Glenn, a couple of people have mentioned Coleman's new piece at Bari Weiss's website. If you communicate with Coleman, there is something I hope you can compare notes on: the matter of George Floyd banging his head on the plexiglass divider inside the police car.
In the early days after the event, Glenn, you posted a YouTube link to a chronological video compilation from all known (at the time) sources. That video is now gone, and you briefly mentioned its disappearance on a show quite some time later. I remember video footage of Floyd, safely in the car, banging his head on the glass, at which point, the police took him out of the car. When I went to verify my memory, I discovered the video was gone. As a result, I have no way to determine if my memory is true or false.
Coleman mentioned the head-banging, but he referenced testimony, not video. In all of his research, has Coleman ever encountered the video you once linked? Perhaps he has seen it, and the video proves my memory is a false one.
I think what's on that video compilation matters because, if the suspect was safely in the car and then acted to harm himself, it paints a very different picture than the one presented to the public. We have been deceived a lot in the past ten years; such a video's deletion would be par for the course.
BRAVO - BRAVO - BRAVO this Prof. Glenn Loury argument 'trumps', explains, and puts into place the differences in genetic expressions that have caused embarrassements, and can now be put to rest. We are all different and genetic expressions cover the field. Like Christopher Columbus, Glenn cracked the bottem of the egg and made it stand up. Brilliant, we also acknowledge inter alia Dr. Thomas Sowell; Dr Shelby Steele; Dr. Walter Williams and Larry Elder. My only issue with Glenn is that he has tended to vacillate when under cultural pressure. In my humble opinion, this time, Glenn is directly over the target. His simply explains human disparities. African-American cultural disappointments should be replaced with aspirations that enhance the culture and not detract from it. Educationalists should work towards manipulating the environment so that ALL DIFFERENCES ARE CELEBRATED.
For what it's worth, here is Machiavelli's experience with equity in the Florentine Republic:
"The war had continued from 1422 to 1427, and the citizens of Florence were so wearied of the taxes that had been imposed during that time, that it was resolved to revise them, preparatory to their amelioration. That they might be equalized according to the means of each citizen, it was proposed that whoever possessed property of the value of one hundred florins should pay half a florin of taxes.... The new method of rating formed a powerful check to the tyranny of the great... But as it is found men are never satisfied, but that the possession of one advantage only makes them desire more, the people, not content with the equality of taxation which the new law produced, demanded that the same rule should be applied to past years; that in investigation should be made to determine how much...the rich had paid less than their share, and that they should now pay up to an equality with those who, in order to meet the demand unjustly made, had been compelled to sell their possessions. This proposal alarmed the great ... and in self-defense they unceasingly decried it, declaring it in the highest degree unjust...."
Do Democrats/race hustlers care whether they get the true equality of which you speak? That's like asking corporate execs with hundreds of thousands of stock options to look beyond the share price.
And if people reap rewards they didn't earn, any misgivings can be dispelled with a noble story about an evil Them.
I'm readying a question for John in the next Q&A. It will be roughly, "John, do you think you'll ever say 'Lia Thomas is a man, dammit, and I apologize for not speaking out about that nonsense?'" But instead of Lia Thomas, the question will be about all of the bizarre hoaxes and tall tales regarding Trump.
Do Republicans/ race baiters think preventing a Black venture capital fund from giving grants to a group of Black female entrepreneurs is justifiable? Black women entrepreneurs currently only receive 1% of venture capital funding.
Of course, it’s their money so they invest it as they like, and they shall reap as they sow. That is the standard Protestant work ethic. Very Scottish-enlightenment, very liberal, very capitalistic, very pro-civil rights, freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, religion, and association.
I'd have to know the specifics. Specifically "prevent." That seems a suspicious word. If they were making money for the investors, investors would be beating down their doors.
Venture capital isn't patty-cake. Hardball all the way.
The ruling last week against the Fearless Fund’s grant contest by a federal appeals court panel is an act of judicial overreach that could upend charitable giving in the United States.
