Rov_Scam
1d ago
And you're basing this on what, exactly? Your intimate involvement with the "urban poor"? I can assure you that right now, the patronage of several Pittsburgh grocery stores in wealthy, white areas is close to half black, with jitneys lining the parking lots. These just so happen to be the closest normal grocery stores to "urban areas" without one.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
See my Pittsburgh entry on the Hill District from back in February for a related case study.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Welp, it finally happened. However often in the past ten years we've heard about the writing being on the wall (which were coincidentally also closing in), or the other shoe dropping, it's always turned out that Teflon Don was able to escape more or less unscathed. Even January 6th, which by all rights should have ended his political career for good, turned into something he could make hay out of, blaming Democrats for overreacting to what was essentially large-scale trespassing, and playing the what-about game. 24 hours ago I thought the Epstein thing had more legs than any of the other scandals, but I didn't see it as having the potential to end things. Trump had handled it poorly, but there was still a chance that some distraction would arise and the whole thing would blow over.
With the filing of Trump's lawsuit against the WSJ, that chance has ended. With the full understanding that I'm making quite a bold statement, I think this may be the biggest unforced error of Trump's presidency so far, that if Murdock was looking to destroy Trump he played the whole thing beautifully, and this has the potential to bring down the entire presidency (though I'm not predicting that it will). It's almost as if Murdoch set a giant, obvious trap and, spying the bait, Trump ran headlong into it without even stopping to investigate. The correct way for him to have handled the whole Epstein thing would have been to shut up about it. It was a lame conspiracy theory that his base bought into but that had little purchase among anyone important. All that stuff about binders being on Pam Bondi's desk was only news among these people, and even Elon's Tweet didn't move the needle much. It wasn't a major scandal until the DOJ published the "nothing to see here" memo. From there, Trump's totally unnecessary denials only added fuel to the fire. He could have fired Bondi and delayed the whole thing for a couple months while a new AG was confirmed, during which time the matter could have died. But he instead doubled down on her pronouncement, calling half of his base losers in the process for caring about it. The WSJ thing wasn't even particularly damaging considering what else had been out there. So Trump may have sent a bawdy drawing to Epstein containing an oblique message that could have alluded to pedophilia. The story might not have survived the weekend if Trump would have just denied having written it and moved on.
Instead Trump had to sue. Because Trump always has to sue; he can't leave well enough alone. He could have taken the weekend to consult with advisors and attorneys on the best path forward. Any kind of reflection would have made it clear that this was a bad idea. But Trump is impulsive, and wasn't going to wait until Monday to file, wasn't going to give himself a chance to cool down. Get it out Friday. Now he has opened himself up to a world of hurt that he couldn't imagine beforehand. Since WSJ's defense depends on proving that their publication of the material wasn't malicious, proving the authenticity of the alleged letter is paramount. And the best way to prove that Trump can't meet his burden is by getting as much information as possible about his relationship with Epstein. Trump will have to turn over ever email or other communication with Epstein that he has. Trump will have to sit for a deposition where he will be grilled about their relationship. He will have to turn over documents. Everything is on the table, and courts give a pretty wide latitude for discovery in civil matters. And the process proceeds slowly enough that there will be a steady drip of documents that the WSJ will gleefully publish as soon as they get them. This could drag on for years, with new stories monthly about how Trump did this or that with Epstein. I'd be surprised if they don't livestream his deposition.
Unlike previous legal issues, Trump can't claim persecution here since he initiated the proceedings. While this means he also has the power to pull the plug if things get too dicey, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that would look. Even now, withdrawing the lawsuit is an admission that the letter is authentic. Dropping it at a later date makes it look like he has something to hide that he doesn't want coming out in discovery. Even the best case scenario, where it is revealed that the letter was a complete fabrication, isn't that great for him, as all he has really done taken one inconsequential piece of "evidence" off of the table. It doesn't make the whole Epstein Files mess disappear. But it will be a tough case for Trump to win, and it will be any tougher for him to prove enough damages to have any effect on News Corp. Is a jury in Miami really going to buy that Trump is 10 billion dollars poorer as the result of that article? But that's unlikely since the legal standard Trump has to overcome is the high as the journalistic standards of the WSJ. Murdoch is no babe in the woods, and he isn't running Buzzfeed. If the WSJ runs an article, one can assume that it was vetted properly, especially if they ran it by Trump for comment first. I don't know how this ends, but this suit just put things into overdrive.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Huh? They interviewed him for three hours. Three rambling, incoherent hours.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
I think that Trump's involvement is the more peripheral "lot of smoke, no fire" kind of thing. The Democrats wouldn't release it because it would have just been brushed off as such and made it look like they were grasping at straws, just like the various prosecutions. If there was nothing they could prosecute, it would just be another smear that everyone forgot about in a week.
