Massachusetts Could Lift Its Decades-Old Happy Hour Ban


happyhour

A bill now making its way through the Massachusetts legislature could eliminate a longstanding state ban on happy-hour drink specials, one of America’s worst food bans. The move to overturn the ban comes as a recent poll shows that just one in five Massachusetts voters supports keeping the ban in place.

The bill, part of a broader package intended to support the recovery of bars and restaurants in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, is sponsored by State Rep. Mike Connolly (D), who represents voters in Somerville and Cambridge. Connolly’s bill, which would create a commission to study lifting the ban, “would also permanently extend certain measures that were popular during the pandemic, [l]ike cocktails to go and extended outdoor dining.”

The state implemented the happy hour ban in 1984 following the death of a young woman shortly after she’d consumed numerous happy hour drinks at a local pub chain. The woman jumped onto the hood of a car in the pub’s parking lot. She then fell off the car, which was also driven by a drunk happy hour reveler, and died.

“The state’s new regulation specifically prohibits offering free drinks, discounted drinks or special ‘jumbo’ drinks that cost as much as regular drinks,” The New York Times reported in December 1984, when the Massachusetts ban took effect. “Unlimited numbers of drinks can no longer be offered for a fixed price, and bars are prohibited from sponsoring such promotions as darts or music contests that award alcoholic drinks as prizes. A pitcher of beer can henceforth be sold only to a party of two or more customers.”

While Massachusetts was the first state to ban happy hours, today it is one of at least 10 states across the country that prohibits such specials. Notably, Massachusetts wouldn’t be the first to rescind a happy-hour ban. Illinois repealed its statewide ban several years ago.

State Rep. Ronald Mariano (D), who serves as House speaker in Massachusetts, says he’s open to discussing a lifting of the ban. And though Gov. Charlie Baker (R) says he’s unlikely to support lifting the ban, suggesting that his thinking is in line with that of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), a MADD spokesperson told Boston.com recently that the group does not oppose happy hour drink specials.

Even if the happy-hour ban’s goals were laudable—to combat drunk driving and to reduce injuries and deaths caused by drunk drivers—the happy hour ban never achieved those goals. As I reported in a 2015 column, Massachusetts “has the second-highest rate of drunk driving in New England, and a rate that’s 15 percent higher than the national average.” Massachusetts drivers report much higher rates of drunk driving than the national average. Incidents such as the one that spurred the ban continue to occur, including the case of an elderly, allegedly intoxicated man who was arrested in 2019 after police say he plowed into two people outside an Applebee’s restaurant in a Boston suburb. (To be fair, at least one assessment of drunk-driving arrests and deaths ranks Massachusetts as the best in the country.)

Many bar owners support lifting the ban.

“We are all suffering very much, and at this present time, anything (the government) can do will help us,” Donato Frattaroli, who owns two Boston-area restaurants, told the Boston Herald last week. “That is a great idea to bring it back.” 

Even some bar owners who aren’t fans of happy hour discounts support lifting the ban. 

The aforementioned 1984 Times report quoted a patron of The Sevens, a bar in Boston’s Beacon Hill neighborhood, where the state capitol also sits. I called The Sevens this week and spoke with owner Jack Kiley, who’s owned the bar for 45 years. Kiley told me that while he doubts he’d offer happy hour specials if lawmakers lift the ban, he agrees such choices should be left to bar and restaurant owners rather than to the state.

That’s how it is in most states. And, if Massachusetts lawmakers can get it right, that’s how it’ll be the next time I come home to the state of my birth to enjoy a dollar off a cold one (or two).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zPAD9o
via IFTTT

Europe’s Expensive Climate Club And Its Detractors

Europe’s Expensive Climate Club And Its Detractors

Authored by Tilak Doshi via Forbes.com,

The EU published a whole raft of additional climate policies on July 14th with its long-awaited “Fit for 55” package to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050. It included its most contentious plank – the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).  On July 19th, US Democrat legislators introduced a similar bill to tax imported goods for their carbon content sourced from countries that lack strict environmental policies. Details on the US proposal are scant, with one leading newspaper article stating that the US would “require companies that want to sell steel, iron, and other goods to the United States to pay a price for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted during their manufacturing processes. If countries can’t or won’t do that, the United States could impose its own price.”

