Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

Law school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

In law school my equities and trusts lecturer was very old - but very fun (as much as the subject allowed) - so old that he was John Cleese's law tutor in the 60s.

He was not shy about letting us know the damage "Mr Blair's" Charities Act 2006 had wrought on the country. Also very, very passionate about public schools retaining their charitable status.

[Admiral Yi]

I think any sort of classroom indoctrination is suspect.

[grumbler]

It's a bit of a stretch to claim that "capitalism [subtext, as it exists in the US today] is the pinnacle of individual and economic freedom," and that's what seems to be state mandated.

Yes.  The state of Utah wants students to be free to make up their own minds:  do they agree that capitalism is the peak of freedom, or do they mindlessly agree that capitalism is the peak of freedom?

We do have to keep in mind that Utah is run by one of the creepiest cults in America. 

[HVC]

We do have to keep in mind that Utah is run by one of the creepiest cults in America. 

The GOP?

[HVC]

Another fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.

[The Brain]

Another fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.

But he killed Hitler?

[HVC]

Another fake republican Jew, Anna Paulina Luna. Extra spice, her granddaddy was a nazi.

But he killed Hitler?

The only nazi man enough to kill hitler was hitler

[Barrister]

I think any sort of classroom indoctrination is suspect.

But all kinds of classroom indoctrination already happens.

Kids are being taught that respect for authority (teachers, parents) is good.  Timeliness is good.  Kids are being taught to recycle, that all kids are created equal.  And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I mean - I'm very much opposed to the idea that we present Nazism as a perfectly valid political ideology!

[Admiral Yi]

But all kinds of classroom indoctrination already happens.

Kids are being taught that respect for authority (teachers, parents) is good.  Timeliness is good.  Kids are being taught to recycle, that all kids are created equal.  And I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I mean - I'm very much opposed to the idea that we present Nazism as a perfectly valid political ideology!

You may think I'm splitting hairs but I see a difference between basic life lessons like punctuality and respect for people in general, without which your life will be more difficult, and positions that involve more personal judgement.

[Oexmelin]

Law school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

I don't understand how you cannot see the difference. What you describe has nothing to do with the book burning and state control that DeSantis is now imposing on Florida.

Law is obviously a normative topic. You have to know the norms in order to practice law. Your professor can certainly say whatever they want on the topic - unless they secretly control the Canadian Parliament, or the US Congress, that opinion has no bearing on what the law is. Now, when you get into building legal reasoning, or political philosophy, this gets a lot more blurry, because you can teach it in a way that aims at "winning" an argument, or you can teach it as a way to justify a position.

But none of those latter elements - their *conclusions* - are state-mandated. If your law school professor teaches false things about the state of the law, students will either fail the bar, or lose cases. What DeSantis is doing, applied to law, is mandating an ideological conclusion about the rationale behind the law - that, for instance, it's the best possible form of jurisdiction and cannot possibly produce any form of injustice. A professor can certainly *say* these things, but they are not state-*mandated* to say these things.

DeSantis and his acolytes have picked a version of "history" from which deviations are measured, and sanctioned. No professor of history starts out having, as a goal, to arrive at these sorts of moronic conclusions: the United States is the freest country in the world, the bestest, that racism doesn't exist in the US, etc. That is why I said dogma make for mediocre teaching, especially when taken at face-value. But there is a world of difference between teaching orthodoxy to recognize it in our world ("we rarely question the existence of private property"), orthodoxy taught historically ("why do we tend to think property leads to liberty"), orthodoxy taught in relations to exterior norms ("here is what Canadian law says about property"), and dogma ("property is liberty"), or state ideology ("Property is liberty. Glory to Arztozka").

What DeSantis & Co. promote isn't an equally valid reading of history (or the present). It's a collection of moronic myths to appease a political constituency - and they are not *promoting* them. They are *enforcing* them.

And yes, at its core, the humanities all have a commitment to certain values, notably, the dignity of the person. It is a political truism. But even that isn't mandated and enforced by state legislatures rooting through emails, and syllabi, and examining the content of school libraries to remove offending books. Even cherished notions like equality gets routinely discussed, and examined, and debated: this is why Yale is apparently capable of churning out all those highly-educated fascists.

[Barrister]

Law school constitutional law class?  Yes - if you want to be a lawyer.  And there the example is worse as the professor I was thinking of was an ex-communist, so was very much let you know his own personal opinion.

I don't understand how you cannot see the difference. What you describe has nothing to do with the book burning and state control that DeSantis is now imposing on Florida.

