All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Lost summer on repeat: Opening of U.S.-Canada border may come too late for exclaves

When the Canada-U.S. border finally opens and tourists return to Hyder, Alaska, they will find most of the businesses there closed.

The community of about 60 people is accessible by road only through Canada, so the extension of border restrictions is not just an inconvenience — it’s a devastating blow to the town during what is typically its most profitable season.

“At this point, I think we’re all almost feeling well, f--- it, this season’s a wash too,” said Caroline Stewart, the owner of Boundary Gallery & Gifts in Hyder.

Stewart’s gift shop, which draws tourists with her dichroic glass jewelry and locally made fudge, shut down when the border shut down in March 2020, and hasn’t been open since. The same has been true for Hyder’s other businesses — two hotels, two restaurants and a couple of other gift shops.

There are three other “exclaves” like Hyder along the border — two small, sparsely populated towns in the U.S., and one in Canada — which largely rely on an open border to carry out their businesses, go to school and even buy groceries.

But when the border shuttered at the start of the pandemic, residents of the exclaves were left to figure out how to stay afloat with their main source of business — tourism — cut off.

With vaccination rates on the rise in both the U.S. and Canada, locals were hopeful border restrictions would lift June 21 — offering the possibility of a semi-normal summer season. But on June 18 the Canadian government announced that restrictions would stay in place until at least July 21, a move that fueled frustrations in both countries.

[Mister Mets]

Why hasn't Bill Cosby's Medal of Freedom been revoked yet? Why is he still allowed to keep the Medal of Freedom that many a great men and women, including Rosa parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohammad Ali, Jesse Owens, Mother Teresa, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar have received?

They would need to create a procedure for revoking it. There would also be worries that a later president would try to abuse it. Obama gave out 132. A pissed off conservative would love the ability to take it away from Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates.

[The Cool Thatguy]

'Bothsideism' is a lot like 'Whataboutism'. It offers little to rational discussion, deflects from the real issues, and attempts to justify bad behavior by giving a blanket condemnations to everyone without regard to facts.

It would be easier to just say that all humans are [add you favorite derogatory euphemism], yet that doesn't do much except to show an unwillingness to discuss the issues in detail.

It's a lazy approach to discussion and debate.

Agreed. It's as bad as the GOP's gray fallacy crap. They go on an extreme, demand to be met in the middle, and take another step back.

Rinse, repeat

[GindyPosts]

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think Trudeau has handled the border issue very poorly. Although Canada has been slow to vaccinate due to a lack of vaccines, there also seems to be that feeling that he thinks every American that will come in is going to be akin to a diseased rat.

And while there are morons on our side of the border that refuse to get vaccinated or take precautions seriously (a whole lot of them, regrettably), sooner or later, you're going to have to take that chance. Otherwise, you'll just give the government back to the Tories and someone will once again attempt to do what Stephen Harper tried to do for a decade & try turning Canada into USA Jr..

[Mister Mets]

All politicians from all parities are amoral narcissistic sociopaths who don't give a **** about anything or anyone but themselves

What inspired you to write this?

Incidentally I disagree regarding both parties.

Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws in test of Voting Rights Act



Alito's comments concede that minority groups might be impacted "differently or harder" with these laws. But, that "disparity" between minority and non minority voters doesnt mean unequal opportunity to vote.

For anyone under the illusion that the conservative majority thing was overblown since they didn't just repeal ROE vs Wade immediately and revoke Gay Marriage and Obamacare out the gate.

There is NO reason that there should be voting laws that create any "disparity" on minorities at all. There is no reason for it. On one hand the impact is acknowledged , we all know why the GOP is doing it. But, you take a pass and say it isn't enough to make them stop.


University of North Carolina Grants Tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones After All



Should piss off some of the FOX News conservatives tonight I imagine.

Laws will often have disparate impacts because ethnic, racial or even-gender based groups are not distributed evenly throughout professions or the country.

If a jurisdiction does something to make it easier to vote for soldiers, it's going to disproportionately affect men because men are more likely to be in the military.

African-Americans are more likely to live in high density locations, which can have various impacts (IE- this may make it tougher to change locations otherwise easily turned into voting booths to be ADA compliant) or they may be more likely to work away from their election district, which means they're more affected by regulations that ask voters to vote in their assigned precincts (something we may prefer to do because it's better for election security, and means polling places have consistent ballots.)

[Zauriel]

As much as he deserves to have it revoked, I don't think it would happen. Because if one President or their party decide to revoke someone's medal, the other side will then probably decided to go all out on revoking other people's medals. And soon, it won't be for their criminal past, it will be because one side doesn't like the other side and wants to hurt them.

