Automatic, Still Is

In today’s episode, Sarah and David discuss a fiery concurrence from Judge James Ho in ...

By and

In today’s episode, Sarah and David discuss a fiery concurrence from Judge James Ho in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s opinion upholding a Texas ban on certain abortion procedures. They then discuss an indictment related to the Ahmaud Arbery killing, a death penalty case with religious liberty implications, and a Donald Trump Jr. defamation case. Lastly, listen till the end to hear about the cult (which centers around a current Supreme Court justice) that our hosts are vying to join.

Show Notes:

–The 5th Circuit’s opinion on Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton

–Indictment of former District Attorney Jacquelyn Lee Johnson

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (43)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Simon Dodd

    I'm glad someone finally mentioned theme music. Just stop! The problem isn't the music per se it's that there is music and this is a podcast not public radio. On a podcast, everything is either content or filler, and efficient podcasts minimize filler. You're wasting the listener's time. Hello Internet is a perfect example of how to use music in a podcast, if you absolutely must: Very brief (one bar, maybe two) minimalist cues. No more than two second of music (at 1x) per half-hour of content.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Based on this podcast, it seems to me that David misunderstands how people on the left use the term “systemic racism” and, therefore, doesn’t understand why people on the right react strongly to his use of it.

    Activists use the term systemic racism to claim that any disparate result between blacks and whites is the result of rules, procedures, methods of operations etc. that are embedded in a system. Because these rules etc. produce a disparity, they are racist – it doesn’t matter whether anybody who created them or who administers them has a racist intent. The result speaks for itself.

    In the Aubrey case, there is really no evidence of racism -- systemic or otherwise. It appears likely that the DA was biased in favor of a former colleague rather than motivated by racial animus towards Aubrey. And further there is no evidence of any systematic disparate results (in other words, this is more of a one-off situation). Yes, the DA’s actions were very wrong and could have resulted in a grave injustice. Unfortunately, systems administered by humans are subject to failures from time to time; but a discrete failure like the one in the Aubrey case is not proof of systemic injustice or systemic racism (at least as a conservative would understand those words). In other words, the case is not evidence that any rules need to be changed. I note that David did not suggest that any rules needed to be changed, so I am unclear what “systemic” flaws he believes are revealed by the Aubrey case.

    The difficulty with the claims of systemic racism as advanced by the left is that they don’t require any evidence of racism and cannot be disproven. A racial disparity in results (by whatever metric the advocates choose to use) is irrefutable evidence of systemic racism. Any argument that the results are justified (e.g. that, in particular instance, a higher loan refusal rate for blacks can be explained by lower credit scores) will be disregarded, denounced as racist, and/or met with the claim that the explanation reveals more systemic racism (e.g. credit scores themselves are systemically racist). As activists believe that many of the most basic elements of our system – such as capitalism and free speech – are inherently racist, there is really no arguing against their charges.

    It is certainly worthwhile to look at our institutions and see if there are rules that unjustifiably negatively impact blacks. That can happen even if there is no racist intent in the adoption or implementation of a rule. But declaring such rules “racist” denudes the term “racist” of any meaning. And insisting that systemic racism exists any time a racial disparity exists is a polemical tactic that sheds more heat than light.

    Collapse
  3. Alex Winkleman

    Sanity is why I like The Dispatch. So much about having a society is about trust, and you guys seem to take that seriously.

    I just think of Jonah saying,”they just have to not be crazy”

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    Mr. French, I'm right with you on the 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑂' 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒 intro, though I doubt you'll be able to justify the expense.

    Regarding "systemic racism", by what definition would that apply to the Ahmaud Arbery case? How was that not the result of individual racism, or at least the willful decisions of individuals, whether the men who shot him or the prosecutors who abetted them?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      I take exception to equating "systemic racism" and "systemic injustice" like it seems David has done in this pod. He seemed to be using the phrases interchangeably. These are two very different things.

      I believe our legal system (and others in the US) definitely have systemic injustices. Just look at the way Sarah scoffed at the thought of that DA in the Ahmaud Arbery case getting convicted. The use of any kind of qualified immunity in that case would absolutely be an injustice, but the legal system won't see it that way (one of the reasons why QI should be banished back to the imaginarium from which it came).

      But none of that is due to systemic racism. It's due to the racism of the perpetrators and the willingness of the DA to violate her oath of office because she thought she could get away with it. Maybe she was racist too, but again that's an individual issue not a systemic one.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        PaulH

        I think the word "systemic" (whether followed by "racist" or "injustice") is overwrought. It implies that the entire system under discussion (e.g. the George legal system) is unjust or racist, rather than a particular rule or action is unjust.

        For example, I largely agree with your comments in the second paragraph. But that is evidence to me that QI is not a just rule. That is a much more limited claim than a claim that the existence of QI is an example of systemic injustice. The latter formulation uses a single instance to indict an system.

        Realistically, our rules and the implementation of them are never going to be perfect. So we are either just going to have to accept that systemic injustice and systemic racism are inherent parts of the human condition, or we can limit our use of those terms to instances where there really evidence of injustice or racism permeating a system.

        Collapse
  5. Scottgcurtis

    Yes to the guitar intro, but only if the full 30 seconds. And any post-election special episodes? The piano intro to November Rain.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Theresa

    I didn’t like the music at first, but it has really grown on me, and my husband loves your current music. He might boycott if you change it!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      As a true Dispatch fan, I deeply respect your right to hold this completely wrong opinion.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      I actually like the music intro.

      Collapse
  7. Kyle C

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!! Please do "automatic, still is" for the intro!

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    At David’s suggestion, I went and checked out the Medium article. It is good.

    I think the point about distinguishing between science/the scientific process and human beings is a very good one. And a fundamentally conservative one. Human beings are flawed and fallible. No human being is synonymous with science writ large. If we start from the premise that human beings are imperfect and make mistakes, we can distinguish scientists from science itself.

    One of the most compelling conservative arguments against technocracy is that no human being is infallible enough or intelligent enough or moral enough to rule over another.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    David Jenner

    I hope I'm not confusing pods, but if "Jesus, based or cringe?" doesn't make it into the AO theme mix, y'all should quit show business.

    Collapse
  10. Jason Runyan

    Your theme music is my favorite. It makes me feel smart (then what comes after, your content, makes me feel dumb because I am not a legal scholar). The only better theme music is the GLoP podcast, which isn't a Dispatch property. But if your going metal, Sweet Child O Mine is good, but what about Master Of Puppets from Metallica?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      I personally favor the opening riff of Collective Soul's 'Precious Declaration' ... about the right length, too

      Collapse
Load More