Dave Sanders, reporting for The New York Times:

In the United States, at least 81,321 people are known to have been infected with the coronavirus, including more than 1,000 deaths — more cases than China, Italy or any other country

Hard to see how anyone could believe that this has NOTHING to do with Trump’s mismanagement of the of the outbreak.

Let’s not forget that our intelligence agencies were warning Trump about the coronavirus a few months ago, and he chose not to act.

🇺🇸 United States: 0

🦠 COVID-19: 1

Ps. If you don’t like the idea of a $1,200 stimulus check going out to American citizens because you think it’s socialist, nobody is going to force you to cash your check. The ball is in your court, “patriots”.

Check out CopyrightBro’s COVID-19 coverage roundup.

Governments are considering tracking citizens locations as a way to monitor the spread of coronavirus and enforce quarantines and lockdowns.

My thoughts are as follows: fuck that. This will be the new Patriot Act. The world is quickly becoming an episode of Black Mirror.

Israel is doing it. Fuck them.

The Israeli government has approved emergency measures for its security agencies to track the mobile-phone data of people with suspected coronavirus.

The new powers will be used to enforce quarantine and warn those who may have come into contact with infected people.

Absolutely atrocious. If Israel ever had a brain, they’ve lost it.

Unfortunately, the United States isn’t very far behind. Terrifyingly enough, this is an idea I’ve heard reverberating a bit in recent days, both on a podcast I usually enjoy (Crooked Media’s Pod Save America*) as well as a blog I stumbled across. I never expected to see the day where American government leaders would be calling for a mass surveillance system, much less American citizens themselves asking for it.

If the U.S. government allows this to happen, then fuck them, too. I‘ll stop carrying a phone before I just go along with something like this, pandemic or not. This is deeply un-American.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

And oh yeah, of course, Facebook is involved in this, so #deletefacebook

UPDATED: 04/09/20, 17:12

Check out CopyrightBro’s COVID-19 coverage roundup.

A few days ago, former Republican Congressman Aaron Schock made a blog post confirming long held suspicious about his sexuality. He had a lot of critics who raised some fair points about his past stances and actions, but he was also the target a lot of unfair personal attacks on Twitter.

Aaron Schock is, like everyone else, a flawed person. Was it wrong for him to oppose gay marriage and other gay rights issues? Yes. Is it surprising that he would do so? Not at all. He acknowledges his misguided past positions while also offering a pill difficult for the left to swallow; a reminder that just a few years ago, they also weren’t terribly “woke” when it came to marriage equality.

No one gets to choose when we learn our lives’ big lessons. Mine have been no different. In 2008, as a Republican running in a conservative district, I took the same position on gay marriage held by my party’s nominee, John McCain. That position against marriage equality, though, was also then held by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well.  

That fact doesn’t make my then position any less wrong, but it’s sometimes easy to forget that it was leaders of both parties who for so long wrongly understood what it was to defend the right to marry.

His story is exemplary of the fear felt by many young men who remain closeted, and it demonstrates that while some people receive warm reception upon coming out, many do not. His personal journey was one hugely shaped by overbearing religion and regressive politics, and it shows just how difficult it is for young men to come out in environments where they’re raised to treat same sex attracted people as defective or morally deficient.

To characterize some of these conversations with my family in general,  it’s fair to say it has not been a case of instant acceptance and understanding.  What I had to share was unwelcome news to every single person in my family, out of the blue in some cases, and was met with sadness, disappointment, and unsympathetic citations to Scripture. 

He is representative of a type of same sex attracted person who experiences even more intolerance than most, because not only was he rejected by many conservative and evangelical people close to him, but he is also actively being rejected by the political left who claims to be open and tolerant of everyone despite their background (except, it seems, when they don’t subscribe entirely to their political platform), and who have explicitly demonstrated in Schock’s case that they clearly aren’t above trying to out someone they believe to be closeted when it is politically expedient for them:

I was a single guy, and people would comment on how I dressed, and about my preoccupation with physical fitness. Untruthful stories were written. Even years into my time in Washington, I was still naïve enough to wonder why the news media would run with an utterly false story about me and a show I’d never even heard of, and still haven’t seen, Downton Abbey. 

