19 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-22-22

  1. This is what’s called a red flag.

    ———-

    Like

  2. So typical.

    Now they want civility, after calling Barrett a religious bigot and Kavanaugh a rapist and drunk.

    Stop giving these clowns what they want.

    ——-

    Like

  3. Our clown media is of course carrying water for yet another unqualified Democrat.

    ———-

    Like

  4. Reality is she is unqualified. Her rulings show this.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-right-reason-to-oppose-judge-jackson/

    “Lifetime judicial appointments are very different, and those to Supreme Court seats are obviously significant — I hesitate to say “the most” significant because I believe a bad district judge, who is a court of one, can do more damage than a bad Supreme Court justice, who deals with many fewer cases and whose meanderings will rarely be decisive.

    The most salient qualification for an American judicial appointment is commitment to applying the law consistent with what it was understood to mean when adopted. A judge who cannot be relied on to do that usurps powers that belong to the political branches, the states, or the people. Regardless of how intelligent, competent, and scrupulous the nominee may be, that is not tolerable in a judge. The willingness of Republicans to tolerate it is a consequential dysfunction in our system.

    I thus found myself chuckling at the moderate Republicans’ “hope that, for a change, Judge Jackson’s confirmation process can be a moment of consensus around a truly excellent person who will add diversity and so much more to the Court.” The consensus that we should demand is that Judge Jackson be treated with the respect and admiration she deserves, despite philosophical disagreements. The norm should be that the confirmation process is a model of civil debate and exploration regarding those disagreements, rather than the character assassination to which Democrats habitually subject Republican nominees.

    Unless and until (a) Democrats end that destructive practice and (b) we arrive at a broad bipartisan agreement about the proper role of judges, it is not possible to have a consensus that intelligent, competent people of truly excellent character should be confirmed. Such a consensus would omit consideration of the most vital question.”

    Like

  5. Huh. I’ve recently been told CRT isn’t taught in schools…..

    It is of course, in public and private schools, but often as the same content with a different name.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/parents-revolt-at-westminster-schools-in-atlanta-over-critical-social-justice-political-activism-file-irs-complaint/

    “Parents at the elite private Westminster Schools in Atlanta are rebelling against the imposition of Critical Social Justice on their students. Westminster is a member school of National Association of Independent Schools.

    A letter sent to the Internal Revenue Service signed “a Taxpayer” includes a list of 16 partisan incidents the author says qualifies Westminster as an “action organization,” violating the school’s tax-exempt status.”

    “The full text of the letter is available on “Wokeminster,” a dissident parent group’s website. Examples cited include teachers allegedly denigrating Trump as a candidate, voicing wishes that Trump die from COVID, and assignments that favored Democrats.”

    “Three of the allegations claiming electioneering in the classroom

    A Spanish teacher allegedly asked students to translate “Donald Trump lost the election” and told children that it would be “muy bueno” if President Trump lost. In another incident, students were allowed to wear Biden/Harris t-shirts while a student who wore a “Make America Great Again” hat was reprimanded. The letter also claims the school distributed political cartoons characterizing Trump as “the Grinch who stole the 2016 election.”

    An art teacher allegedly urged his students to draw President Trump as a fascist giving a salute characteristic of Hitler. The school displayed these visual art projects publicly both during and after the campaign season.”

    “Political partisanship like this often finds expression in NAIS school classrooms, where zealous teachers abuse their power by pushing their biases on students. Administrators often interpret this behavior as aligned with NAIS’ Principles of Good Practice, particularly “Equity and Justice”.

    On a Westminster Facebook message thread, Marjorie Mitchell, Director of Enrollment management, responded to a enthusiastic supporter of Senate candidates Raphael Warnock (D) and Jon Ossoff (D) by saying the school “got the current seniors registered, so we just need to sweep for any late birthdays” to identify any non-Seniors who were 18 or over. A parent also reported that teachers directly urged students in their “advisory” sessions to vote for Democrats.”

    Like

  6. Yet another example…..

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/laurie-gaddis-barrett-fighting-to-help-rhode-island-parents-take-back-their-children/

    “For Barrett, fighting for parents’ rights has been transformative—and nearly a full-time job.

    But it wasn’t always.

    Before the pandemic, Barrett, a resident of Glocester, had never attended a local school committee meeting. She was a hands-on parent when it came to everyday classroom activities, on the scene for chaperoning school trips and engaged at PTO meetings. She was the mother who saw to it that there were tissues and Lysol wipes in her daughter’s classroom when they became needed. She was that mom. But she never had a reason to go to the local meetings.

