|
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 August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case.
What a bunch of whiny bitches, they should have worked harder at passing legislation, if they had they wouldn't be in this position.
|
On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok.
Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint.
and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans.
|
On August 22 2014 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Well I've just spent an inordinate amount time looking for one study showing crime statistics by race with economic status controlled, and I haven't seen anyone else post one here. Anyone have one?
Just think about what a dataset that can control for socioeconomic status looks like, then you might be able to answer the question of why you aren't able to find such a thing.
|
On August 22 2014 06:40 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 06:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:30 radiatoren wrote:On August 22 2014 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:08 Souma wrote:On August 22 2014 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 05:46 Souma wrote:
Did you intentionally skip over the part where people debunked your ludicrous assumption that blacks and Asians experienced the same hurdles? I don't need to respond to every post, and as far as I am concerned, nothing's been debunked. Bookwyrm's arguments basically confirm my position that the current state of the black community is more the result of their own internal problems than any kind of existential racism that still exists. Funnytoss raised his point the last time that we went down this road, and though I found it interesting the first time, it wasn't backed up with anything, so I'm not inclined to rehash the same points again. Really, so you listen to the arguments you want to (Bookwyrm's) and ignore everyone else's? Basically, yes. Whenever I raise an incendiary point, I receive too many responses for me to address. Most responses are shit anyway, so I'd rather not waste my time. I will, however, take the time to respond to well-thought-out posts or other posters whom I know will give me an interesting conversation. We all have our reputations around here. On August 22 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:01 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 22 2014 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 05:46 Souma wrote:
Did you intentionally skip over the part where people debunked your ludicrous assumption that blacks and Asians experienced the same hurdles? I don't need to respond to every post, and as far as I am concerned, nothing's been debunked. Bookwyrm's arguments basically confirm my position that the current state of the black community is more the result of their own internal problems than any kind of existential racism that still exists. Funnytoss raised his point the last time that we went down this road, and though I found it interesting the first time, it wasn't backed up with anything, so I'm not inclined to rehash the same points again. Did you skip the part where it was mentioned that not all Asians are the same? It's irrelevant. You can look at any particular heritage/nationality, and they're all doing better than blacks. Gee I wonder why. Black people must genetically not want to do well in this world! Do you not believe that environment can play a huge part in cultivating failure or something? I can tell you, as an Asian-American who grew up in a low-income, ghetto area, that a great number of other Asians who grew up in my community fell victim to the exact same things you criticize African-Americans for. It's not just a coincidence that a significant amount of people make the same choices that ultimately lead to them failing. Of course there's a correlation between socio-economic status and crime. However, you can control for that factor, and once you do, it becomes fairly obvious which groups are more problematic than others. I think you are relying too much on statistics and too little on reasoning. If crime is higher in an area, crime is higher in an area. If an area is predominantly inhabited by poor people, the area is predominantly inhabited by poor people, if an areas is predominantly inhabited by people with african descendants, the area is predominantly inhabited by people with african descendants. As soon as you start correlating african descendance, powerty and crime you are completely neglecting community and any other third party influences. That is very unfortunate since the descendancy should be completely irrelevant to your observation, while cultural issues are a real thing and while there are some common traits in "black culture" the tool is not accounting for the specific local differences that would cause us to avoid the stupid black vs white dichotomy. I would say geography has a reasonable chance of being better correlated with the issues rather than skincolour. I don't know what "issues" that you're describing, but studies in the US show that race -- or more specifically, the presence of blacks and hispanics -- is the best indicator of crime. No, it's not, unless you are 1. a moron or 2. a racist If we policed white people as much as we police black people, then being white would be the best indicator of criminality. Furthermore, the overpolicing of black people does double damage because of our criminal indoctrination camps, aka our prisons.
Also, the reason that Black and Latino communities are poor and therefore more predisposed to crime is not their cultures (again that's racist) but because our predominantly White-run society has put up all sorts of barriers of entry that privileged folk automatically pass and unprivileged folk have to either get really lucky or work very hard to bypass.
|
To wind farm opponents, wind turbine syndrome is a manifold malady triggered by acoustic pulses and other unfortunate side effects of large wind turbines. To wind farm developers, syndrome claims can mean stomach-churning marches into courtrooms and municipal hearings, where legal teams defend projects against allegations they’re responsible for everything from headaches and sleeplessness to vertigo, blurred vision, and forgetfulness.
