@saul-degraw what I think you're missing is that the resume card is meaningless for people not committed to or frustrated by tribalism and the status quo. For a lot of people (myself included), her resume is her biggest flaw, namely because it's a record of her support for many of the most disastrous tendencies of our political establishment, from foreign policy to criminal justice to big finance. References to it arent a counter argument, they're an attempt to change the subject.
Your point about Sanders can neither be confirmed nor denied. I'm not a Democrat so I didn't vote for him. I can't say that he personally would've been transformational towards the change Id like to see, or what the polls would look like had he been nominated. I can say I respect him for at least trying to force a conversation, which as far as I can tell the party leadership, political establishment (including HRC), and MSM would prefer never occurs.
I largely agree with you that, for whatever reason, the Democrats have become more small c conservative while the Conservative Movement has radicalized. There is certainly an illiberal Left out there but I don't think it has much influence outside of college campuses and parts of the new media. What I find most frustrating about the nomination of HRC is that she is one of the least credible people for pushing back on Trumpism, including the tiny kernels of truth in some of the things he says/sentiments he represents.
I see Trump's recently discovered statements as quite unsurprising given his persona. He's the jackass that I'm sure most of us have rolled our eyes at while he spins bullshit after a beer or 10 at the local watering hole. However, it's hard for me to take the outrage seriously when most of the people who are opposing Trump are about to vote for the return of a notorious hound dog to the White House as first husband, and who argued that this kind of thing wasn't relevant back in the 90s (a point I agreed with). See also notme's comment above.
Maybe I expect too much of the Democrats, but seeing as how they're the only bulwark against the type of nihilism Trump represents I can't help but wish they'd be a little less cautious and a little more principled.
Even if it's true that it's less of a stretch to match a fingerprint than a casing I think your post underscores the problem with a lot of forensic science when used to obtain a conviction for criminal conduct. There's a big difference between what humans and our technology are theoretically capable of doing in ideal circumstances and what tends to happen in big bureaucratic systems with limited resources and all kinds of incentives that are inconsistent with scientific rigor.
After the Natonal Academy of Sciences report from several years ago I think there are pretty serious questions about whether quite a few of the forensic identification techniques currently accepted by courts should continue to be. Maybe this particular tool is a good one and maybe not but I think skepticism is warranted for any seemingly magical means of identifying weapons used in crimes.
I think this is about right. There's no requirement that any Senator explain how they vote, much less that they explain it intelligently. They vote in hypocritical ways all the time. I don't think it'd lose anyone an election
This is what I find generally disturbing. A down vote is fine. It would be a rejection of a candidate for a very important job. The attack on the system on the other hand...
This goes to the point I was trying to make in the prior post. There's a race issue here but it's only a subpart of a bigger problem of militarized, virtually unaccountable police forces.
The basic answer is that it depends on the payor (i.e. out of pocket, commercial insurance, or a government program). The whole industry is supposed to be moving away from fee for service but there is a lot of inertia and regulatory issues that make it slow going.
Don't get me wrong, if American companies will do it then I think that's a good thing. I'd certainly be willing to entertain tax breaks or other policies that would encourage them to do so. All I meant was that I don't think it's workable through our education system without overhauling a whole lot of other systems as well.
I spent a bit of time studying in Germany and while there are a lot of appealing things about their education-to-job system I've concluded that it wouldn't be possible here for numerous cultural and political reasons. We don't have the robust welfare state, lower levels of inequality, and political consensus on certain issues that underlie the success of the system. If we tried to impose it on now existing American society I could actually see it perpetuating all kinds of race and class inequities.
I'm not saying it's awful, and I can almost see some charm in how perfectly it captures the quintessential lameness of NPR (which I do listen to at times). I just struggle to imagine it generating any genuine laughs.
My own journey to enjoyment of black metal not created by Dimmu Borgir grew out of Metallica, Pantera, and Alice in Chains then took a long detour through the mid to late 90s Gothenburg sound and American New Wave (or what some might derisively call metalcore) so I never know what to tell people to start with. I think the fundamental question most of the time is whether the person can handle death vocals yet. That seems to he the critical growing pain for most people.
I am also a big fan of Bathory and of course Emperor.
Also @jaybird you should try to see Amon Amarth live if you havent. They visited DC in the spring and it was an awesome show.
Not being a sufficiently sophisticated poll watcher I'll defer to you on number 1. There is of course always the issue of correlation and causation. Maybe I'm so isolated in blue tribe territory it's hard for me to think about news cycles impacting polls that way but I'm open to the possibility that it does.