It took me a while to figure out that it was really just the media’s own way in which they got to say THAT about me in print…to tie me to a stereotype. In fact, if you want to learn  something about the “woke” media, Google my name and consider how  prominently that fabricated lie, still without even a single source to back it up, will feature in stories about me by people who otherwise call themselves journalists. It was another way, albeit more sophisticated, to be teased about being gay. A dog whistle.

Towards the end of the post, he again acknowledges his prior missteps, and also advocates for the right of gay men to maintain their own individual thoughts and belief systems, rather than adopting the one society tells them they’re supposed to take up upon coming out. If there’s one thing in this post that I hope gay men will take away from it, it’s this: that being gay doesn’t exclude you from being able to form your own set of opinions and beliefs.

The truth is that if I were in Congress today, I would support LGBTQ rights in every way I could.   I realize that some of my political positions run very much counter to the mainstream of the LGBTQ movement, and I respect them for those differences.   I hope people will allow for me the same.

To that end, I hope that others can respect that for me being gay has not required stepping into some entirely new belief system, disconnected from every other facet of my life’s experiences. I haven’t overcome one kind of repression for another.

Chauncey Alcoron, writing for CNN Business:

Starbucks (SBUX)on Wednesday announced it is temporarily suspending the use of personal cups and tumblers at its stores around the world to help prevent the spread of coronavirus.

This is unnecessary (it borders on fear mongering), and it’s another instance where Starbucks’s insincere commitment to the environment is demonstrated by a lack of emphasis on their reusable cup program.

UPDATE: 7/30/20, 16:55:

Well, this didn’t age gracefully at all. Still, I maintain that Starbucks was never serious about their reusable cup program.

Check out CopyrightBro’s COVID-19 coverage roundup.

Check out this great piece on Mark Zuckerberg by Steven Levy, writing for WIRED.

In the early days of Facebook, Zuck kept his plans for world domination in handwritten journals. He destroyed them. But a few revealing pages survived.

Much of Levy’s piece was informed by what Zuckerberg wrote in those journals, as well as interviews with Zuckerberg himself and other Facebook executives. The pattern of corporate irresponsibility and depravity we’ve seen from Facebook recently has been there since the very beginning.

What distinguished Facebook from other social networks was the assumed privacy provided by its gated setup [when Facebook was only available to college students]. Open Reg[istration] would throw open those gates to the masses. But would people then no longer see Facebook as a safe space? In designing Open Reg, he posted one final question to himself.

“What makes this seem secure, whether or not it actually is?” He seemed at least as concerned about the perception of privacy as with privacy itself.

”What makes this seem secure, whether or not it actually is?” Incredible.

Using Facebook needs to feel like you're using a futuristic government-style interface to access a database full of information linked to every person. The user needs to be able to look at information at any depth … The user experience needs to feel “full.” That is, when you click on a person in a governmental database, there is always information about them.

A government-esque catalog of every person in the world. Charming. But not everyone would sign up for Facebook, so this wasn’t achievable. Not to fear, Zuckerberg had a plan.

He took three pages to lay out a vision for something he called “Dark Profiles.” These would be Facebook pages for people who, whether by omission or intention, had not signed up for Facebook. […]

Zuckerberg was aware that allowing the creation of profiles for people who had no desire to be on Facebook might stir up privacy concerns. He spent some time pondering how this could avoid being “creepy.” Maybe, he mused, dark accounts might not be included in search engines.

Shadow profiles are not a joke, they’ve been a part of Facebook’s plan from the very early days.

There will be a tipping point for Facebook. One after another, the curtains are being pulled back and what we’re finding is that the people behind Facebook have always been immeasurably negligent and downright disrespectful of their users. Hopefully, stories like this will move public opinion against Facebook sooner than later, and embolden people to delete their profiles.

