the last little bit discussed in that video is pretty disturbing. the court reframing abortion as black genocide and invoking the idea that white dominated institutions need to protect black families by taking their choices away
especially in the context of the court’s recent decisions on voting rights and policing - it really does set the stage for what that last guest was saying: intrusion and surveillance in the name of liberty
the fewer rights the court recognizes, the freeer we all become. doublespeak made real
And to somehow keep sponging off of the wealthier and more sane states.
What the fascists and Xtianists never understand is that the highly educated workers who form the basis of a prosperous state’s industries literally run from repressive policies grounded in the benighted past. Russia has lost tens of thousands of these people (along with the companies some own) in the course of three months because its turn toward open fascism offers them no future.
Not really “news”, so much as an important reminder.
From nearly 20 years ago:
This is why the most prosperous and innovative regions of the United States are also the most politically liberal, and why the most conservative regions of the country are also the greatest beneficiaries of transfer payments. Liberals create wealth and government redistributes it to conservatives. This is, of course, the opposite of the received conservative opinion in the media, and indeed in most of academia. But it is true. What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Philip E. Agre
August 2004
It fits into the larger 40-year neoliberal propaganda narrative of the heroic white Galtian conservative businessman and his mom-and-pop aspirational counterparts in the Real American™ Heartland being the true drivers of American prosperity, while the more diverse and secular urban dwellers are commie “takers”.
The fact that he’s an asshole aside; can I ask why exactly a ‘great common-law authority’ is being dragged in to an examination of what is supposed to be a question of interpreting the US Constitution?
I know that the federalist society golden boys are…creative…in their conceptions of ‘textualist’ and ‘originalist’; that’s practically a running gag at this point; but dragging a common law guy from a completely different jurisdiction into the interpretation of a document written over a century after his death is veering into a highbrow version of the ‘common law’ fetishism of the sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land nutjobs.
in this christian extremists appear to be consistent. they skip over the meaning of the constitution and go back to the older documents it quite explicitly changed - just like they skip over that whole jesus fellow and go back to the old testament vengeful god
except when it’s inconvenient of course. everyone loves mixed fibers after all
People tend to seriously exaggerate the “vengeful God” thing, too. What the Bible has, in both OT and NT, is a pretty consistent theme of how you should treat your fellow humans decently, help the poor, care for the sick, protect the weak, and welcome the stranger. Another consistent theme, of course, is that people do anything but that, and are told off by God and the prophets for it.
