George Floyd

Keith, Thank you for posting the Malcolm X link.

Clearly neither Keith nor 300_mercer is a Malcolm X scholar. I wanted to bow out of the thread, but it just keeps getting better with each post. Would love to hear either Keith or 300_mercer explain what point either is trying to make with the posted link. I know it will only be a matter of time before one of the many who are following this thread won’t be able to restrain themselves.

MCR you bring a very interesting/insider perspective to the conversation. I have to say, some of it is a bit above my pay scale ; ) I think the depth of some of your points would require a couple of hours over some coffee to address. Difficult to carry on such a conversation via an on-line real estate form....

@Keith - Agree. Totally inappropriate subject matter for anonymous Internet Forum. And I am certainly no
angel to the extent I am somewhat enjoying pushing 300_mercer’s buttons. I’ll really try to stop now.

I am glad that I have enough NYPD around my block to protect the community from ANTIFA or xxx.

Wow, this is reminding me of some of my back and forths with W67st back in the day.
I do still wonder if he was able to get the classic 7 on the UWS for the $700,000 he was sure he could get

And back then he was the immigrant success story (and he was pretty obnoxious) and I was the entitled - well, you get it

300
The condescending arrogance here is nauseating and you keep coming back for more.
When offering contrarian, or even middle of the road opinions will be met with snarky allusions to what your "disguisedly" saying or meaning.
Not quite calling you deplorable, but alluding to more of a patsy vibe, taken in by the NY Post or the like.

Why engage here with strangers when you can enjoy an equally miserable exchange on facebook with friends and family on the subject.

Move on brother you deserve better.
Cheers

Truth, Thank you for your support.

Agree - Much better to be called a WSJ/NY Post/Washington Times patsy by IRL friends on FB!
But in all seriousness, 300_mercer - I do not think you are an overt racist, and I can see that you are looking for facts and neutral expert opinions, which is all any of us can do at the end of the day. Apologies for pushing your buttons; you just remind me a bit too much of my former self, and, as you pointed out, converts are often overly zealous.
Just know that regardless of what you think of me and my commentary, I enjoy and respect yours.

So when another officer told Chauvin to roll Floyd over in response to his pleas, Chauvin refused because he was worried about excited delirium. This claimed defense is “debatable”: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/04/as-george-floyd-died-officer-wondered-about-excited-delirium. Just as it is “debatable“ that sending troops to protect non-existent federal law against looting is OK because gross misapplication of the provision is covered by “such measures as he considers necessary”. Is it not also “debatable” that DJT himself could indiscriminately shoot & mow down people on Fifth Ave, if he considers such a measure necessary. After all, wouldn’t that be an effective way to end looting on the spot?

So sure, you can have “debatable”. And if you want to play the “debatable” angle on when it suits you (an unlawful action you like ala DJT) but not when you doesn’t (an unlawful action you don’t like ala Chauvin), you can have that too. But why go on some charade of outrage when Princeton lawyer does the same? I am sure he & cohort had some “debatable” argument as well on their Molotov cocktail party.

Nada, I support intent to enforce local law and order which got De Blasio and Cuomo to do their job. Actual execution would have gone through legal checks and review. I do not see the parallel will other illegal acts like George Floyd and rioting you mention. Happy to discuss more offline due to to toxic political nature of this thread. Will take Truth’s advice.

@Nada - So glad to have you back on SE. If you can believe it, the bulk of people I grew up with remain outraged about what happened to the Duke Lacrosse Players (all of whom received multi-million dollar settlements and now work in highly paid jobs on Wall Street), yet feel nothing about the Central Park Five and don’t get the BLM movement at all. They belueve anyone who is mistreated by the police must have done something to deserve it, except, of course, those Duke Lacrosse Players who were so unfairly targeted, prosecuted and persecuted. They seem to gloss over the fact that this attitude basically sanctions the death penalty for so much as looking at a police officer the wrong way.

Moreover, these same people are outraged that one would call for Peter Thiel’s removal from a corporate board for saying that he believes apartheid is a rational economic system; they argue that a man should not be penalized in the workplace for his political views that don’t affect his job performance, yet then they demand that Colin Kaepernick be fired on the spot for his political statement that had nothing to do with his job performance.

It is maddening, but I do feel like thoughtful individuals reflect on all these discussions, whether they be between IRL friends or on anonymous Internet Forums. Thank you for engaging.

MCR, the dual standard people apply to justify their biases can be farcical. Have you followed the Drew Brees / Laura Ingraham / LeBron James story that started with Kap? As I was telling my wife last week, these people are not against the protests but it just needs to be done the right way: in your living room with the curtains closed.

@Nada - Exactly. Re the Drew Brees/Kap/LeBron story, I was really happy to see that LeBron appeared to get through to Brees so quickly. I wasn’t aware of Laura Ingraham’s having any role, but she is one of the voices out there that I find most loathsome.

@mcr you seem like a really nice person but also someone who is struggling with a lot of white guilt. Why are you so quick to drown out anyone who isn’t outraged in exactly the same manner as you?

You reference your privileged background extensively, and how it might have created blind spots in in the past, but somehow you have arrived at an all knowing place today. I think you still have a few blind spots to deal with in the present, but your hubris may not allow you to recognize that.

Perhaps listening to folks with different sets of life experiences and who present a middle of the road view would be more beneficial to advancing the conversation, rather than just throwing out condescending retorts that you might’ve heard in your favorite podcast or editorial piece. The latter sometimes makes you sound like an outraged parrot chirping from a gilded cage.

I seem to have touched a number of nerves here. I’ll take it all; nothing will stop me from speaking up when somebody says something offensive. For all those who say “I don’t want to talk about this because I don’t want people to think I’m racist” in any context, I would just say that if you find yourself in that position more than once, maybe consider that you are the problem. I spoke up in response to knewbie’s condescension to streetsmart by giving him a dose of his own medecine. With respect to 300_mercer, we know each other and I thought he would want to know how he was coming across to me. And with respect to responding to the Malcolm X link, if anyone doesn’t want to be condescended to, they should think twice before putting something totally stupid on the Internet. Sorry, not sorry.

But please keep the ad hominem attacks coming by all means; that is always the best indication that whoever I am talking to has lost on substance. Never gets old.

Finally, I am not struggling with white guilt. I am struggling with the lack of it all around me. Again, nothing encapsulates it better than contrasting the reaction to Duke Lacrosse scandal to the reaction to the Central Park Five. Conduct this simple test on yourself and if you are enraged by the Duke Lacrosse scandal but unemotional about the Central Park Five, try asking yourself why.

Ask yourself why on this thread, 300_mercer posted a link about looters, and when I called him out on it, he said looters have nothing to do George Floyd. Then why did he post that link on this thread, particularly when he had already given quite a bit of airtime to that subject in a separate thread (in which he also resorted to ad hominem attacks). Stick to the substance, and if you don’t like the picture your own remarks paint of you, then think about changing, but I am not going to let anybody I interact with regularly wear two faces. Too many people just side step uncomfortable conversations. For my part, I am entirely comfortable with whatever conclusions someone draws about me from my remarks. I own everything about myself and am always open to constructive feedback.

do most people here agree with Malcolm X or not?

