Extra! Extra! The Ten Second News Links We’ve Overlooked!

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

595 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Under the heading of Liar, Liar, Why Aren’t His Pants on Fire:

    NBC News reported later on Monday that a DOJ official had said the passports were not in the FBI’s possession because they had been returned to the former president’s team.

    Soon after, O’Donnell retweeted the following FBI statement: “In executing search warrants, the FBI follows search and seizure procedures ordered by courts, then returns items that do not need to be retained for law enforcement purposes.”

    The passports taken from Trump apparently included two expired passports and the former president’s still-active diplomatic passport.

    It is not uncommon for former presidents and some other government officials to hold multiple U.S. passports. In addition to diplomatic passports, “official” passports and the more common tourist passports may be issued.

    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-thanks-fbi-doj-after-passports-they-stole-are-returned-1734260Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    These sorts of stories should never be allowed to be overlooked:

    Louisiana Woman Is Forced Carry Headless Fetus to Term or Travel to Florida for Legal Abortion
    https://jezebel.com/louisiana-woman-is-forced-carry-headless-fetus-to-term-1849418243?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4

    A pregnant woman in Louisiana says she’s being forced to choose between carrying a fetus that lacks a skull and the top of its head (as a result of a rare condition called acrania) to term, or traveling several states over for a legal abortion, since Louisiana has banned abortion with very narrow exceptions.

    “It’s hard knowing that I’m carrying it to bury it,” Nancy Davis, who’s 13 weeks pregnant and is already the mother of one child, told local news station WAFB9 on Monday. A few weeks ago, she had her first ultrasound and was told the fetus wouldn’t survive—but that she would have to either carry and birth the nonviable fetus or travel to Florida, the closest state where abortion is still legal. Davis is running out of time to make her decision, however, because Florida bans the health service at 15 weeks.

    Before Davis, one Louisiana doctor testified in an affidavit challenging the ban that her patient was forced to endure a “painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice,” after the ban temporarily took effect last month.
    The doctor, Valerie Williams, said her patient was “screaming—not from pain, but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing.” It took hours for the woman’s placenta to deliver, causing her to hemorrhage about a liter of blood which placed her own life in danger. A simple abortion procedure would have lasted 15 minutes, Williams said. She claimed this was “the first time in my 15-year career that I could not give a patient the care they needed.” The state threatens doctors and abortion providers who violate the ban with 10 to 15 years in prison. Louisiana doctors have told Jezebel the ban has forced them to fear they “could go to prison just for handling a miscarriage as I always have.”

    Republicans have been fighting for 50 years for this world we now inhabit.Report

  3. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    This is the America the GOP has created:

    Nearly two dozen states have moved to restrict abortion or ban it altogether since the reversal of Roe v. Wade — meaning more people, especially those with low incomes and from marginalized communities, will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

    So are states prepared to pay for the infrastructure needed to support these parents and children? The data paints a grim picture for many families: Mothers and children in states with the toughest abortion restrictions tend to have less access to health care and financial assistance, as well as worse health outcomes.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomesReport

  4. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve missed Em. Is she still around?Report

  5. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

    • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Calvin Trillin calls these guys — still mostly guys, but the women, as a whole, are no better — “Sabbath gasbags.” None of these shows would be much of a loss if they disappeared.Report

  6. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There appears to be a phenomenon where saying a particular set of things can help people overlook particular bad action on the part of a bad actor.

    I suppose that we can take comfort in the fact that repeated bad action will catch up with a bad actor…

    Franken has been fully rehabilitated.

    I’m sure that Dan Price will be as well.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Franken had far fewer accusations against him. He was never sued, nor criminally charged.
      Price has resigned as CEO, and his actively fighting several lawsuits and other criminal charges.Report

    • CHip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      See also, Catholic priests, Southern Baptist ministers, and Boy Scout leaders.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to CHip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Remember 90’s band “Deep Blue Nothing” and their hit single “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”?

        THEN I SAID
        WHATABOUTReport

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Its…the opposite of whattabout. Its MeToo.

          Corporate CEOs, along with ministers and Scout leaders, use their power and moral standing as leaders of the community to shield themselves from accountability.

          What is happening with Dan Price isn’t unusual or shocking, but part of the overall MeToo movement where finally the voices of women are being believed.

          Sorry to see it happening, but if he’s guilty he should face the consequences.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Is there anything else that you would rather I talk about than Dan Price in the open thread?Report

          • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            If you were citing MeToo examples you would have gone with Hollywood. That was where the movement started, and it would have been a good example because it was powerful liberals who…oh, never mind. Boy Scouts it is. And Fox News hosts.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              I actually typed out Hollywood, but reconsidered. People like Harvey Weinstein never presented themselves as paragons of virtue the way ministers and Scouts do. I mean, “sleazy Hollywood producer” is practically a Hollywood cliche.

              But maybe Hollywood figures like Cosby or Kevin Spacey are good examples, as is AL Franken.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I don’t think that’s fair. Whatabout-ism is about deflecting criticism by pointing to something somewhere else.

          As I read Chip here, it’s pointing out that the pattern exhibited by Price is one we’ve seen many times before. There is nothing novel about a person and/or institution using a facade of good deeds to hide their bad actions. Price is another in a long line of examples, all of which are awful and should be held accountable.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      The sex pest to male feminist pipeline is still going strong.Report

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      There’s no such thing as a good millionaire.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        Large numbers of middle-class people who own their homes free and clear and have non-negligible financial assets are, literally and technically, millionaires. Maybe you need another zero.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          Indeed. Through some good planning and some good luck, my wife and I are worth a bit over $1.5M at age 68/69. There is reason to question whether that’s enough, given her progressive dementia and (eventually) my inability to provide care for free, to see us through the end of our life in middle-class style.Report

        • Chris in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          Nope. I chose 6 of them with those people in mind. Home ownership comes with terrible incentives, and this country’s obsession with it is responsible for a number of its current problems, from sprawl and car-dependency to skyrocketing housing costs.

          Granted, I take Cain’s point below yours: we effectively have two choices: horde enough in money and assets to be able to afford old age, or continue working until we are unable to (and then, if “unable to” doesn’t mean death, then hope we’ve got enough). That’s a problem with our economic and political system, and creates all sorts of problems, like say incentivizing home ownership, which itself comes with terrible incentives, which is responsible for…Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      He did it once via social media, so it’s entirely possible. Giving everyone in his company a giant raise probably didn’t hurt either.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m curious about the cause-and-effect.

      Was he able to get away with the bad actions because of the good deeds and good words? Did he perform the good deeds and say the good words to hide or make up for his bad actions? Or is he someone who did some good things and some truly awful things?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        He got a *LOT* of praise for the things he said online.

        Here’s a tweet from a mere 10 days ago. Check out the replies.

        (Pay zero attention to replies from the last couple of days. Only pay attention to the ones from 10 days ago.)

        Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        In the NYT piece linked in the tweet Jaybird posted above the author outlines Price’s social media strategy for burying the bad news. Price hired a former journalist to tweet under his name, and he did it pretty prolifically. Eventually, the bad stuff gets buried in the search algorithm, effectively erasing it.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Slade the Leveller
          Ignored
          says:

          That is different than this: “There appears to be a phenomenon where saying a particular set of things can help people overlook particular bad action on the part of a bad actor.”

          Burying stuff so no one knows about it is not the same as people willfully overlooking it because they like things you said.

          If Jay can point to people saying, “Well, yea, maybe he did some bad things but he also said some really GOOD things so I’m okay with him,” I can buy his argument.

          As it stands, I don’t buy his argument.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            Jay’s initial comment… as does so many of his comments… drives home that the issue isn’t actually whatever bad action someone did but that the issue is liberals.

            He’s not upset that Price was able to hide his horrible actions through savvy social media manipulation. He’s upset because he thinks liberals are allowed to get away with being abusive towards women. So he concocts an argument about a supposed “phenomenon” and he brings up Al Franken.

            If he were actually concerned about abuse towards women — or at least more concerned about it than he is about liberals getting away with it — he would have more to say about accusations against Trump and wouldn’t reflexively dismiss Chip’s comments as WhatAboutIsm.

            As it so often is for Jaybird, it’s not that someone did something he actually thinks is wrong it’s that a liberal might be getting away with something. Sigh.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              He’s not upset that Price was able to hide his horrible actions through savvy social media manipulation

              Should I be upset about that?

              he would have more to say about accusations against Trump

              I argued for him to be impeached. I actually argued that you should use the names of the people he (allegedly) assaulted instead of hammering on the “grabbing” tape.

              Would you believe me if I told you that people argued against me when I said that? Not by people in MAGA hats either!Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              “He’s upset because he thinks liberals are allowed to get away with being abusive towards women.”

              Imagine if we could answer this with a strong, clear statement that liberals don’t get away with being abusive towards women, that it never happens, that they aren’t given a pass for Being Such A Good Guy Most Of The Time, for Being A Really Important Example, and back it up with news story after news story of some guy who didn’t get a free pass, who didn’t get his actions waved away or covered-up until they were so odious as to be uncontainable, etcetera.

              Imagine if the answer were “that never happens, you lying bastard” and not “well you have to understand that it’s different, and besides, your side is worse and you didn’t say anything about themReport

              • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I can’t do that. No one can do that about any group of people. Because lots of men get away with being awful towards women for various factors independent of political ideology.

                If someone only wants to talk about the bad behavior of one group of people — bad behavior that stretches across groups — I tend to conclude their concern is not the bad behavior itself but the group of people they’re targeting.

                Jaybird wants to talk about Franken and Price. Why only them? It’s not their bad behavior.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “Jaybird wants to talk about Franken and Price. Why only them?”

                Because, despite your desperate attempts to gaslight us, they really were both portrayed as exemplars of Manhood, shining beacons of What You Boys Ought To Be Like, feted as How Rich White Dudes Should Behave. And now it turns out, well, not so much.

                And if you want to reply that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, well, the Church doors are always open and I hear they have a special dinner for reformed sinners.

                And if you want to reply “well clearly he’s just interested in criticizing liberals“, well, sure? They’re the ones telling us how they’re morally superior, right?Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Al Franken was run out of the Senate after a single accusation of improper behavior – by his own party. Donald Trump was ELECTED President after multiple credible accusations and audio tapes of being an open misogynist. One of these things is, in fact, not like the other.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                after a single accusation

                Here’s a story detailing Al Franken’s eight accusers.

                What I am wondering is whether you knew it was 8 when you wrote what you wrote.

                And if you did, why you wrote what you wrote.

                And if you did not, why you did not know that it was 8.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m guessing you didn’t know it was 8. You honestly thought that it was that one lady on the USO tour and you never found out, for whatever reason, about the other 7 who came forward and also accused Franken of harassment.

                For what it’s worth, at the time, the dynamic seemed to be “aw, come on! It was only one accusation! Give him a pass! It’s not like he has multiple accusers!”

                And then he kept getting new accusers showing up. The whole “it was only one person” defense evaporated and then Franken resigned before they could easily pivot to “maybe we should just have a senate hearing!”

                (It was also at the height of #MeToo, which didn’t help matters much.)Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, it was nine. Here’s an article about the ninth accuser.

                (And if you want to see how we were discussing these things as they were happening in real time? You can do so here and also here.)Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I am beyond tired of this whackamole we can’t possibly own anything because he didn’t get his quote or his numbers or his whatever exactly perfect. Whether it was 9, or 1 doesn’t really matter.

                What matters is Franken was run out of power by his own party after accusations. Trump was empowered, backed, and elected by his party after the accusations. The body count is immaterial to the point being made.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Whether it was 9, or 1 doesn’t really matter.

                Believe it or not, it mattered at the time. When it was just one accuser, people said stuff like “It was just one incident. I’m not *CONDONING* what happened but it only happened once.”

                Heck, if you want to find examples of people complaining about how “Al Franken was run out of the Senate after a single accusation of improper behavior”, I can probably find you an example without much effort.

                But, at the time, the issue came up that there was another accuser, and then another, and then another.

                And then there were eight and then Al Franken resigned and then a ninth stepped forward after that.

                And, even now, there are people who think that it was just because of that one USO tour picture where he was pretending to molest the sleeping woman who rebuffed his advances.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Franken is a Senator again. What state?

