ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

VIDEO: Angry White Women Yell ‘Black Lives Matter’ While Reportedly Assaulting Black Man Over Mask Etiquette In Elevator

<h4>Video footage that has gone viral on social media platforms TikTok and Twitter shows two masked, angry liberal white woman physically assaulting and harassing a black man in an elevator while shouting “Black Lives Matter.”</h4>
The footage was first posted to TikTok over the weekend, and continued to gain more attention on Twitter after being shared by the popular “Libs of TikTok” account.
At one point one of the enraged older women appears to start screaming, “You’re the p***y” at the black man, before lashing out and striking him with her hand, which is clutching a cell phone.”
“Did you just hit me?” the man then asks in disbelief.
Instead of answering the question, the pair of angry white women then begin screaming “Black lives matter” and continue to try to shove the black man out of the elevator.
<figure class="wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter"></figure>
Observers were quick to point of the apparent irony of the white “Karens” attacking a black man while screaming the slogan “black lives matter.”
“They’re really yelling “Black lives matter’ as they literally attack a black man for not conforming to them. Wow,” one user wrote.
This is a developing story and may be updated or revised as more information becomes available.
<div class="QtBuecX2"><a href="https://www.infowarsstore.com/vitamin-c-zinc?ims=qaphn&utm_campaign=vitamincHero&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=vitamincHero" target="_blank"><img src="https://api.directus.libertycdn.com/uploads/_/originals/VC-hero-385.png" /></a></div>
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-angry-white-women-yell-black-lives-matter-while-reportedly-assaulting-black-man-over-mask-etiquette-in-elevator">https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-angry-white-women-yell-black-lives-matter-while-reportedly-assaulting-black-man-over-mask-etiquette-in-elevator</a>

news VIDEO: Angry White Women Yell ‘Black Lives Matter’ While Reportedly Assaulting Black Man Over Mask Etiquette In Elevator

Video footage that has gone viral on social media platforms TikTok and Twitter shows two masked, angry liberal white woman physically assaul...

Biden State Department Claims ‘Collapse of Western Civilizazation’ is Russian Disinfo

Joe Rogan detailed on his podcast Thursday how the left has become so intolerant of any other viewpoint that anyone who isn’t in total agreement with them is now automatically slapped with the pejorative ‘alt-right’.
Discussing the topic with academic James Lindsay, Rogan noted “Smart people use that pejorative, ‘Oh these alt-right people’.”
“I’m like, stop! You’re talking about people that aren’t even remotely alt right, like don’t do that,” Rogan continued.
Lindsay provided an example in journalist Tim Pool, noting “Just the other day here on the show you had, ‘Tim Pool’s alt-right or whatever’,” referring to comments about Pool by an Australian journalist on Rogan’s show over Pool’s criticism of strict restrictions enforced by the Australian government.
<figure class="wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter">
<div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper" readability="6.3669064748201">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true" readability="6.7913669064748">
Australian journalist Josh Szeps labels Tim Pool an "alt-right troll" for Tim's principled stance against Australia's involuntary forced segregation of their citizens.
Joe Rogan defends Tim Pool. <a href="https://t.co/3oUXKPxQhG">pic.twitter.com/3oUXKPxQhG</a>
— Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) <a href="https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1481681555944845312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
</div>
</figure>
“You’re not convincing me by telling me that people like Maajid Nawaz are alt-right,” Rogan noted, adding a further example, and asserting “That is f*cking nonsense. That’s so dumb.”
“It’s so crazy to call him alt-right, and to call Tim Pool alt-right as well,” Rogan continued, noting “Tim, if anything, he’s a centrist. He was a boots on the ground journalist for VICE…he was all up in Occupy.”
“I know Tim very well,” Rogan continued, adding “He’s not alt-right at all, but he’ll entertain a conversation with anybody… he had [James] O’Keefe from Project Veritas on the other day, and that’s like–that guy’s the boogey man to the left. Even if what he’s saying is a f*cking threat.”
Further referring to O’Keefe, Rogan noted “He’s exposing threats to democracy; he’s exposing real live corruption; he’s exposing real live conspiracies, and [the left] is like ‘Ew no, but it’s Veritas’.”
Elsewhere during the podcast, Lindsay drew parallels between Marxist indoctrination in American schools and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, noting “the goal is to destabilise the kids’ identity so they are groomable… and then they look at their parents’ generation and say ‘that doesn’t; represent me, we need something different.”
Lindsay continued, “It’s to cut the tie between the continuity of culture up to that point, including the family, and to start a whole new culture afterwards.”
“Pol Pot called it ‘year zero’, I guess Klaud Schwab calls it ‘The Great Reset,'” Lindsay added.
Watch:
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter:
——————————————————————————————————————— 
Brand new merch now available! Get it at <a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/">https://www.pjwshop.com/</a> <a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/"><img alt="PJW Shop" border="0" height="600" src="https://cdn.summit.news/2021/07/merch.jpg" width="348" /></a>
ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
We need you to sign up for our free newsletter <a href="https://summit.news/newsletter">here</a>.
Support our sponsor – <a href="https://bit.ly/TURBOFORCE">Turbo Force</a> – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Also, we urgently need your financial support <a href="https://www.subscribestar.com/paul-joseph-watson">here</a>. ———————————————————————————————————————
 