Anton, let’s say you agree with the isolated quote above that it is up to the Black man to save himself. What does that have to George Floyd? I was hoping that either Keith or 300_mercer would elaborate on what they thought that added to the conversation? What could George Floyd done to save himself from the unlawful imposition of the death penalty. Without elaboration, that quite suggests that the poster believes George Floyd is at fault here. Who know what happened leading up to the choking, but not even in the wildest speculation has it bern suggested that he commit a capital crime. And even if he had commit a capital crime (absurd suggestion), it is not the police’s place to impose the death penalty. Pesky due process and all.

The fact of the matter is we have a POTUS who literally took out a full page ad seeking the death penalty for the Central Park Five, who were wrongfully convicted, and he has never apologized. Here is the better question: How many people here think Donald Trump is racist? If you don't think he is racist, how do you explain his failure to ever issue an apology re the Central Park Five among a myriad of other incredibly offensive things he has said and done? And if you do think he is racist, how do you justify voting for him anyway yet maintaining you yourself are not racist. I am sick of all of it, and I am going to call it out wherever I see it.

And P.S. to truthskr - I did not get off the wait list for Columbia Law School and went to the University of Michigan Law School instead. Guess what? I beat out a bunch of Columbia students for the job I got right out of law school and multiple jobs since. Your nephew is going to be fine, and if he's not, it's not because an extraordinary affirmative action candidate got his spot at Columbia. Again, sorry not sorry.

But to end on a positive note, how about that Drew Brees! https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32787633/drew-brees-trump-roger-goodell-flag/

Just looking over this thread, there are quite a number of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the death of George Floyd. I think an article that references a speech given by a very prominent and well-respected black man is more relevant than at least 50% of the things posted here. Of course that's just my opinion...

I'm not from a fancy background, I'm from pretty straightforward working class roots. I was in a band that co-headlined not only rock against Reagan but Rock against racism shows in the eighties on the DC mall among many other things. is Jello Biafra said when running for mayor of San Francisco, "my records speak for themselves" ; ) I also happen to have been a Buddhist since 17, I do my best to live by the tenants of peace and equality of all sentient beings. I also married into a family at a young age that had very strong connection to the civil Rights movement (Rip torn and Geraldine Page). and I must say I learned more about respect and peace, equality from these two then just about any other two people I've known.

I'm still very confused how posting an article referencing a speech by Malcolm X somehow has me coming out on the wrong side of the argument of the murder of George Floyd?

Keith

Oy Veh.

So tell me, did you bring the self loathing guilt gene when you converted to my tribe or did it just rub off onto you after?
That, to be clear is a direct ad hominem attack, which is actually less insulting than your incognito attacks to the variety of "lay" persons you lecture(d) on this thread.

If your still at a loss, reread instantkarma's response as it got your style down to a T.
Its almost as if you wrote it to yourself.

Keith - the focus of the article you posted about Malcolm X was Malcolm X's assertion that the black man cannot rely on the white man to save him. Also, Malcolm X is quite a study unto himself and is not to be brought into these discussions lightly. Streetsmart alluded somewhere to friction in the civil rights movements between blacks and Jews. There is so much going on in that very space right now that started with Farrakahn; I am guessing you have no idea, which is fine, but this is an incredibly heavy and dense area and bringing in Malcolm X struck me as odd, particularly because the message was Malcolm X talking to other blacks. What exactly was your point? Did you read the article that you posted? Or were you thinking "hey, none of us has any place in this discussion because we are not black?" Seriously, what exactly was your point?

Malcolm X gave hundreds of speeches and his philosophy and tactics changed repeatedly. Why did you choose that particular Malcolm X speech?

Truthskr - I am not parroting things from a podcast. I am actually spouting my own thoughts from life experience and a ton of study, for which I am not going to apologize. It's okay if you can't keep up and feel better with the ad hominem attacks. I have even had Laura Ingraham hurl them at me personally. Please do keep them coming because they say a lot more about you than the do about me. Yes, I am a highly educated, rich white woman who knows more about any of this than you do and can go toe to toe with you in any debate. Deal with it and add something of substance or retreat back to the shadows.

And to truthskr - the only lay person I was talking to on this thread was 300_mercer. He and I were having a conversation that he was doing just fine in, and I know 300_mercer is a thoughtful person and that neither my nor Nada's comments are lost on him. To the extent that 300_mercer has decided he doesn't like me anymore because of this exchange, so be it. Nobody gets a pass from me.

And instantkarma - please tell me what great different life experiences anyone has brought to this thread that I have ignored? Truthskrs nephew being put on waitlist at Columbia? Oops, been there. Mercer's being afraid of rioters in the street? Been there, and I suspect a lot closer than Mercer ever was to actually physical danger. I stated that I respected others opposition to affirmative action but that I personally favor it. Please tell me where I ignored or disrespected any substantive point.

I am allowed to have my opinion of 300_mercer's bias based on years of following his posts, as well as a very few live interactions, and I stand by that opinion, which I expressed openly to him and he disagreed. Frankly, I think it was a bit insulting to him that you felt the need to jump to his defense, and I was actually surprised to see 300_mercer accept that type of support, but I get that sometimes people find comfort in numbers when there is no substance. If all else fails, they can stand in a pack and tell me my hair looks bad. Those are the only ad hominem attacks that really throw me.

Anyone? Well okay then. I'll check back later. Thanks for continuing the discussion!

instantkarma2011, I had decided not to post to this thread due to increasingly toxic political nature of it, but have to ask whether you are a shrink or some type of psychological profiler we see on TV shows? Welcome to the board.

You want something of substance? From the middle there is nothing I can offer.
You wont hear it.
As I'm not an Obamanable snowflake, nor am I a Trumpster either.
I routinely and frequently vote both sides of the aisle.

Each team is about all or nothing and we in the middle have to hold our nose and navigate between the partisan poop red primates and blue primates fling at each other.

There is nothing for me to contribute because true liberalism is dead.
Today's liberalism is not about equality, its about redistribution of bias which I cannot support.
It dominates news media where media is no longer just influenced by a political party but is corrupted by it.

I offered, boringly, middle ground responses to the topic and I'll repeat.
I've had my share of debates with cocaine loaded celebs in kitchens at after hour parties in the 90s /00s Hamptons at 4am but I wont name drop.
Ingraham cant really bring it anyway.
Id put Greg Gutfeld up against anyone though. :)

Once again...
1) Police prejudice against black men
I didnt want to get into this and still dont. I'll quote crime and murder statistics and get called a racist. But facts are facts. I imagine soon enough we'll have robot police. But then of course we'll blame the programmers.

2) Blue wall of silence
Cannot continue.
Mandatory cameras will help.
Firing those who never had the temperament which will not be easy.
A teacher has to molest not one but like several kids to actually get fired(facetious but not really). Point is, its not exclusively a police thing, more a union thing.