In these legal fights, the wind energy developers are winning. To the judges presiding over the cases, evidence that wind turbine syndrome exists has seemed as wispy as the cirrus clouds that can herald a stiffening breeze.
The Energy and Policy Institute, a clean energy advocacy group, reviewed rulings from 49 lawsuits and similar complaints filed in five Western countries. In a report published last week, the group says it could find just one case of a court siding with neighbors who claimed wind turbines had made them ill. That one ruling out of 49 is being appealed in Massachusetts.
“These claims about wind turbines causing health impacts are not being upheld, which means there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove that wind turbines cause any problems with human health,” said Gabe Elsner, the nonprofit’s executive director. “That’s a big deal, because claims about that are used across the globe by anti-wind advocates to try to slow the development of wind farms.”
The 49 legal rulings identified by the institute came out of environmental, utility, civil, and higher courts since the late 1990s in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the U.K.
Elsner said the study began, in part, to provide wind developers’ attorneys with ideas and legal precedents to help them defend projects in court. “These claims about health impacts kept coming,” he said.
Of the eight American cases, the one instance where neighbors succeeded in hobbling wind turbine operations was in the Cape Cod town of Falmouth, Mass. A government board sided last year with neighbors, including a Vietnam War veteran recovering from PTSD, who said they were sickened by a pair of town-owned wind turbines. The turbines were installed in 2010 to power a wastewater treatment plant and to sell excess electricity onto the local utility’s grid.
Source
|
If we wanted to, you know, control for socio economic factors we could do something like a comparison of high school graduation rates or starting income for asians vs blacks living in the same zip code (or even attending school in the same zip code). I'd imagine you'd find the difference would be rather smaller than some (xDaunt for one) would expect.
Then again the NAACP and some other groups known for hemming and hawwing would hem and block that study.
|
On August 22 2014 08:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok. Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint. and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans.
While of course lobbyists visit Congress, the article talked about some of the differences resulting from this brand of executive action.
For one, the interests represented are less diverse in their views.
But yes, of course lobbyists are around Congress.
|
On August 22 2014 08:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok. Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint. and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans. While of course lobbyists visit Congress, the article talked about some of the differences resulting from this brand of executive action. For one, the interests represented are less diverse in their views. But yes, of course lobbyists are around Congress.
Didn't see anything in that quote about diversity but yes diversity of opinions is important but again there is no real way to know diversity in congress backrooms either.
My point is, I don't see how the lobbying is any different from how it would be if this happened at Congress.
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/self-segregation-why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/
learly white Americans see the broader significance of Michael Brown’s death through radically different lenses than black Americans. There are myriad reasons for this divergence, from political ideologies—which, for example, place different emphases on law and order versus citizens’ rights—to fears based in racist stereotypes of young black men. But the chief obstacle to having an intelligent, or even intelligible, conversation across the racial divide is that on average white Americans live in communities that face far fewer problems and talk mostly to other white people.
A 2012 PRRI survey found that black Americans report higher levels of problems in their communities compared to whites. Black Americans were, on average, nearly 20 percentage points more likely than white Americans to say a range of issues were major problems in their community: lack of good jobs (20 points), lack of opportunities for young people (16 points), lack of funding for public schools (19 points), crime (23 points), and racial tensions (18 points).
These incongruous community contexts certainly set the stage for cultural conflict and misunderstanding, but the paucity of integrated social networks—the places where meaning is attached to experience—amplify and direct these experiences toward different ends. Drawing on techniques from social network analysis, PRRI’s 2013 American Values Survey asked respondents to identify as many as seven people with whom they had discussed important matters in the six months prior to the survey. The results reveal just how segregated white social circles are.
Overall, the social networks of whites are a remarkable 93 percent white. White American social networks are only one percent black, one percent Hispanic, one percent Asian or Pacific Islander, one percent mixed race, and one percent other race. In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent).
|
On August 22 2014 08:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:37 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok. Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint. and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans. While of course lobbyists visit Congress, the article talked about some of the differences resulting from this brand of executive action. For one, the interests represented are less diverse in their views. But yes, of course lobbyists are around Congress. Didn't see anything in that quote about diversity but yes diversity of opinions is important but again there is no real way to know diversity in congress backrooms either. My point is, I don't see how the lobbying is any different from how it would be if this happened at Congress.
