Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

DESANTIS!!!

DESANTIS!!!*echoes*

DESANTIS!!!*echoes*

DESANTIS!!!

DESANTIS!!!

 

[Red Herring]

About the latest school shooting:

The girl lived in nearby Idaho Falls and has been taken into custody, Anderson said. Authorities did not release her name, and it is unclear what motivated the attack. Sixth-grade students in the US are aged 11 or 12.

Mark Taylor, Jefferson county prosecutor, said the girl may face three counts of attempted murder depending on the outcome of the county’s investigation.

Sixth-grade girl shoots three at Idaho middle school | Idaho | The Guardian

My first thought:

In Europe (and many other parts of the world) she'd probably end up in a youth psych facility and get treatment.


I remember watching a documentary years ago about two murder cases with 14-15 year old murderers. The British kids were sent to jail and treated like adults, the Norwegian kids were sent back to school (after psych treatment). This is a highly cultural issue.

It's interesting how minors are perceived depending on their role in a crime. An 11 year old perpetrator might be treated like an adult and a monster while I have repeatedly heard 16 or 17 year old victims of crime called "our babies". It is as if childhood and innocence are so closely interlinked that you lose your child card if you lose that innocence card.

Also, interesting random fact - apparently in Iran the age of criminal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls!

 

[The Cat]

About the latest school shooting:
Sixth-grade girl shoots three at Idaho middle school | Idaho | The Guardian

My first thought:

In Europe (and many other parts of the world) she'd probably end up in a youth psych facility and get treatment.


I remember watching a documentary years ago about two murder cases with 14-15 year old murderers. The British kids were sent to jail and treated like adults, the Norwegian kids were sent back to school (after psych treatment). This is a highly cultural issue.

It's interesting how minors are perceived depending on their role in a crime. An 11 year old perpetrator might be treated like an adult and a monster while I have repeatedly heard 16 or 17 year old victims of crime called "our babies". It is as if childhood and innocence are so closely interlinked that you lose your child card if you lose that innocence card.

Also, interesting random fact - apparently in Iran the age of criminal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls!

the whole concept of all that stuff simply baffles me, it all feels so arbitrary and inconsistent. @_@ its maddening too because why wouldnt attempts at psych eval and beyond that rehabilitation be the first go to for everyone everywhere?

 

[Lark]

About the latest school shooting:
Sixth-grade girl shoots three at Idaho middle school | Idaho | The Guardian

My first thought:

In Europe (and many other parts of the world) she'd probably end up in a youth psych facility and get treatment.


I remember watching a documentary years ago about two murder cases with 14-15 year old murderers. The British kids were sent to jail and treated like adults, the Norwegian kids were sent back to school (after psych treatment). This is a highly cultural issue.

It's interesting how minors are perceived depending on their role in a crime. An 11 year old perpetrator might be treated like an adult and a monster while I have repeatedly heard 16 or 17 year old victims of crime called "our babies". It is as if childhood and innocence are so closely interlinked that you lose your child card if you lose that innocence card.

Also, interesting random fact - apparently in Iran the age of criminal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls!

The thing about considering how Norway treats crimes versus how other countries punish them is very highly contextual and cultural.

Like I really, really dont think much of the findings from comparative criminology or criminal justice policy are really that transferable.

If you decided to adopt the models of one society with much of the informal, familial, employment, community and other norms to a different society you will either find hardened criminals taking positive advantage of it all, treating it as a weakness rather than a kindness.

I do not have the answers to this and do think that perhaps demography has a massive role to play, ie like what stage attempts at changes are introduced within the "life cycle" of societies, the timing of any attempted social engineering needs to take into account that the "spontaneous order" will be reproducing itself too.

Globalization and online cultures can play a massive role in this too, Norway is probably the most progressive place in the world, its also where the neo-fascist Brevik murdered children in their summer camp, old people in their government offices and did it all while posing as a law enforcement officer in order that his intended victims would run towards him hoping for help and protection. Whether he and his crime was truly "domestic product" or produced by his immersion in an online existence permitting others from elsewhere, ie inhabiting much less progressive societies, to radicalize him I think is a fair question.

 

[Lark]

I don't think "apartheid state" really embodies what Israel has become. The US needs to cut ties with that poison like yesterday.

There's some good books written about the actual ties and relationships that existed between Israel and actual, really existing apartheid in South Africa.

