Sure, folks. When the guy whose demands weren't about Jews forced his Jewish hostages in a synagogue to call a rabbi in another state, it totally wasn't about Jews. That was just a coincidence. Coulda been calling anybody, really.
There's a thing where anti-Semitic attacks are treated as something other than anti-Semitic attacks. Even though this is the most common religious hate crime in the country.
He took hostages at a synagogue to demand the release of an anti-Semitic terrorist. It cannot be that hard to connect the dots.
Evil dude: *ranting about the Jews controlling everything*
FBI: well, look, his demands weren't specifically about the Jewish community
Sometimes you should take the bad guys at their word. They actually mean the evil shit they say. This was an attack on our Jewish brothers and sisters. It should be treated by the FBI as a hate crime.
Dude takes hostages at a synagogue.
AP: we've heard from the FBI that this isn't about Jews. Please don't say this is about Jews.
Feel like if you've had a gun held to your head, you get to say it was sorta about you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was a high school marching band geek, and we got uniforms when I was a senior where the tunic was fastened diagonally like the Star Trek tunics, and let me tell you it was really satisfying to pull that sucker open and breath. Those were the best.
One of the many great things about this film is that half the men have bangs.
I'm not sure how I ended up on a Wrath rewatch tonight, but here we are.
Big SCOTUS news. The court has agreed to hear the case of a high school football coach who was disciplined for praying at the fifty yard-line after games. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2…
9th Cir. held that when he "kneeled and prayed on the fifty-yard line immediately after games while in views of students and parents, he spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen," and so was not protected by the First Amendment. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
9th Cir. revives a Title IX suit from a male grad student dismissed from UCLA after an accusation of misconduct from a female student. Finds allegations sufficient to state a claim. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
Court finds plausible inference of Title IX sex discrimination where student alleged (1) external pressures, including the Obama admin's infamous "Dear Colleague" letter; (2) pattern and practice of discrimination against previous male students, shown by state litigation; and
(3) specific statements from univ. staff to this student, including the claim that female accusers do not fabricate allegations in Title IX cases, which seems, uh, yeah, problematic.
There's so much great stuff in this film that I noticed for the first time.
In the middle there's a long action and dialogue take with Poitier leading and the rest of the cast having to hit their marks that must have taken hours to get right.
There's also a part I hadn't noticed before where the camera casually pans by while Poitier is delivering exposition while the blind dude is chopping vegetables in the foreground. So good.
Attorney arguing against the OSHA mandate points out the 100-employee line-drawing was based on expedience rather than evidence that COVID-spread is worse in businesses with more than 100 employees.
Justice Barrett getting some concessions here from counsel opposing the OSHA mandate, who seems to agree that there are some businesses where a mandate might be appropriate. She mentioned meatpacking plants and the dentist.
The next attorney opposing the OSHA mandate is up now. He's arguing remotely bc of a covid diagnosis. (His symptoms have abated.)