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

[Jack Dracula]

Tucker Carlson: ‘Of course I’m not an agent of Russia’

Carlson isn’t a Russian agent, he’s just Autocrat-curious.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Speaking of mail-in voting, this just came out of Pennsylvania.

Court finds Pennsylvania mail-in voting law unconstitutional
https://www.abc27.com/news/pennsylva...onstitutional/

Im sure that will come as a great relief to housebound senior citizens and military personnel stationed out of state or overseas (said with tongue in cheek).

[Catlady in training]

With abortion, there is the argument that it is the equivalent of infanticide. In this case, the fetus is inconvenienced and killed for the sake of another's freedom.

If the fetus has limited value, that would suggest a merit in laws forcing people to have abortions under the right circumstances.

There are certain conflicts between gay marriage, and the rights of people who oppose it. The Masterpiece cake shop case is instructive, where the Colorado Civil Rights commission insisted that a baker who was personally opposed to gay marriage was legally obligated to make wedding cakes for a gay marriage. The Supreme Court eventually ruled against it 7-2.

A reasonable person can agree with the Supreme Court justices (Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan) who sided with the baker and also with the right to gay marriage in Obergfell. This is my position, but it's not everybody's as there's opposition to gay marriage on the right, and horror at any compromise on the left.

I'll note the argument on social changes isn't mine, but it is our obligation as informed people who try to understand the world to be able to articulate the strongest arguments of people we disagree with, so I'll give it my best shot. Someone on that side would note that there has been significant cultural change in the last few generations, with an increase in the number of divorce as well as unmarried parents. These come with all sorts of problems.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...tastrophe.html

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/v...ting%20factors.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...especially-men

In some cases like spousal abuse, divorce is a good thing. But unnecessary divorces when children are involved are a tragedy. The nuclear family is better for a high percentage of Americans, so this is something that should be encouraged, even if it's not for everyone. So this thing should be established as the ideal, as it's better for society and better for most Americans. Some Americans will fall by the wayside, but it's a tradeoff that's worth it for all the people nudged into having better lives.

I guess this is where I will bow out of the conversation, because I just don't have the energy to have to defend the basic concept of women's right to their own bodies. Especially not after reading about details of the latest death this crusade has resulted in:
https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/26/...pregnant-woman

Human rights activists have slammed Poland's new abortion restrictions after the death of another pregnant woman.

The family of a 37-year-old -- known as Agnieszka T. -- say she died of sepsis, related to a foetal illness.

Agnieszka T. arrived at hospital with stomach pains while pregnant with twins, her family say. One of her foetus' died on 23 December, but doctors had waited to see if they could save the second foetus, they added.

"The extraction of the dead foetus was not allowed because Polish law strictly forbids it," they wrote on Facebook.

"[Doctors] waited for the other twin's vital functions to stabilise on their own [for eight days]".
The second foetus died on 31 December due to a "miscarriage," while Agnieszka T. remained in hospital in Czestochowa until she too passed away on Tuesday.

I understand that the efforts of conservatives in the US are not so strict as they are in Poland yet, but give it time.
Meanwhile, those who understand this topic know that restricting abortions will not stop them, only make them less safe or transfer them to another country - this got of course problematic with the pandemic, since travel inbetween countries got much more difficult, if not outright impossible. And as seen above, it also affects women who do not even want abortions but might need them to survive. The better way to reduce abortions is through increasing the overall quality of life and through proper sex education.

On wedding cake-gate, I can only say that:

a) I personally wouldn't put this issue under LGBT+ rights, more under rights regarding business owners. Can a private business decide whom to serve and whom not? It can get complicated, because on one hand, minorities have to have access to same products and services as everyone else. On the other hand, there should be some freedom for the business owner to refuse service in some cases - I'm talking about more extreme reasons, like when the customer is being disruptive, drunk or aggressive. This should ideally be covered in their T&C beforehand. There is also the aspect of the baker potentially considering themself an artist (debatable) and having artistic freedom to refuse certain designs (so not refusing to sell the cake to someone, but refusing to bake a cake with specific names for example). I am not a lawyer, so all of this is just my lay opinion. I would leave it to courts.

b) If I was the customer, I wouldn't want a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me and is forced to. I would be too nervous that they would put something terrible in it. I would also not want to support their business. In fact, I would let everyone know about it and hope they boycott the business. (Before anyone calls this "cancelling", I would point out that it is everyone's right not to buy something they don't want. Obviously.)

c) I find it very weird that when discussing LGBT+ rights, someone would immediately jump into something like the cake thing. I doubt this is a prioriity of any LGBT+ activists, as there are much more important issues, at the moment mostly transgender rights. Lets not loose focus of what is important - making sure that no one's human rights are threatened.