    Once COVID hit, however, things changed. And not only for Barrett, but for parents everywhere. When schools closed and children were sent home for the long haul two years ago, they weren’t the only ones learning on Zoom. Their parents, it turns out, were getting a real education.

    As classes shifted to online sessions, parents all over the country could see what their children were learning and who was teaching it to them. Many also got a first-time glimpse of their school boards, as Zoom made it possible for them to attend meetings from the comfort of home. While schools were closed for COVID, parents may well have learned more about them—and the people who run them—than had the virus never happened at all.

    What they discovered these past two years was a wake-up call: Critical race theory has poisoned the classroom, pitting children against one and other and their teachers based on skin color. School library shelves display pornography. And there are no “boys” and “girls” anymore, because gender is “fluid.” School curricula have become so woke these days that teachers barely have time to teach the three “R’s.””

    Like

  7. CRT is poisoning higher ed, even worse than it was before. Medical schools, law schools, it’s literally everywhere.

    https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/03/21/critical-race-theory-has-gone-from-the-margins-to-mandatory-at-many-law-schools-n456813

    “The recent protest at Yale Law School and the similar one at UC Hastings Law School earlier this month are part of a growing trend. In the same way that views founded in critical race theory have been adopted in newsrooms and corporate settings, a similar transition is happening within the legal profession and at the nation’s law schools. CRT has gone from being a minority view to being mandatory. Aaron Sibarium, who broke the story about the Yale Law School protest for the Washington Free Beacon has a piece up today at Bari Weiss’ Substack about that transition.

    Critical race theory, until quite recently, only had so much purchase in legal academia. The ideas of its founders—figures like Derrick Bell, Alan David Freeman, and Kimberlé Crenshaw—tended to have less influence on the law than on college students, who by 2015 seemed significantly less liberal (“small L”) than they used to be…

    Then 2020 happened.

    All of sudden, critical race theory was more than mainstream in America’s law schools. It was mandatory.

    Starting this Fall, Georgetown Law School will require all students to take a class “on the importance of questioning the law’s neutrality”and assessing its “differential effects on subordinated groups,” according to university documents obtained by Common Sense. UC Irvine School of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law, Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, and Boston College Law School have implemented similar requirements. Other law schools are considering them.

    As of last month, the American Bar Association is requiring all accredited law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism,” both at the start of law school and “at least once again before graduation.” That’s in addition to a mandatory legal ethics class, which must now instruct students that they have a duty as lawyers to “eliminate racism.”

    At law schools, the number of DEI administrators continues to grow and the deans of these institutions are quick to embrace the new trends. Students who may have some doubts quickly learn to fall in line or face “social death.”

    At Yale Law School, the Office of Student Affairs told students in an email last week that they could “swing by” the office to grab a “Critical Race Theory T-Shirt!” The T-shirt repeated the phrase “reparations & prison abolition” five times, Bart Simpson-style, before delivering the kicker: “critical race theory & yale law school.”…

    A Harvard Law professor told me that students face “social death” if they buck the consensus. Students at other law schools—including Yale, NYU, Boston College, Georgetown, and Northwestern—told me much the same thing. “You want to have friends, so you don’t want to say anything controversial,” one Georgetown Law student explained.

    At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand.

    Prison abolition and scrapping the constitution are truly fringe views. Maybe you could find 5% of Americans who would support either stance? But somehow, among law students, these fringe idea are now the default position. Anyone who disagrees from within the school faces social consequences. Anyone who disagrees from outside faces being deplatformed. We saw it happen twice this month at UC Hastings and at Yale. At Yale the panel did continue while the protesters did their best to disrupt it from a nearby hallway.

    Professor Stith, who warned the Yale Law students that they were violating the school’s code of conduct regarding free speech (she told them to stop shouting and “grow up”) told Sibarium the problem went well beyond Yale.

    “Law schools are in crisis,” she told me. “The truth doesn’t matter much. The game is to signal one’s virtue.””

    Like

  8. Politics is destroying a whole lot of formerly reputable things too…..

    Truth no longer matters. It’s all about the narrative and the virtue signaling.

    https://www.city-journal.org/why-science-writers-do-not-report-objectively-on-covids-origins

    “The worldwide toll of deaths from Covid-19 has just hit 6 million, nearly 1 million of which are in the United States. Few science stories are more important than understanding where the Covid virus came from. Yet the science writers’ section of the press corps has proved strangely incapable of telling the story straight.

