The issue concerning the integrity of this November's election is yet another issue wherein very few people seem capable of having a level-headed, neutral attempt at an objective analytical discussion, and fewer still are even interested in such an attempt
If one is a democrat they assume everything will be fine, while many republicans insist that massive mail-in ballots are highly problematic and that illegals will vote in droves. Neither extreme seems too supportable. The truth must lie somewhere between those two extremes.
This lack of nuance, wherein everything is an either/or proposition seems to dominate many issues these days.
Many democrats think that we should respond to the pandemic by continuing shutting down society until we really turn the corner as to positive testing, while many republicans support re-opening right now with dramatically dwindling restrictions.
As to the protests, many democrats think that most cops are storm troopers, while many republicans believe there are no systemic problems in any major police departments(and that it is just a case of an occasional bad apple). Neither extreme seems supportable.
For climate change, many democrats think it's pretty much scientific gospel, while many republicans dismiss it as a hoax. But almost no one, who offers such views, actually reads any scientific studies or articles on the matter. They merely parrot the talking points of the political party they belong to. I am guilty of that as well, as I have tried to wade through some of the scientific studies and articles, and it is pretty difficult for me to focus on and navigate through.
It's worse than reading The Federalist Papers, if anyone else on this blog ever tackled that oppressive task.
10:38, but the poster said "many republicans" just as often as "many democrats." I could be wrong, but I don't think the post was intended to take up for one party and attack the other. In fact, I think the point was that the extremes adopted by both parties are often not productive and not accurate.
And that may often be as to certain issues, but there are certain other issues where there is a right vs. a wrong, and there is no room for nuance in thee middle. In the early to mid 60's there were still states very effectively suppressing the African American vote with absurd literacy tests that most whites could not satisfy, and there were 16 or 17 states that did not permit inter-racial marriage.
So, I get the point of 10:35, but some issues are either right or wrong, with no nuance in the middle.
10:38. You want 10:35 to "speak for yourself" or "quote someone."
As for speaking for themselves, 10:35 did, and clearly claims to be a person who believes in discussing issues form both sides, rather than taking a polarized position determined by party affiliation. 10:35 may not in fact effectively do that, but apparently claims to, so the poster did speak for themselves.
As for "quoting someone" that makes no sense. The poster is essentially saying that millions of people these days take polarized positons determined by what party they belong to. We know that is entirely true. Do we really need these people to be identified when they are in the millions?
I must have misunderstood your point, because I just don't get it.
Gay marriage and adoption, no fault divorce, abortion on demand, open borders, fee healthcare, free tuition, pre K childcare, diversity quotas, unlimited immigration, reparations for slavery, green new deal.
The other country would not.
My recommendation for the seceding america would be to build a very big wall, and secure it with state of the art weaponry as soon as possible.
The West is the source of all that ails society. It must fall. Secession is not an option, but the last gasp of a dying culture. Put it out of its misery and let a new age of enlightenment arise. Trump must go.
When the West falls, your constitutional rights go with it, including freedom of speech, property ownership, choice of career, unlimited internet, unhindered travel, and so on. Not sure what is "enlightening" about that. Marxists must go.
Guest
Anonymous
July 31, 2020 5:38 pm
10:35–I have heard some people being reasonable and balanced as to the pandemic, but I agree that as to the protests, most people fit into one of two extreme camps.
Same with climate change. People either think it's "science" or "hoax", which, of course, is patently idiotic.
Climate change is real. Climate changes. The issue is: so what? As long as we continue to grow economically, and we lift the impoverished nations to first world status, we will be able to handle any possible negative effects. Many believe there are no negative effects, but let's say there'll be some good and bad. No problem. We've been building dams and draining swamps for thousands of years. There are no limits to human ingenuity.
But, not surprisingly, the globablist crowd wants to cut living standards and impoverish the world while centralizing power and wealth in their hands, using climate change as the excuse. Taxes, regulations, population control, movement control, and so on.
Guest
Anonymous
July 31, 2020 6:03 pm
I do not mean this in any way racist but have an honest question re: "systemic racism" the biggest question affecting the legal community today IMHO. I'm looking for sincere reasons and not any degrading comments about the African-American community. Jewish people appear to me to be the most persecuted group in history worldwide, but have risen to (as a group) become well-educated and a higher socioeconomic group than average. African Americans still claim to be "held back" and have not risen to realize the dreams of MLK, John Lewis, etc. Why is this? I believe it is because of the value each culture places on the nuclear family which leads to better education, etc. and that the real contributors to the decline in the AA community is to rappers who glorify violence, race-baiters, etc. I cannot imagine a Jewish rap group singing about violence as a way of life and "thuggery." I'm an anomaly, a conservative half black, half Asian guy in my 40s so I'm sure that influences my thinking. Any serious comments on this serious issue? Perhaps the lessons learned by the Jewish community could help my family and friends.
