USA Politics

[arpeggio]

Railing against the Electoral College is nextdoor to pointless:  It would take a Constitutional amendment. And only fantasists count on that, even in normal times.

I agree.

I was reacting to the fact that I was being lectured to as if I did not understand how the electoral college works.  I do understand how it works, its pros  and cons, and that it would be next to impossible to replace it.  I am not completely ignorant.

Anyways my head starts spinning whenever I see rationalizations that one side has a mandate when they did not win the popular vote.

[Todd]

Minor correction to Edward's post.
The Kentucky [and New York] primaries are today. According to this update, things are running smoothly, thanks to a high number of absentee ballots.
https://amp.courier-journal.com/amp/3237124001

Who wants to stand in line to vote?  Blech.  Vote by mail is the only way to go.

[SimonNZ]

Provided you get a ballot before the deadline for sending it back in. Right?

[Karl Henning]

I agree.

I was reacting to the fact that I was being lectured to as if I did not understand how the electoral college works.  I do understand how it works, its pros  and cons, and that it would be next to impossible to replace it.  I am not completely ignorant.

Anyways my head starts spinning whenever I see rationalizations that one side has a mandate when they did not win the popular vote.

Never meant to suggest that you are ignorant!

[JBS]

This thread seems to be the best place to post this. Somewhat long but meaty on the subject of police killings in the U.S.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65309/

[Herman]

This thread seems to be the best place to post this. Somewhat long but meaty on the subject of police killings in the U.S.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65309/

Remember being asked not to just post links?

[milk]

I have to focus to understand this no link thing. I don't get it.
Anyways, I'm sure this article comes off as a little amateurish but, still, I wonder if it's true: 

Last October, US technology giant Google announced that it had built a quantum computer that performed calculations in 200 seconds that would have taken a conventional supercomputer 10,000 years to perform. What this could mean for human civilisation is unprecedented. A stable quantum computer with that much computing power would transform complex financial risk management into child's play, take years off pharmaceutical research and development, leave vast amounts of personal data open to manipulation, and trigger a revolution in artificial intelligence and machine learning, which in turn would give modern militaries unmatched advantage in war.
Most crucially, a powerful quantum computer able to shave 10,000 years off its calculations would render previously unbreakable internet encryption useless, and replace it with unbreakable quantum encryption. Quantum calculations would be able to crack any current encryption code in existence. It follows, therefore, that whichever nation masters quantum supremacy first could instantly hack the entire internet, from the highly personal information of world leaders to every nation's state bank encryption...Let there be no doubt that, if reliably achieved, quantum supremacy changes the world...This is why the US and China are in a race to determine who will first achieve quantum supremacy.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/we-will-have-to-take-a-side-in-cold-war-ii/?fbclid=IwAR2KME1m90ZMUpVUuQBi2IQMHvWHOQctuwlzlqNe8UmZhqKveOlhsdof8xM

Just something else to worry about 

[Daverz]

This thread seems to be the best place to post this. Somewhat long but meaty on the subject of police killings in the U.S.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65309/

Some interesting research there, unfortunately in the service of union bashing:  "This killing is largely driven by the same kinds of bureaucratic malfeasance and self-dealing that conservatives have criticized in other public sector unions."

[milk]

A Democratic pal sent me this article, "What Don't Most Liberals Realize?," which I thought was an interesting, thoughtful read. There is something to be said for not demonizing the other side. (With some exceptions, of course.)

https://www.quora.com/What-dont-most-liberals-realize/answer/Peter-Kruger?ch=1&share=95ddcb10&srid=iAmK&fbclid=IwAR2WcWhv1c1b14otTgELViInorqNZHa_aYB5TtQiFH9HXWVomTj_PVpE9Hg

--Bruce

I get this kind of mainstream classic divide. But doesn't it seem like the fringes have gotten way out of proportion?

[Todd]

Some primaries yielded surprises:

A 24-year-old novice beat a Trump-endorsed candidate for Mark Meadows's seat in Congress

Trump is losing his grip on the Republican Party.  It's hard to know what Mr Cawthorn stands for, though.