No real disagreement on number 2. The traditional media has become too close to establishment power much to the detriment of the democratic principles the country supposedly operates on. My point way back at the top was just that this has been a problem for at least 15-20 years now. It's how we end up with Ellsberg revered and calls to prosecute Edward Snowden.
I think "beholden to authority" is key. It's also why I have so much trouble sympathizing with Clinton and her supporters when they complain about this. She's been as big of a beneficiary of a deferential press as anyone.
First, is there any evidence that the people who are supporting Trump would even listen if the old school MSM took a harder line? It isn't at all clear to me that the New York Times or the Post have any credibility among the people who gave the primary to Trump.
Second, is it really the gentlemans club thats the culprit or is it the faux objective view from nowhere thats the problem? From my perspective, its the view from nowhere that's become a horribly broken feature of the MSM since at least the Bush 2 era. Trump may be benefitting from it more than any past candidatr and I find his rise very disturbing but there's a part of me that thinks what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If, as you suggest, this ultimately makes the MSM realize it needs to be much less deferential to insiders it may be the best thing that's happened to the media in decades.
@tod-kelly I think the Daily Caller is smart enough to know that doing that would not have the results they want. If anything I think it would make it harder for white people whose instincts are to believe the police to do so.
That said you can find all sorts of instances where white people have been killed or abused by police in dubious circumstances if you look. For a relatively recent one google 'Daniel Shaver.' There was also the Missouri SWAT raid a couple years ago where thankfully no one was killed (except the dog). Local incidents to me involved Cheryl Lynn Noel and Cheye Calvo.
Now please do not take what I'm about to say as criticism of BLM or black activists focusing on the racial aspects of this issue. They're right to do it and I generally support them. However, the reason it's being portrayed as a black issue by the MSM (and therefore we don't get the same discussion when bad things happen to white people at the hands of law enforcement) is because it would shine a big spotlight on the problems with editorial preferences for state action. I'd hesitate to say the MSM wants this to be solely a race issue, but I think it's much easier for them to process it that way and its consistent with the narrative they push. Again I want to reiterate race is part of this and black people are disproportionately impacted but my opinion is that it goes beyond that.
There isn't an easy answer and I doubt the system will ever be perfect unless we get to a point where race is no longer a proxy for a whole bunch of other attitudes and problems.
In order to try to do some good I think we need to attack it on multiple fronts. Some of that is attacking the deferential treatment police receive under 4th amendment jurisprudence. Some of it is legislative, setting new rules on police accountability and oversight, and changing direction on how we treat socioeconomic problems that effect the black community more than most. Some of it is cultural about how we look at crime and what law enforcement is here to do. None of it is simple or likely to change things overnight, though I think keeping it in the news and bugging political leaders about it is a good start for getting the ball rolling on longer term efforts.
No. I'd require evidence that armed white suspects are never or almost never killed while armed black suspects are always or almost always killed. What I don't think is that data points of that nature are central to the question at hand. From where I sit, the question is why do police escalate mundane encounters with apparently non violent people into use of deadly force, and the follow up question, of why black people are disproportionately harmed/end up the victims of these situations.
Let me respond with another question. Does the fact that John Allen Muhammad was taken into custody without being killed prove that there isn't a problem with how police use force against black men? I would say no, and that the circumstances of that particular data point aren't of much utility here. Your example suggests however that you would think otherwise.
If that's the point you're making then the fact that one time an armed and dangerous white person was taken into custody without being killed doesn't support it. Armed black suspects are taken into custody without being killed all the time. I also disagree with your argument that the police are more deferential to white suspects. Police kill white suspects under very dubious circumstances as well. Why it happens disproportionately to blacks does have a racial component (particularly related to police saturation in particular neighborhoods) but it's more complicated than that alone. My point above is that reducing this problem to the police shoot black people but not white people and using that particular example is such an oversimplification as so be unhelpful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Trump and the Conservative Disposition”
That's the biggest irony of all.
"
@saul-degraw what I think you're missing is that the resume card is meaningless for people not committed to or frustrated by tribalism and the status quo. For a lot of people (myself included), her resume is her biggest flaw, namely because it's a record of her support for many of the most disastrous tendencies of our political establishment, from foreign policy to criminal justice to big finance. References to it arent a counter argument, they're an attempt to change the subject.
Your point about Sanders can neither be confirmed nor denied. I'm not a Democrat so I didn't vote for him. I can't say that he personally would've been transformational towards the change Id like to see, or what the polls would look like had he been nominated. I can say I respect him for at least trying to force a conversation, which as far as I can tell the party leadership, political establishment (including HRC), and MSM would prefer never occurs.