I don't know if they planned it this way, but it was good ammunition to have in the event that Trump won the election. Now that the pressure to release it is coming from his base, and he at least alluded to releasing it, but he has cold feet for some reason, it makes matters worse. It's like with his tax returns; it's unlikely that they would reveal any criminal activity, but there's something personally embarrassing that he doesn't want revealed. Now that he's been intransigent despite the pressure, anything that is in there that's unfavorable is going to have a much bigger impact.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
My point is that it would have been of no tangible benefit to Epstein. The prosecutor wasn't in a position to cut any deals, regardless of what information was provided.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
You may have had a point if @roche were talking about the internet as it existed in 1993 or so, but somehow I doubt that is the case. In the early days, there were hippies who thought that the ease of communication with like-minded strangers would usher in a new era of peace and understanding, as traditional barriers would come down. The nerds who ran the thing and comprised the bulk of the user base nodded along in agreement. A few years later the internet reached 20% of households and any ideas that this would be the case had vanished almost completely. The early adopters were all hippies and nerds and were basing their predictions on the idea that the general public was largely similar to them. As soon as the internet was being used by 14-year-olds to start flame wars on why Nailz sucked, the idea that the internet was an unalloyed positive force in social interaction went out the window. The "web at large" has been around for 25 years now.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Consider, for a moment, the mechanics of what you're suggesting. Suppose you're a normal guy working a normal job and you don't know anyone particularly important or noteworthy. And then one day I show up at your door wearing a suit accompanied by two guys with the build of John Fetterman and I tell you that you need to commit a high-profile murder for a certain amount of money, possibly with the veiled (or not so veiled) threat that if you don't comply you or your family will be harmed. Do you say "Yes sir" and do it, not knowing if it will work or you'll end up spending the rest of your life in prison? Not knowing if I'm even going to pay the money you're offered? Will you believe me when I tell you that the Department will have your back and make sure the whole thing is covered up? Will you believe that I actually represent Bill Clinton or Mossad or whoever? Or will you go straight to the police, or your supervisor, or the media about how someone you could identify if necessary offered you money to kill Jeffrey Epstein? Now multiply this across the dozens of people necessary to carry this out, from the COs, to the technicians, to the prison staff, to the investigators with the Inspector General, to the medical examiner, to Bill Barr, to the US Marshalls, and practically every other link in the chain. Do you really think that none of these people would say anything? You don't think that anyone would have simply refused to participate, and at least come forward after Epstein's death? For what it's worth, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas don't seem to be living the high life these days. both were prosecuted for falsifying records and fired from the department, and Noel was working as a medical assistant in a care home the last time she was in the news.
But beyond that, what exactly did Epstein's death accomplish? Why go through all of that trouble? The worst case scenario here would be that Epstein makes public statements accusing everyone from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump to The Man in the Moon of bangin underage girls on his private island. But as I mentioned earlier, there would be no motive for him to do so at that point other than spite. If the Powers That Be were so influential as to have corrupted the entire DOJ, they could have easily written off any accusations as the uncorroborated ramblings of a condemned man with an axe to grind, and said they weren't sufficient to be used as evidence in any criminal prosecution, and they would have been right. The only thing he could have offered would have been context and authentication of other evidence. If the goal was just to embarrass these people, then he doesn't need to provide the kind of evidence that can hold up in court, hence it doesn't matter whether he's alive or dead. He could have sworn affidavits and videotaped interviews where he lays out everything in detail. He was meeting with his attorneys nearly every day after he was arrested, yet the assassins didn't plan for this possibility? Why go after Epstein and not go after other target who would be much easier to get to, like:
- The prosecuting attorney. If Epstein's friends have so much power, they could have certainly pressured the prosecutor to drop the indictment.
- The judge, who could have found that the non-prosecution agreement applied and dismissed the indictment.
- The aforementioned attorneys, who might have incriminating evidence in their possession that would be presumably made pubic upon Epstein's death.
- The accusers who actually provided sworn testimony implicating Bill Clinton and other powerful people.
- Jeffrey Epstein at any time prior to his 2019 arrest, especially after he started getting sued and was being deposed.
- And, this is the big one, Ghislaine Maxwell. She probably had similar evidence to what Epstein himself had, in terms of testimony. She had been missing for years at the time the story blew up in the media. It would have been really easy to make her stay missing. Or just not really look for her. Instead they spend a year tracking her down so they can prosecute her. Why let her live, when it would have been so easy to bump her off?
These people are so powerful that they can make the entire DOJ come to heel, running the gantlet of risk that comes when any one of dozens of links could blow their cover at any time, yet they don't bump off any of the other people who could be gotten rid of more cleanly, or who could have made the story go away with little fanfare?
