…when Obama did it it was okay.”
There are a lot of things like that.
SCOTUS rules on citizenship census question and political gerrymandering
Several SCOTUS decisions came down today. I got somewhat of a late start, and have less time than I’d hoped to delve into them in any detail, so I’ll refer you to the following:
Court punts for now on the citizenship question:
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision.
There were a great many parts to this decision, with different concurring and dissenting justices. So it’s a bit difficult to sort out; read those two links if you’re interested in the details. But the gist of it seems to be that a citizenship question on the census would be okay if the motives for including it were pure rather than political.
If that’s a correct interpretation on my part, it seems to be a somewhat troubling extension of a recent tendency of quite a few courts lately to elevate motives over process.
This ruling also means that as a practical matter it would be difficult to get the question on the 2020 census even if the Court later rules in favor of it, because the forms must be printed soon.
I can also add, from having done some genealogy research using censuses, that this question was long a staple of census questionnaires.
One more big ruling today—actually, a potentially more influential one—from SCOTUS involved politically partisan gerrymandering. You can find some of the details here:
The Supreme Court issued a decision today that could have a significant and long-term effect on elections and legislatures across the country. By a vote of 5-4, the justices ruled that courts should stay out of disputes over partisan gerrymandering – that is, allegations that redistricting maps were drawn to favor one political party at another’s expense. The practice of partisan gerrymandering may be distasteful, the court concluded, but it is a problem that politicians and the political process, rather than courts, should solve.
The lower court cases are to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
“The judgments of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland are vacated, and the cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
This is a sweeping rejection well beyond what would have occurred with a substantive evaluation of partisan gerrymandering. There will be no wiggle room for district court judges to try to get involved somehow. For better or worse, partisan gerrymandering is subject to the partisan political process, not the sometimes seemingly partisan judicial process.
This isn’t just saying that SCOTUS can’t rule on the fairness of any particular case of political gerrymandering; it’s saying that district courts can’t rule on it.
And what about state appeals courts? Remember Pennsylvania? See this if you don’t. That ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court probably resulted in quite a few more Democrats being elected to the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania than would have otherwise been the case without court interference.
But the present SCOTUS ruling can’t go back and undo it. The present ruling applies to the cases it was ruling on today, and to future cases.
This SCOTUS ruling can cut either way, of course, in the political sense. Sometimes gerrymandering is done to favor Republicans, sometimes Democrats. It depends on who’s in control of the process at the time in a particular state.
But the courts won’t be able to have much say in the matter—at least, for political gerrymandering. I am pretty sure, however, that if it’s done to favor one race or another, rather than one party or another, the courts will still be able to be involved. And of course, race can be highly correlated with political affiliation, particularly for minorities.
Julian Castro gets the gold star for woke-ness effort
No, I haven’t watched the debate. But I hear tell about it, and this sounds like one of the high points:
“I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice,” Castro declared. “Just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise this right to choose.” He went on to pledge that he would appoint judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade (1973)…
While transgender activists would call for abortion access for transgender people, they would demand it for “transgender men,” not “transgender women.” It is impossible for a “transgender female” to get an abortion, unless he gets a womb transplant.
But some people felt that Castro shouldn’t be judged too harshly:
…[T]ransgender activist Charlotte Clymer was just happy to see the transgender community mentioned. “Julian Castro went out of his way to specifically mention trans people’s access to reproductive care and justice on national television, and I am definitely making a donation tonight,” Clymer tweeted.
Life imitates art. History repeats itself, first as farce, then as political debate. So I just had to post this video once again, because it fits the occasion so very perfectly:
Today is the 10th anniversary of FredHJr’s death
[NOTE: The following is a slightly revised version of a post that has appeared previously on this blog.]
Unbelievable that it’s been an entire decade since commenter FredHJr died suddenly and tragically. As time passes, the number of readers here who don’t remember Fred must necessarily increase, so for those of you who don’t know who FredHJr was, please see this and this, as well as these.
Fred’s death was extremely tragic for his family. But it was tragic for this blog, too, because he was an invaluable and irreplaceable member of our community, a “changer” who knew a lot about the Left, and a keen observer of politics, history, religion, culture—of life itself. I still think about him often, wondering what he’d have to say about everything that’s happened in these last ten years.
Every year on the anniversary, I offer some excerpts from his many comments here. Continue reading →
Tonight’s the first Democratic debate
Do you plan to watch?
