It's not a focus. It's literally just the change of some terminology in the definitions section of the sort that you'd find in literally any bill. Y'all are just being utterly ridiculous.
It was a real bill. They added it to the CR as a sort of consent agenda item.
Sounds like there's a non-trivial chance it'll go independently now. If the anti-woke keep it from passing because of this sort of thing, it will be a pretty clear indication that y'all are wholly unserious people.
You can also find this language in federal work on the old bill going back to at least 2015 (the current version of the bill passed in 2014): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/16/2015-05530/workforce-innovation-and-opportunity-act-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking
That's not true (I know for a fact), but if it were, it would suggest that we live in a truly dysfunctional country, that the words "Opportunity Youth" and "Experiencing Homelessness" would tank a bill.
(I've been reading drafts of and comments on the reauthorization bill for more than a year.)
If you want a more pragmatic reason for the change, it better aligns the language of the bill with the language of service providers and others in the field.
The way we talk about things changes the way we think about them. The labels we use have a pretty significant effect on how we represent people and things. This is not just me, a lefty, talking about it, but decades of research in psychology. For example, instead of labeling someone a carrot eater, saying they eat carrots, changes the way we think about them, specifically making us less likely to see eating carrots as an immutable property that says something about who they are as a person. It's possible that doing the same with homelessness will similarly encourage people to think of people who are homeless without essentializing the homelessness.
Man, you're old enough, smart enough, and well-read enough, to know that language changes constantly, and official language frequently. No one's telling you use "people experiencing homelessness," or "the houseless," instead of "homeless," but people actually working with such people new terms in order to better humanize a population that a huge portion of the country, liberals and conservatives, pretty consistently dehumanizes. Objecting to this is straight up ghoulishness. Seriously, it's just downright disturbing how hard y'all are looking for reasons to be angry. You don't have to look hard: shite is fished up, and it's not because we're calling homeless people something new.
As for the awesomeness of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, I think that it is awesome enough to be voted on as something standalone rather than part of a silly CR to get us to February.
My impression is that it got attached to this out of laziness: it was unobjectionable, and they didn't want to work a moment longer than necessary, so they attached it to the larger deal instead of having to go through the process separately. It'll probably get passed separately now, assuming the language police don't object to "opportunity Youth" as a service distinction.
Section 111, Page 958: Redefines “out of school youth” to “opportunity youth.”
These are all, I believe, part of the reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, and I find it very odd that anyone would single them out as bad. On the one hand, "experiencing homelessness" is pretty standard language now, and "out-of-school youth" is a distinction primarily concerning the sorts of services states are required to provide people within a certain age range, and I believe the label "opportunity youth" is a phrase in long use meant to define them not merely by their school status.
I believe WIOA reauthorization got attached to this bill primarily because enough support from both parties that it was just assumed it would pass without objection. It's so weird that anti-woke people are so obsessed with finding wokeness that they'd object to something because they don't like the word "experiencing."
It's amazing that we live in a country with two shite parties, one reduced to a proto-fascist cult of personality that's currently being led from behind the scenes by the son of a South African emerald dealer, and the other a gerontocracy clinging to power so tightly, and at the expense of any other aim, that they ran a septuagenarian in serious cognitive decline for president, twice.
Related, from one of the organs of the liberal left:
In other democracies, the leaderships of parties that have endured humiliating defeats like the one Democrats saw in November—or even just regular defeats—resign. That kicks off a process by which members determine a new, ideally more successful direction, represented by different people. But the Democratic Party isn’t really a “party” of the sort that exists in other democracies, with memberships and official constituencies, like unions, who have some say over how it’s governed. Members mostly make decisions based on their own interests rather than to drive some shared, democratically decided agenda forward.
It's actually worse than that: Harris, the "young" candidate, would have been the second oldest Democrat, after Biden, to become president since Truman.
No, it's even worse than that! She would have been the third oldest Democratic Party president when she became president, behind Biden and Truman, since Buchanan!
How did the party of youth and energy end up so old that a president younger than only two Democratic presidents since before the Civil War was considered the young one?