[skyvolt2000]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fl...ewsntp&pc=U531

No, this is not a joke. CNN reports that the Republican-controlled Florida state government is pushing a new, cynically named “Individual Freedom” bill that would restrict public schools and private employers from talking about racism in ways that make people uncomfortable. The bill, which has already been approved by the State Senate Education Committee, would outlaw any form of public education or job-related training that makes people "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin."

Although the Republican majority has been successful in advancing the bill so far, Florida Democrats, especially Black legislators, have been fighting against the proposed law. State Sen. Shevrin Jones told the local CBS News station that he was "ashamed of what we’re doing here in Florida.” Jones, who represents Miami Gardens, the home of Trayvon Martin, added that the state was “trying to eliminate and censor how we teach true Black history."

State Rep. Ramon Alexander, who said he found the arguments for the current bill “offensive,” spoke against the proposed law at a Florida State House Judiciary Committee meeting this week. Questioning the motives behind the bill, Alexander told the Republican members of his committee: “I’m going to say this as professionally as I can: y’all gotta find another way to communicate to your base.” Bringing up pressing issues in Florida, including “systemic poverty” and other quality of life issues, Alexander said that having to debate this bill “is a huge waste of time.”

https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status...ions-of-racism

[JackDaw]

On wedding cake-gate, I can only say that:

a) I personally wouldn't put this issue under LGBT+ rights, more under rights regarding business owners. Can a private business decide whom to serve and whom not? It can get complicated, because on one hand, minorities have to have access to same products and services as everyone else. On the other hand, there should be some freedom for the business owner to refuse service in some cases - I'm talking about more extreme reasons, like when the customer is being disruptive, drunk or aggressive. This should ideally be covered in their T&C beforehand. There is also the aspect of the baker potentially considering themself an artist (debatable) and having artistic freedom to refuse certain designs (so not refusing to sell the cake to someone, but refusing to bake a cake with specific names for example). I am not a lawyer, so all of this is just my lay opinion. I would leave it to courts.

b) If I was the customer, I wouldn't want a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me and is forced to. I would be too nervous that they would put something terrible in it. I would also not want to support their business. In fact, I would let everyone know about it and hope they boycott the business. (Before anyone calls this "cancelling", I would point out that it is everyone's right not to buy something they don't want. Obviously.)

c) I find it very weird that when discussing LGBT+ rights, someone would immediately jump into something like the cake thing. I doubt this is a prioriity of any LGBT+ activists, as there are much more important issues, at the moment mostly transgender rights. Lets not loose focus of what is important - making sure that no one's human rights are threatened.

I agree it’s strange if anyone would “immediately jump in” but it’s certainly a priority for some LGBT activists in UK…there have been legal cases brought to test in what circumstances private businesses have the right to turn away customers.

I’d actually think it’s self evident that some limit has to be placed on this right (the right of a business to turn away a customer)….because if no limit is placed then most anti-discrimination laws become toothless.

The last case I read about in UK concerned issue of whether a Roman Catholic bed and breakfast owner could refuse to accept a gay couple. The bed and breakfast owner lost. It was actually one of those cases where I had sympathy for both sides of the debate.

[babyblob]

With the cake thing. My friends got really mad at me because I agreed with the baker. He was from what i understand not rude to the couple, didnt use slurs or anything. Just that because he was not comfortable doing it because of his religious beliefs. I was fine with that. the guy I was dating broke up with me over this.

