U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

They wouldn't.  Let's start from the beginning.  The EO directs agencies to enforce the CRA by including the IHRA's more expansive definition of antisemitism.  On its face, I don't see anything wrong with that, as the IHRA's definition of antisemitism is not objectionable.  However, the underlying motivation for this order is to threaten private groups - pretty much exclusively universities - that grant a forum/platform/what have you to pro-Palestinian groups, particularly the BDS movement as that is popular right now across campuses nationwide.  Policywise, this order is barely effectual, basically symbolic (there's a bunch of EOs throughout history that "guide" how agencies enforce policy that are subsequently wholly ignored).  Politically, it's an implicit way to cast any supporter of the BDS movement as antisemitic.

Ah, so you were using "mollify" sarcastically.  Got it.

[DMC]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Ah, so you were using "mollify" sarcastically.  Got it.

Yeah, was about to post myself, I think your confusion is based on my use of "mollify" there.  Sorry about that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, was about to post myself, I think your confusion is based on my use of "mollify" there.  Sorry about that.

All good, yeah, was 100% the source of confusion.  What would be the answer to the answer man?

[DMC]

BTW guys, here's the IHRA's definition of antisemitism, which includes:

Quote

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Going over their list of potential examples of antisemitism, I can't find a single one I'd raise issue with.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

*nevermind.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

*nevermind.

How dare you give me a notification with nothing there!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

How dare you give me a notification with nothing there!

Because I'M EVIL.  

But, will go on record and agree with you that the issue du jour was probably a bit oversensationalized in the press which was probably the intent in the first place......

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

But, will go on record and agree with you that the issue du jour was probably a bit oversensationalized in the press which was probably the intent in the first place......

CAPTIONS! CAPTIONS! CAPTIONS!

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Because I'M EVIL.  

If lawyers are soulless, can they also be evil?  These are the types of questions I hope to explore when visiting my sister and her husband - who I will inevitably ask for money when my academic career goes caput - over the holidays.

Anyway, yeah, I really was just kind of confounded by the nature of the criticism going on here.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If lawyers are soulless, can they also be evil?  These are the types of questions I hope to explore when visiting my sister and her husband - who I will inevitably ask for money when my academic career goes caput - over the holidays.

Anyway, yeah, I really was just kind of confounded by the nature of the criticism going on here.

The absence of soul is the essence of evil?

But I digress.  I think the NYT article was not particularly helpful or informative, and if one only read that, one might be excused for taking away a particular point of view.  Mind you, I don't trust anything this administration does, and I generally oppose legislation by Executive Order (the doublespeak that this administration engages in to both approve executive orders and gut other regulatory action is breathtaking, but again, I digress).

[Bael's Bastard]

10 hours ago, sologdin said:

order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion

wtf. they're not even trying to be coy any more with this nuremberg law bullshit.

That's not a remotely accurate comparison.

1. It turns out that reports about Trump's executive order recognizing Jews as an ethnicity or nationality were not accurate. Other than calling for use of the IHRA definitions of antisemitism, it doesn't appear to have changed much of anything about the application of Title VI to antisemitism.

2. That said, many who rushed to condemn the idea of recognizing Jews as an ethnicity or nationality have ignored the fact that Jews traditionally and the central religious texts of Judaism have always self identified as a distinct people/nation with a shared ancestry, god/religious observance, language, culture, and land. Religion was always one major component of Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew peoplehood, but never it's own separate thing. 

To be born a Jew or to convert is to belong to the Jewish people according to Jewish law. To this day, when someone converts to Judaism, regardless of how liberal or conservative the movement, they do not simply make a private personal religious change, but join the Jewish people, and adopt all of the shared components of being a Jew.

Trump doesn't deserve benefit of the doubt. We can be certain he didn't do this out of the goodness of his heart. But that doesn't mean the executive order is wrong or bad for Jews. Protecting the Jewish minority in America, annually one of the top victims of hate crimes in the US, increasingly on US campuses under the guise of protesting Israel, from racist harassment and intimidation is just as important as protecting other minorities in this country. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The absence of soul is the essence of evil?

Ah, so the conception of the soul should be viewed as inherently positive or "good," as in there are no evil souls?  Seems like a typically lawyer-y construct, like Kaiser Soze's warning ("the greatest trick...")

22 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think the NYT article was not particularly helpful or informative, and if one only read that, one might be excused for taking away a particular point of view.  Mind you, I don't trust anything this administration does, and I generally oppose legislation by Executive Order (the doublespeak that this administration engages in to both approve executive orders and gut other regulatory action is breathtaking, but again, I digress).