      Don’t know what “fully rehabilitated” actually means. Is he out jail? Allowed out of his house? Not shunned by all people? Do we have probation reports to see what treatment he had? Has he been reprogrammed?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
        Ignored
        says:

        Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Interesting. I had no idea but i’ve never watched Kroger brand Jay Leno. Must have been a really powerful rehab if i’d never heard of it. Shame guys who like to jerk off to non consenting women can’t get that same break. Oh wait, for some reason i heard all about that. Seems like it might be pretty common for entertainers to get consequences then move on with their lives and careers fine.

          Good work you’ve proved to me that being cancelled means you’ll be back at your day job in a while.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
            Ignored
            says:

            For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure that we’ll see a small handful of things happen:

            Dan Price’s old company will get a new CEO.
            In a year or so, the company will hire a receptionist or similar and, instead of paying $70,000, the job will pay something closer to what other receptionists at similar companies get.
            Someone will say something to the effect of “man, that one chick should have taken one for the team” or “at least Dan Price also paid well”. “Now, I’m not defending Dan Price’s creepy behavior. But.”

            (And CEOs resigning after a scandal is hardly “cancel culture”. Senators either, for that matter.)Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Two things can be true:
              Dan Price’s plan for wages was good
              Dan Price is a monsterReport

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Someone will say something to the effect of “man, that one chick should have taken one for the team” or “at least Dan Price also paid well”. “Now, I’m not defending Dan Price’s creepy behavior. But.”

              Since no one is apparently saying that, lets invent such a person, conjure up what we hope they will say, and all get mad at them.

              The worst sort of hypocritical crab bucketing virtue signalling liberals are the ones in our head. They are truly Bad People.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I was basing it off of little more than the whole “It really sucks how Franken was treated” thing that we sometimes see out there in the wild in the current year.

                Do you think that such things won’t be said about Dan Price?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, of course.

                Because as I said, this is a recurring theme, of liberals being hypocritical crab bucketing virtue signalling Bad People.

                Even if you have to scour the dankest regions of the internet to find them, or even invent them out of whole cloth.

                You’re really just putting forward a high toned version of Libs Of TickTok, except without the legions of winged monkeys.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, people saying “man, it sucks how Al Franken was treated” is not “crab bucketing”.

                And, I assure you, I’m not inventing them out of whole cloth.

                “You’re nutpicking!” is probably the accusation you should be making when we aren’t in “you made that up entirely!” territory.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Nutpicking at least involves, y’know, real live people instead of the imaginary one who will be saying stupid stuff in the future.

                The point is that you have no trouble adopting a tone of moral scolding when it comes to liberals. You routinely describe them as insincere hypocrites vying for power, even as you sneer at them as moral scolds.

                Franken is the showcase exhibit for the difference between the two parties. Only the fringe defends Franken, while 90% of the Republicans defend Trump. The vast majority of liberals just sucked it up and did the right thing.

                So saying “B-but Franken!” isn’t the flex you think it is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not moral scolding. Not quite.

                It’s more of a sneering at their claims to moral stature.

                Armpit fart noises are not scolding.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh right.
                I’m not a moral scold, I’m just sneering at the sinners who really are moral scolds.

                Cynicism is the pinnacle of moral smugness.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Your self-evident moral authority is not legible to folks who are not inside of your bubble with you.

                You’re old enough to remember the televangelist era.

                While I suppose that it’s true that the folks who were mocking the claims to moral authority on the part of the televangelists were being smug as they were doing it, that didn’t make the criticisms of the televangelists *WRONG*.

                I don’t recognize your self-evident Moral Authority.

                It’s not that I’m waaaaay up there above you…

                It’s that you’re down here.
                With me.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Ok gotcha.

                So those of us sneering at the Wyoming Republican voters as preferring the Big Lie to traditional Republican principles might be smug, but we aren’t “WRONG”.

                When I say the Republicans who want to force child rape victims to carry a pregnancy to term are monsters, I may be smug, but I’m not “WRONG”.

                Am I doing this right?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I see you do remember the televangelist days.

                “People who disagree with us are godless sinners!”

                Yeah, you’re doing great.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Who me smug and self-righteous? Oh, not at all.

                I’m simply mocking their claims to moral righteousness.

                They aren’t up there, they are down here with me.
                And so on.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And the question of the legibility of your self-evident moral authority?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You mean besides not making adolescents bear the spawn of their rapists, not giving other people a hard time because of the color of their skin or their religions, or their consensual, adult sexual preferences, not defending predators, or voting for would-be dictators?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                “And that’s why they are bad people for not voting for Liz Cheney.”Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Sounds about right.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I have no moral authority! None, whatsoever.

                I am simply pointing out that the Republicans’ claim to be not-sociopaths is hypocrisy, and I reject their moral authority.

                Likewise, their morally righteous claim to be not-racist is also phony and merely a virtue signal.

                They are down here, with me and all the other moral degenerates.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I suppose you don’t see the difference between “I’m not a sociopath” and “I’m a moral authority”.

                Oh! Is this one of those Manichean things? Like, if something is Not Bad, therefore is is definitely Good? And if something is Not Good, then it is, definitionally, Bad?

                That would explain a lot, actually.

                “I know that I am not Bad. Therefore…”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Where did I say that sociopathy and racism are bad?

                I’m just saying Republicans claim they are not doing these things, when in fact they are.

                I make no moral judgements, merely objective factual observations.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Objective facts would be a leg up, I suppose.

                All you need for that are facts that aren’t in dispute and definitions that are agreed upon.

                And, I suppose, if you don’t have those, a bunch of people that you’re in the middle of that enjoy the whole “I AM A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING!” thing that deliberately doesn’t take additional perspectives into account.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, sure, which brings us right back to facts which are in dispute, like “Is it a fact that liberals are hypocrites who merely like to virtue signal and crab bucket their way to power?”

                Because until you have demonstrated that as an objective fact, then you’re just a guy making a subjective moral judgement, like “Republicans are sociopathic racists.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, “I don’t recognize your moral authority” is a subjective moral judgment, but, in my defense, you haven’t come *CLOSE* to demonstrating it.

                I’m sure you remember the televangelists, right?

                It’s like that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You really don’t see how silly this is?

                Making moral judgements of people, but then camouflaging it under “Oh, I’m merely pointing out hypocrisy”, or “Oh, this is merely a statement of fact.”

                Accusing someone of hypocrisy is very much an accusation premised on assumed moral authority.

                It doesn’t matter how vehemently you deny it, you’re assuming an air of moral righteousness when you imagine liberals rushing to defend Al Franken or Dan Price.

                And hey, don’t worry- We all do that, its a good thing to some degree. Just, don’t try to flimflam us with the pose of detached objectivity.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Accusing someone of hypocrisy is very much an accusation premised on assumed moral authority.

                Nah, not really. All you have to do is catch the “IT’S IMPORTANT TO DIET PROPERLY!” people with their hands in the cookie jar.

                This says absolutely *NOTHING* about the person who says “your hand is in the cookie jar”.

                Though I would expect the cookie thief to start saying stuff like “other people steal cookies too!” or “you eat cookies! You *SELL* cookies!” or the like.

                It doesn’t matter how vehemently you deny it, you’re assuming an air of moral righteousness when you imagine liberals rushing to defend Al Franken or Dan Price.

                When it comes to the liberals coming to the defense of Al Franken, I assure you that I am not imagining them.

                When it comes to the imagined future defenses of Dan Price, I’m just basing them on stuff like Al Franken.

                And I’m not pulling some weird “I’m not *DEFENDING* Al Franken! I just think that this should have been handled by the Senate Ethics Committee rather than the court of public opinion! Besides, he only had just the one accuser!” kinda maneuver in between discussions of the importance of taking #MeToo seriously because of Donald Trump.

                Did you hear what he said to that one member of the Bush Dynasty? Shameful.Report

            • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              “(And CEOs resigning after a scandal is hardly “cancel culture”. Senators either, for that matter.)”

              Well yeah. Cancel culture is about 95% bs but the few actual cases that could be described that way don’t move the needle like rich people getting fired for being creeps.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Greg In Ak
        Ignored
        says:

        Al Franken, former Senator from Minnesota, is still retired from politics, doing a podcast and some club comedy. Adm. Mike Franken is running against Grassley for the Iowa seat. I’m not sure which JB was referencing, or if he confused them.

        ETA: Oops, too late.Report

  7. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    In news that probably surprises no one, Florida’s new Election Crimes Unit has made arrests . . . of 20 former felons who MAY have voted illegally in 2020. I say MAY have because there is a process in Florida for felons to have their voting rights restored, and 2020 was the first election where that was in play. My guess is a lot of these folks thought they had their rights restored.

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/elections/2022/08/18/desantis-announces-20-arrests-of-floridians-for-voter-fraud/Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      I will admit that if I had the job of finding people who voted in violation of Florida law, and my salary depended on the number of people I caught, I would also start with a list of felons living in Florida. A large population base*, largely computerized records, confusing law, difficult process for “officially” regaining voting rights.

      * As of 2020, an estimated 1.1M disenfranchised felons lived in Florida. That was far and away the most of any state. By percentage Florida was only fourth, handily beaten by Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama. Just over 10.5% of Mississippi’s voting-age population are ineligible to vote because of felony convictions.

      ETA: If 10% of a state’s voting-age population have been convicted of a felony, doesn’t that seem like a problem that the legislature should be worrying about a lot?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        ETA: If 10% of a state’s voting-age population have been convicted of a felony, doesn’t that seem like a problem that the legislature should be worrying about a lot?

        Ha Ha Ha!

        No they aren’t worried about it because those people are morally bankrupt you see, and deserve to have their voting rights taken away. The fact that they are 61%+ black is only a coincidence.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Interestingly, if we adjust for race, Mississippi and Alabama have below average rates of adult men with felony records. The states with the highest rates of felony records for black men are California, Washington, Florida, Massachusetts, and Indiana. This is for 2010, so I suppose it’s possible that relative rates have changed since then. See figure 5 here:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996985Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            There’s been an increase in percentage of adults with felony records (possibly due to people who aged out of major crime-committing years before the War on Drugs and generational crime wave dying off). What’s less clear to me is how much this affected the differences between states in terms of race-specific rates of felony records. Note that this is different from rates of felony-related voting disqualification.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Brandon Berg
          Ignored
          says:

          Not quite sure what race has to do with it. Probably more of a poverty thing, if I was to hazard a guess.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Slade the Leveller
            Ignored
            says:

            Three of his five states are liberal led, and adjusting for race is a way to dismiss racial inequity in incarceration.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m extremely wary of any isolated factoids about criminology that are put into service to a larger point.

              As I’ve mentioned before, the raw data of criminology, the arrest report, is itself an unreliable source tainted with all the biases and flawed assumptions of the police officers themselves.

              Not to say they worthless, just that they need to be put into perspective and given some context.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                As I’ve pointed out before, arrest records are not the only source of raw data. We have victim surveys (the NCVS), as well as records of where crimes are reported and where (and whose) bodies show up. None of these alternative sources support the hypothesis that racial differences in arrest rates are primarily or even substantially to racial bias on the part of police. That simply is not a tenable hypothesis in general.

                Possibly racial bias plays a role in racial disparities in arrests for drug crimes, since we don’t have victim reports for victimless crimes, although it’s worth noting that black people are actually less overrepresented in arrests and incarceration for drug crimes than they are for violent and property crimes, and non-Hispanic whites are only slightly underrepresented when accounting for age (50% of arrests vs. 60% of the overall population, and only 55% of the population age 20-39).Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m talking science, not politics. I guess that’s not really your thing.

              adjusting for race is a way to dismiss racial inequity in incarceration.

              There was literally no discussion of racial disparities in felony records in this thread until I pointed out that looking at race-specific rates was important. Do you even think about whether the things you say make sense?Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Slade the Leveller
            Ignored
            says:

            Racial composition of the population is a huge confounder for regional variation in crime and other things, and it has to be accounted for in any kind of even remotely serious analysis. Ignoring this is not the evidence of superior personal virtue that people seem to think it is.

            Why does Mississippi have so many adults with felony records? Because Mississippi has a lot of black people, and for reasons that are poorly understood, a much larger percentage of black people than white people have felony records in every state. By adjusting for race, we can see that Mississippi actually has below-average rates of race-specific felony records. This is surprising and interesting, and would go totally unnoticed without adjusting for race.

            As for whether it’s “more of a poverty thing,” that’s a reasonable conjecture, but there are two major issues here.

            First, controlling for poverty is methodologically problematic. Since many of the same behavioral traits that predispose someone to criminality (poor impulse control, antisocial tendencies, low future orientation, etc.)also make people less employable, controlling for poverty without also controlling for these confounding traits will make it look like there’s a direct causal vector from poverty to crime even if no such vector exists, or make an existing causal relationship look stronger than it actually is.

