|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves.
Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 02 2014 09:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 08:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 02 2014 08:04 Crushinator wrote:On May 02 2014 08:00 Wolfstan wrote:
Did we really need a study to make findings on the relationship between zoning and property values? People who live live in residential areas zoned next to industrial parks are lower on the social ladder? Quick, fund a study telling me what kind of people I can expect to find living in downtown high rise condos! No I think just assuming things based on gut feelings is superior to quantifying things based on objective data. Obviously? Which reminds me, if we didn't waste so much money on idiot things like science and just trusted are gut we would have more money to buy some of these babies: www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-f-35-guide-2014-4 I don't think there's any real science there. They pulled data that already existed and put it into a report to drive a political agenda. Lobbying basically. I don't think you understand my post there. If we just manned up and cut idiot gov't spending like "Climate Change" lies, SNAP, Medicare, hand outs to the takers etc., then we could buy as many dang F35s as we wanna buy. The Commies are on the rise agin
Misread you as sarcastic 
|
On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought.
I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. 
|
On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool.
Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason.
Edit: I really love how you're evoking the world "reason" after going on a temper tantrum and calling me racist and uncaring. You are exactly what's wrong with politics today.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not quite sure about the point of the preceding discussion, though the aversion to making race an issue is pretty prominent. generally, people agree about one thing in two different ways.
the one thing is that, what matters is really how much money you have, not race.
now, conservatives take this to dispel the racism problem, and period.
liberals on the other hand may take this to extend civil rights to a class level thing, or point out the historical roots that connect black and poor in a way that cannot be ignored with good conscience.
the takeaway is that, given a situation in which [black and poor people are really worse off], does it matter if the sympathy is more extendable to black or to poor? the real people living in difficulty should be the focus.
all of this is just basic sensibility.
|
On May 02 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason.
EDIT: For you Jonny
Call it 'warped' if you will, but it seems evident you have fallen from more than just my own definition of reason.
EDIT: All of the following is a more general statement toward the theme of this debate as of late. <-- corrected per Jonny's request.
While race is an element worthy of consideration in context, the theme is more evident when you you focus on low-income/wealth and low-information/education inequalities.
These inequalities can be seen in various places, with the recent political funding supreme court decisions, the research on who really influences policy, the voting down of the minimum wage, the criminal justice inequalities highlighted in Matt Taibbi's 'The Divide', and more. Many of these have already been discussed at length but some haven't.
The clear theme is that these inequalities are being recognized more and more everyday by more and more people. As distracted as people are with everything there is to distract, the most egregious inequalities are becoming more and more salient in peoples minds. Protest after protest and referendum after referendum has demonstrated they are fed up with it and not going to just lay down and accept it.
Let me make clear, this is not an blanket indictment of inequality at large. This is a critique of current inequalities and worrying trends that see these inequalities at their genesis.
There are jackals on both sides that will jump on every opportunity to weaken their opponents and bolster themselves and their allies, seemingly because they view far too much of political debate and social discussion as essentially a zero-sum endeavor. Allowing oneself to be pulled down into that discourse is easy but unbecoming I find in decent political discourse.
I admit I fail at avoiding said pitfall myself sometimes but I do try to accept when it is pointed out to me, and apologize for any undue malice it inflicts.
That being said I think there can be valuable discussions had around reasonable solutions to identifiable issues. But simply digging ones heels in and refusing to acknowledge scientific knowledge (Rep Broun [R-GA]), economic realities(negatives of inequalities), or the will of the people (Min. Wage, background checks, etc..) is just not a responsible position and it's actually potentially quite dangerous.
I hope for the sake of productive discourse we are able to hold ourselves to the ever so slightly yet unbelievably noticeable higher expectations I've come to enjoy here.
EDIT: Hopefully that clears some things up for you Jonny?
If a viable Republican said something like that even if he/she didn't really mean it he/she would win in a landslide in a presidential election. By 'mean it' I mean push their party to come to that point.
|
On May 02 2014 07:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote:
If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)? I really don't see where you're going here. Are we talking a full time worker and single bread-winner needing to support a family? Are you presupposing a society where there isn't need-based government assistance, in food programs, housing, cash subsidies? Frankly, your straw men (1)Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage (2)Cling to ideological platitudes (3)We hate "collectively-reasoned" rules (4)We view rules as an affront to freedom make your point rather dim. You can stand on your soap box and decry ideological platitudes all day, but if the only thing you know of your opposition is what straw men you choose to characterize him by, you're just another preacher with a message of hellfire.
