It's like that here as well and it really blows my mind. All this learned compliance and intrusiveness all because somewhere, somehow, someone might be getting high.
I don't think resorting to assertion of rights is by any means irrational in our current political context where bad faith arguments, lawfare, and bureaucratic mission creep are the norm. I actually think it's a necessary push-back against the more authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the state.
I actually read the positions as pretty consistent. The concern is that by trying to make the system better we will actually make it worse i.e. more intrusiveness, more false positives, unintended consequences. The cure can be worse than the disease.
I can't speak for others but I'm certainly open to investigation and considering whether or not theres something we can do better that doesn't turn worried parents into criminal suspects. I'd start with wanting to understand how surgical procedures were permitted when, at least according to the article, test results kept coming up negative. I think the reception might be less negative if proponents of change were more specific about what they have in mind.
I think the issue might be a conflation of two separate problems. The first problem (which I think is the main thrust of the OP) is that Gypsy's sentence is unjust given the circumstances. Our system does have a mechanism for dealing with that and it's the power of pardon in the governor's office. That we've developed a cultural/political aversion to that lever is regrettable, but it does exist.
The second is the systemic issue- i.e. could we design a system that would catch a bad actor of this nature in time to prevent the murder and fallout from it. I think there's a lot of reason to be pessimistic about that.
I still don't think that situation is comparable. Part of the reason there weren't many prosecutions is that the revelation of the abuse came out so long after the fact that prosecution was impracticable in a lot of places. Quite a few of the perpetrators were already dead but beyond that evidence is lost, memories fade, witnesses become unreachable.
That doesn't vindicate the people who commited the acts or their enablers but it's a practical reality that the longer the crime stays hidden the harder it is to try and render justice in the courts. Either way I don't think the lack of prosecutions tells the whole story on how people feel about it. Look at the empty pews in the first world, particularly places like Ireland.
I think those scandals say a lot more about the internal cultural problems of the Catholic Church, or maybe even the nature of all big organizations than they do about attitudes towards child abuse. Any institution is capable of deciding to cover up the bad actions of its agents to protect its image. This seems more like a lot of unrelated people and organizations being deferential to a child's parent about medical decisions. The Church intended to hide what happened to its victims. I don't see any evidence of that here and I think that's an important difference.
That we are more willing to let 1,000 children be horrifically abused than allow a single false accusation. Under the law there are certain constitutional principles that still sometimes restrict our ability to punish as viciously as people demand. However, in terms of public opinion, I think Americans are quite willing to hunt down the abusers of children and punish them, even when the abusers are figments of their imagination. The daycare abuse cases in the 80s and 90s (and ensuing mass hysteria and changes to the law) come to mind.
This is a pretty gross overstatement. I've seen the claim (or at least an allusion to the notion) that there are large numbers of children suffering horrific abuse who the system is unable or unwilling to help. What I don't see is any evidence to substantiate that.
This incident is tragic and what a just outcome for all involved would look like escapes me. However, until evidence shows otherwise, it's a huge outlier. Setting policy is a hard balancing act and there is another side of this issue, where well meaning social services take kids from situations that aren't ideal and put them into far worse places or act as an auxiliary to law enforcement to punish poor people for not having the same resources to care for their children as the middle class.
We should try to learn what we can from this situation and make improvements where possible but nothing will ever be perfect, especially when there is some (probably very tiny) number of people out there intentionally abusing the system for their own sick purposes. What we should know, however, after decades of bad laws named after victims, mass incarceration, and aggressive law enforcement tactics is that characterizing these debates in emotional terms pitting good against evil has not created good policy.
Only knowing the facts as printed in the link I don't think he is in nearly as sympathetic of a position. The right course of action for him was to alert the authorities and get Gypsy out of there, not commit a murder on her behalf.
My frustration stems from my perception (which is anecdotal) that legitimate criticisms of Clinton are being treated as the same as conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. I know everyone in blue America (of which I am reluctantly a part, at least in terms of demographics) is supposed to be uniting against Trump but I still hate all the tribalism and blind loyalty. It reminds me of the Bush (whose foreign policy we are most likely about to return to office) years in the worst ways
What an insightful meme. The best way to determine the validity of an opinion is the race/religion/sex of the person stating it. Not sure why no one else ever thought of that.