Law is obviously a normative topic. You have to know the norms in order to practice law. Your professor can certainly say whatever they want on the topic - unless they secretly control the Canadian Parliament, or the US Congress, that opinion has no bearing on what the law is. Now, when you get into building legal reasoning, or political philosophy, this gets a lot more blurry, because you can teach it in a way that aims at "winning" an argument, or you can teach it as a way to justify a position.

But none of those latter elements - their *conclusions* - are state-mandated. If your law school professor teaches false things about the state of the law, students will either fail the bar, or lose cases. What DeSantis is doing, applied to law, is mandating an ideological conclusion about the rationale behind the law - that, for instance, it's the best possible form of jurisdiction and cannot possibly produce any form of injustice. A professor can certainly *say* these things, but they are not state-*mandated* to say these things.

DeSantis and his acolytes have picked a version of "history" from which deviations are measured, and sanctioned. No professor of history starts out having, as a goal, to arrive at these sorts of moronic conclusions: the United States is the freest country in the world, the bestest, that racism doesn't exist in the US, etc. That is why I said dogma make for mediocre teaching, especially when taken at face-value. But there is a world of difference between teaching orthodoxy to recognize it in our world ("we rarely question the existence of private property"), orthodoxy taught historically ("why do we tend to think property leads to liberty"), orthodoxy taught in relations to exterior norms ("here is what Canadian law says about property"), and dogma ("property is liberty"), or state ideology ("Property is liberty. Glory to Arztozka").

What DeSantis & Co. promote isn't an equally valid reading of history (or the present). It's a collection of moronic myths to appease a political constituency - and they are not *promoting* them. They are *enforcing* them.

And yes, at its core, the humanities all have a commitment to certain values, notably, the dignity of the person. It is a political truism. But even that isn't mandated and enforced by state legislatures rooting through emails, and syllabi, and examining the content of school libraries to remove offending books. Even cherished notions like equality gets routinely discussed, and examined, and debated: this is why Yale is apparently capable of churning out all those highly-educated fascists.

Oex, I feel like you aren't reading what I'm saying, and just interpreting through the US political landscape.

My former law school constitutional law prof - he wasn't secretly in control of anything - he was literally the former Justice Minister and Attorney General of Manitoba.  And I'm not being cute in calling him being a former communist - he literally was.

And he wound up as my law school academic reference.  I grudgingly admired the man, even though I disagreed with his politics.

As you say - there are certain values the humanities / liberal society upholds.  That's all I'm saying that schools should be unapologetic about promoting.

[crazy canuck]

Or Canada - our country was founded on the principles of "the supremacy of God and the rule of law".  I think the state can teach as a positive value about the importance of the rule of law and the supremacy of God.

That is not actually the quote.  The Preamble to the Charter does not say Canada was founded on the principle of the supremacy of God.

The actual quote is, "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law". 

It is not surprising at all that the principles that recognize the rule of law had and continue to have a significant impact on the development of our law.

It is also not surprising that there are actually no principles related to the supremacy of God in our law, and that the addition of that language was a political sop to get support to get the Charter passed.  As a result the preamble has become a dead letter of the law.

[The Larch]

As I saw mentioned in another news article, the current GOP's war is on energy efficiency.

Why does Ted Cruz think your Xbox is woke?
A new power-saving mode has drawn the attention of right-wing culture warriors

There's a surprising new talking point for American conservative media and politicians: Xbox. On Monday, U.S. senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted, "First gas stoves, then your coffee, now they're gunning for your Xbox," linking to an article on right-wing site Blaze News. Within hours, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) had paraphrased Cruz's tweet (throwing guns in to spice it up a bit); Fox News had run an article with a headline claiming, "Woke brigade is after video games"; and a Fox & Friends host had said, "They're going after the children!"

What is it that has these culture warriors so exercised? A new "carbon aware" power-saving mode that Microsoft is rolling out for Xbox consoles, along with some changes to their default settings intended to reduce their environmental impact.

WHY HAVE CONSERVATIVES SUDDENLY DECIDED TO TARGET XBOX?
There's never a good answer to this kind of question, although as Cruz's tweet hints, the Xbox news (which broke two weeks ago) fits into a narrative that the right has been constructing about progressive forces seeking to curtail personal conveniences and comforts amid the climate crisis. In recent weeks, right-wing media and commentators have seized on an academic study into the carbon footprint of coffee and on regulatory concerns about the public health impact of gas stoves. Attacking Microsoft's new green settings is a convenient way to keep the subject rolling, garlanded with a recognizable brand and some youth-audience appeal.

Also, Cruz is known to be a bit of a gamer, which may help explain him tackling this topic.