I don't choose to categorize you guys this way, it's the way it is. I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes and minimum wage. There is never a time where a conservative seems to say, "Well, taxes are low enough," or "Gee, the working poor really need better wages." You have to wonder what it would take to get this sort of admission from someone who is an ardent R-voter.
Minimum wage increase is overdue to keep up with inflation. The national debt has been a skyrocket since the massive Reagan income tax cuts.
Yet, at every step, the platitudes from the right remain the same. Income taxes at an all time low? Better lower them -- raising them would be catastrophic (and socialist). Minimum wage is slipping behind inflation while income-equality reaches new heights? Well, we better not raise the minimum wage.
I suppose you could flip this and say that liberals always want to raise taxes and the minimum wage -- except it wouldn't be true.
I know you guys have your reasons, they've been the same ideological reasons with which conservatives have curbed against these policies since I was born. As if the world never changes, and nuance doesn't exist.
Just my feelings.
|
On May 02 2014 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason. Call it 'warped' if you will, but it seems evident you have fallen from more than just my own definition of reason. While race is an element worthy of consideration in context, the theme is more evident when you you focus on low-income/wealth and low-information/education inequalities. They can be seen in various places, with the recent political funding supreme court decisions, the research on who really influences policy, the voting down of the minimum wage, the criminal justice inequalities highlighted in Matt Taibbi's 'The Divide', and more. Many of these have already been discussed at length but some haven't. The clear theme is that these inequalities are being recognized more and more everyday by more and more people. As distracted as people are with everything there is to distract, the most egregious inequalities are becoming more and more salient in peoples minds. Protest after protest and referendum after referendum has demonstrated they are fed up with it and not going to just lay down and accept it. Let me make clear, this is not an blanket indictment of inequality at large. This is a critique of current inequalities and worrying trends that see these inequalities at their genesis. There are jackals on both sides that will jump on every opportunity to weaken their opponents and bolster themselves and their allies, seemingly because they view far too much of political debate and social discussion as essentially a zero-sum endeavor. Allowing oneself to be pulled down into that discourse is easy but unbecoming I find in decent political discourse. I admit I fail at avoiding said pitfall myself sometimes but I do try to accept when it is pointed out to me, and apologize for any undue malice it inflicts. That being said I think there can be valuable discussions had around reasonable solutions to identifiable issues. But simply digging ones heels in and refusing to acknowledge scientific knowledge (Rep Broun [R-GA]), economic realities(negatives of inequalities), or the will of the people (Min. Wage, background checks, etc..) is just not a responsible position and it's actually potentially quite dangerous. I hope for the sake of productive discourse we are able to hold ourselves to the ever so slightly yet unbelievably noticeable higher expectations I've come to enjoy here.
Why the hell did you write all of this?
Edit: I thought the phrase "environmental racism" was laughably pretentious. Why the hell did that prompt you to make two long posts calling me racist, uncaring and generally ranting against republicans / conservatives? Did I step on your political tribe's toes too hard?