3) Attitude during interaction with police.
Its late and I dont want to write pages right now. Ill offer an unsatisfying abstract.
A somehow negotiated compact between civilians and police on rules of engagement from both sides on being arrested and what constitutes resisting arrest is whats needed.
A lack of understanding, what is.... resisting arrest, leads to 99% of the youtube videos that only the show the end of the exchange.

truthskr - I am a centrist and contemplated voting for McCain in 08, until he punched me in the gut by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. I was indifferent as between Obama and Romney in 2012. After 2016 and what I've seen from Republicans since, I cannot ever seeing myself vote Republican again. With that said, to your points:

(1) " I'll quote crime and murder statistics and get called a racist." As I sad before, if people are repeatedly calling you a racist, why not stop and think about why? Everybody knows that stereotypes are based on statistics. Citing statistics shows you have not gotten past stage one, which is that racism/profiling/stereotyping are part of human nature. Everybody profiles and stereotypes whether they want to or not: the challenge is to overcome that instinct and make sure you are judging the specific individual in front of you based on your experience with that individual and not on the basis of stereotypes based on statistics. Police are in a tough spot because they are frequently quite scared themselves. We aren't talking about those situations here. Here we are talking about George Floyd. Statistics have nothing to do with what happened to him or Amaud Arbery or any of the other cases that have become lightning rods, so why bring them up here?

(2) Blue wall of silence. Everyone agrees on this.

(3) I can be really rude to police, and they still treat me well based on nothing other than my being a well dressed middle-aged white woman. I suspect the same is true with you, despite your attempt to portray yourself as a street kid from Queens (just like Trump in fact!). Either way, no matter how rude one is to the police, the death penalty is not prescribed for a bad attitude and a disproportionate number of people of color seem to get that penalty as compared to whites, asians, etc.

Simple question: Do you believe that society affords whites greater due process than it does people of color? If not, then carry on. We can agree to disagree. If yes, do you blame blacks for that or do you think there is any part you can play in changing that?

@300_mercer: Instantkarma is clearly not a good profiler if s/he is one because few people who know me well consider me a "nice person." I believe our dear departed Ovid said it best when he said "why do I get the feeling that whenever you are around someone refers to you as an a**hole."
While that particular term is not usually applied to me, I have been called a b*tch more times than I care to count. I think if I LOOKED more like I would be a b*tch, people would be less surprised. Oh well.

P.S. to truthskr - totally agree re Ingraham. And the ad hominem attack she directed at me was not motivated by any substantive debate; she was distressed that her date kept following me around a party we were all at.

MCR is on fire!

"I spoke up in response to knewbie’s condescension to streetsmart by giving him a dose of his own medicine"

MCR, I don't think you made much sense there. I have no idea why the logic of dis associating Tienanmen's history with the current protests and pointing that out to Street has anything to do with Harvards racist treatment of Jews in the early 1900's and racist behavior towards Asians by the current Harvard.

If I mentioned Harvards treatment of Jews as related to Harvards treatment of Asians and then you point out that the two were totally different and should not be related....that would make sense. Otherwise I am not sure whether yr giving out doses or dosing yrself.

MCR, Keiths link goes in the basket of uncomfortable truths. Its the elephant in the room that some have noticed, but which many would rather talk past. Otherwise how will we explain the hundreds of millions of dollars/years wasted or the incredibly racist programs put forward by liberals in the past 50 years to fix problems that are just getting worst ? No, better to talk around it and look for the next big package of spending bills and new rules designed to discriminate against other groups

@knewbie - What specifically do you think is an uncomfortable truth and how does that relate to George Floyd? Are you saying that George Floyd’s death was his fault?

And regarding your condescending post to streetsmart, the protest in Lafayette Park to which she was referring and government reaction is directly analogous to Tiananmen Square. Your failure to get that at all revealed a tremendous lack of understanding of US history and law, which lack of understanding was again highlighted when you started talking about college admissions processes only as they affect Asians. Your posts suggest to me that you don’t care about the death of George Floyd at all and view blacks as taking something away from Asians. If that is not accurate, please do not hesitate to clarify. If that is accurate, then let’s just agree to disagree, but know that there are many who are personally adversely affected who still support diversity programs, so you get no high ground by claiming that you are particularly aggrieved. Sorry you don’t like the programs and feel they are somehow keeping you down; that is not going to stop me from supporting them because I believe they make the country stronger.

p.s. to knewbie - I have been told that “first gen” gets a lot of points in the admissions system, and I know a number of people aren’t happy about that either, but I support the university’s right to take factors beyond grades and test scores into account.

https://therealdeal.com/2020/06/09/corcoran-agent-in-miami-loses-job-over-racist-and-fear-based-marketing/

People are making major life choices on the basis of the deteriorating security situation in NYC (I talked to another one today), but you can't speak of it.

If it was targeted at sellers rather than buyers it could possibly be classified as blockbusting.

@George -People who are afraid should leave the city and people are speaking of it. New York (and the entire country) are in crisis. Is your point that you can’t speak of it without being called racist? Everyone should stop fearing that word, own their racism as part of human nature, and openly work against its divisive and extremely dangerous aspects. All of your posts have been particularly good at discussing genuine issues without reference to any dangerous tropes (like the immigrant who supposedly comes to cities like New York because of their extensive welfare system - I believe that is a very dangerous trope that I have heard on streeteasy from at least one regular).

@george - apologies for replying before reading the article. I am not offended by the fired agent’s blast, but to the extent anyone was, it is Corcoran’s right to control its message and image so I have no problem with Corcoran firing the guy over it.

Re the fired agent - It strikes me that it’s probably not the smartest thing to depict your employer’s HQ city as looking like Beirut in the 80’s, even if you believe your depiction is factually accurate.

Re LeBron / Brees / Ingraham...

So LeBron and Durant had been defending Kap’s et al’s stance back when they started kneeling. Ingraham basically says “Shut up, you are not entitled to have a voice on this because you are just an athlete.” Then when Brees re-defends his old position last week (before turning around) and gets flak, Ingraham is “Everybody is entitled to an opinion”. Racism? Double standard? Something else? I don’t know, kinda seem like different sides of the same coin to me.

Short video that covers it well:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1268389771820204034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-6687620902360313406.ampproject.net%2F2005272217000%2Fframe.html

Truth, have you seen the full 9 minutes of Floyd video? I ask because a friend was saying the same thing w.r.t. crime stats, bad apples, etc., and he hadn’t. I suggested he watch the video, which he had not seen, and how clear that makes it that it wasn’t a situation of a bad apple. There were 4+ cops that didn’t seem to be behaving out of particular malice or sadism. It was just normal. Floyd wasn’t being aggressive / belligerent. Despite pleas from Floyd & dozens of bystanders, the cops did nothing. Their actions / indifference to the situation was consistent with how I would expect livestock to be treated, not a human being. Disgusting & sad to say.

Consider whether you could ever imagine cops treating you in the same manner. Consider why we never see videos with white victims, always black, despite the fact that more total whites live in poverty than blacks, and there are more total crimes committed by white perpetrators than black perpetrators.

@Nada - Thanks for the video. I would argue double standard based on denial of racism.

