|
Post by carllove on Aug 21, 2021 20:56:24 GMT
The city council in Kansas City voted to “Re-Allocate”over 40 million dollars from the police budget in a meeting in which the 4 council members from north of the river were not notified of, until it was too late to attend. They notified The Kansas City Star before the council members. Thankfully, that is only the amount that could move, because the police in KCMO are governed by the state of Missouri. The murder and crime rate in the city continues to soar - none of it helped by the Soros funded prosecutor, Jean Peters-Baker who doesn’t even like the “catch” part of catch and release. This is surely not going to help.
Meanwhile, I will just stay safe in the suburbs, where we have plenty of cops and guns. I won’t spend my money in the city until The Beach Boys concert in February. I won’t go to the Plaza to eat out, or even attend a Chiefs game. I won’t get a hotel downtown and party at The Power and Light district. Most of my friends are doing the same. It’s sad, because there is a lot of fun stuff to do in Kansas City, but it’s just not worth it right now. Covid hasn’t helped. I’m so glad I don’t have to pay that 1% city tax anymore since My job moved from the Missouri to the Kansas side of the same hospital system. I feel for the people that live in the city, because they are getting screwed. Maybe they will vote differently next time, but I doubt it.
Thankfully, we didn’t really have much destruction during the “peaceful protests”, last Summer. Just a couple of broken windows and a little looting on The Plaza. They actually were proactive and shut down the stores and boarded up most of the windows in advance.
Good luck Kapitan. I feel for you. Money needs to be spent on investigations and improvements in almost all police departments - there are always a few ignorant assholes in each one - but with crime rates soaring, now is not the time to remove funds from the general police budgets.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Aug 25, 2021 12:42:53 GMT
A good recent video on the Afghanistan situation:
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 27, 2021 21:12:53 GMT
Today my mail included the first of what I suspect will be A LOT of political marketing about the "defund the police" city charter amendment that's to be on the ballot. I thought it might be interesting to keep and track them: which side is doing the most marketing, what their messaging is, etc.
This one comes from the "opposed" perspective, from an activist group that is also of the left--just not as radical a left as the ones backing the proposal. "AllOfMpls" "is a locally organized effort by DFL activists, labor unions, community leaders, and residents from across the city..." per the flyer.
Their messaging brings clarity that the wording of the amendment itself (and the proponents of it) do not: on the cover it reads "Question 2 eliminates the police department and Police Chief Arradondo. Vote NO on Question 2."
On the interior left panel, it says more of the same, but with detail, including the factual
"...will eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that has no requirement or plan for replacing police or making the structural reforms necessary to ensure racial justice AND public safety.
"We need better police, not no police. The Minneapolis Police Department needs comprehensive structural reorm to police recruitment, training, accountability, and discipline and better integration of mental health experts and violence prevention programs. None of these reforms are guaranteed to occur with Question 2."
Then there is a bit about the actual reforms that some--including our police chief--have proposed and/or are working on now. The other two panels are again largely pictures (showing our black police chief in uniform on all three panels) with simple text a la the cover.
I think it's a pretty effective piece of marketing. It helps clarify what the amendment actually proposes, and what it does not propose. It also makes use of the police chief's race--which frankly I don't like, but see would be useful--in showing that this isn't something where people believing in racial justice HAVE TO support this amendment: they most certainly do not, and the police chief himself, a black man, does not. It also highlights what I consider the most important part of the amendment, which is that there is currently NO ACTUAL PLAN. You're voting to get rid of something to replace it with a phantom, which of course people will invent in their own minds as a perfect plan. It isn't anything concrete. It's like falling in love with the teenage athlete who nobody has actually seen play yet, or fantasizing about how great the movie you've heard is in the works is going to be. It's like Obama's "hope and change," vague and unreal, and so easily absorbed into everyone's own model. I like that this aspect is being called out.
Anyway, that's Political Marketing Piece #1 on the topic. I'm sure I'll be getting hundreds before Nov. 2.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Aug 28, 2021 3:12:15 GMT
Kapitan, I feel for you. It’s all just crazy. I just want government to get out of my life, other than providing me with protection from harm, roads and a retirement that I have paid for most of my life. When they stop providing protection from evil, then I get angry. The fact that criminals are getting a pass right now makes me so angry. People get their cars or catalytic converters stolen and nobody cares. What the hell. Look at California with all of the theft under $950 not even being prosecuted. I hope Newsom gets recalled, but that was Harris’s doing. Do you wonder why people like myself hate democrats so much, even if we aren’t necessarily extremely conservative?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 28, 2021 11:28:12 GMT
I come from a different perspective about politics, but frankly this weekend I don't even want to think about it.
I'll just say this: I think most people's criticisms of politics and politicians have some merit, but they're usually too narrow or too exaggerated. Progressives are good at seeing flaws in libertarians; liberals are good at seeing the flaws in conservatives; communists are good at seeing the flaws in capitalists; conservatives are good at seeing the flaws in socialists. But nobody seems to accept any of those criticisms about themselves, and instead everyone reverts to "divide and conquer" marketing strategies or "yeah but he's worse" mudslinging. And the media literally cashes in on this team sports-meets-pro wrestling approach.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Aug 28, 2021 17:52:15 GMT
I do actually believe that most citizens in the US are much closer to the middle than members of the media would like us to believe. I also think that most individuals can change their options if they are given rational arguments instead of being dismissed and called names.