    Two hypotheses have long been on the table. One is that the virus jumped naturally from some animal host, as many epidemics have done in the past. The other is that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan, where researchers are known to have been genetically manipulating bat viruses in order to predict future epidemics. Both hypotheses are plausible but, so far, no direct evidence exists for either.

    The rule for covering such a story is obvious: write about both possibilities as evenhandedly as possible until the truth emerges. But science writers have consistently trumpeted any developments favoring natural emergence while downplaying or ignoring those pointing to a lab leak.

    Press reports have abounded in the last few days about new studies claiming to prove that all early cases of Covid were associated with a wet market in Wuhan and hence that the virus must have jumped to people from an animal there. “Two new papers make the case robustly,” ran the credulous headline in The Economist, typical of many articles implying that the case was closed. “The lab leak theory is dead,” declared The New Republic, with great exaggeration.

    But the new papers are mere preprints, unpublished drafts that have not yet been exposed to the rigors of peer review. One, from an American group led by Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute, claimed the wet market was the source of the epidemic. The second paper’s group of authors—headed by George Gao, director of the Chinese CDC—had every incentive to back the Andersen claim but did not do so. They said only, as was already well known, that “the market might have acted as an amplifier due to the high number of visitors every day”—in other words, the crowded, closed atmosphere in the market helped the virus spread from person to person, but the epidemic didn’t necessarily begin there.

    “Scientists who weren’t involved in the research papers are calling the new data ‘very convincing’ and a ‘blow’ to the lab-leak theory,” asserted NPR. In fact, the data don’t detract in any way from the substantial evidence favoring a lab leak. They also offer no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 ever existed in nature, the key to proving that it emerged naturally. Not a single animal tested in the market bore the virus. That being so, it’s surely more economical to assume the many positive environmental samples from the market were contaminated by infected people, not infected animals.

    Here are three flaws in the new papers that most science writers ignored.

    First, even if all the early cases originated from the wet market, as the Andersen paper contends, there is no way of telling whether the virus was carried into the market by an animal or by a person whose infection came from a laboratory. That leaves the debate at square one.

    Second, the Andersen group is looking at the wrong time period for determining the virus’s origin. The epidemic probably started somewhere between September and early December 2019. But the cases analyzed in their paper date from mid- to late December 2019, when the epidemic was probably well-entrenched and its origin already clouded. “These authors are trying to close the case using only mid-to-late December cases and this is unlikely to lead to any scientifically robust conclusion of how or when the outbreak began,” says Alina Chan of the Broad Institute and coauthor of Viral.

    A third flaw is a probable error in the authors’ statistical assumptions. It has long been known that many of the early cases of Covid occurred in people who had no known association with the wet market, which would seem to rule out the market as the source of the pandemic. The Andersen group has plotted the mid-to-late December 2019 cases on a map, showing that the spatial distribution of those with no known link to the market is very similar to that of the market-related cases. This shows, they say, that even the apparently unassociated cases probably had hidden chains of infection with the market, which is therefore the sole source of the epidemic.

    The argument is ingenious. Its fatal flaw lies in assuming that the non-market cases chosen for study were selected at random by the Chinese authorities. In fact, as Chan has noted, one of the authorities’ criteria was closeness to the market. The spatial pattern of non-market cases reflects this selection bias, not a hidden chain of infection to the market. “Since their assumption of no ascertainment bias is most likely incorrect, their analysis is therefore also meaningless,” Chan says.

    Unlike most journalists, science writers seldom consider the motives of their sources. Few or none remarked on Andersen’s deep personal interest in the result he was trying to prove. He and his colleagues concluded on January 31, 2020, that the Covid virus did not have a natural origin. But Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, immediately decreed this view to be a conspiracy theory that will do “great potential harm to science and international harmony.” Not to mention to his own reputation and that of his lieutenant Anthony Fauci. Both have long advocated for gain-of-function research—enhancing the infectivity of natural viruses—and they funded such research involving bat viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Technology.

    No scientist wishes to get on the wrong side of NIH administrators, the major funders of biomedical research. If Collins said the lab leak was a conspiracy theory, why then, so it must be. A mere four days later, Andersen changed his mind and derided lab leak as a conspiracy theory. No one in his group has provided a convincing explanation for this 180-degree reversal. Andersen’s new paper, if true, would go a long way to justifying his otherwise unsupported second take on the issue.”

