Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Or the looney he picked for Sec. of Ed.

Why even have the discussion? Your starting point is that the person is "looney."

Assuming it's still DeVos, she is on the board of a think tank that published a "Bring back Child Labor, it's good for them" piece.

How do you describe such a train of thought?

Please cite the article for me so i can look at it.

The Acton Institute wrote:
Whatever else you want to say about this, it’s an exciting life. You can talk about the dangers of coal mining or selling newspapers on the street. But let’s not pretend that danger is something that every young teen wants to avoid. If you doubt it, head over the stadium for the middle school football game in your local community, or have a look at the wrestling or gymnastic team’s antics at the gym.

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the article. Its very interesting actually, and not what your are trying to pin it as. Read it.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/89837-bring-back-child-labor-work-is-a-gift-our-kids-can-handle.html

UPDATE: Given the recent attention drawn to this post, permit me to clarify that I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor, nor do I support sending our children back into the coal mines or other high-risk jobs, nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages. Due to the confusion it brought, I have removed “bring back child labor” from the title, as many falsely took it to mean a call to “bring back” earlier laws, conditions, or jobs, which is not my argument. My recommendation here is simply that we challenge our cultural assumptions about labor at all levels, from parenting to education to policymaking, and ensure we take a more holistic approach to education that recognizes the dignity of each human person.

 whembly wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Or the looney he picked for Sec. of Ed.

Why even have the discussion? Your starting point is that the person is "looney."

To see if whembly is fine with a racist and a looney being appointed to powerful positions because he did not mention them in his bad list and these two are among the worst

The last I heard, Trump hasn't settled on an appointment to Attorney General. Has that changed?

It's pretty much confirmed Sessions is the AG pick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

 Spinner wrote:

The Acton Institute wrote:
Whatever else you want to say about this, it’s an exciting life. You can talk about the dangers of coal mining or selling newspapers on the street. But let’s not pretend that danger is something that every young teen wants to avoid. If you doubt it, head over the stadium for the middle school football game in your local community, or have a look at the wrestling or gymnastic team’s antics at the gym.

Hah, wow. And while we're at it, why stop with the kids? Adults do things like mountain climbing and scuba diving, they love that adrenaline rush too! Let's slash those pesky safety standards that make the workday such a bore. Bring back the thrill of having your hand mangled in an industrial press!

Usually, when people lament that they were 'born too late', they're not talking about how awesome it would have been to be an eight-year-old in a coal mine.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the article. Its very interesting actually, and not what your are trying to pin it as. Read it.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/89837-bring-back-child-labor-work-is-a-gift-our-kids-can-handle.html

I'm with frazz... it's a good read and asks great questions.

Here's the preface, and the idea that folks just read the title and not the content:

UPDATE: Given the recent attention drawn to this post, permit me to clarify that I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor, nor do I support sending our children back into the coal mines or other high-risk jobs, nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages. Due to the confusion it brought, I have removed “bring back child labor” from the title, as many falsely took it to mean a call to “bring back” earlier laws, conditions, or jobs, which is not my argument. My recommendation here is simply that we challenge our cultural assumptions about labor at all levels, from parenting to education to policymaking, and ensure we take a more holistic approach to education that recognizes the dignity of each human person.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the article. Its very interesting actually, and not what your are trying to pin it as. Read it.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/89837-bring-back-child-labor-work-is-a-gift-our-kids-can-handle.html

I'm with frazz... it's a good read and asks great questions.

Here's the preface, and the idea that folks just read the title and not the content:

UPDATE: Given the recent attention drawn to this post, permit me to clarify that I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor, nor do I support sending our children back into the coal mines or other high-risk jobs, nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages. Due to the confusion it brought, I have removed “bring back child labor” from the title, as many falsely took it to mean a call to “bring back” earlier laws, conditions, or jobs, which is not my argument. My recommendation here is simply that we challenge our cultural assumptions about labor at all levels, from parenting to education to policymaking, and ensure we take a more holistic approach to education that recognizes the dignity of each human person.

