Ellis turns to the testimony of U.S. Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino. How he denied using force against a man he tackled and said he didn't see the Rev. David Black hit by pepperballs.

"More telling," she says, "defendant Bovino admitted that he lied."

They are so good at what they do.

No need to kill--just come to Chicago (the amazing Chicago Diner):

I feel safer already.

Popular front: hold your nose and support the Arsenal fan.

Relatedly, I am once again calling for a movie or miniseries dramatizing a major slave rebellion (Denmark, General Gabriel, etc.)

I don't disagree. I just think it's not a fully adequate explanation of the wrong, which to me suggests that to explain the wrong one needs to admit that we do owe social justice/equality to foreigners.

I agree that's a top contender. But doesn't that seem pretty weak? When we racially discriminate against someone trying to immigrate, we don't violate any obligation to them, but violate an obligation to our own citizens?

Shorter Hanania: we need a movement where intellectual standards are high enough that people I like are ruled out, but are low enough that I'm ruled in.

This is a dangerous headline, because the actual law profs questioned say it's a terrible argument, and they are only talking about it because they worry the Court might accept it (not because it's actually a good argument). The substance of the article is not too bad, but the framing is awful.