Brandon Hasbrouck is an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, has written an article in The Nation calling for a new form of reparations based on voting. Featured prominently on the law school’s website, the article pushes a similar proposal made in the Washington Post in 2015 by Theodore Johnson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Johnson wanted black votes to be worth five-thirds that of non-black votes. Ironically, the proposals would upend decades of civil rights litigation to defend the “one man, one vote” principle.
Hasbrouck insists that “black votes in this country are worth less than white votes” by primarily focusing on the Electoral College where smaller states have a higher percentage of white voters. Of course, there are a host of classifications impacted by the Electoral College which was designed as a protection for smaller and less populated states, particularly out West. It favors rural and less industrial states. It favors Western over Eastern interests. Yet in the end, Joe Biden was elected by a sizable number electoral votes. Professor Hasbrouck adds however that “even with overwhelming Black support—94 percent of Detroit voted for Biden!—the outcomes in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were worryingly close.”
Hasbrouck insists that the reduction of the voting power of black people “is all by design.” Of course, at the time, blacks could not vote (and would not be able to do so until the Nineteenth Century). Non-property owners, women, and other minorities have also been denied voting rights historically in the United States. Yet, the history of slavery remains, as Professor Hasbrouck correctly states, our original sin as a nation. That history includes later poll taxes and other methods of the disenfranchising black voters. As a nation, we have struggled to address this deep and lasting injury. The question is not the underlying wrong but the remedy.
This is not the first proposal by Professor Hasbrouk that has caused a stir. He previously argued for packing the Court with “race-conscious justices.” I have been a critic of court packing schemes raised after the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Hasbrouck argues “[t]he Constitution’s framers set up the Electoral College to protect the interests of slave states.” Though others have made this argument, it is a highly contestable proposition if he is arguing that the Electoral College was entirely or largely for that purpose. There were a host of concerns of smaller states in joining a federal system and surrendering the strong powers under the Articles of Confederation. The Electoral College was designed as part of a republican model of government. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in his dissent Ray v. Blair, 43 U.S. 214 (1952), “No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.” State controlled the election of senators in a system that was a mixing of direct and representational democratic elements. In Federalist No. 10, Madison explained how this structure was designed to stop impulse decisions of “an interested and overbearing majority” and to process such raw public sentiments through representative figures. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton saw the electoral as actually enhancing the power of voters by avoiding the pitfalls of party politics. The votes after all would select the electors. Moreover, these electors could bring mature deliberations to such elections through representative government. Hamilton paraphrased Alexander Pope in arguing “For forms of government let fools contest, That which is best administered is best.”
The proposals of Hasbrouck and Johnson would decouple our system from the concept of “one man, one vote” and allow for the manipulation of the voting by any majority. In 1963, a young John Lewis referred to a photo in The New York Times of a group of black women demonstrators in Rhodesia holding signs that read: one man, one vote. Lewis famously declared from the Lincoln Memorial that “‘One man, one vote’ is the African cry. t is ours, too. It must be ours.”
This proposal would decouple voting rights from cases and statutes designed to protect the equality of voting. In 1964, the Supreme Court handed down Reynolds v. Sims to guarantee equal voting populations to protect the concept of “one man, one vote.” That led to a long line of cases protecting voting equality. It would also undo much of the work to secure the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent civil rights measures to prohibit racial discrimination in voting. This would introduce such discrimination as a form of reparations.
Hasbrouck insists however that “[b]ecause white votes currently count more than Black ones, double-counting Black votes would restore electoral balance.” The proposal however would not only introduce race-based voting but invite manipulation of voting power to achieve “a more perfect union.” To do that, he insists “we must transform how we choose our government.” Indeed, it would change the entire form of our government. The Framers could to mix democratic and representative elements in voting. This would make for a system that was neither truly democratic nor representative. It is designed to give certain voters more power than their fellow citizens. That would run counter to a long line of cases seeking to counter the “blight of racial discrimination in voting.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966).
Professor Hasbrouck also does not give any hint as to how long black Americans will exercise twice their vote franchise. After giving African Americans a weighted vote, the assumption that is, once a majority is secured, that majority would willingly give back its weighted advance (and possible majority). After all, it takes time to build a “more perfect union” and, by Hasbrouck’s analysis, this is a reparation that would presumably have to stay in place for a period reflective of the underlying deprivation.
What is striking is that Professor Hasbrouck makes the conclusory statement that, while monetary reparations can be opposed on the difficulty of implementation, voting reparations cannot:
One of the largest objections to monetary reparations is the impracticality of implementing them on a scale that would meaningfully address the injustices. Vote reparations, in contrast, would be a simple, low-cost way to begin to make amends.
It is hard to see how voting reparations would be “simple” under any program. The question is how to qualify voters who claim the voting enhancement — millions of such classification determinations to be made by polling officials. There is not only the question of what percentage of a race is determinative for enhanced voting but the proof required for such claim. Presumably, Professor Hasbrouck would not bar parties from challenging voters on enhancement, which would require a process for establishing sufficient “blackness” to qualify for greater voting power. That hardly seems “low-cost” or “simple.”
In protecting the rule of law, how we do things is often as what we do. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause:
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819)
The only ideas the Demons of the left have are grievances; you bad me good.
The Democrat are smart. They have always been smarter. More evil perhaps but smarter.
Their coalition is indeed built on enemies. The distinction between friend and foe is the core of all politics.
They understood this long ago, and all the while, few Republicans ever really got it.
Lincoln did. See what he did, see how he utterly disregarded all restraints on his office, and did what was necessary
That’s why he won
Republicans are the stupid party. They always fail to embrace the necessary logic.
I could care less about the party now. I was off the Rep. bandwagon before Trump dragged me back into it. Now Im off it again. They do not deserve our loyalty.
The billionaires are the enemy. The leader that will destroy them and save our skins is the one who deserves loyalty. If there is no such politician like that out there, then none of them. That includes Trump.
The day Republicans show that they will go full measure against the billionaires to save the workers of America, and crush the billionaire powers to get it done,. then they have my proxy. Until then they are what we thought they were before: fake resistance.
Understand this. a real election has advance voter ID verification and paper ballots. Nothing short of both.
if there are elections like that on the ground in America, then they are state of the art.
If they are not, then they are fake. it’s as simple as that.
Tulsi Gabbard’s paper ballot bill should be passed by Congress if the United States ever wants to have real elections.
and her bill to ban ballot harvesting
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-tulsi-gabbard-and-rodney-davis-introduce-bill-ban-vote-harvesting-protect
https://gabbard.house.gov/secureelections
I dont know if she backs voter ID but she should.
billionaires want to stop these initiatives. they love our fake elections which they control.
they pay to ballot harvest; they pay to hack computer systems and fake the count.
they want as many warm bodies voting as they can, and the less American the better.
they are the enemy. let them have their 700 votes but strip and expropriate their billions. before they kill us all off, which they absolutely plan to do
they don’t need us slave-like wage-workers anymore. they have robots and AI. we are all on the chopping block soon
Saloth Sar
Aninny:
“The Democrat are smart. They have always been smarter. More evil perhaps but smarter.”