In a two-to-one vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that the 501(c)(3) arm of the Fearless Fund venture capital firm — the Fearless Foundation — could not run its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to businesses owned by Black women.
Although this case might sound like an extension of last summer’s Supreme Court affirmative action decision on university admissions, it potentially goes much deeper. If other courts follow suit, the judges’ warped interpretation of a civil rights statute would hamstring charitable efforts to support racial justice and have a chilling effect on philanthropic funding nationwide
The appeals court ruled that a lawsuit brought by the American Alliance for Equal Rights was likely to succeed in its claim that the contest violated section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That law states that all persons shall have the same rights as “white citizens” to make and enforce contracts.
I looked it over, but I don't think I quite grasp what the complaint is. If it's a venture capital fund fully financed by people who made the choice, I don't see the problem. Anyone who doesn't like the contest could withdraw their money.
If public pensions invest in it, I could see the conflict. I skimmed two or three pieces including yours, but I never saw what the beef was that caused the litigation. I guess I'd think through the idea of doing a contest for everyone other than Black women. Would that be a problem? If not, I don't see why this would be, either.
I think I'm missing the main point of the complaint, though. That said, a 3-person judicial review decision, in these times... I have zero confidence of good faith.
The latest decision was based upon an appeal of a previous federal circuit court opinion. It was rendered by three judges from the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The arguments are subtle. You have to read the opinion carefully to fully understand the ruling:
1. Whether the plaintiff, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, had legal standing to challenge the contest
2. Whether the Fearless Fund contest and grants were essentially contracts and therefore subject to laws that prohibit private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts.
Two of the judges decided for the plaintiff. One judge decided for the Fearless Fund. Draw your own conclusions about the ruling, but claims that it's a threat to social justice philanthropy seem to be overblown.
The CEO and co-founder of the Fearless Fund wants President Biden to issue an executive order that would circumvent the court ruling. She also wants Congress to pass a law that would back up the executive order. Here's a link to a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article that includes Q&A with one of the attorneys that represents the Fearless Fund:
My point is that the suit was filed by Conservatives. The overall impact if the suit succeeds is yet to be determined.
From the AJC article Fearless Fund lawyer interview
Q: What do you think the potential effects of the ruling could be?
A: What the plaintiffs in our case have been seeking to do is create a chilling effect across this country and maybe beyond that, where people are afraid to invest with Black businesses. They’re afraid to invest in programs that advance equity. And I think this 11th Circuit ruling could just exacerbate this problem where people feel a little skittish about supporting diversity and equity and inclusion programs, whether it be in the charitable space or in the private sector.
Q: What impact do you think this could have on philanthropy?
A: This decision for me amplifies what I see as a blatant hypocrisy within the world of philanthropy. Charitable organizations have been issuing grants to specific demographic groups for decades. And this is the first time that a federal court is stopping an organization from issuing grants to a specific demographic group, issuing grants consistent with their mission.
The implications for this decision, if it were to be applied within the philanthropic space broadly, are immense because it essentially redefines grantmaking. It essentially says you can’t issue grants to people of specific demographic groups, which we know is counter to what philanthropic groups have been doing for decades.
The complaint was filed by Conservatives and upheld by Conservative judges. You label members of the Democratic Party race hustlers. I label Republicans/ Conservatives race baiters.
One thing that could be done is encourage higher education for Black youth. Oh wait………HBCUs were created and Southern states grossly underfunded those institutions by billions of dollars.
This is off-topic, but I would like to request that Glenn invite Coleman Hughes on for a discussion of his latest piece about the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin trial, in today’s The Free Press:
Glenn, a couple of people have mentioned Coleman's new piece at Bari Weiss's website. If you communicate with Coleman, there is something I hope you can compare notes on: the matter of George Floyd banging his head on the plexiglass divider inside the police car.
In the early days after the event, Glenn, you posted a YouTube link to a chronological video compilation from all known (at the time) sources. That video is now gone, and you briefly mentioned its disappearance on a show quite some time later. I remember video footage of Floyd, safely in the car, banging his head on the glass, at which point, the police took him out of the car. When I went to verify my memory, I discovered the video was gone. As a result, I have no way to determine if my memory is true or false.