Rov_Scam
3d ago
If you want something else in the same vein, but even worse, check out Dave Winfield's book Dropping the Ball, where he goes through a laundry lsit of things wrong with professional baseball, from steroids, to unhealthy ballpark food, to high school baseball players getting worse girlfriends than football and basketball players, and then proceeds to blame it on nobody at all, saying that everyone in the game from Bud Selig on down is doing a great job. Anyway, to address your points:
-
You could have made that argument in 2016, when the superdelegate field was stacked against him, but they changed the rules in 2020 specifically for that reason, ran a competitive field, and he still lost. Anyway, Sanders did not win the first three primaries; he won one primary and two caucuses, and in Iowa and New Hampshire the totals were close enough that he was still behind in the delegate count. This may seem like a pedantic distinction, but caucus states always seem to give outsiders a better chance, likely because of the low turnout compared to primaries. And while Biden did abysmally in the first two contests, he finished second in the Nevada caucuses. It made no sense for him to drop out at this point, as his star was rising and he had been consistently leading polls in South Carolina by a wide margin. And he ends up crushing it in South Carolina, moving into the lead in one fell swoop. Mayor Pete, meanwhile, has been trending downward, and it's pretty clear he has no purchase with black voters. It made no sense for him to stay in for Super Tuesday so he could get walloped in the South. It made no sense for Klobuchar to stay in at this point, either, as her campaign never really picked up speed. Had they both stayed in the race, I doubt it would have made much of a difference. Klobuchar wasn't winning any more delegates. Pete may have peeled some off in 5 of the 15 states that were contested on Super Tuesday, plus a few in California and Texas because there are so many of them, but winning anything was unlikely, and he would have bowed out immediately afterwards anyways. Pete was an outsider who debated well and overperformed in early states with low delegate counts. He was never expected to challenge for the nomination, and if it wasn't for a couple of fluke performances in heavily white areas nobody would be talking about any kind of Bernie screwjob. Sanders went head to head with Biden and lost, that's all there is to it.
-
It's identity politics, but not something you can blame them for. Nominees have a history of picking running mates for reasons not entirely related to their qualifications for the office (of which there really aren't any). Bush picked Quayle to shore up his support in the Bible Belt. Trump picked Pence for the same reason. W picked Cheney to counter suspicions that he was a lightweight. Kerry picked Edwards to shore up support among conservative Democrats. Obama picked Biden to compensate for his lack of experience. McCain picked Palin because unexpectedly picking a woman might have provided the miracle his campaign needed to win that race (which backfired, but nonetheless; also see Mondale picking Ferraro). And now we come to 2020, and the Democrats are running an elderly white man in the era of peak woke, four years after they lost a race in part because their candidate wasn't perceived as progressive enough, months after winning a campaign in which the nominee's biggest rival was a self-described socialist. They can be forgiven for wanting to shore up the progressive wing by running a woman of color with progressive tendencies, but not so progressive as to be at odds with the platform. I agree that they should have known at the time that vice president would have been a more important office than it normally is, but I don't see this as a huge blunder. You try to win the election you're running now, not the election you might be running four years from now.
-
Sure, but what else was he supposed to run on? His record? Biden's best chance was to keep the coalition that won him the presidency in 2020, and the best way of doing that was by reminding them of all the bullshit they'd be dealing with if Trump won again. The Democrats warned that something similar to this was going to happen, and Trump managed to exceed even the wildest expectations of Democrats, with talk of a third term, shipping people to Salvadoran prisons, talk of invading Canada, talk of firing Jerome Powell, the Epstein business, DOGE, tariffs, and countless more examples to name. His approval rating dropped like a rock upon taking office, and he's net unfavorable in every category. That there are people out there who are surprised by any of this boggles the mind. The biggest mistake they made was that once Kamala was the nominee, they didn't roll out a whole new agenda. She could have been sold as the way forward for Democrats, but in the end there was nothing but a few lukewarm proposals that didn't get any serious traction. You can blame that on the tight schedule, but I would have thought that by September they would have had a clear policy platform that was different enough from Biden's that Kamal could call it her own.
Rov_Scam
4d ago
My take on the whole Epstein thing:
I've posted here on several occasions arguing that anyone who knows anything at all about prisons would know that most of the Epstein murder conspiracies would be impossible without cooperation from practically the entire Department of Corrections. I'm disinclined to make those arguments in detail again, so suffice it to say that I think Epstein's death was clearly a suicide. One other reason for this is that it makes sense: He lived a life of wealth and privilege and was about to spend the rest of his life in prison. He achieved a notoriety that would make it difficult for him to lead a normal life even if eventually released. He had already been on suicide watch. His life was already over, and he finished the job. Even if he had dirt on people it would be pointless to use. No prosecutor could have offered him a reduced sentence for it at that point, and in any event, that's not the way ratting people out works. Epstein was the ringleader; no DA is giving a mob boss a deal to rat out soldiers whom he ordered to murder people, and no US Attorney is pleading down a sex trafficking charge in exchange for uncorroborated information about a rape that happened decades ago, especially considering the source of that information.
That out of the way, it also seems unlikely that Epstein was actively pimping out the girls the way it's has been implied in the media. Over 100 girls have come forward, and only a few have claimed they had sex with anyone other than Epstein. You'd think that with how often Bill Clinton's name has been thrown around at least one person would name him, but no one has. You'd think with how close Trump is to the whole thing someone would have made a credible accusation, but all we have is a Jane Doe lawsuit that nobody took seriously, even in a media environment that would use almost anything as ammunition against Trump. The allegations are so incredible, it's not clear that a real person is behind the anonym. What seems likely is that Epstein was using his wealth to attract underprivileged girls and runaways, and keeping them as a sort of personal harem. It doesn't seem likely that he was running a brothel to hold wild sex parties for the rich and famous.
