U. S Politics: I know why the caged babe screams.

[Relic]

14 hours ago, Mexal said:

Totally normal.

 

How can this be allowed? Presidential powers in the USA need to be severely scaled back after we get this piss puddle out of office. 

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Relic said:

How can this be allowed? Presidential powers in the USA need to be severely scaled back after we get this piss puddle out of office. 

Well, he got his channel to Moscow.

[Relic]

Can someone explain how this is legal?

 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

Can someone explain how this is legal?

 

Cause MAGA

[Fragile Bird]

I just saw a story about NBC investigating the royalty fees they pay to Getty for using certain pictures in stories, in particular images of Melania Trump prior to the election of her husband.

NBC and many, many news outlets go to Getty for images because, well, they don’t have that much stuff in their own files. 

Now, as you can imagine, the fee Getty charges typically is split between Getty, for running their business, and the photographer, for taking the picture. But it turns out that there is a particular photographer that Melania has used to take pictures, and she has a deal with Getty and the photographer to split the royalties with her. No flies on the Trump clan!

Recently filed disclosure reports show Melania earned somewhere between $100,000 and $1M in 2017 alone (the exact amount doesn’t need to be disclosed) from royalties from around the world from those pictures. The lady’s in the news, right?

And on top of that, the agreement with Getty says the pictures can only be used in positive stories about her.

NBC says they were unaware of the ‘positive story’ angle and never made any kind of agreement to police the tone of their stories. But they have been contacting a long list of news organizations asking them if they were aware of the Getty royalties being paid to Melania, and not only did they not know, they then pulled all of the images off their web pages.

Some organizations, like the Hearst news group, would not talk to NBC and have not pulled any images.

My mind is boggled by the idea of a White House that does this.

Wait, haven’t I repeatedly said I didn’t think there was anything Trump et al could do that could surprise me anymore, and then I keep getting surprised?

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, felice said:

Because the 40 hour week is a two-century-old demand. With our current level of technology, a 20 hour work week should be standard and pay enough to live on. Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement.

30 hours I think for now. But eventually, probably 15-20hrs. AI hasn't got that good just yet.

[OldGimletEye]

21 hours ago, SweetPea said:

What is wrong with that suggestion?

Alright, some idiot called the cops, the cops realized the kid did nothing wrong and they left. This is basically a non-story.  I don't see your point.

 

You know, I’m not really sure if you are that clueless or you aren’t that clueless and just trolling me.

But, I’ll go ahead further the cause of “civility” and assume that you really are that clueless. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with hard work. But, the problem with Gingrich’s comment is that it acts like the problems of the poor and the problems of minorities, and particularly that of African Americans, would be solved if they just worked harder and showed more “personal responsibility”. Gingrich’s comment acts as if government policies, whether past or present, don’t matter and that institutional arrangements don’t matter. That simply is very suspect notion to have and as such, it is very cl assist, racist, and sexist.

Over the course of these threads I’ve posted studies showing 1) the long term damage done to the south in terms of economic development because of the power of the slave holding class, 2) damage done to African Communities because of the practice of redlining, the effect of which lasted for decades according to the authors, 3) evidence of female financial advisers being punished more harshly for misconduct than their male counterparts who engage in similar misconduct, 4) evidence that generational mobility in the US isn’t nearly high as most Americans think it is, and others I’ve probably forgotten about.

All these studies and others suggest that the effects of racism can persist for a very long time and things are just a simple matter of people working harder or having more “personal responsibility”.

Of course the whole idea of people “working harder” or showing more “personal responsibility” is central to American conservative ideology. If it is shown to be a very suspect and questionable notion, then the entire edifice of American conservatism starts to crumble. Conservatives would like people to be like that old horse in Orwell’s Animal Farm who constantly says, “I’ll just work harder this time”, while being completely oblivious to bad policies and bad institutional arrangements around him.

It’s been about 40 years since the Reagan revolution and conservatives promised us that if we just had more personal responsibility and if we cut taxes for the rich, we would all be richer and see greater economic growth. Neither prediction has panned out as predicted by US conservatives.

Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t, at this juncture, point out Puke Gingrich’s other extremely stupid comment, parroted by many conservatives, about Obama being the “food stamp” president, which was more dog whistle politics. And if course if you are confused about this then I recommend reading Lee Atwater. The reason of course for the higher higher food stamp usage when old Puke made them was because of the high unemployment rate brought on by the GFC. That situation was made worse by nearly 10 years of conservative stupidity ie inflation is just around the corner! let’s get back to the gold standard!, etc. etc. Of course we should know by now that high rates of unemployment can persist for a very long time as markets can be disequilibrium for awhile*. Of course when the state of unemployment is high, minorities and the poor are likely to be hit the hardest and it isn’t just matter of them showing more “personal responsibility” or “working harder”.

Policy responses matter here. It isn’t just a matter of “hard work” or “personal responsibility”.

Also right about now, we are accumulating more and more evidence about monopsony power in labor markets, which if you don’t know tends to depress workers wages. Fixing this issue, has nothing to do with getting people to work harder or to show more “personal responsibility”. It has more to do with fixing institutional arrangement, like bolstering the strength of labor unions, and liking reversing the damage done to anti-Trust law brought on by the likes Robert Dork, oops, I meant Bork.

The point here is you just can’t say to minorities, the poor, or women and say “oh but you just need to work harder and appreciate the value of hard work and all will be well.” Because that just isn’t true. And just saying that it’s just a matter of valuing hard work is a vicious and nasty smear against all those people.

A young man like Reggie Fields goes out and tries to do the right thing by working hard and yet gets the cops called on him for the “crime” of accidentally mowing in the neighbor’s yard (the horror! The horror!). Now you can say, “oh but this is just an isolated incident of some crazy old white person calling the police and we shouldn’t worry about it.” Except we should worry about it. A lot.  Every time a white person picks up the phone to call the cops on a minority person, they need to ask themselves this question, “If the person were white, would I be calling the cops on them?” As Reggie grows up and makes his way in this world he shouldn’t have to feel like he is going to get a little bit of extra special scrutiny because of the color of his skin. It’s a real bad message to tell the Reggie’s of the world that they just need to understand the value of “hard work” and yet they end up going through life, feeling they have a big ball and chain attached to their leg.

I don’t know much time you’ve spent reading conservative/libertarian political philosophy, but a big theme within their writings is the value stable rules and laws in order to protect liberty. But, in order for this to work, I’d submit, people have to buy into those laws or rules as being legitimate. If people like Reggie feel that they get one set of rules, while everyone else gets a different set of rules, there is no particular reason for the Reggie’s of the world to have particular respect for the system. Accordingly, it seems to me that conservatives/libertarians should be extremely interested in making sure people like Reggie get a fair deal. But, then of course, conservatism stopped being a serious intellectual enterprise decades ago and has descended into a whole bunch of clown assery.

I don’t know how much knowledge or experience you have with the criminal justice system , but having a tangle with the criminal justice system can be a big fuckin’ hassle, even if you later get proved to be innocent or the prosecutor decides eventually to dismiss the case (of course whether the prosecutor decides to dismiss the case may depend on how well the criminal lawyer presses the issues and calls the prosecutor on his bluffing). Going to court to fight the state’s case can takes a lot of time, which can end up being extremely costly, particular if you work an hourly wage, and end up having to miss work to go to court. Of course even getting to court can be a challenge, if your too broke to even own car, and have to take bus to get to court.

Of course, often, poor minorities, or the poor, are likely just to reach a plea agreement, even if innocent, because fighting the state’s charges is just too time consuming or costly. This can often wind up in jail time, fines, or probation, all of which can end up being quite burdensome when your financial means are limited.

Also, prosecutors typically overcharge defendants as a strategy to get them plead guilty to something. If your financial means are limited, it’s probably more likely you’ll end up pleading to a charge that a defendant with better financial means might not have agreed to. And then of course, you might be less likely to assert a whole bunch of matters in pre-trial motions (fourth amendment violations and so forth).

