656 lines
82 KiB
HTML
656 lines
82 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||
<html lang="" xml:lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
|
||
<meta charset="utf-8"/>
|
||
<meta content="pandoc" name="generator"/>
|
||
<meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes" name="viewport"/>
|
||
<title>02 August, 2022</title>
|
||
<style type="text/css">
|
||
code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
|
||
span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
|
||
span.underline{text-decoration: underline;}
|
||
div.column{display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 50%;}
|
||
</style>
|
||
<title>Daily-Dose</title><meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" name="viewport"/><link href="styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><link href="../styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><style>*{overflow-x:hidden;}</style><link href="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.css" rel="stylesheet"/><script src="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.js"></script></head>
|
||
<body>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-down" id="daily-dose">Daily-Dose</h1>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" data-aos-anchor-placement="top-bottom" id="contents">Contents</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-vox">From Vox</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</a></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The First Post-Roe Vote on Abortion</strong> - In Kansas, where the right to abortion is enshrined in the state constitution, an upcoming ballot measure could pave the way for a total ban. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-first-post-roe-vote-on-abortion">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Trump vs. Biden, and Biden vs. Trump: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off</strong> - Was this week a preview of our next two years of duelling Presidents? - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/trump-vs-biden-and-biden-vs-trump-lets-call-the-whole-thing-off">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Joe Manchin’s Latest Reversal Could Be a Game Changer</strong> - Finally, some positive news for President Biden and the Democrats despite the new G.D.P. report. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/joe-manchins-latest-reversal-could-be-a-game-changer">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Upstart Union Challenging Starbucks</strong> - Baristas nationwide are remarkably organized. Is the company’s C.E.O., Howard Schultz, using firings, store closures, and legal delays to thwart them? - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-upstart-union-challenging-starbucks">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Michigan Primary Map: Live Election Results</strong> - The latest results from the Michigan primary ahead of the 2022 midterms. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/election-2022/live-midterms-results-michigan">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-vox">From Vox</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>One Good Thing: A new classic of country heartbreak</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/pVM3WF-1SATLRnENADNmRD3UAEo=/125x0:4501x3282/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71198929/1402213126.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Carly Pearce performs at CMS Fest 2022 in June. | Terry Wyatt/Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Carly Pearce’s 29: Written in Stone turns a tumultuous year of her life into a near-perfect divorce album.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ydo06R">
|
||
Country music carries within it a promise of a kind of idyllic traditionalism, even in its most progressive forms. The genre implicitly promises that there is a place where you will find the one person who completes you and build a quiet life out in the middle of nowhere together. Yet in reality, life keeps getting in the way. The best country lives in the tension between those ideas, between the life you’re supposed to want and the world that gives you so many other options, then yanks some cruelly away.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DPAB8u">
|
||
And sometimes, you just need to scream and cry and pound your fists and maybe fire a shotgun into the air. Enter the “Hey, fuck you, buddy!!” song.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="c1XHSa">
|
||
Typically (though not exclusively) recorded by women, the “Hey, fuck you, buddy!!” song involves what happens when some jerk breaks your heart, then runs off to be with someone else. As you watch their truck recede into the distance, you scream, “Hey, fuck you, buddy!!” But that’s about all you can do.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1frLpD">
|
||
Naturally, many of these songs center on divorce. From sad and lonesome classics like Tammy Wynette’s “D-I-V-O-R-C-E” and Dolly Parton’s “Starting Over Again” to more fiery tracks like Loretta Lynn’s “Rated X” and<a href="https://www.vox.com/22716838/kacey-musgraves-star-crossed-album-review"> Kacey Musgraves’s “Breadwinner,”</a> a woman’s definition of herself after she ceases to be a wife is an evergreen theme in country (and popular art in general).
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="obOkeR">
|
||
And now you can (and should!) add Carly Pearce’s 2021 album <em>29: Written in Stone</em> to the list. It’s a whole album of kiss-off anthems, inspired by a marriage that lasted less than a year, and it marks a huge leap forward for one of country music’s most exciting young stars. Hopefully, it will help her cross over to audiences who don’t normally listen to country. Those audiences might well love Pearce’s dry, acerbic take on complete and utter heartbreak.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="FVmERs">
|
||
<div style="width: 100%; height: 0; padding-bottom: 56.25%;">
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7LViVa">
|
||
Pearce married fellow country singer Michael Ray in October 2019, but their marriage was over less than a year later, with Pearce <a href="https://people.com/country/carly-pearce-breaks-silence-michael-ray-divorce/">officially filing for divorce</a> in June 2020. The title of <em>29: Written in Stone</em>, then, refers to the age Pearce was when her marriage both began and dissolved. But it also speaks to her anxiety around her impending 30s and her attempts to find a way forward in music after the death of <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/busbee-dead-hit-songwriter-producer-worked-maren-morris-more-1244195/">her longtime producer Busbee</a> in 2019, just weeks before her wedding.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Y8J0Ot">
|
||
It’s an album that looks backward — to Pearce’s parents’ marriage and to her country music foremothers like Loretta Lynn — and forward, to what Pearce might have learned from her divorce that she will bring to future relationships. It’s appropriately angry in places, appropriately grief-stricken in others, and appropriately relieved in still others. It’s an album written by someone who didn’t expect her relationship to end so quickly, but who’s also willing to admit it’s probably good it ended before she and her ex could have their lives further enmeshed.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Mcnjx6">
|
||
The opening track, “Diamondback,” nicely sets up what listeners can expect from the album. Its title evokes the deadly rattlesnake, but the song splits that word into two, as Pearce assures her ex that he can have whatever he wants, but he’s “never gonna get that diamond back.” That song and others on the album have superb “getting drunk at a dive bar with your friends after a bad breakup” energy.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SSqOQQ">
|
||
Pearce balances them with plaintive ballads, like the album’s second track, “What He Didn’t Do.” In that song, she seemingly explains to the imagined friends assembled at the dive bar why her marriage ended, not by talking about what her ex did to break her heart but all of the little things he didn’t do that left her feeling let down. And yet even as she demurs when asked to give all the gory details, she assures us, “we both know I could run him out of this town. That’s just dirty laundry; I don’t need to wear the truth.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="mEFbdB">
|
||
It’s easy to <a href="https://www.grammy.com/news/carly-pearce-interview-new-album-29-written-in-stone-kacey-musgraves-country-artist">draw comparisons</a> between Pearce and Musgraves. Both regularly toss off lyrics filled with evocative imagery, emotional complexity, and winking wordplay. Pearce, for instance, uses the title of her hit “Next Girl” to mean both her ex’s next fling and to warn that new fling, “I know what happens next, girl.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="iw9jqN">
|
||
<div style="width: 100%; height: 0; padding-bottom: 56.25%;">
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="WVUAiV">
|
||
<em>29: Written in Stone</em> has made the comparisons even more pointed, as Musgraves also released an album about her divorce last year, just one week before Pearce’s album dropped. Musgraves’s <em>star-crossed </em>arrived with a fleet of expectations it couldn’t hope to live up to, and its hard turn away from a pure country song disgruntled many in Musgraves’s fanbase. (<a href="https://www.vox.com/22716838/kacey-musgraves-star-crossed-album-review">I liked the album a lot, actually</a>.)