I would respect Ingraham (though still find her odious) if she just admitted that she doesn’t care about anything beyond her own material comfort and ambition and that she will use any tool in her arsenal to further either. She just comes off as pathetic to me when she courts white supremacists and then weakly disavows their support.

I believe Ingraham and her ilk give those who completely dehumanize others based on skin color alone courage and comfort in their desire to commit hate crimes. I do not believe that is her intent. I believe her intent is to pit working class factions against each other so they don’t focus on anything that really matters to her (her own money and status).

It seems to me from a few comments on here that many either don’t believe in dangerous systemic racism or don’t care about. That’s fine; just own that and the conversation ends there.

The only thing I would ask is that if that is your attitude, don’t deny that you are enabling the dehumanization of others based on skin color. Just own that you condone the world’s ordering itself that way.

And note, this is a discussion. Anyone is free to disagree, and if my tone rubs anyone the wrong way, feel free to address me as “CondescendingArrogantB*tch” if that makes it any easier to stick to substance.

@george are your friends really leaving because they feel nyc is "unsafe" ? Everyone I know who is leaving the city is doing so because 1) they were suburbs people anyway (people who had said a year ago, "wow, I really wish we had more space") and/or 2) because they have kids and they think there's going to be a greater chance of full-time school in places that are not the city.

@ali - same here. I can count four families we know who have left and I would say that for all four they wanted a higher day-to-day standard of living than they are able to afford in NY; not a single one mentioned safety as a concern, although I don't discount that as a possible factor in decisions to leave the city. I just don't have any information on that front and haven't seen any polling to see if it is a widespread concern or media-hype-of-the-moment.

It's hard to differentiate the causes of a major life choice - usually there are many, as much emotional as logical. But clearly the security situation is one concern, just as it was in the '80s, though far better today than then.

The fired broker's email, which I've not seen, presumably recalls the shameful history of realtors in perpetuating racial segregation. But it also hits on a raw nerve - the sense among some people that NYC is spinning out of control. I suspect he was fired more for the later than the former.

@george - I assumed the fired broker's email was the picture on the cell phone at the top of the article with the vehicle in flames and the "where do you want to live" question. It may well have been more than that, in which case it might well have offended me, but the picture at the top of the article with a "where do you want to live" struck me as a somewhat comical attempt by someone from NOT the city to appeal to anyone who might be suffering from urban fatigue all around.

>> feel free to address me as “CondescendingArrogantB*tch” if that makes it any easier to stick to substance

That won’t help, but if you allow me to use an “i” rather than a “*” that would do the trick.

Nada the cop committed murder.
You dont keep a knee on someones neck like that and that long.
Period.
Of course everyone forming an opinion before trial may cause an ability for this Ahole to not get a fair trial??

Did you see the before video? The foreplay as Ive called it in prior posts? The angle is tough so its hard to determine if he's resisting or not. This is a critical point in tone of exchange,and initially seems like a tussle from the bad angle but Floyd does certainly seem relatively compliant throughout.

And of course there are the two twists.

1) Was he high at the time?
Autopsy tests positive for methamphetamine, fentanyl , morphine and others.
He was in the driver seat of a car.

2)Shared history in club together. Family acknowledged they knew each other from the club they worked in and the coworker who has been flipflopping his story but there is obviously something there. Further reports about the cops behavior show he had no business being a cop.

The simple narrative of racist police system kills innocent black civilian is not cut and dried.

I wonder if the cop recognized George. I also wonder if George recognized the cop and knew him by name. Seems like that would have helped the situation deescalate.

@Nada - Lol. You can use whatever term does the trick. I am not the boss of you or anyone else on here.

As for truthskr, mercer, knewbie et al, I am not going to shed tear for them when there neighborhoods get burned down and they cry they had no part in any of it.

*their
I don’t usually take the time to correct the many typos I make in my posts, but that one bothered me for some reason.

@truthskr - how do you explain the other officers’ behavior? Blue wall of silence alone does not get the job done. This would not have gone down the same way had George Floyd not been black, all other things being equal.

One last note before I try to leave this conversation yet again.

Because many on here know my name, I want to go on record that I officially gave up any tenuous claim to "DC Insider" in January of 2018, when I definitively cut ties with those members of the FedSoc mafia who used to form the core of my DC social life.

At this point, all of my efforts are dedicated to raising awareness of various issues as I see them based on the totality of my experiences, which include working on immigration issues from every angle (front line Foreign Service Consular Officer, Big Law attorney representing asylum seekers pro-bono, in house tech attorney seeking to increase H1B caps, career/nonpartisan USG legal advisor on immigration issues as they related to trade agreements and homeland security). In addition, I worked overseas in both blue and white collar capacities in three different countries on two different continents. In every job I have ever had, I learned a tremendous amount from my colleagues of color. In other words, I stepped out of the gilded cage in which I grew up some 30 years ago.

When I say I used to be an unabashed racist, that does not mean that I thought about people of color in any specific way. Quite the contrary. I did not think about them at all. I did not even notice that a colleague had a different skin color until they would tell me that something I said was offensive/racist. I would ask them to explain and become filled with shame as I listened to their perspective and realized that what they were saying had literally never occurred to me. The only thing that fills me with more shame than my ignorance of the dangerous racism that pervaded my life was the ignorance of the antisemitism that also pervaded it.

You can disregard my input, but I cannot help provide it whenever I hear various lines of thought. Not a single perspective offered on here is one to which I had not previously given extensive thought and research. My perspective might fall into the same category for anyone who disagrees.

Sadly I do believe our country's diverse population has some irreconcilable differences and real battle lines are calcifying. I am keeping my fingers crossed for peaceful resolution, but I am more unsettled than I ever could imagine being five years ago.

@Stache - Or exacerbate it?
Chauvin seemed to have a scared George Zimmerman type temperament at the club.
Floyd worked security but obviously also partied. Maybe he didnt back when he worked at the club.
Who knows.
But Ive been around enough of the inner workings of NYC nightclubs to know there is a parallel economy going on between security/off duty police/ and those selling things that aren't drinks.

"Sadly I do believe our country's diverse population has some irreconcilable differences and real battle lines are calcifying. I am keeping my fingers crossed for peaceful resolution, but I am more unsettled than I ever could imagine being five years ago."

Multicity, I have followed this thread with interest. When you say you are unsettled, what are you concerned will happen?

I am concerned that those who feel disenfranchised, really hard working people of all colors and ethnicities who play be the rules, will have the wrong button pushed one time to many and set off domestic unrest that the federal government will quell with military force. Once that happens and martial law is imposed, it will be very hard to come back to democracy as we once thought of it. Our system is not impervious to this by a long shot. Noah Feldman (legal scholar cited by 300_mercer earlier) has written some interesting articles in this space. There are crazy interesting bed fellows going coupling up within the United States and around the world, and I believe Feldman has written some stuff on that with a specific angle, but I have to go back and look it up). Fun fact, Kathleen Sullivan (Feldman’s writing partner for a Con Law text book) lives in far east of Midtown East and can be sometimes encountered in one of staples of the neighborhood.

Multicity, thank you for the response. I will look up Noah Feldman and do some digging on the topic. Again, thank you.