It would seem that the Nordhaus climate club has become the policy vehicle of choice for advocates of the “climate emergency” on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why The Climate Club

On the face of it, the climate club’s logic is straightforward enough. It is to replace the earlier flawed architectures of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015) which were voluntary international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. To mitigate the problem of ‘free riders’ that inevitably emerge with such agreements, the climate club would establish  an incentive structure that penalized nations that did not play by the rules.

The EU and the US want to impose trade tariffs to bring the cost of carbon-dioxide emissions caused by the manufacture of an imported good into alignment with what a domestic producer would pay to produce the same good. European and American companies are less competitive because they have to pay for their emissions while foreign companies that export to them don’t. Thus rules to reduce emissions will encourage companies in the West to “offshore” their production to developing countries which have less onerous restrictions on emissions, a process known as “carbon leakage”. Brussels and Washington, it is claimed, merely intend to “level the playing field”. Of course the question arises, whose playing field?

The European Commission will initially apply the CBAM to imports from energy intensive sectors including iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers and electricity, coming into force from January 2026. An analysis by a bank found that Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, India and China will be amongst the most impacted by the CBAM. The complexity of the Brussels-concocted plan ensures that exporters to the EU will have their work cut out for them. Exporting firms will have to document detailed carbon audits on their emissions which would include calculating the percentage of emissions that are already covered by carbon taxes elsewhere (domestic and for imports which go into manufacturing the exports). If these complex and expensive analyses are beyond the compliance capabilities of firms, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, the EC will unilaterally establish carbon tariffs on the basis of the dirtiest 10% of European producers of the same good.

The Climate Club’s Detractors

On July 26th, China opened its first defensive salvo against the EU’s plan to impose the world’s first carbon border tax, stating that it intruded climate issues into international trading norms, broke WTO rules and undermined prospects for economic growth. Earlier in April when it became apparent that both the EU and the US Biden administration were considering extra-territorial and unilateral policies to enforce upon the world their own predilections to “fight climate change”, India also adopted a position similar to China’s. It issued a joint statement with the BASIC bloc — Brazil, South Africa, India and China — calling CBAM “discriminatory“ and expressing its “ grave concern”.

Detractors of the climate club – a club which threatens to be both exclusive and punitive for non-members — point out that carbon border taxes are contrary to the UN climate body’s Article 4. This refers to “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, an established feature of climate change negotiations since the UN’s first Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Last week, at the G20 on climate change and energy, India cited this long-standing equitable principle in countering the “net zero by 2050” target backed by the EU, US, the UN climate body and other rich country-dominated multilateral agencies such as the IEA, the World Bank and the IMF. India’s environment minister Bhupender Yadav said that “…given the legitimate need of developing countries to grow, we urge G20 countries to commit to bring down per capita emissions to global average by 2030”.

While the global average is 6.5 tons per capita of CO2-equivalent, India emits just below 2 tons while the US emits 17.6 tons and Germany 10.4 tons. India asserted that as the rich countries have already “consumed” most of the available “carbon space” in the atmospheric sink since the Industrial Revolution, the “net zero by 2050” target is inadequate.  

The detractors are not limited to developing countries. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison called the proposed carbon tariff plan “trade protection by another name”. Russia, like China, sees the CBAM as running foul of WTO rules and had already made clear its views a year ago when the EU was mooting its Green Deal plans which included carbon tariffs.