|
On May 02 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason. Call it 'warped' if you will, but it seems evident you have fallen from more than just my own definition of reason. While race is an element worthy of consideration in context, the theme is more evident when you you focus on low-income/wealth and low-information/education inequalities. They can be seen in various places, with the recent political funding supreme court decisions, the research on who really influences policy, the voting down of the minimum wage, the criminal justice inequalities highlighted in Matt Taibbi's 'The Divide', and more. Many of these have already been discussed at length but some haven't. The clear theme is that these inequalities are being recognized more and more everyday by more and more people. As distracted as people are with everything there is to distract, the most egregious inequalities are becoming more and more salient in peoples minds. Protest after protest and referendum after referendum has demonstrated they are fed up with it and not going to just lay down and accept it. Let me make clear, this is not an blanket indictment of inequality at large. This is a critique of current inequalities and worrying trends that see these inequalities at their genesis. There are jackals on both sides that will jump on every opportunity to weaken their opponents and bolster themselves and their allies, seemingly because they view far too much of political debate and social discussion as essentially a zero-sum endeavor. Allowing oneself to be pulled down into that discourse is easy but unbecoming I find in decent political discourse. I admit I fail at avoiding said pitfall myself sometimes but I do try to accept when it is pointed out to me, and apologize for any undue malice it inflicts. That being said I think there can be valuable discussions had around reasonable solutions to identifiable issues. But simply digging ones heels in and refusing to acknowledge scientific knowledge (Rep Broun [R-GA]), economic realities(negatives of inequalities), or the will of the people (Min. Wage, background checks, etc..) is just not a responsible position and it's actually potentially quite dangerous. I hope for the sake of productive discourse we are able to hold ourselves to the ever so slightly yet unbelievably noticeable higher expectations I've come to enjoy here. Why the hell did you write all of this? Edit: I thought the phrase "environmental racism" was laughably pretentious. Why the hell did that prompt you to make two long posts calling me racist, uncaring and generally ranting against republicans / conservatives? Did I step on your political tribe's toes too hard?
I definitely didn't call you racist (although that term has become quite amorphous). Your commentary and it's echos in conservative spheres has a theme of indifference apparent to everyone but people blinded by those spheres.
If you weren't so bullheaded all the time you would realize I am not as ideological or partisan as you think.
I bet if you really tried to come up with something that should be pretty easy to agree on that's tilted right we could agree on something.
Like... I think that everyone (with the obvious restrictions) should know how to use a firearm even if they choose not to own one? And while I think that 30 or 100 round barrel clips for a Saiga or AK are totally unnecessary and completely indefensible in any sort of sporting sense I still think if someone wants to own them they should be able to. I can understand why people may want to place restrictions on them and some restrictions like background checks are pretty damn reasonable.
See? You won't hear that from some partisan ideologue? I'm sure we could find more if you tried.
I am not some die hard partisan who sides with any political party uniformly. I can continue to enervate your erroneous claims, but I can't force you to stop saying them.
|
On May 02 2014 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Americans at highest risk from accidents at chemical plants are largely from minority communities and are disproportionately poor — and industries and regulators are failing to take measures to make their situation any safer, according to a new study (PDF).
These “fenceline zones” are places where chances are highest for death or injury after a chemical accident, and the demographics of these areas form a “pattern of ‘environmental racism,’” according to the report released Wednesday by three environmental groups.
“The percentage of blacks in the fenceline zones is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos in the fenceline zones is 60 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole,” the study, released by the Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean, and Center for Effective Government, said.
Poverty levels in these high-risk zones are 50 percent higher than the rest of the United States, with home values, incomes and education levels significantly lower than national averages in areas closest to chemical plants. And some activists allege the companies intentionally locate their plants in poor communities because they know the residents don’t have the resources to put up a fight.
About 134 million Americans are vulnerable to accidents at chemical plants, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, bleach production facilities, petroleum refineries and paper mills. Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason. Call it 'warped' if you will, but it seems evident you have fallen from more than just my own definition of reason. While race is an element worthy of consideration in context, the theme is more evident when you you focus on low-income/wealth and low-information/education inequalities. They can be seen in various places, with the recent political funding supreme court decisions, the research on who really influences policy, the voting down of the minimum wage, the criminal justice inequalities highlighted in Matt Taibbi's 'The Divide', and more. Many of these have already been discussed at length but some haven't. The clear theme is that these inequalities are being recognized more and more everyday by more and more people. As distracted as people are with everything there is to distract, the most egregious inequalities are becoming more and more salient in peoples minds. Protest after protest and referendum after referendum has demonstrated they are fed up with it and not going to just lay down and accept it. Let me make clear, this is not an blanket indictment of inequality at large. This is a critique of current inequalities and worrying trends that see these inequalities at their genesis. There are jackals on both sides that will jump on every opportunity to weaken their opponents and bolster themselves and their allies, seemingly because they view far too much of political debate and social discussion as essentially a zero-sum endeavor. Allowing oneself to be pulled down into that discourse is easy but unbecoming I find in decent political discourse. I admit I fail at avoiding said pitfall myself sometimes but I do try to accept when it is pointed out to me, and apologize for any undue malice it inflicts. That being said I think there can be valuable discussions had around reasonable solutions to identifiable issues. But simply digging ones heels in and refusing to acknowledge scientific knowledge (Rep Broun [R-GA]), economic realities(negatives of inequalities), or the will of the people (Min. Wage, background checks, etc..) is just not a responsible position and it's actually potentially quite dangerous. I hope for the sake of productive discourse we are able to hold ourselves to the ever so slightly yet unbelievably noticeable higher expectations I've come to enjoy here. Why the hell did you write all of this? Edit: I thought the phrase "environmental racism" was laughably pretentious. Why the hell did that prompt you to make two long posts calling me racist, uncaring and generally ranting against republicans / conservatives? Did I step on your political tribe's toes too hard? I definitely didn't call you racist (although that term has become quite amorphous). Your commentary and it's echos in conservative spheres has a theme of indifference apparent to everyone but people blinded by those spheres.
