Kat Timpf was on FC episodes 33 and 97, but it would be great to have her on again. She was also on the Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast last month.
When the decision came out, I was in what annoying tech people like to call "flow state", working on a pretty challenging piece of code. I noticed the time was a few minutes past 10 and thought, "Let me just check SCOTUSblog - I bet they are saving SFFA v Harvard for Friday." The decision was out, I started reading it, and realized I was choking up a bit. It's a crazy feeling I've never had before: a court redressing a wrong that targeted me.
The dissents to me felt very thin, but nobody should take that to mean the dissenters are dumb - Kagan and Jackson in particular I think are thoughtful and intelligent jurists. Here, however, they were constrained by precedent, law, and common decency against making any good arguments for the decision they wanted to make. (The case was so strong that I was really hoping for one defection; I was *praying* for the defection to be Jackson, which would have been hilarious, but alas.) Precedent prevented them from arguing that descendants of slaves and native Americans deserved special consideration in college admissions to compensate for historical oppression and its legacy. This is of course the argument that most people who informally defend affirmative action use, and it was ruled out by Bakke (if I understand correctly.) To really argue for the defendants in this case, one would have to affirmatively argue for anti-Asian discrimination. One'd have to say that there is a compelling state interest in allowing colleges to maintain a crude racial balance through this discrimination. I think there are some compelling arguments for this (though they are wrong), but these arguments would be very, very distasteful to most Americans, and nobody is willing to state them publicly. Hence the dissenters, and most dissenting commentators, completely ignore the core anti-Asian discrimination claim in this case.
I've been filling my ears with the gravely tones of RFKJ over the past week with interviews from Reason and Honestly. I appreciated the Coleman interview with TFC. I think I get why people like RFKJ. He actually says some things that I want to hear. Decriminalize weed and possibly other drugs? Yes. Pardon Assange? I'm no fan of him, but yes, I'd like to see the US decline to prosecute him. His immigration policy of no illegal immigration but lots more of the legal variety: spot on. Keeping kids out of school during covid was absolutely disastrous and will have lifelong consequences? Yes, shout this from the rooftops!
And then, yeah, he says a bunch of insane stuff, like "Al Queda did 9-11 because the US has military bases near Saudi Arabia" or "Ukraine was kiiiinda asking for it and the US could stop this war whenever". And that's not getting into the conspiracy stuff.
My opinion on RFKJ has actually improved (albeit from a low base) after hearing more from him. He might say a lot of stuff I disagree with, but he also says a fair bit of stuff that I *do* agree with, and frankly, that's batting ahead of any other candidate in the race, somehow.
Edit: To be clear, I don't find RKFJ credible or reliable. I've called out specific policy points he supported and criticisms that he's lobbied. He also makes plenty of platitudes that sound fine until he's pushed a little bit on them and reveals that his commitment to civil liberties is pretty thin and he's just as willing to use the tools of the state to impose his will as anybody else.
These days every lunatic stumbles on one or two truths that no one else is willing to say. It's impossible to draw the line at liars and frauds, but you've got to draw the line at lunatics because they are unpredictable. Like them or not, with a Biden or a Desantis, you know what you are going to get.
I just enjoy how this loopy scion of one of - if not the - most wealthy, connected, and political insider-y families is seen by many as being *more* relatable than most other Democrats and is termed a "populist" candidate. Normally the guy who grew up in Cape Cod and hung out in the Oval Office before he was in middle school isn't the one most voters would see as the proverbial "candidate they'd want to have a beer with".
Colin the Chicken was like watching Fawlty Towers. It was so painful. Having Colin’s papers was great and checking if the hazelnuts he was fed was also organic was next level.
Matt, since you're a native I'm going to forgive you for calling California "the c word" in your opening paragraph. I have to assume since you haven't lived here in a while it's just a bad habit you've picked up from out-of-staters.
Could we we start giving JFK jr any treatment, that involves lots of visuals and his great speaking voice?
I am down with any conspiracy theory that gives the hot, charismatic, Kennedy jr. some visibility. If the Q people had manifested him back to life, I would have gone to the next party they threw in the Capitol.
The 24th anniversary of his death is coming up. Perhaps, after all the Shabbat dinners Matt has recently attended, he could lead the Fifth, in a Mourner's Kaddish for John John.
George was ahead of its time (remember when putting Cindy Crawford on the front of a political magazine, dressed as George Washington, was considered risque?) and JFK was the Jr. who was supposed to be president, not his mutant cousin .
My kitchen is clean again. Thanks, lads! ❤️
✨🍽✨
I thought I was the only one who does dishes while listening to The Fifth. I feel less alone.
So when is Kat going to be on the pod?
Has just been a random oversight; it'll happen.
I will be overjoyed
Same here and doubly so if they can bring Phoebe on at the same time. A meeting of the two greatest FC podcasts would be epic.
We chatted with her about the bowdlerization of novels and now that they are coming for Hemingway too, it would be great to get the fifths perspective on that. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fculture%2Frobert-spencer%2F2023%2F06%2F29%2Fthe-woke-bell-tolls-for-ernest-hemingway-n1707204
Not soon enough. I love her.
