Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1694
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. I understand the Robert E. Lee/confederacy origin issue hasn't gone away because the Commission's report did not handle it well. The section on Lee in the below linked article addresses the issue better than I could. It is apparent to some that the commission report's executive summary whitewashed the Lee issue. https://almartinezut.medium.com/true-origins-of-the-eyes-of-texas-3f2188569f0e
  2. No one thinks you are a racist. This isn't about what people think about your identity or whether you are a victim. This is about a song, the origins of the song, and whether we should have a song that unifies the whole school or not.
  3. It is just a culture war rallying cry using the typical fear-based identity politik the right uses over and over. Nothing new. I’ve seen a wide range of responses to CRT that include things like “we can’t solve racism with more racism,” “my children are going to be labeled racists,” and none of them require any understanding of CRT
  4. No one is attempting to salve over all evils through the use of “identity politics.” I know that maybe you or Greenwald or Tucker think you have cracked the code, but this is simply an agency attempting to pull in diverse recruits and compose a competent workforce. That agency (along with nearly every other institution) is able to serve their function better with a diverse and competent staff. Hold the CIA’s feet to fire on torture but understand the blame mostly lies with the Bush admin who approved those interrogation technique. Hold the Obama admin accountable for not prosecuting. But none of that has anything with the commercial or having a diverse workforce. The idea that all the CIA does is torture people is as stupid as the idea that they all drive Aston Martins.
  5. I don’t have much of an opinion on this but Bernie came out in favor of ending patents https://www.businessinsider.com/sanders-drug-companies-should-relinquish-ip-rights-to-covid-19-vaccines-2021-5
  6. The Rudy situation described in first 13 minutes of the rational security podcast. https://www.lawfareblog.com/rational-security-oops-rudy-did-it-again-edition
  7. My point is that without a commonly accepted definition to work from, these conversations are pointless and simply contribute to it being a wedge issue. There is a reason the GOP response to Biden included that narrative
  8. Sure. It can be considered obviously contradictory from the perspective from within one bubble. A view from the other bubble might be analogous to equating “a racist country” to something like an “evil country” in that sure maybe might dad yells at me sometimes but he isn’t evil. There isn’t a commonly accepted definition for “a racist country.”
  9. The question of whether the US is racist is a perfect wedge issue since it comports to the narratives of either side. The issue is there is not a commonly accepted definition for “a racist country” or an accepted threshold between “a racist country” and a “non-racist country.” So we have groups functioning in information bubbles. One bubble listens to talk radio, watches tucker, participates in the DT threads, identifies with Trump, and has been told over and over again that they are the real victim and the other side is prone to overreaction that is dangerous to them. They think racism doesn’t exist or if it does it is really minor or maybe they are even fine with it. They mock racism with sayings like, guns aren’t racist, covid isn’t racist, etc. Grasping complex ideas like systemic racism isn’t easy for them. There is a reason the question is being posed by the right.
  10. Wow. These guys are desperate. I don’t think I’ve seen a clip from him worse than that. Remember a few days a when he was psychotically laughing at the guy who disagreed with him about the Chauvin conviction. The right seems to be spiraling right now. There must be internal poll numbers out there with bad news.
  11. Poor Chuck getting owned by the intellectual right.
  12. Mathews was a silent to us! This makes no sense! Why did he commit to LSU?
  13. Is the vote threshold in the Senate 50 or 60 to allow admission of a state? I don't see it listed as an exemption to the filibuster.
  14. It says a lot of things. You are correct in your understanding of what the executive summary says. My point is that the executive summary doesn't jive with page 11, which also seems to have left out some evidence. The executive summary appears to ignore Prather's own words (along with the words of those around Prather) which linked the phrase to Lee. The point about Lee's statements at the university and the executive summary's focus on Taylor's memoir is a sleight of hand thing IMO. The section on Lee in the below paper addresses some of the specific Lee-related deficiencies with the report, but my overall point is that the report didn't appear to adequately address it https://almartinezut.medium.com/true-origins-of-the-eyes-of-texas-3f2188569f0e
  15. From page 11 of the report:
  16. An when someone in TA is able to stand up in front of the room and acknowledge they have a problem, that they were wrong on something, everyone stands up and cheers.
  17. Barr and the Mueller Report is a decent analogy. I imagine there were papers and analysis similar to the Martinez paper that were shared around between students, athletes, journalists, and professors, and it was probably generally accepted that Lee was an inspiration. Then reading the commission's executive summary, it would be rather obvious it was a whitewash job. It is unfortunate. In both instances, the media took the intended narratives and ran with it
  18. That is the question the commission was tasked with answering. I'm not convinced the executive summary reflects an honest attempt. I would say your below statement goes a lot further than what the commission was willing to say. I don't know what happened, but I'm assuming there were a large number of folks who were all wordsmithing and negotiating the executive summary. It probably got convoluted.
  19. I don't think we would want to throw the baby out of the bath water along with everything else that came prior to 1970. I understood a goal of the effort was to conduct an informed assessment on the origins of the eyes. I'm not 100% confident the commission's executive summary fairly did that.
  20. How so? I know you mean the paper strains to reach its conclusions, but interestingly I had the same perception of the commission report's executive summary and disconnect with it's own page 11. There seemed to be a lot of strain and semantic games between the two. I recommend you take a look at the the section of the paper under the heading "Was the Eyes of Texas Inspired by Robert Lee?" Comparing the commision report (pg 11 and the executive summary) and the paper (section on Robert Lee), there appears to be some evidence left out of the commission report. That raises questions.
  21. Why do you feel that way?
  22. Thanks for sharing. That paper was new to me. I had read the Commission's report when it first came out, and it was rather obvious the discussions surrounding Lee and the confederacy in the executive summary appeared disconnected from page 11 of the commision report. That was a big question mark for me. Now, it isn't clear to me why some of the evidence Martinez presented in his paper seemingly was left out of the commision report. It also isn't clear why their analysis and conclusions are so drastically different.
  23. You guys should lay off of onboard. He said he was wrong on an item some time back. That should be considered kind of a big deal these days.
×
×
  • Create New...