[L1]: In light of the recent story in the national news about a young student’s refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance (which allegedly precipitated an altercation and arrest of the child) and the teachers in the Mountain State striking for the second year in a row, I thought it appropriate to revisit West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette for our case of the week. The holding of the case is a very simple and very profound one: Students may not be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
The case dates back to 1942, at which time all students in West Virginia public schools were required to recite the Pledge each school day, by edict of the state Board of Education. Notably, the law prescribed the manner in which the Pledge was delivered, including that the students’ right arms should be extended in “a stiff arm salute”, or the so called “Bellamy salute”. The disturbing similarity to the Nazi salute was cause for concern and concessions made as to form. However, when the Barnette family of Kanawha County, practicing members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to allow their child to participate in the Pledge, their children were expelled. Each day the family sent their daughters back to their grade school; each day, the children were sent home. Finally, the Barnettes filed suit in the United States District Court. At that time, the existing precedent was Minersville School District v. Gobitis, et al, which had already considered the issue and ruled that religious objection would not exempt a person “from obedience to an otherwise valid general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.” Nevertheless, the District Court in Barnette’s case ruled in Barnette’s favor, defying the Gobitis decision, prompting an appeal to SCOTUS by the Board.
In the two years between Gobitis and the Barnette case’s submission to the Supreme Court, the Court had seen the retirement of Justice Byrnes and the appointment of Justice Rutledge, which had already resulted in the overturning of one First Amendment case with a ruling favorable to free speech and freedom of religion. Justice Jackson, writing for a 5-3 Court in Barnette, noted that the holding of Gobitis was predicated on the right of “authorities” to employ whatever means deemed necessary to attain “national unity”, in the name of “national security.” But Jackson rejected the rationale:
As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
The Court then affirmed the District Court decision, overturned Gobitis, and in a ruling undisturbed to this day prohibited the forcing by a public entity of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. In a day and age in which one’s character and fealty are increasingly judged by his or her willingness to salute or otherwise venerate the flag, the Pledge, or the Anthem, these words of Justice Jackson are worth pondering: “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”
[L2]: The full details of the child arrested following his refusal to stand for the Pledge can be found here; it is worth noting that there is more to the story than his initial refusal, and as usual, both sides look bad.
[L3]: As mentioned in L1, West Virginia teachers are on strike again. This time, the issue is not a pay raise or benefits, but Senate Bill 451, which creates charter schools and Education Savings Accounts.
[L4]: The Supreme Court has released its spring calendar. Among the cases the Court will hear are those involving statutes of limitations when a prosecutor fabricates evidence; the applicability of California labor laws to offshore rigs; the meaning of “confidentiality” in FOIA requests; and a line of clothing that’s FUCT.
[L5]: Note to lawyers: when your spouse interrupts your deposition to ask if you’ve taken the trash out, you may want to consider not holding depos in your dining room.
[L6]: Mechanical pencils and other LSAT contraband: how the future partners of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe try to cheat law school entrance exams.
[L7]: Uber is fighting a subpoena to turn over customer records, in an ugly custody case involving a former South Carolina state treasurer and his reality show co-star and soon-to-be-ex wife.
[L8]: A district court judge in Washington State threw out a handful of criminal charges when it came to light that the San Juan County Sheriff was using the courtroom camera to zoom in on defense counsel’s notes and exhibits.
[L9]: When Haley Moss was three, she was diagnosed with autism and given a bleak prognosis for ever being productive or living independently. Last week, she was sworn in to the Florida Bar.
[L10]: William Barr has been sworn in as the US Attorney General. And it came with a sweet White House Counsel’s Office gig for his son, too.
[L11]: Our dumb criminal of the week is Roger Stone. How could it not be? From his refusal to shut up to his ill-advised, to be nice about it, tweet regarding the judge in his case, he seems almost self-destructive at this point.