************************
It’s easy to be “smarter” (read as more successful) when you ignore the rules and there are no consequences from the other side. The Dims are evil incarnate but the Repubs are cowardice incarnate. Not sure which is worse.
Republican cowardice and incompetence has no consequences either. Does it.
so they got us by the throat either way
its the system as such that needs attacking, better yet, let’s get real, those who play it like a fiddle
the billionaires
the enemy has a face and it is them
the enemy will not be defeated inside any means that are lawful. but i believe, violence will backfire.
which is why i am calling for nonviolent resistance to our immoral regime in the form of tax resistance
https://nwtrcc.org/quick-steps-tax-day-2020/
a broad based tax revolt may trigger a federal default if it is big enough
default in the ability to borrow is the one thing that Washington DC fears. more than any socalled foreign adversary
even the foreign adversaries fear it. Who’s the biggest buyer of Federal debt outside the US anyways?
The PRC. that really tells you something about who’s out to get us and how. heck they are bankrollin our very own government that we think acts according to “the constitution”
do we really believe that anymore?g
big tax resistance and a big boycott of future elections, combined, can erode confidence in the future ability of US to pay debt, and thus, bring the regime down. and very little else
Saloth Sar
mesblow, Mr. Kurtz is posting as Saloth Sar now.
But to you, all anonymous commenters are “Aninny,” unless you recognize them as someone you get along with, like Allan.
Mespo seems like an intelligent fellow and so did Allan. Why would they not get along?
You guys seem to be evading an obvious truth
Brendan Hasbrouck is black
https://www.google.com/search?q=brandon+Hasbrouck&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN-o2Nyd_tAhWnAZ0JHc8DCBwQ_AUoAnoECAgQBA&biw=1064&bih=747
that’s why he wants his vote to count more than yours. he wants power and he’s clever enough to think of an excuse for you to give it to him
what’s sad and pathetic about white people, is that, when a white person make such a nakedly self interested claim, instead of giving him a professorship, you call him a racist and get him fired from any job that he may have
in the contest of biological evolution between these groups, who will Darwin reward?
those smart enough to advance their own interests?
or those STUPID enough not to do so?
Saloth Sar
There is no contest of biological evolution between Blacks and Whites. Humans are a single species, with a single extant sub-species. We are all evolving together.
CTHD– Nonsense. We have been over this before. There are significant genetic differences between races and particularly between blacks and everyone else. You can see differences in the Olympics and commercial sports. One can also see significant differences in medicine; risk factors for certain conditions cluster according to race and, in some cases, can be treated by medicines that are designed for a specific race. Also, it is hard to overlook the fact that the median IQ for blacks in the US is only 85. In Africa it is lower. I don’t think writing or math were ever independently invented in black Africa and they built next to nothing.
This is a vulnerability in your thinking. You can’t let go of the leftist claptrap even when the evidence against it is overwhelming.
Young is one of about 4 overt racists commenting on this blog.
I guess Norwegians must be a different race from Italians since they are in general much taller and 50 times more likely to have blond hair.
IQ is changeable and across humanity is increasing by about 3 points every decade in the modern era. It is obvious that early and steady mental stimulation increases the IQ of humans and that while certain mental capabilities and genius are not universal, a certain level of ability is nearly so and adequate for the work must humans perform.
The point for those of goodwill and moderate intelligence is that our young should be presented equal opportunities regardless of sex or race and we will all benefit from the results.
“4 overt racists”
That’d be you, Commit, Anonymous the ChiCom, and Jeffrey Silberman.
All 4 of you are more than happy to use black Americans as your pawns, and keep the Democratic virtual plantation vote slaves in their place.
Rhodes is trolling again. He indulges in one of Allan’s go-to strategies, pretending to read people’s minds and then attacking them on the basis of his made up attribution.
Joe,
Yes, and Young is also scientifically ignorant, and he’s wedded to his belief that races are sub-species. I had a long discussion with him several months ago about race and biology. He was never willing to provide a complete list of the races/sub-species that he believes exist, and he wasn’t willing to say why he thinks he understands these concepts better than biologists do, since they disagree with him that there are multiple extant human subspecies. He also wouldn’t confront the internal contradictions in his claims (e.g., he talks about “blacks” as a race but also considers Pygmies to be a separate sub-species).
Our exchange occurred across more than one column. This was close to the end of it, and after writing it, it made me realize that I simply didn’t want to have exchanges with someone who treats me that way, and I stopped responding to him a day or two later:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/14/stanford-journalism-professor-rejects-objectivity-in-journalism/comment-page-3/#comment-2001060
He continues to address me, even though I haven’t responded for months now. Allan and John Say do the same.
All 3 are hopelessly immune to reality and facts CTHD, but others lurking here may be worth the response. Repeating the same corrections gets old but maybe worth the time for that reason. The retreat to personal insults absent substance further seals the argument.
CTHD- You misstated what I said and I have seen you do the same with others.
You have admitted that there are genetic differences between groups of people but you are unable to utter which groups they are. Choose one: race, subspecies, clade, clan, family, haplogroup or whatever. I am more concerned about the underlying reality than the tag you use in any language.
Your appeal to authority [ a logical fallacy] is an attempt to divert from your inability to fully frame an argument on your own. ‘Biologists say’ So what? Different biologists say different things. You need to think for yourself instead of consulting the “Miss Manners” for social justice warriors.
As for the sub-species question, using the definition we both use I still have not seen any rational reason why the term could not apply to different human groups. Look online at the generally recognized subspecies of tiger and you will see far fewer morphological differences than exist between different human populations.
Oh go on. Judith Martin rocked.
JF: “The point for those of goodwill and moderate intelligence is that our young should be presented equal opportunities regardless of sex or race and we will all benefit from the results.”
***
So, then, like me you oppose affirmative action.
WOKE MOB CANCELS HELEN KELLER, BECAUSE, WHITE SKIN!
https://twitter.com/MaryVought/status/1339566046584446978?s=20
We should be cancelling the woke mob instead of them cancelling American heroes
They are pawns of the billionaires who wish to demoralize us, impoverish us, atomize us, and, indeed, deracinate us
Saloth Sar
You think there’s affirmative action for 5 year olds?
here joe brings up a couple interesting points. variation within races is real. but it does not invalidate race as a useful category.
just as mountains may differ in many topographical features, we can still the difference between mountains and plains
indeed the comparison is apt with respect to persons of multiple racial origins. they may be foothills, one might say, but there are still mountains and plains
likewise IQ can vary over time and populations, to a degree
and yet IQ and race is one of the most empirically studied topics in psychology over a century. there are valid and meaningful and empirically proven generalizations. I need not belabor the topic. Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers, considers the work of Richard Lynn, for example, without dismissing it, and yet, without limiting his insightful work to its generalizations. A very popular book, people may wish to look up the name of Richard Lynn in the index to find the conversation.