 
source <a href="https://summit.news/2022/01/24/biden-state-department-claims-collapse-of-western-civilizazation-is-russian-disinfo/">https://summit.news/2022/01/24/biden-state-department-claims-collapse-of-western-civilizazation-is-russian-disinfo/</a>

revolution summit Biden State Department Claims ‘Collapse of Western Civilizazation’ is Russian Disinfo

Joe Rogan detailed on his podcast Thursday how the left has become so intolerant of any other viewpoint that anyone who isn’t in total agree...

Can giving parents cash help with babies’ brain development?

2021 featured a remarkable policy experiment in the United States. On July 15, <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22543868/biden-child-tax-credit-july-15-monthly-payment">the federal government began sending monthly checks</a> to parents for up to $300 per child. The checks phased out for top earners but otherwise had no strings attached. Parents could use the money however they wanted. It was a policy that is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/11440638/child-benefit-child-allowance">common in other countries</a> but had never been tried before in the United States.
Debate over the bill tended to focus on its effect on parents. Detractors worried that the measure would <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/14/press-pause-rush-extend-child-tax-credit/">deter parents from working</a>, while supporters argued any <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/benefits-of-expanding-child-tax-credit-outweigh-small-employment-effects">blowback on labor would be minimal</a>. But an equally if not more important question came up less often: What does the expanded child tax credit mean for children?
A new study suggests that direct cash payments like the tax credit might meaningfully alter the neurological development of newborns in families that receive the money. The paper, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/119/5/e2115649119">published today</a> in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), examines an <a href="https://www.babysfirstyears.com/">experiment</a> called Baby’s First Years that has been giving one group of hundreds of low-income mothers $20 per month for several years, and has been giving another group $333 per month over that same period. The experiment hopes to explore the neurological effects of large-scale cash transfers on the development of young children, akin to those conducted in 2021 through the child tax credit.
The PNAS paper, the first to come out of the Baby’s First Years experiment, compares brain wave activity in infants in households receiving $20 per month to infants in households receiving $333 per month. What they find is striking: Babies in houses getting more money show more high-frequency or “fast” brain activity than babies in houses getting less money. That’s a sign that the cash gifts directly changed brain development, according to Kimberly Noble, a professor of neuroscience and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and a co-author of the new study. “As kids get older, they tend to have more fast brain activity,” Noble said. “And kids who have more of that fast brain activity tend to score higher” in subsequent tests of cognitive ability.
Katie McLaughlin, a professor of psychology at Harvard not involved in the study who studies brain development in children, told me the PNAS paper is “maybe one of the most important papers to come out on the effects of early adversity on early development broadly, and brain development in particular.” Allyson Mackey, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania not involved in the study, agreed and argued the changes to brain wave patterns were highly significant: “My prediction is that the brain effects of cash transfer will grow as kids grow up.”
The paper is especially relevant as Congress debates reauthorizing the expanded child tax credit. “This is the first study showing a monthly cash payment having a causal impact on kids,” Noble told me. And while we can <a href="https://link.vox.com/view/608adc1091954c3cef0282c3f1tdk.5eq/e75a4a3d">debate</a> how handing out cash to parents would affect those parents’ choices, Noble argues that the study “shifts attention to the children, who are blameless in terms of how they got to their life circumstances.”
Poor children did nothing to deserve being poor — and by making them less poor, cash payments seem like they may alleviate some of the developmental harms of poverty.