The upshot is that I think Trump is actually being honest about this. There are no Epstein Files, at least not the kinds of files that the conspiracy theorists assume exist, i.e. unequivocal records of certain powerful people engaging in sex acts with trafficked minors. I do, however, think it's likely that there are some records that don't mean anything that could be seized on by conspiracy theorists as "evidence". Stuff like evidence that Trump visited Epstein's island, or that one of Epstein's girls had appeared in a Trump-related beauty pageant, or something like that that doesn't really mean anything but doesn't require too much of an imagination to lead to the conclusion that Trump was either partaking in sex with Epstein's girls or complicit in some kind of business arrangement. If nothing else, it seems likely that Trump's name came up often enough in the investigation that it will turn into a lot of smoke Trump doesn't want to have to deal with.
So that's my take. The question I have, though, is why Trump proceeded the way he did. He had to have known that either no "Epstein files" existed, or that if they did exist his name was likely to come up a little more often than he'd be comfortable with. I know politicians make campaign promises they can't possibly keep all the time, but why even talk about this? Especially, why talk about it after you've been elected and Epstein is out of the news? Is Pam Bondi really stupid enough that she'd go out on a limb like this before she'd spoken to the president about it and before she had reviewed the files herself? It seems that if a journalist asked about the Epstein files it would be easy for her to say that it wasn't an active investigation and she accordingly didn't know anything about it, or that they'd start looking into it when DOJ priorities allowed, or whatever. Not that that really mattered, because nobody cared at the time. Even after Elon said something about it, it disappeared from the news within days.
The Trump administration could have just let this one die, but instead they had to make the unforced error of issuing an official statement that the files didn't exist. What the hell were they thinking? And now all the boneheaded statements made in the past implying its existence come back to bite them. And Trump keeps making matters worse by making fun of the people who are calling for their release, and saying he may release some of them (i.e. the ones that don't implicate him), and going back to denying their existence. And now Republicans aren't even sure how to handle it.
The other day, Ro Khanna (possibly the slickest Democrat in the House) tried to slip an amendment into the crypto bill calling for a House vote on the release of the files. It was blocked, with only one Republican on the Rules Committee voting for it, but the die is cast. You can bet your bottom dollar that an Epstein Files amendment is going into every piece of GOP-sponsored legislation from now until the end of the term. This is going to keep coming up, at least until the Republicans break ranks from Trump. It's a win-win for Democrats. This is much better than if Biden had just released the files himself. If Trump were in them and Biden released them during the election season, it would have been seen by the Trump base as fake news and more lawfare the Dmocrats are throwing out there to rescue a dying campaign. Now that the onus is on Trump, it looks different. Going into the midterms, every GOP rep in a competitive district is going to have to wonder whether they get primaried for defying Trump or primaried for caving on the Epstein thing. They're going to be getting a lot of calls.
Having had time to think about this, I'm leaning towards nothing existing at all. Even if Trump was somehow implicated, it's hard to see how it could do him real damage considering how eager his base is to buy his explanations. He'd just say that he released it because it didn't implicate him, and that would be it. The story would blow over in a week. But if there's nothing to release, that's a problem. He can't possibly deliver, and all the while it will look like he's hiding something. I don't know how this ends, since we're in uncharted waters here, but I suspect it will be entertaining.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
I"m left of center, and I'd love to help, but I read that comment about five times and I'm not sure what you're asking. It would probably have been better to write a gloss of the (article? comment?) and ask a specific question rather than post it and ask if it's "accurate". Now's your chance.
Rov_Scam
6d ago
Another explanation could be that working-class women are more likely to hold public-facing or customer service jobs that require one to present in a certain manner, while men are more likely to do blue collar work where they only have to communicate with their coworkers.
Rov_Scam
6d ago
It reminds me of a friend of mine who went to a trip club to see some adult film star he liked, despite the fact that it was a weeknight and he had to get up early for work the next day. He got hammered and made sure he got more individual attention from her than anyone else in the place, and when he realized it was 11 and his handover was already going to be bad enough, he informed her he had to be leaving. She kept protesting, explaining his work situation, and she kept telling him YOLO and you can survive one bad day at work, and you just need to sober up a little and you'll be fine, etc. Then he uttered the magic words: "I'm out of money". That pretty much ended the conversation right there and he was free to go.
So yeah, this kind of relationship is ultimately pretty hollow, and I don't see the appeal personally, but some guys spend big money on hookers, strippers, and other empty stuff. The business model won't be built around this being a substitute for human interaction generally, but around various whales who get addicted to it.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
I worked for an inventory service when I was in college and mall stores did their inventories after close, which any day other than Sunday was 9:00 pm. So a typical inventory would last from 9:00 to 1 or 2 am. Some stores would do there's before open and those would start at six so the sales floor would be done around 10. Take this advice with a grain of salt since it's been 20 years and my memory isn't great, but I don't believe security ever had to let us in for any of the early stores. We were always told to park near the "main entrance" of the mall, which is almost invariably the entrance into the food court if the mall has one. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think there was always one door that was open near here where you could just walk in; I don't remember having to ever call security or anything like that to be let in, though since I had a legitimate reason to be there it's possible that security just left a door open for us, though that wouldn't make a ton of sense because in that case I'd imagine they'd leave the door close to the store open.