As per request:
The go-it-alone approach has left the administration — which claims to be the most transparent in United States history — essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituencies.
“The executive branch is not really set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College who has studied the consequences of executive action. “The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.
“Those who are ‘in’ will engage the White House and the agencies to get their priorities met, and if you’re ‘out,’ you turn to the legal process” to challenge the executive action after it is taken, he said.
|
On August 22 2014 08:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:40 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:37 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok. Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint. and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans. While of course lobbyists visit Congress, the article talked about some of the differences resulting from this brand of executive action. For one, the interests represented are less diverse in their views. But yes, of course lobbyists are around Congress. Didn't see anything in that quote about diversity but yes diversity of opinions is important but again there is no real way to know diversity in congress backrooms either. My point is, I don't see how the lobbying is any different from how it would be if this happened at Congress. As per request: Show nested quote +The go-it-alone approach has left the administration — which claims to be the most transparent in United States history — essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituencies.
“The executive branch is not really set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College who has studied the consequences of executive action. “The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.
“Those who are ‘in’ will engage the White House and the agencies to get their priorities met, and if you’re ‘out,’ you turn to the legal process” to challenge the executive action after it is taken, he said.
I agree with you, it is probably an issue indeed but it just brings us back to the fact that Congress should be doing its job so the White House doesn't have to do it for them. But that is kinda the overarching problem with the entirety of the US political system atm (or one of them anyway).
From my perspective this screwed process is better then the alternative which is no progress on the issue at all. Our opinions on that differ I'm sure and tbh I don't think either of us is going to convince the other at this point :p
|
On August 22 2014 08:45 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/self-segregation-why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/Show nested quote +learly white Americans see the broader significance of Michael Brown’s death through radically different lenses than black Americans. There are myriad reasons for this divergence, from political ideologies—which, for example, place different emphases on law and order versus citizens’ rights—to fears based in racist stereotypes of young black men. But the chief obstacle to having an intelligent, or even intelligible, conversation across the racial divide is that on average white Americans live in communities that face far fewer problems and talk mostly to other white people.
A 2012 PRRI survey found that black Americans report higher levels of problems in their communities compared to whites. Black Americans were, on average, nearly 20 percentage points more likely than white Americans to say a range of issues were major problems in their community: lack of good jobs (20 points), lack of opportunities for young people (16 points), lack of funding for public schools (19 points), crime (23 points), and racial tensions (18 points).
These incongruous community contexts certainly set the stage for cultural conflict and misunderstanding, but the paucity of integrated social networks—the places where meaning is attached to experience—amplify and direct these experiences toward different ends. Drawing on techniques from social network analysis, PRRI’s 2013 American Values Survey asked respondents to identify as many as seven people with whom they had discussed important matters in the six months prior to the survey. The results reveal just how segregated white social circles are.
Overall, the social networks of whites are a remarkable 93 percent white. White American social networks are only one percent black, one percent Hispanic, one percent Asian or Pacific Islander, one percent mixed race, and one percent other race. In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent).