Hmm, that makes sense...yeah, Dubya Bush awarded the medal to Bill Cosby in 2002. The issue might become a bit too political or too partisan

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think Trudeau has handled the border issue very poorly. Although Canada has been slow to vaccinate due to a lack of vaccines, there also seems to be that feeling that he thinks every American that will come in is going to be akin to a diseased rat.

That level of paranoia was particularly glaring when it came to Canadian sports teams. The Raptors (NBA) and Blue Jays (MLB) haven't been allowed into the country since the lockdown went into effect last year. Canadian hockey teams were in their own division (allowed to play only each other) apart from clubs in the lower 48 during the recently completed NHL season, and I'm sure the Canadiens and Lightning had to jump through hoops in terms of testing in order to be allowed north of the border when the NHL Finals (Tampa up 2-0) resumes in Montreal tonight.

[Zauriel]

They would need to create a procedure for revoking it. There would also be worries that a later president would try to abuse it. Obama gave out 132. A pissed off conservative would love the ability to take it away from Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates.

There are some liberals who would love the ability to take it away from Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney

[Tami]

Tropical Storm Elsa Strengthening: Florida, Caribbean Should Track Forecast Closely

Will miss PR, do a direct hit on Cuba, then track to Florida reaching the coast on July 6th or 7th.

[Mister Mets]

There are some liberals who would love the ability to take it away from Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney

I'm sure. Just pointing out that others will take advantage of this.

The examples I gave of were of people credibly accused of sexual misconduct. Once we go into

It is looking like Weinstien and a host of others are going to cite this as precedence.

He had the same thing happen to him ...

Yay ...

Weinstein would only be able to use this as precedent if he can argue that he was tricked into violating his fifth amendment rights with an incorrect promise by a prosecutor that led to an incriminating revelation in a civil suit, and that this led to a Guilty finding.

JFK only had two years and half in office so he didn't live to accomplish more. Bay of the Pigs was a disaster. But he created the Peace Corps and had the Congress invest a lot in the space race. His idea of American Camelot was beautiful.

LBJ created the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. LBJ's War on Poverty was a solid achievement.

Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy.

James Buchanan was an enlisted soldier rather than an officer. He was the only POTUS who was previously an enlisted soldier. That explains why he was the worst commander-in-chief in U.S. history.

JFK's shorter tenure does mean that he never had to deal with the consequences of his policies. He got us into Vietnam, so it's not clear he would have handled perfectly.

It also seems unlikely he would have gotten as effective a Civil Rights act through.

[Malvolio]

What inspired you to write this?

Incidentally I disagree regarding both parties.

Laws will often have disparate impacts because ethnic, racial or even-gender based groups are not distributed evenly throughout professions or the country.

If a jurisdiction does something to make it easier to vote for soldiers, it's going to disproportionately affect men because men are more likely to be in the military.

African-Americans are more likely to live in high density locations, which can have various impacts (IE- this may make it tougher to change locations otherwise easily turned into voting booths to be ADA compliant) or they may be more likely to work away from their election district, which means they're more affected by regulations that ask voters to vote in their assigned precincts (something we may prefer to do because it's better for election security, and means polling places have consistent ballots.)

There's a reason why Black people are more likely to live in high density locations, and it's not because they prefer it that way. It's because when low cost housing began in the suburbs like Levittown, the real estate agents made a point not to sell to Black people, and the government endorsed that. That little bit of oppression still effects us to this day.

[Kirby101]

Laws will often have disparate impacts because ethnic, racial or even-gender based groups are not distributed evenly throughout professions or the country.

If a jurisdiction does something to make it easier to vote for soldiers, it's going to disproportionately affect men because men are more likely to be in the military.

African-Americans are more likely to live in high density locations, which can have various impacts (IE- this may make it tougher to change locations otherwise easily turned into voting booths to be ADA compliant) or they may be more likely to work away from their election district, which means they're more affected by regulations that ask voters to vote in their assigned precincts (something we may prefer to do because it's better for election security, and means polling places have consistent ballots.)

Stop being disingenuous mets. We all know these laws are being passed to prevent minority voters from voting. They are all targeting Democratic strongholds. You, me and everybody here knows it has nothing to do with "election security". We've heard from Republican politicians publicly saying we must stop people from voting, it's not a secret that your Party does not want free and fair elections.

[kidfresh512]

Stop being disingenuous mets. We all know these laws are being passed to prevent minority voters from voting. They are all targeting Democratic strongholds. You, me and everybody here knows it has nothing to do with "election security". We've heard from Republican politicians publicly saying we must stop people from voting, it's not a secret that your Party does not want free and fair elections.