UPDATE 10:39 PM:
I know, I know. I’m a blogger; I should force myself to watch it.
But I hate debates no matter which party. And a huge load of Democrats, circa 2019, trying to outdo each other—sort of like actors upstaging each other, but in this case they’re stage-lefting each other?
Sorry, I just can’t seem to bring myself to do it.
Survey of college students: they don’t feel they can voice dissenting opinions
Gee, I wonder why:
The study, conducted by the Knight Foundation and College Pulse, found that 68 percent of U.S. college students say that “the climate on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”…
In a June post, Gallup noted that it had surveyed graduates who had obtained their bachelor’s degree from 2013 to 2018 by asking them to respond to the following statement: “I felt very comfortable sharing ideas or opinions in class that were probably only held by a minority of people.”…
Sixty-four percent of grads surveyed indicated that they agreed with the statement, while only 14 percent suggested that they disagreed.
The numbers are huge, and it’s a majority of both men and women. Therefore it’s pretty clear that even many students who are politically liberal are feeling the pinch of self-censorship to avoid being singled out for SJW retaliation in some way, and that groupthink is a powerful force that thwarts even some liberals against their will.
That Gallup article mentioned in the quote is interesting. When I clicked on the link, I found to my surprise that it wasn’t a straight report of a poll. Instead, it was an article entitled, “Inclusive Environments Produce Attached Alumni.”
I’m not always up on the latest jargon, but these days doesn’t “inclusive” usually refer to minorities in terms of gender and ethnicity, and the suppression of diversity of opinion and in particular political point of view, in order to protect SJWs’ feelings from being hurt? But this is what the article says:
Tyler’s need to share his views with others matters greatly to him. He represents hundreds of thousands of college students nationally who require an inclusive campus to thrive. A recent Knight Foundation-Gallup study on free speech on college campuses found that 70% of U.S. college students say they want an open learning environment, where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing offensive speech. Similarly, a 2018 study conducted by the American Council on Education found that 98% of college presidents say promoting an inclusive society is extremely important (82%) or very important (16%).
I think we can safely say that those college presidents are using the definition of “inclusive” I gave above, because they certainly are not talking about making it safe for conservatives.
Here’s an example of the dueling definitions of “inclusive”:
Comfort sharing unpopular views varies by gender, with female grads less likely than their male peers to report feeling comfortable expressing opinions held by only a minority of students. This finding is consistent with prior research that shows women are less likely than men to ask questions during academic seminars. This gap in comfort with sharing opinions undermines the college experience given that research clearly shows students gain tremendously when they are exposed to ideas, perspectives and opinions from different genders or backgrounds.
“[I]deas, perspectives and opinions from different genders or backgrounds” is that first definition I mentioned. It’s also the perspective of “diversity” these days, which refers to minority groups rather than diversity of political philosophy.
But which definition of these words are the students using when they answer the questions? I suspect that a great many more of them are referring to diversity of thought and politics rather than diversity or inclusivity involving gender and race.
Diversity leads to conformity, at least as it is practiced on campus.
[NOTE: Please see this for a related discussion on dual definitions and their use.]
N. K. Jemison’s Utopia: breaking those eggs
Yesterday commenter “huxley” wrote:
I just discovered there’s a new ultra-SJW-intersectional, black, female SF writer, N.K. Jemisin who has won three Hugos and a Nebula since 2016. That’s a very big deal. It puts her into grandmaster level with the likes of Heinlein.
I checked out her short story collection, “How Long ‘Til Black Future Month?” because it contained “The Ones Who Stay and Fight,” which was a response to an all-time SF story and one that had a huge impact on me, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” Ursula Le Guin.
“Omelas” is about people who leave an almost-utopia which, however, requires the hideous suffering of a small child. “Stay and Fight” starts from an SJW utopia in an alternate universe, which is being corrupted by radios which can receive broadcasts from the US in our universe. The ones who stay and fight are those who dress in gray and ferret out those who have been corrupted by the Americans broadcasts and execute them with a pike for wrongthink.
Wow. That’s the new SJW science fiction. Here’s a real quote from the story:
“This is the paradox of tolerance, the treason of free speech: we hesitate to admit that some people are just fucking evil and need to be stopped.”
Jemisin is currently the hottest, most ballyhooed talent in science and this is one of her most important messages.