#deletefacebook

Emerson College Polling:

Among Sanders supporters, 16% will not vote for the nominee if Sanders doesn’t win, while 30% say it depends on the nominee.

This is clearly an issue among the Sanders campaign, in particular. If you’re one of these “Bernie or bust” people, you have a serious lack of foresight, and you should be ashamed. The time for moral absolutism is not when Donald Trump is the alternative. Stop being selfish and support the nominee, no matter who it is.

Target recently launched a new brand, All In Motion, which makes various activewear garments. They seem to be of decent quality, and I like some of the designs for the men’s products. However: the logo.

Yikes.

Surely, I’m not the only one who thinks this looks like “KKK” backwards?! What corporate dunce in Target’s marketing department let this horrible design get past the drawing board?

As I mentioned, I like several of the All In Motion products, but I’m honestly not comfortable buying a product with that logo on it. Hopefully they rebrand sooner rather than later.

Bookmark this for future reference.

"Don't you think it's just great to see the fact that you've got a guy there on the stage with his husband and it's normal?" Fox's Steve Hilton asked. 

"I think it's absolutely fine, I do," Trump said.

He agreed with Hilton’s assessment that Buttigieg’s candidacy “is a sign of great progress,” adding “yeah, I think it’s great. I think that’s something that perhaps some people will have a problem with, I have no problem with it whatsoever.”

This excerpt is from a CNN article*, but you can find the original video here.

Hopefully the day never comes when Trump falls back on attacking Buttigieg’s sexuality, but if it does, we’ll at least have this to sow discord among the homophobic bigots who never question Trump’s commitment to their straight white interests.

*It’s worth pointing out that CNN’s analysis of this story was a bit jaded and poorly informed, despite the fact that this was a rare occasion where they could’ve painted Trump in a positive light. They make the mistake of conflating LGB issues with transgender issues, as well as deploying the tired tactic of bringing up Mike Pence’s alleged historical support for conversion therapy to paint the Trump administration as homophobic. The fact is that while portraying Trump and his cronies as homophobic makes CNN’s more left leaning audience more likely to despise the administration, CNN’s status as a left leaning media outlet criticizing Trump for alleged homophobia is only going to entice Trump’s supporters to be more brazenly homophobic. The leftist media is, once again, throwing gay people under the bus for their own benefit. Division drives ratings.

I’m typically not a fan of songs with strong political undertones, but this release was impeccably well timed. 10/10.

See also: Taylor’s new documentary “Miss Americana” on Netflix. It had several very powerful moments, and it demonstrated the genuine nature of Taylor’s decision to finally voice her political opinions when she threw her support to Phil Bredesen in the 2018 midterms.

Vox’s Dylan Matthews looks at philosophy to explain why the whole Bernie Sanders, Joe Rogan thing turned into a controversy, and he stumbles into territory of explaining how cancel culture came to be in the first place.

Most liberals have what I would characterize as a deontological opposition to discrimination. That is, they think that discriminating against or maligning someone on the basis of membership in a protected class — women, trans people, black people, and other racially oppressed communities, etc. — violates a rule that should be inviolable. […]

The main rival to deontology is a school of thought known as “consequentialism.” In this view, the morality of actions must be judged by their consequences: The more grievous the consequences (be it in terms of human happiness, or suffering, or human freedom, etc.), the more heinous the action.

To over simplify things, you’ve got the left as the consequentialists, and the radical left as deontologists. Ignoring nuance, these schools of thought line up similarly to idealism versus realism, and they also track well with the left-to-right political spectrum.

The main objection philosophers have raised against deontological restrictions is that they’re overly rigid. Immanuel Kant, the originator of this school of moral philosophy, famously argued that it was immoral to lie in all circumstances, even to a murderer who’s asking for your friend’s whereabouts so he can kill her. Few people today think a rule that rigid is viable. But if we as a society accept more and more forms of discrimination and animus as absolutely unacceptable — adding poverty to the list, say — we are left with an ever-more-restrictive moral code that forces us into ever-thornier moral dilemmas..