While I have not read the article, if such a clarification and change to the title was needed, I would wonder if the article was written clearly enough to begin with.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the article. Its very interesting actually, and not what your are trying to pin it as. Read it.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/89837-bring-back-child-labor-work-is-a-gift-our-kids-can-handle.html

I'm with frazz... it's a good read and asks great questions.

Here's the preface, and the idea that folks just read the title and not the content:

UPDATE: Given the recent attention drawn to this post, permit me to clarify that I do NOT endorse replacing education with paid labor, nor do I support sending our children back into the coal mines or other high-risk jobs, nor do I support getting rid of mandatory education at elementary and middle-school ages. Due to the confusion it brought, I have removed “bring back child labor” from the title, as many falsely took it to mean a call to “bring back” earlier laws, conditions, or jobs, which is not my argument. My recommendation here is simply that we challenge our cultural assumptions about labor at all levels, from parenting to education to policymaking, and ensure we take a more holistic approach to education that recognizes the dignity of each human person.

While I have not read the article, if such a clarification and change to the title was needed, I would wonder if the article was written clearly enough to begin with.

 Frazzled wrote:
I just read the article. Its very interesting actually, and not what your are trying to pin it as. Read it.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/89837-bring-back-child-labor-work-is-a-gift-our-kids-can-handle.html

As to dismantling Public Ed, while I am 100% against that, thats a policy argument, not a discussion of her mental fitness. Thats the problem. Every disagreement you have you call someone racist, or sexist, or insane. How about discussing the actual freaking issues themselves? You're no better than the nuts screaming about "libtards" and Clinton conspiracies involving pizza joints.

 feeder wrote:


The article also goes on to describe the average 23 year old as someone who has never held a job. I have literally never met this person. Is that a normal thing in the US?

Frazzled wrote:And on that note I am out. Civil discussion of issues or candidates can no longer be had on this thread, if it ever could have been.

whembly wrote:But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

 Frazzled wrote:
Which candidate was referring to the other side's voters? There's your answer.

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
How do you think a 15 year old boy is going to stand up in a guerilla combat with a seasoned militia?

Mitochondria wrote:
Not a bad starting point.

A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.

There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.

There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.

Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?

Small minds can only muster small vision. I mean this as a general response towards no one in particular but towards this whole "close the borders" nonsense as it's a global issue and needs squashing. There's the need for intelligent immigration policy, surely, but the xenophobic "build a wall" gak is a slap in the face to our founding principles. Our country, in particular, became and is great because of immigration and free trade. Now, those two issues have become the boogeyman to the fear-addled who eat up the lies and conspiracy theories fed to them by politicians playing upon their insecurities and reinforcing their complete belief in the misinformation they've taken as gospel.

No, it does not need "quashing", as you put it. Especially in Europe. But if they want their countries to go to hell in a handbasket, that's their business. I really don't give a damn how the run their nations internal matters.

What I'm concerned with is the sovereign borders of the United States of America. And those borders are being violated by illegals, in violation of our sovereignty and laws, with aid and abetting by people/entities in U.S. territory.

The problem with the idea of "intelligent immigration policy" is that any policy that involves securing the border and enforcing immigration laws is considered "inhuman", "xenophobic", and "racist" in the currently forged narrative.

To put it simply, enforce the current immigration laws and increase law enforcement at the U.S./Mexican border. You won't stop it completely. But you can slow it down and lessen it's impact. That's it. There is really nothing to "debate".

As for "The Wall", it's an impractical concept. But I look at it as more a "symbol" that more NEEDS to be done, especially with the current problems in Mexico. I have no problem with people coming from Mexico to start over, as long as they do it LEGALLY, in full compliance with the LAWS of the UNITED STATES. Anything else is goddamned inexcusable, no matter what rationale somebody comes up with otherwise.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

Well, it doesn't look good for him.

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trump-touts-sessions-strong-civil-rights-record

And there's the whole anti-gay thing.