Coleman mentioned the head-banging, but he referenced testimony, not video. In all of his research, has Coleman ever encountered the video you once linked? Perhaps he has seen it, and the video proves my memory is a false one.
I think what's on that video compilation matters because, if the suspect was safely in the car and then acted to harm himself, it paints a very different picture than the one presented to the public. We have been deceived a lot in the past ten years; such a video's deletion would be par for the course.
I urge Glenn to reae this: <https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/coleman-hughes-derek-chauvin-george-floyd?r=ltld3&utm_medium=ios>
BRAVO - BRAVO - BRAVO this Prof. Glenn Loury argument 'trumps', explains, and puts into place the differences in genetic expressions that have caused embarrassements, and can now be put to rest. We are all different and genetic expressions cover the field. Like Christopher Columbus, Glenn cracked the bottem of the egg and made it stand up. Brilliant, we also acknowledge inter alia Dr. Thomas Sowell; Dr Shelby Steele; Dr. Walter Williams and Larry Elder. My only issue with Glenn is that he has tended to vacillate when under cultural pressure. In my humble opinion, this time, Glenn is directly over the target. His simply explains human disparities. African-American cultural disappointments should be replaced with aspirations that enhance the culture and not detract from it. Educationalists should work towards manipulating the environment so that ALL DIFFERENCES ARE CELEBRATED.
For what it's worth, here is Machiavelli's experience with equity in the Florentine Republic:
"The war had continued from 1422 to 1427, and the citizens of Florence were so wearied of the taxes that had been imposed during that time, that it was resolved to revise them, preparatory to their amelioration. That they might be equalized according to the means of each citizen, it was proposed that whoever possessed property of the value of one hundred florins should pay half a florin of taxes.... The new method of rating formed a powerful check to the tyranny of the great... But as it is found men are never satisfied, but that the possession of one advantage only makes them desire more, the people, not content with the equality of taxation which the new law produced, demanded that the same rule should be applied to past years; that in investigation should be made to determine how much...the rich had paid less than their share, and that they should now pay up to an equality with those who, in order to meet the demand unjustly made, had been compelled to sell their possessions. This proposal alarmed the great ... and in self-defense they unceasingly decried it, declaring it in the highest degree unjust...."
Do Democrats/race hustlers care whether they get the true equality of which you speak? That's like asking corporate execs with hundreds of thousands of stock options to look beyond the share price.
And if people reap rewards they didn't earn, any misgivings can be dispelled with a noble story about an evil Them.
I'm readying a question for John in the next Q&A. It will be roughly, "John, do you think you'll ever say 'Lia Thomas is a man, dammit, and I apologize for not speaking out about that nonsense?'" But instead of Lia Thomas, the question will be about all of the bizarre hoaxes and tall tales regarding Trump.
Do Republicans/ race baiters think preventing a Black venture capital fund from giving grants to a group of Black female entrepreneurs is justifiable? Black women entrepreneurs currently only receive 1% of venture capital funding.
Of course, it’s their money so they invest it as they like, and they shall reap as they sow. That is the standard Protestant work ethic. Very Scottish-enlightenment, very liberal, very capitalistic, very pro-civil rights, freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, religion, and association.
I'd have to know the specifics. Specifically "prevent." That seems a suspicious word. If they were making money for the investors, investors would be beating down their doors.
Venture capital isn't patty-cake. Hardball all the way.
The ruling last week against the Fearless Fund’s grant contest by a federal appeals court panel is an act of judicial overreach that could upend charitable giving in the United States.
In a two-to-one vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that the 501(c)(3) arm of the Fearless Fund venture capital firm — the Fearless Foundation — could not run its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to businesses owned by Black women.