Clearly, there’s a balance to be struck between consequentialism and deontology. Right now in American politics, conservatives are closer to the consequentialist POV. The radical left is balls to the wall for the deontology POV. Moderates and moderate leftists are the ones trying to figure out where that balance lies. Allow me to offer the following modified box and whisker plot as a guide for where we need to be.

While there are more and more people joining the factions at the polar ends of this spectrum, I would assert that there are far more people in the middle than it seems. People who are on the edges (particularly in the deontology camp) are exorbitantly loud, and seem to have a much larger societal presence than they really do. Its also worth noting that the consequentialism point is further to the right than the deontology point is to the left; this placement is intentional, those on the radical left seem to adopt more aggressively deontological belief systems more than those on the equivalently radical right seem to adopt aggressively consequentialist belief systems.

What a classless way to deliver such a tragic piece of news. Crude language. Bold, irreverent font. The headline itself forced more than halfway down the page by aggressive ads. Reporters and media outlets have less and less shame by the day; anything for clicks and ratings. Disgusting.

On Tuesday, Joe Rogan more or less endorsed Bernie Sanders on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. He commended Bernie for his consistency and for having a fairly clean record. It was a good episode that touched on a lot of important subjects, I’d recommend giving it a listen.

Anyway, Bernie’s campaign tweeted a clip from the podcast, more or less accepting the endorsement:

“I think I'll probably vote for Bernie... He’s been insanely consistent his entire life. He’s basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” -Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/fuQP0KwGGI

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 23, 2020

This seems like a good thing for anyone who wants Trump out of the White House. Joe Rogan has a huge audience, and he’s not decidedly liberal or conservative. Ezra Klein (@erzaklein on Twitter) offered the following take:

Bernie’s strength is that he can win over some voters who are skeptical of Democrats - like Joe Rogan. If you think getting Trump out of office is actually important, that’s a good thing, and he should lean into it.

People from the radical left, particularly trans people, disagreed. They accuse Rogan of many horrible things, namely they want people to believe that he’s transphobic (a weightless accusation to begin with; Rogan’s take on trans people boils down to treating people equally while acknowledging biological facts). Further, they purport that Bernie’s acceptance of Rogan’s endorsement is just absolutely egregious, and they’re expecting apologies from Bernie, expecting him to denounce the endorsement, and are even claiming that all the truly woke people on the left won’t support Bernie now that he’s accepted this endorsement. To think that Rogan is transphobic is ridiculous, let alone that Bernie’s acceptance of Rogan’s endorsement makes Bernie transphobic by proxy. It’s almost incomprehensibly stupid that real people think this way.

Let’s acknowledge the irony of this situation, wherein pointing out that Bernie had very little that could be used against him, Rogan gave people something to use against Bernie. Of course, Rogan was expecting the opposition to come from the right — the side who would naturally oppose Bernie, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist — but instead, the outrage is pulsing from the radical left.

This is why cancel culture is such a parasite to our society. If you disagree with them at all, they’ll try to cancel you and anyone near you, and not only is it childish and temperamental, it’s self destructive. Klein, again:

This’ll get me ratio’d or whatever but a lot of Twitter seems to want to enforce a politics where you only work or ally with people you agree almost totally with. but to get anything done in our system requires working with people you often disagree with.

Tearing down Bernie (currently the highest polling democratic candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire) will only make it more likely that Trump gets reelected, and he’d certainly be less of a positive force for trans people. The lack of foresight these “progressives” have is absolutely mind boggling.

It’s concerning that the National Archives would have allowed a photo they’re displaying to be censored in the first place, but at least they’re making it right.

We made a mistake.

As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration. pic.twitter.com/VTWOS4R7GY

— US National Archives (@USNatArchives) January 18, 2020

This tweet perfectly complements my piece on militarized masculinity.