One might think Jemison’s “Stay and Fight” is a cautionary tale rather than a prescription. And I suppose that’s at least theoretically possible. Caveat: I have not yet read the story—in fact, last night was the first I’d heard of it. I haven’t read any science fiction in a long long time, although when I was young I read quite a bit of it.
However, reading this online interview with the author in Paris Review stopped me from further entertaining the notion that she meant her story to be cautionary rather than prescriptive.
I suppose I might change my mind if I were to actually read the story itself. But I doubt it, because Jemison seems quite clear in that interview about her intent. If Le Guin was saying that Utopian impulses are always built on the suffering of others and true Utopias are therefore not possible, Jemison is saying that the only thing that keeps us from Utopia is the will to create one, and that (to use an old metaphor) we have to be willing to break a ton of eggs to make that tasty omelet.
And I mean break (the quotes are from Jemison herself):
With Le Guin’s story, at the end of it, she’s suggesting that the only way to create a society that is a better place is to walk away from this one or to go off the grid. That’s not really what she’s saying, specifically, but that’s what a lot of people have concluded. But no, you’ve got to fix it, especially when there’s nowhere to walk away to. You go anywhere else in our current world and you’re either being completely exploited by capitalism or somewhat exploited by capitalism. So, I mean, it’s just a question of what kind of suffering you’re willing to put yourself though.
And the other thing is that I was trying to figure out what a society might be like if it was genuinely a good place, and I realized as I was trying to think of it—science-fiction writers are supposed to be able to come up with futures. All futures. But the one thing I could not imagine was a society stemming from our own that was truly inclusive, truly egalitarian, and truly good for all people. What a true utopian society was like.
That is the exercise that Le Guin is engaging in. Can you have a utopian society without somebody somewhere suffering? What would that life be like if no one suffered? And the only way that I could do it was to basically point out that the flaw is ideological. The idea that you have to have someone suffering is the flaw. So, this is a society that is utopian as long as they keep at bay the idea that somebody’s got to suffer. As long as they manage to fight off people who immediately assume that some people are less important than others and those people can be exploited. That is the danger. That is the toxicity. It’s not meant to be a society that’s perfect in every way. Obviously, people suffer in it. But the people who suffer are those who bring the contagion of suffering to others.
“Fight off” means “kill,” in this case, according to what I’ve read about the story. Kill everyone who thinks a completely egalitarian society is impossible.
And then by magic, it will be okay. Because the only enemy, really, is thoughtcrime. The only impediment to Utopia is the existence of people who don’t think Utopia is humanly possible.
That’s how I see this interview of Jemison’s, anyway. I just can’t think of any other interpretation.
The rest of the interview is hard to summarize, but one specific thing it contains is the common lefist fiction that capitalism is a “zero-sum game,” an idea which Jemison seems to attribute to the right rather than to the left. She says [emphasis mine]:
If you believe in the capitalistic idea of scarcity, if you believe in the capitalistic idea of zero sum, the idea that in order for a few to benefit, everybody else has to suffer, or for some to benefit, others have to suffer, maybe. But I don’t believe that has ever been the case. I think that we have enough resources on this planet for everyone. We have always had more than enough resources for everyone and we’re capable of thinking up ways to come up with more. People who write science fiction do tend to be utopian thinkers. We do tend to think that we can achieve great things as a species. We just have to be willing to acknowledge what needs to be done to get there and sometimes the things that need to be done to get there are terrifying or can be terrifying to those in a position of privilege.
So is her short story, then, a blueprint for action? Kill those who don’t agree with Jemison and the others who have the right Utopian ideas? Our inability to create a utopia is merely a failure of will plus a failure to get rid of those who would think otherwise?
I really cannot think of a better example of where human hubris plus ignorance can lead and actually has led. It it the totalitarian impulse pure and simple, the idea that killing those who disagree will create some sort of statist heaven on earth. Millions upon millions have died in this cause. It’s a solution that Le Guin rejected. Jemison appears to be openly embracing it. And she’s being lauded for it.
Hey, let’s super-incentivize coming here illegally
Bernie Sanders put it clearly: “We’re going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free and open that to the undocumented.” In other words, if are a citizen of another country and you want a free college education, all you have to do is show up in the United States and get accepted at any one of the 1,626 public colleges in the United States.