Especially considering they simultaneously published Jared Kushner's op-ed in which he specifically emphasizes "The executive order does not define Jews as a nationality. It merely says that to the extent that Jews are discriminated against for ethnic, racial or national characteristics, they are entitled to protection by the anti-discrimination law."  Which, again, on its face is not objectionable - Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs are similarly protected based on their shared heritage/ethnicity.  And certainly should be!  

To be clear, though, I am opposed to the EO because it's a transparent threat to universities that have the gall to allow/hold/promote BDS activities.  We'll see if Blackwater Devos' Education Department has the temerity to actually withhold funding to a public university based on this, but as someone who studies EOs for his pittance of a living, I can say with some authority this type of EO usually has negligible impact on agencies' implementation of policy (at least based on the draft I cited).

[Zorral]

Polling fail?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-tougher-to-qualify-for-the-december-democratic-debate/

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/polling-drought-helps-winnow-democratic-debate-field.html

 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Polling fail?

Morning Consult, Economist/YouGov, and Reuters/Ipsos should indeed by counted by the DNC (it's particularly curious they did count Reuters for the first two debates, then stopped).  Other than that, I'm inclined to say tough shit.  Especially this late in the cycle.

[Guest]

The internet says that Pete's time at McKinsey involved rapacious health industry stuff.  Is this true?  That would seem to be fairly brutal if so, and I would expect Warren and Sanders camps to pounce as hard as possible.  

[all swedes are racist]

23 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The internet says that Pete's time at McKinsey involved rapacious health industry stuff.  Is this true?  That would seem to be fairly brutal if so, and I would expect Warren and Sanders camps to pounce as hard as possible.  

seems like it. his own timeline would put him pretty right off that bat working on a “cost saving” plan for a large insurance company in michigan around 2007, and shortly after blue cross blue shield michigan laid off a thousand workers and raised rates by up to 55%. not a good look and hopefully warren and sanders both make as much hay with this as possible

[Darzin]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

The internet says that Pete's time at McKinsey involved rapacious health industry stuff.  Is this true?  That would seem to be fairly brutal if so, and I would expect Warren and Sanders camps to pounce as hard as possible.  

No it;s a nothing burger, two years after he worked on their file they laid off some employees.

40 minutes ago, parody account said:

seems like it. his own timeline would put him pretty right off that bat working on a “cost saving” plan for a large insurance company in michigan around 2007, and shortly after blue cross blue shield michigan laid off a thousand workers and raised rates by up to 55%. not a good look and hopefully warren and sanders both make as much hay with this as possible

"Shortly after" being 2009 after the financial crisis. Pete receives criticism for Blue Cross laying off workers two years after he worked on their file, and Bernie and Warren should "make hay" when they  want to eliminate the entire  private insurance industry which is over 600,000 jobs.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, parody account said:

seems like it. his own timeline would put him pretty right off that bat working on a “cost saving” plan for a large insurance company in michigan around 2007, and shortly after blue cross blue shield michigan laid off a thousand workers and raised rates by up to 55%. not a good look and hopefully warren and sanders both make as much hay with this as possible

And unlike Uncle Joe there's now way Pete gets away with some kind of "incremental" or something.  MoFo knows exactly what and is wrong as fuck.  

Pete should be gone over this if the details are that bad (eg, told health ins. how to profit)

ETA:  Well then, @Darzin

I'll stand by

[DMC]

What a stupid way to attack and/or dismiss a candidate.  Watched Noah's Daily Show on Monday, and I think he delivered it best, albeit he was referring to the bitching about Warren - "that's right, before running for president, [they] had a job!"  God damn that bastard for succeeding, grrr.  Where is the direct connection between Buttigieg's clients and specific wrongdoing?

[Darzin]

This whole article is worth a read if you are interested in the "scandal" but I'll quote the best bits.

Quote

Maximum employment is a valuable goal, and most of us feel bad on a human level for any person who loses their job. If you believe in capitalism (as Buttigieg, a liberal, certainly does) then you accept the need for churn in the labor market, as the economy innovates and the composition of the workforce changes. Socialists are much more skeptical of labor-market churn than liberals are, but even socialists tend to treat certain categories of employment as net negatives for society. Any left-wing program would eliminate jobs in fields like coal mining, oil drilling, and finance.

Private health insurance is definitely in the negative social value category. The left-wing line on private insurance is that it is (to quote Bernie Sanders) “an incredibly wasteful, bureaucratic, profit-making and complicated system”. The charge against Buttigieg is that he played a role in making that incredibly wasteful, bureaucratic, profit-making system slightly less wasteful.

Quote

Now Buttigieg may have played a role in destroying precious jobs in an industry the left wants to do away with altogether. Buttigieg also did consulting work for, among other clients, the Defense Department. What if he was complicit in cutting costs at the Pentagon? The scandal!

Leaving aside that the chance of them firing people because of him two years after he left is so small as to not be worth considering.