I think amid the terminally online center-right's obsession with wokeness and the center-left's obsession with "misinformation," one of the Democratic Party's problems that has been underdiscussed is how much of a gerontocracy it is, and how much that hurts them in many ways, both with voters and with their own younger candidates.
I mean, Harris was considered a young candidate at 60. The three Democratic presidents prior to Biden were, I believe, 52, 46, and 47 when they were first elected, and while obviously the Republican candidate the last 3 times has been quite old, the GOP seems to be really trying to elevate its young politicians, whereas the older Dems will hold onto power at the expense of their younger colleagues until death or the voters pries it away from them.
A great example of how their oldness has left them out of touch was Pelosi, Schumer, et al. kneeling in Kente cloth stoles in 2020.
This is pretty funny. It was pretty much assumed AOC would win, and she went out of her way to show her subservience to the party, even telling leadership she'd stop supporting progressive primary challengers for incumbent Dems, but Pelosi swooped in at the end and undercut her.
As someone who thinks the left wastes way too much of its energy on electoral stuff, this series of events is definitely going in my rhetorical arsenal.
Thinking about Clay Travis, one of the best entries into this benighted discourse came from his friend Riley Gaines, the former mediocre college swimmer who gained fame through her mixing of politics and sports. who said on Twitter "No one was asking for Caitlin Clark to position herself as a right-wing hero. All she needed to do was remain neutral." Travis also weighed in on Clark's Time Magazine interview, of course, asking whether people would be less likely to watch her games now that she's used the phrase "white privilege."
What "remained neutral" here means, of course, is not say anything that would offend reactionaries, which is a pretty thin tightrope to walk these days.
Relatedly, I grew up in the South in the 80s and 90s, in a conservative small town, and not standing for the anthem was fairly common, especially among young people, and was generally unremarked upon. I don't think I stood for an anthem from like 1992 until the early Aughts, when 9/11, the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War made "patriots" fighty about such things. In fact, I distinctly remember going to a baseball game in "liberal" Austin, TX in spring 2002 with my (then 4-year old) son, not standing for the anthem, and getting some choice words from a bunch of students and a few people my grandparents' age.
I think there's a very real possibility that the worst medium/long-term effect of Trumpism will be a reduction in childhood vaccination rates large enough to threaten heard immunity for multiple diseases that for most of our lifetimes have been almost completely eradicated in the United States. A lot of people would then die or be permanently disabled.
I'm not sure anything he will be able to do about Big Pharma, Big Ag, or Big Food within the context of a Trump administration will outweigh that.
I don't know about you, but I don't have AI glasses that tell me a person's criminal history when I look at them.
What's more, I'm not to keen on the idea of random people choosing when to intervene, and when not to intervene, when a person is having a mental health crisis in public, or when several people are clearly afraid of someone how has not yet to the random people's knowledge harmed anyone.
Putting aside the question of whether Perry used excessive force; the precedent we're setting here is a disturbing one.
Nikki Giovanni's death and events in the news reminded me of this little gem, "Allowables":
I killed a spider
Not a murderous brown recluse
Nor even a black widow
And if the truth were told this
Was only a small
Sort of papery spider
Who should have run
When I picked up the book
But she didn’t
And she scared me
And I smashed her
And the SNA and the Turkish army are advancing on Kobani, a name that anyone paying attention to this conflict in 2014/15 will remember well. The Kurds will of course not only put resources into keeping territory, but will try to pull political strings as well, which will put the fragility of the rebel (now ruling?) coalition to the test. The Kurds will also try to appeal to the West, with whom they've worked closely for decades, though the U.S. has shown a willingness to abandon the Kurds in favor of Turkey.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
It's not a focus. It's literally just the change of some terminology in the definitions section of the sort that you'd find in literally any bill. Y'all are just being utterly ridiculous.
"
It was a real bill. They added it to the CR as a sort of consent agenda item.
Sounds like there's a non-trivial chance it'll go independently now. If the anti-woke keep it from passing because of this sort of thing, it will be a pretty clear indication that y'all are wholly unserious people.
"
You can also find this language in federal work on the old bill going back to at least 2015 (the current version of the bill passed in 2014): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/16/2015-05530/workforce-innovation-and-opportunity-act-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking
"
That's not true (I know for a fact), but if it were, it would suggest that we live in a truly dysfunctional country, that the words "Opportunity Youth" and "Experiencing Homelessness" would tank a bill.