Putting aside your thinly veiled "just asking questions" racism – one of the most famous rap groups of all time, the Beastie Boys, are three Jewish guys rapping about committing violence and getting blasted.
11:03 – 11:17 and 11:32 were way more polite than you deserve. You're awful. If you're on this blog, I assume you are a lawyer or at least tangentially connected to the legal field which means you can read. There are literally volumes of information available, online and for free, regarding systemic racism and generational poverty and all the other after effects of slavery that continue to plague America's black communities. Go educate yourself and stop posting faux-curious-but-actual-racist-AF questions.
11:03 is probably not a racist(or at least not a garden variety racist) as they are at lest struggling to be fair-minded and analytical.
But 11:39 is right that the premises and analogies 11:03 offers are faulty and unfair. But I also agree that it is equally illogical to establish 11:03's supposed racism merely by identifying a Jewish hip hop artist, as opposed to directly demonstrating to 11:03 how they are faulty with their premises and analogies.
11:17 AM, 11:32 AM and 11: 47 AM offer nothing substantive to answer/dispute your question and instead lambaste you as a racist. Wow, they are so right! Screw facts, data, or logical comparisons. Their argument is superior because they used an "ist" at the end of it, so HA!
The reason you cannot have real improvement is that any attempt to discuss substantive problems outside of the "accepted narrative" is met with personal attacks and attempts to destroy the person. I have no doubt that if they knew your identity they would try to "cancel you." A cult is most dangerous when someone who should be on their side starts pointing out the flaws in their reasoning. To them, 11:03 AM is a heretic, well a half-heretic.
4:41 Gets it right. Consider https://www.courthousenews.com/class-says-michigan-is-failing-detroit-students/
I love this, from the article: "In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher was available." That kid is Tupac's rose. That kid gives me hope for mankind
Guest
Anonymous
July 31, 2020 6:39 pm
11:17–I neither think that 11:03 is a racist, nor do I think you effectively contradict 11:03 by finding an isolated case of a Jewish rapper.
But although 11:03 is not a racist(at least not a knowing racist) I suspect 11:03 is somewhat misguided.
11:03 takes a very complex, multi-layered issue and distills it to a very unreasonable analogy that is neither logical or proportionate.
The history of oppression of Jews, and prejudice toward them, in the U.S., is appalling, but cannot be effectively analogized to a race that was held in slavery until the 1860's, and then largely held down in ghettos for over the next 100 years. As one poster pointed out, laws curtailing the basic rights of African Americans(such as voting) were in effect in certain states until the 1960's, and many other effects are still in operation to control and marginalize them.
Every race that has been oppressed suffers quite differently, and is oppressed quite differently, making these analogies unfair.
That is the type of argument, among others, that 11:17 should have pointed out to 11:03–not, hey I located a Jewish rapper so your whole point about racial oppression is down the drain.
The Beastie Boys are not an "isolated case of a Jewish rapper." That's just insulting. They're way beyond an isolated case. They're awesome, groundbreaking, record breaking legends. Also you should check out Mac Miller, Drake, etc etc. While we're on the topic, though not a rapper, check out Rick Rubin. I know, I know…my rap knowledge is intimidating, but you too can become an expert on Jewish rappers by utilizing google. Give it a try.
1:33–11:39 here. I seem to have trouble communicating lately as people are totally missing the points I am attempting to make, so it must be me.
But that concession being understood, I have to assume that 1:33 understands that I was not trying in no way to minimize the Beastie Boys(who I am quite fond of), or to imply that there are not other prominent Jewish rappers.
My point was that 11:03 was dismissed as a racist by 11:17, and 11:17 based this mainly on the fact that 11:37 could identify a Jewish rapper(to see how that weaves into all of this, one must read 11:03 and 11:17).
Point is, if 11:03's positon is faulty(or even racist) it is because 11:03 is using very unfair analogies and assumptions. Pointing that out is the way to discredit 11:03. But 11:17 seemed to think that the main way to discredit 11:03 was to show that Jewish rappers exist, which really has very little to do with the dialogue.
This is 11:17. While obviously there are worse things about 11:03's post, I think the fact that he or she relied on a factual premise that is obviously false to anyone with the most passing knowledge of rap is relevant and important. How can 11:03 opine on the supposed relationship between rap themes and economic development if he or she doesn't know about the best-selling rap group of all time? And if 11:03 is so clearly wrong about rap, why should we trust him or her about anything else?