Needless to say, if enacted, this would bring a flood of people from all around the world, eager to enjoy the benefits of a college degree, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. (In case you’re wondering, there are a handful of other countries in Europe that offer very low or nominal tuition rates to American students, but at most of those schools, competition for the limited slots is high.)
To Bernie and the Democrats of 2020, that influx would be a feature, not a bug. Another feature is that the enactment of such a proposal would give the federal government even more control over state public institutions than it already has.
And how would the money be raised? Do most of the people who plan to vote for Sanders consider that question? If they do, they can see what he says about that here:
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This [proposed] legislation [would be] offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives.It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.
Evil Wall Street can take it, right? No problem.
If you would like to read a discussion of the possible consequences, go here. An excerpt:
Proponents claim the tax would collect tens of billions of dollars, discourage speculative and high-frequency trading, and make markets safer and less volatile. Its opponents say the revenue estimates are overstated and the tax will actually make markets more volatile…
Similar taxes have been advocated by many prominent economists over the years, including John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Stiglitz and Lawrence Summers. At least 40 countries currently or previously have had financial-transaction taxes of one sort or another…
The majority of the academic research into transaction taxes has reached similar findings: Taxes either have no effect on volatility or they increase volatility.
Why would markets become more volatile when financial transactions are taxed? When an activity is taxed, people tend to do less of it. So trading volumes decline–sometimes sharply. An IMF study found that trading volume invariably fell when transaction taxes were imposed…
When Sweden put in place a 1% tax on equity trades in 1983, the result was a 5.3% decline on the Stockholm Stock Exchange.
According to the IMF study, the impact on prices would depend on the average holding period for a particular asset class. So stocks that trade frequently would likely decline the most. Less frequently traded securities, like corporate bonds, would be expected to hold up better.
The economy, too, could suffer. When the European Commission looked at the issue, it found that a tax of 0.1% would reduce gross domestic product by 1.76% in the long run. That’s mainly because the tax raises the cost of capital, resulting in less investment and diminished economic output.
There are also questions about how much revenue the tax would raise. For starters, anything that makes stock prices drop sharply reduces how much the government collects in capital-gains taxes.
The issue of free tuition at public institutions—and how it would be paid for—is a separate one, of course, from whether to offer it to illegal immigrants (or, as they used to quaintly be called, illegal aliens).
For Sanders and his supporters, it’s a win-win situation. They would get to stick it to mean old Wall Street. They would get more illegal immigrants (and ultimately, voters). They are wooing anyone who wants the free stuff of a paid-for college education. The liberals and leftists who completely dominate colleges and universities would get guaranteed federal support for their further indoctrination of entire generations to come. And the feds would get more and more control over state institutions.
What could possibly go wrong?
I’m picking on Sanders here, but one could look at any of the candidates and see that their proposals for this election are far more to the left than anything we’ve previously seen from candidates running for the nomination of a major party. They believe their time has come.
Thanks for your donations!!
I want to offer a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has donated here during the recent drive, and to everyone who donates throughout the year. It’s hard to adequately express how extremely grateful I am.
So I’ll ask her to do it:
Trump’s latest accuser…
…sounds balmy.
I’m not going to cover this one in any depth, but fortunately others have, and I direct any interested parties to Ace’s.
What’s most interesting about this story is that a NeverTrumper such as David French, who is well aware of the danger of false and/or uncorroborated accusations used as political tools, seems willing to throw away his previous concerns about that if the accused is Trump.
This sort of shift in belief depending on the identity of the accused person isn’t so unusual, and although I’ve noticed it more on the left it definitely also occurs on the right. I try to be (and I think I’ve actually succeeded in being) consistent—same rules for everybody (see this).
ADDENDUM 8 PM:
Hmmmm. Perhaps Trump’s accuser has a future in writing TV scripts. Or a past:
Dear @CNN:
I saw your interview of E. Jean Carroll. Her story sounds a lot like an episode of Special Victims Unit—Episode 11, Season 13
Discussion of a rape fantasy in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman's.
At 42:15…https://t.co/dEKjFSaWIz
— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) June 25, 2019
More things in heaven and earth…
I often read about something that makes me think of Shakespeare’s line from Hamlet:
A phrase used by the title character in the play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Hamlet suggests that human knowledge is limited: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
For me the lines also imply a sense of wonder at what we do discover as time goes on.