(I've been reading drafts of and comments on the reauthorization bill for more than a year.)
If you want a more pragmatic reason for the change, it better aligns the language of the bill with the language of service providers and others in the field.
"
The way we talk about things changes the way we think about them. The labels we use have a pretty significant effect on how we represent people and things. This is not just me, a lefty, talking about it, but decades of research in psychology. For example, instead of labeling someone a carrot eater, saying they eat carrots, changes the way we think about them, specifically making us less likely to see eating carrots as an immutable property that says something about who they are as a person. It's possible that doing the same with homelessness will similarly encourage people to think of people who are homeless without essentializing the homelessness.
On “From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge”
I mean, he had to, right? They seemed pretty tight, so Obama would definitely have noticed the difference.
"
I find it hard to see a guy whose entire brand is Ultrarich leads a peasant revolt, but meh.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Man, you're old enough, smart enough, and well-read enough, to know that language changes constantly, and official language frequently. No one's telling you use "people experiencing homelessness," or "the houseless," instead of "homeless," but people actually working with such people new terms in order to better humanize a population that a huge portion of the country, liberals and conservatives, pretty consistently dehumanizes. Objecting to this is straight up ghoulishness. Seriously, it's just downright disturbing how hard y'all are looking for reasons to be angry. You don't have to look hard: shite is fished up, and it's not because we're calling homeless people something new.
As for the awesomeness of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, I think that it is awesome enough to be voted on as something standalone rather than part of a silly CR to get us to February.
My impression is that it got attached to this out of laziness: it was unobjectionable, and they didn't want to work a moment longer than necessary, so they attached it to the larger deal instead of having to go through the process separately. It'll probably get passed separately now, assuming the language police don't object to "opportunity Youth" as a service distinction.
"
Section 102, Page 947: Redefines “homeless individuals” to “individuals experiencing homelessness.”
Section 102, Page 947: Redefines “homeless children” to “children experiencing homelessness.”
Section 111, Page 958: Redefines “out of school youth” to “opportunity youth.”
These are all, I believe, part of the reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, and I find it very odd that anyone would single them out as bad. On the one hand, "experiencing homelessness" is pretty standard language now, and "out-of-school youth" is a distinction primarily concerning the sorts of services states are required to provide people within a certain age range, and I believe the label "opportunity youth" is a phrase in long use meant to define them not merely by their school status.
I believe WIOA reauthorization got attached to this bill primarily because enough support from both parties that it was just assumed it would pass without objection. It's so weird that anti-woke people are so obsessed with finding wokeness that they'd object to something because they don't like the word "experiencing."
On “From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge”
It's amazing that we live in a country with two shite parties, one reduced to a proto-fascist cult of personality that's currently being led from behind the scenes by the son of a South African emerald dealer, and the other a gerontocracy clinging to power so tightly, and at the expense of any other aim, that they ran a septuagenarian in serious cognitive decline for president, twice.
"
If this is all true, it sounds like he never should have run in 2020, because he was likely already in pretty serious decline.
On “The PKK Puzzle”
The left is crushed to see President Barack Obama’s vision of an Iranian dominated Levant has failed spectacularly.
I only had to read as far as this howler to realize this was wasn't worth my time. Thanks for making it clear this was unserious near the top.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Related, from one of the organs of the liberal left:
In other democracies, the leaderships of parties that have endured humiliating defeats like the one Democrats saw in November—or even just regular defeats—resign. That kicks off a process by which members determine a new, ideally more successful direction, represented by different people. But the Democratic Party isn’t really a “party” of the sort that exists in other democracies, with memberships and official constituencies, like unions, who have some say over how it’s governed. Members mostly make decisions based on their own interests rather than to drive some shared, democratically decided agenda forward.
"
It's actually worse than that: Harris, the "young" candidate, would have been the second oldest Democrat, after Biden, to become president since Truman.
No, it's even worse than that! She would have been the third oldest Democratic Party president when she became president, behind Biden and Truman, since Buchanan!