1:33 here – I didn't miss your point. I was being an ass. I too am fond of the Beastie Boys. The problem with 11:03 is that the comment/question is a common racist trope. I didn't really feel like it was worth a reasoned response because it is so offensive. That said…I'll be a grown person for a minute and explain some of the issues with 11:03's post.
For starters, Black Americans do not NOT value the nuclear family. US social policies actually encouraged Black Americans not to marry. There's lots of factors contributing to the whole situation but wealth is a main factor. Many white families were able to establish some kind of generational wealth after WWII because US govt policies helped GIs get into nice little houses in the suburbs. Those mortgages were backed by various govt agencies which operated under the "red line" policies you may have heard of. Essentially, Black families were not allowed to buy in those neighborhoods. There are other issues related to Black home ownership that are too long and complex to get into on a blog post, but y'all can google it. Point being, white families built generational wealth through home ownership which was facilitated by the govt for white families, but not Black.
Black families then have less wealth and virtually no generational wealth. When any kind of upset happens such as job loss, illness, death, disability, etc those Black families were less able to weather the financial storm that comes with such incidents. That means Black families were more likely to seek out govt aid to get through those times. Welfare reform starting in the 70s and going into the 90s does not give aid to families with men present. In fact, the people most likely to get granted benefits are single mothers. If a Black couple got married, they would not be eligible for assistance and since they did not have the generational wealth many whites had built up since post-WWII, they were more likely to need assistance to get through financial difficulties. These policies ultimately led to Black families understanding that they were financially better off NOT being married, thereby threatening the Black nuclear family.
Throw in the over-policing and over-incarceration rates of Black males in this country and it becomes very clear that govt policies have undermined the Black nuclear family. It has nothing to do with Black people not valuing the nuclear family and the suggestion otherwise is offensive and vulgar.
Finally, I acknowledge that I have relied on some generalities here. It is a blog post and I have neither the time nor the space to replicate an entire course on poverty law or govt policies. Hopefully I've said enough that you can see where I'm coming from and why I think 11:03 is a racist and offensive. Also, might give the curious a kicking off point for their own adventures on google.
Generational wealth? Nice try. Going out on one's own accord, making a living, purchasing a home and paying a mortgage have nothing to do generational anything. You're making the assumption that a certain group of people are buying homes with inheritances and parental handouts. That's a slap in the face to all those that have rolled up their sleeves and made positive things happen in their life, regardless of their background, skin color, gender, family circumstances or whatever. The "victim" mentality is riddled with excuses.
"Generational wealth" doesn't just refer to inheritances and handouts. If you went to good public schools because your parents could afford to live in a middle class area, that's a way generational wealth builds from parent to child.
4:41 Gets it right. Consider https://www.courthousenews.com/class-says-michigan-is-failing-detroit-students/
I love this, from the article: "In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher was available." That kid is Tupac's rose. That kid gives me hope for mankind.
Guest
Anonymous
July 31, 2020 6:42 pm
BLM is a marxist front. And, the majority of protestors are cancel culture, race baiting, reactionary clowns convinced that change comes only through violence. AOC and her squad are not in touch with the majority of US. Don't let them scare you. Cops are not the problem and yes we could clean up law enforcement. Seattle, Chicago, Portland and NYC make clear that we need police to get these jerks back into their mom's basement.
Are they Marxists or reactionaries? Or do words not mean things anymore?
Guest
Anonymous
July 31, 2020 6:49 pm
There were posts yesterday, at 2:46 and 3:04, which partly defended Voldemort, and which claimed that some of his critics are sanctimonious hypocrites.
I can't necessarily agree with the part which partially defending him, but I have noticed that although he is now almost universally condemned in the legal and political community, that as recently as two or three years ago, most judges and judicial and political candidates were very actively seeking his support and endorsement.
"most judges and judicial and political candidates were very actively seeking to conflict him out of attacking them by paying him money for public support and his endorsement before their opponent paid him to attack them." There, fixed it for you.
3:41–you seem to be a little flip about this matter to simply dismiss it out of hand with a little levity.
I am not 11:49, but I have noticed that there have been many posts, over many weeks, which portray that "activist' in question as being far worse than Attila the Hun(No. I am not insulting huns. This comment is not racially motivated).And this occurs on social media sites as well.