Let me go back a bit:
But I know it's no big deal right Jonny, because it has a racial component? Which is largely a result of various other factors that I sincerely doubt you accept (but don't know), so that's all I'll say about that. If you want to write the racial component off as insignificant it really doesn't impact the more important aspect of vulnerable people being exploited. You seem to be implying that I don't care about the racial component, that I don't care if minorities are suffering. That's implying racism. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but it reads that way to me.
The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. It also goes onto explain how they are also not being fully informed of the dangers they are being subjected too.
No shit. That's common knowledge to even high school dropouts. I take it you misinterpreted my comments?
|
On May 02 2014 12:31 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 07:33 Danglars wrote:On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote:
If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)? I really don't see where you're going here. Are we talking a full time worker and single bread-winner needing to support a family? Are you presupposing a society where there isn't need-based government assistance, in food programs, housing, cash subsidies? Frankly, your straw men (1)Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage (2)Cling to ideological platitudes (3)We hate "collectively-reasoned" rules (4)We view rules as an affront to freedom make your point rather dim. You can stand on your soap box and decry ideological platitudes all day, but if the only thing you know of your opposition is what straw men you choose to characterize him by, you're just another preacher with a message of hellfire. I don't choose to categorize you guys this way, it's the way it is. I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes and minimum wage. There is never a time where a conservative seems to say, "Well, taxes are low enough," or "Gee, the working poor really need better wages." You have to wonder what it would take to get this sort of admission from someone who is an ardent R-voter. Minimum wage increase is overdue to keep up with inflation. The national debt has been a skyrocket since the massive Reagan income tax cuts. Yet, at every step, the platitudes from the right remain the same. Income taxes at an all time low? Better lower them -- raising them would be catastrophic (and socialist). Minimum wage is slipping behind inflation while income-equality reaches new heights? Well, we better not raise the minimum wage. I suppose you could flip this and say that liberals always want to raise taxes and the minimum wage -- except it wouldn't be true. I know you guys have your reasons, they've been the same ideological reasons with which conservatives have curbed against these policies since I was born. As if the world never changes, and nuance doesn't exist. Just my feelings. Listen, you're making some ideological leaps here if you could but see them. You start out with the straw man "zero taxes" and bridge it to "I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes." Well, if you think the taxes are too high and people who keep them as they are or raise them are in power ... maybe you've gotten tired of hearing the same advice time and time again. That isn't a goal of zero taxes, as even a conservative saint like Laffer would tell you. So expand your mind a little and realize that the "way it is" simply isn't. It's a matter of perspective.
Jonny posted the numbers, but the percentage of workers that made minimum wage was around 3-5% of the population (mine from 2011 2012 BLS show 2.9%. So when we talk about the working poor, you're a far cry away from a majority on minimum wage. This is not even to mention the young getting their first job and the very next year. In fact, over 2/3 of people making minimum wage one year make higher than that in the next (again, BLS statistics).
Thirdly, revenues went up in the years following the tax cuts. The following ~7 years showed higher revenues year after year, and of course spurred growth. I do, like you, notice high deficits ... a result of spending outpacing the revenues. Blame the congressional culture and both party's love of spending bills, not the tax cuts.
