US Politics: A Happy New Year .... Not!

[OnionAhaiReborn]

See, the problem is that while all the parts you quote are interesting, they don't really work to support the thesis the article puts forward.

The bit I quoted doesn't really either, it's just weird and crazy. The quote the articles uses as a statement of the book's thesis suffers the same issue and is also kinda weird and crazy to boot.

The article starts from codifying racial equality before the law into sentencing requirements, which sure, and then makes a crazy jump it doesn't support.

That sections supports the thesis by getting at the broader liberal response to social ills (unrest, crime, economic disparity), of seeking to craft the 'right' set of rules and ensuring they apply equally by eliminating discretion, based on the belief that racism is an issue of individual bias infecting institutions. There's the connection that leads to mandatory minimums and the prison state, the belief that that equality before institutions is sufficient to secure equal outcomes.

[Shryke]

That sections supports the thesis by getting at the broader liberal response to social ills (unrest, crime, economic disparity), of seeking to craft the 'right' set of rules and ensuring they apply equally by eliminating discretion, based on the belief that racism is an issue of individual bias infecting institutions. There's the connection that leads to mandatory minimums and the prison state, the belief that that equality before institutions is sufficient to secure equal outcomes.

But none of that supports the actual conclusions and thesis she is forwarding in the quotes and according to the articles.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But none of that supports the actual conclusions and thesis she is forwarding in the quotes and according to the articles.

Yes, it does. Here's the statement of the book's thesis:

This is the fundamental thesis of Murakawa’s book: legal civil rights and the American carceral state are built on the same conceptions of race, the state and their relationship. As liberals believe that racism is first and foremost a question of individual bias, they imagine racism can be overcome by removing the discretion of (potentially racist) individuals within government through a set of well-crafted laws and rules. If obviously discriminatory laws can be struck down, and judges, statesmen or administrators aren’t allowed to give reign to their racism, then the system should achieve racially just outcomes.

And here the passage I quoted:

Built on the premise that racism is real but manifests as the prejudice of white people, race-liberals argue that individuals’ racism can corrupt institutions and bias them against black people. That bias damages black psyches as well as black people’s economic and social prospects. Race-liberals believe that training, laws, stricter rules and oversight can eliminate prejudice and render institutions “colorblind.” Since it is biased treatment that damages black prospects, then this fix—civil rights—applied to all of society’s institutions, would eventually end racial disparity.

Both race-liberals and race-conservatives base their theories on one disastrous assumption: black people naturally produce crime. For race-conservatives, black people are innately, genetically criminal, full stop. For race-liberals, the psychological, economic and social damage of prejudice makes black people “lash out” violently and criminally–either in the form of individual criminal acts or, as the black freedom movement begins in earnest, as protests and rioting. Under both schema, however, the reason society must achieve racial equality is because equality will eliminate black crime.

The bolded speaks directly to the liberal view articulated in the thesis.

[aceluby]

Well that didn't take long...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/

Republicans in Congress are wasting no time following through on the anti-abortion agenda the GOP laid out after winning significant gains in the 2014 midterm elections.

On Tuesday, the very first day of the 114th Congress, two lawmakers introduced a measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks

Typical GOP big govt solutions to problems that they perpetuate to secure votes. So much for that laser focus on the economy. Oh wait, that's right, the economy will magically just get better because the GOP controls congress now. I forgot.

[Commodore]

Well that didn't take long...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/

Typical GOP big govt solutions to problems that they perpetuate to secure votes. So much for that laser focus on the economy. Oh wait, that's right, the economy will magically just get better because the GOP controls congress now. I forgot.

80% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, 64% in the second trimester

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[lokisnow]

Boom

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7514309/barbara-boxer-retires-rhyme

Senator Barbara Boxer is retiring, so 2016 is now an open senate seat, the first such in California since 1992.

Since California is barred and forbidden from participating in selecting a presidential candidate in the primary process, this just became the most interesting race until November 2016 for me.

Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Tom Steyer and Wendy Greuel will all probably explore running, a few will probably drop out, I imagine it will be Villaraigosa vs Steyer vs Newsome in the primary and Villaraigosa will win, the remainder will wait to divide and fight for the twin prizes of Governor and Feinstein's senate seat in 2018.

Either way, if Villaraigosa wins in 2016 or 2018 Senate or Governor, he'll be extremely well positioned to run for President (his ultimate goal) in 2020, 2024 and beyond.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

80% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, 64% in the second trimester

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

What does the polling say about Americans' views on the exceptions which the Republican legislation makes no provision for?

[awesome possum]

80% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, 64% in the second trimester

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Are you really going to play the, "well this poll says people agree so we need to legislate based on that" game?

[lokisnow]

Also, this is the reason Kashkari bothered to run against Brown last fall, he wanted to be positioned to wrap up the republican nomination for senate, and now he's built a network and credentials for a statewide race that should give him a huge advantage over the other viable republican nominees, unless they draft Schwarzenegger.

[Fez]

The only concern about CA-Sen is a clown-car pile-up in its top-two primary. Where the GOP centers around 2 candidates and the Dems are fractured around 8-10 of them, and the general election ends up being an all-GOP event. Its not particularly likely, but its something the party needs to be mindful of, and take action against if it looks like that's the way things are shaping up.

[Larry of the Lawn]

80% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, 64% in the second trimester

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Most American's also support the abortions when the mother's life is at risk... which is pretty much always in the third trimester.