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:


The article also goes on to describe the average 23 year old as someone who has never held a job. I have literally never met this person. Is that a normal thing in the US?

I think it really depends on circumstance. I've known people who never had a job till after high school, and I've known people who got jobs as early as employment laws let them. I got a job in highschool... but I didn't really get paid for that one. Probably really depends on what is going on and how much money is at your disposal. I didn't really need money for much growing up so I had the luxury of getting to take a sort-of-not job (that was totally a job) that I enjoyed over something that paid me.

The 23-year-old whose never had a job and is a slacker with no "character" on the other hand is just a character I've only ever heard people from the South (namely Fayetteville NC) drag up when talking smack about "city-folk" which was totally weird because Fayetteville might not have a bunch of skyscrappers around, but it's not exactly rural.

I suspect the author was getting more at what I was suggesting in my post, but they definitely had a very bizarre round-about way of of talking about it, as in didn't really talk about it at all and instead focused on this really bizarre bits that really made it sound like they thought ye olde child labor was a good thing. I'm not going to doubt that that isn't what he meant, but he sure didn't explain very well what he did mean.

 whembly wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

Well, it doesn't look good for him.

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trump-touts-sessions-strong-civil-rights-record

And there's the whole anti-gay thing.

Many of those were heresay. What did Sessions actually *do*. Again, I'd like to point out:

This is a guy who
a) supported Eric Holder’s attorney general nomination, one of the very few GOPers;
b) took the Ku Klux Klan to court in Alabama;
c) desegregated schools
d) involved in the prosecution of Henry Francis Hays for killing a black teenager, and made sure that he got the death penalty.

Traditionally, at least the Senate could block him... wait... no they can't! You can thank Harry Reid for that!

Besides... Rachel Maddow? She's just as bad as most of the Breibart writers...

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

Well, it doesn't look good for him.

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trump-touts-sessions-strong-civil-rights-record

And there's the whole anti-gay thing.

Many of those were heresay. What did Sessions actually *do*. Again, I'd like to point out:

This is a guy who
a) supported Eric Holder’s attorney general nomination, one of the very few GOPers;
b) took the Ku Klux Klan to court in Alabama;
c) desegregated schools
d) involved in the prosecution of Henry Francis Hays for killing a black teenager, and made sure that he got the death penalty.

Traditionally, at least the Senate could block him... wait... no they can't! You can thank Harry Reid for that!

Besides... Rachel Maddow? She's just as bad as most of the Breibart writers...

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

You mean besides that?

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

Well, it doesn't look good for him.

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trump-touts-sessions-strong-civil-rights-record

And there's the whole anti-gay thing.

Many of those were heresay. What did Sessions actually *do*. Again, I'd like to point out:

This is a guy who
a) supported Eric Holder’s attorney general nomination, one of the very few GOPers;
b) took the Ku Klux Klan to court in Alabama;
c) desegregated schools
d) involved in the prosecution of Henry Francis Hays for killing a black teenager, and made sure that he got the death penalty.

Traditionally, at least the Senate could block him... wait... no they can't! You can thank Harry Reid for that!

Besides... Rachel Maddow? She's just as bad as most of the Breibart writers...

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

You mean besides that?

Those people need to speak up and present either evidence, or go to MSNBC to get interviewed.

Many of the senators who voted against him in the 80's felt bad about it, as it wasn't really about Sessions. It was about Reagan.

So, be sure to thank Harry Reid for nuking the filibuster for appointees, because like it or not, he's the next AG.

 whembly wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But do you agree that that article isn't advocating for relaxing child labor laws ala, back in the day of sweatshops/coal mining?

So, using this article to hammer DeVoss that she's advocating for child labor, like in the olden times, is a stretch.

EDIT: Still patiently waiting for Ustrello for evidences that Sessions a racist...

Well, it doesn't look good for him.

As we discussed in May, The New Republic published a piece in 2002 on Sessions’ background, which included a stint as a U.S. Attorney, when his most notable prosecution targeted three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.