And consider: Gladwell’s book is called, “OUTLIERS” which by definition, means those who defy generalizations. I recommend this book highly
Gladwell, ironically, informs us in his biography that he too, is a “quadroon”
An excellent book and reminds me of another famous and writer of fiction who was a quadroon, Alexander Dumas
Race is subject that is politicized and yet it confronts us with such daily relevance, it is wise to educate oneself and not be bound too strictly to political dictates of the moment.
Saloth Sar
Joke Friedbrain is enumerating the rights and freedoms of Americans.
Joke Friedbrain detests the maximal rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided Americans by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Americans, under Joke Friedbrain’s arbitrary edicts, enjoy no freedom of opinion, thought, discernment, discrimination, etc.
Joke Friedbrain enumerates as a dictator what Americans shall contemplate, consider, appreciate, desire and celebrate.
Thank you, Lord Friedbrain.
ha ha yeah whatever.
what you say has a scientific validity. but remember what our professors taught us?
race is socially constructed
and we white skinned people are in a socially constructed group who are deemed “Bad” and they “good” so we got a problem while we yet live
Or maybe as a liberal you are one of those people who think it’s right and just that we are deemed bad. in which case, you are a person divided against yourself
Saloth Sar
CTHD thinks race is socially constructed. It is a fatuous position and it is abandoned by its adherents as soon as race-based benefits are being handed out. Then they remember who is black after all.
I’m not divided against myself, Saloth Kurtz. I simply value science and understand that we are a single species with a single extant subspecies. Race *is* a social construct. There are plenty of physical differences in people that can be tied to genetics, but they don’t correspond to “races.”
I don’t deem people bad or good based on race. I deem people bad or good based on their behavior. There are good people of all races, and there are bad people of all races.
I generally agree with your last comment. And yet, there is a social construct that says, “Whites bad, blacks good”
being a white person, I reject that
and I reject those like Professor Hasbrouch who trade on it
and I freely note, that in his case, his contention suits his own racial self interests,
be they correspondent to a valid Linnean taxonomy or not
Saloth Sar
Kurtz, yes there is a social construct that says “whites bad, blacks good”, but there is another social construct with a much longer history and adapted by those with the most power that says “blacks bad, whites good”.
Like Chris Rock said: “not one of you white guys would trade places with me, AND I’M RICH !”
The point should be, for anyone of good will and moderate intelligence: “Some white and some blacks are bad, but most of both are good.”
Friday “there is another social construct with a much longer history and adapted by those with the most power that says “blacks bad, whites good”.
***
Look at the crime rates for blacks and compare it to whites and Asians and you will get an idea how that construct came about.
Funny how you didn’t notice, but I don’t think you live here.
CTHD– I thought you swore off Kurtz.
You don’t value science. You only bow to the word ‘science’. You grab words and often fail to see beyond them. You certainly don’t value scientific results that contradict your prized delusions. Your method is to offer an ipse dixit tagged to the prefix ‘science’ and pretend you have proven something.
Calling race a ‘social construct’ is to utter a meaningless shibboleth to remain in the halls of the politically correct a little longer.
Physical differences do correspond to races, particularly morphological races. Genetics considerably refine the distinctions. There isn’t a modern geneticist in the world who cannot assign a race, or a mix of races, to otherwise unidentified biological tissue. Forensic examiners normally have little trouble identifying the race of scant remains from long dead murder victims.
You are at least willing to admit “there are plenty of physical differences in people that can be tied to genetics” but cannot say the common word ‘race’ what word do you prefer? Variety? Subspecies? Clan? Family? Take your pick. The word is only a changeable tag for an underlying reality. You argue over the tags but can’t grapple with the reality even though you admit it exists.
yes “population” is the word that geneticists use to refer to race. which does indeed have biological reality underpinning it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116635/
nonetheless, I freely will discuss that aspects of race that are indeed “Socially constructed”
in most cases against white guys like me!
some people think that race is very easy to recognize in a crowd. like Justice Potter said, “you know it when you see it”
this does not mean black folks are bad, but the converse is true as well. I am not bad because i am white
And i definitely will not agree to pay “reparations” for whatever happened centuries ago.
but like every other contrived mess, of whatever scale, this is designed to hammer away at us so that we don’t get after the billionaire enemy.
Saloth Sar
No, geneticists do not use “population” as a synonym for “race.”
An example of how that article uses “population”:
The study included African Americans with and without sickle cell disease. “As reference populations, we included 4 additional HapMap populations and 14 African and European populations from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) [10] including the HapMap Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria (YRI), Luhya in Webuye, Kenya (LWK), Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya (MKK), the CEPH Utah residents with Northwestern European Ancestry (CEU), Bantu, Biaka, Mandenka, Mbuti pygmy, San, HGDP Yoruba, Adygei, Basque, French, Italian, Orcadian, Russian, Sardinian and Tuscan.”
They are not suggesting that each of those 14 populations is a race. Moreover, if *you* think each of those 14 groups is a race, that implies that you don’t think “black” and “white” are races, since it makes no sense for one race (e.g., Tuscan) to be a proper subset of another race (e.g., white).
They’re also definitely not saying that each of those populations is a sub-species of H. sapiens, which is part of what I was debating with Young, as he argued that races are sub-species.
Here’s a larger sample of HapMap and HGDP populations:
https://www.broadinstitute.org/medical-and-population-genetics/hapmap-3
https://www.internationalgenome.org/data-portal/data-collection/hgdp
They’re used for studying population genetics.
Your reference also says things like “African Americans have from 20% to 30% genetic admixture with Europeans,” yet you talk about “black folks” rather than about “mixed race folks.”
There are some genetic differences among different ethnic groups, but those ethnic groups are much smaller than what people tend to refer to as “races,” and they don’t correspond to sub-species.
Sorry, that should have been “18” rather than “14.”
Good Lord, Commit. Geneticists in the article Kurtz linked used population rather than race to describe a recognized group. No, they didn’t say synonym. That is your own confusion.
CTHD– “Moreover, if *you* think each of those 14 groups is a race, that implies that you don’t think “black” and “white” are races, since it makes no sense for one race (e.g., Tuscan) to be a proper subset of another race (e.g., white).”.
***
There is no mathematical reason why a proper subset of another set could not itself contain a proper subset. Draw a Venn diagram consisting of concentric circles and you will see it.
In fact, since every individual is genetically unique the smallest subset would consist of a single element, one person, and the sets could be expanded around that one person to include our entire genus. But depending on the characteristics chosen, some proper subsets of the whole will intersect less than others and any term, including race, could refer to them.