            Even if we ignore that, the hypothesis still doesn’t hold up. Large racial gaps in criminal offending remain even after controlling for socioeconomic background. A particularly striking example of this is that in New York City, Asians have the same poverty rate as blacks, but commit crime at roughly the same rate as non-Hispanic whites. Nationally, Hispanics have poverty rates similar to blacks, but have rates of criminal offending much more similar to non-Hispanic whites. Asians have slightly higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic whites, but commit much less crime.

            To be clear, most black people aren’t criminals, because there’s no magical essence of blackness that both turns your skin dark and makes you commit crimes. But people really need to check their work on this stuff.Report

            • Slade the Leveller in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              What kind of adjustment are you making? If felony convictions are over/under represented by race it has to lead you somewhere, and, at least to me, that somewhere is a place we need to be talking about.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                This is where my thinking goes as well, because while black men in Mississippi my have lower felony conviction rates then black men elsewhere – which is what I think he saying- black men are arrested and convicted of felonies here is rates disproportionate to their proportion of the population.

                Which is a significant problem pointing back to serious structural issues.Report

  8. Greg In Ak
    Ignored
    says:

    Just a couple days ago there was a brief talk about SS and the R’s. Someone, Dark M i think, said “gosh golly the R’s would never go after SS.” Rough paraphrase, sorry if i remembered wrong. Weeellllll today i see this from Ron John R- Wall Street.

    “Sen. Ron Johnson says Social Security ‘was set up improperly’ and would have been better invested in the stock market”

    Lol. Yeah can’t see how that wouldn’t have been a disaster a few times over but would have made very rich people very richer.Report

  9. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s becoming clearer each day that Senior Trump officials knew they had things that needed hiding as they exited the maelstrom:

    In the Friday filing, ICE Chief Technology Officer Richard Clark said the agency couldn’t provide information sought by American Oversight, attested that the phones for most of the officials named in the lawsuit had been deactivated and noted that it indicated the mobile phone data has been wiped clean. American Oversight contends that many of the devices were wiped after the organization requested texts messages from the officials in 2019.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/politics/ice-officials-wipe-phones-trump/index.htmlReport

  10. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s a good zinger that should play pretty well on Twitter and turn all of the PPP =/= Student Loans people into sounding like humorless dorks.

      I have started seeing the argument that the PPP thing proves that Biden didn’t forgive *ENOUGH* debt.

      Which is probably not where he intended that to go but, hey. That argument probably won’t leave twitter either.Report

  11. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Mark Wlaschin, Nevada’s deputy secretary of state for elections, announced the adoption Friday morning after a 45-minute public hearing. He said the new rules would take effect October 1.
    Nye County, Nevada, a sprawling rural community northwest of Las Vegas that’s at the forefront of the hand-counting movement, plans to test hand-counting its roughly 30,000 ballots in November.
    The county’s new clerk, Mark Kampf, who has falsely contended that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, has said he plans to proceed with a dual-track process: using vote-tabulating machines and hand-counting in November to test his contention that votes can be counted in a timely manner by hand.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/politics/ballot-hand-counting-regulations-approved-in-nevada/index.htmlReport

  12. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Inflation hawks may wish to consider:

    Report

  13. North
    Ignored
    says:

    Gorbachev has died. He was one of those few people who stood at a crossroads in history and who I struggle to imagine not being there and having it end the same way. Such a pivotal figure and so hated by his own people; history, I hope, will be kinder.Report

  14. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The liberal reign of terror claims another victim:

    Trump’s Truth Social barred from Google Play store over content moderation concerns

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/30/trump-truth-social-barred-from-google-play-store-content-moderation-concerns.htmlReport

  15. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

  16. Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    Right wing madrasas being created in Oklahoma this school year.

    https://www.normantranscript.com/news/walters-asks-state-board-to-revoke-former-nps-teachers-certificate/article_546ab96e-293d-11ed-a184-d3d4f8caeb8f.html

    Oklahoma Secretary of Education Ryan Walters said, “…there is no place for a teacher with a liberal political agenda in the classroom.”Report

  17. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-election-lie-florida-schools_n_6312eaace4b0eac9f4cd1032

    Huh… rogue teachers going off book and teaching f’ed up lessons isn’t a uniquely liberal phenomenon? WHO KNEW!

    Wait wait wait… no that’s not how we discuss this. Clearly this is a sign that any conservative, Republican, or even right-leaning teacher is trying to groom kids for horrible outcomes and should be barred from schools.Report

  18. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I admit to gigglesnorting a couple of times during this:

    Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      The Mexicans should check their privilege and embrace refugees from a country with a rigid racial caste system, destabilizing inflation, and an epidemic of violent crime.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        There are quite a few people who, despite presenting as tolerant liberals, have reactionary and racist views of the world.

        Like those fringe leftists who assure us that black people can’t be racist, or that nonwhite are just naturally liberal. Their worldview is rooted in an essentialist view of people- i.e. Chinese are like this while Italians are like that and of course white people are essentially good.

        For these sorts, discovering that there is racism within the black world, and that other cultures are as hidebound and chauvinistic as anyone else, is a revelation. Oddly, though the revelation rarely leads to enlightenment but rather a strenuous effort to force the facts into the pre-ordered structure.

        For example, upon discovering that Africans practiced slavery, instead of achieving a deeper understanding of the universality of human nature, the essentialist uses this fact to reinforce an existing bigotry- i.e., the Africans were morally compromised so white slaveowners couldn’t have been so bad after all.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        The part of the video where the woman is saying “the people who are moving there are the same ones who complain when immigrants come to America” had me somewhat confused, though.

        I can easily see how the ones moving down there would be the ones celebrating immigration (legal or not). The ones moving down there are urbane and educated and *NOT* Trump voters.

        If I had to pick a spectrum, they’re somewhere between “voted for the School Board recall” and “voted against the Chesa recall”.Report

  19. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Somewhat related to the Mexico City tweet above:

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      People are calling that an “own” but I’m not sure that it is. They’re having the immigrants show up and they are responding by declaring an emergency and setting up funds to deal with the emergency of having that many show up at once.

      It’s part and parcel with what was done in 2018:

      Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Republicans round up terrified desperate and hated members of the Outgroup and pack them into cattle cars buses to be sent into exile

        Democrats respond swiftly with compassionate humanitarian government assistance.

        I can see how this is an “own”.

        And as with so many things, perfectly illustrative of the two parties.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          You’d think that the sanctuary cities would be nicer than the hostile bussing ones.

          You’d think that the immigrants would be delighted to go to your city instead of the red ones.Report

          • Chris in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            And so the cities are nicer.

            I’m sure that, if there is lack of delight at being in a city that welcomes them (there are “sanctuary cities” in Texas, or at least were before the state cracked down) that they are now even further from their families and the large, strong immigrant networks and NGOs in states like Texas that help people find housing and employment, provide legal protection, help with their children’s education, etc., all of which exist because we’re close to the border, so even if Texas isn’t their final destination, a substantial portion of the people entering this country stop here first.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I want to laugh at this but it so belittles the Holocaust that I’m really offended.Report

  20. North
    Ignored
    says:

    Queen Elizabeth II has died. It’s very sad for me the passing of an era. My Grandmother was a staunch royalist and I inherited that from her. It feels like some small part of her has now, at last, departed the world too. HRM King Charles has some titanic shoes to fill.Report

    • James K in reply to North
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s the end of an era for sure. My country (and probably yours as well) didn’t actually attain their modern constitutional structures until after the Queen was crowned, so in an important sense she’s the only monarch we’ve had.Report

      • North in reply to James K
        Ignored
        says:

        Indeed, the Canadian royal coat of arms is one of the most beautiful in the Commonwealth and we referred to ourselves as a dominion up through to the 1960’s.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to James K
        Ignored
        says:

        I admit to a certain fascination at this particular juncture, what with the UK looking at a potentially disastrous winter (blackouts and food riots some are saying), threats of Scottish independence, people making noises about Irish unification, whether well-to-do countries like Australia and Canada will tie themselves to Charles III the way they did to Elizabeth.Report

  21. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

  22. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The struggle for carceral reform continues:
    Hundreds of thousands of Californians may soon get their criminal records cleared
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23340644/clean-slate-automated-criminal-record-clearing-felonies-california?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4

    The bill seals the records of many felons, making it easier for them to find work and housing.

    What makes this important is that it is part of the much larger movement to find alternate methods of dealing with crime, by making it easier for felons to re-integrate into society.

    Police reform, carceral reform- these things always are long term struggles wwhich are won by small incremental measures.Report

  23. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Attention Reasonable Republicans:
    You can check out of this horror cult anytime you want.
    Really, its not too late.

    Mom says trans eighth-grader was questioned by Texas officials at school
    On the morning of Aug. 30, a 13-year-old transgender boy was pulled out of class by his school’s administrators, his mother says. While his classmates continued their studies, he sat in a conference room at a Texas middle school where a Department of Family and Protective Services investigator began asking personal questions, court records state.
    The nearly hour-long interview touched on a range of personal topics — from the teen’s medical history to his gender dysphoria diagnosis to his suicide attempt years back, court records state. The interrogation left the boy — identified under the pseudonym Steve Koe — shaking and distressed, according to a signed declaration from his mother, named as Carol Koe.
    Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Time was no official in their right mind would question a kid without their parents there for liability reasons.

      Dear God what are we coming to?Report

      • Pinky in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        You never had a guidance counselor?Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          as in some I was sent to one on one for an involuntary “interview”? Nope. And especially where my prior medical history would have been discussed.

          You do understand this isn’t that however? This is Greg Abbot’s “transgender treatment is child abuse and should be investigated as such” policy playing out.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            That’s your interpretation of the Washington Post’s interpretation of the mother’s interpretation.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              While his classmates continued their studies, he sat in a conference room at a Texas middle school where a Department of Family and Protective Services investigator began asking personal questions, court records state.
              The nearly hour-long interview touched on a range of personal topics — from the teen’s medical history to his gender dysphoria diagnosis to his suicide attempt years back, court records state.

              Um no. DPS isn’t school guidance counselors. And they don’t interview transgender kids outside the class – and likely outside their parents knowledge or consent – on a whim. And court records aren’t an interpretation of an interpretation of a … what ever.

              This is what politicians on your side of the aisle in Texas have decided they need to do. DPS has to follow their direction until the courts or the legislature tell them otherwise.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                What needs to be pointed out also is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump.

                This wasn’t Trump, this wasn’t some isolated fringe or rogue county official somewhere.

                This was done at the specific direction of Greg Abbot, the rising star and leading voice of mainstream Republicanism.

                When people say they don’t like Trump but will vote Republican for “judges and tax cuts” this is what they are voting for.Report

  24. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Ukrainian counter-offensive making unexpected progress, breaking Russian front line in the east. Some sources saying they already took back Izyum.

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraine-breaks-front-line-east-nearing-key-town-89636777Report

    • North in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      I pray to the God(ess?) that I don’t believe in that this turns into a route for the Russian Army but at the very least let it be what it appears to be- a significant and durable advance by the Ukrainians.Report

      • InMD in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        I operate under the assumption that anything I read is at least a little bit propaganda but seems like there could be something big happening. I’d also love to see the Ukranians break the Russians at this point… as long as it doesn’t result in the Russians resorting to tactical nuclear strikes. Though one also has to wonder what state the Russians’ tactical nuclear weapons are in now that we know how hollowed out so much of their army and equipment is. Not that we want to find out or anything.Report

        • InMD in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Now I’m starting to see chatter that Ukranian troops may have advanced back in to Luhansk oblast, which is crazy if true.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I read the reports about the large numbers of towns, villages, and settlements that have changed hands, and the nominally long distances the Ukrainians are penetrating, then I look at the total area involved and realize that it’s all happening in what would be about half of my moderate-sized (for western values of moderate) county.Report

        • Pinky in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          It’d be hard to justify using nuclear weapons against a territory you’re claiming to be liberating. You could probably only justify them against an infidel or an overwhelming aggressor. If Russia used them, they’d be admitting that they’re incapable of any conventional response, which would be humiliating. They’d also lose the “only the US has ever…” card.Report

  25. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Murder shaming probably won’t *HURT*? I guess?

    Report

  26. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

  27. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html

    Fascinating article that touches on so many topics: education, religion, private schools, testing, government funding and oversight, etc.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      That is an excellent essay.