Kentucky Senate Democratic primary between McGrath and Booker to decide who challenges McConnell too close to call

Taking out Cocaine Mitch was supposed to be a top priority, but Dems can't even get their shit together taking him on.  They poured tens of millions into Ms McGrath's campaign and yet an insurgent siphoned off all those votes.  Hilarious. 

Fortunately, AOC won handily, so Congress will still have a fiery democratic socialist and kick-ass mixologist (of almost Teddy Kennedy level competence) in its midst.


Of course, when it comes to the top job, Super-Creepy 46 is looking better and better:

Biden Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race

You go Joe!

[JBS]

Ironically enough, Qualified Immunity was a product of the Liberal Warren Court:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

If we get rid of QI and the legal protections for members of LE, how many would still want to be police officers with the much greater risk? Are we ok with a society that has less cops, castrated police departments and more potential crime? That article criticizes the various departments for pulling back enforcement after negative publicity but what else are they to do after being scrutinized and denigrated?   

Did you actually read the article? Because it specifically says what I italicized there is not happening.

[JBS]

Some interesting research there, unfortunately in the service of union bashing:  "This killing is largely driven by the same kinds of bureaucratic malfeasance and self-dealing that conservatives have criticized in other public sector unions."

The main reason it's hard to fire bad cops is that police unions fight hard to keep them on the force mo matter how bad they are. The refusal to back up Floyd's killers and those cops in Buffalo is highly unusual.

Same goes for all other public sector unions. Their goals are to protect their members and get them the highest compensation they can. They aren't there to help the public. The difference between public and private sector unions is that if I get lousy quality from Ford, I'll start buying GM or Toyota or Honda. If I have lousy quality from my local police, I don't have an alternative.

[JBS]

Yes, from the article:

Furthermore, a recent study found that crime tended to rise after high-profile killings by police offices. These increases were driven not by criminals getting more dangerous or police facing blowback, but by police unions responding to criticism by organizing "slowdowns," in which large numbers of police violated their oaths to protect the public and simply stopped doing as much police work. As a result, violent crime rose.

What I was referencing.

You said

That article criticizes the various departments for pulling back enforcement after negative publicity 

Police departments are not police unions. Officials telling officers not to patrol regularly is very different than police unions organizing  a "blue flu". The article says  the former  did  not happen, but the latter (or various equivalents) did.

[drogulus]

The main reason it's hard to fire bad cops is that police unions fight hard to keep them on the force mo matter how bad they are. The refusal to back up Floyd's killers and those cops in Buffalo is highly unusual.

Same goes for all other public sector unions. Their goals are to protect their members and get them the highest compensation they can. They aren't there to help the public. The difference between public and private sector unions is that if I get lousy quality from Ford, I'll start buying GM or Toyota or Honda. If I have lousy quality from my local police, I don't have an alternative.

     Protecting members is an important function and a public good. In economic terms the loss of public employee unions will further weaken labor's ability to benchmark wages for all employees. This has been disastrous for workers and firms that sell to them, as wages paid circulate up to businesses. The same rules apply as they do everywhere, the "thrift paradox" policies hurt everyone, including the people who are supposed to benefit, like my capitalist self. It's stupid. We should want labor to get enough of the gains to keep up demand or the gap will continue to widen. The circuit produces optimal results when growth is favored for everyone. We shouldn't to trying to create weak links, as though the lost gains will be recovered by "deserving" others. Idling resources in a lower demand environment reduces total gains. Nobody wins, but some people lose more than others.

[JBS]

     Protecting members is an important function and a public good. In economic terms the loss of public employee unions will further weaken labor's ability to benchmark wages for all employees. This has been disastrous for workers and firms that sell to them, as wages paid circulate up to businesses. The same rules apply as they do everywhere, the "thrift paradox" policies hurt everyone, including the people who are supposed to benefit, like my capitalist self. It's stupid. We should want labor to get enough of the gains to keep up demand or the gap will continue to widen. The circuit produces optimal results when growth is favored for everyone. We shouldn't to trying to create weak links, as though the lost gains will be recovered by "deserving" others. Idling resources in a lower demand environment reduces total gains. Nobody wins, but some people lose more than others.