<figure class="e-image"><picture class="c-picture" data-cid="site/picture_element-1643079288_392_290965" data-cdata='{"asset_id":23185925,"ratio":"*"}'><source srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/okvyirtFN5NDboee1ha1GYOvlxE=/0x0:5808x3872/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4uNlmOCeF_EH6Co5XMRSBEsCr4I=/0x0:5808x3872/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3Gs7CKXb8vct4Ff-URMEIaUxvD4=/0x0:5808x3872/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gocSMSjbpg8qj9SgQ2EFmsHHhM8=/0x0:5808x3872/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lSm_FAkT9Oi0bpdzbs33O9nwpTE=/0x0:5808x3872/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fEsEdYG95GplQZUfztWEk3RFlOI=/0x0:5808x3872/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KP6xMeMC4zDYQxfE6OvWqrTelI8=/0x0:5808x3872/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/P81bddn8cs0JFAMscIH8_BdUMbA=/0x0:5808x3872/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/408_p-3Ia61g49zqoHsHEBAZbVg=/0x0:5808x3872/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1920w" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" type="image/webp" /> <img alt="Two mothers stand, each holding a baby. One woman carries a sign that reads “Congress must continue the child tax credit!”" data-upload-width="5808" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Blw2O--f3tfL-Z7S81PuaUAA0AI=/0x0:5808x3872/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg" srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PPJST3YFTeZwNr_iP7NO-1vyDi4=/0x0:5808x3872/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gPsxAzOpo0QWU26cZc52SZZ5R_g=/0x0:5808x3872/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/G-37qXtp0naG9hm-JOzMgHlDEow=/0x0:5808x3872/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7LlEJfLjk-QuxNNT37MshjIM-mQ=/0x0:5808x3872/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/c9EN8J_qI2mgp_Cz_vqqgE1bqH4=/0x0:5808x3872/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AyM1b3lZjKsfOK26EbUVFV_F7Dg=/0x0:5808x3872/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0J8ycVtqWoL_plm67E9hEpk__uE=/0x0:5808x3872/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/vUJr3aFgZdAeiuAm7EieBm0N5b0=/0x0:5808x3872/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kPQsEP12vl-HKsW0Gi-w4u1kDTY=/0x0:5808x3872/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:5808x3872):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23185925/GettyImages_1358862098.jpg 1920w" /></picture>
<figcaption>A pair of mothers and their babies join a rally in front of the US Capitol in December to urge the extension of the expanded child tax credit.</figcaption>
<cite>Alex Wong/Getty Images</cite></figure>
I have <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15364546/universal-basic-income-review-stern-murray-automation">written</a> a <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/6/18249290/child-poverty-american-family-act-sherrod-brown-michael-bennet">lot</a> about <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22280404/mitt-romney-child-allowance-tax-credit-biden">cash</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/25/20973151/givedirectly-basic-income-kenya-study-stimulus">programs</a>, especially cash programs for parents, but I’m a policy journalist, not a neuroscientist. So my big questions when I first heard about the PNAS study were: What is a brain wave? And why should I care if it’s fast or slow?
This is the very, very simplified answer I got from Noble: one way that neurons in your brain communicate with each other, transmitting instructions and information, is through electrical signals. Some of these signals are sent at a very rapid pace; some are sent more slowly. Neuroscientists use Greek letters to distinguish slow from fast brain activities; “delta waves” are the slowest signals detected in the brain; “gamma waves” are the fastest.
For nearly a century, researchers have used a technique called electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain waves by placing electrodes on the scalp that can respond to electrical activity in the brain. One innovation of the Baby’s First Years study is conducting EEGs in infant’s homes, rather than in a lab, which might be unfamiliar and stressful. Sonya Troller-Renfree, a post-doctoral fellow at Teachers College and the study’s lead author, helped to pioneer infant-friendly protocols for such research by using a portable EEG cap that babies can wear in their homes. Troller-Renfree wasn’t at liberty to share photos for this article, but she showed me a few privately; the EEG hats look like swim caps, or tight-fitting winter hats, with straps you can fasten around the chin.
Going into the study, the authors hypothesized that they would see more high-frequency brain waves in babies whose families received substantial cash. That might indicate that the babies’ cognitive functions are developing more quickly. “On average, several higher-order skills, things like language development, tend to be associated with more of that fast brain activity,” Noble said. “Infants and toddlers with more of that fast brain activity often develop more verbal proficiency, higher social/emotional skills, other forms of cognitive skills.”
