fishkin.bsky.social
Law prof @ UCLA. I study equality and oligarchy.
Most recent book @ https://anti-oligarchy.com
1,051 posts
6,884 followers
659 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I am not here to defend that Times article.
But this is a dramatically different Supreme Court than the one that decided Windsor or Obergefell. At some point, surely it's possible for SCOTUS to move SO far right that advocates' best move is to keep most trans cases away from SCOTUS.
Are we there?
comment in response to
post
I'm sure they will make sure every single worker who pours their labor into the food, lodging, and hospitality for this lovely event will be a U.S. citizen.
comment in response to
post
Strongly agree. It makes me nervous and I'm not even at Harvard!
It will take many more court victories for Harvard before Trump will agree to a face-saving "deal" that doesn't substantively affect Harvard at all. That is the only kind of deal that the university should accept...
comment in response to
post
We tax "tangible personal property" but not "intangible" property.
Now to me, Tesla, for example, appears fairly tangible. It's a company with lots of physical assets and Musk owns a very specific percentage of it.
But no, we couldn't possibly tax _that_. That would be a scary wealth tax!
comment in response to
post
I'd like to see the billionaire who owns a car that is as significant as percentage of their net worth as the car of a middle-class person.
But lots of states tax your car the way they tax your house. But never your stocks and bonds.
comment in response to
post
You're 100% right and it gets worse: most states in addition to taxing real estate (which makes up a far higher percentage of a middle-class person's wealth than it does a billionaire's wealth), most states also tax certain forms of _personal_ property, such as vehicles—even more regressive.
comment in response to
post
It's great that this data even exists. Please keep tracking this.
comment in response to
post
This is a helpful observation.
The "electability" argument certainly looks different in the context of a politician like Cuomo who *actively opposes his own party having unified control* legislatively.
Sometimes, people are all on the same team & disagree about tactics. Other times, that's not it.
comment in response to
post
I do not agree with your interpretation of the body of public evidence but I am not interested in arguing. I’m making a different point.
I’m suggesting you examine for yourself whether you know any human beings in real life who match the story you’re repeating all over the internet.
comment in response to
post
You are not answering my question.
I'm not asking you in a hostile way, just offering you a way to do a little reality check.
If you know any parents of trans children, you might ask yourself, do they and their kids match the stuff I am repeating out there on the internet?
(E.g. re "from birth.")
comment in response to
post
I don't think your comment has much to do with mine, but with all due respect: are you describing people you personally know, or are you repeating things you have heard/read?
Do you know parents of trans children? If so, do they match the description you are putting out there on the internet?
comment in response to
post
Fair enough!
But honestly I'd rather not wade into the raw data either.
I'm sure there's _something_ a student could say in evaluating an article for publication that would be so wild it would be worthy of discussion but to me, the bar is so high, I really don't think that's happening.
comment in response to
post
The failure to do this—Ghorayshi's insistence on adopting the news-from-nowhere posture—is simply an indictment of her craft as a journalist, from within the norms of the profession as they have evolved over the past half a century.
When you're central to the story, discuss this. Don't hide it.
comment in response to
post
But in this specific case I put the onus on Ghorayshi herself.
The podcast form was a perfect place in which to say something about how your own reporting has become part of the story, and has been taken up as a cudgel by a political party.
comment in response to
post
This is obviously part of a broader problem with the @nytimes.com itself, which like various other national institutions, has deep problems, but is also not an institution we can do without.
The Times has never adequately acknowledged its own pivotal role in the outcome of the 2016 election, etc.
comment in response to
post
I am quite sure Azeem Ghorayshi would say, "I'm just doing journalism. Fueling the fire the Republican Party lit under trans kids for their own cynical reasons was not my goal."
But even granting that premise, Ghorayshi is obligated now to cover her own role in the story. It's part of the story.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps it is because her work at the @nytimes.com has become a central pillar of the argument for taking these medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and parents and putting them in the hands of right-wing politicians?
comment in response to
post
Ghorayshi tells Natalie Kitroeff that "And I’ve tried to reach out to clinics in blue states....And frankly, none of them will talk."
She does not say "none of them will talk TO ME."
I wonder, why might clinics providing medical care to trans kids refuse to speak specifically to Azeem Ghorayshi?
comment in response to
post
personally I find the Washington Free Beacon article’s take to be so inevitable and predictable it could have been produced by AI—and it turns out it partly was!
Meanwhile, the students deserve a wide berth of academic freedom to publish what they want. So that doesn’t inspire me to get into it.
comment in response to
post
The timeline—that heightened scrutiny for sex was just beginning and its reach was unclear—is really helpful for understanding Geduldig itself, and for seeing that it was Dobbs, rather than Geduldig, that held “here’s a giant carve-out from modern EPC heightened scrutiny”
comment in response to
post
Buried in a Senate budget bill is a massive giveaway to corporate developers and fossil fuel companies.