I can agree with that, I don't really know any real life black people. Probably 6 whites, 1 indian.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On August 22 2014 08:28 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 06:40 Jormundr wrote:On August 22 2014 06:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:30 radiatoren wrote:On August 22 2014 06:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:08 Souma wrote:On August 22 2014 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 05:46 Souma wrote:
Did you intentionally skip over the part where people debunked your ludicrous assumption that blacks and Asians experienced the same hurdles? I don't need to respond to every post, and as far as I am concerned, nothing's been debunked. Bookwyrm's arguments basically confirm my position that the current state of the black community is more the result of their own internal problems than any kind of existential racism that still exists. Funnytoss raised his point the last time that we went down this road, and though I found it interesting the first time, it wasn't backed up with anything, so I'm not inclined to rehash the same points again. Really, so you listen to the arguments you want to (Bookwyrm's) and ignore everyone else's? Basically, yes. Whenever I raise an incendiary point, I receive too many responses for me to address. Most responses are shit anyway, so I'd rather not waste my time. I will, however, take the time to respond to well-thought-out posts or other posters whom I know will give me an interesting conversation. We all have our reputations around here. On August 22 2014 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 06:01 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 22 2014 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2014 05:46 Souma wrote:
Did you intentionally skip over the part where people debunked your ludicrous assumption that blacks and Asians experienced the same hurdles? I don't need to respond to every post, and as far as I am concerned, nothing's been debunked. Bookwyrm's arguments basically confirm my position that the current state of the black community is more the result of their own internal problems than any kind of existential racism that still exists. Funnytoss raised his point the last time that we went down this road, and though I found it interesting the first time, it wasn't backed up with anything, so I'm not inclined to rehash the same points again. Did you skip the part where it was mentioned that not all Asians are the same? It's irrelevant. You can look at any particular heritage/nationality, and they're all doing better than blacks. Gee I wonder why. Black people must genetically not want to do well in this world! Do you not believe that environment can play a huge part in cultivating failure or something? I can tell you, as an Asian-American who grew up in a low-income, ghetto area, that a great number of other Asians who grew up in my community fell victim to the exact same things you criticize African-Americans for. It's not just a coincidence that a significant amount of people make the same choices that ultimately lead to them failing. Of course there's a correlation between socio-economic status and crime. However, you can control for that factor, and once you do, it becomes fairly obvious which groups are more problematic than others. I think you are relying too much on statistics and too little on reasoning. If crime is higher in an area, crime is higher in an area. If an area is predominantly inhabited by poor people, the area is predominantly inhabited by poor people, if an areas is predominantly inhabited by people with african descendants, the area is predominantly inhabited by people with african descendants. As soon as you start correlating african descendance, powerty and crime you are completely neglecting community and any other third party influences. That is very unfortunate since the descendancy should be completely irrelevant to your observation, while cultural issues are a real thing and while there are some common traits in "black culture" the tool is not accounting for the specific local differences that would cause us to avoid the stupid black vs white dichotomy. I would say geography has a reasonable chance of being better correlated with the issues rather than skincolour. I don't know what "issues" that you're describing, but studies in the US show that race -- or more specifically, the presence of blacks and hispanics -- is the best indicator of crime. No, it's not, unless you are 1. a moron or 2. a racist If we policed white people as much as we police black people, then being white would be the best indicator of criminality. Furthermore, the overpolicing of black people does double damage because of our criminal indoctrination camps, aka our prisons. Also, the reason that Black and Latino communities are poor and therefore more predisposed to crime is not their cultures (again that's racist) but because our predominantly White-run society has put up all sorts of barriers of entry that privileged folk automatically pass and unprivileged folk have to either get really lucky or work very hard to bypass.
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
Obviously it's not a simple issue or it would be simply resolved but I don't agree that stifling debate by declaring such a discussion as inherently racist is going to lead to good outcomes.
The enriching aspects of 'black culture' in a multitude of fields are rightly celebrated, why close off a discussion on negatives (if indeed there are any)? The issues are obviously more complex than reference to a non-existent idea of a homogenous, binding 'black culture' that every individual member of that ethnic grouping subscribes to, but it's surely an area worthy of analysis.
|
On August 22 2014 08:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 08:40 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:37 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:14 Introvert wrote:On August 22 2014 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2014 08:05 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.
Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue. Source If the republicans are upset about it they should have done something about it themselves. If executive power is the only way anything changes in a situation that is unanimously seen as in need of fixing then look to no one but yourself as to why that is the case. We've tread this ground before. However, the article was emphasizing the influence of special interest groups in helping to craft these orders and memoranda. So the lobbyist influence is the fault of Republicans? Ok. Normally the input of these people would go through congress, or well the backrooms of congress. Since congress doesn't do its job they are giving their input through the White House. I fail to see the difference from a lobby standpoint. and your right, the lobby influence isnt the fault of the Republicans. While of course lobbyists visit Congress, the article talked about some of the differences resulting from this brand of executive action. For one, the interests represented are less diverse in their views. But yes, of course lobbyists are around Congress. Didn't see anything in that quote about diversity but yes diversity of opinions is important but again there is no real way to know diversity in congress backrooms either. My point is, I don't see how the lobbying is any different from how it would be if this happened at Congress. As per request: Show nested quote +The go-it-alone approach has left the administration — which claims to be the most transparent in United States history — essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituencies.