Although this case might sound like an extension of last summer’s Supreme Court affirmative action decision on university admissions, it potentially goes much deeper. If other courts follow suit, the judges’ warped interpretation of a civil rights statute would hamstring charitable efforts to support racial justice and have a chilling effect on philanthropic funding nationwide
The appeals court ruled that a lawsuit brought by the American Alliance for Equal Rights was likely to succeed in its claim that the contest violated section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That law states that all persons shall have the same rights as “white citizens” to make and enforce contracts.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-the-fearless-fund-ruling-distorts-charity-history-and-law
I looked it over, but I don't think I quite grasp what the complaint is. If it's a venture capital fund fully financed by people who made the choice, I don't see the problem. Anyone who doesn't like the contest could withdraw their money.
If public pensions invest in it, I could see the conflict. I skimmed two or three pieces including yours, but I never saw what the beef was that caused the litigation. I guess I'd think through the idea of doing a contest for everyone other than Black women. Would that be a problem? If not, I don't see why this would be, either.
I think I'm missing the main point of the complaint, though. That said, a 3-person judicial review decision, in these times... I have zero confidence of good faith.
The latest decision was based upon an appeal of a previous federal circuit court opinion. It was rendered by three judges from the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The arguments are subtle. You have to read the opinion carefully to fully understand the ruling:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313138.pdf
The case hinged on two questions:
1. Whether the plaintiff, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, had legal standing to challenge the contest
2. Whether the Fearless Fund contest and grants were essentially contracts and therefore subject to laws that prohibit private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts.
Two of the judges decided for the plaintiff. One judge decided for the Fearless Fund. Draw your own conclusions about the ruling, but claims that it's a threat to social justice philanthropy seem to be overblown.
The CEO and co-founder of the Fearless Fund wants President Biden to issue an executive order that would circumvent the court ruling. She also wants Congress to pass a law that would back up the executive order. Here's a link to a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article that includes Q&A with one of the attorneys that represents the Fearless Fund:
https://www.ajc.com/news/business/qa-with-alphonso-david-lawyer-for-fearless-fund-after-court-loss/BDB7MJEAGNAEHA36XPO2IAREMA/
Thank you for your measured and helpful analysis, Mr. Roscoe.
My point is that the suit was filed by Conservatives. The overall impact if the suit succeeds is yet to be determined.
From the AJC article Fearless Fund lawyer interview
Q: What do you think the potential effects of the ruling could be?
A: What the plaintiffs in our case have been seeking to do is create a chilling effect across this country and maybe beyond that, where people are afraid to invest with Black businesses. They’re afraid to invest in programs that advance equity. And I think this 11th Circuit ruling could just exacerbate this problem where people feel a little skittish about supporting diversity and equity and inclusion programs, whether it be in the charitable space or in the private sector.
Q: What impact do you think this could have on philanthropy?
A: This decision for me amplifies what I see as a blatant hypocrisy within the world of philanthropy. Charitable organizations have been issuing grants to specific demographic groups for decades. And this is the first time that a federal court is stopping an organization from issuing grants to a specific demographic group, issuing grants consistent with their mission.
The implications for this decision, if it were to be applied within the philanthropic space broadly, are immense because it essentially redefines grantmaking. It essentially says you can’t issue grants to people of specific demographic groups, which we know is counter to what philanthropic groups have been doing for decades.
https://www.ajc.com/news/business/qa-with-alphonso-david-lawyer-for-fearless-fund-after-court-loss/BDB7MJEAGNAEHA36XPO2IAREMA/
The complaint was filed by Conservatives and upheld by Conservative judges. You label members of the Democratic Party race hustlers. I label Republicans/ Conservatives race baiters.
Good for you.
I took your comment in good faith and wound up wasting my time. Live and learn.
One thing that could be done is encourage higher education for Black youth. Oh wait………HBCUs were created and Southern states grossly underfunded those institutions by billions of dollars.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2023/09/20/states-underfunded-black-land-grants-13b-over-30-years
But let’s focus on Kendi instead.
This is off-topic, but I would like to request that Glenn invite Coleman Hughes on for a discussion of his latest piece about the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin trial, in today’s The Free Press:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/coleman-hughes-derek-chauvin-george-floyd?r=ltld3&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for posting. Bari called it the longest piece they've yet published. I will read it, but 8,950 words is a tall order for a slow reader like me.