7 ms·

President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
additional context / tl;dr: https://nitter.net/realchrisrufo/status/1308540172519186432#m https://nitter.net/realchrisrufo/status/1308540172519186432#...
emteycz 6y ago
I don't understand. Is that good or bad? Is critical race theory the pseudoscience it sounds like it is? Wikipedia page did not help me. (am from EU)
- newacct583 6y ago
  Wikipedia didn't help you because it describes actual CRT, which is a somewhat bland academic field that, like seemingly all humanities work, tends to be heavy on jargon and pomp and a little light on genuine insight. But none of its contentions are really that controversial. Broadly it's the recognition that "race is real" and that injustices colored by the history of racial politics persist in modern society. What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy". And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.
  - choko 6y ago
    The field isn't banned. It's just not being funded by taxpayers. You are being intentionally dramatic and misleading.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Read the EO. It goes much farther than banning funding for research, it's a muzzle on all federal decisionmaking and the behavior of all federal contractors. If you're a federal contractor and you tell your employees "I think racism is real", it seems like you'd fall afoul of this language and lose your contract.
      - choko 6y ago
        I read the EO and the article. Your analysis is flawed and grossly oversimplified. I suspect you know this and are trying to stir up emotional sentiment because you dislike the current administration.
      - jwond 6y ago
        Can you quote the part of the executive order that you believe would bar a federal contractor from telling its employees “I think racism is real”?
  - true_religion 6y ago
    We regularly do ban ideas which we disagree with. For example.... The federal government will not fund research into the idea that women are sub human, and will certainly fire any manager who tries to include female inferiority training as a requirement for their employees. Banning this sexist idea is a good thing. The idea itself is poison and has no place in common government. If some people think it is merely controversial, then they should build credibility outside of government then ask for the rules to be relaxed.
- kangnkodos 6y ago
  Is critical race theory pseudoscience? This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with. Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct. Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information. In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system. I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas. If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better. I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Is critical race theory the pseudoscience it sounds like it is? It's worse, it's social science - not falsifiable, so you can build careers upon a foundation of nonsense. The definitions section of the wikipedia page are clear on what the goals are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Some more background: US universities today are heavily indoctrinated with variations on Marxism, communism and Maoism. Academic (radical) feminism has deliberately incorporated from those ideologies. An example of what this means is that the Hoover Institution is based at Stanford University, but most of their world-reknowned think-tank members would be shouted down if they tried to actually teach in a school classroom. https://www.hoover.org/ https://www.hoover.org/ All of the -isms are tools to seize power at the expense of the current holders, without actually building anything first. The "BLM rioters" belong to Marxist organizations, with funding likely traceable back to the CCP and Russia. Besides the ideological appeal of communism to the left, the current generation of US students hope that electing a communist candidate will forgive their student loans, which are typically in the $100,000 range and non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Some BLM protesters demanded that homeowners hand over their houses.
rvz 6y ago
Good. Hopefully it addresses the ills of many institutions that teach such racist programs to this present day. [0] [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-federal-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-feder... [1] https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton
- eesmith 6y ago
  The EO claims that it's a misrepresentation to say, as Stephen A. Douglas did, that 'our government "was made on the white basis" "by white men, for the benefit of white men". Our Founding documents rejected these radicalized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War." Given the slavery in those founding documents, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which limited naturalization to free white people of good character), the common law practice of the time of coverture, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the post-slavery Jim Crow laws - how was Douglas misrepresenting the Republic at that time?
raxxorrax 6y ago
I don't think I like it, but I also don't think banning it is the right choice. If that is necessary to dodge some mandatory diversity/inclusion trainings, I would support the decision.
brown9-2 6y ago
As everyone knows, the best way to argue against an idea is to outlaw it
- alipang 6y ago
  Not having it funded by the tax payer is not the same as outlawing it. This all comes down to whether critical race theory is truly an unacceptable set of ideas, like e.g frenology, or not, that should be legitimately banned. Should be easy to make an honest defense of that point if this is indeed the case?
  - eesmith 6y ago