The world changes, the political invective remains mostly the same.
|
On May 02 2014 15:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 12:31 Leporello wrote:On May 02 2014 07:33 Danglars wrote:On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote:
If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)? I really don't see where you're going here. Are we talking a full time worker and single bread-winner needing to support a family? Are you presupposing a society where there isn't need-based government assistance, in food programs, housing, cash subsidies? Frankly, your straw men (1)Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage (2)Cling to ideological platitudes (3)We hate "collectively-reasoned" rules (4)We view rules as an affront to freedom make your point rather dim. You can stand on your soap box and decry ideological platitudes all day, but if the only thing you know of your opposition is what straw men you choose to characterize him by, you're just another preacher with a message of hellfire. I don't choose to categorize you guys this way, it's the way it is. I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes and minimum wage. There is never a time where a conservative seems to say, "Well, taxes are low enough," or "Gee, the working poor really need better wages." You have to wonder what it would take to get this sort of admission from someone who is an ardent R-voter. Minimum wage increase is overdue to keep up with inflation. The national debt has been a skyrocket since the massive Reagan income tax cuts. Yet, at every step, the platitudes from the right remain the same. Income taxes at an all time low? Better lower them -- raising them would be catastrophic (and socialist). Minimum wage is slipping behind inflation while income-equality reaches new heights? Well, we better not raise the minimum wage. I suppose you could flip this and say that liberals always want to raise taxes and the minimum wage -- except it wouldn't be true. I know you guys have your reasons, they've been the same ideological reasons with which conservatives have curbed against these policies since I was born. As if the world never changes, and nuance doesn't exist. Just my feelings. Listen, you're making some ideological leaps here if you could but see them. You start out with the straw man "zero taxes" and bridge it to "I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes." Well, if you think the taxes are too high and people who keep them as they are or raise them are in power ... maybe you've gotten tired of hearing the same advice time and time again. That isn't a goal of zero taxes, as even a conservative saint like Laffer would tell you. So expand your mind a little and realize that the "way it is" simply isn't. It's a matter of perspective. Jonny posted the numbers, but the percentage of workers that made minimum wage was around 3-5% of the population (mine from 2011 2012 BLS show 2.9%. So when we talk about the working poor, you're a far cry away from a majority on minimum wage. This is not even to mention the young getting their first job and the very next year. In fact, over 2/3 of people making minimum wage one year make higher than that in the next (again, BLS statistics). Thirdly, revenues went up in the years following the tax cuts. The following ~7 years showed higher revenues year after year, and of course spurred growth. I do, like you, notice high deficits ... a result of spending outpacing the revenues. Blame the congressional culture and both party's love of spending bills, not the tax cuts. The world changes, the political invective remains mostly the same.
More than a quarter of private sector employees make less than $10, i.e. the proposed new minimum wage. Not a majority, but a far cry from the lie of < 3%. I worked at a grocery store as a teenager. I was making minimum wage, and a year later I was making minimum wage plus 10 more cents. Lucky me.
Source
|
On May 02 2014 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2014 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 02 2014 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source "environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day. Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities. The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. Lol, no shit. You're even less intelligent than I thought. I thought you just may be among the vestiges of reason in conservative views represented here. Alas, to my disappointment you have certainly proven me the fool. Awesome. In no way do I want to fit into your warped definition of reason. Call it 'warped' if you will, but it seems evident you have fallen from more than just my own definition of reason. While race is an element worthy of consideration in context, the theme is more evident when you you focus on low-income/wealth and low-information/education inequalities. They can be seen in various places, with the recent political funding supreme court decisions, the research on who really influences policy, the voting down of the minimum wage, the criminal justice inequalities highlighted in Matt Taibbi's 'The Divide', and more. Many of these have already been discussed at length but some haven't. The clear theme is that these inequalities are being recognized more and more everyday by more and more people. As distracted as people are with everything there is to distract, the most egregious inequalities are becoming more and more salient in peoples minds. Protest after protest and referendum after referendum has demonstrated they are fed up with it and not going to just lay down and accept it. Let me make clear, this is not an blanket indictment