[L12]: In honor of the striking teachers in West Virginia (and across the country over the last year), here’s a YouTube playlist of the best “Union songs”, including this one:
L3: I have a hard time supporting strikes that are in response to legislative action not directly impactful to the given work force.Report
Well, there are other things in the bill affecting seniority and leave. It’s a huge education overhaul- and West Virginia teachers were not consulted. And of course, the money follows the students so charters and ESAs take money from their classrooms.
The bill would also give them another 5% raise and a tax break for purchasing supplies out of pocket,, but the teachers say theyre striking and willing to forego the raise because they believe it’s bad for the kids.Report
Ah, ok, that makes a difference. Those are things that shouldn’t be part of a legislative action given that there is a Union (unless the Union signed off on those things).
Striking just because a bill creates charter schools and ESA’s sounds like an attempt to short circuit the normal democratic process.Report
There is no such thing as a “normal democratic process,” there’s only norms some people believe are good and others don’t care about.
I consider groups of strikers a much better expression of the democratic process than frankly, most of what is considered the “normal democratic process” in most of the United States.
More strikes, less policies being written and determined at a lunch with a lobbyist.Report
fewerReport
I disagree here. I think the teachers sincerely think they are working for the best interest of the kids. They even said take back the raises but don’t give public school funds to private and charter schools. Though I suppose this is an ideological disagreement. I’m anti-charter school and certainly anti public school money being given to private schools.
The strike caused the bill to be defeated. Strikes work.Report
Even though I am pro-charter, etc., I find the idea of using a strike to push against legislative action not directly related to workplace conditions to be a misuse of the power of a strike.
Would you support Prison Guards striking because a state legislature decriminalized drug usage and possession?Report
“Would you support Prison Guards striking because a state legislature decriminalized drug usage and possession?”
Sure, if prison guards think them striking will affect public opinion, absolutely. Now, I’d think it’d fail, but I support of all workers, even the ones in less than great industries, the right to strike.Report
At least you honest about letting the power accrue to all, even those you might disagree with.Report
I wouldn’t like it but I would support their right to strike while also speaking against them.
Anyway, the action by the W.VA legislature struck me as a bit of revenge for the Teacher’s going on strike and winning the first time so I disagree with your linkage claim.Report
I actually walked back my specific linkage when Em pointed out the bill had other things it that were specific to Union concerns. Once she pointed that out, the discussion was merely academic.Report
This was absolutely revenge. The teachers won big time last year and the senate president Mitch Carmichael looked like an absolute fool.
This was his vengeance. This bill was foisted on the legislature, rushed through without normal committee references and debate. This was an ALEC bill and a giant FU to the teachers.Report
“This was an ALEC bill”
Ah yes, the normal democratic process that involves a lobbying group writing up bills for states to cut ‘n’ paste, with no further debate.Report
This bill was foisted on the legislature, rushed through without normal committee references and debate.
Why are we still talking about the McConnell tax bill?Report
Mitch McConnell, Mitch Carmichael… same thing, really. Except one looks like a turtle and the other like Fire Marshall Bill.Report
Point of order: Mitch McConnell is at least competent in his stated roles and objectives, whatever you think of his politics. Carmichael is conducting a clown show.Report
Lamentably correct. McConnell, R. Turtletown, is fiercely competent in his tactics and short term strategy. Damn his shell!Report
[L1]: I read the summary of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and am struck by the harmony of principles at stake in its overturn of Minersville School District v. Gobitis as we’ve seen more recently in the shift from the “laws of general applicability” principle in Employment Division v. Smith leading to RFRA leading ultimate to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
The thing of it is, we celebrate Barnette (rightly, IMO) as a move towards freedom, but Hobby Lobby is still a partisan rallying cry (albeit one that has muted with so many other partisanized events occurring in the intervening five years). It’s discomforting for me to cheer Barnette and sneer at Hobby Lobby.