My assessment of what has caused the issues of increasing crime and poverty in the African American communities has changed as I have become more informed. I used to just blame Lyndon Johnson’s “ War on Poverty” and the increasing number of Prosecuters supported by the Soros machine. Then, I watched the program on the Tulsa Race Riots and “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”, on PBS and decided that the issues started well before the 1960’s. Those two shows really bring to light how successful those communities were and how many people, especially in the South, were uncomfortable with that and did everything they could to thwart their success. It was eye opening.
Another thing that happened was one morning when it was very humid out, and I was running late and just barely wiped some holes in the condensation on my windows with a paper napkin in my car. When I arrived at my first location, the middle aged African American Rad Tech that had worked the night shift was carefully and totally cleaning off his windows with a couple of towels. I spoke to him about it and he said, yeah, he didn’t want to get stopped on his way home. I realized that my experience with the police in my affluent suburban county, was much different then his.
Still, yes their may need to be some reforms in police departments, but eliminating bodies and funding is not the correct way to deal with a few bad apples!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 6, 2021 12:31:41 GMT
So, perhaps testing the idea that we're all mature enough to discuss this... (just kidding, I am sure we are)
The new Texas antiabortion law makes me very uncomfortable, but not necessarily for the actual abolition of (most) abortion. (I do personally support legal abortion, even though I'm not certain it's morally OK. Frankly I think it's too personal and complex a decision for me to make for others.)
But with that stance, I'm slow to be too vocally against anyone else's decision or position. I'm not sure the Roe decision was well argued, either. (I'm no lawyer, I just mean literally I am not sure. But I have heard it said by people both for and against legalization that the actual decision was flimsy, even if they supported the consequence.) And so if it is overturned, honestly, that might just be the way it is unless or until there is a more convincing argument. And if it's up to the states, so are most other laws. People can vote with their feet (as they always do), too--though of course I'd be sympathetic for individuals in bad situations.
So with all that said, why does the new law make me feel uncomfortable?
The aspect of it that, as I understand it, incentivizes citizens to basically snitch on fellow citizens who break the law. It calls to mind Stalinist Russia or Red Scare America, with informers ready to squeal out of greed. I try to keep in mind that for people vehemently and absolutely against abortion, this might be considered more like the kind of rewards given for people giving useful information on unsolved murders, for example. But I don't know ... it does not feel the same to me, and I really don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 6, 2021 14:20:21 GMT
Kapitan, I agree with you across the board. (Though, I might be a little more certain of the immorality of abortion and that Roe was poorly argued/decided, but that's really just a matter of degree.) Your invoking of Stalinist Russia and Red Scare America is spot-on. (I just so happened to watch a Cold War spy thriller last night, The Courier, which was based on true events.) The ethical thing to do is confront Roe head on, NOT knowingly pass an unconstitutional law and attempt to shield it from constitutional challenges by encouraging your contingent of citizens to enforce the law for you via sneaking and snitching and, presumably, putting up their own funds. Really, it also calls to mind post-Reconstruction.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Sept 6, 2021 16:09:28 GMT
Kapitan, I agree. The whole snitch factor is scary.
I hate discussing the issue, because most people try to make it so black and white. Even though I am a Conservative, I was a fervent abortion rights supporter, up to 26 years ago, when I was pregnant. Carrying my daughter, listening to her heartbeat, started to make me feel a bit differently. Still, I can’t imagine being forced to carry a fetus for 9 months after and incident of rape or incest. Even though it may be morally wrong, I think a woman should be able to decide what to do about an unwanted pregnancy up to 12 weeks.
A lot of my religious conservative friends think that liberals “love” killing babies. I think they are wrong. I think the decision to abort a child is always a difficult one.
Roe versus Wade was not argued well, which means that abortion rights are tenuous. I feel though, that totally removing the right to an abortion for women, is a step back and a bit frightening. Then again, it is a life that is being ended. It’s just an awful subject. I wish both sides could be more understanding of each other. I doubt that will ever happen though.
Whatever happens, there needs to be something stronger out there than RVW to ensure that women’s rights are protected. Might be the only thing good to come out of the Democrats being in charge for the next year and a half.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 9, 2021 19:56:06 GMT
Yesterday the NYT ran an interactive feature by Lee Drutman based on his 2020 book "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop" (which coincidentally I had just gotten from the library and began--but only just). The feature includes a quick, 20-question quiz to plant you on a political compass, which is something that has been online in more robust versions than this for a while.
But the interesting thing is, it also positions you with respect to his proposed/potential six parties that he apparently argues are roughly the actual six largest factions among Americans.
Here it is. Post your results if you want to.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 9, 2021 20:05:27 GMT
Cool. I’ll check it out tonight.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Sept 9, 2021 20:12:51 GMT
This is me evidently!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 9, 2021 20:21:15 GMT
I'm closest to the "New Liberal Party," but you'll see I'm a little more socially conservative than them. (Actually by a pretty good amount.) Their politicians listed were not exactly favorites of mine: Beto O'Rourke(!), Eric Garcetti, Cory Booker. (To be fair, I hated O'Rourke mostly because he seemed like an empty vessel; I don't think he actually holds any positions, and I think he ran far to the left of who he actually is and has been in the past, just because that was the thing to do in '20.)
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 9, 2021 22:57:02 GMT
I coulda drawn that dot without answering the questions!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 9, 2021 23:04:04 GMT
Interesting (maybe?) fact: everyone (which is admittedly <10 people so far) with whom I've discussed this has been closer to the pure center than to any of the hypothetical parties. And the article accompanying the quiz either strongly implies or states that if you're wondering why there's no "centrist" party, it is that people don't actually fall in the center.
So maybe I'm an anomaly that everyone I know--whether in real life or online--kinda does?
|
|