Problems With The Climate Club

Apart from the UN climate body’s Article 4, there are areas in which the proposed carbon tariffs may conflict with WTO trading rules. They may be found to contravene the WTO’s rule of non‐discrimination, a mainstay of international trading norms which requires that any advantage granted to the imported products of one WTO member must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating from all other WTO members. Carbon tariffs could also be inconsistent with the WTO’s ‘ national treatment rule’, another foundation stone of modern international trade under the WTO regime which requires that imported products be given “no less favourable” treatment than that given to like domestic products. If European producers continue to receive free emissions allowances (as they do now under the EU’s Emission Trading System), then the EU will be found in violation of the “national treatment” rule.

It would seem that the putative rich-country climate club members are headed for an impasse with the rest of the world in the rules of international trade that have broadly prevailed since the Second World War. On the one hand, we have somewhat less that 20% of the world’s population represented by policy elites that are convinced that the “science is settled” and a “climate crisis” is upon us. On the other, we have the vast majority of the world’s population – over 6 billion — newly emerged from wretched poverty in recent decades or desperately trying to. For those beginning to enjoy — or at least having a fighting chance to taste — the fruits of economic growth and technological progress across Asia, Africa and Latin America, their worries are less to do with concerns of the carbon footprint of economic growth as much as ensuring that economic growth will re-emerge after the devastation brought on by the Covid pandemic lockdowns.

Democracy Prevails

But there is a final twist. The Western policy elites, convinced by climate models that purportedly predict dire climate conditions decades into the future, seem to be facing the constraints of democracy in their own backyards. After Switzerland dropped its negotiations with the EU, the country rejected a climate-protection law in a referendum last month. The referendum rejected all three parts of the law in separate votes: on CO2, on pesticides, and on drinking water. Two days ago, UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, facing an increasing backlash from constituents over soaring heating costs with his plans to ban gas boilers in British homes in favour of expensive new-fangled heat pumps, delayed his government’s plans by 5 years to 2040.

For Europe, the greatest lesson of mass politics against climate change polices supported by metropolitan elites was the gilet jaune protests that was triggered by fuel taxes. As one acute observer put it, “The French love a good riot, but the political backlash to the French government’s plans to increase carbon taxes on fuel could be a harbinger of what’s to come in countries committed to the global warming crusade”. 

It is no surprise then that a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, one of Europe’s largest banks, warned that for the EU’s Green Deal to succeed, “a certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary”.

The climate club’s detractors have the tide of history on their side.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/31/2021 – 08:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UZOv2j Tyler Durden

“Apocalyptic Scenes” – Wildfires Consume Turkey 

“Apocalyptic Scenes” – Wildfires Consume Turkey 

Wildfires have been ravaging Turkey’s Mediterranean coast for the past few days, killing four, burning thousands of building structures, and affecting more than a dozen provinces. 

Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin called the wildfires a national disaster.

According to Reuters, at least 60 wildfires have broken out across the country’s Mediterranean and southern Aegean region. 

Forestry Minister Pakdemirli said 4,000 firefighters, 680 firefighting vehicles, 38 helicopters, nine drones, and three planes battle the wildfires. 

“We were hoping to contain some of the fires as of this morning but while we say cautiously that they are improving, we still cannot say they are under control,” Pakdemirli said.

DW correspondent Julia Hahn tweeted scenes from Manavgat in Antalya province showing “apocalyptic scenes” of one wildfire. 

Social media is full of horrifying videos of the wildfires. 

Senior scientist of Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Mark Parrington used satellite data to determine the “deadly scale” of the wildfires and shows which coastal areas are most affected. 

Another view of the wildfires from space. 

There’s still no word how the destructive fires began, but one government says “sabotage” cannot be ruled out. 

Fahrettin Altun, the Turkish presidential communications director, said “comprehensive investigations” are being launched into the origins of the wildfires. 

“Those responsible will have to account for the attacks against nature and forests,” Altun tweeted.

Turkey has been plagued with a heat wave like much of southeast Europe. 

In neighboring Greece, authorities warned the public against the heightened risk of wildfires during the latest heat wave. 

