Change as a rising tide seems to be falling short as history’s stream is not as mighty.
Apparently slavery is still “ordained by God for ultimate good” at Baylor University, as a RW campus group wants to accuse the University of canceling its “Christian identity”. No mention of its athletic team’s sexual abuse or whether some US universities need to catch up to the 21st Century.
Congratulations to @Baylor for establishing a commission on the university's historical connections to slavery. Its recommendations, which are symbolic & educational, are good 1st steps towards healing racism.
Commission on Historic Campus Representations https://t.co/9z5JNuXI3b
— Cathryn Townsend, PhD. (@CathrynTownsend) March 24, 2021
Several key historical facts that previously have not been acknowledged set the stage for the Commission’s recommendations:
- Baylor’s founders and early leaders, including trustees and presidents, were slaveholders. Several continued to justify and support slavery even after the Civil War. The records of the enslaved and their descendants are difficult to find. The Commission references these as the “unknown enslaved.”
- Judge R.E.B. Baylor, the University’s namesake, was a slaveholder. Enslaved persons formed a significant portion of his wealth in 1860. He did not serve in the Confederate army, but he did continue serving as a judge in Texas during the Civil War.
- In 1843, founders William Tryon and James Huckins were slaveowners while serving as employees of the American Baptist Home Mission Society. After tensions between Baptists in the north and south over slavery reached an impasse, the Southern Baptist Convention was established in 1845, and Tryon and Huckins were appointed by the Domestic Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1846. Huckins left Texas in 1859 and was appointed a chaplain in the Confederate army in 1863.
- Rufus Burleson was a slaveholder and enlisted in the Confederate army, serving as a chaplain. As president of Baylor and subsequently Waco University, he encouraged faculty and male students over 18 to join the fight against what he called “Abolition despotism.” He was a prominent supporter of the “Lost Cause” movement following the war.
"chipmunk on meth" https://t.co/euCpdHOV1h
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 1, 2021
President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate and infrastructure plan is too modest to address a global emergency, some environmental advocates say.
Some activists say the Biden administration has failed to propose a blueprint that would satisfy his promise to zero out carbon emissions from the power grid by 2035 and across the economy by 2050 https://t.co/IZdIC7y3Sp
— POLITICO (@politico) April 1, 2021
The plan to splurge on transitioning the nation to clean energy, rebuilding the country’s roads and bridges, and improving access to clean water and broadband pales next to the $1 trillion in annual spending that the most ardent climate activists and unions say they want over the next decade to tackle climate change.
Biden’s proposals call for hundreds of billions of dollars for investments in electric vehicle manufacturing, research for breakthrough technology to sharply curb planet-heating emissions, massive jobs efforts aimed at plugging abandoned wells and mines, new labor and wage standards tied to renewable energy tax credits, an end to fossil fuel subsidies and the use of the federal government’s purchasing power to buy cleaner products, electrify the vehicle fleet and adopt zero-carbon energy.
Some activists suggested Biden also doesn’t understand that, accusing his administration of failing to propose a blueprint that would satisfy his promise to zero out carbon emissions from the power grid by 2035 and across the economy by 2050, a claim made by groups such as Food & Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Much of that criticism revolves around activists’ complaints that the plan’sspending proposals are too modest to achieve meaningful carbon reductions and include technologies that would undermine efforts to curb fossil fuels. Many green groups oppose one of those technologies — carbon capture and sequestration — as a lifeline for the coal, oil and natural gas companies that have long used political influence to impede climate policy. But Biden has backed the nascent technology to help win over unions and fossil fuel-state lawmakers who worry about the economic consequences of a shift to clean energy.
Biden's infrastructure package has more than 5 times the climate spending Obama got into the 2009 Recovery Act.
But that's still 5 times too small to decarbonize the U.S. economy. https://t.co/Hb4IUwxwgp
— Alexander Kaufman (@AlexCKaufman) March 31, 2021
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says $2T infrastructure bill isn't enough for public housing or climate https://t.co/e0hqtdmCsF
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 1, 2021
— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) April 1, 2021
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 1, 2021
— Chappatte Cartoons (@PatChappatte) March 31, 2021
Apparently, Wile E. Coyote’s principal vendor, ACME, has a monopsonistic complaint from its client as a matter of tort law.
“Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suﬀering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company.” #NewYorkerArchive https://t.co/HxQZqOqROK
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) April 1, 2021
As the Court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote’s work. It is our contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. Much as he has come to mistrust Defendant’s products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again.
Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr. Coyote seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering, injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney’s fees of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Total damages: thirty-eight million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr. Coyote the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to equal protection under the law. ♦