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7yYEgF">
|
||
In short, this album knows that any relationship that ends deserves at least a couple “Hey, fuck you, buddy!!” songs. <em>29: Written in Stone</em> has more than its fair share for all your friends to scream along to at the bar, but it’s also got a hefty helping of heartbroken wisdom for when last call has arrived and you realize your lover’s not coming back.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Lc8VZq">
|
||
<em>29: Written in Stone</em> might speak to those who want a more purely country take on what it means to have the thing you thought would last your whole life disintegrate. Like Musgraves, Pearce is willing to take blame for the ways she let her marriage down, but where Musgraves could overindulge in those ideas, seeming like she had slipped into self-loathing, Pearce is only too happy to throw dirt on the grave her ex dug himself.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="eit17g">
|
||
29: Written in Stone <em>is available on all major music streaming platforms. Physical editions are also available on CD and vinyl.</em>
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Self-compassion makes you a better person. Here’s how to practice it.</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="A cartoon drawing of a relaxed girl blowing on a dandelion." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9kkePajf1zz0CTzReIn1ipGIxjc=/417x0:7084x5000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71198781/GettyImages_1361304153.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Denis Novikov/Getty Images/iStockphoto
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Science shows that self-compassion isn’t about letting yourself off the hook — in fact, it’s the opposite.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qp4C7T">
|
||
“Oh, no!” I thought when I took an online test to <a href="https://self-compassion.org/self-compassion-test/">measure my level of self-compassion</a> and saw my score. “I’m below average!”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Xu57N9">
|
||
Immediately I felt the urge to berate myself for the inadequacy — proving, of course, the test’s point.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vgL3qC">
|
||
The test’s creator, psychologist Kristin Neff, pioneered the scientific study of self-compassion two decades ago. The field has exploded since then, with new research on the topic coming out all the time. It’s not just a hot topic among researchers; it’s also popular with the public.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QbzZLB">
|
||
This year marks 10 years since Neff, together with her colleague Chris Germer, created a course to teach people self-compassion.<strong> </strong>Well over 100,000 people have gone through the eight-week course, and <a href="https://self-compassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Neff-Germer-MSC-RCT-2012.pdf">clinical trials</a> have found very positive effects on mental health conditions like depression and anxiety, as well as on physical health. Notably, those effects persist even a year after the course.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6v4S0u">
|
||
Neff began by developing a model of what self-compassion is. She identified three components: self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FXih52">
|
||
Self-kindness means you’re warm toward yourself when you suffer or mess up, rather than judging yourself harshly (as I did above). Common humanity means you remind yourself that everyone suffers or messes up sometimes, rather than succumbing to the feeling that you’re the only one going through such hard things. Mindfulness, here, means you’re neither under- nor overidentified with your painful thoughts — you acknowledge them as painful, but you also recognize that they’re just thoughts, not your whole being.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="l4Q0xA">
|
||
If you’re anything like me, you’re already feeling skeptical about all this. Maybe you’re thinking that you need self-criticism to motivate yourself to improve. Maybe you’re worried that self-compassion would breed self-indulgence, leading you to let yourself off the hook too easily.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3wqYgZ">
|
||
Well, it turns out the research dispels these misconceptions. Let’s dig into why self-compassion is not only an effective intervention for alleviating mental distress — something we desperately need — but also an effective way to become a better person, and how it’s something you yourself can achieve.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="x6YTAn">
|
||
Common objections to self-compassion — and how the research dispels them
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7GkC7S">
|
||
The most common objection — one I had myself — is the concern that self-compassion might rob us of the motivation to improve. If I don’t self-criticize when I make mistakes, will I still feel driven to learn from them?
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DM3JUi">
|
||
In 2012, psychologists at the University of California Berkeley conducted a great bit of <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50f6f441e4b08191027c661d/t/51663d46e4b060cd9194ed75/1365654854068/Breines+%26+Chen+2012+PSPB.pdf">experimental research</a> to see whether self-compassion and motivation were really at odds.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="b7ptM5">
|
||
The guinea pigs were Berkeley students, who were instructed to take an extremely challenging academic exam — so challenging, in fact, that everyone did badly. But the students had been divided into three groups, and each group received a different message after the test.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wPzgsJ">
|
||
One group was given a message of self-compassion: “If you had difficulty with the test you just took, you’re not alone. It’s common for students to have difficulty with tests like this.” Another group was given a self-esteem boost: “You must be intelligent if you got into Berkeley!” (Note that <a href="https://self-compassion.org/why-self-compassion-is-healthier-than-self-esteem/">self-esteem is not the same as self-compassion</a>, since it focuses on validating strengths rather than accepting that we all have weaknesses.) The last group was not told anything; the researchers’ assumption was that the students, being students at a highly competitive university, would judge themselves harshly for failing a test.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yYMejm">
|
||
Then the researchers gave all the students a chance to study for as long as they wanted for a new test. The self-compassion group studied the longest, displaying the greatest motivation to improve after an initial failure (and also scoring slightly higher!).