I think that’s my reaction because in Hobby Lobby I see competing freedoms — the freedom of the employee to get contraception through her employer’s health care plan, pitted against the freedom of the owners of the company to not pay for the contraception. And perhaps I’m discomfited because the obvious freedom-maximizing accommodation — let the employee who wants contraception pay a surcharge for it — seems to have not been an option for reasons about which I can only speculate.
It may also be because in Barnette I see the government intruding upon a religious belief for the overt purpose of imposing its own preferred beliefs, a governmental objective that seems inherently illegitimate to me. (As Justice Jackson points out, a government that must rely upon compulsory professions of loyalty appears to be doing so because it fears it cannot earn its citizens’ loyalty through its deeds.) In Hobby Lobby I see the government inadvertently intruding upon a religious belief for the purpose of promoting public health, which is a legitimate public purpose unrelated to the mental state, beliefs, or other inner lives of the participants in the program. Yes, I see the argument that the contraception mandate had the effect of intruding upon the owners’ practice of their beliefs, but effect and intent are different things.
In any event, it’s a reasonably clear picture when we compare the power of the government to the rights of an individual. Barnette did not set a competing individual liberty of some other person against the Barnette family – it set the power of the government against individual people. It’s easy, or at least it ought to be easy, for even someone who thinks the flag is worthy of a profession of loyalty to see that others might disagree for any number of reasons.
There surely can be a reasonable reconciliation, a balance point, between the need to allow people the latitude and freedom to act as dictated by their consciences, and the need for laws to have compulsory and practical effect, that we may have a government at all.
Maybe we only get to that place by feeling our way as we go.Report
Really good observations, Burt. I knew there was something niggling at me even as I applauded the Barnett decision and I think you pinpointed it. We run the risk of contradiction when in some cases we want the government to stop letting religious beliefs meddle with our rights, but in other cases want the government to stop letting the rights of others meddle with our religious beliefs. Legitimate public purpose, such as public health makes sense. Compare that with the alleged legitimate public purpose espoused in Gobitis of patriotic loyalty and unity. I think that the difference is clearly the specter of forced nationalism is much more problematic and antithetic to rights than an issue of public health.
Feeling our way as we go, indeed.Report
plus, in Hobby Lobby there was the other aspect of employers getting to impose their religious beliefs on employees. I’m still waiting for a Scientologist or 7th Day Adventist to object to paying for blood transfusions or organ transplants for an employee, or maybe anything at all if the employer believes in prayer only.
After all, the employer only needed an objection based on a ‘sincerely held religious belief’ to refuse to pay for something.Report
7DA’s are for blood transfusions.Report
Right, it’s the Witnesses who don’t allow them.Report
Sorry. Christianity has too many brands. It’s hard to keep them all straight.Report
Splitters!Report
“perhaps I’m discomfited because the obvious freedom-maximizing accommodation — let the employee who wants contraception pay a surcharge for it…”
which, uh, the employee is certainly able to do by purchasing the contraception services over the counter…?
“In Hobby Lobby I see the government inadvertently intruding upon a religious belief for the purpose of promoting public health, which is a legitimate public purpose unrelated to the mental state, beliefs, or other inner lives of the participants in the program.”
And as the dissent in the case pointed out, if the government thinks this is a useful service that ought to be provided to citizens, it’s entirely welcome to set up its own program to provide that service rather than require private citizens to do it.Report
Which is also vehemently opposed by the very same people who say things like this.Report
Beat me to it. That kind of logic is baffling.Report
Could you explain that logic? (I’m not even holding your beer for this one.)Report
Joe, did you mean to write “explain why you think that logic is baffling”? The reasoning she called baffling isn’t *her* reasoning, after all.Report
If she is calling something logic that isn’t logic then wth?
I mean where do you see it going, because the thing ends up looking like some flavor of :This social construct is requiring that social construct to do this thing because of some twisted sense of social objectivity of ‘X’.
How are you seeing it?Report
I think she’s just responding to the argument/views DD presented.
