Muda69

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/the-new-yorker-flawed-hit-job-on-amy-coney-barrett/ I can only imagine the outrage had this paragraph been written about another female Supreme Court trailblazer like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Surely it would have been decried forcefully. “Not fair!,” the critics would scream. “You can’t define this woman by merely her physical attributes! She is as hard-working, as qualified, as achieving as her male peers — and you would never speak of their attire or the frequency of their exercise.” In this instance, I find myself in fervent agreement with the critics. Yet Talbot’s efforts to discredit Justice Barrett reflect the deep-rooted so-called systemic misogyny of which conservatives are so often unfairly accused. Talbot refuses, time and time again, to give a woman of incredible intellectual caliber — who has received perhaps the highest honor of the legal profession — any credit of her own. Instead, she relentlessly attempts to tie Justice Barrett to — and define her by — her involvement with the Federalist Society, her formation under Justice Scalia, and her time at Notre Dame, which Talbot identifies as “the nation’s elite conservative law school” (emphasis in original). Setting aside the question of whether there is anything inherently wrong about Justice Barrett’s association with these mentors and institutions, I am struck by Talbot’s deeply antifeminist disregard for Justice Barrett’s ability to form her own ideas. Our culture claims to celebrate women’s rights and rightly objects to the exclusion of women from fields that men have historically dominated. Talbot, purportedly endorsing these same feminist values, fails to apply these standards, and instead attempts to discredit Amy Coney Barrett’s every achievement. The irony, evidently, is lost on her. President Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court — who he has promised will be a black woman — will be a hero to the mainstream media, in no small part because she will, if confirmed, join a small band of women who can claim that achievement. She will be presented as a self-made woman, possessing a unique voice to offer the nation’s highest court. I presume that this portrayal will be, in many ways, true. But if that female judge dares to think the wrong thing? Will she receive scrutiny of the kind Talbot has published? I predict the media will say nothing at all if they have nothing nice to say. Yet Justice Barrett is maligned simply because that same media have decided that she is the wrong kind of woman. Women ought to make their voices heard in the public square, we are told, unless they have a conviction that is considered undesirable — say, on the sanctity of human life. “All are entitled to their own opinion and complete autonomy,” progressive elites tell us, “unless you’re pro-life, which no woman should be. If you are, you are necessarily a puppet of male interests and a traitor to your sex.” In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein shared her concern that “the dogma lives loudly” within Amy Coney Barrett. She also said to Justice Barrett, then a judicial nominee: “You are controversial because many of us that have lived lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems, and Roe entered into that, obviously.” Behind Feinstein’s comment lurked the old-guard police of feminist orthodoxy. Feinstein’s “many of us” was to be perceived as “all of us.” Every woman who has really lived a woman’s life, Feinstein insinuated, should recognize the “value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems.” Yet as Erika Bachiochi of the Ethics and Public Policy Center remarked poignantly in the midst of Justice Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court: In some ways, Talbot cannot help but answer the question she dares not ask. She speaks of the incredible love and generosity that the Barretts have for their children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs — a generosity motivated in no small part by their deep faith. Inadvertently, Talbot highlights the unique — and thoroughly “progressive” — balance that Justice Barrett and her husband Jesse have found in order to allow their family to thrive. Even in this piece, Justice Barrett is a living sign of contradiction over and against pro-abortion narratives about women’s flourishing. Talbot’s interviews are testimonies to Justice Barrett’s maternal heroism and constant friendship — not because she “does it all” but because, as her husband movingly says: “You can’t outwork Amy. I’ve also learned that you can’t outfriend Amy.” You cannot outwork Amy Coney Barrett. She is a once-in-a-generation legal mind whose scholarship, intellect, and kindness has blessed hundreds of law students for decades. She will certainly shape — and in my opinion, bless — the Court for decades to come. Why, then, does Talbot continue to insinuate that her humility must not be sincere? Why does she go to such lengths to construct a case for Justice Barrett somehow being both consumed by a secret ambition and merely a puppet of powerful conservative men? You cannot outfriend Amy Coney Barrett. Colleagues and neighbors testify to Justice Barrett’s generosity and contentment with her life in South Bend: “She carefully considered opportunities as they arose, but never angled for them. . . . Ambition played no role in her nomination or acceptance of it. She’s not a political actor,” Justice Barrett’s colleague of 20 years (and my mother) comments. Yet Talbot insists that she knows better: Again, ironies abound. Talbot assumes that a woman like Justice Barrett couldn’t possibly have been at peace with her vocation as a wife, mother, and professor — that she must have been scheming for more. But who is she to tell Justice Barrett what kind of woman she is, or ought to be? I do not claim to speak for our newest justice’s jurisprudence, nor do I know how she will vote in Dobbs. A legal scholar might take up the questions of originalism and “common-good constitutionalism” that Talbot raises in her article. I have written previously, though, about my relationship with Justice Barrett as a family friend and neighbor. For as long as I can remember, she has been a mentor and maternal figure in my life, the mother of one of my best friends, and my mother’s best friend. It is because of that relationship that I wrote this piece, and it is with that familiarity that I say only this: Amy Coney Barrett is strong enough to withstand the swamp, faithful enough to place vocation above careerist aspirations, and courageous enough to offer the world a different — truer — kind of feminine genius. Just yet another liberal hit piece against an accomplished conservative, what else is new? But I wonder if the GID's own @Bobrefcan speak to the Notre Dame Law School as being the “the nation’s elite conservative law school”.