Is it not worthy to note that although everyone is jumping on the band wagon to condemn him, that it merits mentioning that a lot of these people are judges and candidates who obsequiously fawned for his endorsement? (obsequious-word for the day. Hadn't used it in a while, but just heard it recently so I was looking for an excuse to use it).
Your post(by its dismissive brevity and light-hearted nature) suggests that what these people did was reasonable as they were simply trying to drive him away from them, and have him instead focus on their opponent. But that may be somewhat revisionist, and the truth is a little more complex than that.
Three or four years ago, when his behavior was not nearly as intense and concerning as it appears to be now, candidates and judges just tended to take the approach they wanted a veteran's endorsement, and that his organization had credibility in their eyes.
Back then, they weren't thinking that they better give him money or he will destroy them.
I don't agree with 11;49 that such candidates are sanctimonious hypocrites(that is way too harsh)but these same people(who gave him money) are acting so shocked and indignant that anyone could continue to be connected to this person, when a scant few years back they themselves were directly connected to him.
Now, again, I recognize that he seems to have gotten a lot worse, but some level of accountability and responsibility would be nice, such as "I should not have been connected with Voldemort" rather than "I was a babe in the woods and could have no idea about anything unpleasant concerning Voldemort."(even though they saw all the H.Potter movies and knew quite well of all things Voldemort).
(1) Why is "his" name not allowed to be mentioned?
(2) Although his grammar is terrible and it is difficult to read his rants, what about him is so odious? I do not practice family law, and I am not able to determine the legitimacy of his attacks on certain family court judges and family law practitioners.
@4:19p – I get it! So you're saying that he's kind of like Trump in that politicians and public personas who adored him for what he could do for them (Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Al Sharpton, Bill/Hillary Clinton, et al), and who now claim he is a horrible monster because he can't help them?
He is a laughing stock annoyance. But that does not make the people that he goes after pure or above criticism. For example the posts about his rant against Ghibaudo have legs. Ghibaudo is an absolute out of control farce that the State Bar cannot figure out how to keep out of the practice. He is completely out of control. Somehow a discussion about Ghibaudo got changed into a discussion about Sanson. Equally odious.
@6:16 – you can't mention his name bc he has google alerts set for his name and if you type it, he will come. Then he'll ruin all our blogging fun with his nonsense.
I do practice family law. He and group prowl around family court in matching shirts, sitting in on hearings, and harassing people – mostly judges and attorneys. The people in his clique are generally dysfunctional abusers who aren't getting their way in court so they think they can get their way through the media. Fortunately, less and less of the media is listening. Unfortunately they have published so many hearing videos online, the poor children caught up in these cases are never going to escape their parents' drama.
There are allegations he was paid a not small amount of money to get a certain judge recused off a case that was not going a millionaire's way. There are also allegations he uses his organization to recruit some of these unstable female litigants for more salacious purposes. He did lead an effort to remove one judge who did not survive the primary which was unfortunate bc she's pretty good. He also advocates for jury trials in family court which is insane on so many levels. His group frequently advances constitutional arguments in family court and they come across as unstable and unmedicated. He claims to have been a helicopter gunner, but there are allegations that he never came near actual combat and was just a logistics clerk. He also claims to be a disabled veteran, but frequently challenges people to MMA fights and claims to work 60 hours/week for his nonprofit.
6:16-that's a darn good synopsis, and completely accurate and fair in my estimation.
But 11:49 and 4:19 is correct that some of those who act the most morally outraged were once currying his favor, contributing money, seeking his endorsement, etc.
Interesting opinion on a judge's duty in voir dire. Relevant facts start at 32, and analysis at 63. It reminds me of the OJ trial. Being a judge is no picnic.
I'm only part way through this opinion and need to finish it when I get the time. But I will never understand prosecutors. Any jury in any part of the country would have convicted and most likely sentenced to death. They had a very strong case. Why allow it to be junked up with reversible error?
They got tired. When the subject jurors said they were tainted by internet information, everyone just accepted their claims to be able to stay neutral. What they should have done is probe further. Not sure I agree with the ruling but it's certainly defensible. Many cases live or die based on voir dire. Current voir dire should have some Covid questions in there.
The issue concerning the integrity of this November's election is yet another issue wherein very few people seem capable of having a level-headed, neutral attempt at an objective analytical discussion, and fewer still are even interested in such an attempt
If one is a democrat they assume everything will be fine, while many republicans insist that massive mail-in ballots are highly problematic and that illegals will vote in droves. Neither extreme seems too supportable. The truth must lie somewhere between those two extremes.
This lack of nuance, wherein everything is an either/or proposition seems to dominate many issues these days.