“A difficult weather phenomenon is coming in the next days with extremely high temperatures and several days of heat wave,” Citizens’ Protection Minister Michalis Chrysochoidis said. “I call on – I urge – everyone to show the highest degree of responsibility and cooperation.”

This summer has been absolute chaos across the world, heat waves in the US and Europe, cold snaps in South America, and floods in Europe and China, give climate alarmist Greta Thunberg ammunition to tweet climate disaster propaganda of how the world is ending unless governments act now.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/31/2021 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fgmGtb Tyler Durden

Watch: NHS Nurses Demand To COVID Test Newborn Baby, Claim It’s Not Mother’s Property Once Outside Of Womb

Watch: NHS Nurses Demand To COVID Test Newborn Baby, Claim It’s Not Mother’s Property Once Outside Of Womb

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A video out of the UK shows NHS nurses demanding to COVID test a newborn baby, claiming it’s not the mother’s property once outside the womb and then threatening to report her to social services for refusing.

The shocking video, which was posted to Twitter, shows a heavily pregnant mother in a hospital bed being lectured by nurses about how it’s mandatory for the baby to be given a COVID test immediately after birth.

“It is my property,” states the mother, to which one of the nurses responds, “so you will…while the baby’s in your abdomen.”

“So you’re saying once the baby comes out it’s not my property no more, yes it is, I gave birth to it, it’s got my blood running through it,” the mother asserts.

The nurse then continued to insist she “explain” why the baby needs a COVID test, which only serves to stress out the pregnant woman.

“Do you really think I need this bullshit about COVID when I’ve got a risk of losing my baby?” the woman asks.

The father of the baby then suggests the pair leave the hospital, stating, “They’re not COVID testing my baby – end of.”

“You can’t tell me that you get to give me the say of what happens once my baby’s born – I don’t think so, you can’t do nothing to my baby without my permission,” says the mother.

The nurse then responds by saying the mother’s refusal to have her baby COVID tested will be documented and passed on to social services (the Safeguarding team), essentially meaning that the mother will be investigated for neglect and possibly face authorities trying to remove the baby from her care.

“You’re so good aren’t you, you people?” the mother sardonically states at the end of the clip, perhaps in reference to how nurses in the UK have been deified as a result of the pandemic, with people at one point being asked to participate in weekly applause sessions to show gratitude to the NHS.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

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 here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/31/2021 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3C2q2Kn Tyler Durden

America’s Cross-Partisan Dalliance With Eugenics


book3

In November 1900, Jane Stanford forced the resignation of the noted progressive economist Edward A. Ross from the faculty of the university that bears her surname. The Ross incident has since become a cause célèbre in the history of academic freedom, setting into motion the events that led to the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as a safeguard for faculty rights and freedom of scientific inquiry.

Far less known is the occasion for Ross’ dismissal. Mrs. Stanford objected to a speech in which Ross appealed to the racial pseudoscience of eugenics to preserve California, which he deemed the “latest and loveliest seat of the Aryan race,” from the “stern wolfish struggle for existence as prevails throughout the Orient.”

Ross makes a brief appearance in historian Elizabeth Catte’s Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia for his association with another eugenic concept: the theory of “race suicide,” wherein persons of “undesirable” hereditary stock are said to outbreed and out-populate the “productive” elite—a code for the white upper class. A century later, it is still difficult to fathom the extent that eugenic theory penetrated the ranks of the intellectual classes, in part because many people treat the tale as taboo.