Exactly. Everyone who is not lying to themselves knows exactly why all these voter suppression laws are being rushed out now. He knows damn well the GOP wants to do anything to keep black and brown voters from making it to the polls. Election security my ass. They tried to cancel the votes of millions of black people January 6th because they didn't like them. Even had a well publicized insurrection about it.

This is already after decades of gerrymandering to limit the impact of minority representation which has been proven as a planned GOP strategy and we have the actual tapes and court rulings to prove it.

It is nothing but bullshit for anyone trying to make excuses for the obvious. I would have more respect if they just come out and say it it isn't like we don't know. GOP do not want to bother courting minority votes on actual issues. And they want to keep and maintain their very racist base. So they cling to suppression and trying to invalidate black and brown votes to maintain a minority grip on power.

[Mister Mets]

There's a reason why Black people are more likely to live in high density locations, and it's not because they prefer it that way. It's because when low cost housing began in the suburbs like Levittown, the real estate agents made a point not to sell to Black people, and the government endorsed that. That little bit of oppression still effects us to this day.

I'm aware of that.

The question is whether this is relevant to the court's decision. If anything it shows the ways something can have disparate impact without that being one of the lawmaker's intents.

Stop being disingenuous mets. We all know these laws are being passed to prevent minority voters from voting. They are all targeting Democratic strongholds. You, me and everybody here knows it has nothing to do with "election security". We've heard from Republican politicians publicly saying we must stop people from voting, it's not a secret that your Party does not want free and fair elections.

There's a lot we don't know, especially when it comes to determining people's motives. The basic logic behind how motivated reasoning works is that it's going to have a bit to do with election security, as once there's no penalty for elected officials and partisans to express a reasonable argument, many of them will come to believe it.

A common error here would be the belief that everyone on one side thinks as a hivemind, but there are a lot of different beliefs among different officials, commentators, etc. A focus on motives also doesn't get into what's constitutional or why, and what's best or why. It's mainly an excuse to dismiss someone else's views as pretext, which can be done just as easily to your side.

If this became an acceptable tactic, we can expect Alito, Clarence Thomas, ACB, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to take advantage of it in their decisions.

Exactly. Everyone who is not lying to themselves knows exactly why all these voter suppression laws are being rushed out now. He knows damn well the GOP wants to do anything to keep black and brown voters from making it to the polls. Election security my ass. They tried to cancel the votes of millions of black people January 6th because they didn't like them. Even had a well publicized insurrection about it.

This is already after decades of gerrymandering to limit the impact of minority representation which has been proven as a planned GOP strategy and we have the actual tapes and court rulings to prove it.

It is nothing but bullshit for anyone trying to make excuses for the obvious. I would have more respect if they just come out and say it it isn't like we don't know. GOP do not want to bother courting minority votes on actual issues. And they want to keep and maintain their very racist base. So they cling to suppression and trying to invalidate black and brown votes to maintain a minority grip on power.

As a side note, the creation of majority-minority districts was supported by the left.

[kidfresh512]

I'm aware of that.

The question is whether this is relevant to the court's decision. If anything it shows the ways something can have disparate impact without that being one of the lawmaker's intents.


There's a lot we don't know, especially when it comes to determining people's motives. The basic logic behind how motivated reasoning works is that it's going to have a bit to do with election security, as once there's no penalty for elected officials and partisans to express a reasonable argument, many of them will come to believe it.

A common error here would be the belief that everyone on one side thinks as a hivemind, but there are a lot of different beliefs among different officials, commentators, etc. A focus on motives also doesn't get into what's constitutional or why, and what's best or why. It's mainly an excuse to dismiss someone else's views as pretext, which can be done just as easily to your side.

If this became an acceptable tactic, we can expect Alito, Clarence Thomas, ACB, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to take advantage of it in their decisions.



As a side note, the creation of majority-minority districts was supported by the left.

Facts. There is no widespread voter fraud. That isn't debatable. It is a proven fact. And it is the basis for all of these lies about "election security" and you know it. You can bloviate to some tin foil hat morons all you like but it doesn't change facts.

There has been clear and wide open chances to present ANY evidence that would bolster arguments that there is this vast need for ramping up "election security" even to the point of creating a "disparity" with non white voters as Alito flat out admitted in his argument. All those court cases were clearly tossed out as complete garbage. Kagan's 42 page descent fully points out that they conservative majority is gutting the Voting Rights Act and its own precedents.

Hell if they had even one court case with clear evidence that ok yeah here are the receipts that there was some widespread fraud in (insert state here) and we have got to plug that hole even if a side effect is voters being disenfranchised. An argument can be made. THEY ALL WERE TOSSED OUT. "A lot we don't know" Please. What we do know is GOP don't want black and brown voters. And are willing to do anything to stop them.