But now I’m really confused. Who do you think isn’t making logical sense here, DD or Em?Report
I could be wrong, but I’m leaning towards DD as there appears one less layer of social constructs and no implementation of social objectivity, which in my perspective is two fewer layers of Rube Goldberg clusterfish.Report
What I meant was that it was illogical for DD to present a solution (government sponsored program for prescriptions) that he knows full well would be fought tooth and nail by the right/GOP/conservatives (one or more subset I assume he belongs to, based on his commentary history) because socialism. If logic is the wrong framework, I could go with “disingenuous bull crap”.Report
“What I meant was that it was illogical for DD to present a solution (government sponsored program for prescriptions) that he knows full well would be fought tooth and nail by the right/GOP/conservatives ”
If this is the reasoning that gets me called a bastard, then what are you doing proposing a solution that, as we’ve seen, is equally “fought tooth and nail” and “vehemently opposed”?Report
Who called you a bastard?
Listen, I just don’t like disingenuous arguments. I know you don’t mean it when you say “the government is entirely welcome” to set up a program like that, so why say it?Report
Because of course they object to even the tiniest fraction of their tax dollars going to pay for contraception, just like the Hobby Lobby owners object to paying for insurance that covers general healthcare, including contraception.
Strangely, none of these folks ever seem to have any sympathy for religious pacifists who might object to their taxes going to military spending….Report
Considering that the pacifists in question don’t seem to care that much, perhaps those folks are just following the demonstrated lead.Report
Hell, just don’t pay taxes and see where the pacifism evaporates.Report
So then wrt contraception we should follow the demonstrated lead of the majority of Catholics in the US who use non-rhythm based contraception?Report
…which they pay for themselves? I mean, sure, but I don’t think that’s the argument you think you’re making.Report
I don’t think there is any amount of behavior that an 11 year old kid can do that justifies how the adults reacted in the Florida pledge case.
One of the big problems of civil liberties cases is that civil liberties are rarely advanced by saints and boy scouts. For every Sullivan v. NY Times which pushes free speech forward while fighting for civil rights, there are probably 5-10 people whose motives are less pure.
The case law on standing for the pledge has been settled for over 70 years. The problem is that lots of people like performative patriotism and I’m not sure how to educate against that. Maybe the curse of civil liberties is that it will always be advanced and protected by a well-educated, culturally connected “elite.”Report
One Supreme Court justice, I forgot who, quipped that “the cause of liberty has generally been advanced by unpleasant people.” Many of the people who fought against the once common and popular obscenity laws were not people you would generally want to hang around. Same with other freedoms. They were misfits and malcontents.Report
The Supreme Court just ruled on Timbs v Indiana, which was a case about civil asset forfeiture and how courts have been using excessive fines and seizures as a revenue stream.
The court’s opinion (pdf)Report
You can expect a full write up on this probably tomorrow.Report
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html
Unnnng… it’s beginning to look like Jussie Smollett fabricated the “homophobic MAGA attack” on himself. If true, this is looking like the Rolling Stone fiasco and the Covington fiasco rolled up in a rainbow flag with a really idiotic self centered gay man in the middle of it. Thank agnostic Jesus that I kept my yap shut when the original story popped out; a lot of lefties have made utter fools of themselves on this one.
If the allegations are true and the facts on the matter are beginning to look mighty damning, I’d really want to strangle Smollett. Talk about a privileged wealthy gay actor hurting poor and abused LGBT people everywhere throughout time for his own self aggrandizing purposes!
If it is the way it’s looking I hope they hurtle the book at him and I hope the left pours out their vitriol on him in spades.Report
At least there weren’t any politicians who made sweeping statements about what this attack means.Report
As I recall Harris may have weighed in on it.Report
Don’t know if this is good or bad but I thought “lemme google that!” and the first hit for “kamal” autofilled to “Kamala Harris” and the second one autofilled to “Kamala Harris Jussie Smollett”.