Many democrats think that we should respond to the pandemic by continuing shutting down society until we really turn the corner as to positive testing, while many republicans support re-opening right now with dramatically dwindling restrictions.
As to the protests, many democrats think that most cops are storm troopers, while many republicans believe there are no systemic problems in any major police departments(and that it is just a case of an occasional bad apple). Neither extreme seems supportable.
For climate change, many democrats think it's pretty much scientific gospel, while many republicans dismiss it as a hoax. But almost no one, who offers such views, actually reads any scientific studies or articles on the matter. They merely parrot the talking points of the political party they belong to. I am guilty of that as well, as I have tried to wade through some of the scientific studies and articles, and it is pretty difficult for me to focus on and navigate through.
It's worse than reading The Federalist Papers, if anyone else on this blog ever tackled that oppressive task.
Stop speaking for "many democrats" then attacking them for what you say they do. Speak for yourself, or quote someone, then put in your 2 cents.
Just like every Republican…
10:38, but the poster said "many republicans" just as often as "many democrats." I could be wrong, but I don't think the post was intended to take up for one party and attack the other. In fact, I think the point was that the extremes adopted by both parties are often not productive and not accurate.
And that may often be as to certain issues, but there are certain other issues where there is a right vs. a wrong, and there is no room for nuance in thee middle. In the early to mid 60's there were still states very effectively suppressing the African American vote with absurd literacy tests that most whites could not satisfy, and there were 16 or 17 states that did not permit inter-racial marriage.
So, I get the point of 10:35, but some issues are either right or wrong, with no nuance in the middle.
10:38. You want 10:35 to "speak for yourself" or "quote someone."
As for speaking for themselves, 10:35 did, and clearly claims to be a person who believes in discussing issues form both sides, rather than taking a polarized position determined by party affiliation. 10:35 may not in fact effectively do that, but apparently claims to, so the poster did speak for themselves.
As for "quoting someone" that makes no sense. The poster is essentially saying that millions of people these days take polarized positons determined by what party they belong to. We know that is entirely true. Do we really need these people to be identified when they are in the millions?
I must have misunderstood your point, because I just don't get it.
Its nice to have these polite discussions
But peaceful separation is the only solution.
That, or a violent one.
Reasonable, sober minded decision making is the only solution. A separative attitude or violent temper tantrum is barbaric at best.
JEB is on point. Let's part ways in peace. Free trade and strong borders.
Yes, one country would have state mandated
Gay marriage and adoption, no fault divorce, abortion on demand, open borders, fee healthcare, free tuition, pre K childcare, diversity quotas, unlimited immigration, reparations for slavery, green new deal.
The other country would not.
My recommendation for the seceding america would be to build a very big wall, and secure it with state of the art weaponry as soon as possible.
The West is the source of all that ails society. It must fall. Secession is not an option, but the last gasp of a dying culture. Put it out of its misery and let a new age of enlightenment arise. Trump must go.
When the West falls, your constitutional rights go with it, including freedom of speech, property ownership, choice of career, unlimited internet, unhindered travel, and so on. Not sure what is "enlightening" about that. Marxists must go.
10:35–I have heard some people being reasonable and balanced as to the pandemic, but I agree that as to the protests, most people fit into one of two extreme camps.
Same with climate change. People either think it's "science" or "hoax", which, of course, is patently idiotic.
Climate change is real. Climate changes. The issue is: so what? As long as we continue to grow economically, and we lift the impoverished nations to first world status, we will be able to handle any possible negative effects. Many believe there are no negative effects, but let's say there'll be some good and bad. No problem. We've been building dams and draining swamps for thousands of years. There are no limits to human ingenuity.
But, not surprisingly, the globablist crowd wants to cut living standards and impoverish the world while centralizing power and wealth in their hands, using climate change as the excuse. Taxes, regulations, population control, movement control, and so on.
I do not mean this in any way racist but have an honest question re: "systemic racism" the biggest question affecting the legal community today IMHO. I'm looking for sincere reasons and not any degrading comments about the African-American community. Jewish people appear to me to be the most persecuted group in history worldwide, but have risen to (as a group) become well-educated and a higher socioeconomic group than average. African Americans still claim to be "held back" and have not risen to realize the dreams of MLK, John Lewis, etc. Why is this? I believe it is because of the value each culture places on the nuclear family which leads to better education, etc. and that the real contributors to the decline in the AA community is to rappers who glorify violence, race-baiters, etc. I cannot imagine a Jewish rap group singing about violence as a way of life and "thuggery." I'm an anomaly, a conservative half black, half Asian guy in my 40s so I'm sure that influences my thinking. Any serious comments on this serious issue? Perhaps the lessons learned by the Jewish community could help my family and friends.