Which brings us to this:
Thousands of years ago, glaciers covered much of the planet. Oceans receded as water froze in massive sheets of ice blanketing the North American continent. As the ice age ended, glaciers melted. Massive river deltas flowed out across the continental shelf. The oceans rose, and fresh water was trapped in sediments below the waves. Discovered while drilling for oil offshore in the 1970s, scientists thought these “isolated” pockets of fresh water were a curiosity.
But now scientists have mapped them more thoroughly, and lo and behold:
It turns out the subterranean pools stretch for at least 50 miles off the US Atlantic coast, containing vast stores of low-salinity groundwater, about twice the volume of Lake Ontario. The deposits begin about 600 ft (183 m) below the seafloor and stretch for hundreds of miles. That rivals the size of even the largest terrestrial aquifers…
The size and extent of the freshwater deposits suggest they are also being fed by modern-day runoff from land—and may exist elsewhere with similar topography.
Close to shore the water is not salty, but it gets saltier the further you go out. Some of the water might need to be desalinated to be useful, but much of it wouldn’t need that sort of process.
Further information can be found here.
I started the post with Shakespeare, and I’ll close with Coleridge:
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
The politics of knitting, and the meaning of “always”
I chuckled along with just about everyone else when I saw this:
The move by Ravelry, a popular knitting site, to ban support of President Trump drew both criticism and applause. But “knitting has always been political," said the editor of a knitting magazine. https://t.co/KdrBqz1tEX
— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 25, 2019
Always??? Always been political?
I used to be a knitter, and got rather good at it. After I hurt my arms thirty years ago I had to stop. But I can’t say I ever noticed any politics connected with knitting, with the exception of fictional characters like Madame Defarge. Then there were a few literary references like this from Shakespeare: “Sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care.”
So, what on earth did this bizarre statement mean? My suspicion is that, for the person who said it, “always” started quite recently. And “knitting” refers to the online knitting community, which is apparently a Big Deal.
And yes, that does seem to be pretty much it. First, Ravelry’s reason for the ban—which is pretty much standard leftist censorship for the usual bogus leftist reasons:
But on Sunday, Ravelry, a popular website for knitters and crocheters, took a political stand when it announced that it was banning content that supports President Trump, in what it said was a resolution against white supremacy.
“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy,” the site said in a statement explaining the decision. “Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.”
The policy applies to content on the site, including knitting patterns and forum posts, but not to people, according to Ravelry, which said it still welcomed Republicans and those with conservative political views. “You can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here,” the statement said, adding that “hate groups and intolerance are different from other types of political positions.”
In other words, Trump supporters are white supremacists, and Ravelry don’t have to prove it—it’s a self-evident fact. And of course these white supremacists make people uncomfortable, and we can’t be having people be unhappy or uncomfortable. So we will institute a very bizarre ruling—sort of the knitting equivalent of “don’t ask, don’t tell”—whereby we hate the sin but love the sinner. Trump supporters are welcome; they just need to shut up about it so no one else will get their tonsils in an uproar.
Political speech in general is allowed; just not pro-Trump speech.
The people who run a website can ban whomever they want and whatever speech they want to ban. But Ravelry’s reason for doing this says a lot not only about those who run the site, but about the continuing spread of leftist thought to take on more and more of the populace.
As for “always,” here’s the broader quote, which is a great deal less nonsensical than it initially sounded:
“The knitting community has been this happy little bubble for a long time,” said Amy Singer, the editor of Knitty, an online knitting magazine, which for years had a policy of “no religion, no politics.”
But as has happened elsewhere in society, she said, the bubble burst because not everyone felt included. This year, knitters of color began speaking out on Instagram about their experiences with racism and prejudice in the community.
The community has also recently been talking about other issues of equality, including the size and racial representation of online models, as well as economic diversity, Ms. Singer said.
“There are people who have been talking down to other people because they can’t afford anything better than craft yarn from Michael’s,” she said. “Knitting has always been political, whether you believe it or not.”
So Singer seems to actually have been talking about the online knitting community, and although I have happily managed to have zero to do with the online knitting community, my guess is that she’s correct about it. Politics rears its ugly head practically everywhere these days, more and more and more.
Now the left has taken over Ravelry, proving the general truth of O’Sullivan’s Law: any group that isn’t explicitly on the political right will eventually become leftist.
That site to which I just linked attempts to explain how this happens, and I think the following is correct:
One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.
Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy.
I cannot imagine that a lot of Trump supporters will be eager to remain at Ravelry (definitely not revelry) under a gag order.