The man should not be forced to do something in his private business that he is uncomfortable with because of his beliefs. As a gay man I know not everyone is okay with it. I am fine with that. it is not up to me to force my life on anyone else. I would have said "Ok no biggie." And went to another shop. Maybe talk him and change his mind. But suing, making him a public figure of hatred and scorn because he wouldnt bake a cake because he is uncomfortable with it is silly as all get out to me.\

I live with my dad. he is accepting of me being gay and has treated any man I brought home with respect and kindness. But he also does not believe in gay marriage and said if I marry a man he wont be there. Who cares. Does not destroy our relationship. One less person to buy food and drink for. Ill live.

[Panfoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fl...ewsntp&pc=U531





https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status...ions-of-racism

Not a surprise in the least after last weeks "Don't Say Gay" bill, AKA Don't Ask Don't tell for Schools. This state is a facist shithole.

[JB]

This whole situation with the Biden/Zelensky phone call has been interesting. A CNN reporter tweeted details last night from her Ukrainian source stating the phone call did not go well, but then she deleted the tweet because supposedly the White House said it wasn't true.
However, President Zelensky has since come out saying that he doesn't agree with Biden's assessment of the situation with Russia and that Biden should calm down the rhetoric, and that though the threat is real it's not as imminent as the American media portrays.
Now House Republicans are calling for the transcript to be released and apparently #ReleaseTheTranscript was/is trending on the twitter.

Ukrainian official tells CNN Biden's call with Ukrainian President 'did not go well' but White House disputes account
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/polit...all/index.html

A call between US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday "did not go well," a senior Ukrainian official told CNN, amid disagreements over the "risk levels" of a Russian attack.

The White House, however, disputed the official's account, warning that anonymous sources were "leaking falsehoods." They did state that Biden warned Zelensky an imminent invasion is a "distinct possibility."

On the call, which the Ukrainian official described as "long and frank," Biden warned his Ukrainian counterpart that a Russian attack may be imminent, saying that an invasion was now virtually certain, once the ground had frozen later in February, according to the official.

Zelensky, however, restated his position that the threat from Russia remains "dangerous but ambiguous," and it is not certain that an attack will take place, the official said.

More info here:
Zelensky questions U.S. warnings of "imminent" invasion in Biden call
https://www.axios.com/zelensky-biden...b87ec1587.html

Considering it's a matter of possible war, I think it would be best to release the transcript.

[Mister Mets]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fl...ewsntp&pc=U531


https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status...ions-of-racism

Isn't the best argument for discussions of racism that an honest discussion is not going to hurt anyone's feelings, because no one is going to be blamed for things beyond their control, like the color of their skin?

I guess this is where I will bow out of the conversation, because I just don't have the energy to have to defend the basic concept of women's right to their own bodies. Especially not after reading about details of the latest death this crusade has resulted in:
https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/26/...pregnant-woman



I understand that the efforts of conservatives in the US are not so strict as they are in Poland yet, but give it time.
Meanwhile, those who understand this topic know that restricting abortions will not stop them, only make them less safe or transfer them to another country - this got of course problematic with the pandemic, since travel inbetween countries got much more difficult, if not outright impossible. And as seen above, it also affects women who do not even want abortions but might need them to survive. The better way to reduce abortions is through increasing the overall quality of life and through proper sex education.

On wedding cake-gate, I can only say that:

a) I personally wouldn't put this issue under LGBT+ rights, more under rights regarding business owners. Can a private business decide whom to serve and whom not? It can get complicated, because on one hand, minorities have to have access to same products and services as everyone else. On the other hand, there should be some freedom for the business owner to refuse service in some cases - I'm talking about more extreme reasons, like when the customer is being disruptive, drunk or aggressive. This should ideally be covered in their T&C beforehand. There is also the aspect of the baker potentially considering themself an artist (debatable) and having artistic freedom to refuse certain designs (so not refusing to sell the cake to someone, but refusing to bake a cake with specific names for example). I am not a lawyer, so all of this is just my lay opinion. I would leave it to courts.

b) If I was the customer, I wouldn't want a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me and is forced to. I would be too nervous that they would put something terrible in it. I would also not want to support their business. In fact, I would let everyone know about it and hope they boycott the business. (Before anyone calls this "cancelling", I would point out that it is everyone's right not to buy something they don't want. Obviously.)

c) I find it very weird that when discussing LGBT+ rights, someone would immediately jump into something like the cake thing. I doubt this is a prioriity of any LGBT+ activists, as there are much more important issues, at the moment mostly transgender rights. Lets not loose focus of what is important - making sure that no one's human rights are threatened.