A huge chunk of American gun culture basically boils down to a way for grown men to play soldier without ever having to actually put themselves in a harm's way. This image encapsulates a strain of modern masculinity that wants all of the "toughness," but none of the risk. https://t.co/CEvlEU36If

— Jarret Ruminski (@TheDevilHistory) January 20, 2020

These fat, grown ass men wearing tie dye and tactical gear aren’t protecting anyone, they’re just stroking their own egos and trying to feel important in a world where the weak are less reliant on men to protect them than ever before. This perverts the true courage and sacrifice demonstrated by those who actually put their life on the line to protect and serve our country. Hoarding rifles doesn’t make you a man, especially when the only thing you’re using them to defend is your own manliness.

If you’re reading this and you’re one of these people who thinks you need to stockpile guns for an impending (imaginary) war, you’re a coward. If you’re one of these people but you don’t think you’re a coward, here you go.

Joe Heim, reporting for The Washington Post:

The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump.

Gotta love state sponsored censorship.

It’s troublesome that the person with the undeniable biological advantage is the one who society sees as being treated unfairly in a sporting competition. Enter: Rachel McKinnon, professional victim cyclist.

Timothy Mead, writing for Townhall:

She set a new world best time in qualifying and went on to take gold in the sprint for a second consecutive year," according to Cycling Weekly. The world record McKinnon set in the qualifying round was 11.649 for the female age 35-39 group. In the male 35-39 age group, the top qualifying round time was 10.498. 

That “record” doesn’t sound like it’s worth very much, given that she wouldn’t even have qualified for the race against other people with XY chromosomes. Sure, she may have had her nuts chopped off and therefore have a qualifyingly low level of testosterone now, but her balls were still attached when he went through puberty, and that’s when the male testosterone levels are going to make the biggest difference for muscle development. It’s not fair for her to compete against women with XX chromosomes who didn’t have the advantage of having testicles to pump out a bunch of testosterone to boost their muscle development during puberty.

Karolinksa Institute in Sweden also conducted research that suggested testosterone suppression for transgender women has little effect on reducing muscle strength.

N.Y. Post is using these findings as support for the argument that transwomen athletes shouldn’t be required to take testosterone suppression meds, but it seems to better support the argument that they shouldn’t be allowed to compete with women at all. Allowing people with XY chromosomes who benefited from male puberty to compete against people with XX chromosomes who went through female puberty is unfair, and it erodes the legitimacy of women's sports, as one of McKinnon’s competitors noted:

“It was an unfair race, and I accepted that when I pinned on the number, and I tried to do my best to overcome the unfairness,” said Jennifer Wagner-Assali, who took bronze behind McKinnon last year. […] “I do feel that hard-fought freedoms for women’s sport are being eroded.”

McKinnon, addressing criticism of her participation in competitions again XX women:

Real champions want stronger competition. If you win because bigotry got your competition banned… you’re a loser.

Misogynistic bullshit. Trans people absolutely deserve equal rights. They don't deserve special rights.

Predictably, the whole Selective Service website reeks of nationalism. Less predictably, they don’t even try to hide the program’s ingrained sexism. From SSS.gov:

By registering, a man’s voluntary participation helps provide a hedge against unforeseen threats. It is a relatively low-cost insurance policy for our nation. […]

It’s what a man’s got to do. By registering, a young man stays eligible for jobs, college loans and grants, job training, driver’s license in most states, and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.

The Selective Service System is a load of sexist bullshit. I bet you can't name a similar system where women must register to put their lives on the line or risk losing other rights and privileges like those withheld from men who fail to register.

If women are going to be allowed in combat roles, they should have to sign up for Selective Service. For some reason, though, we’re too politically correct now to acknowledge what everyone already knows and what science has always told us: women (generally) aren’t as physically strong as men. Yet, we pretend that they are by allowing women in combat roles where they could weaken a unit in measurable ways. The fact that the government requires men and only men to register for Selective Service acknowledges that men are physically stronger and more suited for combat than women. Period.