If people like Reggie end up getting charged more often with crimes or having the cops called on him for the most bullshit of reasons, it can end up being a real drag. For this reason, we should be extremely concerned with people like Reggie getting the police called on him for very trivial stuff. And white people need to think very clearly whether they’re calls to police are being tainted by racial prejudice.

Now interesting enough, there has been some stuff that has come out lately, that rebuts Puke Gingrich’s hard work bullshit, particularly as it applies to African Americans.

One study:

https://voxeu.org/article/race-and-economic-opportunity-united-states

Quote

The sources of racial disparities in income have been debated for decades. This column uses data on 20 million children and their parents to show how racial disparities persist across generations in the US. For instance, black men have much lower chances of climbing the income ladder than white men even if they grow up on the same block. In contrast, black and white women have similar rates of mobility. The column discusses how such findings can be used to reduce racial disparities going forward.

Random comments:

Quote

Among those who grow up in families with comparable incomes, black men grow up to earn substantially less than the white men. In contrast, black women earn slightly more than white women conditional on parent income. Moreover, there is little or no gap in wage rates or hours of work between black and white women.

Now this is interesting. It would seem that black women, conditional on income, do about as well as white women. Now this rebuts race based explantions, ala Charles Murray style. Of course, given the fact most black women are likely to be born in poorer households, they on aggregate don’t earn as much as their white female counterparts.

Quote

Black children are much more likely to grow up in single parent households with less wealth and parents with lower levels of education – all factors that have received attention as potential explanations for black-white disparities.

Now this by itself is an issue. But evidently, lack of family wealth isn't the only explanation. The author's write:

Quote

But, when we compare the outcomes of black and white men who grow up in two-parent families with similar levels of income, wealth, and education, we continue to find that the black men still have substantially lower incomes in adulthood. Hence, differences in these family characteristics play a limited role in explaining the gap.

 

Quote

Perhaps most controversially, some have proposed that racial disparities might be due to differences in innate ability. This hypothesis does not explain why there are black–white intergenerational gaps for men but not women. Moreover, black-white gaps in test scores – which have been the basis for most prior arguments for ability differences – are substantial for both men and women. The fact that black women have outcomes comparable to white women conditional on parental income despite having much lower test scores suggests that standardised tests do not provide accurate measures of differences in ability (insofar as it is relevant for earnings) by race, perhaps because of stereotype anxiety or racial biases in tests. 

This seems to be a way of “civilly” saying, “Charles Murray, your’e full of shit.” If I were writing the paper, I’d just say, “Charles Murray you’re full of shit, you fuckin' sorry ass clown.” But, that is just me.

Also again, controlling for parental income, black females do as well as white females in test scores. But “controlling for parental income” is a big qualification. Since more black females are likely to come for poor households, they are more likely to not do as well on test. Environmental factors are in play here.

Quote

In low-poverty neighbourhoods, two types of factors are most strongly associated with better outcomes for black men and smaller black-white gaps: low levels of racial bias among whites and high rates of father presence among blacks.

Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches – earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

Now a couple of comments here:

1. The study clearly indicates, that racism affects outcomes for black men so far as income mobility is concerned.

2. The study also indicates that the presence of fathers is a key factor. Now, I know conservatives may think they have big talking point here, as conservatives have long been beating the drum that LBJ’s great society programs was responsible for the break up of African American families. This has lead to all types of conservative nonsense like “Democrat’s are the real racist!” and “Black People need to get off the Democrat plantation!” and so forth. But, the fact of the matter is that black marriage rates started to fall apart in the late 1940s and the early 1950s, long before LBJ ever got elected or the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s happened, which are the typical culprits in the conservative story of things. Most likely some kind of structural racism is likely to be a better explanation why african american marriage rates started to fall apart during the late 1940s/ early 1950s.

Quote

Black men who move to better areas – such as those with low poverty rates, low racial bias, and higher father presence – earlier in their childhood have higher incomes and lower rates of incarceration as adults. These findings show that environmental conditions during childhood have causal effects on racial disparities, demonstrating that the black-white income gap is not immutable.

Yes environmental factors are in play here. But, we should have already known that.