It's also worth keeping in mind that in this situation you'd stick out like a sore thumb. Actual employees have keys to service doors that allow them to access corridors that run along the perimeter of the building so they can get into the back room of the store. I believe this is strictly necessary since the security gates will only unlock from the inside, though I'm not entirely sure about this. I do know that when we left a late store in the middle of the night, the last group to leave would always exit through the outside door. The point is, though, that the risk of detection is pretty high, since the parking lot will be empty and you'll be wandering around aimlessly in an area that is pretty highly surveilled.
While @self_made_human's recommendation of a hard hat and safety vest is generally correct, there are better ways of getting in (not to mention that it's become a bit of a meme at this point). My recommendation would be to dress in business casual and carry a computer bag. Show up around 6:00 am or a little earlier and try the main entrance doors. Your cover story is that you're from Boschini, Miller and Associates accounting firm there to supervise the inventory of a store that's located in the mall. You will only need to use this if you get accosted, though if you're bold you may be able to use this at a security intercom or something if there aren't any open doors. Make sure the store you pick is a national chain with a different location in a nearby mall. If security somehow knows that there's no inventory scheduled for that day, get out some paperwork that has the name of the other mall on it and get flustered and embarrassed that you somehow got it in your head that it was at this mall and you obviously have to go now because you are late.
Ironically, the bigger risk here is that the security guard buys your story, because now you have nowhere to go but you can't really leave. You'd be limited to making a beeline for the store and then a beeline back to the entrance, telling the guard about your mistake if caught again. Other than that, it's a good cover because it admits that you aren't supposed to be there. It also means that the guard will be disinclined to pursue the matter further or make additional inquiries because the apparent situation is now that you're running extremely late, and any nervousness on your part would be expected considering the professional bind you are now in. I can say from my years as an inventory taker that it isn't unheard of to go to the wrong store. Aside from that, I don't know why you'd want to go to a mall in the middle of the night. Whatever vibe you're imagining is so unimpressive that I can't even remember if they kept the music on, or if they turned off any house lights. As far as I can remember it's just a bunch of closed stores and no people. Just go to a dead mall around closing time and the vibe will be the same.
Rov_Scam
10d ago
Would you find it more ontologically satisfying if the plaintiffs kept filing daily uncontested motions to recertify the class that the court had to sign? Because that's the alternative.
Rov_Scam
10d ago
Ah, I actually practice this kind of law so I can help you out here (not class actions, but mass torts generally). The question isn't so much whether someone who isn't born yet can be a member of a class; it's the more general question as to whether someone who isn't a member of the class at the time of certification can become one at a later date. And the answer is yes, and it's not controversial, although there are some practical effects that make judges less likely to condone this sort of thing in the modern view, though those concerns don't apply here.
Consider a products liability case. ABC Corp. sells a product with a design defect that has the potential to injure people who use it. A bunch of people are injured and a class action is filed. But most people who use the product haven't been injured. If they were to become injured at a later date they would become part of the class, and the court may require the company to put up settlement money in a trust fund to pay damages to people who are injured years or even decades after the case has resolved. This is especially true in toxic tort cases involving hazardous chemicals, where people can develop diseases years or even decades after exposure.
The reason modern courts are moving away from this is because class actions have to give an option to opt-out and pursue an individual claim, but people without standing to sue in the first place are unable to do this (you can't opt out of a claim you don't have). So when they got injured at a later date they would automatically be subject to a class action award that may be getting pennies on the dollar from a trust fund. For example, the Owens Corning Fibreboard Trust pays 3.7% of the gross scheduled value of asbestos claims. And the gross scheduled value isn't what you'd actually get in a real lawsuit, but what value was assigned by the court at the time of settlement, based on the value of cases settled at the time. Fibreboard created the global settlement fund in 1993, at which time they were paying $126,000 on average to settle claims, so a trust claim will get you about $5,000. For a mesothelioma case that would get millions if it went to verdict. This luckily isn't an issue in asbestos cases, where there are plenty of other defendants to sue, but it would be a problem if the entire case was against one company.
Rov_Scam
10d ago
There's a plaintiff's counsel I deal with frequently who will occasionally send out exhibits ahead of a deposition, and all the points she wants to emphasize will be highlighted, and I very quickly learned two things: 1. It's really easy for your eyes to go straight to the highlighted portions, and 2. It's just as important that you read what isn't highlighted. If you're trying to create right-wing ragebait for a targeted audience, it helps if you can not only direct readers to the most inflammatory sounding parts of a document but also omit 3 of the 5 pages included in that document, lest some smartass actually reads the whole thing and comes to the incorrect conclusion. It also helps that the document wasn't intended for the public but for a specific audience and thus omits crucial context that the target audience would be familiar with, though I can forgive Ms. Collin for that because I doubt that she took the time to familiarize herself with that context either.