The piece added that Sessions, during his career in Alabama, allegedly called the NAACP “un-American” because, among other things, it “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”

A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions pointed to an instance in which he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans.

What’s more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later said that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him “boy,” and once warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”

The Washington Post noted this morning that Sessions has denied making many of these and related comments, but when then-President Reagan nominated Sessions for the federal bench in 1986, the Senate nevertheless rejected him because of his controversial record on race.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter to Senate leaders yesterday on Sessions’ record, opposing his nomination and documenting many of his stated positions. Anyone who believes the Republican senator has a “strong civil rights record” might want to take a look.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trump-touts-sessions-strong-civil-rights-record

And there's the whole anti-gay thing.

Many of those were heresay. What did Sessions actually *do*. Again, I'd like to point out:

This is a guy who
a) supported Eric Holder’s attorney general nomination, one of the very few GOPers;
b) took the Ku Klux Klan to court in Alabama;
c) desegregated schools
d) involved in the prosecution of Henry Francis Hays for killing a black teenager, and made sure that he got the death penalty.

Traditionally, at least the Senate could block him... wait... no they can't! You can thank Harry Reid for that!

Besides... Rachel Maddow? She's just as bad as most of the Breibart writers...

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

You mean besides that?

Those people need to speak up and present either evidence, or go to MSNBC to get interviewed.

Many of the senators who voted against him in the 80's felt bad about it, as it wasn't really about Sessions. It was about Reagan.

So, be sure to thank Harry Reid for nuking the filibuster for appointees, because like it or not, he's the next AG.

The Atlantic could not find evidence Sessions filed any new school desegregation lawsuits. Searches of the legal databases Westlaw and PACER found no evidence that any new school-desegregation lawsuits were filed in Alabama’s Southern District by Sessions between 1981, when Sessions became U.S. attorney in Alabama, and 1995, when he became Alabama attorney general, though it is possible that the records exist but are not in those databases. The Atlantic could find no reference to the claim in the transcripts of his 1986 confirmation hearing.

Former Justice Department officials and civil-rights experts expressed puzzlement when asked about the claim, in part because nearly every school in Alabama was under desegregation orders by the 1970s, years before Sessions became U.S. attorney. Several historians and legal experts who focus on desegregation said they were also unaware of any new school desegregation cases in Alabama filed during that period, let alone by Sessions.

In 1967, despite massive resistance by Governor George Wallace and later his wife and successor Lurleen Wallace, the Supreme Court upheld a statewide school-desegregation plan in put forth in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education––many schools in Alabama still remain under desegregation orders. In 1971, in Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Mobile, which is in the Southern District, had not developed an adequate desegregation plan. That case, filed in 1963, lasted until 1997. Two higher-education desegregation cases were filed in the 1980s, but they were outside of the Southern District.


“I'm not aware of any new school desegregation cases filed 1981 to 1993,” said James Blacksher, a longtime civil-rights attorney in Alabama who was the lead counsel on the Davis case. “Most pleadings filed by the government usually listed the [U.S. attorney] as local counsel, even though they did not actively participate.”

After 1981, when Sessions became U.S. attorney, his name could well have been on filings related to the Lee or Davis cases––Sessions’s office provided The Atlantic with one such filing. But those filings would most likely have been prepared by the Justice Department’s civil rights division in Washington, D.C., not the U.S. attorney’s office in the district under a desegregation order. Several current and former civil rights division lawyers told The Atlantic it would be unusual for any desegregation case to be filed by a U.S. attorney rather than the civil rights division––but it would be standard procedure for a U.S. attorney’s name to be on a particular filing.

That seems more consistent with the way that Sessions himself characterized his record in a separate 2009 interview, with National Journal, cited by the Trump transition team when asked about Sessions’s claims:

I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies—the takeover of school systems, redrawing lines—all those things that I was allowed to participate in supporting.
Asked about Sessions’s 2009 claim in National Review, the Trump transition team also offered a list of Sessions’s “top civil rights enforcement cases.” That list included 10 filings in four separate cases, three of them voting-rights cases and one in the ongoing Davis school desegregation case in 1986. But the list raises additional questions.