"
I largely agree with you that, for whatever reason, the Democrats have become more small c conservative while the Conservative Movement has radicalized. There is certainly an illiberal Left out there but I don't think it has much influence outside of college campuses and parts of the new media. What I find most frustrating about the nomination of HRC is that she is one of the least credible people for pushing back on Trumpism, including the tiny kernels of truth in some of the things he says/sentiments he represents.
I see Trump's recently discovered statements as quite unsurprising given his persona. He's the jackass that I'm sure most of us have rolled our eyes at while he spins bullshit after a beer or 10 at the local watering hole. However, it's hard for me to take the outrage seriously when most of the people who are opposing Trump are about to vote for the return of a notorious hound dog to the White House as first husband, and who argued that this kind of thing wasn't relevant back in the 90s (a point I agreed with). See also notme's comment above.
Maybe I expect too much of the Democrats, but seeing as how they're the only bulwark against the type of nihilism Trump represents I can't help but wish they'd be a little less cautious and a little more principled.
On “Linky Friday #187: Your Money Or Your Life”
Even if it's true that it's less of a stretch to match a fingerprint than a casing I think your post underscores the problem with a lot of forensic science when used to obtain a conviction for criminal conduct. There's a big difference between what humans and our technology are theoretically capable of doing in ideal circumstances and what tends to happen in big bureaucratic systems with limited resources and all kinds of incentives that are inconsistent with scientific rigor.
"
After the Natonal Academy of Sciences report from several years ago I think there are pretty serious questions about whether quite a few of the forensic identification techniques currently accepted by courts should continue to be. Maybe this particular tool is a good one and maybe not but I think skepticism is warranted for any seemingly magical means of identifying weapons used in crimes.
On “Daily Beast: Merrick Garland’s Lonely Road to Purgatory”
I think this is about right. There's no requirement that any Senator explain how they vote, much less that they explain it intelligently. They vote in hypocritical ways all the time. I don't think it'd lose anyone an election
"
This is what I find generally disturbing. A down vote is fine. It would be a rejection of a candidate for a very important job. The attack on the system on the other hand...
On “This Election Is Probably Over”
We got a good start on it last night, and Boston, much as I hate them, gave us a little help.
On “Updates On Police Shoo…No, Wait, Now Alfred Olango Is Dead”
This goes to the point I was trying to make in the prior post. There's a race issue here but it's only a subpart of a bigger problem of militarized, virtually unaccountable police forces.
"
Very well put.
On “Morning Ed: Health {2016.09.28.W}”
The basic answer is that it depends on the payor (i.e. out of pocket, commercial insurance, or a government program). The whole industry is supposed to be moving away from fee for service but there is a lot of inertia and regulatory issues that make it slow going.
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.09.27.T}”
Don't get me wrong, if American companies will do it then I think that's a good thing. I'd certainly be willing to entertain tax breaks or other policies that would encourage them to do so. All I meant was that I don't think it's workable through our education system without overhauling a whole lot of other systems as well.
"
I spent a bit of time studying in Germany and while there are a lot of appealing things about their education-to-job system I've concluded that it wouldn't be possible here for numerous cultural and political reasons. We don't have the robust welfare state, lower levels of inequality, and political consensus on certain issues that underlie the success of the system. If we tried to impose it on now existing American society I could actually see it perpetuating all kinds of race and class inequities.
On “Postmortem: Parsing Policy Platforms and Personalities”
I'm not saying it's awful, and I can almost see some charm in how perfectly it captures the quintessential lameness of NPR (which I do listen to at times). I just struggle to imagine it generating any genuine laughs.
"
I'm surprised to learn Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is anyone's idea of funny.
On “Morning Ed: Europe {2016.09.22.Th}”
@scott-the-mediocre
My own journey to enjoyment of black metal not created by Dimmu Borgir grew out of Metallica, Pantera, and Alice in Chains then took a long detour through the mid to late 90s Gothenburg sound and American New Wave (or what some might derisively call metalcore) so I never know what to tell people to start with. I think the fundamental question most of the time is whether the person can handle death vocals yet. That seems to he the critical growing pain for most people.
I am also a big fan of Bathory and of course Emperor.
Also @jaybird you should try to see Amon Amarth live if you havent. They visited DC in the spring and it was an awesome show.