      Is deliberately preventing children from assimilation into American culture effectively child abuse?

      These kids should be watching Spongebob or whatever the hell it is these days. Teen Titans? Something.

      On the other hand, it seems like saying “assimilate!” is, like, some weird form of cultural genocide. Like, if we busted up the reservations and told the Native Americans “seriously, let’s just stop lying to ourselves” and assimilated everybody, that would be bad.

      I can understand the argument that “well, we shouldn’t be paying for them to not assimilate!” but there are just some weird dynamics in the whole situation.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Many weird dynamics. The one that most jumps out to me is the billions in funding for a school where 0% of kids are “proficient.”Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          If we want to say that the problem is not one that will be solved by funding, I think I could get most folks on board with that.Report

          • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            “For many Hasidic people, their schools are succeeding — just not according to the standards set by the outside world. In a community that places religion at the center of daily life, secular education is often viewed as unnecessary, or even distracting.”

            I’m sure the secular relief dollars are accepted with gratitude.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, what do you think the problem is?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Yeah, I had a paragraph dedicated to “maybe we could reap some dividends by jumping to ‘is there even a problem? say what the problem is! say what it is out loud! SAY IT SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR IT!” but I thought it was over the top so I deleted it and just wrote my one sentence.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I remember you stating some strong feelings on schools with a wide delta between grade rates and proficiency rates.

                Well, these have about as wide a delta as you can get.

                Would you apply those same feelings here? Or is this different?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Were they teaching in Hasidic or in English in the other school?

                Were they teaching Religious Instruction or were they teaching Math and Reading in the other school?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I dunno… you had researched the other schools.

                You seem to be framing it as “Trying and failing is different than not trying and failing.” Which is a fair framing.

                I’m framing it as, “Schools are using public money to ‘graduate’ students who don’t meet established standards of proficiency.”

                Which was how you were framing it. Back then at least.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, let’s look at it this way:

                The goals of the Hasidic schools seems to be “give these kids a Hasidic education to help indoctrinate them to become upstanding members of the Hasidic community (and *NOTHING* else)”.

                I mean, if I asked “are the schools in Baltimore failing?”, my old assumptions led me to the conclusion that they were.

                Maybe my old assumptions were bad?

                “We want these children to be illiterate and innumerate so they never leave this community” would seem to be a goal that has these schools in Baltimore succeeding.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Judging success failure by whether a stated goal is achieved is a good measure, by my eyes.

                The question is… what is the goal of that public money with regards to education? Is it to help kids gain proficiency in reading and writing and math? Or is it to keep kids locked within their communities?

                The argument put forth before was that if Baltimore schools are going to have a major delta between “graduate rate” and “proficiency rate” then maybe we should consider whether the Baltimore school is “working” and what we want to do about that.

                Given these schools have a massive delta between those two rates, it seems very reasonable that we similarly consider whether they are “working” and what we want to do about that.

                Me? I’d propose letting them operate however they want but absent any public funds unless/until they are willing to hold themselves to similar standards as public schools.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, is this just about defunding the schools?

                Sure, take away the money.

                I thought you were moving toward “I’m not saying they should stop being Jewish, just maybe explore being *LESS* Jewish”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But one thing about the whole school funding issue for the kiddos in Baltimore is that, presumably, the parents were hoping for children that were not innumerate and were not illiterate.

                I’m guessing that if all of the government funding was removed from the Hasidic schools and the parents were given vouchers and told about some great charter schools in the area that had great math and reading numbers that those vouchers would end up back in the hands of the Hasidic school.

                Which makes this a very different problem indeed.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What’s being overlooked here is that the Hasidic schools just aren’t allowed to provide — deliberately — substandard secular education. In New York, all schools, private or public, religious or secular, have to offer prescribed instruction in secular subjects. (Schools doing a bad job of it, rather than not making a good faith effort at all, is a different issue.) Schools do not have the option in New York to say, in effect, screw it, we’re just interested in turning out people who can’t do anything but serve as freelance rabbis and become public charges. Whether complying with the law makes them, in their eyes or yours, “less Jewish” is irrelevant. If you run a school in New York, there are things you have to do, and the ultra-orthodox schools have been getting away for a long time without doing what they have to. Now that the rock has been overturned, maybe we’ll see some muslim school that does the same thing — though they won’t have the political clout to resist.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Now that the rock has been overturned, maybe we’ll see some muslim school that does the same thing — though they won’t have the political clout to resist.

                Eh, they should just do a better job of masquerading as merely doing a bad job of it.

                Maybe more funding would help?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                To CJ,

                Can you cite what law/regulation you’re referring to with regards to the prescribed instruction in secular subjects? It sounds vaguely familiar but isn’t anything I’ve ever actually run up against. I’ve been through the independent school (NYSAIS) accreditation process on both ends (e.g., on the accreditation committee and been the school being evaluated) and I know that is a criteria for accreditation, but that is all voluntary.

                To Jaybird,

                I personally have no issue with the school’s Jewishness. Let them teach what they want! My issue is that they are receiving so much state funding but are apparently not subjected to any state rules. Again, you previously seemed very flummoxed that schools could graduate 75% of kids but have only 65% of them deemed proficient and you wondered aloud about how that could be? Now we’ve got schools with literally 0% proficiency but who are graduating everyone. So if a 10% gap was concerning, why isn’t a 100% gap concerning? If you think that schools should not be allowed to graduate kids who aren’t proficient, I imagine these schools would really stick in your craw.

                It can’t be about public vs private, since these schools are receiving so much public funding.

                Can it really just be about parent expectations? If so, I can see that. But I have a bit of info for you: parents don’t set proficiency standards.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, you previously seemed very flummoxed that schools could graduate 75% of kids but have only 65% of them deemed proficient and you wondered aloud about how that could be? Now we’ve got schools with literally 0% proficiency but who are graduating everyone. So if a 10% gap was concerning, why isn’t a 100% gap concerning?

                Well, in the case of the schools in Baltimore, the schools were (presumably) failing. Like, I assumed that their goal was to teach kids proficiency.

                In the Hasidic schools’ case, however, I think that that is *NOT* the goal. Moreover, I think that the goals of the school and the goals of the parents *ACTUALLY ALIGN*.

                Which is a *COMPLETELY* different dynamic than that of what I used to assume existed in Baltimore.

                But now that I know that maybe the goal is to produce illiterate and innumerate people who will never leave the community, maybe the Baltimore schools are in light with community values too.

                More funding!Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                From the parents. Graduating kids well versed in Hasidic tenets does society absolutely no good.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah, if we want something for the good of society…

                What do we want?
                Well, we want these kids to speak English, for one.
                They need enough English language proficiency to get a good job.
                They also need *CULTURAL* literacy. You don’t need a lot. The MCU and football season will get you across the 50 yard line.

                It’s perfectly understandable that society would ask that these people to speak English and assimilate. These are reasonable things to ask for!

                Edit: Good news! They still make these shirts. (And in 3X no less!)Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The goal of school, and least it was in my day, was to educate kids enough so they’d be able to function in adult society. Being able to quote the Torah and cite the Talmud might be helpful if you plan on only living in a Hasidic neighborhood, but, again, do it on your own dime. If you’re going to suck on the government teat, you gotta do what the man tells you.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, my take is that someone who graduates high school ought to be able to:

                1. Write a five paragraph essay
                2. Read a book about as tough as Animal Farm and summarize it
                3. Do some light Algebra 1 stuff (multistep “find for x” stuff, squares and square roots, ratios)
                4. Read a scale, measuring flask, thermometer

                You know. The basics. I would also say that anyone who graduated without being able to do those things (yes, all of them) will have been *FAILED* by their high school.

                You may be tempted to say “A high school graduate ought to be able to do a hell of a lot more than *THAT*!”

                I’d agree. But I’d say that one that graduated without being able to do those things above will have been failed by his or her high school.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But does the goal of that money matter? I mean, presumably the money they get is earmarked for “education.” Would you say it is being used effectively in the Hasidic schools?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “being used effectively”

                What’s the goal, again?
                Because if the goal is educate these kids to become upstanding members of the Hasidic community (and *NOTHING* else), the schools seem to be exceptionally successful and in line with what their community wants.

                If the goal is something else, of course, we should hammer out what that goal is.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, that’s public money. Are you cool with billions of public dollars going to fund a fringe ideology indoctrinating its children such that they can never exit that insular society?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Hey, I think that one of the main goals of high school should be to graduate kids either prepared for college *OR* (given that college ain’t for everybody) literate/numerate enough to get a job and not suck up money from the public.

                If a high school is graduating a significant number of children who are illiterate, innumerate, and going on welfare, it should be dismantled and something else put in its place because it is *OBVIOUSLY* failing.

                But that assumes that the goal is a literate, numerate public capable of getting a job, of course.

                If the goal is something else, we should probably hammer that out.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Hey, I think that one of the main goals of high school should be to graduate kids either prepared for college *OR* (given that college ain’t for everybody) literate/numerate enough to get a job and not suck up money from the public.”

                If you truly think this, then you should be appalled by these schools. Many of the communities they serve have the highest rates of children in poverty and people on public assistance in the nation.

                From Wiki (Cite link seems dead): “According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation, and the largest percentage of residents who receive food stamps. More than five-eighths of Kiryas Joel residents live below the federal poverty line, and more than 40 percent receive food stamps, according to the American Community Survey, a U.S. Census Bureau study of every place in the country with 20,000 residents or more.”

                Monsey is another such community (at the heart of the East Ramapo School District): https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US3648010-monsey-ny/

                Kaser, the heart of the Monsey Hasidic community is even worse (63.3% below poverty line).

                If schools receiving public funds producing communities with those numbers don’t outrage you based on your stated goals, I don’t know what will.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Am I allowed to be upset by other schools with low numbers too or just these?

                Because if starting to say “you people need to learn English, you need to assimilate, you need to get off welfare, you need to be a maker and not a taker” is on the table, I’d like to see where we, as a society, can start applying such rules.

                And, sure, we can start here.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You can feel whatever you want. YOU were/are the one saying those things… not me.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s funny… you seem to REALLY want to fight with people about how it’s the Jewishness of these schools that has people upset and everyone keeps pointing out it’s the money that upsets us and you just keep tying yourself in knots trying to get someone to take up a side that no one here is on.

                GOOD TIMES!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                If we find ourselves in a place where we’re going after these schools and doing our best to destroy them and replace them with new and better schools that churn out proficient English speakers capable of doing math but go back to not giving a crap about the other schools that churn out numbers like these schools do?

                I’d have to wonder why.

                Do you have a reason why?

                Oh, it’s just the money? Like, things would be better if these schools got less funding?Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “you seem to REALLY want to fight with people about how it’s the Jewishness of these schools that has people upset and everyone keeps pointing out it’s the money that upsets us ”

                welp

                you keep saying “it’s not the JEWS, the only one here saying ANYTHING about JEWS is YOU”

                and you keep pointing to how these Hasidic schools have very poor Objective Measures Of Educational Quality and saying “this is why I’m mad, these schools are taking public money and doing a bad job by objective measures!”

                and when Jaybird says “so what about other schools with similarly-poor Objective Measures Of Educational Quality”

                you reply by loudly and angrily pointing even harder at how these Hasidic schools have very poor Objective Measures Of Educational Quality

                and we’re left wondering why it is that you seem to keep returning to these Hasidic schools

                and we’re left wondering whether the Objective Measures Of Educational Quality are less the reason and more the excuseReport

              • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                “and when Jaybird says “so what about other schools with similarly-poor Objective Measures Of Educational Quality””

                They aren’t similarly poor. There are clear differences between the schools Jaybird wants to talk about and the ones being discussed in this article.

                Also, no where have I said, “Those other schools are fine and dandy.”

                It’s pretty obvious “Whatabout-ism” by Jaybird with a dose of “Liberals are the real racists/anti-semites.”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “Are you cool with billions of public dollars going to fund a fringe ideology indoctrinating its children such that they can never exit that insular society?”

                surprising to find you, of all people, speaking so strongly against the notion of DEI educationReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                This subthread is exemplifies how so many issues become proxy battles in service to a larger war, and the actual participants are used as cannon fodder for other people’s interests.

                In this case, in response to Kazzy’s opening complaint about the Hasidic schools, Jaybird moves the Baltimore schools into a shielding position, such that it becomes necessary to fight through them before getting to the Hasidic schools.