What about people who instead of tax policy see continued military intervention in the middle east as a deal breaker? I am not voting Trump but Iraq, Libya, and HRC's general hawkishness completely disqualifies her from the presidency in my opinion. Now I suppose it's possible Trump could be worse on this issue (I think it's impossible to say) but people need to stop acting like there aren't principled reasons to oppose Clinton or that there is some sort of clearly greater sense in embracing the race to the bottom view of voting that Jaybird articulated.
Not saying voting 3rd party (which I will do) isn't without plenty of flaws but the its Clinton or eternal damnation argument that progressives and the MSM are pushing is itself flawed and quite self serving.
I think it's a challenging issue. On the one hand social mores are always evolving and some things that were once considered appropriate but no longer are don't seem to raise a lot of controversy. That said, I think there are reasons to be concerned about all art being subject to the whims of the most easily offended and/or arbitrarily sensitive. Art needs to be able to be subversive or weird or just plain dumb. In particular I think about the kimono incident at the Boston Gallery of Fine Arts a year or so ago. When something that strikes me as a pretty bland, NPR-style celebration of a foreign culture can trigger protests of the type it did I worry about our ability to run a diverse, multicultural society.
Of course the biggest sin with any changes to an old piece is doing it poorly. It sounds like they did this well which makes it hard to fault too much.
I wonder if there isn't some kind of happy medium. The comments that were related to starting World War 3 I can see coming off as pretty nuts to someone without any experience with that poster. Six months is a long time but a little lurking mightve tipped her off that there was no obligation to engage with that. Not sure if the outcome would've changed and I saw north trying to explain but the damage was done.
I see where youre coming from and dont think its a meritless position. There's a past me (circa, say 2002-2006) that would say the Khan speech is perfect and just what someone needed to say/do. There's another past me (circa, say 2006-2010) that would've said, 'kinda cynical at this point, but I'll take it.' Somewhere after that my own cynicism overwhelmed me.
I'd also be lying if I said that the candidate this is coming from doesn't color my feelings on it (i.e. probably the most important Democrat to support the disastrous and pointless war where Khan was killed). I accept any hits to my own credibility on the topic that comes with that admission, and fully cop to being a very bad, and unreliable anti-Trump person.
I can see how I probably wasn't clear previously on the issue of pushing back. I meant that, in other circumstances if someone were to push back on the use of soldiers or their families as political props in a presidential campaign I would find it very refreshing. I find a lot to agree with in the OP on this issue.
Trump's response did not do what I would like to see happen, nor do I find the demagoguery Trump engages in about American Muslims more generally, to which Clinton's actions were no doubt a response, to be anything other than detestable.
Fair enough and maybe I am missing something in my frustration with militarism I've been stewing on the last 15 years (for awhile I was seriously waiting for loyalty oaths to be required to buy a hot dog at a baseball game).
My more recent frustration that there is even a need to refute the types of claims Trump is making about American Muslims and numerous others may also contribute.
All you're doing is reaffirming mine, and what I interpret the author's point to be, which is that soldiers (the deader the better) in our political culture have become the most useful political props to the big parties. I don't have to like or agree with Trump to recognize that and I find the tactic concerning even when it's employed against politicians I don't like.
Also being in the military in itself or even dying in the line of duty doesn't demonstrate anything about an individual's politics (though by all accounts I've seen Kareem Khan served honorably). Just ask Nidal Hassan.
I don't entirely disagree, but there's a reason the Clinton campaign chose the family of a soldier. Why wasn't it a physician or a teacher or engineer or successful business owner? That would've made the same point about assimilation.
The criticism I'm making here isn't specific to Clinton (the Republicans were shameless about it during the Bush years).
Point number 3 is both important and is maybe being missed in the discussion of Khangate or whatever we're calling it. There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago that argued that a number of factors have moved most Americans too far away from its military to really understand it, and one of the results has been blind hero worship of anyone involved in the institution and even of the institution itself.
This isn't to say we shouldn't have respect for individuals who have made sacrifces, or that Trump isnt guilty of his usual idiocy and tasteless in response to Khan's speech. However, and maybe this was what @aaron-david was saying above, I do think that Khan was used here as a partisan prop, the same way the military and their families have been for decades, and particularly extensively since 9/11. In other circumstances I'd almost be impressed that a major party presidential nominee was willing to aggressively push back in the face of the tactic. Of course it's Trump so instead of the eloquent criticism I'd love to see its the usual wild eyed egotistical and racially charged bluser
This is pretty close to my view on the subject. Not saying I'd be against any proposed regime of voter ID laws but the unique history of the United States combined with the unreliable and at times tough to access agencies that would administer the rules make them inherently suspect to me.