And I thought “well, doesn’t that autofill based on previous searches?” but I’m pretty sure I’ve not searched for her yet.
Good news, I guess. All of the news sites talking about her response to being asked about Jussie are the partisan ones like Fox, Daily Caller, and Warshington Times. Real news organizations are ignoring it.Report
The more media-media ones are still suspending judgement until the Smollett thing gels and people know for sure which way to jump; I imagine. I bet Mrs. Harris is wishing she’d done the same.
As for the auto-fill? It’s google; it knows you used to post at Redstate. It probably also knows you got banned from there but it probably likes picking on you.Report
I Googled Santorum and you won’t believe what seeped out.Report
Ew.Report
I can’t believe this is news to you?
Either you are being ironic (good for you) or you need to get out moreReport
Meanwhile Tucker Carlson had a bit of a meltdownReport
When doesn’t he?
But it’s looking like the police are charging Smollett. That god(ess) damned idiot.Report
But the problem with Smollett is that the right-wing screams we are all on his side when there was skepticism and little coverage from Day One.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/02/going-meta-jussie-smollett
But we always give the benefit of the doubt to the Covington kids and the right-wingers. I will admit that I’ve been pretty angry recently when it comes to politics and I do think Jaybird soft-peddles and apologizes for the worst right-wing selfmyths about themselves.Report
Almost no even slightly prominent liberal or left blog commented on the incident at all. (Wonkette had one piece).
This is somewhat weasel wording.
“slightly prominent”, “blog”, and “liberal”, for example, don’t really allow for stuff like this article from GQ to count.
Ah! You may say. That’s not a BLOG! Or, I suppose, that’s GQ! It’s not *LIBERAL*!
And you can be pleased that your original statement remains technically true… I guess…
Pity about what happens to the point you were attempting to make with that technically true statement, though.Report
…if GQ is neither “liberal” nor a blog, then I would say it does nothing to undermine his point.Report
I guess I need to hammer out what the point actually is, then.
Because if we’ve got two groups of people arguing for two different points, and pointing at the same evidence and yelling “QED!”, maybe we’ve got a problem that can be solved by people saying “hold up, wait a second”.Report
Because if we’ve got two groups of people arguing for two different points, and pointing at the same evidence and yelling “QED!”, maybe we’ve got a problem that can be solved by people saying “hold up, wait a second”.
This is a very amusing comment from a person who claimed CNN and MSNBC were promoting a “Bernie shouldn’t run” narrative based on a single piece of evidence.
Just pointing that out.
If the criticism here is that people are locked into an epistemic look perpetuating their own narratives, then that criticism applies with equal legitimacy to people who are locked into perpetuating their own meta-narratives.Report
We need a better meta-meta-narrative.Report
That’s certainly an exciting prospect. Or we could go the other way.Report
Democrat POTUS hopefuls Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand all commented on it, using some variation of “modern” and “day” and “lynching”. But they aren’t blogs, and maybe none of them are liberal?Report
Q.E.D.Report
In fairness the post Saul links to addresses that. It also points out that Trump condemned the “attack” too so politicians are going to politician.
I’m heartened that l’affair Smollett wasn’t as widespread across the left as righties imply but that doesn’t dampen my ire towards Smollett himself.Report
But the problem with Smollett is that the right-wing screams
You’re doing it again.Report
I’m looking forward to his newest fanboy, Rod Dreher, to complete ignore thisReport
Nah, Rod’s straight up defending it.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/tucker-carlson-was-right-rutger-bregman/Report
I saw that – here I am eating crow hehe
Report
I’m still not convinced that Covington is a fiasco especially because the kid decided to sue the Washington Post for 250 million dollars (the amount Bezos paid for it) and the Washington Post was one of the more moderate reportages on the whole deal.
Now they didn’t like the little private school shit look like an angle like the lickspittles at Today but….Report
At what point did you decide that the Hulk Hogan/Gawker trial was a fiasco?