I understand that you take abortion access seriously. A key factual point is that it's not quite true that restricting abortions won't reduce abortion rates. Bans on abortion do result in significant declines in abortion rates, even if there are going to be significant drawbacks (medical complications from back- alley abortions, police devoting resources to investigations, unwanted children growing up in poverty.) In Freakonomics the authors suggested an increase in abortion access was one of the causes of the decline in crime in the 1990s. There are studies suggesting that abortion bans in Texas lead to slight increases in birth rates.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3029790

If someone believes abortion is bad, the restrictions do come with some reductions.

On LGBT issues, I jumped on the Masterpiece cake issue for two reasons. First, in the context of the discussion I'm articulating the right-wing perspective. There's no shortage of people here to articulate the left-wing position. Second, it does highlight the significant changes in gay rights, when the controversy is not about access but about whether everyone has to agree. The questions are no longer about whether gay couples can adopt but about whether any adoption agency can decline prospective to work with gay parents.

What further laws are necessary for LGBT+ rights?

[Mister Mets]

With the cake thing. My friends got really mad at me because I agreed with the baker. He was from what i understand not rude to the couple, didnt use slurs or anything. Just that because he was not comfortable doing it because of his religious beliefs. I was fine with that. the guy I was dating broke up with me over this.

The man should not be forced to do something in his private business that he is uncomfortable with because of his beliefs. As a gay man I know not everyone is okay with it. I am fine with that. it is not up to me to force my life on anyone else. I would have said "Ok no biggie." And went to another shop. Maybe talk him and change his mind. But suing, making him a public figure of hatred and scorn because he wouldnt bake a cake because he is uncomfortable with it is silly as all get out to me.\

I live with my dad. he is accepting of me being gay and has treated any man I brought home with respect and kindness. But he also does not believe in gay marriage and said if I marry a man he wont be there. Who cares. Does not destroy our relationship. One less person to buy food and drink for. Ill live.

A key distinction with the Masterpiece Cake shop case is that the owner is willing to serve openly gay people in most contexts. If someone wants a birthday cake, or to celebrate a graduation, he'll make the cake. He draws the line specifically at cakes celebrating once in a lifetime events like same-sex weddings.

This whole situation with the Biden/Zelensky phone call has been interesting. A CNN reporter tweeted details last night from her Ukrainian source stating the phone call did not go well, but then she deleted the tweet because supposedly the White House said it wasn't true.
However, President Zelensky has since come out saying that he doesn't agree with Biden's assessment of the situation with Russia and that Biden should calm down the rhetoric, and that though the threat is real it's not as imminent as the American media portrays.
Now House Republicans are calling for the transcript to be released and apparently #ReleaseTheTranscript was/is trending on the twitter.

Ukrainian official tells CNN Biden's call with Ukrainian President 'did not go well' but White House disputes account
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/polit...all/index.html



More info here:
Zelensky questions U.S. warnings of "imminent" invasion in Biden call
https://www.axios.com/zelensky-biden...b87ec1587.html

Considering it's a matter of possible war, I think it would be best to release the transcript.

I can appreciate world leaders wanting to be able to have frank discussions, and that this interest is not served if transcripts are routinely released. But if the Ukrainian President supports the release of the transcript, I'd expect Biden would as well.

[Gray Lensman]

With the cake thing. My friends got really mad at me because I agreed with the baker. He was from what i understand not rude to the couple, didnt use slurs or anything. Just that because he was not comfortable doing it because of his religious beliefs. I was fine with that. the guy I was dating broke up with me over this.

The man should not be forced to do something in his private business that he is uncomfortable with because of his beliefs. As a gay man I know not everyone is okay with it. I am fine with that. it is not up to me to force my life on anyone else. I would have said "Ok no biggie." And went to another shop. Maybe talk him and change his mind. But suing, making him a public figure of hatred and scorn because he wouldnt bake a cake because he is uncomfortable with it is silly as all get out to me.\

I live with my dad. he is accepting of me being gay and has treated any man I brought home with respect and kindness. But he also does not believe in gay marriage and said if I marry a man he wont be there. Who cares. Does not destroy our relationship. One less person to buy food and drink for. Ill live.