Catte’s book investigates Virginia’s state-run foray into hereditary central planning, which was primarily administered between the adoption of the state’s Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924 and the program’s termination in 1979. Virginia is distinctive for performing some 8,000 sterilizations without the patient’s consent—and in some cases without even the patient’s knowledge. It also produced the notorious 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sanctioned the state’s eugenic policies with the comment “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The story of Carrie Buck’s abuse by the state medical and legal systems has undergone a recent revival of scholarly interest, thanks to book-length treatments by Paul A. Lombardo, Gregory Michael Dorr, and others. Catte nonetheless gives it a missing local context by digging into the political climate of 1920s Charlottesville and the sordid eugenic history of Western State Hospital in the nearby town of Staunton. This institution employed Joseph DeJarnette, a physician who was a primary witness for the government in Buck’s case, a leading proponent of compulsory sterilization of those he deemed “feebleminded” and, later, an enthusiast for Nazi Germany’s race-based heredity laws. The hospital also provides the physical location for Catte’s concluding chapter, which probes the modern complexities of redeveloping a historically and architecturally significant site amid a climate that deems its eugenic history an impolite topic of conversation.

Catte’s strongest insight comes from juxtaposition. Virginia’s eugenic program aimed to entrench the rigid social hierarchies of the past against the democratizing pressures of a rapidly modernizing society. Although the eugenic era certainly aligned with racial segregation, Virginia’s sterilization policies primarily targeted poor white women on the margins of economic life—families deemed unwanted by the political powers of their communities, persons employed in menial housekeeping jobs by the wealthy, and even victims of sexual assault, such as Buck. The curious political “asset” of eugenics, then, was how it “would allow [Virginia’s] efforts to be viewed as modern and scientific, in line with the march of time and progress.”

Catte’s thesis nonetheless remains underdeveloped, particularly as it concerns the extent of symbiosis between the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia and the modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic “science” in its day. An illustrative case may be seen in Earnest Sevier Cox, the Richmond-based eugenics campaigner and vehement white supremacist who led a campaign to ban interracial marriage in conjunction with the 1924 sterilization law. Cox makes a brief appearance in Catte’s study, which connects him to the Charlottesville-based concert pianist and eugenics activist John Powell. Undiscussed is how Cox first wet his own feet in eugenic theory during three years of study under progressive sociologists at the University of Chicago, or how Cox’s 1923 segregationist tract White America received glowing reviews from a litany of the eugenics movement’s predominantly Northern and politically progressive intellectual elites, such as Ross, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard.

The transmission of eugenic ideas from progressive thinkers to the reactionary political elements of the American South remains a historical enigma, due in part to scholars’ reluctance to grapple with its implications. The evidence of parallel dalliances in hereditary planning is unmistakable. “Man has won the right to use the powerful weapon of the preventive check,” remarked John Maynard Keynes in a 1927 speech on the subject. Keynes spoke in London, but he would have found a welcoming audience in Richmond. A stricken passage in his notes revealed the progressive and reactionary alignment on this count: Hereditary “quality must become the preoccupation” of science. Yet most works on the subject, Catte’s included, tread lightly around its progressive dimensions save to depict them as a borrowed intellectual veneer for far-right atrocities.

The author’s own progressive sympathies unfortunately distort her interpretations of the valuable materials she unearths. “Because the philosophies of eugenics prioritized state control at the expense of personal choice,” Catte asserts at one point, “its most common strategies did not include contraception or abortion.” To liken the two, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has done, “is wrong.”

While a conscientious scholar should avoid interpreting modern abortion politics through the genetic fallacy, Catte is wrong to discount the intertwined complexities of their history. To use a prominent example, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger maintained longstanding interests in eugenics, often pairing sterilization with abortion and birth control as a “solution” to poverty in the American South. Planned Parenthood recently took steps to distance itself from these dimensions of Sanger’s legacy, rendering Catte’s attempt to historically dissociate the two all the more strained, irrespective of where one falls on the abortion debate.

To her credit, Catte rejects the historicization of early 20th century eugenics as a mere product of its time. DeJarnette and his associates inflicted tangible evils on other human beings without their consent, and this warrants disapprobation. At the same time, however, Pure America is unmistakably historicized to the progressive politics of the early 2020s. Catte bombards her reader with snarky digs at Trump-era politicians, with stray editorializing in support of The New York Times‘ 1619 Project, with tangential forays into the heated debates over Charlottesville’s Confederate statuary, and with stretched analogies between her historical subject and Republican COVID-19 policy.

