The fear is their efforts to indoctrinate their kids won’t succeed

I wrote yesterday about Russia fighting out in the open, where they’re easy pickings, when the could stay in their fortified trenches and let the Ukrainian’s come to them. Kos of Daily Kos gives a couple reasons why they might be doing that. 1. The message from Putin might be to not give up any land – including the few kilometers between the original front and the strong defenses. 2. Russian soldiers have no faith in the fortified trenches. Perhaps they feel like easy targets to Ukraine’s longer range artillery or they don’t know how to properly use those defensive positions. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported that a federal judge has struck down the Arkansas ban on gender affirming care for children. Arkansas was the first to ban such care, so their ban was the first to come before the court. Here’s a key sentence from Judge Jay Moody’s ruling:

Rather than protecting children or safeguarding medical ethics, the evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients and that, by prohibiting it, the state undermined the interests it claims to be advancing.

Mark Sumner of Kos wrote about the legal troubles of Hunter Biden, son of the president. In a deal with the US Attorney’s Office Hunter will plead guilty to two charges of misdemeanor failure to pay taxes, and one felony charge of possessing a gun while using drugs. This is a very unusual deal. Hunter didn’t pay the taxes in 2017-2018, but did pay in 2021. Filing charges after the taxes were paid is quite rare. Also prosecution for possessing a weapon while using drugs is almost always restricted to cases where the defendant is also facing charges on gun violence or drug sales. So even though Republicans say Hunter got off easy, he’s facing stiffer charges than others in his situation – Like Roger Stone, who failed to pay $2 million in taxes and whose case was resolved without charges. I think that’s about 100 times what Hunter failed to pay. US Attorney David Weiss was appointed by the nasty guy, who bragged Weiss was among the most supportive of the MAGA cause. It was under the nasty guy that Weiss began to investigate Hunter. And when Dad became president and Merrick Garland became AG Weiss was given ultimate authority in this case. Wrote Sumner:

Biden, Garland, and everyone else at the DOJ gave Weiss free rein over every aspect of the case. If he didn’t charge Hunter Biden with more, it’s because he didn’t find more. This was the most Trump-aligned attorney doing his worst, punishing Hunter Biden in a way most people would not be punished for, with charges most would not face, and still the Republicans are screaming. Because they were never interested in the truth, or really in Hunter Biden. They just need someone to vilify. It doesn’t really matter who.

Sumner also wrote about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to get ahead of a ProPublica article about Alito’s corruption. Yeah, another justice accused of corruption. When the ProPublica article appeared later, Alito’s piece was shockingly accurate. Of course, the guilty usually know what they’re guilty of. Where have we heard this before? Alito was offered a fancy vacation (private jet, exclusive lodge) by a rich dude (Paul Singer) who later had cases before the Supremes. Alito didn’t report the value of the gifts (he didn’t think he needed to) and didn’t recuse himself from the cases. It’s another example of the justices being the only ones allowed to judge their behavior. ProPublica's article included the central conflict in the case, as a law professor put it:

If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case? And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?

Most people don’t get these sorts of trips. Most people can’t afford them. Most people don’t have friends who can give them such a trip.

If Alito is looking for a little tip, it’s actually quite simple to tell if an act is corrupt. Just ask, “If I was not a judge, member of Congress, or other public official, would I be getting this gift?" If the answer is no, then accepting it is corrupt.

Rom DeathSantis has been saying “We believe in education, not indoctrination.” Laura Clawson of Kos wrote that if teachers really had the ability to indoctrinate they have a long wish list. Some of the things on the list: Treat themselves and others with kindness and respect. Follow directions, read the syllabus, ... don’t copy the PowerPoint outline and expect an A. Stop beginning papers with “Throughout history.” Use semicolons correctly. Put their name on their papers. Wrote Clawson:

The point is, teachers are trying to get students to do things and learn things all the time. It’s literally their job description! But they’re often unsuccessful at indoctrinating students into the most basic practices endorsed by every single teacher they have through their years of school. They don’t have the power of mind control. The nefarious practices Republicans are labeling “indoctrination” wouldn’t work if students weren’t open to them. The fear Republicans are expressing is that their own efforts to indoctrinate their kids won’t succeed—that their kids will be LGBTQ+ or will call out racism when they see or hear it. They want the schools to actively participate in keeping their kids in line by denying them knowledge. There is real indoctrination out there. But it’s not about Disney movies or which books school libraries make available. ... To be indoctrinated is to be taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, without considering other points of view or bodies of evidence. Where have you seen that in your life? In school? At home? In church? In a political group?

Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed a lecture by William Darity Professor, of Public Policy at Duke University. The lecture was titled “Does everyone lose from racism? Insights from stratification economics” and was given at University of Massachusetts Amherst. Einenkel wrote:

During the question and answer section of the lecture, a young man spewed what many would consider a right-wing, neo-libertarian talking point about Black “trends” of “higher crime rates” and “high illegitimacy rates” that would supersede any structural criticism of our country. Professor Darity deftly dismantled this fact-free “propagandistic method” and asked what exactly “crime” meant to this young man, noting that if it means a “history of violence,” then there is “unquestionably” only one group of Americans who, far and away, have participated in general and racially focused violence at levels unmatched by other groups of Americans.

Jon Cooper tweeted a cartoon showing the character Lisa Simpson (I had to look up the show to make sure I had the right name) in front of a screen that says:

Black lives matter is not an anti-white movement. Feminism is not an anti-men movement. Pride is not an anti-straight movement. This isn’t about you.

I add that each of the three is an anti-hierarchy movement and many straight white men are deeply invested in the hierarchy. Michael Thomas, who writes a newsletter about climate change looked at why American vehicles are so much larger and so much more inefficient than in other countries. He starts with a comparison with the best selling vehicles in America and Europe. In Europe that is the Peugeot 208, about 2.3K pounds, $22.9K, and 50 mpg. In America that is the Ford F-150 pickup, about 4K pounds, $35.7K, and 25 mpg. Yes, there was a fuel efficiency law passed in 1975. It helped. For a while. Then (I think in 1985) lobbyists happened.

At the last minute, auto lobbyists convinced Congress to make a subtle change to the bill’s text. They got the fuel efficiency standards for trucks to be set separately from cars. The revised bill basically said, “Every *small car* has to hit 27.5 miles per gallon.” The truck standards would be set separately in a process that was much easier to corrupt. So what'd automakers do? They started making bigger cars in order to avoid regulations. This loophole significantly changed the economics of making cars and trucks in America. It became much more profitable for automakers to make big trucks and SUVs. Recently GM, Ford, and Chrysler stopped making small cars entirely. Instead the companies are focusing on selling their more profitable trucks and SUVs. All of this has had disastrous effects on both people and the planet. ... Auto lobbyists proved decades ago that it’s possible to design policies that encourage one type of vehicle over another. Now it’s time to pass policies that encourage people to buy smaller cars with a smaller impact.

I don’t want or need a truck or SUV. They’re to big and power hungry for my modest needs. Maybe I won’t be waiting for GM to make an electric car. Maybe, after 27 years in the American auto industry, I don’t ever buy American again.