    What an odd comparison. Is the teaching of phrenology banned? By executive order or Congressional law? Not that I'm aware of, but hey, I can be wrong. By comparison, critical race theory is currently taught at some schools. Eg, https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies , "Led by renowned scholars who have influenced law and policy for decades, UCLA Law’s Critical Race Studies Program is the premier setting for studying the intersection of race and the law." Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory points out: > By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.[8] Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda. Personally, I think evolutionary psychology is a load of crap about equal to phrenology - why not defund those departments too?
    - choko 6y ago
      The teaching of CRT isn't banned. You can teach CRT all you like, just don't expect taxpayer funds or government contracts. The government shouldn't be funding racist ideologies or vendors who teach such ideology. CRT, in teaching what amounts to original sin, is at best reinforcing stereotypes and at worst is boldly racist. I would not support an actual ban because it violates the first amendment. That doesn't mean we (taxpayers) should have to contribute to a divisive ideology.
lowiqengineer 6y ago
“Banning” ideas? The authoritarianism is getting less and less guarded.
- alipang 6y ago
  It’s hardly authoritarian to disallow certain ideas being funded by the tax payer. We wouldn’t be upset if frenology wasn’t allowed in government agencies. I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology veiled in an intent to address race or gender issues. Agree with this or not, but this seems where to discussion should take place.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology You believe the ban is ideological, and... you aren't horrified? What happens when Harris bans discussion of libertarian ideas in the treasury department?
    - fabatka 6y ago
      What do you mean by "discussion"? If "using taxpayer money to host mandatory courses", I think every ideology should be banned from this in government institutions. However, to ban these in the private companies that want to do business with government agencies is of course too much in my opinion.
    - lodovic 6y ago
      Federal employees in the treasury, while being paid, should discuss .. the treasury. Not libertarian ideas, not CRT, or any other controversial theories. They are free to do that on their own time however.
      - flipgimble 6y ago
        What do you imagine a treasury employee does all day, sits in a locked room and counts coins without any connection to the outside world? These are the people that are directing monetary policies that affect people's lives, well being and equity. Without an opinion on CRT itself, which I don't know much about, I think learning from any side about how those lives are affected, and the history of the country, is exactly what well informed government official should be doing. It like telling a programmer they should only ever have a terminal and a code editor open, and ban using a browser during office hours.
flipgimble 6y ago
At first I thought this was a news article, but looking into the author's writing this looks more like political ideology and propaganda wrapped in a pretense of pointing out the opposing ideology. Banning ideas and research as "poison" and "dangerous" and even prohibiting public debate is about the most un-American position I can imagine. Was I the only one taught in public school that McCarthyism was bad and stain on the country? McCarthyism is still defined as the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
- eesmith 6y ago
  "Christopher F. Rufo is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty". The Discovery Institute advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. Which is about as well supported, scientifically speaking, as phrenology.
  - Traster 6y ago
    Which is kind of funny, because phrenology is literally: > or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
- choko 6y ago
  It's just a moratorium on taxpayer funding, not a ban. As a taxpayer, I'm ok with the government not funding racist ideology.
  - flipgimble 6y ago
    Have you read the executive order or the article? From the article: "agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings" This does not sound like a dispassionate funding policy change, more like an ideological purge of a set of ideas on which there is an ongoing debate across the country.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jwond 6y ago
The executive order can also be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... The core of the EO seems to be the following passage. For those who are opposed to this, could you please explain why? all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions: “During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: 1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
- Traster 6y ago
  I'm opposed to it because in reality the interpretation of whether something fits that definition is going to fraught with issues and likely to result in the outlawing of anything that doesn't fit a right wing ideology. I'm particularly concerned because it's couched in language that deliberately denies the factual history of discrimination in America. It's also particularly concerned because the phrase >the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist Is at best, a controversial political opinion and not a statement of fact. For example, crafting an executive order to ban people from discussing the systematic oppression of black people seems to me like the act of a fundamentally racist country, I guess I better not bid for any government contracts.
jacknews 6y ago
The way so many things are being pushed through by 'executive order' seems quite dangerous to me. On the other hand, the whole 'critical theory' and postmodern movement seems to me to be anti-rational, regressive and even more dangerous to a free society, eg: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/ https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals...
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Laudable. Robin DiAngelo, et al. are grifters. Essentially profiting off of human suffering and guilt, and laughing their way to the bank. Taxpayer money shouldn't be funneled to these shysters.