The list states that Sessions “brought the first anti voter suppression lawsuit in the history of the Department of Justice,” in the 1983 case U.S. v. Conecuh County, when “Sessions sued white Conecuh County election officials, including the Chair of the local Republican Party.”

Sessions is indeed listed on the filing. But John Tanner, a former Bush-era Justice Department appointee and the main attorney on that case, said that while he discussed the case with Sessions, who seemed “interested” and “supportive,” most of the work was done out of the civil rights division. Not every Southern U.S. attorney was cooperative with the civil rights division in that era, but Sessions was.

“We conduct our own investigations, we worked out of the office, the U.S. attorney’s offices sometimes send someone in to introduce the D.C. attorney to the court as a courtesy,” Tanner said. “On that one most of the fact gathering was from having federal observers present, and that is an operation that’s run out of D.C.”

Sessions is also listed on filings in the U.S. v. Dallas County Commission voting rights case, because it took place in his district. But Gerald Hebert, who was the lead civil rights division attorney on that case, said Sessions had little to do with the case itself. The case was a challenge to the county’s at-large method of electing members to the county board of education, contending that it violated black voters’ rights.


“He never filed anything in the Dallas County case that he wrote,” said Hebert, now with the Campaign Legal Center. “Usually, the civil rights division filed the briefs and wrote them. His name would have been included in the CRD draft, which is standard operating procedure.” During his 1986 confirmation hearing, Hebert testified that Sessions had described the ACLU and NAACP as “un-American” and called a white civil-rights attorney “a traitor to his race,” claims that Sessions denied.

Joe Rich, a former civil rights division attorney on the Davis school desegregation case who is now at the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, is listed on the Davis filing that includes Sessions’s name. He said he did not recall the Alabama senator being a big part of the case.

“My recollection is that Sessions had very little to do with it,” said Rich. “He was the U.S. attorney, he was probably on the pleading, but I don’t remember him playing a major role in it.”

Reached by email, the attorney for the Justice Department listed on the fourth case, a voting-rights case related to Dallas called U.S. v Marengo County Commission, declined to speak to The Atlantic.

Asked about the discrepancies between Sessions’s 2009 claim to have “filed 20 or 30 civil-rights cases” and the available public documents, the Trump transition team cited Sessions’s other claim, to have “signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation.”

 whembly wrote:

As for is it normal that a 23 yo who hasn't had a job? I live near the city, and the kids who work and go to school vs those who go to school+sports+outside hobby who don't get a real paycheck until after college is pretty stark. But it all depends on where you land on the economic spectrum. I see more kids working at younger age if they come from a poorer background that kids middle/upper class.

The author's point, I'm sure, isn't to re-indroduce child labor at the EXPENSE of education. Question we should ask: should we re-evaluate the education system? Does it generally allow 15 yo to get a part-time job while being able to maintain high academic standards? I don't really know...

The Article wrote:If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart. And they would be fantastic jobs too, instilling in young people a work ethic, which is the inner drive to succeed, and an awareness of attitudes that make enterprise work for all. It would give them skills and discipline that build character, and help them become part of a professional network.

My 13 yo already told me he wants a job as soon as he can.... so, yes I'd be concerned about his coursework. Plus he wants to play HS soccer.

But, there *is* value in encouraging a 15 to get a job, so that they're exposed to working for that paycheck, as it teaches them so much of the real world.

Lansing — Michigan’s Republican-led House on Wednesday night approved a strict voter identification proposal over strenuous objections from Democrats who argued the plan could disenfranchise properly registered voters.

Michigan voters without photo identification could still cast a provisional ballot under the controversial legislation, but they would have to bring an ID to their local clerk’s office within 10 days of an election in order for their vote to count.

The legislation seeks to “protect the integrity of every single Michigan citizen’s vote, because every vote is diluted if fraudulent votes are cast,” said Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Midland.