The argument that it’s sexist (against women) to suggest that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles based on the notion that they simply aren’t wanted as a result of an established “boys club” in the military is a poor argument, primarily because of the physical differences that make women generally less aptly suited for combat, but for another reason as well: if you’re going to subject a group of young men to a sexist system that requires them to put their life on the line while women don’t face the same requirement, it’s not appropriate to fault them when a sort of “boys club” starts to form. While the sexism (against women) that can sometimes crop up in such “boys club” environments shouldn’t be encouraged, it’s an understandable side effect of a system where men are forced to work together in tight knit units to achieve physically and emotionally taxing goals, while women are spared from having to participate. If thinking of the military as a boys club affords those men a degree of exclusivity that helps them grapple with the sexism (against men) of their predicament, so be it.

If your biggest concern is addressing the boys club issue to make everyone feel better, true equality would mean requiring women to register. Alternatively, if you want the strongest possible military, don’t allow women in combat. If you want the best of both worlds, get rid of Selective Service completely and stick with a voluntary enlistment system where the strongest and most committed candidates will be able to join in whatever role is appropriate for them.

According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration has reversed course (again) on their decision regarding restricting access to flavored vaping products. After originally announcing an aggressive ban (which I personally supported), fear of the political ramifications the ban would have amongst their base led them to backpedal on that announcement (a move I harshly criticized). Now, they’re compromising a bit.

This ban seems to be only on flavored e-cigarette pods (excluding tobacco and menthol flavors), sparing the liquids sold in vape shops. In other words: they’re coming for you, Juul.

As I’ve mentioned before, I try to give Trump credit when he deserves it: this is certainly better than not doing anything, but I liked the sound of their original promise better.

Falih Hassan, Ben Hubbard, and Allish J. Rubin, reporting for The New York Times:

Protesters broke into the heavily guarded compound of the United States Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday and set fires inside in anger over American airstrikes that killed [25] members of an Iranian-backed militia over the weekend.

The U.S. needs to respond to this attack swiftly and forcefully, but we also need to avoid another decade of war.

Ryan Browne and Caroline Kelly, reporting for CNN:

The United States will send approximately 750 soldiers to the Middle East immediately, Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed in a written statement Tuesday, after attacks broke out in Baghdad among hundreds of protesters in response to airstrikes in Iraq and Syria conducted by US forces on Sunday. 

"At the direction of the Commander in Chief, I have authorized the deployment of an infantry battalion from the Immediate Response Force of the 82nd Airborne Division (in Fort Bragg, North Carolina) to the U.S. Central Command area of operations in response to recent events in Iraq," Esper said, adding that additional forces "are prepared to deploy over the next several days."

"This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today.”

Obviously I hope for the safety for all of our troops, but as a North Carolina boy planning on joining the military, the deployment of troops from Fort Bragg hits close to home. Thoughts, prayers, good vibes, whatever you got: send ‘em to the boys heading to Iraq tonight. 🇺🇸 👏🏼🤙🏼✌🏼✊🏼🇺🇸

UPDATED: 1/8/20, 21:26

Jennifer Aniston, Woody Harrelson, Meryl Streep, Miley Cyrus, Jonathan Van Ness, Millie Bobbie Brown, Adam Sandler, Beyoncé Knowles, Ryan Reynolds; these are just a few of the icons featured in this ad. It’s only two minutes long, but at the end of it you feel like you’ve really seen something important. In addition to a star-studded cast, it boasts moving voiceover and music that couple beautifully with the dozens of rapid-fire scene snippets selected from Netflix’s original content, thereby doing an incredible job of showcasing their vast catalog. It uses humor and heart to inspire an impressive degree of cultural FOMO, and it really drives home the significance of storytelling in our society. Most importantly for Netflix, it genuinely excites you for what’s to come.

It’s a terrific ad.