The Baby’s First Years experiment began in 2018 with a cohort of new mothers; the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/upshot/stimulus-children-poverty-brain.html">experiment recruited participants</a> in hospital maternity wards in New York City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Omaha, and New Orleans, screening specifically for mothers with low incomes. The newly released study is based on EEGs of 1-year-olds conducted in 2019. In 2020 and 2021, the researchers behind the experiment suspended in-person data collection due to Covid-19; they judged it not safe for survey-takers to visit private homes indoors. They’re hoping later this year to return to in-person data collection, but as it stands, the only EEG data that exists is for 1-year-olds.
The data confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis: There was more high-frequency brain wave activity in children whose families got $333 a month. The cash seemed to lead to more high-frequency, or fast, brain activity. For the highest-frequency gamma brain waves, the effect size of cash was 0.23 standard deviations, which in education research would be <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_2019_effect_sizes.pdf">considered a large effect</a>.
That said, almost no research to date, other than <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15532128/">studies about Romanian children raised in government institutions</a> and randomized to receive either high-quality foster care or remain in the institution, measured the effects of social policies on infants’ EEG results. It’s just uncharted territory. So comparing to the effect size of, say, <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21766/w21766.pdf">pre-school</a> or <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475219303093">tutoring</a> on test scores doesn’t necessarily tell us much.
“We cannot do an apples-to-apples comparison because we do not have brain waves data for other interventions,” Katherine Magnuson, a professor in the school of social work at the University of Wisconsin and another co-author on the study, told me. Lisa Gennetian, a professor of public policy at Duke and another co-author, chimed in after Magnuson: “There isn’t another apple. There isn’t even an orange.”
But Noble stressed that the brain wave activity here at least correlates with outcomes later in life in other studies. Romanian children raised in institutional care had <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20497899/">more low-frequency brain activity</a>, and less high-frequency brain activity, and also were likelier to show ADD or ADHD behaviors later on. Prior studies looking at EEG scans of infants and toddlers have found that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610686/">the rate of high-frequency gamma brain waves</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21295619/">is correlated to better language abilities</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27003830/">memory</a> later in the child’s life. Those results aren’t necessarily causal; it’s not clear that having different brain activity causes, in some sense, better language abilities later on. But the fact that they correlate is at least suggestive that children with fast brain wave activity whose mothers received the high cash gift might have better developmental outcomes in the future, too.
Why? The study was not equipped to determine which of these mechanisms were most important, but it’s not hard to imagine mechanisms by which cash for parents could help children. “My first hunch is that you’re reducing parental stress and giving parents more bandwidth, time, and emotional and cognitive energy to be spending with their kids,” said McLaughlin, the Harvard psychology professor.
But what’s exciting is that because Baby’s First Years is a randomized experiment — meaning that the only systematic difference between the two study groups was how much money they received — we can be reasonably confident the cash is a primary cause of these changes in babies’ brains. And we can be reasonably confident it will be a causative factor in whatever future outcomes the Baby’s First Years researchers find.
“Ten years from now, this will not be the only or the most important finding,” Magnuson told me. There’s plenty more the study is about to learn about what cash payments, similar to those the Biden administration pioneered, do for the development of young children.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22893313/cash-babies-brain-development">https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22893313/cash-babies-brain-development</a>