I am going to give a plug here to a podcast that regularly features legal minds I know and respect. I have to admit that I have not listened to many of the recent episodes because I swim in the pool regularly and don't often listen to what is put out for general consumption. However, I did catch one of those who is regularly featured on the podcast saying something on one of the major networks that I did not feel was intellectually honest to conversations in which we had personally engaged. The explanation that said scholar gave me tuned me in to just how small the number of players who are controlling the game is. With that said, here is the link to an interesting podcast if you really want to dig into the legal issues and the limitations of our system: https://www.talkingfeds.com/

So, because I plugged the podcast, I felt I should listen to the most recent episode. Way too hard/boring except for the geekiest of geeks. The only thing I will say is that most of my “family” is on the other side of many issues than I am and I have asked them how they plan to deal with me when things get really ugly. The responses have varied from “I’ll give you a chance to run away” to “watch the film “Glorious 39.” Highly recommend the film “Glorious 39” to anyone who has never seen it.

Multicity, I look forward to a podcast entitled Talking Feds. I know someone who clerks for a federal appeals court judge in DC. We've discussed the Federalist Society, among many other topics, as they relate to the law.

Ask your friend (unless she is clerking for him) to get Sri’s perspective on all of this. On stereotypes and prejidices, he has one of my favorite lines ever, which came in response to a main-stream-media article referring to him as “The Smartest Indian-American” or something along those lines. He had to do a broadcast correction to everyone he knew along the lines of “um, I’m not even the smartest Indian-American on the block where I grew up, let alone the smartest Indian-American.” Drives him nuts that many of the staff of CADC can’t distinguish him from the one(?) other judge of color in the house.

I will definitely ask, and will look up Sri's perspective. I also have a friend (more my age) who is a Big Law partner in DC. Being in NYC, I always love knowing even a tiny bit of inside baseball about what is going on in the world of DC law. My clerk friend (significantly younger than me) is swamped with the research on appeals cases coming fast and furiously. My Big Law partner friend is currently vacationing because most of her clients are overseas.

As an aside, I watched with interest as you sold your smaller, renovated-to-taste apartment. Congrats on the sale. We sold again before things truly fell apart, and still took a small loss. (We've always made out well with the others, thankfully.) I shudder to think what the loss would have been today. Now we sit and wait to see what the market will be moving forward.

@re10023: Amen. I credit 30yrs with doing as well/unwell as we did. NY real estate is not for the uniniatied. Mercifully we are hedged by our Columbus, OH condo, which we bought about the same time as our recent sale. Had you told me the two would trade at the same price in 2020, I would have fought you tooth and nail. The only thing I know at this point is that I know nothing and am protecting myself accordingly.

p.s. - you can’t look up Sri’s perspective. You have to have some connection to get it. The only thing I will say is that I believe immigrants are the backbone of this country, and Sri is among those who give me hope that it is all going to turn out okay.

You really are multi-city. My DH is from Ohio. Though the only Columbus person he knows moved to Spring Island, Georgia to play golf year round. As to the markets, any of them, if I have learned anything through all of this it is that no one knows anything for certain. Everyone is just guessing. I love charts and analysis, but even then, for every X number of times things have done Y, there are the anomalies. No way to tell if you're in an anomaly market or economy. As someone who likes definitive answers, markets drive me crazy. Yet, I am drawn despite myself.

This is almost becoming like some of the social media sites I gave up many years ago...; )

Why did I reference Malcolm X? As a teenager his writings had a profound influence on me in understanding the plight of the black man in America. The piece referenced in the link I provided is in part from a very well-known speech he gave and the topic is a common thread that is run through his myriad of changes. But I was also very fond of Langston Hughes as well as Baldwin among others some more radicals others less.

But just for some color, as a teenager, for some unknown reason I had a strong rebellious nature, and understood there was a problem with the system. I turned to the writings of Said, Zinn, Chomsky, Roy, Hitchens etc in my pursuit of Truth. That was my starting point as an 18 year old...

I have evolved in many ways over the years... And I enjoy discussing politics, as I take nothing personal and respect the beliefs of all... Up to a point.

Friends, I've been reading along and so appreciative at the depth of conversation and respect shown to one another. And to the extent that anyone cares to read my opinion or follow unsolicited advice: it is very hard to solve the world's problems over the internet. The point where you risk permanently damaging a relationship is the point to step away, take a breath, think, and look forward to future attempts to build a shared understanding. This stuff is so hard. And yes, feel free to call me Karen.

@jas - Have you never had an issue where a shared understanding is not possible because of fundamental value differences? Or where a shared understanding actually altered your affection for somebody? In other words, I understand the position of my former besties: They are willing to not only tolerate, but also stoke incredibly dangerous racism to achieve "higher" economic goals they feel are more important. They likewise understand my position: I value civil rights more than I value their economic goals.

We had been dancing around these value differences for years as I would sometimes sit silently by as I listened to conversations that upset me, remaining silent so as to maintain the relationship.

However, I got to the point that I realized that I actually don't like these people and am better off without such relationships. Honestly, my world has been more than cut in half over the past 3 years, and I don't regret a single relationship that I've severed over all of this.

Every once in awhile I will inadvertently cross paths with one, or a number, of the crew, and they will ask if I've gotten over it and propose we just have a glass of wine and talk about something else. No thank you.

I do believe there are irreconcilable differences. We have the best system in the world for resolving those, but again, that system has its limits. I desperately hope the country is able to get to the next election and vote for a change of leadership before another match is lit and Trump does call in the military. I have seen so many people fired by this administration when they stand their ground, even after being already complicit in so many other areas (Jessie Liu is the most recent casualty that comes to mind), while so many others I know stand by, say nothing, or, even worse, sign off on the termination of one of their own. Again, I believe we are in incredibly dangerous times and I am done staying quiet for the sake of maintaining relationships with anyone who cannot have a discussion of these incredibly serious issues without getting pouty and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

So Truth, where do you come down on the following questions. Do you think, all else such as socioeconomic factors / belligerence / etc. being equal, the there is a difference between how a black person, as an individual, is treated by police for no reason other than the color of their skin? What do you think others, such as aggrieved white lady in the Ramble who invoked bird-watcher’s race unsolicited & repeatedly in call to 911, thinks?

Nada
its not really a black and white question (pun really not intended I swear) as your question lumps everything into broad piles.
"Do you think, all else such as socioeconomic factors / belligerence / etc. being equal, the there is a difference between how a black person, as an individual, is treated by police for no reason other than the color of their skin?"
Which police?
NYC police? Upstate New York police? Los Angeles police? San Francisco police? Baltimore police? Dallas police? Austin police? Allentown police? Banshee, PA police?
DO you think all these varying departments function under one modus operandi?
Is a tattooed, hoody wearing , meth smoking white dude more appealing to have around than his brown equal?
Does an individual black police officer treat a black male worse because of the skin color? Or the socioeco factors, belligerence etc?