    Like

  9. Institutional capture/takeovers are destroying us. Education, law, medical….

    “The Takeover of America’s Legal System”

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system?s=w

    “If you are a Common Sense reader, you are by now highly aware of the phenomenon of institutional capture. From the start, we have covered the ongoing saga of how America’s most important institutions have been transformed by an illiberal ideology—and have come to betray their own missions.

    Medicine. Hollywood. Education. The reason we exist is because of the takeover of newspapers like The New York Times.

    Ok, so we’ve lost a lot. A whole lot. But at least we haven’t lost the law. That’s how we comforted ourselves. The law would be the bulwark against this nonsense. The rest we could work on building anew.

    But what if the country’s legal system was changing just like everything else?”

    —-

    “In 2017, the super lawyer David Boies was at a corporate retreat at the Ritz-Carlton in Key Biscayne, Florida, hosted by his law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner. Boies was a liberal legend: He had represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, and, in 2013, successfully defended gay marriage in California, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, paving the way for the landmark Supreme Court ruling two years later.

    On the last day of the retreat, Boies gave a talk in the hotel ballroom to 100 or so attorneys, according to a lawyer who was present at the event. Afterwards, Boies’s colleagues were invited to ask questions.

    Most of the questions were yawners. Then, an associate in her late twenties stood up. She said there were lawyers at the firm who were “uncomfortable” with Boies representing disgraced movie maker Harvey Weinstein, and she wanted to know whether Boies would pay them severance so they could quit and focus on applying for jobs at other firms. Boies, who declined to comment for this article, said no.

    That lawyers could be tainted by representing unpopular clients was hardly news. But in times past, lawyers worried about the public—not other lawyers. Defending communists, terrorists, and cop killers had never been a crowd pleaser, but that’s what lawyers had to do sometimes: Defend people who were hated.

    When congressional Republicans attacked attorneys for representing Guantanamo detainees, for example, the entire profession rallied around them. The American Civil Liberties Union noted that John Adams took pride in representing British soldiers accused of taking part in the Boston Massacre, calling it “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered to my country.”

    But that’s not how the new associates saw Boies’s choice to represent Weinstein. They thought there were certain people you just did not represent—people so hateful and reprehensible that helping them made you complicit. The partners, the old-timers—pretty much everyone over 50—found this unbelievable. That wasn’t the law as they had known it. That wasn’t America.

    “The idea that guilty people shouldn’t get lawyers attacks the legal system at its root,” Andrew Koppelman, a prominent liberal scholar of constitutional law at Northwestern University, said. “People will ask: ‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ The answer is that a society where accused people don’t get a defense as a matter of course is a society you don’t want to live in. It’s a totalitarian nightmare.”

    ‘Operating in a Panopticon’
    The adversarial legal system—in which both sides of a dispute are represented vigorously by attorneys with a vested interest in winning—is at the heart of the American constitutional order. Since time immemorial, law schools have tried to prepare their students to take part in that system.

    Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law.

    Critics of those values are nothing new, of course, and certainly they are not new at elite law schools. Critical race theory, as it came to be called in the 1980s, began as a critique of neutral principles of justice. The argument went like this: Since the United States was systemically racist—since racism was baked into the country’s political, legal, economic and cultural institutions—neutrality, the conviction that the system should not seek to benefit any one group, camouflaged and even compounded that racism. The only way to undo it was to abandon all pretense of neutrality and to be unneutral. It was to tip the scales in favor of those who never had a fair shake to start with.

    But critical race theory, until quite recently, only had so much purchase in legal academia. The ideas of its founders—figures like Derrick Bell, Alan David Freeman, and Kimberlé Crenshaw—tended to have less influence on the law than on college students, who by 2015 seemed significantly less liberal (“small L”) than they used to be. There was the Yale Halloween costume kerfuffle. The University of Missouri president being forced out. Students at Evergreen State patrolling campus with baseball bats, eyes peeled for thought criminals.

    At first, the conventional wisdom held that this was “just a few college kids”—a few spoiled snowflakes—who would “grow out of it” when they reached the real world and became serious people. That did not happen. Instead, the undergraduates clung to their ideas about justice and injustice. They became medical students and law students. Then 2020 happened.

    All of sudden, critical race theory was more than mainstream in America’s law schools. It was mandatory. ”

    ——-

    Read on…..