CTHD– I don’t think I quite argued that races are sub-species. I argued that given the definition of subspecies that both of us used it is difficult to say, or argue, that that definition does not apply to what we call races.
The closest you came to making a counter argument was your focus on the territoriality condition. There are blacks in America so, you argued, we could not assign a territory to them.
I think you knew that was a foolish argument. African animals in an American zoo don’t change the native territory of the species nor does being here change it for people.
Come up with something sensible if you can. I tried and I still haven’t found anything within the four corners of the definition for subspecies that would automatically prevent it from applying to races.
Contrary to what you say, I am not welded to the idea. I just can’t find a clear reason why it is wrong and, so far, you have offered only the silly claim about territory and appeals to authority, “biologists say” which applies only to some biologists.
i tell you i am still confused about the precise criteria for subspecies.
one wonders how dogs as different as chihuahas and great danes can be the same subspecies but a wolf and coyote are different species.
and keep in mind, that Linneaus had no access to DNA testing as he formulated this taxonomy
moreover, the taxonony is in a sense itself “socially constructed.” are we all not just mere aggregates of proteins, according to the scientists? what is the salient difference between all animals, if not their relevance to us, the observer?
that gets me thinking. did schroedinger postulate a cat, a lion, a tiger? what if it was– a liger?
Saloth Sar
Cat, but it could have been a Liger until someone opened the box to see.
There isn’t a precise criterion for sub-species, just as there isn’t a precise criterion for species, though there’s a criterion that’s generally used for the latter, along the lines of “the largest group within which interbreeding produces viable offspring.”
The criterion that’s often used for subspecies is “A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.” In the wild, different subspecies seldom interbreed, either because they’re geographically isolated from each other or because of sexual selection. But human “races” aren’t geographically isolated, and there’s plenty of interbreeding.
People focus too much on what animals look like when assessing whether animals are part of the same species, whereas the more significant factors are their genetic similarity, whether they naturally choose to interbreed, and whether they produce fertile offspring when they do so. The analyses of whether two animal groups are separate species vs. subspecies of the same species isn’t always straightforward.
Re: “the taxonony is in a sense itself ‘socially constructed,'” I don’t know that I agree. I don’t think of “human construction” and “socially constructed” as synonyms, and I consider taxonomy to be the former, not the latter. But I’m open to changing my mind if you have a good argument.
CTHD: “But human “races” aren’t geographically isolated, and there’s plenty of interbreeding.”
***
Only recently for the most part. Differences arose because of relative geographical isolation in the past. I am astonished you can’t see that.
CTHD– “The criterion that’s often used for subspecies is “A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.” ”
***
And how does that differ from what we commonly call races?
The ‘geographic subdivision’ existed while we evolved and it diminished significantly only with modern transportation.
I don’t understand how you can quote that definition and not see that it could apply to race. Nothing in it excludes what we think of as a race.
Pygmies are in a different geographic subdivision than English.
Pygmies differ taxonomically from English to a greater degree than recognized subspecies of tiger differ from each other.
Look at the pictures and think for yourself for goodness sakes.
What’s the f…ing point? Approx 85% of differences between humans are within populations. If we don’t blow ourselves up, in a century or two there will be no such thing recognizable as race.
well i guess population is a word that can mean race, and other times may mean a narrower group
so i guess you made your point about that, to a degree CTHD
nonetheless they can and do SOMETIMES use it as a synonym for race, roughly
your punctiliousness will have to come to terms with your perspicacity as you contemplate admitting the obvious in that
Sal Sar
Sal – Yeah, we have both seen references to ‘populations’ as a synonym for ‘race’ because people are too afraid to say ‘race’ even when that is what they mean.
Goodness, saying “All Lives Matter” is a major wrong. Before long 15 FBI agents will come to check if you say it and stay to complain about the knot in your tie.
CTHD is as punctilious as an OCD secretary or librarian. Allan and I both picked up on it before. She has trouble getting past the words to the underlying reality.
I haven’t ever seen a geneticist use “population” as a synonym for “race.” If you have an example, I’d be happy to look at it.
You could certainly refer to a race as a population, but that doesn’t make “race” and “population” synonyms any more than referring to a triangle as a polygon makes “triangle” and “polygon” synonyms.
I think David Reich did, but doubt I will check.
Additionally, you brought the term ‘synonym’ into it. Kurtz just said that population was used for race, not that it was synonymous. It was as if he chose to say polygon is sometimes used to describe a triangle without claiming it is synonymous.
Your words tangle around your own feet.
Also, look at the article Kurtz linked above.
Perhaps you could acquire a copy of the Bell Curve and start in one of the thousands of scholarly citations. I’m sure you will turn up something.
Or you could pull a few peer reviewed articles by Richard Lynn a psychologist.
You could go to the Pioneer Fund web page and find hundreds of citations to peer reviewed articles that may use the expression.
With the anonymity of the internet, you neednt be afraid that someone will catch you looking.
if they do, tell them Saloth Sar sent you for re-education. That will confuse them and you can make a getaway!
again it is not my contention that they are equivalent in every instance, just some instances. it would seem that you have allowed that this is sometimes a usage. let’s not waste too much energy then on this subject
perhaps i can leave this with a true false question for the reader
not a precise scientific assertion, just one that might be useful in communication with others:
“the black race is a human population whose ancestral origins includes persons who were born in Africa”
True or false? let the reader decide
Africa is the ancestral origin of all humans.
Sorry, that was from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion.
Sal, Africa is the ancestral origin of all humans on the planet.
So what? We have undergone significant evolution since then adapting to different environments. That’s why English and Chinese are different from Pygmies.
CTHD– Geneticists do not use ‘population’ for ‘race’.
Look at David Reich’s NYT article of March 23, 2018 “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding if Race”
Got it?
Good.
Now you can no longer say that you have never seen a geneticist do that.
Poor Kurtz. He suffers so much as a white man. Don’t we all.
Take a hike snowflake.
Joe. Haven’t you worked out yet why the definition for subspecies cannot apply to race? CTHD tried and couldn’t do it.
Whatever this is, clever it ain’t. Lani Guinier was clever (and perhaps writing in good faith). This is crude rubbish.
Commit takes sophistry to new level with her “all roads lead to human evolution” nonsense. Unwilling to stay in her lane of ignorance, she careens out into more stupidity. Brava. Maybe she ought to read about IQ testing and its success rate in predicting future success. MIght help her understand where she places in the brains race and why she never tells us anything about her.
You haven’t identified any error in what she said, you just bloviate insults, as usual.
Have a crack at it Anon. Find the definition of subspecies and working solely with that tell us why it could not apply to the populations commonly known as races. You might be able to do it. Commi can’t.