At what point did you decide that the 2016 Election was a fiasco?
(I’m trying to get a good calibration here.)Report
Wanna talk about the Nazi Coast Guarder who was planning a huge killing spree/domestic terriorism:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696470366/arrested-coast-guard-officer-planned-mass-terrorist-attack-on-a-scale-rarely-seeReport
Yes, all sides have their deranged loons who attack baseball games and the like.Report
I’m pleased he got caught. Corruption in “The Authorities” needs to be removed, root and branch.Report
Damn, they are charging the guy with having guns while also having Tramadol. I guess I have to go bury my half bottle in the back yard now.Report
Bookmarking this for the next iteration of the customary ritual in which everybody I know posts a self-congratulatory update to Facebook declaring that a) This is terrorism, and b) Nobody ever calls it “terrorism” when a white guy does it.Report
Welp. The twitters are saying that the cops have announced that he’s been charged with Felony Disorderly Conduct.Report
That fishing imbecile! I hope they throw the God(ess) damned book at him!Report
(And, on top of that, he apparently committed Mail Fraud a month before this particular incident in creating a fake death threat that failed to go viral and there may be books being thrown at him regarding that too.)
I’ve seen two main responses to this sort of thing. One that focuses on the individual, one that focuses on Us As A Society. (Or maybe it’s the other way around.)
The first one is that the dude is obviously crazy and needs help. The argument is somewhat circular because it points out that only someone who is obviously crazy and needs help would do this, he did this, so, therefore, he is obviously crazy and needs help. I mean, someone *SANE* would not do this. Therefore, he is insane. Q.E.D.
The second one is that the guy was committing, for lack of a better term, blood libel. They point out that the cops came to him and said “we’re pretty sure we caught the two guys who jumped you, do you want to press charges?” and he was enthusiastic about pressing charges. Then the cops showed him that the two guys that they caught were the two brothers (and *NOT* two random white guys from the area). When he was showed this, he immediately said that he did not wish to press charges. This is given as evidence that he would have been happy to use the power of the state to attack/destroy two random guys who merely fit the description that he made up. As such, he needs to not only be charged with Felony Disorderly Conduct, but with stuff like Conspiracy To Commit something or other.
I have no idea what the proper response is. We want to dissuade future people from doing this sort of thing but I find myself wondering how we got into a situation where it would be in the same ballpark as reasonable to try a stunt like this in the first place.Report
Well he’s going to lose his lucrative job and, hopefully, have trouble finding more lucrative jobs. And if the left has the sense that god gave a gnat he’s going to get viciously dragged across the left-o-sphere. With his case history he might well get slapped with a bit of jail time. And that’s the bare minimum of what he deserves.Report
One theory I’ve seen kicked about was that he was being written off of the show and this was an attempt at creating a situation where he would have to not be written off the show.
To be honest, had he not done this, I think his chances of being picked up by a completely different show next year would have been higher.Report
He is a highly attractive talented actor and gifted singer though obviously he’s pretty stupid/oblivious or both. Had he not done this horrific idiotic thing that harmed his entire community he’d probably have found plenty of other work.
Now I hope he has to scratch and claw to get a gig at the local dinner theater.Report
Report
Turns out he’s a better actor than producer.Report
*snort!* It’s a good thing he’s cute because he clearly isn’t going to survive by his wits alone.Report
On a related note, do you remember that noose found hanging on the doorknob of a professor’s office at Columbia University about ten years ago? It later turned out that that professor—Madonna Constantine—was, at the time, under investigation for plagiarism charges which ultimately culminated in her firing.
The mystery of the noose was never publicly resolved, even though Columbia supposedly had security tapes.Report
If you want more of a thing, subsidize it.
If you want less of a thing, tax it.Report
“They navigated by the light of the dumpster fires.”Report
As long as we are stroking our chins and wondering things, we could also wonder how we got in the situation where, half a century after the Civil Rights campaigns, the idea of white men attacking a black man out of racial animosity is still so easily believable.