How do you personally feel about the government telling someone what to do with their own body?

[Commodore]

Boom

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7514309/barbara-boxer-retires-rhyme

Senator Barbara Boxer is retiring, so 2016 is now an open senate seat, the first such in California since 1992.

Since California is barred and forbidden from participating in selecting a presidential candidate in the primary process, this just became the most interesting race until November 2016 for me.

Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Tom Steyer and Wendy Greuel will all probably explore running, a few will probably drop out, I imagine it will be Villaraigosa vs Steyer vs Newsome in the primary and Villaraigosa will win, the remainder will wait to divide and fight for the twin prizes of Governor and Feinstein's senate seat in 2018.

Either way, if Villaraigosa wins in 2016 or 2018 Senate or Governor, he'll be extremely well positioned to run for President (his ultimate goal) in 2020, 2024 and beyond.

It would seem like a very real possibility that a half dozen or more dems could fracture the vote in a jungle primary and two GOP candidates could end up 1-2. That has happened before in CA congressional races.

[Commodore]

How do you personally feel about the government telling someone what to do with their own body?

I imagine the reason 80% oppose abortion in the third trimester is they see it as more than one body by that point. I would include myself in that group.

[Suttree]

I imagine the reason 80% oppose abortion in the third trimester is they see it as more than one body by that point. I would include myself in that group.

Question, unlike the economy does "trickle down" actually work when it comes to the war on science?

In a statement released on Tuesday, Franks referred to 20-week fetuses as “innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia.”

In fact, doctors agree that fetuses cannot survive outside the womb until about 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy, which is considered to be the legal point of viability. At less than 21 weeks, no delivered baby has ever survived. Plus, scientific research has repeatedly confirmed that fetuses cannot feel pain until after they are viable; indeed, even the researchers who are trying to learn more about fetal pain don’t want their findings to be used to justify abortion bans.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Question, unlike the economy does "trickle down" actually work when it comes to the war on science?

What does that have to do with Commodores statement? There is no "scientific" position on abortion, it's philosophical

[Suttree]

What does that have to do with Commodores statement? There is no "scientific" position on abortion, it's philosophical

He is claiming "third trimester" as if it's based in science for a fetus being more than one body.

Regardless why focus on Commodore's statement when we know that at the 20 week mark, which is what this legislation is for, all the reasons given by Franks above are false.

[MerenthaClone]

Also, while he's not wrong about his numbers, most people are willing to make several exceptions that the law doesn't (ie, life of the mother at risk) and more people alter their tune somewhat when they find out exactly how often and why almost all 3rd trimester abortions are done.

People are remarkably uneducated on the topic and so are responding to that gallup poll, and many others, with emotional responses.

[TrackerNeil]

What does that have to do with Commodores statement? There is no "scientific" position on abortion, it's philosophical

Well, I don't think that's entirely true. Although there are indeed philosophical questions in regards to abortion, there are some anti-abortion measures that rely on little or science, and really should. For example, is there a medical need for women to look at ultrasounds of their fetuses? Or a need for a woman to come twice to a clinic? Or for a clinic to have very specific furnishings and equipment that they've never needed before? These are questions that can be settled by medical science, that are currently being settled by politics.

[Shryke]

Yes, it does. Here's the statement of the book's thesis:

And here the passage I quoted:

The bolded speaks directly to the liberal view articulated in the thesis.

But that's not the full thesis.

Like, here's what the article writer uses as the money quote:

The brilliant insight of Murakawa’s book is to locate today’s enforcement of white supremacy in the tool devised by liberals for “solving” the problem of violent, extralegal racism:

Liberal law-and-order translated international battles against colonialism and genocidal racial violence into an agenda of procedural fairness, race-neutral machinery, and formal equality. Race liberals…set out to corrrect the lawlessness, not the lethality, of racial violence. In this sense, the fight for racially just law-and-order was already lost.

In other words, black people were guaranteed safety only from violence falling outside of a fair set of legal rules. A report from Truman’s Presidential Committee on Civil Rights holds that “[a society] cannot permit human beings to be imprisoned or killed in the absence of due process of law without degrading its entire fabric.” (Emphasis mine.) Society can imprison and kill, as long as the law was followed fairly. For race-liberals this is not a contradiction: if racism is a case-by-case fairness problem, if white supremacy is an arbitrary unfairness, then a perfect and fair set of legal rules is mutually exclusive with racism. Therefore, perfectly administered rules ipso facto stop racial discrimination.

This shit is logically unsound and fucking bananas to boot.

And there's the bit above I quoted as well and a few other stray bits where the logic doesn't follow either (like when it claims it's not about equality and then literally a few words later contradicts that statement)

Literally the whole argument is that enforcing racially equal sentencing is like mandatory minimums in that both enforce more sspecific lengths on sentencing. The rest is tenuous connection built on fucking bananas arguments and a rather narrow focus of study ("There is a methodological problem that emerges from focusing on the congressional record to the exclusion of most other data, one that Murakawa indicates awareness of early in the book. The flawed ideological framework described by Murakawa is not the only reason we’re stuck with a metastasizing prison system").

It's an inflammatory headline on top of what appears to be from the article a rather dubious reach.

[Shryke]

Are you really going to play the, "well this poll says people agree so we need to legislate based on that" game?

I love that game cause are Americans way more fucking liberal then Commodore and his string-pullers when polled.