The concluding chapter intensifies this blurring of the lines between historical scholarship and political advocacy, taking aim at the ongoing redevelopment of Staunton’s former Western State Hospital property as a luxury hotel and retirement community. A nuanced approach might attempt to explore the complexities of balancing use and preservation at a site with fraught historical legacies. Instead, Catte delivers a philippic against the “disaster capitalism” of its current development, all shaped by her own vantage point as a neighbor to the property.

She makes some valid points about the omission of Western State’s eugenic history from the current development’s marketing materials and the neglect of the on-site cemetery that serves as the final resting place for many of the former hospital’s long-term residents. Yet Catte’s ideas for what to do with the site veer into a heterodox accounting exercise that seems to place its modern owners on the hook for some sort of reparations payment to the victims of DeJarnette’s eugenic programs, all calculated by combining the developer’s budgeted construction improvements and preferential tax credits from the town of Staunton. This makes for an odd conclusion to the book.

Historians will find much in Catte’s text that reveals the rampant abuse and sheer depravity of this reactionary turn in progressively guided 20th century medical science. But they will have to sort that from the dated political appeals of its author’s own early 21st century progressive milieu.

Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia, by Elizabeth Catte, Belt Publishing, 176 pages, $26

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/378DNsr
via IFTTT

America’s Cross-Partisan Dalliance With Eugenics


book3

In November 1900, Jane Stanford forced the resignation of the noted progressive economist Edward A. Ross from the faculty of the university that bears her surname. The Ross incident has since become a cause célèbre in the history of academic freedom, setting into motion the events that led to the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as a safeguard for faculty rights and freedom of scientific inquiry.

Far less known is the occasion for Ross’ dismissal. Mrs. Stanford objected to a speech in which Ross appealed to the racial pseudoscience of eugenics to preserve California, which he deemed the “latest and loveliest seat of the Aryan race,” from the “stern wolfish struggle for existence as prevails throughout the Orient.”

Ross makes a brief appearance in historian Elizabeth Catte’s Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia for his association with another eugenic concept: the theory of “race suicide,” wherein persons of “undesirable” hereditary stock are said to outbreed and out-populate the “productive” elite—a code for the white upper class. A century later, it is still difficult to fathom the extent that eugenic theory penetrated the ranks of the intellectual classes, in part because many people treat the tale as taboo.

Catte’s book investigates Virginia’s state-run foray into hereditary central planning, which was primarily administered between the adoption of the state’s Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924 and the program’s termination in 1979. Virginia is distinctive for performing some 8,000 sterilizations without the patient’s consent—and in some cases without even the patient’s knowledge. It also produced the notorious 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sanctioned the state’s eugenic policies with the comment “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The story of Carrie Buck’s abuse by the state medical and legal systems has undergone a recent revival of scholarly interest, thanks to book-length treatments by Paul A. Lombardo, Gregory Michael Dorr, and others. Catte nonetheless gives it a missing local context by digging into the political climate of 1920s Charlottesville and the sordid eugenic history of Western State Hospital in the nearby town of Staunton. This institution employed Joseph DeJarnette, a physician who was a primary witness for the government in Buck’s case, a leading proponent of compulsory sterilization of those he deemed “feebleminded” and, later, an enthusiast for Nazi Germany’s race-based heredity laws. The hospital also provides the physical location for Catte’s concluding chapter, which probes the modern complexities of redeveloping a historically and architecturally significant site amid a climate that deems its eugenic history an impolite topic of conversation.

Catte’s strongest insight comes from juxtaposition. Virginia’s eugenic program aimed to entrench the rigid social hierarchies of the past against the democratizing pressures of a rapidly modernizing society. Although the eugenic era certainly aligned with racial segregation, Virginia’s sterilization policies primarily targeted poor white women on the margins of economic life—families deemed unwanted by the political powers of their communities, persons employed in menial housekeeping jobs by the wealthy, and even victims of sexual assault, such as Buck. The curious political “asset” of eugenics, then, was how it “would allow [Virginia’s] efforts to be viewed as modern and scientific, in line with the march of time and progress.”