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UHvAQp">
|
||
This motivation for improvement extends to the interpersonal realm, too. The same researchers found that more self-compassionate people are more likely to want to apologize and make amends to others when they mess up. They’re more able to acknowledge when they’ve made a mistake because mistakes don’t feel so psychologically damning.<strong> </strong>That allows them to take more, not less, responsibility for their actions.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="R99WBh">
|
||
“What self-compassion does is actually give you that sense of safety to be able to say, ‘Okay, I blew it. I feel so bad. Well, it’s human. People make mistakes. How can I repair this?’” Neff told me. By contrast, “If you feel shame, it shuts down your ability to learn from your mistakes.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DqFkBK">
|
||
A quick refresher here: Shame is “I am bad.” Guilt is “I did something bad.” Now, what’s really interesting is that while self-compassionate people are less likely to feel shame, they’re<em> </em>more likely to feel guilt.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Aq4yJC">
|
||
In 2016, researchers <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916310583">showed this experimentally</a> by asking students to make a choice: Either do an annoying task yourself or palm it off on someone else. Those who chose to palm it off were then divided into two groups: One did a written self-compassion practice, while a control group just wrote about a random hobby.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ZBVBC6">
|
||
When the students were then asked to rate how acceptable it was to palm off the annoying task, those in the control group saw their selfish act as more acceptable, while those in the self-compassion group saw it as less acceptable.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Wf4bcF">
|
||
“Our findings demonstrate that higher self-compassionate people endorse harsher moral judgment of themselves and accept their own moral violations less,” the authors wrote.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="GZMeCg">
|
||
<div style="width: 100%; height: 0; padding-bottom: 56.25%;">
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<h3 id="Uz4XZB">
|
||
How to start practicing self-compassion: A crash course
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lOqT2Z">
|
||
The great thing about self-compassion is that it’s a skill anyone can learn. Although it might be harder for some people, like those who’ve experienced the kind of trauma that breeds a harsh inner critic, anyone can practice self-compassion and build it up over time.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="blOVFB">
|
||
Laura Silberstein-Tirch, director of the Center for Compassion Focused Therapy and the author of a <a href="https://bookshop.org/books/how-to-be-nice-to-yourself-the-everyday-guide-to-self-compassion-effective-strategies-to-increase-self-love-and-acceptance/9781641522618">book on the topic</a>, explained how the process works using the example of a young woman she knows. The woman is a new mom who recently started putting her kid in day care. The kid’s distress upon being dropped off led the mom to feel intense shame, thinking, “I’m a bad mother!” She started ruminating about how she should’ve done things differently in life, like pursuing a more lucrative career, so she could afford to put her kid in a better day care or keep the kid home.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QA4BPS">
|
||
How can this new mom begin to practice self-compassion?
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="TZmbtP">
|
||
Step one is for her to become mindful of what she’s feeling in the present moment — simply to be aware that she’s in pain. She might say something like, “This is hard. It hurts.” Or, “Wow, there’s a lot of suffering here.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GWW6dH">
|
||
Step two is to understand that this kind of suffering is part of the human condition. It’s part of our common humanity. She might say something like, “It’s not just me. It’s hard for a lot of moms to put their kid in day care.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yl1X2E">
|
||
Step three is to offer self-kindness. A good way to start is by shifting basic physiology. As mammals, we’re soothed by physical touch. So the new mom might put her hands over her heart, signaling to her body that it can ease out of a threat state.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Sji14B">
|
||
She can then begin to ask herself: “What would I say or do for a friend who was in the same situation? I wouldn’t berate her the way I’m berating myself. I’d probably tell her she’s trying really hard to be the best mom she can, and the fact that she’s so distressed shows how deeply she cares about her kid. Maybe after day care drop-off I’d take her out to a nice coffeeshop, where she can have a warm drink and take a few minutes to soothe herself before continuing with her day.” Then the mom can try saying and doing that for herself.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xHO2I6">
|
||
“We call that the compassionate U-turn,” psychologist Chris Germer, Neff’s colleague, told me. If people have trouble offering themselves the full compassion they’d offer to a friend, Germer says he asks them, “Would you be willing to consider treating yourself just a little bit as you might treat a friend?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2pFFac">
|
||
Silberstein-Tirch told me about another form of troubleshooting she does with clients. When they’re resistant to letting go of self-criticism, she asks them, “What function is that serving for you? If I could wave a magic wand and make it so that you could never beat yourself up about this again, what would be your greatest fear about that?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="W4uSCF">
|
||
Sometimes, people realize their fear is that they might get lazy or let themselves off the hook too easily, in which case it helps to be reminded of the research above. If they keep clinging to self-criticism as a strategy for dealing with these fears, Silberstein-Tirch might ask them, “How’s that working for you?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ll0fkt">
|
||
People typically acknowledge their current strategy isn’t helping them overall. From there, they might become more willing to try something new.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uaE8Pu">
|
||
If you’re still feeling skeptical — whether because you doubt self-compassion will make you a better person or because you doubt it’s something you can tap into — that’s okay. Rather than trying to force yourself to accept it intellectually, you can adopt the attitude of a scientist running an experiment.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="X9EL5Q">
|
||
“Try some self-compassion in a moment of distress and just see what happens,” Germer says. He’s willing to bet that if you try it, even in small ways, the results will start to convince you it’s a better approach than beating yourself up.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HBiHLS">
|
||
If you’re feeling motivated to learn more, you can pick up a copy of <a href="https://bookshop.org/books/the-mindful-self-compassion-workbook-a-proven-way-to-accept-yourself-build-inner-strength-and-thrive/9781462526789">the popular and inexpensive workbook</a> Neff and Germer co-wrote. You can also sign up for the full eight-week self-compassion course, which is run by their nonprofit, the <a href="https://centerformsc.org/">Center for Mindful Self-Compassion</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2TllkP">
|
||
“That course is the mothership, but we need to have different on-ramps,” Germer says. “The future of self-compassion training is adaptations.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ICVJN2">
|
||
To that end, researchers have been busy figuring out how to tailor the course to specific populations like <a href="https://centerformsc.org/msc-teens/">teenagers</a>, <a href="https://centerformsc.org/schc/">health care workers</a>, <a href="https://centerformsc.org/self-compassion-educators/">educators</a>, and <a href="https://centerformsc.org/course/8-week-mindful-self-compassion-for-lgbtq/2021-10-06/">LGBTQ people</a>; it’s now taught on every continent except Antarctica. If the first 10 years of the course were about proving its benefits, the next 10 years will be about expanding its reach.