I have an exercise I do to try and do my best to eliminate bad feelings towards things/situations to see if its saturated in hypocrisy before getting worked up.
Its brought me to the center on a great many things.
An easy example of this in use was a situation that happened in Union Square during the last presidential election. My friend, a solid "lefty" couldnt get over how funny the unflattering nude statue of Trump that someone installed in the park was. I told him it was so inappropriate and the city should not leave it there. He said "I dont understand, you've hated Trump your whole life." I responded, " that has nothing to do with it, for you to understand, imagine if you will, that someone put an unflattering nude statue of Hillary Clinton and the city just let it stay there. How would you feel about it?" He said, " oh my god, now I finally get that mirror thing you talk about!"

So when you do the mirror thing, do it for the black person, but also do it for the cop, do it for store owners, do it for the resident on the block,etc.

As far as the central park incident, after seeing most of the details, I think they were both being aholes.
Try the mirror test.
Instead of a black male, pretend it was a white male who told this lady to put a leash on her dog, and he escalates to saying " Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it." Then goes to feed her dog something and the rest plays out.

And how does this story play in the news then? Who would be seen as the victim then??

Im certain my response wont satisfy you as I dont really "come down" anywhere concrete on your questions.
Except to those who subscribe to "If your not with us, your against us." Then yeah, you'd have to consider me in the "against us" camp.

The difference is in the Central Park situation the white guy had the ability to laugh it off because he didn't have a thought in his head about this kind of policing.
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

Truth, I guess I’m just try understand if your answer is “yes”, “sometimes”, “never”, “probably”, “maybe”, “not really”, “I don’t know”, or something else. Your answer need not be concrete, just asking which ballpark you are in. I’m not asking whether you think it is right or wrong or to make any judgements, just whether you think it happens or not with qualifications as to your certainty / uncertainty. Or maybe you are saying you are unwilling to make broad statements ever, only individual circumstances?

Nada
"its not really a black and white question (pun really not intended I swear)"
and
"Im certain my response wont satisfy you as I dont really "come down" anywhere concrete on your questions. "
It couldnt be any clearer that my long winded answer was sometimes.

30, what?? Nonsense. The narrative would have been man threatens woman and dog and HE would have lost HIS job.
And sorry 30 I gave up after 6 pages. So a cop who worked a non white metropolitan area in CA is a self professed bastard and he with other burnt out cops did f'ed up things to the people in the neighborhood they were policing. And that means he speaks for all departments in all towns of America.
And nassau county cops dont mess with white people in garden city. Or southampton cops with unconnected white people. lol
SO far the only thing Ive seen in 20 years that makes a lick of sense (or works better) is neighborhood policing. Where the local cop knows the local residents and vice versa.

I get it , the mirror is unflattering, so everyone will ignore it and stick to their 100% gray or 0% gray perspective.

Im always willing to discuss anything with people who live in the 33% to 66% gray.
And thats not here so Im done with this thread.
Still love (nearly)all of you guys/gals
Adieu

"It couldnt be any clearer that my long winded answer was sometimes."
Um, okay.

For my part, I am glad that truthskr clarified that because what I took away from the totality of his posts was pretty much "never," and being as how truthskr puts such stock in standardized tests as the be-all and end-all, my standard test scores in reading comprehension suggest that I am pretty darn good at it.

Moreover, it also seems that it wasn't so clear to Inonada, and I am pretty sure nobody on this site doubts his reading comprehension skills.

So again, I am really glad that truthskr clarified his position before he left the discussion with the assertion that he can only discuss these issue with people who see things in the same shades that he does.

Even though he says he's done with the thread, I am pretty sure he is still reading, so I can give a sincere "thanks for sharing truthskr!" with the comfort of knowing that the intended recipient of my gratitude will receive it.

Thanks, Truth. It had not been clear to me, FWIW, but I have been known to miss what people say sometimes despite my favorable standardized test reading comprehension scores from years ago. Hell, on my first read of the latest post I even missed that Truth answered “sometimes”.

So, Inonada, your latest post would suggest that you don’t think standardized tests are the be-all and end-all arbiter of skill. I totally agree, yet if you read truthskrs’ post on affirmative action, he appears to think that they are to the point that he chooses his professionals to this day based on what he perceived their standardized test scores were based on the color of their skin. Again, sorry but not sorry for being a CAB.

And did everyone notice how truthskr answered the question only when Inonada asked it, totally ignoring the substantive reply I had given him followed by the simple question? Ask yourselves why?

Did everyone also notice truthskr’s take on the central park bird watcher story? He believes that had it been white male vs white female, white male would have lost his job.

Everyone will read and form their own conclusions. My take is just my opinion, with no greater claim on “truth” than anyone else’s, but I feel like truthskr might have some issues with both people of color and women.

I found truthskrs’, mercer’s, and knewbies’ comments offensive on multiple fronts, in the same manner that they clearly found mine offensive. The difference is each of them left the discussion without answering the cross-examination.

Draw your own conclusions, in addition of course to the given that I am a condescending arrogant b*tch. I am not going to lie, I actually enjoy engaging anyone in these discussions because if you give anyone enough airtime, we all reveal our true colors. I own what I am, with the full knowledge that a lot of people have a visceral negative reaction to what I am and will maintain that regardless of anything I say or do. I didn’t start out nearly as bitchy as I am now; that developed only after I got into the working world and was consistently treated in a way that was annoying unless I put on my armor.

CAB, I do not think standardized tests are end-all arbiter of skill. They can serve as a datapoint, but they have their issues & biases. I can understand the desire for race not being a factor in admissions, and only taking into account socioeconomic advantages / disadvantages. We’d all rather be there. But I feel a disconnect between on the one hand agreeing that race does play a factor in policing (and a multitude of other issues) but then not having that considered a distinct disadvantage w.r.t. college admissions. I know little about these topics, but I would guess the constitutionality of race considerations in college admissions hinges on that. Most of us would rather be in a world where race didn’t matter, but in the one we are in at the moment it sadly does.

I also don’t think admissions to top colleges are about skill, but rather about potential. I went to some top university then to its grad school which is top in the world. I was the only admit from the school itself, which was by design. The Ph.D. program basically admitted the only top person from each of around 40 schools in whatever criteria of “top” they had. You would think that perhaps #2 at (say) Harvard was better than #1 at (say) UC Davis. But they went with #1 at UC Davis (literally, one of my office-mates).

Why? They were looking for potential of being the “best”, I figure. #2 at Harvard already demonstrated they were less likely to be the “best”, and perhaps #1 at UC Davis had a better shot. But even that would often turn out wrong, because the top profs in the university would many times have come from a Ph.D. in some “lesser” program, having been rejected by this top school.

Point being school admissions are not looking for someone who demonstrated the highest skill on some stupid test. They are looking for potential. Skill on the test may be one marker of potential, but if you accept the fact that there is no innate connection between the color of one’s skin & raw brainpower / potential / etc., you better go wide so as not to miss out.

Agree, and thanks for employing CAB! I’d change my screen name on SE, but then I’d have to go through that whole “new poster” purgatory thing.

I’m kinda surprised you took so long to get rid of your disingenuous acquaintances. My life doesn’t really have such folks in it, personally or professionally, not because of any sort of turning point or confrontation. Mostly I guess I pick up indications and just avoid such people in favor of other people. Not a political conservative vs liberal thing, more a consistency thing w.r.t. the golden rule and which variant they ascribe to.