additional context / tl;dr: https://nitter.net/realchrisrufo/status/1308540172519186432#m https://nitter.net/realchrisrufo/status/1308540172519186432#...

emteycz 6y ago

I don't understand. Is that good or bad? Is critical race theory the pseudoscience it sounds like it is? Wikipedia page did not help me. (am from EU)

newacct583 6y ago
Wikipedia didn't help you because it describes actual CRT, which is a somewhat bland academic field that, like seemingly all humanities work, tends to be heavy on jargon and pomp and a little light on genuine insight. But none of its contentions are really that controversial. Broadly it's the recognition that "race is real" and that injustices colored by the history of racial politics persist in modern society. What actually got banned is "boogeyman CRT", which is a caricature of the field propagated among the partisan press for use as an "enemy". And of course it's bad. You don't ban ideas with which you disagree, even (especially) if you think they're factually wrong.
- choko 6y ago
  The field isn't banned. It's just not being funded by taxpayers. You are being intentionally dramatic and misleading.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Read the EO. It goes much farther than banning funding for research, it's a muzzle on all federal decisionmaking and the behavior of all federal contractors. If you're a federal contractor and you tell your employees "I think racism is real", it seems like you'd fall afoul of this language and lose your contract.
    - choko 6y ago
      I read the EO and the article. Your analysis is flawed and grossly oversimplified. I suspect you know this and are trying to stir up emotional sentiment because you dislike the current administration.
    - jwond 6y ago
      Can you quote the part of the executive order that you believe would bar a federal contractor from telling its employees “I think racism is real”?
- true_religion 6y ago
  We regularly do ban ideas which we disagree with. For example.... The federal government will not fund research into the idea that women are sub human, and will certainly fire any manager who tries to include female inferiority training as a requirement for their employees. Banning this sexist idea is a good thing. The idea itself is poison and has no place in common government. If some people think it is merely controversial, then they should build credibility outside of government then ask for the rules to be relaxed.
kangnkodos 6y ago
Is critical race theory pseudoscience? This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with. Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct. Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information. In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system. I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas. If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better. I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Is critical race theory the pseudoscience it sounds like it is? It's worse, it's social science - not falsifiable, so you can build careers upon a foundation of nonsense. The definitions section of the wikipedia page are clear on what the goals are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Some more background: US universities today are heavily indoctrinated with variations on Marxism, communism and Maoism. Academic (radical) feminism has deliberately incorporated from those ideologies. An example of what this means is that the Hoover Institution is based at Stanford University, but most of their world-reknowned think-tank members would be shouted down if they tried to actually teach in a school classroom. https://www.hoover.org/ https://www.hoover.org/ All of the -isms are tools to seize power at the expense of the current holders, without actually building anything first. The "BLM rioters" belong to Marxist organizations, with funding likely traceable back to the CCP and Russia. Besides the ideological appeal of communism to the left, the current generation of US students hope that electing a communist candidate will forgive their student loans, which are typically in the $100,000 range and non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Some BLM protesters demanded that homeowners hand over their houses.

rvz 6y ago

Good. Hopefully it addresses the ills of many institutions that teach such racist programs to this present day. [0] [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-federal-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-feder... [1] https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton https://www.city-journal.org/systemic-racism-princeton

eesmith 6y ago
The EO claims that it's a misrepresentation to say, as Stephen A. Douglas did, that 'our government "was made on the white basis" "by white men, for the benefit of white men". Our Founding documents rejected these radicalized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War." Given the slavery in those founding documents, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which limited naturalization to free white people of good character), the common law practice of the time of coverture, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the post-slavery Jim Crow laws - how was Douglas misrepresenting the Republic at that time?

raxxorrax 6y ago

I don't think I like it, but I also don't think banning it is the right choice. If that is necessary to dodge some mandatory diversity/inclusion trainings, I would support the decision.

brown9-2 6y ago

As everyone knows, the best way to argue against an idea is to outlaw it

alipang 6y ago
Not having it funded by the tax payer is not the same as outlawing it. This all comes down to whether critical race theory is truly an unacceptable set of ideas, like e.g frenology, or not, that should be legitimately banned. Should be easy to make an honest defense of that point if this is indeed the case?
- eesmith 6y ago
  What an odd comparison. Is the teaching of phrenology banned? By executive order or Congressional law? Not that I'm aware of, but hey, I can be wrong. By comparison, critical race theory is currently taught at some schools. Eg, https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies https://law.ucla.edu/academics/centers/critical-race-studies , "Led by renowned scholars who have influenced law and policy for decades, UCLA Law’s Critical Race Studies Program is the premier setting for studying the intersection of race and the law." Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory points out: > By 2002, over 20 American law schools, and at least 3 law schools in other countries, offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.[8] Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Camara Phyllis Jones, and Mari Matsuda. Personally, I think evolutionary psychology is a load of crap about equal to phrenology - why not defund those departments too?
  - choko 6y ago
    The teaching of CRT isn't banned. You can teach CRT all you like, just don't expect taxpayer funds or government contracts. The government shouldn't be funding racist ideologies or vendors who teach such ideology. CRT, in teaching what amounts to original sin, is at best reinforcing stereotypes and at worst is boldly racist. I would not support an actual ban because it violates the first amendment. That doesn't mean we (taxpayers) should have to contribute to a divisive ideology.

