They At the least one was also blaming the mother on Reddit.
“Sad. They should not have tried to make such a dangerous trip. I would hope most mothers wouldn’t out their kids in harm’s way, like this.”
“Mexico should stop being such a sh!thole that it makes people want to come to the US. The US should do a better job at deterring illegals. This mother should’ve been a better mother and not put her kids in harm’s way.”
Edit: I think it’s safe to say if one is saying it outloud there are many more who believe the same thing.
Researchers examined the median home prices last year for roughly 575 U.S. counties and found that home prices in 99% of those areas are beyond the reach of the average income earner, who makes $71,214 a year, according to ATTOM.
This sounds like they compared the national mean income to local median home prices which honestly probably makes 99% too generous, it’s probably closer to 100% unless the article is explaining what they did poorly.
The lowest cost of living areas are going to be the ones where these houses are most affordable but they’re also lower income areas normally and a normal person isn’t pulling 71k a year in middle of nowhere Tennessee or whatever.
I don't really see the constituonal basis here. Racial discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so there's an obvious angle for calling affirmative action unconditional. That doesn't really exist with legacy admissions.
It's still stupid and shouldn't be a thing, but it's not the job of the Courts to ensure an optimal college admissions system. Saying that it's de facto racial discrimination is a pretty big stretch.
The argument is that legacy admissions are a criterion being used in lieu of race to achieve racial discrimination. Similar systems were an aggressive part of the Jim Crowe South to prevent blacks from voting when they couldn't make skin color-specific rules anymore, where you would have to prove literacy or your grandfather's ability to vote to get a vote in since they knew that no black person could pass those tests.
It's not the strongest case, but it isn't unreasonable and it has a rational basis. I'm skeptical that even a disinterested court would accept the logic on its face and know that the current court will just wallow in its hypocrisy, but I at least understand the principle.
The defense to it is that these elite universities actively desire diversity, so clearly they are not using legacy admits as a proxy for racial discrimination. There's plenty of evidence that there is a different, corrupt-but-legal purpose for these legacy systems that is not racially motivated.
edit: On the flip-side, if indirectly discriminatory policies like these ARE allowed, it gives the universities a clear path forward to continuations of their AA policies. They just need to replace the race of their applicants with proxies for race that are allowed. Theoretically, this logic could force a standoff -- either policies that indirectly have discriminatory outcomes (defined by who?) are illegal or they aren't. Or else you'd have to somehow prove intention to discriminate before you could find a policy illegal, which is another very complex can of worms that the elite universities could probably get around.
And so, like with everything around this case, it likely won't change any real behavior from the elite universities but will seriously fuck with less affluent ones.
So, my imaginary friend is telling me to pull down as many voter records as possible for swing states and build an analysis pipeline to determine which voters are conservative and then automatically file challenges to their registrations.
If these chucklefucks really want to fuck around, I and many others are perfectly happy helping them find out.
“However, Target management does have fiduciary duties to its shareholders to prudently manage the company and act loyally in the company’s best interests.”
Not sure how reaching out to more groups to sell more products and generate more profit amongst those groups previously left out of the equation is not in the company’s best interest.
They’re implying there are more hateful bigots in the US and that Target would lose more money by them not shopping there due to Pride merch than they’d make by selling it.
Which is probably not true for Target’s clientele, but my local Walmart definitely didn’t have any rainbow stuff for sale this year.
cbsnews.com
Top