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>The uncomfortable problem with Roe v. Wade</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="The Supreme Court building appears lit up in the center of an illustration with silhouetted marching protesters in front of it holding signs." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hFriaSAyUumXZjP_ZAp0_jBVFl8=/290x0:2957x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71198678/roe0728.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Amanda Northrop/Vox
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The Constitution doesn’t tell us which rights it protects, and now the power to decide that question rests with people like Samuel Alito.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="c0hs2B">
|
||
I believe that the Constitution protects a right to abortion.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="iTi66L">
|
||
I want to state that upfront because the rest of this essay will be highly critical of the Supreme Court’s opinion overturning <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, and of the open-ended approach to constitutional interpretation exemplified by that decision. As I will argue below, the right to an abortion should be found within the Constitution’s promise of gender equality — an approach which does far more to limit judicial power than the <em>Roe</em> opinion itself.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="j3YUDQ">
|
||
<em>Roe, </em>the landmark case that first established a constitutional right to abortion, rested on the idea that judges have a practically unlimited power to find rights within the Constitution that aren’t mentioned anywhere within it. The 1973 decision found the right to abortion within a broader “right of privacy,” which itself was found within “the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uXC8OO">
|
||
The legal name for this kind of constitutional analysis is “substantive due process.” It refers to the theory that certain unenumerated rights — rights that are never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution — are nonetheless implicit in a passage of the 14th Amendment providing that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">no one shall be denied “liberty” without “due process of law.”</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NIzzBi">
|
||
Substantive due process is best known now as the bedrock of many of the most celebrated progressive Supreme Court victories in the last several decades. In addition to <em>Roe, c</em>urrent doctrine holds that rights closely tied to the family — including the right to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1">marry whoever you choose</a>, the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html">right to sexual autonomy</a>, and the right to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/390">guide your own children’s upbringing</a> — are among the unenumerated rights protected by the 14th Amendment.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="eSXqh0">
|
||
Indeed, when the Supreme Court overruled <em>Roe</em> in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf"><em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em></a> in June, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion that <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/6/24/23181723/roe-v-wade-dobbs-clarence-thomas-concurrence">all of these rights must fall along with the right to an abortion</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qbmYkD">
|
||
But the Court only started to use substantive due process to advance equality and other progressive values fairly recently. There’s also a much darker history underlying doctrines like substantive due process.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zGu5SG">
|
||
Not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified, ex-Confederates, including a disgraced former Supreme Court justice, tried to twist it into a shield protecting white supremacy — and they very nearly succeeded. Several decades later, substantive due process became a tool of plutocrats, and the Court routinely wielded it to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/198/45">strike down pro-labor legislation</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SutEAk90PsI2JbLev5df6h4a2bk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915673/GettyImages_1134321073.jpg"/> <cite>Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito testifying at a House committee hearing in 2019.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CZ9nrB">
|
||
Now, the power to read new constitutional rights into our founding document is held by conservative Republicans like Justice Samuel Alito — the same justice who relied on a centuries-old treatise written by a judge who <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/alito-roe-sir-matthew-hale-misogynist/">sentenced two “witches” to death</a> in his opinion overruling <em>Roe</em>. It is a terrible mistake to trust this man with that kind of power.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xrUczY">
|
||
Abandoning substantive due process, moreover, should not mean sacrificing hard-fought victories for reproductive choice or marriage equality. A sounder strategy is to root these rights in constitutional provisions that offer more specific protections. The Constitution’s guarantee that no one may be denied “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">the equal protection of the laws</a>,” for example, is capacious enough to protect both.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zHeGXZ">
|
||
It’s time, in other words, to put substantive due process to bed.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="cqF3Mk">
|
||
The right to an abortion can exist without an unenumerated “right to privacy”
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SzEj29">
|
||
The Constitution is clearly supposed to protect some rights that aren’t mentioned within it — this is apparent from the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment">Ninth Amendment</a>, which provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="TeONWV">
|
||
But the Constitution’s text also provides few clues about what these unenumerated rights might be. And judges have struggled for more than a century to come up with a coherent theory of which such rights are protected by the Constitution. American judges haven’t even settled on a persuasive theory about which provision of the Constitution permits them to find unenumerated rights to be implicit in the document.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BEXMet">
|
||
One way to square this circle is to allow judges — and ultimately the Supreme Court — to determine which unenumerated rights should enjoy constitutional protection. That’s a fine solution if you are comfortable giving this power to whoever sits on the Court, including the specific justices who currently do.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="4B24ng">
|
||
But if you are concerned that Alito and his fellow conservative justices do not have your best interests at heart, then it makes more sense to limit the Court’s power — and that means that our rights must be grounded in constitutional text that places some limits on judicial discretion.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vWprVL">
|
||
The right to reproductive freedom — including the right to abortion — <em>should</em> be found within the Constitution’s guarantee that no one shall be denied “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">the equal protection of the laws</a>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xta6rw">
|
||
As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote shortly before she joined the Supreme Court, the question of whether women will be able to “participate as men’s <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2961&context=nclr">full partners in the nation’s social, political, and economic life</a>” hinges upon their “reproductive autonomy.” Gender equality, at least at a systemic level, is not possible in a society where women’s bodies can be seized by the state for nine months at a time.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OkHq4x">
|
||
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113"><em>Roe</em></a>, however, said surprisingly little about equality, instead claiming that the right to an abortion is implicit in a right to privacy, which is itself implicit in the due process clause of the Constitution.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/b5TRah1iQOb6scMLqu94XGwzM2Y=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915893/GettyImages_635752401a.jpg"/> <cite>Oscar White/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Z1A2EX">
|
||
The question of whether to root abortion rights in gender equality or in a broader right to privacy may seem academic, but the stakes are high. The judiciary’s power to guarantee equal protection is potent but limited. It merely allows judges to equalize rights, providing to a disadvantaged group what the government has already provided to a more advantaged group. In extreme cases, equal protection may also invalidate policies, like the “inherently unequal” segregated schools rejected by <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/"><em>Brown v. Board of Education</em></a>, that systemically relegate a disadvantaged group to an inferior position in society.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="p1aqW2">
|
||
Substantive due process and similar doctrines, by contrast, permit the courts to find any right they choose within the Constitution, including “rights” that do serious harm to already disadvantaged groups. As Justice Hugo Black, a liberal Franklin Roosevelt appointee, wrote in 1970, the methods his Court uses to find unenumerated rights within the Constitution are “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/">an arrogation of unlimited authority by the judiciary</a>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FRvwkT">
|
||
And much of the history of substantive due process — and the Supreme Court’s use of it — backs Black up.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="EBsmmK">
|
||
The battle lines on unenumerated rights were drawn very soon after the Civil War