WHAT DOES THE 'CARBON AWARE' MODE DO?
Being "carbon aware" means that your Xbox, as long as it has an internet connection, will adjust when it does updates and downloads to times when the local power grid uses the most renewable energy and is least reliant on fossil fuels. It determines the right time by checking regional carbon intensity data online. The carbon-aware mode is on by default, but it works only when a console has been powered down using the Shutdown setting, not Sleep mode. (More about these later.)

Though new to Xbox, carbon awareness is not a brand-new initiative— all Windows 11 updates became carbon aware last year. (Microsoft intends to be carbon negative by 2030, not only in its own operations but through how its products are used.)

Right-wingers have targeted the carbon-aware mode for the same reason that Microsoft chose to headline its news release with it — it has a hip, progressive-sounding name. But in fact, another change Microsoft is making at the same time will have a far bigger environmental impact.

IS MICROSOFT FORCING PLAYERS TO POWER DOWN THEIR XBOXES?
No — Microsoft isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything other than accept the "carbon aware" update, which has zero impact on the user experience, as it only affects the timing of downloads and updates when the console is switched off.

However, Microsoft is updating all Xbox consoles to use the Shutdown (aka "energy saving") setting by default, rather than Sleep. While Sleep mode still exists as an option, people who want to use it will need to go into the settings and reselect it after the update.

Shutdown draws up to 20 times less power than Sleep, so the cumulative power-saving effect of Microsoft moving every Xbox to Shutdown by default is considerable. Even if some users choose to reverse the decision — a minor inconvenience, at worst — this update should have a meaningful impact on the carbon footprint of Xbox gaming worldwide.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHUTDOWN AND SLEEP?
The "degradation" of the user experience in the name of climate politics that conservative culture warriors are complaining about amounts to longer boot times, mostly. According to Microsoft, a console can take up to 45 seconds to boot from Shutdown mode, whereas booting up from Sleep mode is much faster. Also, features that allow the Xbox to be woken remotely or with your voice are no longer available in Shutdown — you have to physically press a button on the Xbox or the controller to turn on the console.

Crucially, the Quick Resume feature that allows games to be picked up exactly where they were left off still works with Shutdown.

SHOULD I LEAVE MY XBOX ON SHUTDOWN MODE?
It's up to you! But even aside from its impact on the climate emergency, the mode offers considerable power savings that could help reduce your electricity bills during this time of soaring power costs. So it's a fiscally sensible as well as environmentally responsible option, with only a minor downside — unless you cannot live without remote wake, or you find 45 seconds to be an unbearably long period of time.

Or unless you like paying the power company extra to own the libs.

[Syt]

 

[The Larch]

Florida and Texas ban banks employing ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) criteria for their investments from getting involved in pension funds for local and state workers, as well as public debt underwriting. You'll never guess what happens next:

Texas & Florida Paying Hundreds Of Millions More In Bond Interest Because Of ESG Bans

The governors of Texas and Florida have declared war on Wall Street bankers who dare to consider environmental, social, and governance factors in making their business decisions. Companies committed to ESG favor protection of natural resources, human rights, health and safety, and community engagement.
(...)
Since it began its assault on ESG in 2022, Texas, with its perfect AAA credit rating, is paying 19 basis points more in yield (the equivalent of $1.9 million on every $1 billion of bonds sold) than AA-rated California on routine borrowings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The city of Anna, Texas, paid more than it should have last September on two bond sales totaling almost $100 million when it rejected the most competitive bid from Citigroup because of the Republican-backed state law that punishes financial firms for promoting gun safety. Do the people of Anna know? That's doubtful.

In Florida, DeSantis' attacks on money managers and securities underwriters who oppose fossil fuels, voter suppression, and the criminalizing of reproductive rights as part of their investment strategies are poisoning the market for AAA rated Florida debt. Without the liquidity that comes from a robust group of underwriters, Florida now pays 43 basis points more in yield (or $4.3 million for every $1 billion of bonds sold) than California, which has a AA rating. That's only 0.35% more than prior to 2022, but when billions in public borrowing is involved, that small difference can cost the state's taxpayers tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in higher borrowing costs.
(...)
JPMorgan Chase has 25,500 employees in Texas, but has been barred from doing business with the state because of its support for gun safety regulations and alternative energy. It contributed more than $17.5 million to nonprofit workforce readiness programs, community development, and neighborhood revitalization in 2019 and continues to expand its main Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio workforce at 130 Texas locations throughout the state.

Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have also been banned. Together with JPMorgan, they managed $540 billion worth of municipal offerings during the past five years. That represents 25% of the market for new issues according to data compiled by Bloomberg. On average, they charged a fee of 0.38% on those bond offerings, which is 0.11 percentage points lower than the average for the other 145 underwriters who provide similar services.