Dude, prove your own case instead of telling me to disprove it.
The definition of subspecies speaks for itself and it clearly applies to what we call race.
Those who deny it need to demonstrate why it does not. CTHD tried and couldn’t. I doubt you even understand the issue.
If I told you it clearly doesn’t apply, I doubt you’d be convinced. When you tell me that it clearly applies, it’s likewise unconvincing.
You haven’t even said what groups you’re calling “the populations commonly known as races” and what their geographic subdivisions are. If you can’t even do that, you’ve got a piss-poor grasp of it yourself.
Mespo–She did tell us she did something in the southern tip of Africa for bona fides to her claim that we are all the same under the different skin, different bone structure and different genes. I asked if she thought so did she date a Pygmy while she was there. That upset her. Probably brought her deep racial bias too close to the surface.
If we are all the same, why aren’t Pygmies up here trying to improve our lives instead of having us going down there to help them? Probably because everyone knows they don’t have much to offer.
Not all “whites” were slave-owners, and those who arrived after 1861 could not have been, and many “whites” were discriminated against by other whites because they belonged to the wrong nationality. It was not only Irish who did not need to apply for work and housing, neither did the Italians (there are lots of a.k.a. there, and most are derogatory, from dago to eyetie) or the Slavs or the Hungarians (Bohunk or hunkie ring a bell with anybody? Or geaser?). If we want to embrace victimhood, then blacks and whites who are not ethnic minorities should be cancelled for using the D, E,B,H and G words.
Please, read some history. Poles and Hungarians were considered to be inferior to ‘whites,’ as were Italians, who were lynched in New Orleans. Southern and eastern Europeans were considered as racially flawed as blacks, and so were Latin Ameicans (read some of the literature on south and central America published in the late 1800s and early 1900s, right through the Congressional hearings of the 1930s) The concept of ‘race’ in the late 19th and early 20th century was interchangeable with nationality.
I am weary of ignoramuses parading as scholars.
Just as all whites are not descended from slave-owners, not all blacks are descendents of slaves. So, if we consider reparations, should we include upper-class blacks from Africa? Those who have arrived after 1865? Those who have been members of the American middle and upper middle class longer than many whites? Which blacks are we discussing here? And which whites should pay? Those who owned slaves? Those whose descendants fought for the North? Those who arrived after 1865? After 1918 or 1945 or 1959 (yes, I am thinking of all those ‘white’ Cubans).
The problems with black and white thinking is that it is incredibly simple-minded, like the people who support it.
Voter suppression? Read Zinn’s history and you will find that whites were also prevented from voting in areas of the north by other whites, and they worked as slave labor in factories as both children and adults, and on planations in New York and other states not in the south, and that in places like Hoboken and New York City, Democratic machines controlled their vote.
Read some of the muck-racking literature of the late1800s, e.g., The Octopus. (No, it is not about an animal.) Read about Tammany Hall and the corrupt local administrations in Kansas City and the price of a legislator in Wisconsin in the 1860s. Read about conditions in the factories and the use of the National Guard and the local police to intimidate and, if necessary, killd strikers who were ‘white.’
I recommend John Higham’s Strangers in the Land as a primer for those who know nothing about the history of America’s ethnic minorities (our forefathers did not all come from the British Isles, as I Turley knows).
There was no “original sin” of slavery — that is a political slogan, not a historical reality, unless you want to include indentured servitude, which affected whites, and you want to accuse those who owned no slaves and had nothing to with slavery of being tainted with the sins of the slaveowners, who have been dead for well over 150 years.
My apologies for the length, but this is brief compared to the literature on nativism, immigrants, and the ‘real’ United States, not the pap served up in the NYT.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the man who refuses to read is no different than the man who cannot read. Please read some real history, not novels and bad journalism.
Some blacks and a lot of Indians were also slave owners.
Time to get over the slavery crap.
Indeed! Plantation slavery began in the eastern Mediterranean, with Muslims enslaving Christians, and Christians Muslims. The slaves were usually ‘white,’ depending on how you define ‘white.’ Black slaves became common after the sugar plantations on Cyprus moved west, the supply of Muslims captured in war dwindled, and the Europeans moved down the coast of Africa and discovered that Africans were happy to sell members of rival tribbes into slavery. Since that was one of the rationales for slavery, the Europeans bought them from their black captors. The practice began to die out for many reasons, including the Englightenment, which also shaped the basic document and institutions of the United States; the industrial revolution, which reshaped the world; and the European empires, which transferred, however imperfectly, European institutions, practices, law, and values to their colonies and the people in them. The Vietnamese learned more than a language from the French; they also learned Marxism, revolution, and a host of other things.
Slavery persists in various places, but not in countries with cultures derived from the values elaborated in Europe since the 1600s.
Rather than pay attention to agitators posing as professors and pundits pretending to be intellectuals, I suspect it would be better if people read Voltaire and Diderot, or Jefferson and Mill, or even Marx and Bernstein, who would have been shocked at what sociopaths posing as Marxists did in places like the Soviet Union and China.
What could be more unjust than to exact reparations from ‘whites’ whose ancestors were serfs and slaves themselves just because of the color of their skin? But if we were to do that, then we surely must identify and punish the descendents of the Africans who traded in slaves, and the blacks and other people of color who owned slaves.
But this whole argument is spurious. When the Allies drew up the charges againt the Nazis, they specifically ruled out collective punishment because it went againt the grain of the legal traditions of England, France, and the United States. Instead, prosecutors attributed individual guilt for specific criminal actions.
To levy reparations against members of a racial group (however you define ‘race,’ and I have yet to find a definition that commands consensus and is rooted in anything resembling science) is a vicious form of collective punishment and more akin to genocide and ethnic cleansing than justice and reconciliation.
Slavery has existed almost forever. I am sure everyone heard of the Spartans. All one now has to ask themselves is who were the Helots?
hey here’s a book about various white Americans captured and enslaved or “adopted” by indians
some of the stories are not bad and some are pretty gruesome
https://www.amazon.com/Captured-Indians-Firsthand-Accounts-1750-1870/dp/0486249018
in every history and culture, some slaves were treated better than others
guess what? it’s still that way out here among us who think we are “free”
Saloth Sar
Trump not only many more counties, but by wider margins. For example:
Loving County, TX
Biden 4 (6%)
Trump 60 (91%)
Los Angeles County, CA
Biden 3,028,885 (71%)
Trump 1,145,530 (27%)
Ridiculous! This is nothing but another white progressive advocating policies to guarantee domination by the “Democratic” Party, which is anything but democratic. By the way, slavery is not “the original sin” of America. Slavery existed long before England established colonies on what is now the Eastern Seaboard – including among the native tribes. If America has an “original sin,” it’s attempting to eradicate the native inhabitants, particularly during and AFTER Mr. Lincoln’s War. Bear in mind that most, if not all, of the native tribes supported the Confederacy.