@nada - It is a bit harder when it is your father and the bulk of people you grew up with. You cannot begin to imagine how white a childhood of the 70’s and 80’s split between Bronxville, NY and Grosse Pointe, MI was.

The FedSoc crew in DC has been a bit challenging; pre-Trump, that crew was able to maintain a credible pretense of valuing civil rights. However, to Trump’s credit, he has unmasked them all. They are smart AF, and I am devastated that they are on the wrong side of history as I see it, both because I had genuine affection for them, and I am terrified they are using their considerable talent for priorities I do not support. A bunch of minds I used to count among my closest friends have gone from Never Trumpers to Forever Trumpers because at the end of the day, he is delivering on their highest priorities.

I skipped the ivy League schools, went to borough Manhattan community college and City college. So you get to become friends with more than one or two black students.

I had a professor that taught, I believe it was called black studies in America, it was a course that you had to take, and I enjoyed it very much. At the time I think there was maybe one other white kid in the class. I would occasionally joke, "you know I can hear you I'm sitting right here!".

Her litmus test for Whites who considered themselves progressive (she may have used a different word), "how many blacks are on your board, at your country club, are your physicians or surgeon, manage your money , do your taxes , or are your attorney."

@keith - That is a great litmust test, and one I have not previously heard.

I don’t belong to any country club on principle, though I am not going to lie, I miss the views to be had from the great real estate a lot of the old ones sit on. But aside from missing the views, another other thing I miss from my country club days of long ago is an organized tennis circle.

When I took up tennis again in earnest as an adult (2013), I joined a clinic at Carter Barron, the DC public facility. One day, a man came up to me after clinic and asked me if I’d be interested in playing on the USTA League Team (public league open to anyone) he was coaching. I said yes because I was thrilled at the prospect of having a regular group of women I could play tennis with outside the country club scene. He gave me the time and location of the next practice, and the only thing I recall thinking at the moment was “huh, not often someone asks me to meet them in NE DC.“

The location of the next practice turned out to be a public high school in NE DC, and when I showed up for practice, I was shocked that I was the only white member of the team. I did not receive the warmest welcome, but everyone eventually came around. The things they said about me and names they called me (I’d like to think out of affection eventually) would have likely made me angry had I my sustaining them not been voluntary. After all, I was totally free to leave at any time without any consequence to my livelihood or my resume. But because my endurance of the nicknames was voluntary, I was able to largely laugh them off.

I say I could “largely” laugh the jokes and nicknames off to highlight that I could not totally laugh them off. The jokes and nicknames still made me feel bad to the extent they were a constant reminder that I was “other,” a feeling that while interesting at first, wears thin eventually (it wore thin much more quickly when I felt it daily in a job overseas where not only was I not part of the power structure, but there was nobody in the power structure that bore any resemblance to me).

My being “other” with the team was always the elephant on the court, even after I could tell that the women were going out of their way to try to include me in conversations where I had no clue what they were talking about. I did not play with them the following year.

That summer of 2013 tennis league was yet another learning experience. Beyond reminding me of what it feels like to be “other,” a feeling I rarely encounter at that level in my own country, I was disappointed in myself that I found myself surprised that many of these women could not only compete with me, but they could actually beat me quite handily. I was surprised because many of them did not play the game in the form that I had learned at all; quite simply, their strokes were “atrocious” per my training. How on earth could somebody who served like that ace me repeatedly?

To elaborate, I am no athlete by a long shot. I was always one of the slower times in elementary school obligatory 50-yard dash, and my hand-eye coordination is “fine,” but I was never the star of the various teams I played on throughout my childhood. I was just a solid team player who could fill a background spot in the various sports I played, except tennis. I didn’t even really like sports as a young child, but I had no choice; it is what was done in my family. Tennis was a large part of that.

So, as an adult, I am generally better at tennis than my innate athletic ability would allow. The game was an integral part of my upbringing. I learned the form, rules, etc at such a young age that I never even thought about it. I feel the same way about corporate America. I never had to even think about whether I wanted to be doing what I was doing; of course I would be a lawyer at whatever level suited me because that is what I was programmed for without evening knowing it.

I have met a lot of people who have impressed me who were programmed for the job in the same manner that I was, but the people who impress me the most are the ones who are more effective than I am in whatever role without having had all the systemic advantages I’ve had. It is the totality of my experiences that leads me to believe, unlike truthskr, that when I encounter a person who doesn’t look like me in a job traditionally held by people who do look like me, I tend to think that person is likely pretty darn good at that job, even if they might have gotten their start through a diversity program.

Getting into a good college does not land you the job; doing well at the college gets you the job. And you certainly don’t hold the job or end up as a partner at the firm if you don’t know what you are doing. So, yes, please give me the partner who is “other” as my service provider, because chances are that s/he had to work exponentially harder on top of some serious innate brain power to get where s/he is, and that is who I want to be my doctor/lawyer/accountant.

With that said, when I go through the various professionals I turn to for care and advice, there is only one who is black, and that is one of my physicians. So again to Keith, much appreciation for giving me additional food for thought.

P.S. – When I did not get off the wait list for Columbia Law School, it did not even occur to me that it was because some affirmative action candidate got my spot. What did occur to me, however, is that likely someone from a lower-ranked undergrad university with lower test scores than mine got the spot at Columbia over me, because top schools can’t fill their graduate schools with kids that all come from the same undergraduate universities.

That was okay with me because I was really excited to go to the University of Michigan Law School. I had actually wanted go to Michigan for undergrad, but was shut down by my parents who were graciously paying the bill for college, which brings to me yet another thought: In addition to being impressed by anyone who doesn’t have the traditional look of any job, I am also always impressed by those who paid and worked their own way through college – that is how embarrassingly sheltered and privileged I was; it never occurred to me there was anybody who could not afford to go to whatever college they got into without financial aid or outside employment.

I'm sure there are a more than a few of us who appreciated MCR's voice and perspective on this thread, so thank you for the great discussion and so respectfully agreeing to disagree as necessary.

CAB, was your upbringing really that full of scuzzy human beings? I’m not talking about conservative vs liberal, just about whether they were trustworthy / honest / etc. in other matters of life. E.g., contrast profiles of these two people with likely liberal leanings: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/nyregion/central-park-amy-cooper-christian-racism.amp.html.

Also, curious to know what the highest priorities for the FedSoc crowd.

@Inonada - Now you are bringing out the natural defensive instinct we have for our families. There is a difference between people who have been culturally brainwashed for centuries and have never ventured outside their own comfort zone and being scuzzy. You would be shocked at how loving and charitable someone could be while still harboring incredibly dangerous biases that they genuinely believe are benign and grounded in fact. Ignorance is fertile breeding ground. There is a stark difference between those I was closest to before the age of 21 and those I am closest to now. My neighbors in DC are Muslim and have taught me more about Muslims and Islam than I certainly ever knew; they are fortunate that they live in a cosmopolitan area where they have a large community, because they would most definitely feel “other” in much of America, where people are not scuzzy, but have had their views of Muslims shaped by isolated incidents such as 9/11.