Putting aside your thinly veiled "just asking questions" racism – one of the most famous rap groups of all time, the Beastie Boys, are three Jewish guys rapping about committing violence and getting blasted.
11:03, if you have to start your post with "I do not mean this in any way racist…," then your post is probably racist. Just stop.
11:03 – 11:17 and 11:32 were way more polite than you deserve. You're awful. If you're on this blog, I assume you are a lawyer or at least tangentially connected to the legal field which means you can read. There are literally volumes of information available, online and for free, regarding systemic racism and generational poverty and all the other after effects of slavery that continue to plague America's black communities. Go educate yourself and stop posting faux-curious-but-actual-racist-AF questions.
Re 11:03: Disagree with 11:17 AM, 11:32 AM and 11: 47 AM.
Irish need not apply.
I agree with 11:39, below.
11:03 is probably not a racist(or at least not a garden variety racist) as they are at lest struggling to be fair-minded and analytical.
But 11:39 is right that the premises and analogies 11:03 offers are faulty and unfair. But I also agree that it is equally illogical to establish 11:03's supposed racism merely by identifying a Jewish hip hop artist, as opposed to directly demonstrating to 11:03 how they are faulty with their premises and analogies.
11:17 AM, 11:32 AM and 11: 47 AM offer nothing substantive to answer/dispute your question and instead lambaste you as a racist. Wow, they are so right! Screw facts, data, or logical comparisons. Their argument is superior because they used an "ist" at the end of it, so HA!
The reason you cannot have real improvement is that any attempt to discuss substantive problems outside of the "accepted narrative" is met with personal attacks and attempts to destroy the person. I have no doubt that if they knew your identity they would try to "cancel you." A cult is most dangerous when someone who should be on their side starts pointing out the flaws in their reasoning. To them, 11:03 AM is a heretic, well a half-heretic.
4:41 Gets it right. Consider https://www.courthousenews.com/class-says-michigan-is-failing-detroit-students/
I love this, from the article: "In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher was available." That kid is Tupac's rose. That kid gives me hope for mankind
11:17–I neither think that 11:03 is a racist, nor do I think you effectively contradict 11:03 by finding an isolated case of a Jewish rapper.
But although 11:03 is not a racist(at least not a knowing racist) I suspect 11:03 is somewhat misguided.
11:03 takes a very complex, multi-layered issue and distills it to a very unreasonable analogy that is neither logical or proportionate.
The history of oppression of Jews, and prejudice toward them, in the U.S., is appalling, but cannot be effectively analogized to a race that was held in slavery until the 1860's, and then largely held down in ghettos for over the next 100 years. As one poster pointed out, laws curtailing the basic rights of African Americans(such as voting) were in effect in certain states until the 1960's, and many other effects are still in operation to control and marginalize them.
Every race that has been oppressed suffers quite differently, and is oppressed quite differently, making these analogies unfair.
That is the type of argument, among others, that 11:17 should have pointed out to 11:03–not, hey I located a Jewish rapper so your whole point about racial oppression is down the drain.
The Beastie Boys are not an "isolated case of a Jewish rapper." That's just insulting. They're way beyond an isolated case. They're awesome, groundbreaking, record breaking legends. Also you should check out Mac Miller, Drake, etc etc. While we're on the topic, though not a rapper, check out Rick Rubin. I know, I know…my rap knowledge is intimidating, but you too can become an expert on Jewish rappers by utilizing google. Give it a try.
1:33–11:39 here. I seem to have trouble communicating lately as people are totally missing the points I am attempting to make, so it must be me.
But that concession being understood, I have to assume that 1:33 understands that I was not trying in no way to minimize the Beastie Boys(who I am quite fond of), or to imply that there are not other prominent Jewish rappers.
My point was that 11:03 was dismissed as a racist by 11:17, and 11:17 based this mainly on the fact that 11:37 could identify a Jewish rapper(to see how that weaves into all of this, one must read 11:03 and 11:17).
Point is, if 11:03's positon is faulty(or even racist) it is because 11:03 is using very unfair analogies and assumptions. Pointing that out is the way to discredit 11:03. But 11:17 seemed to think that the main way to discredit 11:03 was to show that Jewish rappers exist, which really has very little to do with the dialogue.