of inequality at large. This is a critique of current inequalities and worrying trends that see these inequalities at their genesis. There are jackals on both sides that will jump on every opportunity to weaken their opponents and bolster themselves and their allies, seemingly because they view far too much of political debate and social discussion as essentially a zero-sum endeavor. Allowing oneself to be pulled down into that discourse is easy but unbecoming I find in decent political discourse. I admit I fail at avoiding said pitfall myself sometimes but I do try to accept when it is pointed out to me, and apologize for any undue malice it inflicts. That being said I think there can be valuable discussions had around reasonable solutions to identifiable issues. But simply digging ones heels in and refusing to acknowledge scientific knowledge (Rep Broun [R-GA]), economic realities(negatives of inequalities), or the will of the people (Min. Wage, background checks, etc..) is just not a responsible position and it's actually potentially quite dangerous. I hope for the sake of productive discourse we are able to hold ourselves to the ever so slightly yet unbelievably noticeable higher expectations I've come to enjoy here. Why the hell did you write all of this? Edit: I thought the phrase "environmental racism" was laughably pretentious. Why the hell did that prompt you to make two long posts calling me racist, uncaring and generally ranting against republicans / conservatives? Did I step on your political tribe's toes too hard? I definitely didn't call you racist (although that term has become quite amorphous). Your commentary and it's echos in conservative spheres has a theme of indifference apparent to everyone but people blinded by those spheres. Let me go back a bit: Show nested quote +But I know it's no big deal right Jonny, because it has a racial component? Which is largely a result of various other factors that I sincerely doubt you accept (but don't know), so that's all I'll say about that. If you want to write the racial component off as insignificant it really doesn't impact the more important aspect of vulnerable people being exploited. You seem to be implying that I don't care about the racial component, that I don't care if minorities are suffering. That's implying racism. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but it reads that way to me. Show nested quote +The article is CLEARLY pointing out the people most likely to be harmed by chemical facilities accidents are the least likely to have the economic and legal faculties to defend themselves. It also goes onto explain how they are also not being fully informed of the dangers they are being subjected too. No shit. That's common knowledge to even high school dropouts. I take it you misinterpreted my comments?
"environmental racism" lol, thanks you made my day.
Edit: reminds me of the old claim that McDonalds was racist because it kept opening restaurants near the poor and minorities.
First I am not claiming, or implying you are racist. Anyone who interprets it that way is wrong. I'm sorry it reads that way to you but I don't believe that to be true. If that doesn't satisfy your concern you can take it up with me in PM's.
As to your actual post.
You have a terrible habit of posting things like this. The consistently glib and inconsequential nature of your comments and your somewhat predictable responses, are disparaging to some very important issues. When you make them, you are distracting from meaningful discussion that could be had about what could be some reasonable ways to clearly identify and address the root causes of problems that have been outlined by myself and others recently. While I would asses the quality and substance of many of your posts as 'low' I feel inclined to mention they seem to be getting worse.
|
This is the problem in general with the more conservative posters in here, it is very difficult to discern their actual stances and arguments. When other posters do infer positions and arguments they are then refuted as strawmen. I'm not sure if this is a conscious effort or just an unconscious habit picked up from moving in those circles, but it does make the discussion very confusing.
|
On May 02 2014 15:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 15:27 Danglars wrote:On May 02 2014 12:31 Leporello wrote:On May 02 2014 07:33 Danglars wrote:On May 02 2014 06:31 Leporello wrote:
If creating the strongest economy means you have people working full-time yet not being able to afford their basic necessities, then what good is your economy? How is it the strongest? You have the highest GDP and accumulation of wealth of any other country, yet over half your population lives like shit -- yeah, great economy, bro.
I don't buy the minimum wage doomsaying. Seattle may be over-compensating a bit too hard, but on a federal level, compared to what inflation has done, it's ridiculous to think a small increase in minimum wage wouldn't make a lot of people's lives better (the only thing that really matters) AND help the economy. It would inject an incredible amount of day-to-day spending. There'd be trade-offs, I'm sure, but it's really a stretch to imagine that giving minimum-wage earners more money to spend is going to have an overall negative impact.
I'm not sure why it's even a partisan issue, other than people having to constantly cling to ideological platitudes. Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage. It's more and more obvious that it really is a zero sum game for some people. Our country has had a minimum wage and progressive income tax brackets for quite some time, throughout our best years.
