Do we really want out rights to be determined by the understandings of centuries ago?
Crispin SartwellYes, actually, we want to be bound by understandings of rights from centuries ago, because that's when they understood rights. If we were constituting now, you'd purportedly have a right not to be offended, for example.
Crispin SartwellI think that Erwin Chemerinsky's desperately familiar argument here entails simply that we ought not to have a written Constitution or amounts to the direct claim that we do not have a written Constitution. @petercatapano
Defending The New York Times' provocative multi-media package. || Crispin Sartwell
Crispin SartwellHere I defend the 1619 Project, partly from @nytimes itself, which seemingly has been toning it down in response to criticism while apparently defending it, and has been issuing vague non-corrections. @nhannahjones
Crispin SartwellI don't think the 1619 Project is "revisionist." It's takes up a place in a long tradition of the ways African-Americans (Douglass and DuBois, for example) have interpreted American history and identity, their own and white folks'.
Crispin Sartwell“We always follow the Science in the Democratic Party,” says party chairman Tom Perez. If you identify your political positions as science, that seems powerful. It's going to force people to oppose science, though, isn't it? Plus it's not plausible.