And here is another study that has recently come out. 

https://socialequity.duke.edu/sites/socialequity.duke.edu/files/site-images/FINAL COMPLETE REPORT_.pdf

Some key implications:

1. Greater educational attainment doesn’t explain black/white wealth gaps.

Quote

Figure 1 summarizes our findings when we compare wealth levels for heads of
households with the same educational attainment across racial groups. Both for blacksand whites, median household wealth increases as heads obtain higher levels of education. However, it is apparent that for blacks getting a college, or a graduate degree is far from sufficient to close the wealth gap.

2. Black people save as much as their white counterparts.

Quote

The finding advanced in peer reviewed articles in economic journals is clear: there is no evidence that black Americans have a lower savings rate than white Americans once household income is taken into account (Hamilton and Chiteji, 2013). For example, Maury Gittleman and Edward Wolff (2004) using data from the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), tracked the financial position of black and white families and found that, once income is controlled, if anything, black families actually have a slightly higher savings rate than their white counterparts.

 

3. More Republican Party, ala Jack Kemp, “business friendly, supply side policies”, which promote entrepreneurship isn’t likely to solve the problem.”

Quote

Entrepreneurship has long been praised as a route to eliminate racial wealth inequality.As an adjunct to Myth 3, entrepreneurship has been identified as a path to the phantasm of black capitalism. For at least three decades internet wealth gurus, blackand white, have told people if they only left salaried employment and struck out on theirown, they could get rich like the late 19th century robber barons. The problem is this hasnot been borne out by the evidence, nor has it proven to be accurate advice undercurrent circumstances. 

Also,

Quote

In addition, Levine and Rubenstein (2017) have shown that the significant edge in
entrepreneurship held by white males originates in their serendipitous birth into more
affluent families. No better example is available than billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook, who, while often touted as self-made, in fact according to businessinsider.com purportedly received initial working capital from his professional father in 2004, in exchangefor shares in Facebook that are now worth millions. Another good example is billionaire,Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon in 1994 with a $300,000 loan from his parents (“Who Is Jeff Bezos?” 2013). 

In short, getting to home base is hell of lot easier when your born on second or third base.

4. The “successful immigrant” trope promoted by conservatives has little basis in reality.

Quote

Take the Cuban-American and Korean communities for example, which, if we examine
the groups using income alone, appear to provide prima facie evidence for the
immigrant success trope. But the “lateral mobility” hypothesis (Darity 1989) argues that the relative social position held by the majority of adult immigrants in their country oforigin will be regained by their children. In short, so-called “successful” immigrant
groups actually retrieve a comparable class position as the one they held in their
country of origin. Their pre-migration capital, whether embodied in their education and training or their financial resources, is critical in determining their outcomes in the United States. 

So to wrap up. Puke Gingrich is just wrong.  

And if even if this comes somewhat “uncivilly” he and his fellow travelers can go jump in a fuckin’ lake.

I hope this clears things up for you.

*or perhaps high unemployment is actually a general equilibrium result, depending on the state of expectations. An interesting read for conservative sorts of people’s conservative reading pleasure.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/573b5f2bf85082a897b58171/t/5ae51bad03ce64d372c62d81/1524964270609/Animal_Spirits_in_a_Monetary_Model.pdf

[LongRider]

#secondcivilwarletters

 

go waste some time getting a few laffs on twitter

 

[LongRider]

Check out the photos of this display in the article

Indianapolis church puts holy family in ‘ICE detention’ in bold statement about immigration policy

 

Quote

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – An Indianapolis church is sending a message about the nation’s current immigration crisis.

Christ Church Cathedral put up the display at their lawn on Monument Circle overnight. It shows statues of Mary, Joseph and Jesus in a cage.

“On our lawn tonight we placed The Holy Family…in #ICE detention,” the church wrote on its Twitter page.

The display has a sign saying #EveryFamilyIsHoly and its Spanish equivalent, #CadaFamiliaEsSagrada.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Check out the photos of this display in the article

Indianapolis church puts holy family in ‘ICE detention’ in bold statement about immigration policy

 

 

Reminds me a bit of the Green Party in Bavaria 20 years or so ago (not to be mistaken with whatever the Green party in the US is supposed to be). They had campaign posters which read: Beckstein [Bavarian Interiorminister back then] would also deport Jesus.