Does the right-wing even admit that there is a point anymore, where platitudes don't work? Zero taxes, zero minimum wage, is that the society they want? Is that even a society at all anymore? Or is society itself, the idea of collectively-reasoned rules we all abide by, offensive to them, an affront to "freedom" (the freedom to be make a fortune out of abusing others, in the case of minimum wage)? I really don't see where you're going here. Are we talking a full time worker and single bread-winner needing to support a family? Are you presupposing a society where there isn't need-based government assistance, in food programs, housing, cash subsidies? Frankly, your straw men (1)Always lower taxes, never increase minimum wage (2)Cling to ideological platitudes (3)We hate "collectively-reasoned" rules (4)We view rules as an affront to freedom make your point rather dim. You can stand on your soap box and decry ideological platitudes all day, but if the only thing you know of your opposition is what straw men you choose to characterize him by, you're just another preacher with a message of hellfire. I don't choose to categorize you guys this way, it's the way it is. I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes and minimum wage. There is never a time where a conservative seems to say, "Well, taxes are low enough," or "Gee, the working poor really need better wages." You have to wonder what it would take to get this sort of admission from someone who is an ardent R-voter. Minimum wage increase is overdue to keep up with inflation. The national debt has been a skyrocket since the massive Reagan income tax cuts. Yet, at every step, the platitudes from the right remain the same. Income taxes at an all time low? Better lower them -- raising them would be catastrophic (and socialist). Minimum wage is slipping behind inflation while income-equality reaches new heights? Well, we better not raise the minimum wage. I suppose you could flip this and say that liberals always want to raise taxes and the minimum wage -- except it wouldn't be true. I know you guys have your reasons, they've been the same ideological reasons with which conservatives have curbed against these policies since I was born. As if the world never changes, and nuance doesn't exist. Just my feelings. Listen, you're making some ideological leaps here if you could but see them. You start out with the straw man "zero taxes" and bridge it to "I can't remember a time where conservatives haven't railed against taxes." Well, if you think the taxes are too high and people who keep them as they are or raise them are in power ... maybe you've gotten tired of hearing the same advice time and time again. That isn't a goal of zero taxes, as even a conservative saint like Laffer would tell you. So expand your mind a little and realize that the "way it is" simply isn't. It's a matter of perspective. Jonny posted the numbers, but the percentage of workers that made minimum wage was around 3-5% of the population (mine from 2011 2012 BLS show 2.9%. So when we talk about the working poor, you're a far cry away from a majority on minimum wage. This is not even to mention the young getting their first job and the very next year. In fact, over 2/3 of people making minimum wage one year make higher than that in the next (again, BLS statistics). Thirdly, revenues went up in the years following the tax cuts. The following ~7 years showed higher revenues year after year, and of course spurred growth. I do, like you, notice high deficits ... a result of spending outpacing the revenues. Blame the congressional culture and both party's love of spending bills, not the tax cuts. The world changes, the political invective remains mostly the same. More than a quarter of private sector employees make less than $10, i.e. the proposed new minimum wage. Not a majority, but a far cry from the lie of < 3%. I worked at a grocery store as a teenager. I was making minimum wage, and a year later I was making minimum wage plus 10 more cents. Lucky me. Source Somehow, suburban teenagers were not what I thought you and others were referring to when you referenced the poor (or for the demagogues, "not being able to afford their basic necessities" or "half the population lives like shit.") Maybe this was you, IgnE, the under-25 that aren't the family's sole providers. That's a full half of minimum wage earners, younger workers in school 16-24. From CPS 2011/2012, mostly middle class households not relying on that income. Working part time jobs because the main emphasis is schooling. 22% at/below poverty line, 68% at 150%+ poverty line (HHS 2011 poverty guidelines) . Even the 25+ "older" crew earning minimum wage only have <25% representation under poverty line (same CPS). It just doesn't have the effect (you'll hear Obama and others talking about single parents etc) that the proponents promise.
Aid to the poor is better accomplished by other means.
|
The majority of the employees who worked at the store were supporting families, and most of them made roughly ~$10 after putting years in there earning tiny incremental wage increases. And that grocery store was unionized.
You have 20% of households earning roughly $20k a year or less. It is very very difficult to live on that without tax credits and federal assistance in most areas of the United States. And that is roughly the new proposed minimum wage.