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xHNTaG">
|
||
The idea that important political rights flow from a provision of the Constitution that only guarantees “due process” is quite odd. And it’s especially odd because the 14th Amendment also states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States</a>.” This language provides a much stronger hook to hang substantive rights upon than the due process clause.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="sYH7DQ">
|
||
The story of why this privileges or immunities clause plays almost no role in modern constitutional law, however, is instructive. It is a story about how easily bad actors can manipulate vague constitutional language that guarantees undefined rights.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="YrFdM6">
|
||
And it starts with <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Injustices-Comforting-Comfortable-Afflicting-Afflicted/dp/1568585691?asin=1568585691&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1">John Archibald Campbell</a>, one of the great villains of the Reconstruction Era. A former Supreme Court justice and West Point classmate of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, Campbell quit the Court at the beginning of the Civil War and eventually become the Confederacy’s assistant secretary of war. After the war, he lived in New Orleans, where he complained in an 1871 letter to his daughter that Louisiana’s Reconstruction government put “Africans in place all about us.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-left c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AGoWtmps7duww7bZn1e4g068CO8=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915728/GettyImages_3069580.jpg"/> <cite>MPI/Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
John Archibald Campbell, circa 1880.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="mfgXnN">
|
||
Campbell read the 14th Amendment and saw an opportunity to neutralize laws enacted by Black legislators. In one case, he argued that a law requiring racially integrated theater seating was unconstitutional because the right to run a segregated business was one of the unnamed “privileges or immunities” protected by the new amendment.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qcTTI8">
|
||
The apotheosis of Campbell’s racist litigation strategy, however, was the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36"><em>Slaughter-House Cases</em></a> (1873), which split the justices 5-4 between two wildly divergent theories of unenumerated rights, both of which would remain relevant for decades.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gbuGOz">
|
||
Around the time of the Civil War, New Orleans was the unhealthiest city in the nation. One in 12 residents died every year, often from outbreaks of cholera <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/10/31/415535913/how-yellow-fever-turned-new-orleans-into-the-city-of-the-dead">or yellow fever</a>. One of the most significant contributors to this public health crisis was the city’s slaughterhouses, whose waste littered the streets and polluted with rotting offal the Mississippi River that supplied New Orleans’s drinking water.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="U2fZfa">
|
||
To deal with this problem, the state’s Reconstruction legislature shut down all of New Orleans’s slaughterhouses and replaced them with a single grand slaughterhouse that would be open to all butchers — and that would sit downriver of the intake pipes that supplied the city with water.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lBYdcO">
|
||
Campbell objected to this law largely because the legislature that enacted it included 35 Black lawmakers. But he primarily adopted proto-libertarian rhetoric in order to challenge the law in court. Claiming he stood for “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Injustices-Comforting-Comfortable-Afflicting-Afflicted/dp/1568585691?asin=1568585691&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1">Freedom. Free action, free enterprise [and] free competition</a>,” Campbell told the Supreme Court that the Reconstruction legislature’s slaughterhouse law must fall.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="MxMCja">
|
||
A majority of the Court saw through Campbell’s effort to achieve racist ends by laissez-faire means, and upheld the slaughterhouse law. The purpose of the 14th Amendment, Justice Samuel Miller <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36#fn39">wrote for the majority</a>, is to ensure “the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.” It wasn’t to impose small-government conservatism on the states at the very moment when Black Americans first began to exercise legislative power.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8Gg9bo">
|
||
But while Miller’s decision was a victory for public health — and at least a temporary defeat for Campbell’s white supremacist project — it achieved this outcome by reading the privileges or immunities clause so narrowly as to render it virtually meaningless.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-left c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-P-UMq9Tep-t3lt5_89_2txVFVg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915744/GettyImages_640460321.jpg"/> <cite>Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice Samuel Freeman Miller.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gIqAb3">
|
||
Though Miller did concede that the 14th Amendment protected some very limited rights, such as the right “to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government” or the right to “use the navigable waters of the United States,” the thrust of his opinion was that judges should be very reluctant to find rights within the 14th Amendment, lest the courts be transformed into “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36">a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States</a>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9gHST1">
|
||
In effect, <em>Slaughter-House</em> neutralized much of the 14th Amendment. Miller essentially decided it was better to eliminate the possibility that the privileges or immunities clause would be used for good, than to risk allowing someone like Campbell to use it for evil. As Justice Stephen Field complained in dissent, the Court’s decision transformed the privileges or immunities clause into “vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gMQNqa">
|
||
Field’s vision for the 14th Amendment, however, was as inconsistent with its antiracist purpose as Campbell’s. If Campbell embraced a kind of proto-libertarianism as a cynical ploy to undermine Black lawmakers, Field did so earnestly and enthusiastically. He believed that the Constitution provides expansive, unenumerated rights to capital. And his vision would eventually prevail during the first third of the 20th century.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="eHByc4">
|
||
Substantive due process as a tool of plutocrats
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="g0lAGY">
|
||
Field could be the patron saint of modern-day figures like <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-most-overrated-intellect-in-washington-f785dbb48d1b/">Paul Ryan</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/22431044/neil-gorsuch-nihilism-supreme-court-voting-rights-lgbt-housing-obamacare-constitution">Neil Gorsuch</a>, who seek to shrink the government until it can be drowned in a bathtub. After Congress enacted a 2 percent income tax that applied only to the wealthiest one-thousandth of Americans, Field wrote an <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/157/429">apocalyptic opinion</a> claiming that “the present assault upon capital is but the beginning,” and that it would lead to a “war of the poor against the rich.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OBuyjw">
|
||
His <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/36#fn39">dissent in <em>Slaughter-House</em></a>, meanwhile, foreshadowed an age when the Supreme Court would routinely strike down pro-labor legislation on the dubious theory that workers have a right to enter into oppressive labor contracts. Quoting from the economic philosopher Adam Smith, Field wrote that preventing a poor man “from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper” is a “manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IQAPF5">
|
||
This theory of liberty, and particularly the idea that workers and employers both benefit from a system where workers may enter into oppressive labor contracts, won majority support on the Supreme Court shortly after Field’s death in 1899.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RjCiXF">
|
||
The case that most exemplified this era was <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/"><em>Lochner v. New York</em></a><em> </em>(1905). Today, <em>Lochner</em> is widely viewed as one of the worst decisions in the Court’s history — even Alito <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">denounced it as “discredited”</a> in his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf"><em>Dobbs</em></a> opinion overruling <em>Roe</em>. <em>Lochner</em> struck down a New York law providing that bakery workers, who were typically paid by the day or week and thus gained nothing from longer hours, would work a maximum 10-hour work day and a 60-hour work week.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OftRpg">
|
||
<em>Lochner</em> claimed that the law “interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees,” embracing the laissez-faire approach to labor policy that Field advocated in <em>Slaughter-House.</em>
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="iMm3my">
|
||
The Court eventually abandoned <em>Lochner, </em>and its so-called “right to contract,” in 1937. But <em>Lochner </em>was still one of the most consequential decisions of its time. Among other things, the Court relied on <em>Lochner</em>’s so-called “right to contract” to strike down laws <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3072585965506695672&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">protecting the right to unionize</a> and laws <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/261/525/">providing for a minimum wage</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9qJQ7y">