Getting down to the nitty gritty, as Ms. Collin so helpfully highlighted, the policy provides that:
Hiring supervisors must provide a hiring justification when seeking to hire a non-underrepresented candidate when hiring for a vacancy in a job category with underrepresentation. Hiring justifications must be submitted to and approved by DHS Equal Opportunity and Access Division (EOAD) prior to an offer of employment being made.
She did not, however, highlight the following definition:
Underrepresented: when the FTE (full-time equivalent) representation of one or more protected groups is less than that group’s estimated availability in the relevant geographic area and labor force.
In other words, this isn't a wide-ranging justification requirement for hiring white men; it only applies to job categories in which there is underrepresentation. And underrepresentation isn't based on the minority population as a whole, but on the estimated number of qualified minority applicants in a particular geographic region. To see what this actually means, though, you would have to look to the DHS Affirmative Action Plan, which the document's intended audience would almost certainly be familiar with. There, you'll find that there are seven job categories, that protected groups are divided into three broad categories: Women, disabled people, and minorities. This gives us 21 data points for determining whether there is underrepresentation, of which four actually show it as such; Minorities are underrepresented in three categories (supervisors/administrators, skilled crafts, and service maintenance) and women in one (paraprofessionals). There are no categories that underrepresent disabled people. There is no underrepresentation in the technician, professional, or administrative support categories. When you look at the statistical breakdowns, it is clear that these targets are dispassionate and completely unidealistic. There are approximately zero women currently employed in the skilled craft category (plumbers, electricians, etc.), but since the estimated number of qualified women in this category is zero, there is no target, and you thus don't need to justify hiring a man. For the service maintenance, on the other hand, there is a minority hiring target, even though these are the kind of low-level service jobs that minorities were historically relegated to in the past. The upshot is that you need justification for hiring a white janitor over a black one but not for hiring a white attorney over a black one.
And this says nothing of the fact that the justification involved doesn't even have to be that persuasive. If you look at page three of the document (which Ms. Collin didn't provide), it provides a laudry list of acceptable justifications, with the caveat that the list isn't exhaustive. The point of the process isn't to force the issue of hiring more minorities in jobs where they can't cut it, it's to to make hiring managers take a second thought about why they're hiring one candidate over another. The canonical conservative argument against AA is that it substitutes racial preferences for merit, but such arguments are always made without any understanding of how AA works in practice. All this policy does is say that if you think the white guy is the best man for the job, in the limited cases where AA even applies, you should be able to explain why he's the best man for the job. If you're incapable of doing that, then one wonders why you picked the guy in the first place.
You can feel free to disagree with the merits of the policy; I was merely pointing out that it's much different than the Tweet you posted implies. But that's all collateral to the real point, which is whether such a policy is evidence of a wokeness epidemic. The key here is page five, which Ms. Collins did not provide for us, though even if she did it's unlikely that anyone would recognize its significance. It well within the references and statutory authority and all the other housekeeping stuff that appears at the end of these kinds of directives, and contains but one item before the signature line:
Supersession:
DHS administrative policy 4100.005, “Affirmative Action Implementation,” effective 05/06/14 and all policies, memos, or other communications whether verbal, written, or transmitted by electronic means regarding this topic.
If one actually examines the referenced document, they will discover an Affirmative Action Implementation Policy implemented in 2014 that contains the following provision:
Following the completion of interviews with all candidates, if a candidate from the protected group for which there is an underrepresentation is not selected, the supervisor must submit a Justification Form to the Equal Opportunity and Access Division, explaining the reason for the decision to offer the position to someone who is not a protected group candidate.
In other words, this NEW policy that goes into effect next month is actually just an elaboration of a policy that's actually been around for over a decade. It gets even better, though; the 2014 Affirmative Action Implementation Policy is the third revision of a policy that initially went into effect in 2002. I couldn't find a copy of the 2002 policy so I don't know if it contained the above language in it, but I suspect it contained something substantially similar, as I was able to find an Affirmative Action Plan from 2004 from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic development that contains a documentation packet with a form asking substantially the same questions as are required in this "new" plan, i.e. asking the hiring manager to justify hiring a non-affirmative candidate. And those requirements appear to have been stricter, as they indicate that the non-affirmative hire must be substantially (emphasis in original) more qualified than the minority candidate, while the new guidance contains no such provision.
To this effect, it's hard to see how you've given any evidence that "wokeness" has increased in any meaningful way in recent years. And yeah, I know the Biden's EEOC filed a bunch of diparate impact suits. But that doesn't say much; the EEOC has been doing that for decades. And before that they were filing pattern discrimination suits whose effects were much more severe than making a police department use a different test. In 1974 nine steel companies entered a consent decree by which they would grant minority candidates practically automatic seniority when it came to bidding into skilled positions as compensation for past discriminatory hiring practices. What this meant in effect was that if you were a white guy working in the labor pool for years with the hope that you'd eventually be able to bid into an apprenticeship to be a pipefitter or something, you'd get stepped over by a black guy who had been there for a year and got first priority. I don't hear many people talking about the wokeness of the Nixon Administration, though.
Rov_Scam
12d ago
Because there are way more of them, and other guys aren't optimizing for them. The number of guys with shitty profiles is mind blowing. So is the number of girls with shitty profiles, but if they don't set their sights too high someone halfway decent will message them. Guys don't have that luxury.
