To be clear: it’s not that these schools are “in states that voted for Trump”—it’s that they are in states that *right now* have right wing Republican legislatures who can impose a range of punishments on schools that impose vaccine mandates—and even on schools that don’t.
A vaccine mandate is unnecessary if the community is overwhelmingly vaccinated anyway—and some schools are just asking their students, faculty, and staff to tell them. But in Ohio, there is the threat of a bill that would prohibit schools from even being able to ask.
It’s going to be very interesting when presumably first Pfizer and then the others get a regular FDA approval and not an EUA. It’s a convenient excuse uniting a range of mostly incoherent but deeply felt concerns, but it won’t hold much longer.
Do you think people who don’t trust the government and think Biden is illegitimate and Fauci created covid are going to be persuaded by the FDA bureaucracy?
But when the covid vaccines have regular approval, there’s no distinguishing them from all the other now-mandated vaccines
Do red states tear it all down? Try to carve out untenable laws only applying to covid vaccines? What?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Don’t let Republicans always be the ones to narrowly police language in their own interests. No, “infrastructure” DOES NOT MEAN only physical stuff like bridges and roads. Those are STRUCTURES. “Infrastructure” just means the things necessary to do other things.
It’s an “infrastructure” bill not a “structures” bill because the prefix “infra” actually means something:
I’ve said this before and it’s really important, especially for all the journalists trying to neutral arbiters of the merits of Republican and Democratic plans. Article after article posits that “real” infrastructure is physical stuff (that traditionally men build). It’s not.
This is a fair point about the undercurrents of The Eternals, though even from their beginning in the comics, it was more complicated. The progenitors of the superbeings were inscrutable space gods, the Celestials. Most definitely raceless. Mysterious beings with omnipotent power
Yes, the Eternals themselves were taken to be gods on earth, but in multiple cultures, and not of any one race themselves. And the Celestials formed both them and the Deviants out of the same ancestors as modern humans. One of the points was all were really just different humans.
But on the other hand, it is still another not-so-subtle argument that ancient humans didn’t/couldn’t develop on their own. It’s hard for most people to think on the time scales of pre-history.
If there is one thing that I wish journalists would cover better when it comes to taxes is that it’s not that Biden’s tax plan only hits earners making more than $400,00ish *it’s that it applies just to the dollars earned above this threshold*.
These aren’t the exact cutoffs but say the top bracket begins at $400,000 & an earner were to make $450,000–they’d pay $19,800 instead of $18,500 on that last $50,000–a difference of $1,300.
If that is a problem for someone making $450,000, maybe cut back on the avocado toasts.
(Yes the cutoff for the Trump-era marginal bracket begins a little higher but again, we’re only talking about income over this threshold and even then, only with pretty small changes that are basically at the level of random yearly fluctuations for the vast majority of payers.)
I can't believe people are still going on about the 1619 Project but the only thing that united its many essays was the argument that Black history, rooted in slavery, is intrinsic to US history. There were like two sentences in the intro essay that generated huge debate....
because they overstated the case. There was one essay on slavery and capitalism (by a non-historian, fwiw). That's a subject that is indeed much debated within scholarly circles and no one is pulling punches.
If you don't sometimes decline to tweet something you believe correct because you just don't want to deal with the inevitable responses *in this particular context* than you will not understand why some scholars might not want to wade in, in print, on slavery & capitalism.
For the past 150 years, the filibuster was routinely used on anything touching civil rights. But go back to the beginning and look at today's claims that the filibuster (a word that, of course, did not yet exist until the mid-19th century) was somehow intrinsic to the Senate:
The people who were actually there at the beginning, even before the Constitution, knew empowering the minority to delay, disrupt, and effectively veto the majority was a recipe for disaster. From Robert Byrd's lectures on the history of the Senate:
Lo and behold, THE VERY FIRST SENATE that sat in 1789 had rules to prevent unlimited debate!