Catte’s thesis nonetheless remains underdeveloped, particularly as it concerns the extent of symbiosis between the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia and the modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic “science” in its day. An illustrative case may be seen in Earnest Sevier Cox, the Richmond-based eugenics campaigner and vehement white supremacist who led a campaign to ban interracial marriage in conjunction with the 1924 sterilization law. Cox makes a brief appearance in Catte’s study, which connects him to the Charlottesville-based concert pianist and eugenics activist John Powell. Undiscussed is how Cox first wet his own feet in eugenic theory during three years of study under progressive sociologists at the University of Chicago, or how Cox’s 1923 segregationist tract White America received glowing reviews from a litany of the eugenics movement’s predominantly Northern and politically progressive intellectual elites, such as Ross, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard.

The transmission of eugenic ideas from progressive thinkers to the reactionary political elements of the American South remains a historical enigma, due in part to scholars’ reluctance to grapple with its implications. The evidence of parallel dalliances in hereditary planning is unmistakable. “Man has won the right to use the powerful weapon of the preventive check,” remarked John Maynard Keynes in a 1927 speech on the subject. Keynes spoke in London, but he would have found a welcoming audience in Richmond. A stricken passage in his notes revealed the progressive and reactionary alignment on this count: Hereditary “quality must become the preoccupation” of science. Yet most works on the subject, Catte’s included, tread lightly around its progressive dimensions save to depict them as a borrowed intellectual veneer for far-right atrocities.

The author’s own progressive sympathies unfortunately distort her interpretations of the valuable materials she unearths. “Because the philosophies of eugenics prioritized state control at the expense of personal choice,” Catte asserts at one point, “its most common strategies did not include contraception or abortion.” To liken the two, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has done, “is wrong.”

While a conscientious scholar should avoid interpreting modern abortion politics through the genetic fallacy, Catte is wrong to discount the intertwined complexities of their history. To use a prominent example, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger maintained longstanding interests in eugenics, often pairing sterilization with abortion and birth control as a “solution” to poverty in the American South. Planned Parenthood recently took steps to distance itself from these dimensions of Sanger’s legacy, rendering Catte’s attempt to historically dissociate the two all the more strained, irrespective of where one falls on the abortion debate.

To her credit, Catte rejects the historicization of early 20th century eugenics as a mere product of its time. DeJarnette and his associates inflicted tangible evils on other human beings without their consent, and this warrants disapprobation. At the same time, however, Pure America is unmistakably historicized to the progressive politics of the early 2020s. Catte bombards her reader with snarky digs at Trump-era politicians, with stray editorializing in support of The New York Times‘ 1619 Project, with tangential forays into the heated debates over Charlottesville’s Confederate statuary, and with stretched analogies between her historical subject and Republican COVID-19 policy.

The concluding chapter intensifies this blurring of the lines between historical scholarship and political advocacy, taking aim at the ongoing redevelopment of Staunton’s former Western State Hospital property as a luxury hotel and retirement community. A nuanced approach might attempt to explore the complexities of balancing use and preservation at a site with fraught historical legacies. Instead, Catte delivers a philippic against the “disaster capitalism” of its current development, all shaped by her own vantage point as a neighbor to the property.

She makes some valid points about the omission of Western State’s eugenic history from the current development’s marketing materials and the neglect of the on-site cemetery that serves as the final resting place for many of the former hospital’s long-term residents. Yet Catte’s ideas for what to do with the site veer into a heterodox accounting exercise that seems to place its modern owners on the hook for some sort of reparations payment to the victims of DeJarnette’s eugenic programs, all calculated by combining the developer’s budgeted construction improvements and preferential tax credits from the town of Staunton. This makes for an odd conclusion to the book.