This is 11:17. While obviously there are worse things about 11:03's post, I think the fact that he or she relied on a factual premise that is obviously false to anyone with the most passing knowledge of rap is relevant and important. How can 11:03 opine on the supposed relationship between rap themes and economic development if he or she doesn't know about the best-selling rap group of all time? And if 11:03 is so clearly wrong about rap, why should we trust him or her about anything else?
1:33 here – I didn't miss your point. I was being an ass. I too am fond of the Beastie Boys. The problem with 11:03 is that the comment/question is a common racist trope. I didn't really feel like it was worth a reasoned response because it is so offensive. That said…I'll be a grown person for a minute and explain some of the issues with 11:03's post.
For starters, Black Americans do not NOT value the nuclear family. US social policies actually encouraged Black Americans not to marry. There's lots of factors contributing to the whole situation but wealth is a main factor. Many white families were able to establish some kind of generational wealth after WWII because US govt policies helped GIs get into nice little houses in the suburbs. Those mortgages were backed by various govt agencies which operated under the "red line" policies you may have heard of. Essentially, Black families were not allowed to buy in those neighborhoods. There are other issues related to Black home ownership that are too long and complex to get into on a blog post, but y'all can google it. Point being, white families built generational wealth through home ownership which was facilitated by the govt for white families, but not Black.
Black families then have less wealth and virtually no generational wealth. When any kind of upset happens such as job loss, illness, death, disability, etc those Black families were less able to weather the financial storm that comes with such incidents. That means Black families were more likely to seek out govt aid to get through those times. Welfare reform starting in the 70s and going into the 90s does not give aid to families with men present. In fact, the people most likely to get granted benefits are single mothers. If a Black couple got married, they would not be eligible for assistance and since they did not have the generational wealth many whites had built up since post-WWII, they were more likely to need assistance to get through financial difficulties. These policies ultimately led to Black families understanding that they were financially better off NOT being married, thereby threatening the Black nuclear family.
Throw in the over-policing and over-incarceration rates of Black males in this country and it becomes very clear that govt policies have undermined the Black nuclear family. It has nothing to do with Black people not valuing the nuclear family and the suggestion otherwise is offensive and vulgar.
Finally, I acknowledge that I have relied on some generalities here. It is a blog post and I have neither the time nor the space to replicate an entire course on poverty law or govt policies. Hopefully I've said enough that you can see where I'm coming from and why I think 11:03 is a racist and offensive. Also, might give the curious a kicking off point for their own adventures on google.
Generational wealth? Nice try. Going out on one's own accord, making a living, purchasing a home and paying a mortgage have nothing to do generational anything. You're making the assumption that a certain group of people are buying homes with inheritances and parental handouts. That's a slap in the face to all those that have rolled up their sleeves and made positive things happen in their life, regardless of their background, skin color, gender, family circumstances or whatever. The "victim" mentality is riddled with excuses.
Four hours of comments and no one mentions Lil Dicky. 1:33 – you might appreciate his work.
"Generational wealth" doesn't just refer to inheritances and handouts. If you went to good public schools because your parents could afford to live in a middle class area, that's a way generational wealth builds from parent to child.
And abolish or defund the police just means to re-allocate the money. It's nothing more than propaganda double-speak.
4:41 Gets it right. Consider https://www.courthousenews.com/class-says-michigan-is-failing-detroit-students/
I love this, from the article: "In some cases, they say, these classes are left in the hands of people who do not have the minimum state requirements to teach including an eighth-grader who was pressed into teaching seventh and eighth grade math classes for a month because no adult teacher was available." That kid is Tupac's rose. That kid gives me hope for mankind.
BLM is a marxist front. And, the majority of protestors are cancel culture, race baiting, reactionary clowns convinced that change comes only through violence. AOC and her squad are not in touch with the majority of US. Don't let them scare you. Cops are not the problem and yes we could clean up law enforcement. Seattle, Chicago, Portland and NYC make clear that we need police to get these jerks back into their mom's basement.
Mic drop. Or perhaps a walk-off since it's baseball season.
Take a knee. 😮
Are they Marxists or reactionaries? Or do words not mean things anymore?
There were posts yesterday, at 2:46 and 3:04, which partly defended Voldemort, and which claimed that some of his critics are sanctimonious hypocrites.
I can't necessarily agree with the part which partially defending him, but I have noticed that although he is now almost universally condemned in the legal and political community, that as recently as two or three years ago, most judges and judicial and political candidates were very actively seeking his support and endorsement.
"most judges and judicial and political candidates were very actively seeking to conflict him out of attacking them by paying him money for public support and his endorsement before their opponent paid him to attack them." There, fixed it for you.
3:41–you seem to be a little flip about this matter to simply dismiss it out of hand with a little levity.