It forces the sale of at least 2 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land in 11 Western states *every 60 days* until millions of acres are gone.
comment in response to
post
One thing they did, I thought effectively, was point out that Republican elected officials themselves are telling journalists about the violent threats they are getting from the far right. That fact, perhaps, begins to open up the possibility of having the conversation the country needs to have...
comment in response to
post
Yeah that is depressing, and you did indeed call it.
But not every news organization is going down this same tired path. I thought NPR's politics podcast today was pretty decent, centering on the New Apostolic Reformation mostly, and giving listeners good context about overall political violence—
comment in response to
post
Other times it's on a long delay, so that the original outlandish accusation is not so much a confession as a preview and a commitment: "This is what I think a President who had zero loyalty to the United States and only wished to aggrandize himself would do..."
Years later: "...and that's me!"—DJT
comment in response to
post
Nice interview. I have literally never seen so many American flags in my life as I saw among the protesters during the DTLA No Kings protest on Saturday.
American flags ALONGSIDE some Mexican flags, a few Salvadoran flags, at least one South Koran flag, & many more.
This is America!
comment in response to
post
The thing about this post is it’s not even really a joke.
I actually think the NYT should cover this controversy, according to their current norms of what is newsy and buzzy.
And then after that we can work on some changes to those norms…
comment in response to
post
Genuinely do not understand this reaction.
I’m the dad of a 6 year old boy myself and have never thought, “I wish his girl classmates were younger!”
It’s not zero sum here; and we ought to be able to design a school system that can work for the wide variation within each gender…
comment in response to
post
Fair point.
It’s a bigger controversy! 4 million vs 12.1 million!
Reporters let’s get on this!
comment in response to
post
This is such a sad coda to what was, for the first many hours, are really beautiful and festive gathering of Angelinos, loud and boisterous and 100% peaceful.
It's incredibly disappointing that the police (or really maybe it's the sheriffs) made a somewhat inexplicable choice to change that
comment in response to
post
For example, Montessori-style pre-K can be very educationally valuable for a 5 year old. There are other types of preschool that could be as well. Perhaps boys would do better if the structure—for everyone—involved something like that at 5 and then Kindergarten at 6?
comment in response to
post
But there is a point to Reeves' argument which is, he says, too many boys aren't ready for the more structured nature of Kindergarten. (Some girls aren't either of course!)
I think this is a reasonable concern that doesn't have to be addressed through sex discrimination necessarily.
comment in response to
post
If you have a daughter and she is happy to be in class with boys up to two years older than she is, and thinks this is a fine experience & going great, more power to her.
That is not the universal experience by a long shot.
Result: many parents of girls are now redshirting to match the boys.
comment in response to
post
That's the theory, but the data are complicated.
Creating a persistent gap by sex in age throughout schooling is not great, for various reasons, including the dynamics of middle and high school, w/a large gap right as puberty hits, with girls dealing with boys up to 2 yrs older (!) in their classes
comment in response to
post
At the moment, parents who can afford to redshirt their boys, especially, do. This exacerbates inequalities which is why some districts ban it.
Why not make free universal "pre-K" for 5-year-olds part of the package of schooling—and just start Kindergarten, with all its expectations, at 6, for all?
comment in response to
post
In CA, the people I am meeting in the Downtown LA protest heard this news before we set out this AM.
But once you are in a big protest crowd, who’s checking the news, plus the LA crowd is so big, cell data is past capacity and often fails
comment in response to
post
...if it were up to me, it might be a good time to ground the other two 787s Boeing's South Carolina facility produced and sent to India in early 2014.
It is obviously not up to me. I hope that someone in a sufficiently important position of authority in India reads the U.S. reporting on this.
comment in response to
post
The story of how Boeing nuked their core quality control processes in attempting to move production from WA to cheaper South Carolina a decade-plus ago has been widely reported over the years.
Obviously I hope this horrific crash is the only one that will ever occur with any of those jets.
But...
comment in response to
post
It also has a weird way of making big, universal things seem like niche things only aficionados care about.
The rule-of-law community, for instance, is having a rough year.
As is the medical community.
And neither of them is excited to be more or less on rhetorical par with the Q-Anon community
comment in response to
post
Yes. That's good. However:
"An investigator who worked on the documentary told the Prospect that employees he interviewed were especially anxious about three planes they had worked on that were scheduled to be delivered to Air India during the first months of 2014"
(from linked article)
And—
comment in response to
post
Read the story: the set of 787s delivered to India when this one was, in early 2014.