lowiqengineer 6y ago

“Banning” ideas? The authoritarianism is getting less and less guarded.

alipang 6y ago
It’s hardly authoritarian to disallow certain ideas being funded by the tax payer. We wouldn’t be upset if frenology wasn’t allowed in government agencies. I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology veiled in an intent to address race or gender issues. Agree with this or not, but this seems where to discussion should take place.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I think the idea behind the ban is that critical race theory delivers a certain leftist ideology You believe the ban is ideological, and... you aren't horrified? What happens when Harris bans discussion of libertarian ideas in the treasury department?
  - fabatka 6y ago
    What do you mean by "discussion"? If "using taxpayer money to host mandatory courses", I think every ideology should be banned from this in government institutions. However, to ban these in the private companies that want to do business with government agencies is of course too much in my opinion.
  - lodovic 6y ago
    Federal employees in the treasury, while being paid, should discuss .. the treasury. Not libertarian ideas, not CRT, or any other controversial theories. They are free to do that on their own time however.
    - flipgimble 6y ago
      What do you imagine a treasury employee does all day, sits in a locked room and counts coins without any connection to the outside world? These are the people that are directing monetary policies that affect people's lives, well being and equity. Without an opinion on CRT itself, which I don't know much about, I think learning from any side about how those lives are affected, and the history of the country, is exactly what well informed government official should be doing. It like telling a programmer they should only ever have a terminal and a code editor open, and ban using a browser during office hours.

flipgimble 6y ago

At first I thought this was a news article, but looking into the author's writing this looks more like political ideology and propaganda wrapped in a pretense of pointing out the opposing ideology. Banning ideas and research as "poison" and "dangerous" and even prohibiting public debate is about the most un-American position I can imagine. Was I the only one taught in public school that McCarthyism was bad and stain on the country? McCarthyism is still defined as the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.

eesmith 6y ago
"Christopher F. Rufo is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty". The Discovery Institute advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. Which is about as well supported, scientifically speaking, as phrenology.
- Traster 6y ago
  Which is kind of funny, because phrenology is literally: > or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
choko 6y ago
It's just a moratorium on taxpayer funding, not a ban. As a taxpayer, I'm ok with the government not funding racist ideology.
- flipgimble 6y ago
  Have you read the executive order or the article? From the article: "agencies are directed to initiate adverse action proceedings against managers who continue to hold CRT trainings" This does not sound like a dispassionate funding policy change, more like an ideological purge of a set of ideas on which there is an ongoing debate across the country.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jwond 6y ago

The executive order can also be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... The core of the EO seems to be the following passage. For those who are opposed to this, could you please explain why? all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions: “During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: 1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that (a) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (b) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (c) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (d) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (e) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (h) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.

Traster 6y ago
I'm opposed to it because in reality the interpretation of whether something fits that definition is going to fraught with issues and likely to result in the outlawing of anything that doesn't fit a right wing ideology. I'm particularly concerned because it's couched in language that deliberately denies the factual history of discrimination in America. It's also particularly concerned because the phrase >the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist Is at best, a controversial political opinion and not a statement of fact. For example, crafting an executive order to ban people from discussing the systematic oppression of black people seems to me like the act of a fundamentally racist country, I guess I better not bid for any government contracts.

jacknews 6y ago

The way so many things are being pushed through by 'executive order' seems quite dangerous to me. On the other hand, the whole 'critical theory' and postmodern movement seems to me to be anti-rational, regressive and even more dangerous to a free society, eg: https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/ https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals...

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

Laudable. Robin DiAngelo, et al. are grifters. Essentially profiting off of human suffering and guilt, and laughing their way to the bank. Taxpayer money shouldn't be funneled to these shysters.