Do you mean to suggest they have in all these years never learned how to vote? What a slam singling out one group of American Citizens.
One man, one vote. One woman, two votes. Cause she tells her man how to vote.
You made me laugh. Thanks 😉
I tried posting this earlier, but it hasn’t appeared, probably because of one of the words in the quote (so I’ll modify that word now).
Turley says “the Electoral College … was designed as a protection for smaller and less populated states, particularly out West.” That statement is false, and as a law prof, he should know better.
There were no states “out West” when the EC was created.
The EC was designed to protect the slave-owning states, as the only people who could generally vote at the time were land-owning white males, and those in the south were outnumbered by those in the north, despite the large number of people in the southern states.
James Madison was quite clear about this:
“The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negr0es. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
Never mind that for every one person that said something out of thin air or just silly, Trump has 20 people saying the most outrageous ideas of democracy that has ever been thought about, no less said out load. So if Turley wants to bring up stupid ideas, maybe he should start with Trump and go down from there, he would have years of material. But that’s not Turley’s game is it.
Fish, Yup, thanks for correctly including yourself in that count. Will be sure not to count your stupid ideas leading to stupid statements.
sure Fishhead Turley should just do what you tell him to, for free, because why?
You must think he’s a slave. Can tell him what to do, not pay him, he must comply.
Funny how that works!
saloth Sar
Reparations
Music
We don’t need no reparations…
We don’t need no thought control!
Allina all it’s just a glitch in the road!
Brandon Hasbrouck is an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Remember Gov. Orval Faubus, the DEMOCRAT Governor of Arkansas from 1955 – 1967. Gov. Faubus refused to comply with a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, and ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending Little Rock Central High School.
Professor Hasbrouck correctly states, our original sin as a nation. That history includes later poll taxes and other methods of the disenfranchising black voters. But he needs to blame the Democrats for a Civil War costing 600,000 American lives, for creating the KKK, for supporting another Democrat named Jim Crow. How convenient it is for this TURD to forget the real history of slavery, a war to abolish slavery, and what the Dem’s did to keep it alive.
His position at Washington and Lee University School of Law should be terminated for his stipidness & brainwashing.
Prof Hasbrouck ignores history and should be fired from his job at W&L. He is just way to stupid to have a position like that. He also conveniently forgets about Jim Crow laws – were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1] These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Southern Democrat-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by black people during the Reconstruction period.
Prof Hasbrouck does not have the right to make up his own facts. He should be cancelled out of the classroom !
Given how many Rs think that blacks should get zero votes, I don’t see anything wrong with a proposal that goes extreme in the opposite direction. Maybe we can compromise and for real give blacks equal voting rights without suppression.
P.S. And for those who will reply and say “What voter suppression?”, You know damn well what I mean.
Molly G. I guess you don’t remember that the solid south consisted of democratic segregationist not Republicans like Abe Lincoln who freed the slaves You must be a true Biden voter
I am not going to rehash the realignment of the political parties in the 60s that makes your comments ignorant.
Your ilk authored Jim Crow laws after yo beat the tar out of black slaves. Now your ilk is trying to kill all of us because ….reasons
Ah molly, isn’t that just dandy? What you and yours do is when confronted with facts, you throw out the S.O.B.S. to deflect your ignorance. OR is it stupidity? Pray tell us about the realignment of the political parties in the 60’s. Yes, oh please enlighten us! You ignorant hack.
delmaracer:
If you actually wanted to hear Molly’s views, you wouldn’t call her an “ignorant hack.” That kind of insult shuts down conversations rather than inviting them.
If you want to know about the realignment of the political parties, read what historians have written about it. There are books written about it, but if you want a shorter summary from a historian, here’s one from Kevin Kruse, a history professor at Princeton and author of several history books:
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/991131181444943872
more here: https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1146131622984658944
“f you actually wanted to hear Molly’s views, you wouldn’t call her an “ignorant hack.” That kind of insult shuts down conversations rather than inviting them.”
It is her prerogative, but Molly insists on making statements or criticizing without evidence. When asked Molly doesn’t respond so while you are right that insults shut down conversations, that isn’t the case where molly is concerned.
I am quite tired of being asked all the time to prove facts that are not in dispute. Those who deny facts will not be persuaded by more facts.
You are asked all the time because you are never able to provide any facts. Facts are the basis of knowledge. Plenty of people have disputed what you say with facts and you don’t deal with them either.
I am sorry, but all you seem to be is a voice that contains nothing else but is an opinion that is contrary to reality. Maybe you can dissuade that opinion of you by being more circumspect and not posting things you cannot provide any evidence for.
I have tried before and it never matters. The nuts always ask for evidence but when I provide it they either ignore it or just say that my source (no matter what it is) is somehow unreliable or leftist. They just don’t care about facts or evidence. It is not worth my time at all to rehash the same arguments that are posted here all the time, or well known historical facts.
The nuts always ask for evidence but when I provide it they either ignore it or just say that my source (no matter what it is) is somehow unreliable or leftist.
You do not make a practice of ever providing evidence. All of your posts are two sentence recycling of whatever talking point mill you consult.
Molly I don’t want to waste your time or mine. I have seen your posts and responses. I don’t find them adequate. Your proofs, IMO, are merely points raised by others that have more frequently than not been dispelled. The rest that I saw weren’t proofs rather weak opinion since no fact was attached.
If you feel your responses were adequate so be it, but if you think they were misunderstood you should correct your image and respond instead of saying I did that before, poor me, etc.
Molly, when you become the subject, they’ve already surrendered, but don’t know it.
Joe Friday, it is not Molly that is the subject. It is what she says without providing more than what Art called a “talking point”.
Try not including me in your diatribes. I stayed away from you after seeing what you write, but hope to see better dialogue from others.
I’ll tell you about because I lived there then and live there now.
LBJ went all in for CR in ’64 and ’65 with Humphrey as his VP and Nixon went for “law and order” (sound familiar). With Wallace running as 3rd party LBJ won only Texas south of the Mason-Dixon line. Nixon and Wallace split the south. In 1972, Nixon won the entire south.
So all of a sudden all those racist in the south stopped being Democrats and switched to being Republican. Their great grandfathers, grandfathers, and fathers voted Democrat all their lives and suddenly they all had road to Damascus moments. The realignment argument is just a way to justify being in the party of segregation. Yes, the Democratic Party did change but it does not follow that the Republicans took their place. Trying to shift the blame is a tactic used by the rewriters of proven history in their propaganda efforts. Using this ploy is a well known tactic in countries like the Soviet Union. You have been well instructed.
That’s exactly what happened Think. I live here and have for 60 years.
Joe, all of a sudden the Republicans went to the Democrats and asked them for their KKK wardrobe. It would be more honest to admit a mistake and make a vow to change. Most Democrats have rightly distanced themselves from their previous leaders in the south. You need your narrative to maintain your overwhelming addiction to your superiority.