For me the issue with the cake is where do we draw the line? Obviously a pharmacist refusing to sell life-sustaining medicines should be slapped down (and hard, IMO. That's a very, very small step away from attempted murder), but what about goods and services which society accepts as a necessity but the law does not? An auto dealer in a rural community? A bank manager? Stuff like that imposes serious hardships on people for no good reason.

[babyblob]

For me the issue with the cake is where do we draw the line? Obviously a pharmacist refusing to sell life-sustaining medicines should be slapped down (and hard, IMO. That's a very, very small step away from attempted murder), but what about goods and services which society accepts as a necessity but the law does not? An auto dealer in a rural community? A bank manager? Stuff like that imposes serious hardships on people for no good reason.

I very much understand that. It is a slope. but for me some things I guess I just dont care enough about to go through the hassle of a law suit. Like a guy not wanting to make me a cake or a guy not wanting to make tee shirts for a pride event. Im not going to court for that. its not a necessity and I can go else where. That baker was not the only joint in town so hey ill go somewhere else. Since there were like two other bakeries that were very open and offered to make the cake for free after the story went public I would have just gone to that place.

Its odd I know because I think a place that does not serve a person for being Black or Asian or a woman etc should be sued. I am very much against discrimination. But I also feel making a christian make a wedding cake for me when he does not agree with discrimination is me discrimination on his religion. But to me i dont see a wedding cake as important enough to go through the fuss when there were so many other places to go.

[Johnathan]

For me the issue with the cake is where do we draw the line? Obviously a pharmacist refusing to sell life-sustaining medicines should be slapped down (and hard, IMO. That's a very, very small step away from attempted murder), but what about goods and services which society accepts as a necessity but the law does not? An auto dealer in a rural community? A bank manager? Stuff like that imposes serious hardships on people for no good reason.

To be honest, it is distinctly difficult for a business to not get away with discrimination. Banks refuse loans to people based on race, ethnicity and, of course, class all the time and they can always find completely acceptable reasons for it as well that have nothing to do with race or class. If you don't want to perform a service, you can always come up with an innocuous excuse. Our society and certainly our underfunded governments don't have the resources or inclination to take any action on the hundreds of thousands of cases of discrimination that occur yearly (or monthly). There is this one case that made it to the news because of the exceptional quality that the accused admitted his motivations which almost never happens in real cases of discrimination.

Just like any other social problem, no country will be able to legislate discrimination out of the society. It's a problem individuals will have to work to figure out for each other over a long period of time - a few generations usually.

[Mister Mets]

For me the issue with the cake is where do we draw the line? Obviously a pharmacist refusing to sell life-sustaining medicines should be slapped down (and hard, IMO. That's a very, very small step away from attempted murder), but what about goods and services which society accepts as a necessity but the law does not? An auto dealer in a rural community? A bank manager? Stuff like that imposes serious hardships on people for no good reason.

There are two major distinctions.

With the cakeshop, the controversy is that he refused to make cakes for specific occasions. He would serve the customer in most cases. Obviously, weddings are important events, where people are more likely to commission premium cakes, but there is an element of speech to it. One way I think about it though is whether a baker should be compelled to make a cake congratulating a controversial politician's reelection if they're willing to pay. A baker shouldn't have to make a cake for a gay wedding if he's against gay marriage, nor should another have to make a cake to congratulate Marjorie Taylor Greene if he's against her.

The legal obligation to provide services is limited. The argument is that the baker was wrong to treat one group of citizens differently. A pharmacist that doesn't want to sell a particular medication is usually free to do so. Obstetricians aren't obligated to perform abortions. Any laws that mandate services can easily backfire by discouraging people from going into important professions. Laws limiting rural auto dealers result in less rural auto dealers.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fl...ewsntp&pc=U531





https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status...ions-of-racism

So, right wingers and conservatives who chide and gleefully insult us liberals for being “snowflakes” are, themselves, the worst sort of thinskinned whiners who need their tender feelings protected from their inability to accept the reality of the country’s horribly racist past and the part their ancestors played in this ongoing nightmare. The truth of the matter is that ignoring or whitewashing history DOESN’T make it go away.