How did the party of youth and energy end up so old that a president younger than only two Democratic presidents since before the Civil War was considered the young one?
"
I think amid the terminally online center-right's obsession with wokeness and the center-left's obsession with "misinformation," one of the Democratic Party's problems that has been underdiscussed is how much of a gerontocracy it is, and how much that hurts them in many ways, both with voters and with their own younger candidates.
I mean, Harris was considered a young candidate at 60. The three Democratic presidents prior to Biden were, I believe, 52, 46, and 47 when they were first elected, and while obviously the Republican candidate the last 3 times has been quite old, the GOP seems to be really trying to elevate its young politicians, whereas the older Dems will hold onto power at the expense of their younger colleagues until death or the voters pries it away from them.
A great example of how their oldness has left them out of touch was Pelosi, Schumer, et al. kneeling in Kente cloth stoles in 2020.
"
Pettiness is definitely what it was.
"
At least by congressional staffers, if not by the congressfolk themselves.
"
This is pretty funny. It was pretty much assumed AOC would win, and she went out of her way to show her subservience to the party, even telling leadership she'd stop supporting progressive primary challengers for incumbent Dems, but Pelosi swooped in at the end and undercut her.
As someone who thinks the left wastes way too much of its energy on electoral stuff, this series of events is definitely going in my rhetorical arsenal.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
She wasn't talking about on the court.
"
Thinking about Clay Travis, one of the best entries into this benighted discourse came from his friend Riley Gaines, the former mediocre college swimmer who gained fame through her mixing of politics and sports. who said on Twitter "No one was asking for Caitlin Clark to position herself as a right-wing hero. All she needed to do was remain neutral." Travis also weighed in on Clark's Time Magazine interview, of course, asking whether people would be less likely to watch her games now that she's used the phrase "white privilege."
What "remained neutral" here means, of course, is not say anything that would offend reactionaries, which is a pretty thin tightrope to walk these days.
"
That's great.
Relatedly, I grew up in the South in the 80s and 90s, in a conservative small town, and not standing for the anthem was fairly common, especially among young people, and was generally unremarked upon. I don't think I stood for an anthem from like 1992 until the early Aughts, when 9/11, the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War made "patriots" fighty about such things. In fact, I distinctly remember going to a baseball game in "liberal" Austin, TX in spring 2002 with my (then 4-year old) son, not standing for the anthem, and getting some choice words from a bunch of students and a few people my grandparents' age.
On “Thursday Throughput: RFK Jr Edition”
I think there's a very real possibility that the worst medium/long-term effect of Trumpism will be a reduction in childhood vaccination rates large enough to threaten heard immunity for multiple diseases that for most of our lifetimes have been almost completely eradicated in the United States. A lot of people would then die or be permanently disabled.
I'm not sure anything he will be able to do about Big Pharma, Big Ag, or Big Food within the context of a Trump administration will outweigh that.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/9/2024”
I don't know about you, but I don't have AI glasses that tell me a person's criminal history when I look at them.
What's more, I'm not to keen on the idea of random people choosing when to intervene, and when not to intervene, when a person is having a mental health crisis in public, or when several people are clearly afraid of someone how has not yet to the random people's knowledge harmed anyone.
Putting aside the question of whether Perry used excessive force; the precedent we're setting here is a disturbing one.
"
Nikki Giovanni's death and events in the news reminded me of this little gem, "Allowables":
I killed a spider
Not a murderous brown recluse
Nor even a black widow
And if the truth were told this
Was only a small
Sort of papery spider
Who should have run
When I picked up the book
But she didn’t
And she scared me
And I smashed her
I don’t think
I’m allowed
To kill something
Because I am
Frightened
On “Bashar al-Assad Flees To Moscow, Ending 50 Years of Syrian Dictatorship”
And the SNA and the Turkish army are advancing on Kobani, a name that anyone paying attention to this conflict in 2014/15 will remember well. The Kurds will of course not only put resources into keeping territory, but will try to pull political strings as well, which will put the fragility of the rebel (now ruling?) coalition to the test. The Kurds will also try to appeal to the West, with whom they've worked closely for decades, though the U.S. has shown a willingness to abandon the Kurds in favor of Turkey.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.