I don't really understand why there is this demeaning of student labor. Students who are working the same job, but happen to be in school don't deserve part-time living wages? They are supposed to just take out loans because they can't possibly earn enough money to live on, even though they are doing the same jobs people who aren't in school are doing? I don't really understand this conservative line of argument, that student labor is either a) not real labor or that b) students deserve sweat shop wages even if we give slightly higher wages to people supporting families. How many students do you know who are going to an accredited university for a four year degree who can pay for their education and living expenses at low-wage jobs? It's a bogus argument that young single people are fine getting by on $14k a year, or that that is all that the market can support, and that increasing the wages for young single people will just lead to less employment.
What other means? Church potlucks?
|
Jobs Report
The American economy gained steam in April, adding 288,000 jobs, while the unemployment rate fell to 6.3 percent, the lowest level since September 2008.
After a sharp slowdown in December and January, and a modest improvement since then, economists had been forecasting a healthy gain for April as consumer and business activity rose in tandem with temperatures in many parts of the country.
But the good news was tempered by a drop of 806,000 in the number of Americans in the labor force, pushing the labor participation rate down sharply. And despite the fall in joblessness, average hourly earnings did not rise at all.
The consensus among economists polled by Bloomberg before the Labor Department’s announcement Friday morning called for an increase of 218,000 in nonfarm payrolls, with the unemployment rate falling by 0.1 percent to 6.6 percent.
To be sure, month-to-month swings in hiring are a snapshot of the economy, rather than a portrait, and frequently blur.
Still, the 288,000 figure for April was the best monthly increase since January 2012.
More telling is the average monthly gain in payrolls over the last year, which now stands at 197,000. So therefore, April’s data show a significant improvement over the longer-term average.
The monthly Labor Department report is based on two separate surveys, one of households, the other of establishments, including government agencies, and private-sector businesses like factories, offices and retail stores.
...
nytimes
|
On May 02 2014 16:42 Crushinator wrote:
This is the problem in general with the more conservative posters in here, it is very difficult to discern their actual stances and arguments. When other posters do infer positions and arguments they are then refuted as strawmen. I'm not sure if this is a conscious effort or just an unconscious habit picked up from moving in those circles, but it does make the discussion very confusing.
Example?
EDIT: To ask more directly, are you talking about anyone beyond Jonny or just generalizing from a misunderstanding that someone else had from one of his sarcastic remarks?
|
On May 02 2014 23:00 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2014 16:42 Crushinator wrote:
This is the problem in general with the more conservative posters in here, it is very difficult to discern their actual stances and arguments. When other posters do infer positions and arguments they are then refuted as strawmen. I'm not sure if this is a conscious effort or just an unconscious habit picked up from moving in those circles, but it does make the discussion very confusing. Example? EDIT: To ask more directly, are you talking about anyone beyond Jonny or just generalizing from a misunderstanding that someone else had from one of his sarcastic remarks?
Well just take a look at some of the statistics thrown out there without any comment. Just throwing shit at us without explaining why tit is significant, why does it matter that 2/3 of people on minimum wage make more the next year? Why should anyone care that only 3% of workers are on minimum wage? How do you go from there to an actual argument? It is really difficult to dispute an argument that is never made.
|
Just a week after the Justice Department announced an initiative to commute the prison terms of thousands of federal inmates, one prisoner already has someone making a plea on his behalf: the judge who put him away 12 years ago.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman, who in 2002 sentenced Byron McDade to 27 years in prison on a cocaine-dealing conspiracy charge, wrote in an opinion on a related motion that McDade was “a prime candidate” for clemency.
After favorably noting the Justice Department’s new clemency initiative, Freidman wrote, “The sentence this court was required to impose on Mr. McDade was unjust at the time and is out of line with and disproportionate to those that would be imposed under similar facts today. While the court is powerless to reduce the sentence it was required by then-existing law to impose, the president is not.”
President Barack Obama, for his part, has announced, through the Justice Department’s initiative, his intention to use his discretionary power to extend clemency as a way to retrofit the sentences that thousands of inmates like McDade are serving and that are recognized across party lines to be unfair.
Despite such consensus, these sentences have remained unaddressed by congressional action. Even those enthusiastic about the clemency initiative say comprehensive legislation establishing a process subject to transparency and review would better remedy what is systematic unfairness — but they see no point in waiting.
Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), says that more needs to be done and that this clemency push “doesn’t change our efforts to ameliorate sentencing practices in this country. But this program is available now.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