Rov_Scam
12d ago
I think the OP's point would be better stated as not so much liberal but liberal adjacent. Few men had facial hair in the 1950s, and those who did were either immigrants, bohemians, or men old enough to have been around the last time beards were in fashion. Then they were adopted by the 1960s counterculture, along with long hair and other fashion choices, as a deliberate rejection of mainstream aesthetics. By the 70s, while some of the hippie fashions had decidedly died, facial hair had become fairly mainstream. But you have to keep in mind how this looked to someone born before the early 1940s: They would have been well into adulthood by the time facial hair hit the mainstream, and would have grown up in an era when it was at least somewhat unsavory. To a member of Nixon's Silent Majority, facial hair was seen as sloppy, and was associated with hippies. Think of Abe Simpson's opinions of Joe Namath's sideburns, or George Steinbrenner's facial hair policy with the Yankees. And what kind of politics were the hippies associated with?
I'm glad you brought up Waylon Jennings here. Waylon has an image as a good 'ol boy, an image that's right-coded today, but that wasn't always the case. The transition of the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one was just beginning when he came to prominence, and it was hard to tell what kind of impact the 1972 election had on the Southern Strategy when Nixon won in such a landslide. The South wouldn't go Republican in a non-landslide election until 2000. While most Southerners weren't liberals in the hippie sense, they weren't stereotypically conservative in the traditional sense either, lingering views on racial issues aside.
Then you have to add the country music landscape into the mix. Nashville was in a bit of a crisis in the late 1960s, as traditional American styles like jazz, country, and traditional pop were being rejected by the new generation in favor of rock and R&B. Mainstream country circa 1967 was defined by a slick, mainstream sound that was decidedly unhip. This was the top country hit that year. It could have easily been recorded ten years prior and was only country by virtue of the acoustic guitar and light pedal steel. It's no surprise that, for how big that song was on the country charts, it didn't cross over to the Hot 100 at all, and Jack Greene isn't exactly a household name today, even among country fans. Even the venerable Johnny Cash was in the middle of a dry spell, putting out crap like this. This isn't to say that there weren't great songs from this era or any crossover success ("Stand by Your Man" being the prime example), but it was clear that things had to change with the times.
This process was an awkward one. Willie Nelson had had a few hits in the 50s but spent most of the 60s drifting, his label not knowing what to do with him, and was thus a prime candidate for the kind of experiments that went nowhere. While the albums he made at RCA with Chet Atkins were certainly interesting, they weren't exactly good. One bright spot was Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison LP, which revitalized his career. The fuck all attitude became a template for the next wave of country stars in the 1970s: Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, and of course, Waylon Jennings. Outlaw country was country reclaiming the edge it had lost over the past couple decades, rejecting the nudie suits of the Opry for a countercultural image that glorified outlaws, gamblers, hustlers, and all sorts of other questionable characters at the margins of society. It told stories not just of love and loss but of adultery and murder. Johnny Cash may have hit #1 with Kristofferson's "Sunday Monrnin' Comin' Down, but for my money Waylon recorded the best version of it, capturing the feeling of a sad loser with no place to go. Compare it to Cash's version, which, with it's forced chick-a beat and tacked-on orchestration, sounds out of another era entirely. And there was no easier way to signal the start of a new era visually than for the three icons of the genre to sport beards, combining countercultural associations with images of a romanticized American West.
After ten years, though, long hair and beards don't have quite the same impact, especially since the look has been increasingly adopted by the mainstream, so the youth who want to be hip have to find new ways to freak out the squares, first with mohawks and piercings of the punk era, then the big hair androgynous look of 80s pop metal, just to name two examples. In the meantime, the 1980s has seen the mainstream embrace a more clean-shaven look, and while plenty of normal people still have mustaches and beards, the prototypical yuppie doesn't, and most musicians and media figures don't. In 1992 grunge is starting to replace hair metal as the rock music of choice, and bands like Pantera are entering their heyday in an attempt to reclaim metal from the commercialized dross it had become. And what was furthest from the look of the hair bands? The long hair and beards that were popular 20 years prior, when bands like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple were making music that actually did have and edge.
What about those pre-boomer squares I mentioned several paragraphs ago? They didn't go away. They're older now, but voting in records numbers. Any mainstream man over the age of 50 probably wouldn't have ever considered growing a beard and wouldn't have had an affinity for any music past the pre-Beatle 60s. To them, all the changing youth hair fads of the preceding three decades were just one amorphous mass of people who didn't know how to present themselves. A guy like Bill Clinton could at least sympathize. He didn't have a beard, but he used beard aficionados Fleetwood Mac for his campaign song, and was the first rock and roll president. The Republicans, on the other hand, ran guys like Bush and Dole in the 90s, who yammered on about family values in a fairly naked appeal to an America that was corrupted by hedonism. Which side of the aisle do you think would have been more likely to listen to Pantera in that environment? Do you think a guy like Dan Quayle would look at Dimebag Daryl as the kind of gentleman he'd hope his daughter would bring home?