On “Journalism vs. Trumpism: On Playing the Gentleman’s Game”
Not being a sufficiently sophisticated poll watcher I'll defer to you on number 1. There is of course always the issue of correlation and causation. Maybe I'm so isolated in blue tribe territory it's hard for me to think about news cycles impacting polls that way but I'm open to the possibility that it does.
No real disagreement on number 2. The traditional media has become too close to establishment power much to the detriment of the democratic principles the country supposedly operates on. My point way back at the top was just that this has been a problem for at least 15-20 years now. It's how we end up with Ellsberg revered and calls to prosecute Edward Snowden.
"
I think "beholden to authority" is key. It's also why I have so much trouble sympathizing with Clinton and her supporters when they complain about this. She's been as big of a beneficiary of a deferential press as anyone.
"
Overall good post, but it raises two questions.
First, is there any evidence that the people who are supporting Trump would even listen if the old school MSM took a harder line? It isn't at all clear to me that the New York Times or the Post have any credibility among the people who gave the primary to Trump.
Second, is it really the gentlemans club thats the culprit or is it the faux objective view from nowhere thats the problem? From my perspective, its the view from nowhere that's become a horribly broken feature of the MSM since at least the Bush 2 era. Trump may be benefitting from it more than any past candidatr and I find his rise very disturbing but there's a part of me that thinks what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If, as you suggest, this ultimately makes the MSM realize it needs to be much less deferential to insiders it may be the best thing that's happened to the media in decades.
On “Briefly, On Disbelief: Keith Lamont Scott and Terrence Crutcher”
@tod-kelly I think the Daily Caller is smart enough to know that doing that would not have the results they want. If anything I think it would make it harder for white people whose instincts are to believe the police to do so.
That said you can find all sorts of instances where white people have been killed or abused by police in dubious circumstances if you look. For a relatively recent one google 'Daniel Shaver.' There was also the Missouri SWAT raid a couple years ago where thankfully no one was killed (except the dog). Local incidents to me involved Cheryl Lynn Noel and Cheye Calvo.
Now please do not take what I'm about to say as criticism of BLM or black activists focusing on the racial aspects of this issue. They're right to do it and I generally support them. However, the reason it's being portrayed as a black issue by the MSM (and therefore we don't get the same discussion when bad things happen to white people at the hands of law enforcement) is because it would shine a big spotlight on the problems with editorial preferences for state action. I'd hesitate to say the MSM wants this to be solely a race issue, but I think it's much easier for them to process it that way and its consistent with the narrative they push. Again I want to reiterate race is part of this and black people are disproportionately impacted but my opinion is that it goes beyond that.
On “Morning Ed: Europe {2016.09.22.Th}”
I'm not sure that's quite what I meant to say but it does seem to be what I said. I stand by my position. \m/
On “Briefly, On Disbelief: Keith Lamont Scott and Terrence Crutcher”
There isn't an easy answer and I doubt the system will ever be perfect unless we get to a point where race is no longer a proxy for a whole bunch of other attitudes and problems.
In order to try to do some good I think we need to attack it on multiple fronts. Some of that is attacking the deferential treatment police receive under 4th amendment jurisprudence. Some of it is legislative, setting new rules on police accountability and oversight, and changing direction on how we treat socioeconomic problems that effect the black community more than most. Some of it is cultural about how we look at crime and what law enforcement is here to do. None of it is simple or likely to change things overnight, though I think keeping it in the news and bugging political leaders about it is a good start for getting the ball rolling on longer term efforts.
"
No. I'd require evidence that armed white suspects are never or almost never killed while armed black suspects are always or almost always killed. What I don't think is that data points of that nature are central to the question at hand. From where I sit, the question is why do police escalate mundane encounters with apparently non violent people into use of deadly force, and the follow up question, of why black people are disproportionately harmed/end up the victims of these situations.
"
Let me respond with another question. Does the fact that John Allen Muhammad was taken into custody without being killed prove that there isn't a problem with how police use force against black men? I would say no, and that the circumstances of that particular data point aren't of much utility here. Your example suggests however that you would think otherwise.
"
If that's the point you're making then the fact that one time an armed and dangerous white person was taken into custody without being killed doesn't support it. Armed black suspects are taken into custody without being killed all the time. I also disagree with your argument that the police are more deferential to white suspects. Police kill white suspects under very dubious circumstances as well. Why it happens disproportionately to blacks does have a racial component (particularly related to police saturation in particular neighborhoods) but it's more complicated than that alone. My point above is that reducing this problem to the police shoot black people but not white people and using that particular example is such an oversimplification as so be unhelpful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.