The Israeli state appears to have been a big fan of that particular regime. Like it really seems to have gone beyond the traditional narrative of "anti-terrorism" which was popular, even in the Westminister, UK where a lot of very mainstream politicians had belonged to college societies promoting a "hang Nelson Mandela" message, and considered opposition to apartheid to be a "communist plot".

I do agree that its difficult by the day to continue to excuse Israel's conduct, although I do think there's major problems for any state that would want to positively oppose what is going on. Arafat died of an incredibly uniquely tailored illness, in a very, very public fashion, to this day I think that was an assassination using biometric information and the advantage to anyone responsible is its just the sort of thing that could be plausibly deniable and easily dismissed as just another example of anti-semitism. Arafat's opposite number (I can never spell his name right, so I wont bother trying) was assassinated by an extremist who did not want peace.

If that's the kind of thing that's permissible domestically you can only guess at what they would not mind happening to politicians or citizens elsewhere in the world.

Its also a state that's probably cutting edge in surveillance technologies, computer hacking and bio-tech, so there's that too. They've definitely been way, way ahead of the curve in terms of what I consider will be the next arms race.

 

[Lark]

Can a youtuber become Governor of California?

He needs at least 4 million votes and he has 1.5 million subscribers but I'm guessing that only around 0.5 to 0.8 million are living in California. I also don't think he'll get any of his agenda passed. If he wins, he'll be a lameduck like Arnold.

I do like the fact that he has new and bold ideas, like getting rid of the income tax for people earning less than $250K, eliminating the DMV, and establishing partnerships between schools and corporations so graduates will be better prepared coming out of high school.

If he decides to run as a Democrat, he may be the first and only Democrat I'll vote for.

Wouldnt abolishing income tax for that bracket require that the tax burden be moved elsewhere? Like on to higher earners? Not that I think that's a bad idea but I'd be surprised that you were a supporter Tellenbach.

Would the partnerships you are talking about simply be private companies shifting the expense of training onto the taxpayer by integrating it into the curriculum? Again, not opposed to anything improving prospects but wondering if you'd thought about that?

 

[Virtual ghost]

The thing about considering how Norway treats crimes versus how other countries punish them is very highly contextual and cultural.

Like I really, really dont think much of the findings from comparative criminology or criminal justice policy are really that transferable.

If you decided to adopt the models of one society with much of the informal, familial, employment, community and other norms to a different society you will either find hardened criminals taking positive advantage of it all, treating it as a weakness rather than a kindness.

That is why you must do it slowly, in order to allow genuine changes in mindset and practices. The Norway didn't became like this over night and creating this kind of society isn't easy. Basically all social programs through which Europe globally leads in making life livable took generations to create in their current form. This is why I think Medicare for all could fail if pushed through in reactive fashion, since this process requires something like 10 years of transformation to truly come to life from the current system. Adjusting economy, adjusting prices and taxes, making sure you have enough doctors that want to do the job, that you have enough hospitals everywhere ... etc. The sooner you start the better but this is the problem that can't be solved just by signing a few papers. The same is with criminal law you need to make some moves and preparations even before you start the main show. This is why I advocate orderly approach everywhere since there is huge amount of variables that need to be in sync in order to provide results. You can't get Norway with "improvisations".

 

[Red Herring]

The thing about considering how Norway treats crimes versus how other countries punish them is very highly contextual and cultural.

Like I really, really dont think much of the findings from comparative criminology or criminal justice policy are really that transferable.

If you decided to adopt the models of one society with much of the informal, familial, employment, community and other norms to a different society you will either find hardened criminals taking positive advantage of it all, treating it as a weakness rather than a kindness.

I do not have the answers to this and do think that perhaps demography has a massive role to play, ie like what stage attempts at changes are introduced within the "life cycle" of societies, the timing of any attempted social engineering needs to take into account that the "spontaneous order" will be reproducing itself too.

Globalization and online cultures can play a massive role in this too, Norway is probably the most progressive place in the world, its also where the neo-fascist Brevik murdered children in their summer camp, old people in their government offices and did it all while posing as a law enforcement officer in order that his intended victims would run towards him hoping for help and protection. Whether he and his crime was truly "domestic product" or produced by his immersion in an online existence permitting others from elsewhere, ie inhabiting much less progressive societies, to radicalize him I think is a fair question.

This is not about Norway though nor about progressive criminal justice . It's about the role of minors in different societies. The age of criminal justice is 14 or 15 or even higher in much of Eurasia, Central America and South America as well as Canada.

