|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 27, 2020 22:49:15 GMT
Fresh air. Water to the thirsty, food to the hungry. Say it however you want. America needs this. Spectacular speech by Tennessee state Rep. John DeBerry a Democrat who apparently has been booted from the party's graces because he is socially conservative on issues like abortion. (He is running as an independent. This explains some of his comments in the speech.)
However, this speech on the social unrest--coming from a man who saw Dr. King speak, who was involved in the mid-60s civil rights movement--is exactly what I believe this nation needs.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 29, 2020 14:33:33 GMT
Vicky Osterweil's "In Defense of Looting." (Bolding mine.)
Only in 2020, giving the impression that the violent chaos of looting is some kind of peaceful utopian moment. This is a total divorce of theory from reality.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 8, 2020 20:28:00 GMT
The Atlantic story, and its fallout, has captured my attention. The sad thing is, really, it's so believable. But, hey, it's not everyday that an American hero takes down the President:
In response, what does Trump do? (And this is the reason for this post) Disparages military leaders. In what universe is that a good idea? Or good timing? He can still surprise me. I guess that's the takeaway. (If only those military leaders defended him more vigorously from The Atlantic story...)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 11, 2020 12:30:05 GMT
While listening to an NPR story about newly observed, political-oriented Russian hacking and apparently Russian-backed Ukrainian disinformation, I had to laugh.
The reporter and host closed the segment with a warning that Americans should be wary not just of hacked voting equipment, etc., but of information with foreign sources, as that information might not be correct.
Incorrect political information!? You don't say!
Umm ... so basically the message is, "save the misinformation to American sources"! I don't like the idea of foreign interference in elections, but there is no reason to pretend the information we're given from American sources is somehow magically legitimate. Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that political marketing firms exist to lie. Politicians lie. Partisan media lies.
Frankly there are times I think outside media reporting on our media's political reporting would be hugely valuable to Americans. They could help call out the bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2020 13:13:18 GMT
This is insane. A USC business professor was lecturing about "pause words" in different languages--think "um" or "uh" in English, or more recently, "right!?"--and gave the Chinese example "ne ga."
It, obviously, sounds something like a racial slur.
He was removed from the class and might lose his job, not because anyone thought he was saying the racist term or in any way implying anything racist, but because hearing a term that sounded similar to a racist term was apparently too much for some students and faculty. The relevant dean said:
“It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students. Understandably, this caused great pain and upset among students, and for that I am deeply sorry.”
It isn't about doubting people's feelings. You can't deny those. But you can--and adults should--draw a line and say something to the effect of:
"I get that you might feel uncomfortable by hearing a word that sounds similar to a bad word. You might feel hurt, sad, scared. But you need to know that those feelings don't align with reality: you are in no danger by hearing these non-racist words. The world cannot protect you from being reminded of things that are bad. You need to learn to adjust to the world, because the world won't adjust to you."
It is no different from explaining to your scared child that there is no monster under the bed or in the closet. Those children have real feelings, but those feelings are based on things that aren't real, and they need to get over them.
There's no way to build a society around the potential feelings individuals might have in reaction to things they experience. That is literally impossible, because people are unique and sometimes entirely irrational. Individuals instead need to understand they have to be antifragile (word courtesy Jon Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in the GREAT book "The Coddling of the American Mind").
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 17, 2020 13:59:50 GMT
A California university? I'm shocked! not because anyone thought he was saying the racist term or in any way implying anything racist
Huh, you'd think that would be paramount.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2020 22:53:13 GMT
If you've got the time and are interested in politics (or political dysfunction), I highly recommend this discussion. Yes, it's long, but it is REALLY fascinating. Rep. Justin Amash, former Republican and current Libertarian congressman from Michigan, pulls no punches about how things work in the House... If nothing else, just start around the 10 minute mark and listen for maybe 10 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 17, 2020 23:04:45 GMT
Despite identifying most with Libertarianism, I don't follow the party (other than their presidential candidates). So, I didn't even realize that there was a Libertarian congressman. I'll add it to my watchlist.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2020 23:20:13 GMT
He entered Congress with the Tea Party movement as a Republican and only left the party this term; he joined the Libertarian party this spring. He even considered running for president under their banner, but decided not to. He is also leaving Congress.
While I admire Weinstein generally, I think he's politically naive. Conversely Amash understands the way Washington, and especially the House, works. I come away thinking Weinstein (whom I've followed since the Evergreen events for which he became semi-famous) is a good man, but Amash is a great one. I'd vote for him under any party's banner.
For example, he says if he were king for a day and could do one thing, his act would be to reopen the House to amendments on all bills, which was removed in the Ryan speakership and not reverted under Pelosi (so now, if you are a congressman with a proposed amendment, you bring it to the rules committee, who decides whether to let it proceed rather than being allowed to raise it on the floor for debate). Not a policy position. He didn't say to cut all regulations or raise or lower taxes or anything else. He made a rules change suggestion to open up the government.
He also discusses--at length--the corruption in both parties, and how both parties ARE THE SAME THING. During the discussion, they frame it like Coke and Pepsi deciding to market themselves against the other, with the "convenient" side effect of making anyone else seem irrelevant ... thus guaranteeing they are irrelevant. (The current requirement for a third party presidential candidate to be admitted to a debate is 15% polling ... which, before the opportunity of a televised debate, is damn near impossible. Who decides the rules? Former politicians from the parties. Coincidence.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2020 0:20:11 GMT
Well, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg certainly makes for an even more tumultuous time ahead than the (certainly rough) times we already faced. The Democrats are already furious that Speaker McConnell will be a hypocrite and push through a new justice despite having just four years ago refused to allow the same move from Pres. Obama with Merrick Garland.
