--to academia/public discourse.

I have a hard time believing this movement is any less dangerous than Trumpistan authoritarianism that chills free speech (threats of canceling federal funding/aid, for instance). I thought the letter did a nice job of equating these two things. At a minimum, the effect is the same, even if one cause is a greater threat than the other.

What do you see as the critical difference(s) between the two? It feels like two sides of the same coin to me. And I don't think either side presents a reliable basis for its conduct, and at a minimum, any basis that can be given fails to provide a scaleable principle upon which real policy could be formulated.

I don’t see the parallel between these two things to where I can differentiate. I think cancel culture is clearly public shaming and being weaponized by manipulative bad actors.

My rejection of trump and the current Republican Party is based on an entirely different context. I believe things that people take for granted as the truism of 20th century liberal democracy are social constructs and vulnerable to attack and indifferent pacifiscism will allow it to erode. The fall of the Soviet Union introduced into our consciousness the end of history. It is just accepted that liberal, market based democracy is the end goal of humankind and nothing can threaten that contract. Obviously trump is not able to move America in that direction, not due to desire, but he is not capable of imagining the next steps, nor the brutality necessary to achieve those ends. But the Overton window is being moved, to the point where the paper of record is publishing a senators opinion to turn th military against its people and its treated simply as a “difference of opinion”

I don’t have the patience to cite the examples that pushed me in this direction, but this is not the entirety of my answer to your question.

It's also a reminder that folks of color are only allowed to think one way.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Every day gets more ridiculous than the last

This CANNOT be a real headline

Like, not even the Onion could cook up something this egregious

[Morkle]

President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa that drew thousands of people in late June, along with large protests that accompanied it, “likely contributed” to a dramatic surge in new coronavirus cases, Tulsa City-County Health Department Director Dr. Bruce Dart said Wednesday.

Tulsa County reported 261 confirmed new cases on Monday, a one-day record high, and another 206 cases on Tuesday.

Although the health department’s policy is to not publicly identify individual settings where people may have contracted the virus, Dart said those large gatherings “more than likely” contributed to the spike.

“In the past few days, we’ve seen almost 500 new cases, and we had several large events just over two weeks ago, so I guess we just connect the dots,” Dart said.

Curious about the difference between indoor and out door events.

[grunthy]

https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-liv ... ts-fd.html


If anything positive happens with Covid, I hope people start getting their damn flu shot. These are pictures of hospitals being overrun by the flu, yet we have a vaccine for that. This happened all over the country in the 2018 flu season, yet no one cared. Hopefully this teaches everyone a lesson.

[grunthy]

Not comparing it to the flu it is obviously worse for people with co-morbidities.

[mikey]

President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa that drew thousands of people in late June, along with large protests that accompanied it, “likely contributed” to a dramatic surge in new coronavirus cases, Tulsa City-County Health Department Director Dr. Bruce Dart said Wednesday.

Tulsa County reported 261 confirmed new cases on Monday, a one-day record high, and another 206 cases on Tuesday.

Although the health department’s policy is to not publicly identify individual settings where people may have contracted the virus, Dart said those large gatherings “more than likely” contributed to the spike.

“In the past few days, we’ve seen almost 500 new cases, and we had several large events just over two weeks ago, so I guess we just connect the dots,” Dart said.

Curious about the difference between indoor and out door events.

Seems like there's a pretty marked difference between indoor and respectful outdoor in my look. Areas where indoor seating vs outdoor seating are aloud cases, the whole viral load thing, and there's a study I was reading the other day about how sunlight actually does dissipate the virus in fairly dramatic fashion...a lot of the dots connect towards being outdoors being less of a threat by probably 30-70% or so, ballparking it...

[Morkle]

President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tulsa that drew thousands of people in late June, along with large protests that accompanied it, “likely contributed” to a dramatic surge in new coronavirus cases, Tulsa City-County Health Department Director Dr. Bruce Dart said Wednesday.

Tulsa County reported 261 confirmed new cases on Monday, a one-day record high, and another 206 cases on Tuesday.

Although the health department’s policy is to not publicly identify individual settings where people may have contracted the virus, Dart said those large gatherings “more than likely” contributed to the spike.

“In the past few days, we’ve seen almost 500 new cases, and we had several large events just over two weeks ago, so I guess we just connect the dots,” Dart said.

Curious about the difference between indoor and out door events.

Seems like there's a pretty marked difference between indoor and respectful outdoor in my look. Areas where indoor seating vs outdoor seating are aloud cases, the whole viral load thing, and there's a study I was reading the other day about how sunlight actually does dissipate the virus in fairly dramatic fashion...a lot of the dots connect towards being outdoors being less of a threat by probably 30-70% or so, ballparking it...

Seems that way, stinks this will be a political battle but they at least have sample data from having an event indoors.

[Freddy Rumsen]

NFL folks keep doubling down.

[Morkle]

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a national security aide who played a central role in President Trump’s impeachment case, announced his retirement from the Army on Wednesday in a scathing statement that accused the president of running a “campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation.”

The statement from attorney David Pressman said Vindman, 45, was leaving the Army after more than 21 years after it had been made clear “that his future within the institution he has dutifully served will forever be limited.”

“Through a campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation, the President of the United States attempted to force LTC Vindman to choose: Between adhering to the law or pleasing a President. Between honoring his oath or protecting his career. Between protecting his promotion or the promotion of his fellow soldiers,” read the statement, first obtained by CNN.