 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Way to prove my point.  Dude, consolidate your thoughts!

 

Either way, thanks for the advice. I will hold it in the same esteem as any writing seminar run by a grad school TA.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

30 hours I think for now. But eventually, probably 15-20hrs. AI hasn't got that good just yet.

I agree with this--not all jobs are ready for such a massive cutback, but what about the ones that are? I cannot think of a career in this country where working less has reasonably been considered. For example, if we were to retool the education system so teachers and kids weren't locked up all day together and forced to be there--there are a lot of models of this that I don't want to get into except to say that realistic models of less schooling and better results do exist--the response from the right would be: "teachers already don't work enough." Or that teachers need to be paid less if they work less. 

When I stopped teaching in public education and went into higher ed, the first thing my department chair said me was that I had no required set of hours to be in my office except whatever office hours I assigned myself. I teach Tuesday and Thursday, I have office hours right after class, and the rest of the week I come and go as I please. They don't doubt the work I do outside of my office. I bring this us because this is incredibly rare. When I taught secondary education, the superintendent instituted a policy that on late start snow days (we might start at 11am due to terrible weather) that teachers still had to be there at 7:30am. I always saw this as extremely cynical but wholly representative of how American work hours are logged. If you're not on the premises, then you're not working.

So, how do we get it down to 30 hours a week and make the argument that wages should remain constant? An interesting development, for me, is that now I am not chained to work, I find myself probably working more than I ever did. Because I like it.

[Jace, Extat]

The right really would  start a second civil war if dems started pushing intelligent work/school reform that saw people work less and become more productive while earning a living wage.

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The right really would  start a second civil war if dems started pushing intelligent work/school reform that saw people work less and become more productive while earning a living wage.

We will be fortunate if the Wal-Amazon MegaCorp does not revoke all bathroom breaks.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I think you can start with minimum annual vacation days and maternity/paternity leaves before going for the 30 hour work week stuff.  

As far as I know there is not a single developed country that doesn't have a legally stipulated minimum of vacation time, except the USA. 

[ThinkerX]

I see two major issues with the 20-30 hour work week as 'standard.'

 

1 - Paying a living wage for so little working time is likely to be genuinely rough on employers.

2 - And people do what, exactly, with the extra time?  I anticipate lots of stupid, even criminal things happening as people try to fill the empty hours.  Folks here remember the joy of being on unemployment for protracted periods?  Long, empty days?  Last year, I hired my daughter to fill in a couple days a week on the route.  Prior to that, I worked 6-7 hours a day, six days a week, barring the occasional holiday.  Dropping down to four days a week was rough.  Seriously rough.  Yes, I had projects to see to.  Before, those were, 'well, I'll budget a couple hours after work for that.'  Those extra days off, well, those couple hours came and went and left me with the whole rest of the day.

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Relic said:

Can someone explain how this is legal?

Um, Obama campaign merchandise was quite lucrative - even at the WH gift shop.  If you wanna lodge a complaint about money in campaigns boy I got a lot of them, but I'm not even sure pushing merchandise makes that list.  With Citizens United, explain how it possibly could not be legal.

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Either way, thanks for the advice. I will hold it in the same esteem as any writing seminar run by a grad school TA.

Good comeback, but don't disparage TAs.  It's literally a thankless job.

[Bonnot OG]

Happy 4th of July!

 

Remember, today is the day we celebrate the birth of a nation that was lead by a bunch of slave owning entitled reactionaries that didn't want to pay taxes, didn't want to stop slaughtering the indeginous population, and were terrified slavery would be made illegal by the British (which it would be way before we ever abolished it), so they started a "rebolution" which wasn't much of a revolution. 

[Chaircat Meow]

44 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Happy 4th of July!

 

Remember, today is the day we celebrate the birth of a nation that was lead by a bunch of slave owning entitled reactionaries that didn't want to pay taxes, didn't want to stop slaughtering the indeginous population, and were terrified slavery would be made illegal by the British (which it would be way before we ever abolished it), so they started a "rebolution" which wasn't much of a revolution. 