The Democrats, of course, weren't much better on this front, with Tipper Gore founding the PMRC and still having to appeal to the kind of older voters that are suspicious of guys with beards. But any way you slice it, there was still an association with countercultural weirdos, whether they be hippies or metalheads, and they were more likely to be worn by rednecks (who were still voting Democrat in large numbers), blue collar union voters (whose jobs didn't rely much on appearance), hippie holdouts, and, yes, college professors, who at that time were largely of the generation that was in college in the 60s and 70s. They were much less likely to be work by the Bible Belt Values Voters and businessmen who made up the Republican base. They still weren't mainstream enough that a politician of either party could wear one without the risk of alienating a sizeable number of voters; even if the stereotype was dying, it wasn't worth the risk (for the record, my grandmother, a lifelong Democrat born in 1925, hated beards, especially the one my uncle occasionally wore). Now that that generation is mostly gone, and anyone under the age of 80 is of the generation that made facial hair acceptable, it's okay for politicians of any party to bring the look back.
Rov_Scam
13d ago
I understand what you're saying, and I'm happy for you, but GP was giving generalized advice. Like I said, most people aren't that selective. I can't imagine giving someone dating advice that consists of "list all your fringe interests that won't impress women at best and turn them off at worst and plug away for years with little success in the hopes of attracting your one true love". It's not what most people are looking for. And while I understand not wanting to get too involved before finding out it's a dealbreaker, it's not like you're going to keep it a secret. Like I said in my post, when you're online dating, you are your profile, and you're going to be your profile until she meets you in person. The profile is to get your foot in the door; after you actually meet, you're a real person, and discussing hobbies and interests is fair game for a first date, and you can tell her whatever you want on that front. And if you think that one date is too much of an investment to be worth the risk, then online dating just isn't for you, period.
Rov_Scam
13d ago
For years, on this very forum (well, fine, you have to come buck to the /r/SSC days), whenever someone pointed out the advances of the SJ movement, the response was something to the effect of "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses / Tumblr", or alternatively there'd be an attempt to "steelman" the movement to make it look more reasonable than it actually is ("defund the police doesn't really mean defund the police"), something later dubbed "sanewashing" by other elements of the left.
It was more than that, but not much more. There was a lot of media rhetoric from the left and teeth gnashing on the right about certain things, but in the end it doesn't seem to have amounted to much. But beyond some limited effects at the local level, most of the media coverage from the left amounted to little more than trend pieces (where a fringe phenomenon is puffed up into something bigger than it is), and the right's reaction had all the hallmarks of a moral panic. I can't tell you how many arguments in bars I got into where someone would insist that this school district just down the road was teaching kids that white people are bad blah blah blah and can you believe what these kids are hearing about gay people only to find out that they got this information from their neighbor's cousin's kid, or something, which is the equivalent of them just admitting that they got it from some dubious social media post. I have yet to talk to anyone with actual firsthand knowledge of any of this who could reproduce lesson plans or anything.
And at the national level, this rhetoric was soundly rejected within the Democratic party. Regardless of how the Republicans would like to portray them, there are few woke Democratic elected officials. The Squad is the most notorious, but those are a few House reps in safe seats, and even some of those got primaried the last go-round. AOC may be nationally known, but it remains to be seen whether she's that popular outside the Bronx. And when woke politicians do get the opportunity to go national, they fall flat on their faces. If there was ever an election where wokeness could triumph over the Democratic establishment, it was 2020. The woke lane was there for any Democrat who wanted to take it. Who did? Kirsten Gillebrand and Beto O'Rourke. Arguably Kamala Harris, though she wasn't very convincing about it. The Democrats ended up nominating Joe Biden, about as an establishment candidate as you can get. Hell, Mayor Pete made a convincing run as a moderate and even led early on despite being the mayor of a town most people couldn't point to on a map.
Rov_Scam
13d ago
It's anime, a perfectly mainstream form of entertainment. Some women may find it off-putting, yes, but it's not like having kids, or smoking, or religion, or that kind of thing that you should tell someone up front. Most women probably wouldn't care if they found out, it's just not something that adds to your attractiveness. Worst case scenario, you can bring it up on the first date, or when you're texting back and forth. The point is just that it's not something that you want to waste valuable profile real estate on, to increase your chances of getting a foot in the door.
Rov_Scam
13d ago
It's not about hookups vs. soulmate. It's about whether or not you expect a soulmate to have certain interests. If the answer is yes, you only want to be with someone who likes anime as much as you do and is attracted to guys who like anime, then I agree that you would have to put it out there. But that's not the way it is with most things or people. Just look at how much attention to sports men pay vs. women. Or woodworking. Or hunting. Or any number of other hobbies or interests. You can't expect your romantic partner to have 100% of the same interests you do, and most married couple I know aren't like that, right down to my parents. So yes, it's possible that you can be really into anime and have a girl who knows nothing about it and rolls her eyes at the idea of it and still have a successful relationship.
Do the officials in question even have that power? The FDA is under the aegis of HHS, but they have a separate review team that handles these things. I doubt Kennedy's Chief of Staff has veto power over FDA decisions.
More options
Context Copy link