The UN recommends a minimum age of 12 but encourages a higher cutoff age. The age in different countries seems to depend more on culture than economic development or social progress. Compare Canada and the USA. Compare the British isles and Germany.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The UN recommends a minimum age of 12 but encourages a higher cutoff age. The age in different countries seems to depend more on culture than economic development or social progress. Compare Canada and the USA. Compare the British isles and Germany.

My first thought:

In Europe (and many other parts of the world) she'd probably end up in a youth psych facility and get treatment.

This evidently is cultural. We can perhaps even speculate about the source.

 

[Red Herring]

This evidently is cultural. We can perhaps even speculate about the source.

Yes, I thought of that as well.

 

[ceecee]

I think of this article often.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think of this article often.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats - POLITICO Magazine

This article is so good. Have you posted it before? It seems familiar.

We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It’s simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.” I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good.

I liked this.

 

[Totenkindly]

How Tom Cruise, Scarlett Johansson and NBC might have just gutted the Golden Globes

Wow. Only mentioning this because (1) Globes just lost their network platform and (3) Tom Cruise returned his three Best Actor awards to protest their practices.

Typically I don't care about Cruise, but he isn't really an activist and normally avoids this kind of thing, so that is why it stands out -- plus he still commands a lot of the box office with his films. It makes you wonder whether others who normally don't get involved will follow suit.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am curious:


Trump used to say plenty of anti-NATO stuff in his term. So how much of that sentiment there still seems to be in the party at this point ?

 

[ceecee]

This article is so good. Have you posted it before? It seems familiar.



I liked this.

Yes I've posted it before and Jag has an aneurism every time; like he's never read anything this absurd ever lol.

 

[ceecee]

I am curious:


Trump used to say plenty of anti-NATO stuff in his term. So how much of that sentiment there still seems to be in the party at this point ?

In the GOP? Plenty I would imagine. Any element that supports their victimhood and imagined or unimagined grievances is always a plus for them, doesn't really matter what it is. However, I have a feeling Biden is going to continue the - hey man, you all need to pay your own way - thing. Same as Trump, just more polite.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In the GOP? Plenty I would imagine. Any element that supports their victimhood and imagined or unimagined grievances is always a plus for them, doesn't really matter what it is. However, I have a feeling Biden is going to continue the - hey man, you all need to pay your own way - thing. Same as Trump, just more polite.

Well, I don't mind the paying part since we need to spend on our own security. Plus nowhere it says how exactly we should spend down to the last detail. I am more after "being anti NATO for the sake of being anti NATO". I presume the establishment didn't fully change their opinion since they know the importance of the alliance. However more populist and average Joe side of the party is what was really under question here. If there is plenty of misinformation going around the base of the party wouldn't really rebound on the topic. What can obviously complicate a lot of things for the country and few other things.

 

[Lark]

I am curious:


Trump used to say plenty of anti-NATO stuff in his term. So how much of that sentiment there still seems to be in the party at this point ?

Isolationism and Exceptionalism are essential to US nationalism which pretty much is opposed to NATO.

Although, as I understand it, most of the anti-NATO sentiments are about cost, the US wants to be top dog militarily but they dont like the cost involved and want someone else to pay for it pretty much.

 

[Lark]

Well, I don't mind the paying part since we need to spend on our own security. Plus nowhere it says how exactly we should spend down to the last detail. I am more after "being anti NATO for the sake of being anti NATO". I presume the establishment didn't fully change their opinion since they know the importance of the alliance. However more populist and average Joe side of the party is what was really under question here. If there is plenty of misinformation going around the base of the party wouldn't really rebound on the topic. What can obviously complicate a lot of things for the country and few other things.

To be honest NATO is supra-national, nationalists are not going to like it anymore than they would the EU, UN, any other trading bloc or international entity.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To be honest NATO is supra-national, nationalists are not going to like it anymore than they would the EU, UN, any other trading bloc or international entity.

That kinda depends on how close you live to Russia or China. Plus in the details it gets even more complicated.


But yeah, this is kinda why I asked the question. Since if American right generally stay on this position that will have huge impact in how the world works. From EU army, how new cold war will look like or play out, economic influences and resources ... etc. With this you are basically creating the biggest remake of world order since WW2, if American right indeed takes this position. It is enough that one party drops the idea that the whole concept just dies in practice. Since that will trigger the response from factors outside of US basically by default.