You're ignoring the two big differences.

In the private sector employers don't run for office  so unions / employees can't make campaign contributions to the people who negotiate  with them over wages, benefits, and working conditions.  Elected officials have an actual incentive to let public unions do what they want.

In the private sector if  customer service is bad or prices too high because of labor costs, consumers can look for alternatives.  In the public sector they can't.

[drogulus]

You're ignoring the two big differences.

In the private sector employers don't run for office  so unions / employees can't make campaign contributions to the people who negotiate  with them over wages, benefits, and working conditions.  Elected officials have an actual incentive to let public unions do what they want.

In the private sector if  customer service is bad or prices too high because of labor costs, consumers can look for alternatives.  In the public sector they can't.

     The level of public service is threatened by the same forces that wish to abolish labor rights for public employees. If governments want to raise the level of service they should require membership in a union as a condition of employment. Also, Repubs could influence union contracts if they supported labor more effectively, by which I mean at all. If Repubs want influence on labor decisions they should try less hard to make labor the enemy.

[Todd]

How Hegemony Ends

The Unraveling of American Power

But this time really is different...

A reinvigorated U.S. foreign policy apparatus should be able to exercise significant influence on international order even in the absence of global hegemony. But to succeed, Washington must recognize that the world no longer resembles the historically anomalous period of the 1990s and the first decade of this century. The unipolar moment has passed, and it isn't coming back.

One can only hope this time really is different.

[JBS]

Ok, blame the unions entirely if that helps. It might be true about them being behind the "blue flu" but I think it's terribly wrong to tell officers who are at higher risk due to a media maelstrom to go back into riskier neighborhoods with less precautions. I don't think every department will risk the lives of those involved when the risks are so much higher, either. Those that do will probably face much higher turnover. The reforms in the much touted Camden, NJ PD have lead to many officers leaving.

So you are claiming that it's necessary for police to brutalize and randomly kill people for reasons of police safety.

Very well.

[drogulus]

     White House ordered NIH to cancel coronavirus research funding, Fauci says

The involvement of the White House is a new wrinkle in a story that has appalled and angered scientists. Since the grant was nixed in late April, scientists had speculated that politics and a conspiracy theory played a role in canceling funding for the research, which was in good scientific standing and seen as critical work. The grant, titled "Understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence," was originally funded by the NIH in 2014 and renewed for another five years in 2019 after receiving an outstanding peer-review score.

The research is run by EcoHealth Alliance Inc., a nonprofit based in New York, but it collaborates with a virologist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, who works with bat coronaviruses. The WIV became the center of a conspiracy theory that suggested that the pandemic coronavirus originated in or escaped from a lab at the institute.

"Eventually, we'll all know the shoddy truth of how a conspiracy theory pushed by this administration led @NIHDirector to block the only US research group still working in China to analyze

COVID origins," he wrote. "Thanks to this China can now do the research, we can't!"

Scientists, meanwhile, have roundly refuted claims that the WIV was the source of the new coronavirus, noting that natural spillover from animals is the most likely source.

In an April 18 comment to ScienceInsider, the WIV virologist working with EcoHealth— Shi Zhengli—also disputed the link, saying that "the closest progenitor of COVID-19 virus is still mysterious and it's definitely not from my lab or any other labs... It's a shame to make the science so complicated."

     It's best to block research to preserve the purity of our "we don't know anything about it" beliefs.

If that's how you view police work not much can be said. The hatred for LE is baffling for a law abiding citizen such as myself. 

     Respect for law enforcement requires that police respect the people they are supposed to be protecting. When they do, the results are much better. The advantage of shooting lots of people as a policing tactic is imaginary, and the same for choking people to death.

[JBS]

If that's how you view police work not much can be said. The hatred for LE is baffling for a law abiding citizen such as myself.

The implication of your prior post is that you think that keeping police from brutalizing the population and randomly killing people with little or no consequence would endanger their safety. If that's not what you think, then you need to find a better way of saying what you do think.