Time out, this is a whopping progressive porkie: there is no evidence that the British intended to abolish slavery in the American colonies and that this prompted the uprising being celebrated in the USA today.

I appreciate this is a politics thread, not a history discussion, but I feel this is somewhat pertinent to the points I made earlier about the progressive idea of racism resting on the western world being founded on a system of racial (and others kinds of) oppression. 

Now, in the case of the black community in the USA this is obviously to a degree true. However, the historical falsehood being propagated by Sword of Doom is intended to enhance this vision of the west as a squalid racial supremacy and it is specifically designed to attack the United states at its core, polluting its foundation myth and denigrating its heroes.

The truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever the British intended to abolish slavery in the colonies, or that this was a material reason for the revolt. There was no government policy to do so. There was no way the British state would have the resources or the will or the desire to enforce any such laws.

Indeed, the only piece of evidence usually adduced to support the idea Britain was threatening slavery is the famous judgement of Lord Justice Mansfeld in the case of Somerset vs Stewart (1772). The learned judge, after much deliberation, refused a slave owner leave to take his slave, who was at the time with him in England, to Jamaica. The judgement itself stated that the slave owner was not permitted to do this as there was no law in England permitting slavery, implying thereby that slavery was illegal in the heart of the British Empire.

In terms of explaining the causes for the revolt in 1776 though, the expression to bear in mind is that one swallow does not make a summer. Mansfeld’s judgement was not part of any consistent campaign by the British government to abolish slavery and it had no impact on the right of colonists or slave traders to own slaves in America or buy them from Africa and transport them across the sea.

It has to also be noted that Britain’s actions in the war show the great importance she placed on maintaining control of the sugar islands (and the system of slavery which stood behind their profits) in the Caribbean. Major naval resources were always concentrated in the Caribbean to the detriment of the war in America and Europe, to prevent the French seizing the slave plantations there. These are not the actions of a power on the verge of abolishing slavery.

Indeed, as it happened it took Britain 31 years after the beginning of the American revolt to ban the slave trade, and another 24 years to outlaw slavery in its tiny Caribbean colonies.

Therefore, as much as I would personally prefer, being British myself, that the foundation of the United States was all an attempt to avoid righteous British abolitionism it is really just not true and is a myth designed to erode the legitimacy and good standing of the USA and its founders.

[Zorral]

Britain effectively abolished slavery in Britain in 1772 (Somerset vs. Stuart) which freaked the southern slaveholders right the eff out.  Read the gazettes and letters exchanged. Speeches in the Assemblies and house of Burgesses The sky was falling.  The next thing would be abolishing slavery here!

Britain insisted colonization remain boxed up on the coast of North America to protect the vastly lucrative fur and hide trades with the Native populations.    Read the speeches in the houses of the colonies governing bodies.  Read Benjamin Franklin, for that matter.  Read the gazettes and letters and journals. New England was NOT about to have that.

Shake rattle and roll and the southern slaveholder and the northern biz folks shook hands and formed cells of insurrection.

The African slave trade itself was another story, which the colonies, with the primary exception of Rhode Island, could not participate in because they did not have any of the items that the Africans demanded for the trade, most particularly the gold coins.  The colonies just didn't have specie.  They also were not to have distilleries for rum either, etc.  So they weren't afraid of the abolition of that trade -- it didn't affect them.  Indeed, they abolished slave trade outside of the states in the Constitution as early as they could -- 1808, the only date in the Constitution, and that was protectionism for the extraordinarily internal slave breeding / trade for the upper south's benefit (home of the southern founders), into the lower and western south.

The Brits abolished the African slave trade to thwart Napoleon re-enslaving France's Caribbean colonies and providing finance for his wars.  Slavery itself in the Caribbean they abolished in 1830's because the Brit Caribbean slave plantation were burned out, the Sugar barons thus no longer powerful in Parliament.  However, the southern crazies were crazy to annex islands such Cuba and so on in order to create MORE slave states into which the descendants of Jefferson etc. could sell yet more slave born on their lands in order to keep living the lifestyle to which they were so accustomed without having to work for a living.