*yawn*

You just bitch and moan about the lacking of parking on an internet message board.

Add Frankfort, Hamilton Heights and probably 90% of all the other high schools in this state to your list. What exactly is your point, that you refuse to walk a couple of blocks to see a high school basketball game because neither of the schools are "relevant" to that high school sport?

So "passion" is making lewd comments against a school you may not even be playing at the time. Sounds more like insanity to me. *Sigh*, not this delusion again. Once again a Boilermaker fan's inferiority complex regarding the Hoosiers comes to the fore.

Walking is good for the body and soul. Try it sometime.

As if Purdue fans are any better, with the huge inferiority complex they have when it comes to the Hoosiers. Case in point, their lewd "tradition" of yelling "F*ck IU" during kickoffs at Purdue home games, regardless of whether they are playing the Hoosiers or not.

https://reason.com/2022/02/11/congress-wants-taxpayers-to-bail-out-the-postal-service/ Just say no to yet another massive taxpayer-funded bailout.

Kokomo's Memorial Gymnasium is just about the perfect place to watch a high school basketball game.

But you said high school football was "won" in SWI? How can schools not even having a football team be considered a victory? I wonder what section of the state has the highest percentage of school that do not play tackle football? My bet is SWI or NWI. There used to be some really small schools up in southern Porter and LaPorte counties, like LaCrosse HS, that didn't play football.

How are Loogootee and Barr-Reeve doing? I don't believe football has "won" there. That and chicken wings I here.

Some GID mods, both past and present, have think skins. Not hyperbolic at all. I like waffles. Do you?

What would TA think of the voluminous amounts of ads a GID user gets presented with on this side if they don't contribute? How is that any better than a true subscription model? And your "site takeover" comment is hyperbole at it's finest.

I can see the logic in that, coming from a Packers fan. Same with a Buffalo fan.

‘Ridiculous’ Masking Rules for Student Athletes Must End, Coaches and Parents Say https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ridiculous-masking-rules-for-student-athletes-must-end-coaches-and-parents-say/ Forcing basketball players to wear masks is bad enough, but wrestlers as well? Frankly that is inhumane.

Super Bowl parking spots are selling for whopping $6,000 – more money than the game’s cheapest seats: https://www.the-sun.com/sport/4656386/super-bowl-parking-spots-whopping-price/ Oh, life in California.

Seen on the north side of Indianapolis:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/motor/2022/02/10/david-letterman-ball-state-esports-indycar-team-partnership/6735411001/ e-sports are the future of college athletics. Chirp! Chirp!

I used to have a co-worker, ex-military, who WROTE EVERY SINGLE EMAIL IN ALL CAPS. SOMETIMES EVEN COLORED THE WORDS. Very annoying. They said they learned in that way while serving our country and wasn't going to change.

And there is one right here under the umbrella of the GID: https://gridirondigest.net/forum/24-oob-forum/

Hmm, sounds like the vast majority of posters on the GID, or most any internet message board that allow anonymous access for that matter. Your point?

Agreed. The "Hurricane Scirfes" incident was especially egregious.

https://mises.org/wire/elections-now-decide-who-can-operate-your-car Agreed. Our freedoms are slowly but surely being chipped away.

What Brian Flores’s Lawsuit Means: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-brian-floress-lawsuit-means/ Pretty simple, really.

But both can/could throw a football a country mile. Same effective thing in football as running 4.3 40 yard dash.