I am not 11:49, but I have noticed that there have been many posts, over many weeks, which portray that "activist' in question as being far worse than Attila the Hun(No. I am not insulting huns. This comment is not racially motivated).And this occurs on social media sites as well.
Is it not worthy to note that although everyone is jumping on the band wagon to condemn him, that it merits mentioning that a lot of these people are judges and candidates who obsequiously fawned for his endorsement? (obsequious-word for the day. Hadn't used it in a while, but just heard it recently so I was looking for an excuse to use it).
Your post(by its dismissive brevity and light-hearted nature) suggests that what these people did was reasonable as they were simply trying to drive him away from them, and have him instead focus on their opponent. But that may be somewhat revisionist, and the truth is a little more complex than that.
Three or four years ago, when his behavior was not nearly as intense and concerning as it appears to be now, candidates and judges just tended to take the approach they wanted a veteran's endorsement, and that his organization had credibility in their eyes.
Back then, they weren't thinking that they better give him money or he will destroy them.
I don't agree with 11;49 that such candidates are sanctimonious hypocrites(that is way too harsh)but these same people(who gave him money) are acting so shocked and indignant that anyone could continue to be connected to this person, when a scant few years back they themselves were directly connected to him.
Now, again, I recognize that he seems to have gotten a lot worse, but some level of accountability and responsibility would be nice, such as "I should not have been connected with Voldemort" rather than "I was a babe in the woods and could have no idea about anything unpleasant concerning Voldemort."(even though they saw all the H.Potter movies and knew quite well of all things Voldemort).
Please forgive my ignorance, but:
(1) Why is "his" name not allowed to be mentioned?
(2) Although his grammar is terrible and it is difficult to read his rants, what about him is so odious? I do not practice family law, and I am not able to determine the legitimacy of his attacks on certain family court judges and family law practitioners.
@4:19p – I get it! So you're saying that he's kind of like Trump in that politicians and public personas who adored him for what he could do for them (Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Al Sharpton, Bill/Hillary Clinton, et al), and who now claim he is a horrible monster because he can't help them?
He is a laughing stock annoyance. But that does not make the people that he goes after pure or above criticism. For example the posts about his rant against Ghibaudo have legs. Ghibaudo is an absolute out of control farce that the State Bar cannot figure out how to keep out of the practice. He is completely out of control. Somehow a discussion about Ghibaudo got changed into a discussion about Sanson. Equally odious.
@6:16 – you can't mention his name bc he has google alerts set for his name and if you type it, he will come. Then he'll ruin all our blogging fun with his nonsense.
I do practice family law. He and group prowl around family court in matching shirts, sitting in on hearings, and harassing people – mostly judges and attorneys. The people in his clique are generally dysfunctional abusers who aren't getting their way in court so they think they can get their way through the media. Fortunately, less and less of the media is listening. Unfortunately they have published so many hearing videos online, the poor children caught up in these cases are never going to escape their parents' drama.
There are allegations he was paid a not small amount of money to get a certain judge recused off a case that was not going a millionaire's way. There are also allegations he uses his organization to recruit some of these unstable female litigants for more salacious purposes. He did lead an effort to remove one judge who did not survive the primary which was unfortunate bc she's pretty good. He also advocates for jury trials in family court which is insane on so many levels. His group frequently advances constitutional arguments in family court and they come across as unstable and unmedicated. He claims to have been a helicopter gunner, but there are allegations that he never came near actual combat and was just a logistics clerk. He also claims to be a disabled veteran, but frequently challenges people to MMA fights and claims to work 60 hours/week for his nonprofit.
6:16-that's a darn good synopsis, and completely accurate and fair in my estimation.
But 11:49 and 4:19 is correct that some of those who act the most morally outraged were once currying his favor, contributing money, seeking his endorsement, etc.
So, how long until the USA formally splits up?
Remember, remember, the fifth of November…
Oh, giving me tingles there with that….
Interesting opinion on a judge's duty in voir dire. Relevant facts start at 32, and analysis at 63. It reminds me of the OJ trial. Being a judge is no picnic.
I'm only part way through this opinion and need to finish it when I get the time. But I will never understand prosecutors. Any jury in any part of the country would have convicted and most likely sentenced to death. They had a very strong case. Why allow it to be junked up with reversible error?
They got tired. When the subject jurors said they were tainted by internet information, everyone just accepted their claims to be able to stay neutral. What they should have done is probe further. Not sure I agree with the ruling but it's certainly defensible. Many cases live or die based on voir dire. Current voir dire should have some Covid questions in there.