                And in both cases, the actual participants are largely just cannon fodder in a larger battle over tangential issues like DEI or publicly funded schools.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And some people can’t seem to grasp, at least for the moment, the difference between trying to get students up to standard and failing versus blowing off the standard and not even trying.
                But that very distinction will become the centerpiece of their argument when it suits them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m 100% down with exploring the distinction between trying to get students up to standard and failing versus blowing off the standard.

                But I’m also the guy who said stuff like:

                What’s the goal, again?
                Because if the goal is educate these kids to become upstanding members of the Hasidic community (and *NOTHING* else), the schools seem to be exceptionally successful and in line with what their community wants.

                This seems to add a dynamic that we don’t seem to want to talk about.

                I mean, I assume that the parents in the Baltimore schools that have proficiency numbers in the single digits are displeased with that… right?

                But those schools get a shrug and “well, there’s nothing to be done”.

                These schools? These schools seem to be doing exactly what the parents of the children want them to be doing.

                Which means that this now becomes a discussion about whether these schools should get public funding.

                I’m down with pulling public funding! Indeed I am!

                I’m just also noting that that ain’t gonna fix the problem.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Who “don’t seem to want to talk about it”? A few of us have said flat out that these schools are not allowed to do what they’re doing whether the parents want it or not. Maybe some repetition is in order. These schools are required to offer their pupils a program of secular education that meets state standards whether they or the parents want it or not. They may do a bad job of it, like some public schools in any major city you happen to know about, but they have to do it. Period. Full stop. And they don’t want to. That obviously has to be handled differently from just plain failure.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                That obviously has to be handled differently from just plain failure.

                If they can merely finesse it by saying “whoopsie doodle, we’re incompetent! WE NEED MORE FUNDING!”, then I daresay that we’re in a situation that yanking the funding won’t fix.

                We’re in a place where we might have to fire the current teachers and hire new ones.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Is it possible to just say simply, that the leaders of the schools are abusing the public trust and should do a better job?

                And that’s it. Just stop there.

                No digression into DEI or public versus private, no segue into meta navel gazing about the purpose of schools.

                Why does the issue need to be brushed aside in a headlong rush to a different subject?

                Because this is why so many criticisms of schools (Hasidic, Baltimore, or otherwise)simply can’t be taken at face value, because the attackers insist on using the specific issue as a launching pad for all sorts of unrelated and concealed attacks.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                unrelated and concealed attacks.

                The schools are not teaching their students to be proficient. And, like, not even *CLOSE*. The school didn’t have a single proficient student.

                Can you imagine?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, and from what I can tell, not one person on this blog is saying that is acceptable.

                So what are we really talking about?

                Can we spit it out without sarcasm, sockpuppetry, or veiled references?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                not one person on this blog is saying that is acceptable

                I am in full agreement with them that this is completely and totally unacceptable.

                Heck, I think that the schools need to be disbanded and new ones built in their place (maybe we can use the old buildings, if we must). With new administrators and new teachers and new support staff.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I haven’t followed this thread (it looks awful) but do we know that the schools are the cause of the failure? That is to say, if you took the best schools in the word and put them into these communities, do we know they’d get better results?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                do we know that the schools are the cause of the failure?

                I touched on this, a little, when I said:

                I’m guessing that if all of the government funding was removed from the Hasidic schools and the parents were given vouchers and told about some great charter schools in the area that had great math and reading numbers that those vouchers would end up back in the hands of the Hasidic school.

                Which makes this a very different problem indeed.

                Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah. Well, a quick review of this subthread, and I’ve decided that the most important topic to discuss is “why did Jaybird choose to discuss this?”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But they can’t “finesse” it. They aren’t doing a bad job of teaching what they’re supposed to teach. They’re not teaching the stuff they’re supposed to teach. They’re up front about it. They can’t say they’re trying and failing and get away with it. Facts are sometimes obvious.
                If they do start teaching what they’re supposed to teach, and the lawsuits to prevent that will be filed any day now, they probably will need to fire a bunch of current teachers, but as long as they refuse to teach what they’re supposed to, the competence of the current teachers to teach it is neither here nor there. And neither is funding.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                They’re not teaching the stuff they’re supposed to teach. They’re up front about it. They can’t say they’re trying and failing and get away with it. Facts are sometimes obvious.

                See? They need to *LIE*! “We’re trying so hard! We don’t have enough funding! We need stronger union protections!”

                And we can get people to line up in defense of the status quo!

                But, for what it’s worth, I also think that these schools need to be torn down and the earth salted.

                And neither is funding.

                You may be shocked to see the number of times that funding has been brought up by people who aren’t me in these comments.

                Tell them that this has nothing to do with funding but with having a school that is maliciously churning out students who can’t read, do math, and are destined to be on the dole.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                They may NEED to lie, but they can’t get away with it here, so what’s your point?

                Wait. I’m sorry for assuming you had one. Never mind.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                “So what’s your point?”

                Merely that we’ve finally found a school that is churning out illiterate and innumerate children that we agree needs to change… instead of a rigorous defense of the status quo.

                For what it’s worth: I agree that these Hasidic schools need to go away. 100%. These kids should learn English and need to get skills that will help them get real jobs in normal society.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, someone says “Private Hasidic” and you reflexively say “union(presumably Baltimore)”

                Why?

                Why do you insist on deflecting the the discussion to something else?

                How can we take your comments seriously when you so obviously aren’t talking about this at all?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I’m *NOT* deflecting.

                I’m wondering if there is a particular meta-ethic behind the importance of making sure that these kids learn to read more good.

                So far, the main thing I see is that the teachers of these schools aren’t unionized and that the schools are operating in accordance with the wishes of the community.

                Which seems a weird meta-ethic to call us to immediate action.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If that’s the main thing you see, look again.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Why do you pivot away from a simple query “(Are these schools abusing the public trust”) and carom off into a meta question which no one is asking, and then keep raising the word union which is entirely irrelevant?

                This is my original point, is the conversations become toxic when people start speaking in meta coded language, and using them as a proxy stand in for something else entirely.

                In this case, you really, really don’t want to talk about the Hasidic schools, but really, really want to talk about the Baltimore schools.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t pivot away from it! I’ve answered it several times so far when I said that these schools are failing and need to go away!

                Do you need me to explicitly say that “they’re abusing the public trust”? Sure. They’re abusing the public trust.

                There you go.

                Now I’m wondering if the criticism of schools abusing the public trust scales at all outside of this one isolated example.

                Oh, you’d rather I talk about how the Hasidic schools need to go away some more?

                How would you like it phrased this time?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Is “these schools need to go away” a serious thoughtful position we should discuss, or a sarcastic jibe?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I take it that’s a rhetorical question.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                They need to either become schools that have proficiency numbers in the 70s and 80s or be replaced by schools with proficiency numbers in the 70s and 80s.

                I can’t say I particularly care which.

                What’s the phrasing you’d prefer?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “But those schools get a shrug and “well, there’s nothing to be done”.”

                Who said that?

                There are major differences between the Baltimore public schools and these private schools in New York, such that any proposed solution for one is not going to be particularly useful for the other. Meaning that bringing up one group of schools in a conversation about the other is not particularly helpful.

                Of course, I don’t think you did so with any eye towards being “helpful” except insofar as trying to make liberals look bad.

                I want better for the students of Baltimore.
                I want better for the students of these Yeshivas.

                How we get them better are two different roads.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “Replace the schools with new ones. Fire the old teachers. Hire new ones. Fire the old administrators. Hire new ones.”

                (There’s going to be tweaks around the edges, of course. But the schools are failing.)Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, this is me not following the thread, but why are we assuming that the schools are the problem?Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Because it is the best way to keep us from having much more difficult discussions.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s something I said above and I stand by it:

                Well, in the case of the schools in Baltimore, the schools were (presumably) failing. Like, I assumed that their goal was to teach kids proficiency.

                In the Hasidic schools’ case, however, I think that that is *NOT* the goal. Moreover, I think that the goals of the school and the goals of the parents *ACTUALLY ALIGN*.

                Which is a *COMPLETELY* different dynamic than that of what I used to assume existed in Baltimore.

                But now that I know that maybe the goal is to produce illiterate and innumerate people who will never leave the community, maybe the Baltimore schools are in light with community values too.

                Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think that’s the goal of Baltimore schools. It’s evidence that at a certain point public schools by themselves are no match for numerous outside economic and cultural forces and other circumstances pushing in the opposite direction.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The Yeshivas are privately owned and operated. We — as a society — can’t just replace them. Or dictate who they hire and fire.

                What we can do is deny them funding unless/until they improve their proficiency metrics.

                Baltimore public schools? Yes, your proposals are all available options.

                None are with the Yeshivas.

                See how the specific of each situation kinda sorta matter?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure we can.

                All we have to do is declare what they’re doing to their children as “child abuse” and a lot follows from that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                When the only tools in your toolbox are spite and cruelty, constructive suggestions are never going to be possible.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Let me know when you intend to have a serious conversation.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Trying to have one.

                My problem with these schools is that they are graduating illiterate and innumerate children.

                It’s not that they’re getting government money.

                The government money is the smallest of the problems there.

                The problem is the illiterate and innumerate children that it’s pumping out.

                Your problem with these schools is that they’re getting tax dollars, is it?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “My problem with these schools is that they are graduating illiterate and innumerate children.”

                Weird. Earlier you were arguing they were successful because they were meeting parental expectations.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Did we hammer out what “the goal” was?

                Because, I agree, if the goal is to meet parental expectations, they’re succeeding.

                If the goal is to product literate and numerate students, they’re failing.

                What’s the goal? Did we ever hammer out what the goal of lower education is?Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I appreciate that they may be untouchable in New York. Here, private schools have to meet the state’s curriculum/hours requirements, or they get shut down. Shut down as in doors chained and operators jailed.Report

              • InMD in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                These are probably better characterized as parochial than private. Shutting them down would have free exercise clause implications. Which doesn’t necessarily mean the schools would prevail if it were litigated but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know the specifics of NY law because I don’t know any private school that hasn’t voluntarily aligned themselves with state standards. So there may indeed be mechanisms for the state’s involvement.

                But there are also going to be hurdles — legal, political, social, and otherwise — that, to date, elected leaders have been happy to simply submit to.Report

              • InMD in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I find it pretty surprising that something that doesn’t meet state standards gets public money. Not really surprising at all that the schools exist as they do. Just part of a free society with free exercise of religion.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The case where someone challanges Colorado’s truancy law — which includes curriculum — on religious grounds would at least be entertaining.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Per your point, here is an article from back in March when the proposed changes (e.g., strengthening) of NY regulations were announced:

                https://patch.com/new-york/midhudsonvalley/kiryas-joel-grand-rabbi-rejects-new-rules-ny-private-schoolsReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Every accusation is a confession, Chip.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Please point me towards what schools are spending billions in public dollars on DEI education.

                Then, please show anything that shoes that DEI is a fringe ideology that intends to indoctrinate children such that they can never exit an insular society.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I know nothing about New York law on the subject. In Colorado, all children between the age of six and sixteen are required to attend a public school, a private school, or be home schooled. All private schools, religious or otherwise, are required to have a curriculum that includes “communication skills of reading, writing, and speaking, mathematics, history, civics, literature, and science.” C.R.S. 22-33-104 (2)(b).

                I believe this is fairly typical of western states.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                I work in private schools and pretty much all of them submit to voluntary accreditation which requires offering a curriculum deemed equivalent to the public school curriculum. This may be in addition or because of such laws.

                These sorts are operating way outside any of these systems. So if any such laws do exist in NY, they are most certainly in violation of them.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s what I found from a bit of Googling. So, yes, NY has these laws but… they’ve been rather complicated for a while. They may get clarified soon.

                https://www.jta.org/2022/09/12/ny/new-york-finalizes-rules-requiring-private-schools-including-yeshivas-to-prove-they-meet-standardsReport

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry, it’s not 19th century Poland. You want to pretend it is? Do it on someone else’s dime.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Heh, say what you will about the Canadian Residential schools… but at least they could read Canadian.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Because it is a Jewish school, because of the ugly history of anti-Semitism and complex status of Jews in contemporary America there should probably be a pre-emptive hammer ban on inflammatory statements or trolling. Because, damn, this is a pile of oily rags next to a gas furnace in a fireworks factory.

      Having gotten that out of the way, if we assume this is any other religious Christian or Muslim school, we could probably have a fruitful discussion.

      In my eyes, this seems like part of the normal push and pull of the negotiated interplay between Establishment and Free Exercise.

      We want, as a matter of public policy, for people to be free to educate their children as they see fit, to exercise their religious tenets to the greatest extent possible.