Regarding thr Federalist Society, those members of it I know (many of whom are currently serving st the highest levels throughout DOJ and the cabinets in this administration) are mostly concerned with deregulation (too many pesky regulations like those designed to make sure we all have clean drinking water hampering business). A number of them actually voted for Hillary Clinton because at the time they flat admitted that Trump was a racist and that was intolerable. The first opportunity I had to call them out on this was a dinner party in January of 2017, literally the day after the Muslim ban was announced. The dinner party got tense and we all agreed to talk about something else.

Over the following year, I kept hoping each of them would step up each time something we all knew was terribly “wrong” per the values they had always given lip service to, yet not only did some not step up, memos have been drafted by these same people to defend the Trump’s ability to do some of the things he has done.

I became incredibly outspoken everywhere I went, and began declining invitations that were conditioned on ignoring politics. I was surprised to get an invite to the annual January dinner in 2018 that had gotten so tense in January 2017. We now refer to that January 2018 dinner as The Last Supper; it did not end well and I have not voluntarily interacted with any of them since. (I have run into them here and there at events hosted by others, and in those instances, I just avoid them).

I cannot speak for FedSoc and its highest priorities, but I would characterize the highest priority of those members I know as free markets unencumbered by government regulation. As a result, regardless of what laws society decides to enact (environmental or employment laws being at the forefront of those they hate), they will support the Executive’s (POTUS) ability to gut such laws by messing with the agencies that are staffed and funded to enforce such laws. When POTUS action is challenged in court (on the basis of the President’s running rough shod over Congress beyond the powers allocated to him in the Constitution), the issue is decided by the Judiciary, which has completely changed its tune on the analysis to be applied in such situations. Look up anything you can as a lay person on the Chevron Doctrine. It was fashioned by Scalia when the world looked one way, but during the Clinton years and increasingly so since, the Doctrine has become inconvenient (Scalia himself said “oops, um, maybe we should rethink that genius doctrine I championed before he died). If you really want to geek out, look up both Gorsuch’s and Kavanaugh’s responses on the Chevron doctrine during their confirmation hearings (might be even easier for Gorsuch than that because I believe he had actually published on the issue before he was nominated, which could go a long way towards explaining why he was chosen).

The upshot of all of this is that regardless of the checks and balances prescribed by the Constitution, the judiciary is not going to check the Executive because it is now thoroughly politicized. Senate’s refusal to even consider Merrick Garland’s nomination was The Rubicon.

My hope is that the country holds free and fair elections in November and that such elections result in a new POTUS and a new majority in the Senate. However, it is not entirely unfathomable that the incumbents are re-elected, because at the end of the day, the system might agree with Mitch McConell’s agenda that Trump has actually delivered on. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College have a huge hand in all of it. We do not have a direct democracy by design; they system is set up to guard against the tyranny of the majority. I would say that at this point in time, those in power fear that the majority want to take away their money and status, and they will do anything to prevent that happening..

The whole world is holding its breath to see what version of the United States materializes in November of 2020. Who we elect defines who we are; I don’t like who we are at the moment, but I do believe the 2016 election was fair and legitimate such that Trump is, much to my chagrin, the legitimate POTUS. I really hope we as a country decide Trump is not who we want to be, but I am concerned. I am also concerned that he won’t go peacefully if he is voted out (or martial law will
be imposed to put election on hold indefinitely).

Read the Rushdie article streetsmart posted early in this thread. It could happen here, and all the
comfort I had that those I know in the administration would never let that happen is gone. Had you asked me 5 years ago if I thought a civil war was possible in the United States in this day and age, I would have laughed. Now, not so much.

P.S. - Even if November elections turn over the Executive and Legislature, we as a society are still going to have to deal with all the FedSoc judges that have been appointed and confirmed in record time for the foreseeable future. Anyone who has ever taken something to court understands how much power judges have. You can have the greatest laws on earth in place, but if those who are charged with enforcing them always find a way to interpret those laws against the people they were designed to protect, the people are out of luck. As I said, these people are smart AF; they know what they are doing and the transformation of the judiciary over the past three years is a stroke of genius on their part.

I am a complete chump and am still hoping that the Brett Kavanaugh that was previously a welcome guest at my house, the Brett Kavanaugh I thought we all knew, is still in there somewhere. The display he put on at his confirmation hearing was beyond anything I would have ever put in the realm of possibility. All he had to say is "Dear Ms. Ford: I sincerely believe you have me confused with someone else. However, when I reflect on who I was in 1983, as evidenced by the pages from my year book, I am filled with shame. I am so glad for my daughters that society has progressed over the last 40 years such that we don't see yearbook entries like that any more." Had he said that, I would have even continued to support his nomination.

However, instead of saying that, he got on Fox News and denied he was the person who we all know he was and who many of us were as well in 1983. He lied. And then in his confirmation hearings, he broke every rule in the book. Had somebody acted as he did in his own courtroom, he would have them removed and arrested for contempt immediately. Then, even after he had time to reflect on what he had done in the confirmation hearing, he was unapologetic and doubled down with his Op-Ed in the WJS. I am literally the only person who called everyone out on their continued support of him. We all know he lied about who he was in high school and in his much younger days. That is a far different person than the person I had always observed as an adult. Indeed, a member of the media called both my husband and I to ask us our thoughts on him before there was even a spectre of controversy about his nomination. We both supported him, but I did not that the women I referred to as "Brett's Babes" always raised my eyebrows. One of the things I had noticed about his clerks is that there were a disproportionate number of really beautiful brilliant women who clerked for him. Don't get me wrong, his clerks were always qualified, but there aren't that many individuals who are both CADC clerk material and supermodel material, and he seemed to find more of those than other judges. That does not mean he was not a great mentor to these women; I never heard or saw even a hint that Brett had anything but the highest respect for women. If Brett was in fact the one who traumatized Ms. Ford, I do not think his actions were motivated by anything other than drunken immaturity, and such actions are wholly incongruous with anything I ever observed or heard about him.

Those I know who still defend him say he had no choice but to lie. He wouldn't have gotten the job had he been honest about what the culture he both fostered and participated in in 1983. I actually am so naive that I actually thought Brett would use the whole thing as a teaching moment for the country and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, he chose to flat out lie and behave in a manner exponentially worse than that woman in the Ramble did.

Many many apologies for all the typos. This is a conversation and I am writing as a stream of consciousness. Proof-reading for typos and grammar (there are many cringe-worthy doozies in my posts) would take up more time than I am willing to devote. I hope the posts are intelligible; to the extent they aren't, please do not hesitate to ask me to clarify any of my positions, and either way, thank you for reading. I know the audience is tiny, and again, I have no greater claim to my take's being "the truth" than anyone else does; I am just afraid and will share the basis of my fear with anyone who cares to read. Worst case scenario, I am written off as a whack job by anyone reading. That is okay with me because I am fortunately in a position of general security. Best case scenario, is I get even one person to dig deeper and maybe change their vote in 2020 away from DJT if they are inclined in that direction at this time.