We begin today's roundup with
Eugene Robinson's take on the SAE fraternity scandal:
See, I keep telling you that old-fashioned racism is alive and well in this country. After the fraternity bus sing-along at the University of Oklahoma, do you hear me now?
Frankly, the happy-go-lucky bigotry of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity brothers — captured on video and shown to the world — shocked even me. And I was raised in the South, back in the days when Jim Crow was under assault but still very much alive. [...]
Now, I realize that these soft, pampered, privileged, ridiculous frat boys are not likely to attempt actual violence against black people. But they wouldn’t have to. The attitudes their words reveal can, and probably will, show themselves in other ways.
Meanwhile,
Jeff Sommer at The New York Times dives into the FCC's net neutrality framework:
In just a few sentences, the F.C.C. reveals the core of the legal action it is taking in this lengthy document. Here, it uses some crucial terminology: Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act is what the agency had relied on as the grounding for its previous Open Internet Order, which was overturned by the courts. [...]
What the rules actually prohibit is described in this section. Between them, blocking, throttling and paid prioritization — which refer to outright blocking of content, slowing of transmissions, and the creation of so-called “fast lanes” — encompass most of the practices that net neutrality rules have been intended to eliminate.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Catherine Rampell at The Washington Post profiles the lawmakers who refuse to use technology:
These legislators probably would have been considered behind the times in 1998. Yet for the most part they point to their reluctance to learn and use 20th-century workplace tools with pride, as if it were evidence of their authenticity and social purity; apparently they believe a preference for quill and parchment demonstrates their heartfelt desire for thoughtfulness and intimacy. [...]
Not taking the time to learn to communicate the way that pretty much everyone else in the nation does reveals such mindboggling levels of societal incuriosity that it should be considered political malpractice. It should probably also disqualify you from crafting any policy that has even been tangentially touched by the now decades-old digital revolution. Which is pretty much every kind of policy you can think of.
Millennials have no explicit litmus test for digital savvy, and we’re not going to canvass for you just because you assigned an intern to handle your Instagram account. But if you’re still using a carrier pigeon while lecturing us about how it’s our fault that we haven’t acquired the skills desirable to 21st-century employers, don’t expect our vote.
Over at Bloomberg,
Jeanne Cummings looks at the Pope's comments on campaign finance reform:
The Pope's remarks come in the midst of corruption scandals in his native Argentina. But American advocates of curbing the influence of big money in politics were eager to seize on his message. "We have just gained a great new ally with a worldwide voice for public financing campaigns," said Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21. "We greatly appreciate his words and wisdom on this subject." Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi similarly embraced the Pope's "call for an end to the contaminating influence of money in our democracy." [...]
The Pope will have an opportunity to expand on his campaign finance views in September when he is scheduled to speak before a joint session of Congress. He was invited to appear by House Speaker John Boehner and Pelosi. Both are Catholic.
Kevin Horrigan at The St. Louis Post Dispatch writes about the aftermath of the shooting of two police officers:
Stop choosing sides. Talk to each other. Admit our mistakes. Understand that cops can screw up, but they also do hard and dangerous work every day. Understand that the color of a person’s skin or the color of his uniform doesn’t define him.
Be forthright.
And finally,
The Miami Herald takes on the ban on the phrase "climate change" in Florida:
This head-in-the-eroding-sand position is an embarrassment, at best. At worst, it’s regressive and dangerous. [...]
Meanwhile in Florida, ‘climate change’ has disappeared from official use, and with it, any chance of a cogent state strategy to deal with its ramifications. Jerry Phillips, a former attorney with the state Department of Environmental Protection said that he received several complaints from muzzled DEP staffers: “The complaints have been that if climate-change projects can be put on the back burner, that’s what the administration would want to have happen,” he said.
Mr. Scott can call it “Mother Earth’s little hot flash,” if he wants. But it’s irresponsible to force his ideological blinders onto how Florida responds to what is so obvious. Denial is strong, but those rising seas are stronger.