      We also, with as much vigor, want to avoid favoritism or establishment . So any public funding needs to be thought of as an equivalent provision, that we would do the same regardless of content.

      And we also, with every bit as much emphasis, want to protect children from neglect, and establish a minimum threshold of education and literacy so as to assure them to be full functioning citizens.

      Combining all of these, it doesn’t seem to be onerous or and unduly burdensome to demand that the schools get their students to a minimum level of literacy as a condition of their existence.

      I can’t read the paywalled version so I’m lacking a lot of detail.
      Have the schools explained why the scores are so low? I mean, are they trying but failing, or are they just refusing to accept the premise?
      Is it a case of “They just need some help to get there”, or is it a case of “They don’t wanna”?

      Can somebody fill in the details?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Excerpts:

        The students in the boys’ schools are not simply falling behind. They are suffering from levels of educational deprivation not seen anywhere else in New York, The Times found. Only nine schools in the state had less than 1 percent of students testing at grade level in 2019, the last year for which full data was available. All of them were Hasidic boys’ schools.

        ====

        The boys’ schools cram in secular studies only after a full day of religious lessons. Most offer reading and math just four days a week, often for 90 minutes a day, and only for children between the ages of 8 and 12. Some discourage further secular study at home. “No English books whatsoever,” one school’s rule book warns.

        ====

        For many Hasidic people, their schools are succeeding — just not according to the standards set by the outside world. In a community that places religion at the center of daily life, secular education is often viewed as unnecessary, or even distracting.

        I thought that this part was kind of interesting too:

        Hasidic boys’ yeshivas receive far less per pupil than public schools, and they charge tuition. But they appear to get more government funding on average than other private schools in the state, including other religious schools, the analysis found. And the money is flowing as New York City is cutting public school budgets.

        Report

      • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        I think the best parallel might be the Amish. I don’t know that they receive any public money but my understanding is that their schooling as we would understand it is also minimal/focused on other things.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          This is interesting: https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/social-organization/government/

          “They prefer not to receive subsidies from government programs.”Report

        • Kazzy in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Interesting and only semi-related… our state-wide accreditation group (we’re private and have private accreditation) has as one of it’s criteria for accreditation that we offer an equivalent curriculum as the public schools. It doesn’t have to be identical and “equivalency” is determined somewhat subjectively, but it is intended to deny accreditation to schools such as these. Now, a private org accrediting private schools is only worth whatever beans folks attach to it… so these schools and the parents they serve likely don’t give a damn about not being accredited. But just an interesting note that most private schools — most of which receive little to know public funding (though we are tax exempt) — voluntarily hold ourselves to standards that public schools must meet.

          These schools are REALLY outside the norm in this regard.Report

  28. Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    Heh. Does anyone remember Chip’s comment rescue discussion?

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-megadonor-peter-thiel-says-republicans-lack-positive-message-ahead-midterm-cycle

    “The temptation on our side is always going to be that all we have to do is say we’re not California,” said Thiel, invoking the Golden State’s increasing embrace of far-left prerogatives. “It’s so easy, so ridiculous to denounce, but … should we maybe have more of a positive agenda?”Report

  29. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The NYCLU has weighed in on the yeshiva situation and they have found an elegant solution:

    Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      East Ramapo has provided a case study in this sort of stuff for a while. The Satmar community in Kyras Joel, NY — at the time part of the town I lived in and which I wrote about here a few times — was pursuing a similar situation, though I think a different workaround was achieved there (we moved for unrelated reasons as things were reaching a crescendo).

      There have been multiple SCOTUS cases regarding this stuff. It’s not new… but it’s making the news (again).Report

  30. James K
    Ignored
    says:

    Last night, New Zealand ended its COVID protection framework aka the “Traffic Light System”. Mask mandates are now removed, expect for medical facilities. The few remaining vaccine mandates will end in 2 weeks.

    The only noteworthy public heath measure still in force is the requirement to isolate at home for 7 days if you test positive for COVID.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129854755/covid19-traffic-light-system-masks-scrapped-from-midnight-mondayReport

  31. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    The New York State Board of Regents has now adopted the new rules, which you can see here:

    http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rules/indices-fulltext/2019/060

    Lawsuits to follow.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m too tired today (20 miles on the bicycle) to read through it. How are they going to do enforcement?Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Your guess is as good as mine. The hasidic community punches well above its weight politically, which is why things have taken this long already.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          Colorado’s rules are all done at the state level, even though most of the enforcement is at the county level. Here, counties are very much creatures of the state. A local group may be able to vote out a commissioner who insists on enforcement. The state will eject them, and possibly hit them (or the county) with civil or criminal penalties.

          When I worked for the state legislature, one project required me to work my way through the legal history of Colorado counties challenging the state over sovereignty sorts of issues. None of the counties’ legal theories in cases spread over a century ever survived contact with the state supreme court.

          This contrasts with the next state over, where the state constitution grants counties a large degree of autonomy separate from the state.Report

  32. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

  33. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    French New Wave director and pioneerJean-Luc Godard dies at 91 from physician-assisted suicide: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/movies/jean-luc-godard-dead.html

    “A film consists of a beginning, a middle and an end, though not necessarily in that order.”-Jean-Luc GodardReport

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s interesting. I don’t know anything about Niemann, but I’ve never liked Hikaru Nakamura, and he’s really stirring up whatever he can without presenting evidence. Chess fanboys eat this stuff up. They’re like 12-year-old girls online. For the time being, there’s no way to judge the story.Report

  34. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    The 19 Republican Senate nominees on this list of election deniers and doubters join at least 11 Republican nominees for state secretary of state and at least 22 Republican nominees for governor. US senators generally have less power over elections than secretaries of state and governors do, but they do have the power to object to certifying electoral votes, to write and vote on election legislation, and sometimes to hold hearings and issue subpoenas on election issues.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/fact-check-republican-senate-nominees-2020-election/index.htmlReport

    • Pinky in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      At least they’re admitting that they’re including “doubters”.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s a distinction without a difference.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Vague statements about voter integrity versus claiming that the president wasn’t legitimately elected? No difference?Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Both positions are built on lies. The data presented by the 50 secretaries of state – including all the Republicans – show there were no voter integrity issues. Ditto the Feds – even Bill Barr agreed there was no “there” there. Where fraud has been detected – in what a dozen cases nationally – it has been prosecuted and sentences handed down. The system continues to work.

            That aside, no politician currently serving who won in that election has questioned their own ballots. None have questioned the ballots of anyone below the President. So even the “vague statements” are about a single candidate and not the process. They are designed to both delegitimize him, and give Republicans room to take power in authoritarian ways.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          I thought the Dem position was that it was ok to doubt the 2016 election but not deny the 2020 results. If you drop the distinction between doubt and denial, how many D senators / secretaries of state from 2018 belong in the CNN article?Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            No on on the left doubted Donald Trump’s election. We have all said, repeatedly, that he was legally elected. we have also said – and both Congressional and independent counsel investigations backed this up – that he benefitted from misinformation campaigns carried out by Russia. additionally we have said that Hillary ran a bad campaign, and we have said that a system that prioritizes the electoral college over the majority vote may not be democratic anymore.

            That’s not what Republican “doubters” are saying however. Not even close.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I doubt the integrity of your comment.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                On the basis of what – your dislike of me? Or are you telling us you have some sort of back door IP address tracker that would provide you data on whether, digitally, the comment was authored by me.

                Whatever you thought you were doing – and it was a lazy attempt at trolling at best – you have essentially proved my point that doubts around the 2020 election are nothing more then expressions of sadness or anger or frustration at the outcome. And while its fine to say I don’t like Biden winning, that’s not the same thing as saying I doubt he was legally elected.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              Is this a request for examples of this sort of thing or do you already know about all of them and you’re going to explain that this was a perfectly understandable emotional response rather than an actual statement about the integrity of the election or what?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This is just silly pedantry.

                “No one is saying” in this context means “no significant number”.

                Otherwise it would be perfectly true to say that the Republicans want to institute a Holocaust because well, I can a find a couple people on Twitter who are saying.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                So long as we agree that statements like “no one on the left did X” has room to mean “of course there were people on the left that did X but it’s bad faith to bring them up”, then I’m good.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There is no issue where you will ever find 100% of anyone agreeing with every statement. That’s not how humans work. harping on the edge cases doesn’t tell you anything except that there are edge cases. And its tiresome.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I was not linking to edge cases in my link but, hey. You can get back to using words like “All” and “None” when you mean “Some” now that we’ve hammered out literal definitions.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                following the 2016 election no democrats cast doubt on vote totals, or said that illegal immigrants had voted – or even that Russia had caused vote totals to be altered. We even turned on Hillary and reminded her quite publicly that her loss was in part due to her campaign making errors of execution in the midwest. We didn’t doubt Trump’s election as legal or fair or free – all accusations that are still lobbed at Biden openly, publicly and without evidence. We didn’t like trump being elected, but we didn’t question his legitimacy as President.

                And again – if there is reason to doubt the integrity of the 2020 election – that reason can and should extend beyond Biden’s election. it doesn’t. Not in any way shape or form.

                So I don’t know what direction you are trying to derail this in, but unless you actually want to make some clear statements backed with some sort of evidence, please move on.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                So I don’t know what direction you are trying to derail this in, but unless you actually want to make some clear statements backed with some sort of evidence, please move on.

                I saw a demonstrably false statement. It seems that we’ve hammered out that “no one on the left did X” should not be interpreted as “no one on the left did X” and so I’m good.

                Here’s something I found after 15 seconds of looking, for example.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This took me even less time:

                House GOP candidate called Hitler ‘the kind of leader we need’ in 2021 remarks

                https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna32876

                Trust me, the pedantry of nutpicking is not going to work out for Republicans here.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, well then.

                I guess, nobody on the left said… um…Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                How about calling the Trump presidency “illegitimate”. Does that count?

                ETA: I forgot the word “collusion”. Russian collusion, Russian collusion. How did I forget that one?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Wow.

                Talk about reaching for the cheap seats on a bunt.

                People called him illegitimate because a majority of voters voted against him. We called him illegitimate because his policies didn’t benefit most Americans. He still won the election legally. He was still President. Which we also said repeatedly.

                These doubters keep saying they aren’t sure Biden won legally. Which is one of those truthy statement that even Jaybird can refute in 15 seconds of googling. Trump never suffered from that.

                Though its nice to see the BSDI is still strong today.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                ahsjdfahsd;gasjdhaslkdfh;slajdgklsajd;fklasd

                THERE WAS A WHOLE-ASS CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER DONALD TRUMP’S ELECTION WAS LEGITIMATE AND I ASSURE YOU IT WAS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT MADE IT HAPPENReport

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                you linked to the Special Counsel’s report . . . The Senate Intelligence Committee – which was chaired by Republicans at the time was pretty clear:

                The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity.

                https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-findReport

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but just for clarity, this isn’t a “cheap seats” bit of rhetoric. I and countless others find that four years of “illegitimate”, “Russian collusion”, impeachments, et cetera are very much equivalent to what the Republicans did until Jan 5th and what most of the Republicans did since. I’m not asking you to agree, but you should understand this.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Your side needs to knock off the BSDI.

                According to the indictment, from May through October 2021, Schofield applied for absentee ballots in the names of people who either had no interest in voting, did not request ballots or his assistance, and did not know he was using their personal information.

                In a few instances, he personally brought the ballots to at least four individuals and instructed them to sign the envelopes without asking the individuals to complete the ballots themselves, the indictment said.

                These ballots were cast in either the 2021 primary election, the 2021 general election or both, the indictment said.

                https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/jason-schofield-new-york-election-commissioner/index.htmlReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “Democrats did not X.”
                “Here is an example of Democrats doing X.”
                “REPUBLICANS DID X TOO!”
                “I’m arguing against the statement that Democrats didn’t X.”
                “BOTH SIDES DO IT!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Their weakness is that conservatives themselves were instrumental in demolishing this logic flaw during the battle against Communism.

                “In America people don’t have to stand in line for food, so communism doesn’t work.”

                “Here is a picture of Americans standing in line for food.”

                The goal is not to persuade but just fight to a standstill and make truth unknowable, to where it isn’t possible to distinguish any difference between Soviet Communism and American capitalism.

                Like here, the assertion is that any difference between the Big Lie and some fringe muttering is merely a difference of opinion, with both points of view subjective.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “In America, Democrats do not question the results of the election.”

                “Here is a link to Democrats questioning the results of the election.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “The Republican party does not support Hitler.”