|
||
By the early 20th century, two distinct concepts of unenumerated rights had gained purchase on the Supreme Court. One, which was first articulated by Field and later embraced by a majority of the justices in <em>Lochner</em>, saw the Court as a bulwark against too-aggressive legislatures. Under this theory, the Court had at least some duty to step in when lawmakers enacted policies that offended not only the text of the Constitution, but also the justices’ personal sense of how a capitalist society should function.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DAjbcaG1U7fXyR52QUQrfluR95U=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915836/GettyImages_514892820.jpg"/> <cite>Bettmann Archive</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KQFyIt">
|
||
The other approach, which resembled Justice Miller’s position in <em>Slaughter-House</em>, called for judges to defer to lawmakers’ policy decisions. In a now-celebrated dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated this approach: “A Constitution is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/198/45">not intended to embody a particular economic theory</a>, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of <em>laissez faire</em>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="JS9Feb">
|
||
Or, as Holmes put it in a more colorful moment, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/free-speech-holmes-supreme-court.html">if my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them</a>.” Under this approach, it simply was not the job of judges to find new rights in the Constitution that could thwart the actions of democratically elected lawmakers.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qa6fIz">
|
||
Two more aspects of the Court’s <em>Lochner</em>-era jurisprudence are worth noting. One is that <em>Lochner</em> and its progeny cited the due process clause, not the privileges or immunities clause, as the source of the right to contract. This shift allowed the Court to recognize unenumerated rights without having to explicitly overrule <em>Slaughter-House</em> — even though that meant tying substantive rights to a provision that speaks only of “process.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BH6tqw">
|
||
The other is that, while <em>Lochner</em> and similarly plutocratic decisions loom large over this era, there was another line of early 20th-century substantive due process cases involving the rights of parents. And these decisions would eventually blossom into cases like <em>Roe v. Wade</em>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="ptm9Lu">
|
||
The right to family autonomy
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="pNxlQY">
|
||
In 1919, Nebraska forbade school teachers from teaching “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/390">any subject to any person in any language than the English language</a>” before the student passed the eighth grade. It was a transparently nativist law, enacted, in the words of Nebraska’s highest court, because “the Legislature had seen the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/390">baneful effects of permitting foreigners</a>, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="W14Oge">
|
||
Three years later<em>, </em>Oregon required most parents to send their kids to public and not parochial schools. This law was almost certainly motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DHkU5q">
|
||
The Court struck both laws down in a pair of substantive due process decisions, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/390"><em>Meyer v. Nebraska</em></a> (1923) and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/268/510"><em>Pierce v. Society of Sisters</em></a> (1925), both of which emphasized that parents have a right — though not an unlimited one — to direct the upbringing of their children.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jskFep">
|
||
As the Court ruled in <em>Meyer, </em>individuals have a right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children.” A parent has a “natural duty” to “give his children education suitable to their station in life.” And that duty brings with it a right to employ a teacher “to instruct their children” in subjects they wish those children to learn.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DxWsNL">
|
||
Beginning in 1937, when a majority of the Supreme Court agreed to scrap <em>Lochner</em> and stop sabotaging much of President Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Court began a <a href="https://www.vox.com/22662906/supreme-court-conservatives-abortion-constitution-roe-wade">purge of <em>Lochner-</em>like decisions</a> that thwarted progressive economic regulation. Indeed, the <em>Lochner</em> decision was so offensive to liberals that many left-leaning judges and justices formed an identity around opposing it. As Justice Black said in 1967, the entire reason “why I came on the Court” was because “I was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1971/09/26/archives/justice-black-champion-of-civil-liberties-for-34-years-on-court.html">against using due process to force the views of judges on the country</a>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="LB4ZnW">
|
||
But <em>Meyer</em> and <em>Pierce,</em> which did not threaten progressive economic programs such as the New Deal, survived this purge — despite Black’s belief that any decision reading unenumerated rights into the due process clause was illegitimate. And eventually a majority of the justices decided once again to drink from the forbidden chalice of substantive due process.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EJInSKwxASvIEeb4FNy3biO3AIg=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915873/GettyImages_517317650a.jpg"/> <cite>Bettmann Archive</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice William Orville Douglas on April 17, 1939, when he was sworn into office as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1oGKKv">
|
||
Justice William Douglas’s opinion in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479"><em>Griswold v. Connecticut</em></a> (1965), which built upon <em>Meyer</em> and <em>Pierce</em> to hold that the Constitution permits married couples to use contraception, reads like the work of a sorcerer’s apprentice who knows that he is toying with black magic and ineptly tries to hide it.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="W1ftOQ">
|
||
“We are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Douglas writes in <em>Griswold</em>, as well as a suggestion that “<em>Lochner v. State of New York</em> should be our guide.” But Douglas insisted that his Court would “decline that invitation.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ysRNfb">
|
||
Instead, <em>Griswold</em> relied on the truly risible argument that married couples’ right to contraception could be found within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of various constitutional amendments that “create zones of privacy.” This argument, whose only virtue is that it allowed the Court to find an unenumerated right within the Constitution without using the cursed words “substantive due process,” is rarely mentioned in the Court’s later decisions, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf">except maybe to mock it</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Dy0lQg">
|
||
Yet, while <em>Griswold</em> fumbled around for a way to protect contraceptive access without adopting the substantive due process framework that animated <em>Lochner</em>, it also shares the Court’s revulsion in <em>Meyer</em> and <em>Pierce </em>at the idea that the government would intrude too deeply into intimate decisions that should be made by families. “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?” Douglas asked. “The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wQ1WXx">
|
||
By the time <em>Roe</em> was handed down eight years later, the Court was less coy about the fact that it was relying on substantive due process — <em>Roe </em>situated the right to an abortion in “the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113">Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty</a> and restrictions upon state action.” More significantly, the <em>Roe</em> opinion explicitly placed various decisions protecting the right to decide when and how to form a family under the umbrella of a “right to privacy.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uBl591">
|
||
This right, according to <em>Roe</em>, included “activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ai7dqj">
|
||
When you read the Court’s unenumerated rights cases in conjunction (or, at least, the cases that do not rest on the discredited reasoning in <em>Lochner</em>), a very clear and consistent ideology emerges. Every American has a right to marry a person of their choosing (1967’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1"><em>Loving v. Virginia</em></a><em>, </em>2015’s<em> </em><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556#writing-14-556_OPINION_3"><em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em></a>); to form and dissolve intimate bonds with whomever they choose (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html"><em>Lawrence v. Texas</em></a> in 2003); to have, or not to have, children at a time of their choosing (<em>Griswold</em>, 1972’s <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/"><em>Eisenstadt v. Baird</em></a>, <em>Roe</em>); and to raise those children as they desire, subject to laws prohibiting abuse, truancy, and the like (<em>Meyer</em>, <em>Pierce</em>).
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3XN8fL">
|
||
Under the pre-<em>Dobbs</em> understanding of substantive due process, there must be firm safeguards against the government interfering too much in these deeply personal decisions. And yet, if you find this vision of family autonomy compelling — and I personally find it quite compelling — I urge you to think for a moment about what the current Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, might do with the power to wall off certain family-centered decisions from government policymakers.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="wI4yic">
|
||
What does substantive due process really accomplish?
