FireTower

1. You aren't allowed to / really shouldn't be say it if you aren't Black.

2. Presumably under this notion someone anonymous who says it should be abiding that cultural norm.

3. Meaning that if an anonymous person is saying it and you expect them to abide that norm it'd be reasonable to assume they're Black.

I've watched a few of his videos and they've all been very interesting. I'd recommend some of his coverage on Native American/Indian issues.

He also did good job showing the border situation from the lenses of people from every side of it (migrants, cartel coyotes, local sheriffs, & cities hosting the migrants). It highlights how dogmatism of politicians is hurting ordinary people.

The swastika on German Nazi flags were black. Of course they also were mostly red (and had a white circle).

Red, white, and black is definitely a choice though. Maybe picking a color that wasn't on the Nazi flag would have been better for this sticker.

CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.

Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)

Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/business/argentina-poverty-rate-increase-50-percent/index.html

That marked a steep jump from 41.7% at the end of last year and more than double the 26% just seven years ago,

I'm not sure I'd chalk it up to 10 months of presidency as much as the past administrations mistakes.

Kinda like that time the king of England took away Massachusetts' legislatures. But I have a feeling the king here will fair better this go around.

Not sure on all the specifics of CA's admittance structure, beyond they banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

But post Students for Fair Admissions DEI measures are still ok. Schools can't use race alone as a plus or minus but they may choose to favor those from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 1st generation college students, and even good essays that share someone's experience being a race.

Admiralty law, and it stems from it being one the few areas of jurisdictions covered by federal courts per Art 3 sec 2 of the US Constitution.

The chances of that happening to the average person are close to zero.

That's the whole point. People don't watch the news to hear "dog bites man" they watch it to hear "man bites dog".

No one wants to watch a 2-3 hr long movie about someone's regular Tuesday at the office they want to watch something that doesn't happen everyday like an adventure, the perfect couple meeting, or the world ending.

Just feel it should be pointed out that money isn't the only way to contribute. Time is another. Volunteer hours are important for many charitable organizations too.

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).