vox Can giving parents cash help with babies’ brain development?

2021 featured a remarkable policy experiment in the United States. On July 15, the federal government began sending monthly checks to paren...

The Supreme Court will hear two cases that are likely to end affirmative action

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VaZs2QTQB6IPmCwzEGnsEEAum1o=/0x483:4252x2709/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23192074/GettyImages_1212003539.jpg" /></div>
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012422zor_m6io.pdf">will hear</a> Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, two cases that present an <a href="https://www.vox.com/22301135/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-college-race-students-for-fair-admission-ed-blum">existential threat to affirmative action in university admissions</a>.
These cases are the culmination of a years-long strategy by conservative activists — and by one activist in particular — to win a court decision invalidating affirmative action. The <a href="https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/about/">president of Students for Fair Admissions</a>, the lead plaintiff in the Harvard and UNC cases, is not a student at all. It is Edward Blum, a former stockbroker who was also the driving force behind several other lawsuits asking the courts to <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/this-week-is-the-superbowl-for-americas-leading-white-rights-activist-668cac6a9e13/">expand the power and influence of white people</a>.
The two cases are also the first challenge to race-conscious university admissions programs to reach the Court since <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4733326500100664777&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin</a> (2016), which imposed strict limits on affirmative action programs but did not forbid them entirely.
The Court that will decide these cases looks very different from the one that considered affirmative action in 2016. Fisher was a 4-3 decision, because Justice Antonin Scalia died several months before Fisher was handed down and Justice Elena Kagan was recused. The four-justice majority, moreover, included retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and the now-late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg have since been replaced by three reliable conservatives: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. So, barring an extraordinary surprise from at least two members of the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, affirmative action is probably doomed.
After Fisher, universities may only make very limited use of race in their admissions process.
Take the Harvard case as an example. Harvard is an extraordinarily selective university. If you group all undergraduate applicants into deciles based on their academic records, Harvard still <a href="https://www.vox.com/22301135/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-college-race-students-for-fair-admission-ed-blum">rejects more than 85 percent of applicants in the top decile</a>. Race is one of several factors that can push an outstanding applicant who is on the cusp of admission into the pool of students invited to attend Harvard.
As a lower court that <a href="http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-2005P-01A.pdf">upheld Harvard’s admissions program</a> explained, a student on the border between admission and rejection may be “tipped” into the pool of accepted applicants for a variety of reasons, including “outstanding and unusual intellectual ability, unusually appealing personal qualities, outstanding capacity for leadership, creative ability, athletic ability, legacy status, and geographic, ethnic, or economic factors.”
In practice, this means that, if two equally extraordinary applicants apply to Harvard, but one is white and the other is Latino, the Latino student is more likely to be admitted unless the white applicant has some other factor in their favor — perhaps the white student’s father attended Harvard, or perhaps the student is from a state that is underrepresented at the university.
The Harvard plaintiffs argue that even this limited consideration of race in admissions is illegal.
The Constitution generally views any policy that draws distinctions based on race as highly suspect, and a federal law — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — imposes the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22301135/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-college-race-students-for-fair-admission-ed-blum">same restrictions on private universities</a> such as Harvard that the Constitution applies to public universities with affirmative action programs.
Nevertheless, in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html">Grutter v. Bollinger</a> (2003), the Court held that the social benefits of diversity justify allowing universities to take a limited account of race when deciding who to admit as a student. “Numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and ‘better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals,’” the Court explained in Grutter.
Grutter also noted that “major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” The Harvard and UNC plaintiffs ask the Supreme Court to overrule Grutter.
Conservative judges typically believe that the collective benefits society gains from having more diverse campuses must bow to the individual interests of college applicants. And, given the Supreme Court’s 6-3 divide, that conservative viewpoint is likely to prevail.
The Court’s decision to hear the Harvard and UNC cases adds two more major cases to the Court’s already-bulging culture war docket.
In Barrett’s first term on the bench, the Court made <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/12/2/21726876/supreme-court-religious-liberty-revolutionary-roman-catholic-diocese-cuomo-amy-coney-barrett">expanding the right of religious conservatives</a> to seek exemptions from laws that they object to on religious grounds one of its highest priorities. And the Court heard cases earlier this term that could <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/11/3/22761240/supreme-court-second-amendment-rifle-bruen-heller-amy-coney-barrett">significantly expand gun rights</a>, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/8/22824027/supreme-court-carson-makin-first-amendment-religion-schools-subsidize-roberts-alito-kavanaugh">force taxpayers to fund religious education</a>, and even <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/12/1/22811837/supreme-court-roe-wade-abortion-doomed-jackson-womens-health-dobbs-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts">overrule Roe v. Wade</a>.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/1/24/22526151/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard">https://www.vox.com/2022/1/24/22526151/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard</a>