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6tIIAL">
|
||
The question that looms over every single one of the Court’s unenumerated rights decisions is whether we can trust an unelected Supreme Court to decide which rights are protected by the Constitution.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right c-float-hang">
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/nkCjj94Ul_2yRryGx1iTaPMmF0w=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915884/GettyImages_1410610221a.jpg"/> <cite>Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice Stephen Field.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="EXDRF9">
|
||
Imagine what sort of “rights” John Archibald Campbell might have found within the 14th Amendment’s vague language if he’d remained on the Court rather than committing treason in defense of slavery. Imagine what Stephen Field might have done if he’d had the votes to impose his laissez-faire vision on the country during his lifetime. Imagine, for that matter, what someone like Samuel Alito might do now that he has the power to invent new constitutional “rights.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="4hWVeO">
|
||
Think, for example, of the many efforts by social conservatives to <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22914767/book-banning-crt-school-boards-republicans">remove books they disagree with from public school curriculums and libraries</a>. Or similar efforts to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights">force transgender students</a> to use bathrooms that do not align with their gender identity.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="t6dNTl">
|
||
Historically, cases like <em>Meyer</em> and <em>Pierce </em>have not been understood to allow conservative parents to impose their will on public school curriculums and policies. But someone like Alito could certainly read them that way. If parents have a right to decide their children’s’ upbringing, what prevents a socially conservative Court from holding that they have a right to send their kids to a public school that doesn’t have trans-inclusive bathrooms?
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bFasFb">
|
||
Leading anti-LGBTQ groups have already spent years thinking about how to use substantive due process to achieve their agenda, sometimes even embracing rhetoric lifted straight out of <em>Griswold</em> or <em>Roe</em>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div id="GuX9wa">
|
||
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
||
Before we sacrifice our constitutionally protected right to privacy at the altar of gender identity politics… <a href="https://t.co/wDMwaI94Br">https://t.co/wDMwaI94Br</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
— Heritage Foundation (<span class="citation" data-cites="Heritage">@Heritage</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/748189289876361217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2016</a>
|
||
</blockquote></div></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Tqs5Q7">
|
||
The lesson of <em>Lochner</em> is that the power to make “rights” can be used in terrible ways. And it can be used to enhance the might of the already-too-powerful.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2LVCcp">
|
||
But what then of rights, such as marriage equality or the right to sexual autonomy, which current case law finds within the Constitution’s due process clause? The short answer is that these rights should be found elsewhere in the Constitution.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gtnvXQ">
|
||
The Court’s early substantive due process decisions — including <em>Lochner</em>, <em>Meyer</em>, and <em>Pierce</em> — were the product of a very different era when the text of the Constitution was often treated as an afterthought. As Georgetown law professor Victoria Nourse<em> </em>writes, “for over fifty years, from 1880 until 1937, American constitutional jurisprudence was <a href="https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1999&context=facpub">neither particularly textual nor particularly focused on original intent</a>.” Judges routinely decided constitutional cases based on common law principles derived only from other judicial decisions, or from ill-defined concepts such as the “police power,” which play a vastly diminished role in modern constitutional law.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GV12cH">
|
||
Many of the leading lawyers, judges, and legal scholars of that era were quite open about their belief that constitutional law exists separately from the Constitution’s text. As Christopher Tiedeman, an enormously influential legal scholar whose work was quoted with approval by hundreds of judicial decisions around the turn of the 20th century, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=MuM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=%22the+first+edition+of+the+book+has+been+quoted+by+the+courts%22&source=bl&ots=JF_5p1m7EM&sig=zcG4O6dpfLA8R9r1I3S6ShFyjyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIuKTX9-TaxgIVyHY-Ch1tRwA-#v=onepage&q=%22the%20first%20edition%20of%20the%20book%20has%20been%20quoted%20by%20the%20courts%22&f=false">wrote in a 1900 treatise</a>, “the conservative classes stand in constant fear of the advent of an absolutism more tyrannical and more unreasoning than any before experienced by man — the absolutism of a democratic majority.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UVLuP7">
|
||
To defeat this majority, Tiedeman urged judges to “lay their interdict upon all legislative acts” that violate a narrow vision of government power, and do so “<a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-right-wing-dog-whistle-buried-in-scott-walkers-announcement-speech-b05457034bac/">even though these acts do not violate any specific or special provision of the Constitution</a>.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="m5uYdS">
|
||
One consequence of this atextualist era in American constitutional law is that judges often relied on vague doctrines like substantive due process to reach outcomes that could have been achieved by relying on a right that is explicitly protected by the Constitution. If a case like <em>Meyer</em> were to arise today, for example, a modern court would undoubtedly find that the right to teach a foreign language is protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="rwu3Rw">
|
||
It also helps that, led largely by Justice Black, the Court spent much of the middle of the 20th century holding that <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-troubled-history-of-the-constitutions-most-important-amendment-8b5ab2241a48/">states must comply with nearly all of the Bill of Rights</a>, slowly chipping away at an 1833 decision saying that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="v08iks">
|
||
That means that almost all the rights currently protected by substantive due process can be found elsewhere in the Constitution. The anti-Catholic law struck down in <em>Pierce</em> violated the First Amendment’s command that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">everyone can freely exercise their religion</a>. Laws that deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, or that criminalize gay sex, violate the Constitution’s command that no one may be denied “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">the equal protection of the laws</a>” (unless, of course, a state is also willing to prohibit opposite-sex marriage and straight sex).
|
||
</p>
|
||
<figure class="e-image">
|
||
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0EExXswFt4nLtyKg_qM8Ne4U0Og=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23915916/AP20339671162645a.jpg"/> <cite>Charles Dharapak/AP</cite>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2013.
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vk7pjJ">
|
||
The right to reproductive autonomy — including the right to abortion — can also be found within this equal protection clause. Recall Justice Ginsburg’s argument that the question of whether women will be able to “participate as men’s <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2961&context=nclr">full partners in the nation’s social, political, and economic life</a>” hinges upon their “reproductive autonomy.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hGtQNb">
|
||
I want to be clear that shifting individual rights jurisprudence away from substantive due process, and toward provisions that explicitly protect more carefully enumerated rights, is not a panacea against partisan or ideological judging. Explicit constitutional rights can be interpreted in ways that undermine democracy and lift up the most powerful — hence the Court’s decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html"><em>Citizens United v. FEC</em></a> (2010) that the Constitution’s free speech clause protects the right of corporations to spend unlimited money to influence elections.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="odAtzN">
|
||
But constitutional provisions like the free speech, free exercise, and equal protection clauses are, at least, bounded. They permit judges to halt government censorship, attacks on religion, and efforts to foster inequality. They don’t permit judges to invent literally any right, as substantive due process does. The only real limits on substantive due process are the limits the judiciary imposes on itself.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fQ6TJs">
|
||
I also acknowledge that, in arguing that it is time to let the judiciary’s unchecked power to recognize unenumerated rights fall by the wayside, I too am making a somewhat atextualist argument. The Ninth Amendment and privileges or immunities clause are still there, tempting judges to read into them whatever they choose.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="D0nf0w">
|
||
But if you disagree with my argument that judges should not use such an extraordinarily vague provision to decide what our rights will be, I want to leave you with a question: How much do you trust Samuel Alito with that power?