Historians will find much in Catte’s text that reveals the rampant abuse and sheer depravity of this reactionary turn in progressively guided 20th century medical science. But they will have to sort that from the dated political appeals of its author’s own early 21st century progressive milieu.

Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia, by Elizabeth Catte, Belt Publishing, 176 pages, $26

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/378DNsr
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Texas Over Immigrant Travel Restrictions

On Wednesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order No. GA-37. On Thursday, Attorney General Garland threatened to sue Texas. On Friday, DOJ sued Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas-El Paso Division. (I guessed Austin division–mea cupla). You can download the complaint and TRO.

The brief raises two primary arguments: preemption and intergovernmental immunity. This filing is somewhat familiar. The Trump Administration raised these two primary arguments in its suit against California’s sanctuary city laws. Attorney General Sessions argued that California was interfering with federal immigration policies. Ilya Shapiro and I wrote about that case in the WSJ. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld those measures, and the Supreme Court denied cert on Blue Monday.

Here is a summary of DOJ’s argument:

In seeking to restrict the federal government’s transportation of noncitizens in Texas, the executive order stands as an obstacle to the federal government’s enforcement of the immigration laws and jeopardizes the health and safety of noncitizens in the federal government’s care and custody. Because it interferes with the United States’ “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration,” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012), the executive order violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The executive order also purports to authorize the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to determine whether individuals are “subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order” and to take action against those transporting such individuals based on that determination. Order at 2. But the power to determine whether an individual is “subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order” is reserved exclusively to the federal government. Accordingly, the executive order is preempted by federal law for that reason as well. 

Finally, the executive order is invalid under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which prevents a State from regulating federal operations, including operations of contractors, grantees and other partners in their performance of delegated federal functions. Even assuming a nexus between the executive order’s stated purpose of protecting the “health and safety of Texans” and the chosen enforcement tool, the order impermissibly seeks to regulate, impede, and frustrate the “movement[s] of migrants under the Biden Administration.” Order at 2. 

Finally, this brief uses the neologism “noncitizen” rather than “alien.” But it does not expurgate the word “alien” from quotations.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37apMdX
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Texas Over Immigrant Travel Restrictions

On Wednesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order No. GA-37. On Thursday, Attorney General Garland threatened to sue Texas. On Friday, DOJ sued Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas-El Paso Division. (I guessed Austin division–mea cupla). You can download the complaint and TRO.

The brief raises two primary arguments: preemption and intergovernmental immunity. This filing is somewhat familiar. The Trump Administration raised these two primary arguments in its suit against California’s sanctuary city laws. Attorney General Sessions argued that California was interfering with federal immigration policies. Ilya Shapiro and I wrote about that case in the WSJ. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld those measures, and the Supreme Court denied cert on Blue Monday.

Here is a summary of DOJ’s argument:

In seeking to restrict the federal government’s transportation of noncitizens in Texas, the executive order stands as an obstacle to the federal government’s enforcement of the immigration laws and jeopardizes the health and safety of noncitizens in the federal government’s care and custody. Because it interferes with the United States’ “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration,” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012), the executive order violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The executive order also purports to authorize the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to determine whether individuals are “subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order” and to take action against those transporting such individuals based on that determination. Order at 2. But the power to determine whether an individual is “subject to expulsion under the Title 42 order” is reserved exclusively to the federal government. Accordingly, the executive order is preempted by federal law for that reason as well. 

Finally, the executive order is invalid under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which prevents a State from regulating federal operations, including operations of contractors, grantees and other partners in their performance of delegated federal functions. Even assuming a nexus between the executive order’s stated purpose of protecting the “health and safety of Texans” and the chosen enforcement tool, the order impermissibly seeks to regulate, impede, and frustrate the “movement[s] of migrants under the Biden Administration.” Order at 2. 

Finally, this brief uses the neologism “noncitizen” rather than “alien.” But it does not expurgate the word “alien” from quotations.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37apMdX
via IFTTT