vox The Supreme Court will hear two cases that are likely to end affirmative action

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and St...

The Grift is Over For Lockdown Nerds

British broadcaster ITV was issued a warning by regulator Ofcom after a guest and a presenter on a TV show falsely claimed that 90 per cent of COVID hospital patients were unvaccinated.
The spurious remarks were made by Dr. Hilary Jones and Lorraine Kelly during a segment on the Lorraine show last month.
“Those people who haven’t been vaccinated, we’d really love you to think again and be vaccinated because 90 per cent of people in hospital are unvaccinated right now with Covid,” said Dr. Jones.
“That’s a figure that we have to really concentrate on, 90 per cent of people in hospital have not been vaccinated,” Kelly repeated.
However, both the doctor and the host of the show were sharing medical misinformation. The actual figure at the time was around 36 per cent.
After Ofcom received nearly 4,000 complaints from viewers about the broadcast, the TV regulator issued a statement.
“This programme incorrectly referenced the proportion of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in hospital,” it said.
“We have told ITV that greater care should be taken by trusted medical experts when presenting facts and figures on public health issues.”
However, despite the erroneous claim, Ofcom said it wouldn’t be launching a formal investigation because “vaccination against COVID-19 offers greater protection against serious health consequences” and as a result, “we do not consider that the error was sufficient to materially mislead viewers on this main point of discussion.”
As the Glasgow Times <a href="https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/19838455.itv-lorraine-issued-ofcom-warning-dr-hilarys-false-covid-remarks/">reports</a>, “A clarification was broadcast on the show two days later, explaining the statistic related to patients in intensive care units rather than the proportion of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in hospital.”
However, as Toby Young points out, this isn’t true either.
“In fact, it’s also not true that 90% of Covid patients in ICUs are unvaccinated, as we’ve pointed out many times before on this website. So even the “clarification” was misleading,” <a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/23/ofcom-warns-itv-over-dr-hilary-joness-inaccurate-claims-about-percentage-of-hospital-patients-unvaccinated/">writes</a> Young.
Dr. Hilary Jones has been a vehement lockdown advocate from the very start of the pandemic and has significantly heightened his profile (and fattened his bank balance) as a result of regular ITV appearances over the course of the last two years.
However, in the early months of outbreak, Jones infamously acknowledged that face masks were largely useless in stopping the spread of the virus, before ‘getting the memo’ and doing a complete 180.
[embedded content]
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter:
———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at <a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/">https://www.pjwshop.com/</a>
<a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/"><img alt="PJW Shop" border="0" height="600" src="https://cdn.summit.news/2021/07/merch.jpg" width="348" /></a>
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter <a href="https://summit.news/newsletter">here</a>.
Support my sponsor – <a href="https://bit.ly/TURBOFORCE">Turbo Force</a> – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on <a href="https://pauljosephwatson.locals.com/">Locals</a>.
———————————————————————————————————————
 
 
source <a href="https://summit.news/2022/01/24/the-grift-is-over-for-lockdown-nerds/">https://summit.news/2022/01/24/the-grift-is-over-for-lockdown-nerds/</a>

revolution summit The Grift is Over For Lockdown Nerds

British broadcaster ITV was issued a warning by regulator Ofcom after a guest and a presenter on a TV show falsely claimed that 90 per cent ...