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>England to tour Pakistan for first time in 17 years, will play 7 T20Is</strong> - England was due to tour Pakistan last year just before the T20 World Cup but withdrew citing “bubble fatigue” and unexplained security concerns</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Aldgate, Ravishing Form, Ballator, Jake and Mirra please</strong> -</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Iron Age and Stunning Visual excel</strong> -</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>South American countries set to launch official 2030 FIFA World Cup bid</strong> - Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and Chile’s intention to bid for hosting rights of the 2030 FIFA World Cup has long been in the making.</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>WI vs Ind 3rd T20I to start 1.5 hours late due to 2nd T20I’s delayed finish</strong> - Cricket West Indies said that the revised timing was rolled out keeping in mind adequate rest and recovery time for the players of both teams and also in consideration of the fact that the last two back-to-back matches will be held in Florida, US</p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Dakshina Kannada murders: Praveen and Fazil were random targets in a pre-planned attack, probe reveals</strong> - The investigation by Dakshina Kannada police has revealed that following the death of Masood, and later Praveen, assailants in both murders prepared a list of potential targets which included the two deceased</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Jabalpur hospital's fire NOC had expired; four doctors booked for culpable homicide, says M.P. Home Minister</strong> -</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Kodagu: 21 flood-hit people shifted to Koynadu relief camp</strong> - Debris, including logs, has blocked free flow of rainwater</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Opposition asks govt to acknowledge problem of price rise to fix it, BJP puts blame on global changes</strong> - “The inflation is ruling at 7% now and has not yet reached the double-digit level like in the previous UPA regime”</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Sreedhar Babu demands special package for Manthani, submerged areas in Kaleshwaram backwaters</strong> - The Manthani MLA writes a letter to the CM</p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ukraine war: Russia accuses US of direct role in Ukraine war</strong> - Moscow accuses the US of directly approving targets for US-made artillery used by Ukraine.</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Nuclear annihilation just one miscalculation away, UN chief warns</strong> - Luck that has protected the world from nuclear war may not last as tensions rocket, the UN warns.</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ukraine war: First grain ship leaves under Russia deal</strong> - A ship carrying grain leaves Odesa under a deal aimed at easing a global food crisis.</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Aliku Ogorchukwu: Wife of Nigerian killed in Italy demands justice</strong> - The wife of the 39-year-old, whose killing was filmed in broad daylight, says her heart is aching.</p></li>
|
||
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ukraine war: The last remaining families in Bakhmut</strong> - Olena and her family are one of the last remaining in the Donetsk region where an evacuation order is in place.</p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>NY county with polio has pitiful 60% vaccination rate; 1,000s may be infected</strong> - Hundreds need to be infected for one paralytic case to arise. And the virus keeps moving. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1870789">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Analogue Pocket’s 1.1 update already paying dividends: jailbreak, Neo Geo core</strong> - “OpenFPGA” initiative pays immediate dividends, though it’s not perfect yet. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1870698">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Visa knew about Pornhub’s child porn, judge says, and now must face trial</strong> - Visa claims the court’s decision could affect the entire financial industry. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1870703">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Bungie shuts Destiny 2 text chat to stop malicious exploit</strong> - Improper coding of Chinese characters let players weaponize copy-pasted text strings. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1870721">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Google CEO Sundar Pichai says productivity is “not where it needs to be”</strong> - Pichai changes Google’s promotion incentives, wants “more customer focus.” - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1870663">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>A man goes to the doctor for a prostate examination</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The doctor says “please drop your trousers and bend over.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The man does this and the doctor says “for this examination I’ll be inserting two fingers into your bottom so please don’t get an erection, Peter.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The man turns around and says “my name isn’t Peter.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The doctor replies “I know, but mine is.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/SpudArsehole"> /u/SpudArsehole </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/we0em2/a_man_goes_to_the_doctor_for_a_prostate/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/we0em2/a_man_goes_to_the_doctor_for_a_prostate/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>My husband has been missing for six days now</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Police said to prepare for the worst.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
So I went to the charity shop to get his clothes back
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/lachjeff"> /u/lachjeff </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdxvz5/my_husband_has_been_missing_for_six_days_now/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdxvz5/my_husband_has_been_missing_for_six_days_now/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>A squad of American soldiers was patrolling the Iraqi border, when they came across a badly mangled dead body.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
As they got closer, they found it was an Iraqi soldier. A short distance up the road, they found a badly mangled American soldier in a ditch on the other side of the road, struggling to breathe. They ran to him, cradled his bruised head and asked him what had happened.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“Well,” he whispered, “I was walking down this road, armed to the teeth when I came across this heavily armed Iraqi border guard. I looked him right in the eye and shouted, ‘Saddam Hussein is a moronic, deceitful, lying piece of trash!’”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“He looked me right in the eye and shouted back, ‘George W. Bush is a moronic, deceitful, lying piece of trash too!’”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
“We were standing there shaking hands when the truck hit us.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Communist_Antarctica"> /u/Communist_Antarctica </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdh08w/a_squad_of_american_soldiers_was_patrolling_the/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdh08w/a_squad_of_american_soldiers_was_patrolling_the/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Joke Factory: Why did the [NOUN] go to the [LOCATION]?</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Give me a random NOUN and LOCATION using the above format, and I’ll give you the punchline.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
For example:
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Why did the soldier go to the beach?<br/> He was caught in a sand-off and came back shell-shocked.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Ready? Go!
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/clubrare_official"> /u/clubrare_official </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdznpp/joke_factory_why_did_the_noun_go_to_the_location/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/wdznpp/joke_factory_why_did_the_noun_go_to_the_location/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Liz Cheney will agree to dismantle the January 6 Commission under one condition</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
That is if Donald Trump can go on a hunting trip with her Dad.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/mafnxxx"> /u/mafnxxx </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/we341m/liz_cheney_will_agree_to_dismantle_the_january_6/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/we341m/liz_cheney_will_agree_to_dismantle_the_january_6/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<script>AOS.init();</script></body></html> |