                “Here’s is a list of Republicans supporting Hitler.”

                Seriously man.
                Stop flogging, it’s not even twitching.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What isn’t even twitching? The strawman you just beat up?

                That’s what strawmen do, chip. They just lie there while you pretend that defeating them is demonstrating something.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              “No on on the left doubted Donald Trump’s election”

              wut.jpgReport

      • Pinky in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Based on the article’s evidence, there are something like four actual deniers, and they seem to be in places like Oregon and Maryland where they don’t stand a chance anyway.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      You had one job…

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573

      Either a crisis of democracy or fundraising episodes…Report

      • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        I live in Mississippi. My Senators are on record as opposing this, should it ever get a vote. I keep trying to elect people with differing views, but it hasn’t happened yet.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Heh, sorry, that was the Royal Meme ‘You,” not you you.

          The bill in committee has 9 R sponsors (though one of them is Lindsay Graham and, well, I wouldn’t trust him to sponsor a bake sale) and McConnell has signaled that some sort of reform is needed – and that makes 10.

          I guess it’s only been in committee for 2 months… not sure exactly how pressing the other matters for the Rules and Administration committee might be, but it’s not exactly like we don’t know when the mid-term elections are going to be held; to be fair, I haven’t scrutinized the committee or co-sponsors to know if there’s any risk of change — but if there is, then probably smart to do it sooner rather than later.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        The bill opens with this quote: “ The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on election day, in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day.”

        I can’t find a source for this, or maybe it’s just part of the law (in which case the quotes are weird), but it sure does leave room for lots of state law shenanigans.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Slade the Leveller
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s a bill reforming how Congress conducts the constitutionally mandated counting of electors… it doesn’t (and can’t) change how the Constitution mandates a federally decentralized selection of electors.

          A few boring, but operative, lines that close the loopholes opened by the ECA are:

          (2) by striking “as the legislature of such State shall direct” and inserting “in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day”.

          and

          “(2) POWERS EXPLICITLY DENIED.—The President of the Senate shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.

          and, under OBJECTIONS (which must be made in writing and only for specific cause)

          “(II) is signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators duly chosen and sworn and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives duly chosen and sworn; and

          etc. etc.

          Basically, the nonsense surrounding the role of the VP and the frivolous grandstanding of Senators is being removed. The States still determine their electoral processes under the Constitution and body of laws and rulings by the Supreme court subsequent to various other amendments and stuff(TM).

          It’s one of those things that doesn’t ‘fix’ what ails us, but a ‘simple’ fix to rules which were neglected and basically unread until someone bothered to read them. But to your original point, it closes the door (or attempts to) on State Legislatures taking over the election process *after* the election. I believe (but couldn’t point to it directly) is that challenges to the Constitutionality of any given State’s election laws *prior* to the election would be handled elsewhere.

          If there are existential threats, then act like it and do the simple things first…Report

          • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            The impact I think is to clarify what everyone seems to have implicitly understood the rules to be right up until Donald Trump took us on our latest adventure in legal nihilism. Which is still an important thing to do but not particularly revolutionary.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              It’s not revolutionary, no. I’d redirect slightly and say that the rules built for adjudicating 1876 election returns had assumptions about how the States (and congress) worked that are different from 21st century expectations/realities.

              So, exactly to your point, this doesn’t matter if everyone adopts the ‘unwritten rules’ theory of law… up until people revert back to the written rules of law theory.

              Which is one thing when it smacks citizens in the face, but quite another when the law writing body is smacked.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know that we had an unwritten rules theory of law so much as a comity that prevailed on at least a handful of issues. Now that it’s gone we need the letter. Which I would hope those law writing bodies see as an opportunity to address some long neglected housekeeping. I guess we will find out.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                If I may gently push back some more… I genuinely think there’s a bigger issue than comity/norms. From a political theory perspective we’re currently stuck between two semi-realities: 1) The States are Sovereign governing bodies in Federal Union and 2) The States are administrative districts for the Federal Government.

                The ECA assumes #1, the ECA-R has to thread the needle between #1 and #2.

                If you don’t thread this needle, then #1 prevails. So IMO the comity/norms argument that we sometimes correctly invoke isn’t the right thing on this issue.

                Fortunately it’s also an issue that doesn’t require a big Constitutional Theory bake-off since the rules/administration of Congress can manage this particular item — if they decide to expend any energy on it.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t totally disagree on the larger issue. There are absolutely some tensions between our post 1865 constitutional order (to say nothing of post New Deal) and the black letter of the document, and relevant implementing law.

                But to bring it to the matter at hand I also don’t think, for example, that anyone in 1887 thought they were giving the VP/President of the Senate the authority to do what Trump was apparently asserting or any remotely credible legal interpretation that says it does.

                From my perspective this is more about where our political institutions are and where we are as a polity than constitutional theory. Like there are sound enough arguments one could make for a system where state legislatures do the voting for federal elected offices. It’s just that no one makes them because they’d sound insane to the vast majority of people in the context of 21st century America, so instead there’s this weird song and dance about the need to correct for fraud that of course no one can prove happened.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      Hillary Clinton’s Concession speech:

      Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.

      https://time.com/4564480/read-hillary-clintons-concession-speech-full-transcript/

      Nearly two years on we have yet to hear those words – or anything similar from Trump. Those continuing to cast doubt on the election would do well to remember that both sides don’t do it.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Both sides do slightly different things.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          Slightly different?

          Hillary Clinton – I congratulated Donald Trump on his win and pledged to work with him.

          Donald Trump – the only I way could have lost is for the Democrats to have committed Fraud.

          Apples and ice cubes dude.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            I remember that Clinton speech. That’s the one she gave the day after the election because she didn’t show up to give her concession speech the night of the election. Then after the concession speech she’s spent the next 6 years talking about Russian collusion and Trump not being a legitimate president.

            I remember being told for years that Republicans were gerrymandering. I’ve been told that they’re purging the registration lists of minorities. That voter id’s were intended to keep minorities from voting. Both sides tell slightly different lies.Report

  35. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    These are very stupid people and things got out of hand: https://mississippitoday.org/2022/09/13/phil-bryant-brett-favre-welfare/

    Mississippi steals welfare money to pay Brett Farve. There are texts.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      oh yeah. its a hoot to watch – the current governor replaced the “independent” investigator after he subpoenaed the former governor’s texts. Supposedly for lack of performance. The white good old boys got caught by the feds and the state doesn’t really have the capability to deal with it.Report

  36. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      We need a new Extra thread to take this up . . . . but Amtrak has to do this because it operates on freight railroad tracks except in the NE Corridor, and sometime with freight rail engineers. They will not be available, and there won’t be any dispatching if freight shuts down.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, this is worth a post.
        The biggest disruption will be freight traffic and the already-disrupted supply chains.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I have one pending with the editorsReport

        • Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Despite large shifts towards natural gas and renewables over the last few years, there’s still a LOT of coal used for electricity generation that moves by rail. And surprising distances: the Scherer plant in Georgia, largest single generator in the state, is fueled exclusively with Wyoming Powder River basin coal that is shipped 2100 miles.

          (As the coal cars are unusable for anything else, the empty cars are taken 2100 miles back to Wyoming to be filled again.)Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s also staggering how much rail freight transits through the ports.

            What is interesting is how much this is all hidden from our view.
            In the WWII era the American manufacturing and shipping base was right close in large cities, but now the freight yards and frozen food storage and FedEx and Amazon distribution centers are all in far flung areas where land is cheap.

            But hidden or not, virtually everything you eat, wear, or touch will at some point in its supply chain, have traveled by rail.Report

  37. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    We probably need a post just to continually update this, as it looks to have legs:

    Satanic panic is making a comeback, fueled by QAnon believers and GOP influencers

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/satanic-panic-making-comeback-fueled-qanon-believers-gop-influencers-rcna38795Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “Well, for right now it’s Trump specific, but there’s always been this view that the right does it more than the left. But in surveys, when we measure generalized conspiracy thinking, we don’t find that it’s more the right than the left. When we look at large groups of conspiracy theories, we find that the left is just as likely to buy in as people on the right.

      “So what a lot of this comes down to is what’s the media paying attention to, and given the biases in the media, oftentimes they’re going to pay more attention to the conspiracy theories that the other guy believes, that the other side buys into, and they’ll ignore the ones on their own side, right? And there are psychological reasons for that. Our conspiracy theories aren’t conspiracy theories, they’re conspiracy facts. It’s the other guys’ conspiracy theories that are conspiracy theories.”

      https://www.niskanencenter.org/conspiracy-beliefs-are-not-increasing-or-exclusive-to-the-right/Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Telling us “Its just media bias” may be true, but you need to do more than just wave your arms.

        Until they can provide left versions of the Big Lie or QAnon, this is all just “cool story bro”.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s not me waving my arms. That was a quote from Dr. Joseph Uscinski, the expert cited in the NBC article, the creator of the survey. Get that. The person who provided the data in the article has also said that this isn’t a phenomenon of the right but can look that way because of biased reporting.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            What “data”?

            Without any support for his assertion, Dr. Uscinski is just arm waving.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              The survey in the article you linked to!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                OK so I looked at the survey in the NBC link, and have a problem with it.
                First off, it is just the raw data, without a conclusion or reasoning behind it.

                I am skeptical about laypeople trying to derive conclusions from raw data in fields they are well versed in so this is where I would seek out a professional expert like Dr. Uscinski.

                Except I noticed that in the list of “conspiracy questions” there are these:
                “Barack Obama faked his birth certificate”;
                “Climate Change is a hoax”;

                and then these:

                “Donald Trump is a Russian agent”;
                “The 1% of the richest people secretly control the Amereican government”;

                The first two are just bonkers crazy, but the second two are perhaps exaggerated, but definitely plausible and definitely should not be on any list of “conspiracy theories” especially when given to just average people.

                There is plenty of evidence that Trump is under some degree of Russian influence, and plenty more that the 1% do have an incredible amount of influence over the government.

                And second, I didn’t see anywhere in the linked survey where they broke down each response by party. So it isn’t clear what percent of Democrats or Republicans believes in any of the listed theories.

                So I’m back to asking for a left example of the Big Lie or QAnon.

                If “Donald Trump is under the influence of Russia” is the best you can do, you make my case for me.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I should say something about this comment, but I don’t want to look like I’m spiking the football. So let me just post one more quote from the interview I linked to:

                “Whenever I talk about conspiracy theories, the believers say, ‘Well, there’s good evidence for it.’ But here’s the interesting thing, is that for most of these things, the same evidence is out there for everybody, right? Particularly with something like COVID where it’s highly salient, but people interact with that evidence in different ways. So it’s not really the evidence itself, it’s much more what they already believe when they see that evidence.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, if Dr. Uscinski says there is no evidence for Russian influence over Donald Trump, who am I, or the entire intelligence community , to disagree?Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                By “entire intelligence community”, you mean only those things that reinforce your preconceptions, and none of the things that don’t. Which is the fundamental flaw in conspiracy thinking.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Regardless of whether you believe them or not, there is plenty of plausible evidence for Russian influence over Trump.

                Even if you think the evidence doesn’t amount to much, it is plausible, not crazy.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not crazy, it’s just unnecessary by Occam’s razor. Thinking that it’s necessary or plausible, well, that does open the door to some craziness.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                By “entire intelligence community”, you mean only those things that reinforce your preconceptions, and none of the things that don’t. Which is the fundamental flaw in conspiracy thinking.

                No, he means a report published by the intelligence agencies of the US government summarizing their conclusions on a matter. Something like this:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessing_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_US_ElectionsReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                WHY DOES IT MATTER WHO LINKED TO THE ARTICLE!

                It’s distractions like this that we’re always talking about.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sure you’re kidding, but the logic bomb is worth noting. The link is to a mainstream article about right-wing conspiracy thinking. The researcher cited in the article says you shouldn’t believe mainstream articles about right-wing conspiracy thinking. Either he’s right, so you shouldn’t believe the article, or he’s wrong, and you shouldn’t believe the article.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I thought “is this about the immigrants in Martha’s Vineyard thing?”

      And it is.

      I’m a YIMBY, just for other people. Is there a word for that?Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      What’s amazing is that the Republicans think this makes them look good.

      This, plus the national abortion ban tells me have lost the ability to read the national temperature.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        I think that it’s not that they think that this makes Republicans look good, as much as it’s making the Democrats who spent the last few years quoting “The New Colossus” start screaming about all of the brown people who are now in their neighborhoods.