Joe, there are many people who live in the US who know little of our history. Just because you live somewhere, obviously doesn’t make you an historical expert. Better argument hoped for.
Joe is false. I will provide an example.
Frazier Glenn Miller was an army officer and a racist. He lived in NC. He was a klucker. When he retired he lead the “white person’s party.” in the 80s. he also ran on Democrat ticket. various times. of course he lost. nonetheless.
He also “declared war” on the US and eventually went to prison. When he got out, he surfaced in Missouri. He ran on the Democrat ticket there. They took his candidate fee and did not “expel him from the party” until newspapers got ahold of it. That was maybe 2008 or so. Not long ago
I could give you a list of openly racist candidates besides him who continued to run on the Democrat ticket after the end of Jim Crow. Most names are trivial, however, it is true. One may have heard however of Tom Metzger, who recently died, who was another. You can look them both up on Wiki and verify my assertions if you doubt them.
There are a couple notable exceptions. Strom Thurmond arguably., Seems like a good example to support Joe’s thesis. And perhaps so. But let’s take a closer look. Strom Thurmond, had dubious bona fides as a white racist. He fathered a biracial daughter out of wedlock who claimed that he was a good father to her, his whole life. Some racist!
I recently heard a bill moyers interview with one of George Wallace’s old cronies. This old guy gave one story after another to prove that Geo wallace was actually faking racism during the entire time of his tenure as a supposedly racist and segregationist Southern Democrat politicians. Strange, but should not be too hard to find on the internet if you’re interested.
Either racism is not what we were taught it was, or racists are not. Perhaps, both.
One of the most famous racist and segregationist politicians, on the other hand, was LBJ. And yet, he turned the whole Democrat party on a dime once Old JFK was dead, and he held the wheel as POTUS. He delivered the Democrat party from the party of segregation in favor of whites, to a 60 year kulturkampf against whites. But only once he was in charge!
And to think that allegedly, one lone nut gunman with a magic bullet, did that for the USA. amazing!
if you believe that Oswald was a lone actor, well, then you may also believe that a 32 story building with 11 independent weight bearing columns of thick reinforced steel and concrete, would simultaneously fail such that it could collapse in 11 seconds onto its footprint, after burning on three floors for 40 minutes or so.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1oj8d8
Saloth Sar
MollyG. I give up. How MANY Rs do you think that blacks should get zero votes? Hmmm. Got any facts for this or is this just another very poorly thought out opinion? What a damn fool you present yourself as.
Molly, here is where you fall apart. Writing that Republicans think that blacks should get zero votes exposes a place in your mind where all of us should hope to never go. A prejudice so deep that it borders on mania.
Given how many Rs think that blacks should get zero votes,
They don;’t exist outside your imagination Molly. Given time and diligent effort, you may one day utter something that doesn’t combine viciousness with stupidity. Not there yet.
“Given how many Rs think that blacks should get zero votes”
Can you tell us how many R’s think in that fashion and how many are willing to be violent or pass laws to selectively prevent blacks from voting? You can’t? How come? That is an outlandish statement. However we do know that some think blacks should have two votes and that opinion has been reported.
What about the American Indian, based on such preposterous logic shouldn’t the American Indian get more than one vote? Are you prejudiced against the American Indian?
By the way if it weren’t for the left’s desire to abort babies, mostly black, the black voting group might be twice as high and that would have made up for the votes you believe blacks should be getting. Guess who advocated the killing of those babies?
Maybe more would vote if more had a better education, but we know that the left tries to prevent them from going to better schools.
““What voter suppression?”, You know damn well what I mean.”
No we don’t and it is obvious that you don’t know either or you would have explained how that has been happening. But, we do have ballot harvesting and all sorts of fraudulent behavior in the voting process promoted by the left.
Molly
Even for you, this was a dumb post.
The intent on resolution was that of the Israelite slaves who were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
Corrective action, sooner or later, is always appropriate and typical.
To wit,
Earlier Resettlement Plans
The view that America’s apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing Blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere — “colonization” or “repatriation” — was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending Blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state’s slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free Black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free Blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7
In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of Black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8
Measures to resettle Blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport Blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if Blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9
With crucial Society backing, Black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free Blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, Black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10
By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana’s legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12
Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.
In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee
to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.
Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13
– Robert Morgan
I agree that Hasbrouck’s proposal, if implemented, would not be consistent with the Constitution. I do not know what law school he attended, but perhaps he should consider asking for a refund.
It seems to me that the current emphasis on “diversity and inclusion” and the current demand for reparations are themselves a source of division. I would prefer to see an emphasis on what unites us as a country.
We could begin by celebrating positive developments in our history. For example, we could celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote. In Rochester, NY, we are celebrating not only that, but also the 200th anniversary of Susan B. Anthony’s birth!
Joe Biden has said that it is time for the nation to heal, but how will he make that happen? So far, he has offered no meaningful suggestions.
Cassidy,
Do you have meaningful suggestions for how to help the nation heal?
Anonymous. I do. How about funding and expanding higher education for Blacks? Like Trump did. WHAT you yell out? Yes, he made permanent the funding of Black colleges. Prior to Trump doing that, those colleges had to come to Washington every year for funding. Yup, tell me again how equal that was? Hmmmm
Don’t you know that one of the primary arguments by those who advocate reparations is that it occur through increased funding for HBCUs and Black students?
Why do you laud Trump for a bill passed by Congress?
Anon, your right it was passed by Congress with the requirement to be renewed every year. Trump made it permanent. Bring yourself to tell the whole story if possible.
What’s up with all you anonymii? Is there some kind of list or something so that we can tell you guys apart and know where you’re coming from? The avatars don’t tell us very much.
I think that it will be a difficult process. The national discourse has become corrosive to the tenth power. I think that it will be difficult to even begin the discussion as long as the mainstream media presents news from a biased perspective. Many of the media outlets seem invested in delivering a “narrative” rather than a factual account of current events. If we can’t agree on the facts, we have little hope for moving forward. and developing solutions. Think about the statement that it is time for the nation to heal for just a moment. For many folks who have followed the events of the last four years, it will be difficult to make that transition. That’s because they watched a President govern for four years against a backdrop of resistance and subterfuge. Can we expect them to just flip a switch now? The expectation of “healing” strikes me as a bit disingenuous at this juncture.
I have one. Destroy the billionaires. Then rebuild.
Saloth Sar
Biden reads from a script supplied to him by clever PR men hired by billionaires.
He is a front man. We have seen in the era of Trump, that the POTUS really is not that powerful
The billionaires call the shots
They are the enemy
They must be destroyed
Saloth Sar
It never ceases to amaze me the creative ways that progressives come up with to cheat. And to equate results with racism.
