Biden broke his own mask mandate on the first day. Rules for thee but not for me. Get used to it.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-mask-mandate-lincoln-memorial-1563657

This is awesome. I wonder how the Biden media will play this now that Antifa opposes them.

This is so good.

Can Someone Please Open the Door?

It was the culminating moment of a transfer of power: President Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, walked up the driveway to their new home on Wednesday, ascended the steps to the North Portico, waved to the crowd as a military band played “Hail to the Chief,” turned to head inside — and came face-to-face with a closed door.

As the world watched and a small crowd of Biden family members came up behind them, the first couple waited.

...

For one, there was no chief usher to greet the Bidens when they arrived. Although it is unclear exactly what caused the delay with the doors — which are normally opened by Marine guards — the chief usher of the White House, who manages the residence, had been fired less than five hours earlier.

The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris' Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water

No wonder it’s readers believe the way they do.

, I can heartily recommend the Bernie meme inauguration threads out there for a good laugh.

Ha ha. Sanders doesn’t give a shit about his own look. Good for him. We need more people like him in position of influence.

Then the soldiers were virtually discarded after Pelosi’s fantasies were proven stupid. — NOS4A2

Actually not.

To have soldiers filling inside the halls of the Capitol was a deliberate photo op to show response after the security had been breached so disastrously. Notice that all the fiercest pictures of heightened security are shown after something has already happened (just like the photo of the troops at the Lincoln memorial). Once the photo-op had been done, then soldier can be moved a far normal area where soldiers are stationed in an urban environment. That they could run quickly into the building from the parking garage (or something) doesn't matter at all.

The staging of soldiers (not the two definitions of staging here) inside the Capitol is similar window dressing as putting an armed guard or tank at a busy intersection or next to a tourist attraction. The major reason is to show people that "security has been raised".

This is awesome. — NOS4A2

Why do you think it's awesome?

Seems you're happy that riots are now the ordinary thing in Weimar US.

Oh, I forgot, you live in Canada.

Amen.

No, it’s awesome because the Democrats spent a lot of time dismissing their activity and feigned outrage whenever it was suggested to bring in the national guard.

Maybe you missed that way over there in Wherever, Europe.

The staging of soldiers (not the two definitions of staging here) inside the Capitol is similar window dressing as putting an armed guard or tank at a busy intersection or next to a tourist attraction. The major reason is to show people that "security has been raised".

“Optics”. A return to the public relations politics of Bush and Obama, where a politician can get away with anything so long as he utters nonsense about “unity” and “healing”. I doubt it will work this time around.

No, it’s awesome because the Democrats spent a lot of time dismissing their activity and feigned outrage whenever it was suggested to bring in the national guard.

Maybe you missed that way over there in Wherever, Europe. — NOS4A2

No. I didn't.

What you think is awesome is just the clear evidence of the simple partisanship on this issue, just as in anything else. If you think that this obvious "partisanship" is awesome, that the moral outrage is only saved for the supporters or so-called supporters of the other side, I don't understand you.

I noticed it when Obama came into power and when he continued the "War on Terror" just as Bush and immediately the critics of the Bush administration fell silent and started to 'understand' the new administrations continued actions (with even enlarging the drone strike program). It's evident on both sides and this is why this cancer isn't going to go away. The simple reason is the partisanship. If you have moral outrage when one side does it and find reasons to defend exactly similar action when done by "your" side, you simply lack morals altogether.

Where was this sentiment years ago? A little too late, in my opinion.

As for me I have never once denounced partisanship, a fundamental feature of democracy, especially when it has finally become convenient to do so. I’d much rather participate in politics instead of avoid it. This is the world they created and I admit it’s satisfying watching them stew in it.

Biden is about to set his administration to fighting systemic racism with his new executive orders. Susan Rice said this was about “racial justice and equity”, which implies fairness and impartiality, but in newspeak means instituting discriminatory racial policies that target people based on the color of their skin. This used to be known as “institutional racism”.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/executive-orders-equity-joe-biden/index.html

But, from of the mouths of those who are unable to remove discredited and superstitious taxonomies from their thinking, looking for disparities between them becomes a motivating factor in this “whole of government approach”.

I have never once denounced partisanship, a fundamental feature of democracy — NOS4A2

Partisanship is not a fundamental feature of democracy; it is the fundamental corruption of democracy: suspending your own right to vote in your interest by instead subscribing wholesale to the views of someone else.