Broadcaster Issued Warning After Falsely Claiming 90 Per Cent of COVID Patients Were Unvaccinated

British broadcaster ITV was issued a warning by regulator Ofcom after a guest and a presenter on a TV show falsely claimed that 90 per cent of COVID hospital patients were unvaccinated.
The spurious remarks were made by Dr. Hilary Jones and Lorraine Kelly during a segment on the Lorraine show last month.
“Those people who haven’t been vaccinated, we’d really love you to think again and be vaccinated because 90 per cent of people in hospital are unvaccinated right now with Covid,” said Dr. Jones.
“That’s a figure that we have to really concentrate on, 90 per cent of people in hospital have not been vaccinated,” Kelly repeated.
However, both the doctor and the host of the show were sharing medical misinformation. The actual figure at the time was around 36 per cent.
After Ofcom received nearly 4,000 complaints from viewers about the broadcast, the TV regulator issued a statement.
“This programme incorrectly referenced the proportion of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in hospital,” it said.
“We have told ITV that greater care should be taken by trusted medical experts when presenting facts and figures on public health issues.”
However, despite the erroneous claim, Ofcom said it wouldn’t be launching a formal investigation because “vaccination against COVID-19 offers greater protection against serious health consequences” and as a result, “we do not consider that the error was sufficient to materially mislead viewers on this main point of discussion.”
As the Glasgow Times <a href="https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/19838455.itv-lorraine-issued-ofcom-warning-dr-hilarys-false-covid-remarks/">reports</a>, “A clarification was broadcast on the show two days later, explaining the statistic related to patients in intensive care units rather than the proportion of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in hospital.”
However, as Toby Young points out, this isn’t true either.
“In fact, it’s also not true that 90% of Covid patients in ICUs are unvaccinated, as we’ve pointed out many times before on this website. So even the “clarification” was misleading,” <a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/23/ofcom-warns-itv-over-dr-hilary-joness-inaccurate-claims-about-percentage-of-hospital-patients-unvaccinated/">writes</a> Young.
Dr. Hilary Jones has been a vehement lockdown advocate from the very start of the pandemic and has significantly heightened his profile (and fattened his bank balance) as a result of regular ITV appearances over the course of the last two years.
However, in the early months of outbreak, Jones infamously acknowledged that face masks were largely useless in stopping the spread of the virus, before ‘getting the memo’ and doing a complete 180.
[embedded content]
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter:
———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at <a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/">https://www.pjwshop.com/</a>
<a href="https://www.pjwshop.com/"><img alt="PJW Shop" border="0" height="600" src="https://cdn.summit.news/2021/07/merch.jpg" width="348" /></a>
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter <a href="https://summit.news/newsletter">here</a>.
Support my sponsor – <a href="https://bit.ly/TURBOFORCE">Turbo Force</a> – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on <a href="https://pauljosephwatson.locals.com/">Locals</a>.
———————————————————————————————————————
 
 
source <a href="https://summit.news/2022/01/24/broadcaster-issued-warning-after-falsely-claiming-90-per-cent-of-covid-patients-were-unvaccinated/">https://summit.news/2022/01/24/broadcaster-issued-warning-after-falsely-claiming-90-per-cent-of-covid-patients-were-unvaccinated/</a>

revolution summit Broadcaster Issued Warning After Falsely Claiming 90 Per Cent of COVID Patients Were Unvaccinated

British broadcaster ITV was issued a warning by regulator Ofcom after a guest and a presenter on a TV show falsely claimed that 90 per cent ...