Current state law allows registered voters to cast a ballot without photo identification if they sign an affidavit affirming their identity under threat of perjury, an option 18,388 residents used in the Nov. 8 election, according to the Michigan Secretary of State.

Nearly half of those voters were in Wayne County, including 5,834 in Detroit.

“We are not aware of fraud related to the affidavit” option, said Fred Woodhams, a spokesman for Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, whose office is reviewing the voter ID legislation and has not yet taken a position.

“There’s certainly no proof” that any voters who cast ballots without photo identification last month were committing fraud, but they or their peers could nonetheless face a “modern-day poll tax” under the legislation, said Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor.

“This is going to cause confusion and chaos at the polls,” Irwin said. “There’s going to be arguments, voters aren’t going to understand, and long lines are going to get even longer. Maybe that’s the point.”

The main measure in the three-bill package passed the House at around 10 p.m. in a 57-50 vote, mostly along party lines, capping a long day in the lower chamber. The measure now heads to the Senate with just four full days left in the so-called lame-duck session.

Democrats argued the voter identification proposal would have a disproportionate effect on lower-income and minority voters, creating new barriers to participation for those who may struggle to obtain identification for various reasons.

“This bill will suppress the votes of those for whom voting is already a struggle,” said Rep. Fred Durhal III, D-Detroit.

But the package seeks to make it easier for Michigan residents to obtain the kind of identification that would be required to vote. The legislation would provide mechanisms for low-income residents to obtain free state ID cards or birth certificates needed to obtain one.

The legislation, as approved Thursday, includes an $8 million appropriation to finance “election modernization, voter education and implementation” of the new rules, $2 million for free birth certificates and $1 million for the free ID program. The appropriations would effectively make the law immune to voter referendum.

“We want everyone to be able to vote easily, but we want them to know their vote is being protected,” sponsoring Rep. Lisa Lyons, an Alto Republican and chair of the House Elections Committee, said shortly before the vote on her main bill.

The legislation would make Michigan one of eight states with a strict voter ID law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Voter ID laws in several other states have been overturned by federal courts, but Lyons said the Michigan proposal is based on an Indiana law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.

“This legislation is simple: In order to have your vote count, you must prove you are who you say you are,” she said, suggesting the voters could lie on an affidavit.

The proposal will help “deter and detect fraud, however widespread it may or may not be,” Lyons continued.

 feeder wrote:

The Article wrote:If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart. And they would be fantastic jobs too, instilling in young people a work ethic, which is the inner drive to succeed, and an awareness of attitudes that make enterprise work for all. It would give them skills and discipline that build character, and help them become part of a professional network.

The author literally calls for kids to stop school and work at Wal-Mart.

My 13 yo already told me he wants a job as soon as he can.... so, yes I'd be concerned about his coursework. Plus he wants to play HS soccer.

But, there *is* value in encouraging a 15 to get a job, so that they're exposed to working for that paycheck, as it teaches them so much of the real world.

We agree on this point, but the existing labor laws already allow for all this. Of course teenagers should get a part time job, it's part of training for being an adult in the real world.

I got my first part time job when I was 15, it was vital in preparing me for life on my own.

What will the "loosening up" child labor laws accomplish? There are currently no laws blocking young persons from gaining work out side of school, and nothing stopping a 16 year old from gaining full time employment.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'll say the same thing I always have, voter ID laws are pointless, and without automatically issued IDs, will stop more legitimate voters from voting than actual cases of impersonation.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'll say the same thing I always have, voter ID laws are pointless, and without automatically issued IDs, will stop more legitimate voters from voting than actual cases of impersonation.

The problem (well there's two) I saw is:
1) allowing you to sign an affidavit affirming your identity in lieu of providing an ID. You can't catch someone defrauding the vote here because they're signing a fake name and address that isn't their own. How you gonna track them down?

2) the amount of those opti scanner failing is alarming IMO. Something need to be done to address that.