Partisanship is not a fundamental feature of democracy; it is the fundamental corruption of democracy: suspending your own right to vote in your interest by instead subscribing wholesale to the views of someone else.

Without parties we get the single-party politics of fascism and communism. In democratic countries, at least one can choose to assemble with others of like mind and influence politics. He can also, like myself, remain independent of any single party.

ah, the affirmative action is racism canard. Or worse, the correcting of injustice is injustice itself! Racist much? Come on, trot out your "I don't see no colour" bullshit again pretending "I'm not racist but everybody else is".

You must be deathly afraid that he is right.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-prisons-coronavirus-pandemic-c8c246f00695f37ef2afb1dd3a5f115e

Credit where credit's due, this is very very good. Federal prisons still only constitute 6% of the US prison population, so still only a relatively minor change.

Without parties we get the single-party politics of fascism and communism. In democratic countries, at least one can choose to assemble with others of like mind and influence politics. He can also, like myself, remain independent of any single party. — NOS4A2

This is the real problem: extremists think in extremes. The options you see are: single-party authoritarianism or everyone in the country picking one of two sides. But those are not the only options available. One could still have political parties without people acting like mindless idiots with no ability to consider their position on a case-by-case basis.

It is racism. Racist societies have routinely set the state machinery to favor this or that racial group for no other reason than that they share the same shade of skin color. Your paternalism doesn’t absolve you of its stain.

You're operating under the moronic assumption that every discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It isn't. Doctors discriminate on the basis of skin colour because people of different skin colours are more or less susceptible to different diseases. Discrimination but for a justified purpose, ergo not racist. Likewise, the discrimination on the basis of skin colour to right a historic wrong or to combat persistent systemic racism is entirely justified as it is an instrument to reach justice and fairness.

It is wrong because race, as fuzzy as it is superstitious, is no proxy for genetic susceptibility and actual biology. The use of racial discrimination in medicine is certainly no argument for it, especially given the history, the Tuskegee experiments for example.

This is a complete non sequitur as you conveniently ignore the point

but for a justified purpose — Benkei

Why we're discriminating matters. It's why I don't drink bleach but do drink scotch, because I have a discriminating taste. It's also why I try to keep talking to you to a bare minimum.

Skin colour (and not "race", but a telling leap of logic there from you mr "colour blind") is most definitely a proxy for melanoma risk by the way. But yeah, I suppose the study of integrative genetics is total bullshit. :yawn:

I never said there is anything wrong with discrimination, so your point about bleach is a stupid one.

My point is that we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, whether you choose to do so by looking at skin-color or some sort of one-drop rule.

Your advocacy of race-based medicine and diagnosis is utter bullshit, not a repudiation but a continuation of racism, and a mindset that has led to some of the worst atrocities in the history of medicine.

:yawn: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28973033/

also, maybe stop equating skin colour with race, racist.

also, maybe stop equating skin colour with race, racist.

I have always been speaking about race, race-based discrimination and its institutional variations, and here you provide a study about the colors of skin and melanoma in an effort to prove the discrimination on the basis of skin-color is a good thing. I think it is you equating the two, racist.

You're operating under the moronic assumption that every discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong. — Benkei

It is wrong because race, as fuzzy as it is superstitious, is no proxy for genetic susceptibility and actual biology. — NOS4A2

Skin colour (and not "race", but a telling leap of logic there from you mr "colour blind") is most definitely a proxy for melanoma risk by the way. — Benkei

I never said there is anything wrong with discrimination, so your point about bleach is a stupid one. — NOS4A2

I have always been speaking about race, race-based discrimination — NOS4A2

You've been talking race, in response to a point I made about discriminating based on skin colour while simultaneously accepting there is nothing really wrong with discrimination. You, sir, are simply confused.

Clearly I was talking about race and race-based policy and medicine. I mistakenly thought you were as well, but I guess your entire argument was a red herring.

Children!! My guess is there is a lot of commonality here. Firstly, everyone discriminates. The alternative would be to operate in human interactions randomly, which no one does. Thus not all or even most discrimination is negative. Codified discrimination (especially race based) is almost universally condemned (publicly). This wasn't always so and is a description of progress over time. Currently in the West most racism is peer to peer and thus while institutional in many cases, is not codified.