And they are probably correct. Odds are, McConnell will push through a Trump nominee before the election because there's nothing the Democrats can do about it. (Don't fool yourselves, either: Chuck Schumer or any other Democratic Senate leader would've done the same.)
I have a bad feeling that seven weeks from now we're going to be facing really, really ugly moments. Even compared to the ugly moments of the past few months.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 19, 2020 0:20:24 GMT
Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at age 87 of complications from pancreatic cancer. Why am I posting this in the Politics Thread? I was just thinking how the hearings for her replacement are going to go...
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 19, 2020 14:54:37 GMT
I can't say I appreciate Ginsburg's "most fervent wish that she will not be replaced until a new president is installed." I mean, heck, what if Trump is re-elected, shall we wait another 4 years?
And on that subject, I have mixed feelings. Generally, I think this talk of "let's have the voters decide" is BS. The voters did decide when they elected Obama, Trump, and everyone else. They were elected for 4 year terms, not 3 (hello, Mitch). That said, once the election is held and decided, I do think, in most cases, it would be unethical for a defeated President to appoint a supreme court justice. And, even before the election, when it gets really close, I can see that it's problematic. So, I might be in favor of, say, a final 100 days of presidency prohibition on appointing/confirming of supreme court justices. That would mean that such actions would be completed by the first week of October. So, if one party is trying to push through a justice too quickly (or drag their feet), to an unethical extent, they risk their re-elections. This prohibition would be immediately lifted if the President is re-elected.
And on that subject, I fear Trump is going to benefit from conservative voters being reminded why they put up with him - to appoint conservative judges. Interestingly, though, if it's clear to voters that Trump and Mitch will succeed in replacing Ginsburg prior to January 20th, then that actually makes it less, not more, likely that a conflicted, undecided conservative voter will feel the need to vote for him. (In theory.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2020 15:32:05 GMT
Your last point has been on my mind this morning, too. Some people truly love Trump on a personal level, but a lot of Trump voters--the more traditionally conservative ones--were pretty much in it out of a combo of anti-Clinton sentiment and maybe most importantly getting those justices. So with that goal accomplished, they might figure the "harm" a centrist like Biden can do will be limited by the Court and just vote for him, with the hope that next time around the GOP will be back to something more like traditional conservatism.
I'm very conflicted about the best approach for handling this nomination and approval. While I think McConnell and the GOP are inarguably hypocrites, so are the Democrats: their full-throated calls to wait until after the election clearly contradict precedent (minus one example) and their own previously stated preferences. It is very, very obviously just an example of, "well, you did it!"
But America has to get out of that race to the bottom. We can't just each match or one-up one another's bad behavior or obviously the result is a downward spiral that never ends. Part of me says let Mitch McConnell publicly be known as a hypocrite, condemn him as often as you want, but fulfill the (beautiful and immediately ignored) Michelle Obama speech from four years ago, "when they go low, we go high." That's the right thing to think and do, ethically speaking ... it's too bad the Democrats never seem to have believed it.
Really it's a question of ends justifying the means. I'd like to live in a place where they don't.
I think--I THINK--I'd rather see a conservative justice seated without the charade of a faux-righteous condemnation that won't matter anyway (since there's nothing the Dems can do). But I'm expecting "the resistance" to mobilize yet again, another round of protests, shrieks and screams of tyranny, etc. But this time around, it's not tyranny, it's not corruption...it's a hypocritical reversion to the status quo. Gross, slimy, yes. But it's actually the normal course. It's nothing to riot over.
(Silver lining for liberals: most conservative justices end up drifting left over time anyway. Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy were all GOP appointees who became considered liberal or swing voters; Roberts is a Bush II appointee and has increasingly disappointed conservatives in recent years, too, and I think is likely to drift left as he fights to uphold the image of nonpartisanship on an increasingly conservative court.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 23, 2020 19:18:41 GMT
Unfathomable response to the Breonna Taylor killing and I fear we're looking at riots tonight.
One officer is being indicted for endangering the people in adjacent apartments (while shooting Taylor and at her boyfriend). Others aren't being indicted. No charges relate to the actual shooting and killing of Taylor.
To recap that situation, late at night police busted in to Taylor's apartment (either without knocking/announcing or briefly doing so) erroneously thinking an ex-boyfriend of hers suspected in various drug crimes was there. He was not. Taylor's boyfriend thought someone was breaking in and he and police began shooting at one another before the situation was clarified. Police killed Taylor, who was innocent of any crimes.
Anyone--usually conservative--who supports the "castle doctrine" of self defense should have a hard time explaining how Taylor's boyfriend didn't have the right to try to protect himself by using his legally owned firearm against apparent criminals (actually police). I'm not saying this looks like 1st degree murder, because it doesn't. But something akin to manslaughter seems impossible to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2020 12:17:30 GMT
Sure enough...
Two police officers shot by rioters. 100 arrests in connection with protests and riots (including one person associated with the police shootings, thank goodness).
Nightmare. I'm terrified for what will happen when the Chauvin/Floyd case is decided, because the 2nd degree murder charge already seems like a high hurdle to clear. And I'm terrified for Election Night and the nights thereafter, especially if Trump wins again (which seems entirely possible-to-likely).
I truly do not understand it. I don't understand the idea that going into the streets and causing mayhem or committing actual violence and destruction could possibly make anything better for anyone. The only way it makes sense to me is by viewing it as either toddlers' tantrums or calculated terrorism. There isn't a path of virtuous reasoning as far as I can understand.
|
|