    Like

  10. But muh narrative……

    “High-Quality Study Finds Preschool Enrollment Makes Children Learn Less And Misbehave More”

    “The children more likely to be brought up mostly by their own families, by contrast, were happier and learned better.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/21/high-quality-study-finds-preschool-enrollment-makes-children-learn-less-and-misbehave-more/

    “ow-income children who attended Tennessee’s highly praised preschool program performed significantly worse on every academic and social measurement by sixth grade compared to peers who did not attend the program, a recent high-quality study found.

    “[T]he children randomly assigned to attend Pre-K had lower state achievement test scores in third through sixth grades than control children, with the strongest negative effects in sixth grade,” summarize the Vanderbilt University study authors. “A negative effect was also found for disciplinary infractions, attendance, and receipt of special education services…”

    Enrollment in preschool programs has exploded in the United States since 1980, the study authors note, from very few four-year-olds to approximately two-thirds today. But approximately half of four-year-olds who attend preschool do so part-time. Tennessee’s statewide Voluntary Preschool (TN-VPK) program, by contrast, was relatively time-intensive, requiring its low-income students to be in classrooms of up to 20 total children for at least 5.5 hours a day.

    This study suggests family care is better for four-year-olds than TN-VPK. The only positive results for TN-VPK participants compared to non-TN-VPK peers occurred at the end of preschool. Then from third through sixth grade, only negative results were documented for TN-VPK participants, and the negative effects increased over time.

    “On the sixth grade TNReady tests, control children [who mostly didn’t attend preschool] continued to outperform the TN-VPK children in reading, mathematics, and science, with statistically significant differences larger than those observed in third grade,” the study says.

    This trend of increasingly negative disparities over time among preschool attendees also affected student behavior records, the study says: “All analyses revealed higher rates of recorded disciplinary events for TN-VPK participants than non-participants, and these differences were statistically significant except for the weighted analysis for major offenses.”

    These negative behavioral findings included decreased rates of school attendance, violations of school policies such as cheating and disobeying the dress code, being held back a grade, and being diagnosed with a learning disability or emotional disturbance.

    The study authors expressed surprise at their results, as did their 2018 report that looked at the third-grade outcomes for the same 2,990 children. But they stood by their data.

    “If the programs we have created do not produce the desired effects, the findings themselves should not be dismissed simply because they were unanticipated and unwelcome,” write the authors, Kelley Durkin, Mark Lipsey, Dale C. Farran, and Sarah Wiesen, in the study.

    Farran told NPR, “This is still the only randomized controlled trial of a statewide pre-K, and I know that people get upset about this and don’t want it to be true.”

    But a longtime preschool teacher and nanny writing for the Institute of Family Studies about the Tennessee results, Tara Thieke, wasn’t surprised by these results at all.

    “I observed that even the highest quality care could elicit sustained traumatic responses,” she wrote. “…I believe that what is celebrated as adjustment (‘see, they’re fine!’) was more frequently a sign of the child learning the futility of crying out. … Separation from the staff with whom they spent most of their time became as traumatic as separation from parents. Stressful transitions and confusion flooded the child’s body: as repeated studies have shown, the levels of the stress-hormone cortisol remain elevated for children in institutionalized care compared to children in a home setting.”

    This is not the only study, or the only good-quality study, to find similarly negative consequences of enrolling children in preschool. Many do.”

    Like

  11. Interesting study. I remember an elementary teacher telling me this decades ago. I think it depends a whole lot on the type of pre-school, of course, and what is expected and taught. Not to mention the situation at home, of course.

    Like

  12. Brett triggered the horde with this one. 🙂

    Enjoy.

    ——-

    2nd in command ladies and gentlemen.

    Like

  13. Next time you go out to eat, remember to fight the power and stiff the waitress.

    ———–

    Sure, tell the waitress it’s for her own good. Hope you like the taste of spit, or worse that comes free with your next visit.

    That’s it, keep digging…..

    Like

  14. Indeed it is. 🙂

    ——-

    It’s a 🤡 world now.

    Still digging…..

    Like

  15. Some good news…..

    “West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice Signs Law Banning Abortion Because of Disability

    The law has Down Syndrome in its name, but it covers ALL disabilities.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/03/west-virginia-gov-jim-justice-signs-law-banning-abortion-because-of-disability/

    ———–

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Again, this is why you have to spell it out.

    Leftists lie and do exactly what they say they aren’t, which is indoctrinating future activists…er… students…..

    ——-

    Gee, I wonder why…. 🙄

    Like

  17. But… but muh narrative…..

    ——-

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.