*And her work.
Timpf? Pretty sure the lads have a policy against having people on while they're doing the new book rounds.
Rosenfield!
Oh neat! Yeah, get 'er on!
Kat Timpf was on FC episodes 33 and 97, but it would be great to have her on again. She was also on the Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast last month.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-reason-interview-with-nick-gillespie/id1485021241?i=1000616054059
When the decision came out, I was in what annoying tech people like to call "flow state", working on a pretty challenging piece of code. I noticed the time was a few minutes past 10 and thought, "Let me just check SCOTUSblog - I bet they are saving SFFA v Harvard for Friday." The decision was out, I started reading it, and realized I was choking up a bit. It's a crazy feeling I've never had before: a court redressing a wrong that targeted me.
The dissents to me felt very thin, but nobody should take that to mean the dissenters are dumb - Kagan and Jackson in particular I think are thoughtful and intelligent jurists. Here, however, they were constrained by precedent, law, and common decency against making any good arguments for the decision they wanted to make. (The case was so strong that I was really hoping for one defection; I was *praying* for the defection to be Jackson, which would have been hilarious, but alas.) Precedent prevented them from arguing that descendants of slaves and native Americans deserved special consideration in college admissions to compensate for historical oppression and its legacy. This is of course the argument that most people who informally defend affirmative action use, and it was ruled out by Bakke (if I understand correctly.) To really argue for the defendants in this case, one would have to affirmatively argue for anti-Asian discrimination. One'd have to say that there is a compelling state interest in allowing colleges to maintain a crude racial balance through this discrimination. I think there are some compelling arguments for this (though they are wrong), but these arguments would be very, very distasteful to most Americans, and nobody is willing to state them publicly. Hence the dissenters, and most dissenting commentators, completely ignore the core anti-Asian discrimination claim in this case.
On the RFK kerfluffle:
I've been filling my ears with the gravely tones of RFKJ over the past week with interviews from Reason and Honestly. I appreciated the Coleman interview with TFC. I think I get why people like RFKJ. He actually says some things that I want to hear. Decriminalize weed and possibly other drugs? Yes. Pardon Assange? I'm no fan of him, but yes, I'd like to see the US decline to prosecute him. His immigration policy of no illegal immigration but lots more of the legal variety: spot on. Keeping kids out of school during covid was absolutely disastrous and will have lifelong consequences? Yes, shout this from the rooftops!
And then, yeah, he says a bunch of insane stuff, like "Al Queda did 9-11 because the US has military bases near Saudi Arabia" or "Ukraine was kiiiinda asking for it and the US could stop this war whenever". And that's not getting into the conspiracy stuff.
My opinion on RFKJ has actually improved (albeit from a low base) after hearing more from him. He might say a lot of stuff I disagree with, but he also says a fair bit of stuff that I *do* agree with, and frankly, that's batting ahead of any other candidate in the race, somehow.
Edit: To be clear, I don't find RKFJ credible or reliable. I've called out specific policy points he supported and criticisms that he's lobbied. He also makes plenty of platitudes that sound fine until he's pushed a little bit on them and reveals that his commitment to civil liberties is pretty thin and he's just as willing to use the tools of the state to impose his will as anybody else.
These days every lunatic stumbles on one or two truths that no one else is willing to say. It's impossible to draw the line at liars and frauds, but you've got to draw the line at lunatics because they are unpredictable. Like them or not, with a Biden or a Desantis, you know what you are going to get.
I for one don’t like what I’m going to get from DeSantis. He seems more dangerous than the lunatics.
Agreed. He sounds like Pelosi or Feinstein these days.
I just enjoy how this loopy scion of one of - if not the - most wealthy, connected, and political insider-y families is seen by many as being *more* relatable than most other Democrats and is termed a "populist" candidate. Normally the guy who grew up in Cape Cod and hung out in the Oval Office before he was in middle school isn't the one most voters would see as the proverbial "candidate they'd want to have a beer with".
Colin the Chicken was like watching Fawlty Towers. It was so painful. Having Colin’s papers was great and checking if the hazelnuts he was fed was also organic was next level.
Matt, since you're a native I'm going to forgive you for calling California "the c word" in your opening paragraph. I have to assume since you haven't lived here in a while it's just a bad habit you've picked up from out-of-staters.
It's more that I have the self-confidence to not give a shit!
Could we we start giving JFK jr any treatment, that involves lots of visuals and his great speaking voice?
I am down with any conspiracy theory that gives the hot, charismatic, Kennedy jr. some visibility. If the Q people had manifested him back to life, I would have gone to the next party they threw in the Capitol.
The 24th anniversary of his death is coming up. Perhaps, after all the Shabbat dinners Matt has recently attended, he could lead the Fifth, in a Mourner's Kaddish for John John.
George was ahead of its time (remember when putting Cindy Crawford on the front of a political magazine, dressed as George Washington, was considered risque?) and JFK was the Jr. who was supposed to be president, not his mutant cousin .
Sadly, no!