“The executive branch is not really set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College who has studied the consequences of executive action. “The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.
“Those who are ‘in’ will engage the White House and the agencies to get their priorities met, and if you’re ‘out,’ you turn to the legal process” to challenge the executive action after it is taken, he said. What a rare piece of reporting from the New York Times. I know his job approval (particularly on foreign affairs) is now rivaling Bush's, and its now his second term that's slowly winding down, but its indeed rare to see the old grey lady go so far as to bring up Obama's past pledge to be a transparent administration. Maybe it's time to distance themselves from the withering administration so the Democrat's 2016 nominee can join the break from Obama's policies to start building support.
|
On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture?
6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people. (or you just stop locking up people for no reason entirely, but that's probably not going to happen anyway)
|
On August 22 2014 09:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture? 6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people.
Why does the discrepancy exist? It's not so simple as 'cops are racist'.
|
On August 22 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 09:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture? 6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people. Why does the discrepancy exist? It's not so simple as 'cops are racist'.
Because white people more often get away with crimes than black people, because 1. they don't get stopped as often,and on average their sentences are about 20% lower if they go to prison, or sometimes they don't even go to prison at all. I can't come up with any other explanation, even if I wanted. So yes, effectively it boils down to "the cops/the system is racist".
|
On August 22 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2014 09:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture? 6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people. Why does the discrepancy exist? It's not so simple as 'cops are racist'. Because white people more often get away with crimes than black people, because 1. they don't get stopped as often,and on average their sentences are about 20% lower if they go to prison, or sometimes they don't even go to prison at all. I can't come up with any other explanation, even if I wanted. So yes, polemically it boils down to the cops/the system is racist.
No, actually do some research on it. Don't just pop in here and claim simple racism. We've had repeated laws put in place to deal with racism. If it was that simple, done deal by now.
Why are East Germans still at a disadvantage compared to West Germans? Because Nazis still run the show, right??
|
On August 22 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2014 09:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture? 6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people. Why does the discrepancy exist? It's not so simple as 'cops are racist'. Because white people more often get away with crimes than black people, because 1. they don't get stopped as often,and on average their sentences are about 20% lower if they go to prison, or sometimes they don't even go to prison at all. I can't come up with any other explanation, even if I wanted. So yes, polemically it boils down to the cops/the system is racist. No, actually do some research on it. Don't just pop in here and claim simple racism. We've had repeated laws put in place to deal with racism. If it was that simple, done deal by now. Why are East Germans still at a disadvantage compared to West Germans? Because Nazis still run the show, right??
Are you so naive that you think laws prevent racism?
|
On August 22 2014 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2014 09:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 22 2014 09:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see how it's necessarily racist to examine the impact culture has in these matters in the here and now. You don't disregard the past either or the real structures that underpin racism in the modern era.
If you look at it in a vacuum, no. If you take the American history into context, yes. Why not get rid of the blatant institutionalized racism first, and if the problems aren't fixed then we can take a look at everybody's culture? 6 out of 10 cocaine/crack users are white. 8/10 people in American prisons for crack or cocaine abuse are black. We don't need to have an intricate discussion about black culture to fix it, what needs to be done is that the police stops locking up innocent black people and starts locking up criminal white people. Why does the discrepancy exist? It's not so simple as 'cops are racist'. Because white people more often get away with crimes than black people, because 1. they don't get stopped as often,and on average their sentences are about 20% lower if they go to prison, or sometimes they don't even go to prison at all. I can't come up with any other explanation, even if I wanted. So yes, polemically it boils down to the cops/the system is racist. No, actually do some research on it. Don't just pop in here and claim simple racism. We've had repeated laws put in place to deal with racism. If it was that simple, done deal by now. Why are East Germans still at a disadvantage compared to West Germans? Because Nazis still run the show, right?? Are you so naive that you think laws prevent racism?
Laws can protect people from racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
