The fact that statehood for DC has a better chance of passing than statehood for Puerto Rico is a big neon sign saying COLONIALISM LIVES!
Amending the constitution to make a small city its own state rather than abolish colonialism.
But seriously, the correct compromise is: 1) Retrocede DC to MD 2) Enact legislation giving Puerto Rico something like as-of-right ability to claim statehood with an act of their legislature at any time
This gives Democrats a locked-in House seat in DC, it gives DC residents equal representation as any other US citizen, and it also gives Democrats probably 2 Senate seats and several House seats for at least a decade or two.
But, it gives Republicans a resolution which is better than the outcome they dislike most, and avoids creating new North Dakota problems.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to take this article by @BadChinaTake seriously, as it's a serious attempt to explain why the ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs is not really genocide. So, a very brief response. wokeglobaltimes.com/5b22ee3c12424a…
Essentially the entire debate is about intent. Genocide is only genocide if you can demonstrate that the state actually has some intention to be genocidal, so the argument goes. *Accidentally* wiping out a people group is not genocide.
This is a tricky argument, however. It is nearly universally agreed that there was a genocide of Native Americans in the United States, yet nearly 99% of the casualties involved were due to diseases which there was essentially no way to control at that time.
This study uses a sample with zero causal inference or time variation and a total of 192 women in the dependent variable category of interest to claim that "sexist religious institutions" (i.e. male clergy) have extremely large negative health effects. asanet.org/sites/default/…
They find, I am not joking, that women who set foot in a "sexist institution" (i.e. a church where women can't be the pastor) JUST ONE TIME causes the ENTIRE HEALTH BENEFIT of church attendance to spontaneously vanish.
that is to say, they find that "sexist" religious institutions are associated with lower self-rated health among women, but not as much for men, but that this effect occurs equally among frequent and infrequent attenders.
So, as an aside, if you read my whole comment, which I'm happy to see @eliza_relman used, this tweet I'm QTing is like a prima facie example of The Problem.
The article is here, and btw the article is full of a lot of extremely non-neutral language (it's marked as politics news, but it's clearly an editorial), but nonetheless Relman did manage to quote precisely one conservative (me): businessinsider.com/republican-bab…
This is a cool paper. They use Norwegian data to track people before, during, and after college attendance. And they exploit a quirk of Norway's admission system: there's a lot of hard cutoffs and quasi-random variation in admission. #NBERday
There's even hard cutoffs and quasi-random variation in what *field of study* a person can enroll in. Everybody applies to a centralized system and is allocated out to schools. You apply to a field and a school simultaneously. #NBERday
When you cite Hungary's family policies (which is fine to do! They are fascinating and have some good stuff to them!), *do not turn your brain off*.
I want to be clear, I genuinely and sincerely do believe that @gjpappin has made important contributions to the debate on family policy, and indeed that US conservatives really can learn from our Hungarian counterparts. thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/04/75329/
A friend in Canada contacted her member of parliament about the bill which extends euthanasia to people with severe mental illness.
This was the response (from an MP who *opposes* the extension to mental health cases):
So, first off, I was not aware that Canada had US-style judicial review, and conducted by *provincial* courts at that. You live and you learn I guess. Imagine if a Texan court could nullify US law!
But more broadly, this is a case where I really think Canadian politeness is doing a bad thing.
The correct response here is to call the court's bluff. Let them void the law. Allow the cavalcade of horrors of totally unregulated euthanasia to occur. It will create an outcry.