Nobody is stopping blacks from settling in rural areas; there are no limits on their purchasing or renting property.
And if there aren’t enough blacks in America, aborting fewer of their babies would make a big difference. Perhaps Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be so generously treated and rewarded by progressives, including those elected blacks who purport to represent black interests.
Another pseudo Professor like so many in the US university system. You should use the European system where the title Professor is only given to some (not all) PhDs who have been lecturing for many many years.
Lets start calling Jill Biden a Professor, its her right. But after reading her dissertation I query if she has any intellect whatsoverlike our Brandon Hasbrouck.
I doubt you read her dissertation. Why don’t you quote something she wrote in her dissertation and explain why you disagree?
You should do the same when you make your dozens of comments, but you don’t.
“‘By 1963, public and private two year headcount enrollment stood at 850,361. By 1980, enrollment had grown to 4,526,287… approximately a 230 percent increase in student attendance.’”
I bet you’re taking that quote from Townhall or someplace else that had that exact partial quote with ellipses, and that you don’t know what goes in the ellipses. Without the full quote, there’s no way to determine whether the 230% is a typo or is a correct reference to something else.
“I bet you’re taking that quote from Townhall or someplace else that had that exact partial quote with ellipses, and that you don’t know what goes in the ellipses.”
What, you didn’t read her paper? You think it was only the math that made Jill look simple? It was also the ellipses, that you aptly state didn’t belong there. Jill included those ellipses in her paper. Why? She did things like that all over. She is not talented, but neither is her husband.
Now you know the story of the ellipses. Jill put them there and even you, a supporter, are looking at it with a jaundiced eye.
It’s a dissertation, not a paper. I hadn’t looked up her dissertation prior to posting my previous comments. Now I have. The ellipses do belong there because she’s quoting a handbook chapter by J.S. Eaton, and she’s omitted some text in the middle of the quote. I also looked up Eaton’s original text. The typo is in Eaton’s text. Biden should have put “[sic],” but that’s a different kind of error than what you’d implied.
Thanks for making it clear that you hadn’t read the original, despite your claim about “reading her dissertation.”
Quite the contrary. She made it confusing and should have recognized the numerical error since she was quoting it. I actually looked up her dissertation and read parts of it but didn’t read to the end. I wanted to see enough of her skills when this became an issue. I read enough to see that she was not very talented.
In any event it is nice to know that you didn’t read it before you commented and now were able to quickly look it up. You have a gift one of my better secretaries had. She could easily look things up but analysis was not her strong point.
You can continue to defend her ability as you might feel it dwarfs your own. I don’t much care and probably would have said little about Jill but for your snarky comment to Mike Mike when I already knew that she wasn’t a genius. This is not something terribly interesting but if you wish I will listen to your entire analysis and corrections of what Jill Biden wrote.
Yeah, Melania’s dissertation was flawless.
F… off.
I haven’t defended her, and you’re the one with the flawed analysis here.
Your style of insult makes you sound a lot like Allan.
That was Mike who said “reading her dissertation.”, not me, but you insulted me not Mike in that paragraph. Most people on the blog are aware of the controversy over Jill Biden’s paper. It’s not a big deal. She isn’t doing surgery.
Unfortunately, I came to the blog to listen to Turley and hear other opinions not repetitive incessant attacks on public figures void of content and not to hear others trying to score on each other.
If you agreed that her paper wasn’t very good, I don’t know why you scored on Mike whoever he might be. If you thought it was good and you were fed up with remarks saying otherwise then you could opine and say that she wrote a good paper and that Townhall selectively chose a few errant entries. That would have been interesting. Then you could have discussed your thoughts of the matter making the discussion useful.
You didn’t do that but brought in a name I occasionally see mentioned but do not know. I don’t understand you purpose since I have not seen that name actually write anything. It must be more of that non productive sparring that some are involved with.
Anonymous, I noted after my last reply, despite the accusations you made, you said nothing and went on posting. That is fine with me but shortly after my last email I noted one of yours to another. It was the same modus operandi.
“What journalism has Assange authored?” authored by you, anonymous at December 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM.
Once again there was no contribution to the discussion only a question with an intention of starting a fight. A hit and run. Not good. I would have liked to hear why you felt Assange didn’t author any journalism, but adding to the blog was not your intention. It seems your goal is to be a constant nuisance who uses hit and run tactics wasting everyone’s time and making the blog a less pleasant place than it could be.
” It seems your goal is to be a constant nuisance who uses hit and run tactics wasting everyone’s time and making the blog a less pleasant place than it could be.”
It seems a nasty anonymous continues to float around on the blog making accusations against everyone along with petty interferences over and over again. He practices the tactics of hit and run as he did with me and I rarely post under any alias after reading what Turley had to say. That is your modus operandi. I think I will spend a bit of time looking around to see where else you have been a nuisance. I already know the answer but I will wait for some type of remediation of your actions towards me. Christmas is over and I note you are now using Christ’s name as a convenient weapon.
billionaires fund and implicitly thus own the university system
they empower Brandon, he is just their pawn
They are an ENEMY we must destroy
our lives depend on it
Saloth Sar
Amazing. Some believe that the answer to racism is more racism.
you better wake up red anonymous and understand that every government and society in history has had ethnic and racial stratifications
there is no way out of that. don’t waste effort anymore whining about racism
just figure out how you can come out on top
That’s what smart professor Brandon has done. Emulate him!
Saloth Sar
Anono, your words are perfectly lifted from “The Prince” by Machiavelli. In case you haven’t’ read it I’ll sum it up for you. The ends justify the means. This is a view held by many historic leaders such as Stalin and Hitler. Hopefully a view rejected by those seeking a foundation for a better society.
I thought they already voted twice in the last election. Are we just making it official?
His understanding and his scholarship are suspect at best
Sickening statement, yet another aberration produced by one of the many Fascists embedded
in the Democrat party.
What an idiot.
Once we start down that road, we know where it leads.
I say idiot, but I suspect that the Lefties who propose these stupid ideas are cynically seeking publicity.
It is the people who support the idea who are stupid.
In any case, the left has become the party of retards.
monument, he’s black. this is not an issue of political ideology, that is just a mask for self interest
he wants to outvote you because he is smart. clever, cynical, and powerful
I warn you against your own credulity in thinking that this is anything more than another mile marker in our race to civil war
in a civil war posture, if you want “equality” with cretins like him, then he- his group-those who would get the double vote and the billionaires who are backing him– they have already won
https://www.google.com/search?q=brandon+Hasbrouck&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN-o2Nyd_tAhWnAZ0JHc8DCBwQ_AUoAnoECAgQBA&biw=1064&bih=747
we have to oppose this evil regime. our very necks depend on it.
Do not pay taxes, and no more voting in the fake elections.
Saloth Sar