        Imagine them saying “No human is illegal” in response to you complaining about your school district’s demographics changing, Chip.Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          In terms of the specific tweet I think Obama was in a pretty mainstream spot on illegal immigration. It was Congress that failed and perpetually fails on the subject.

          Though to your point as long as the primary purpose of politics is to trigger the right people and hold up various hypocrisies for ridicule then it will no doubt succeed.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            These are not illegals. These are people who arrived at the border claiming refugee/asylee status, and who have convinced at least one official they have an arguable case. They’ve been released pending a court hearing, which will be at least some months — if not years — out because the courts are overwhelmed. They have papers indicating their legal status. At last count, since Biden was inaugurated, more than a million people have been released into the country on those terms.

            They are not eligible for normal welfare sorts of assistance. They are not allowed a work permit until they’ve been waiting six months. For practical purposes, they are dependent on state/local programs outside the normal welfare scope, and charities. Not a lot of states have such programs, at least that scale.

            Maine has a program and has been providing assistance to asylum seekers from Africa. So many have shown up in Maine that the shelter and food capacity is exhausted.Report

            • InMD in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              Well, I’m not sure I believe the ‘asylum’ system we have is really functioning. Certainly not in a way that I defer to its determinations and particularly not where the immediate outcome is they turn you loose in the country to wait for a court date years away with full knowledge that resources to make sure you show up are ridiculously strained.

              But all that aside I have no problem saying this stunt is morally repugnant and the problems of our immigration system doesn’t justify it.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                This is irrelevant. The law of the United States is that people have a right to seek asylum in the United States. DeSantis and Abbot do not have the right to move the migrants or deceive them.Report

              • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                Did you read my second sentence?Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                Nor do DeSantis and Abbot have an obligation to provide food and shelter for them.

                I admit that this is a subject I’m touchy about because of my time on a state legislative staff. State budgets are usually very tightly constrained. California’s recent $50B surplus, with the freedom to refund or spend on new programs, is very unusual; I stand in awe, at least until you guys reach a point where a $50B surplus didn’t solve the homeless problem. For the most part, if a state is supposed to come up with $100M in new spending for human services, it will be at the cost of reduced spending on other human services. To paraphrase one of my committee bosses during a year where revenues fell drastically, “It’s not whether people will die because of our choices; we only get to affect which ones and how many.” Hardest part of any job I ever had was to sit in front of a live microphone and say, in effect, “Staff recommends letting some poor oldsters die in order to feed poor kids.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s the “let them eat cake” aspect that’s so maddening. We handled 50 people for a day, therefore anyone should be able to handle millions of people for years.Report

              • Chris in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                The state’s not providing them food and shelter, especially for these people, who are asylum seekers. That’s why this is such a ridiculous political stunt. They are literally barred from seeking government assistance. It cost Florida (and presumably Texas) more to transport them than it would to process them and pass them off to a church or other NGO who helps asylum seekers get housing, work, registered for schools, and money for necessities before they get a paycheck.

                And this is why Texas is better for them than Massachusetts: because we are right next to the border, we have all that non-governmental infrastructure built up, not to mention communities of people from where they’re from, or at least who speak the same language (Martha’s Vineyard had to use AP Spanish students from the local schools to communicate with these particular asylum seekers!).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe they should have flown them to Iowa instead:

                Ernst Highlights Iowa Businesses Struggling to Hire Workers, Cites Democratic Policies As a Leading Cause

                “During my recent travels across Iowa on my 99 County Tour, I couldn’t help but notice the number of ‘Help Wanted’ or ‘Now Hiring’ signs on storefronts along nearly every highway and main street.

                “In an era where we seem to live through one unprecedented occurrence after another, the dire jobs situation has become the latest extraordinary event as millions of Americans remain unemployed despite an abundance of jobs that need to be filled.

                “In fact, the number of available jobs has reached an all-time record high: 8.1 million positions that need to be filled.
                https://www.ernst.senate.gov/news/press-releases/ernst-highlights-iowa-businesses-struggling-to-hire-workers-cites-democratic-policies-as-a-leading-causeReport

              • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                This reminds me that I have a t-shirt from a SXSW Interactive corporate party I crashed several years ago that reads: “Iowa: Move here and start a company! I mean, what else you got going on?”

                Iowa, official state nickname “Gateway to Illinois!”, has for some reason long had trouble attracting both labor and capital. It’s inexplicable.Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              I would also add that nearly every immigrant sent north by Abbot and DeSantis, political comedy duo, seem to be from Venezuela. Congress has granted Venezuelans Temporary Protected Status. This means they have a right to live and work in the United States.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          So it is government by internet trolls! The people of Martha’s Vineyard are responding by aiding the people. So does this backfire or will they find a way to not admit it backfired?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            So does this backfire or will they find a way to not admit it backfired?

            Depends on how shrill the “HOW DARE YOU”s get.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            *Gavin Newsom enters the chat*

            Calif. governor rents billboards in red states to tout abortion access
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/15/gavin-newsome-abortion/

            California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s reelection campaign has rented billboards in six states with abortion bans, escalating the Democrat’s battle with conservative Republican governors and courting a First Amendment fight with Mississippi.

            The ads on the billboards, viewed first by The Washington Post, direct women to a California state website that tells users how and where to get an abortion in the state, emphasizing that “you do not need to be a California resident to receive abortion services.”

            Y’know, I’m starting to wonder if maybe these Democrats are actually good at this “politics” thing.
            Or they may possibly even be in array.

            ETA: One ad portrays a woman with her hands chained behind her back. “Texas doesn’t own your body. You do,” it reads. Another ad says that “California is ready to help” anyone who needs an abortion, adding a verse from the Gospel of Mark: “Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.”

            Quoting the Gospels. *chef’s kiss*Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Jaybird:

          Are you saying it is morally acceptable for government officials from Florida and Texas to lie and mislead people about jobs, food, and shelter awaiting them somewhere else? People who might be then transported thousands of miles from the courts handling their immigration cases? Is this all okay if it owns the libs?Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          But see, even this was a colossal error.

          The Democrats responded with care and concern, not bigotry and hate.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            To be fair, based on the population of Martha’s Vineyard and the percentage of illegal immigrants in FL, they’d need to accept about 1000 people. But I don’t think the idea was to trigger bigotry and hate, just equity and understanding.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              And so, tiny Martha’s Vineyard shows that immigrants can be given welcome and assistance, and yet the world doesn’t topple over on its axis.

              How do the Republicans shrieking hysterically about borders not come out of this looking both stupid and spiteful?Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, obviously immigration response isn’t simply about being hospitable in the first 24 hours. That’s trivialization more than these busings have been. As for anyone who thinks the immigration debate is hysterical Republican shrieking, they’ve already decided what their take will be.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird provided a video link to someone in charge on Martha’s Vineyard. My summary would be, “We can handle 50, for a while, but fairly soon they’ll all have to leave.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes.

                If tiny Martha’s Vineyard can handle unexpected immigrants with grace and compassion, what’s Florida’s excuse for treating them with stupidity and malice?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it has to do with “50”.

                What percentage of Florida’s Undocumented Dreamers is composed by that 50, do you think?

                Is that… One percent, do you think? 5000 Undocumented Dreamers who only want a better life for themselves and their families.

                Okay, that’s absurd. One tenth of one percent gets us to 50,000 Undocumented Dreamers.

                Let’s go to one percent of one percent to finally get us to the ballpark. Here’s a breakdown of the Undocumented in Florida alone: 772,000.

                So Martha’s Vineyard got less than one percent of one percent of Florida’s Undocumented Dreamer population and they are now finding themselves in a place where they’re doing the usual. Explaining how they’re doing what they can to help but pointing out how they don’t have the resources to deal with this sort of thing long term.

                And, of course, the underlying assumption is “my circumstances are extraordinary!”

                Here’s a tweet from 2019. Zoom in and enjoy:

                Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This doesn’t refute my charge.

                Massachusetts by the way, is reacting precisely as you recommended in that 2010 essay. They didn’t let bureaucracy or red tape get in the way of delivering efficient and effective aid to these people.

                Texas and Florida are reacting exactly as you complained about, making things deliberately painful for immigrants in stupid, ineffective, and unnecessary ways.

                And since you stand by those earlier statements, I know you aren’t defending Texas or Florida in any way.
                So if Saul gets confused on that point, I’ll make sure to correct him.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                They didn’t let bureaucracy or red tape get in the way of delivering efficient and effective aid to these people.

                And then they quickly had a government official come out and say “this ain’t gonna last, you know”.

                I appreciate that Martha’s Vineyard is being taxed by these 50 unexpected people who require resources.

                It takes a lot of resources to house and feed a person!

                It was really unkind of Florida to send less than one percent of one percent of its Undocumented Dreamers to Martha’s Vineyard unexpectedly like that.

                It’s unrealistic to expect people to take care of Undocumented Dreamers!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                How much was Florida spending to house and feed these 50 people?

                You can look that up and post it here for all of us to see.
                I guarantee the answer will shock you!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Those 50? Rather than the 772,000?

                I’ll see what I can google up. Huh. It’s awfully difficult to find good numbers for the cost of Undocumented Dreamers.

                Here’s wikipedia.

                A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that “over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” While the overall fiscal impact on the US is beneficial, unauthorized immigrants have an adverse impact on the budgets of state and local governments. While cautioning that the reports are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states, they concluded that:

                –“State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs”;
                –“The amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions”;
                –“The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants”; and
                –“Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.”

                You’d think it’d be easier to find numbers for this!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I can see why you are a strong proponent of a lenient and simple immigration policy!

                This sort of information only makes DeSantis’ stunt look even more stupid and malicious.

                By the way, how much was Florida spending to house these 50 people?
                Let me know if you need help in finding that.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I make distinctions between legal and undocumented immigration.

                Maybe this is part of the problem.

                By the way, how much was Florida spending to house these 50 people?

                I can’t find numbers for how much Florida spends on immigrants.

                How much is Martha’s Vineyard spending?

                I can’t find that either.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You mean it’s possible to be in favor of a simpler, better run immigration system but not be down with allowing the asylum process to become a sham in service of a massive influx of illegal low skill labor? Crazy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s pretty hypocritical to like eating fruit but be against illegal immigration.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Heh I’ll be sure to mention that to my doctor next time we talk about my BMI.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                We go through this every single time.

                Immigration, even low skilled immigration always ends up being a net benefit for the nation. This has been proven time and again by empirical evidence.

                Anti-immigration proponents always struggle mightily to explain why sure, the previous waves of immigrants including my ancestors were all low skilled immigrants and sure, we all ended up being net contributors to American prosperity, but THESE immigrants, well, sir, they just are different somehow.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, and it gets pointed out that people like us are the primary beneficiaries and other people pay the costs of increased immigration.

                (“Costs? What costs?” was the next move the last however many times.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                First, lets note that you’re conceding that America overall benefits from immigration.
                So we don’t have to regurgitate this one more time.

                Second, don’t you think its weird how this is the exact dialogue we have about offshoring and globalization?

                Manufacturing workers pay the costs, but middle class educated people reap the benefits.

                And here, let me quote economic libertarians, and um, how does it go again, that the free movement of capital and labor has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other force in human history, and even our poorest would be envied by medieval kings.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah.

                I benefit a lot from these policies.

                Other people pay the costs.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Since you are, very obviously, strongly in favor of a more lenient and simple immigration policy, this should delight you.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I’m not very good at looking at “I’m benefiting from this, other people are footing the bill” and being delighted.

                It’s more of a “Well, Omelas *IS* pretty nice. And all of my stuff is here. And the food is really good.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I feel the same way about offshoring, but there doesn’t seem to be any other alternative, is there?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What’s the goal?

                Legality?
                Morality?
                The ability to sit back and be delighted with the value and quality of the goods that we, the people who benefit, now have available to us?

                If delight is your goal, I imagine you’d be delighted by our situation.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Aren’t these questions addressed in your 2010 essay?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, my 2010 essay was about immigration policy, not offshoring.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Perhaps there’s a mixup between offshoring and outsourcing?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Read it for yourself.

                It’s not about offshoring or outsourcing.

                It’s about immigration policy.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It had the word “outsourcing” in it. That was the basis of my guess.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m just trying to figure out the trouble you are having with “I’m benefiting from this, other people are footing the bill” .

                As you have said, you like the idea of more lenient immigration policy, and like you said, this creates benefits for some and costs for others, so then for you to go on to say that you “are not very good” with that seems like a logical disconnect somewhere.Report