Maybe that newspaper in Alabama calling for the Klan to night ride again could offer a perspective.Report
“It’s their fault for this story being so believable in the first place” is an interesting argument.
Do we want to explore how this argument has been used historically or no?Report
Sure, go for it.Report
Are you familiar with Blood Libel?Report
Sure.
Are you suggesting noting the historical pattern of white on black racial violence is some sort of bigotry?Report
Not at all.
I would say that *RECREATING* it, however, is indicative of a problem.
Would you say that what Smollett did was merely “noting” racial violence?Report
I think what the candidates like Harris did, was merely noting the report fit a pattern.
Even though it is politically incorrect to say so.Report
It fit a lot of patterns.Report
Personally I think any story that sounds like a hypothetical from a grievance studies seminar or law and order script that didn’t make the cut should be treated skeptically. The fact that the media doesn’t is frustrating, but I also think it’s why the illiberal leftism pushed on the campuses where journalists are educated is in fact a problem.
They’re being set up to fall for hoaxes that confirm their basis like this one or Jackie Coakley at UVA and they will again and again then wonder why people don’t find the #fakenews stuff as preposterous as it often is. No one wins with this.Report
Tonight, on NCIS:
Ripped from the headlines, a white supremacist military officer plans a major terrorist strike to kill the Speaker of the House.Report
Hey maybe so!
I know being woke means never having to admit an error. Sadly as more of a rationalist I’m required to wait for the investigation before I reach any firm conclusions about Mr. Hasson.Report
Let’s say there are 200 million white adults in the United States. If in any given year, one in a million white adults decides to attack a random black man just for the hell of it, that gives the media four such incidents per week to satisfy the left’s perverted lust for racism porn. The fact that one crazy motherfisher somewhere in the US might attack a black guy for being black every now and then means literally nothing at all.
That said, this particular farce had all the classic hallmarks of a hoax and was not even remotely plausible. The only thing that sold it even a little bit was the fact that he was actually injured. Most people don’t have the guts to commit to a hoax like that.Report
Mmmm, in my opinion changing the subject away from an uncomfortable fact; that this idiot fabricated a crime that played to our left wing sensibilities and way too many people bought into it too easily; to more standard left wing nostrums demeans us and our principles.Report
If he had testified against two random white men, he would have been well within his rights to do so, and they would have been responsible.
This is not a difficult concept. All white men are racists. All of them, without exception. Because racism is about systemic power structures, not the beliefs of any one particular individual. Likewise, white men are members of, supporters of, and perpetrators of at least two oppressor classes. They as class members ARE responsible for hate crimes, regardless of the “facts” of any particular situation.Report
Its times like this when I am reminded of the wisdom of Andrew Klavern, who wrote:
Food for thought, gentlepersons, food for thought!Report
Again this is alienating to all of us who are not Christian. I agree that humans are flawed and messy but still absolutely reject the concept of original sin as described in Christianity.Report
Man, where’s that sarcasm tag when I need it?Report
When I was a Christian, I was disturbed by the doctrine of Original Sin. Now that I’m not one, I think it’s the main thing they got right.Report
This is some kind of spoof right? Sarcastic or satire? Because it reads as utterly deranged.Report
Poe’s Law…
This is your brain on grievance studies.Report
I haven’t had a ton of interaction with people who specialize in the humanities but this drek reads more like a satire of the kinds of things they believe than what they actually believe.Report
I think we’re all better off assuming satire in this case.Report
Reality may be worse…Report
In a vaguely related story, ABC news is talking about this:
We’ve got a handful of San Franciscans on the board. Guys, is this something that you guys have had to worry about? Trump supporters vandalizing things in your town?Report
If you’re a Trump fan in San Francisco and want to get mad about an IMPEACH TRUMP sign, how do you even pick one?Report