I've also never seen convincing evidence that we have a voter fraud problem, which again, raises questions to me about the true intentions.
On “Quartz: Chronic pain patients are suffering because of the US government’s ongoing War on Drugs”
The cogitive disonance is astounding.
"
It's like that here as well and it really blows my mind. All this learned compliance and intrusiveness all because somewhere, somehow, someone might be getting high.
On “The Language of No Compromise”
I don't think resorting to assertion of rights is by any means irrational in our current political context where bad faith arguments, lawfare, and bureaucratic mission creep are the norm. I actually think it's a necessary push-back against the more authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the state.
On “Gypsy Blancharde Is In Jail For Killing Her Mother”
I actually read the positions as pretty consistent. The concern is that by trying to make the system better we will actually make it worse i.e. more intrusiveness, more false positives, unintended consequences. The cure can be worse than the disease.
I can't speak for others but I'm certainly open to investigation and considering whether or not theres something we can do better that doesn't turn worried parents into criminal suspects. I'd start with wanting to understand how surgical procedures were permitted when, at least according to the article, test results kept coming up negative. I think the reception might be less negative if proponents of change were more specific about what they have in mind.
"
Well that made my comment completely redundant.
"
I think the issue might be a conflation of two separate problems. The first problem (which I think is the main thrust of the OP) is that Gypsy's sentence is unjust given the circumstances. Our system does have a mechanism for dealing with that and it's the power of pardon in the governor's office. That we've developed a cultural/political aversion to that lever is regrettable, but it does exist.
The second is the systemic issue- i.e. could we design a system that would catch a bad actor of this nature in time to prevent the murder and fallout from it. I think there's a lot of reason to be pessimistic about that.
"
@north do you have any links? I'd be interested in reading about that hypothesis.
"
I still don't think that situation is comparable. Part of the reason there weren't many prosecutions is that the revelation of the abuse came out so long after the fact that prosecution was impracticable in a lot of places. Quite a few of the perpetrators were already dead but beyond that evidence is lost, memories fade, witnesses become unreachable.
That doesn't vindicate the people who commited the acts or their enablers but it's a practical reality that the longer the crime stays hidden the harder it is to try and render justice in the courts. Either way I don't think the lack of prosecutions tells the whole story on how people feel about it. Look at the empty pews in the first world, particularly places like Ireland.
"
I think those scandals say a lot more about the internal cultural problems of the Catholic Church, or maybe even the nature of all big organizations than they do about attitudes towards child abuse. Any institution is capable of deciding to cover up the bad actions of its agents to protect its image. This seems more like a lot of unrelated people and organizations being deferential to a child's parent about medical decisions. The Church intended to hide what happened to its victims. I don't see any evidence of that here and I think that's an important difference.
"
That we are more willing to let 1,000 children be horrifically abused than allow a single false accusation. Under the law there are certain constitutional principles that still sometimes restrict our ability to punish as viciously as people demand. However, in terms of public opinion, I think Americans are quite willing to hunt down the abusers of children and punish them, even when the abusers are figments of their imagination. The daycare abuse cases in the 80s and 90s (and ensuing mass hysteria and changes to the law) come to mind.
"
This is a pretty gross overstatement. I've seen the claim (or at least an allusion to the notion) that there are large numbers of children suffering horrific abuse who the system is unable or unwilling to help. What I don't see is any evidence to substantiate that.
This incident is tragic and what a just outcome for all involved would look like escapes me. However, until evidence shows otherwise, it's a huge outlier. Setting policy is a hard balancing act and there is another side of this issue, where well meaning social services take kids from situations that aren't ideal and put them into far worse places or act as an auxiliary to law enforcement to punish poor people for not having the same resources to care for their children as the middle class.
We should try to learn what we can from this situation and make improvements where possible but nothing will ever be perfect, especially when there is some (probably very tiny) number of people out there intentionally abusing the system for their own sick purposes. What we should know, however, after decades of bad laws named after victims, mass incarceration, and aggressive law enforcement tactics is that characterizing these debates in emotional terms pitting good against evil has not created good policy.
"
Only knowing the facts as printed in the link I don't think he is in nearly as sympathetic of a position. The right course of action for him was to alert the authorities and get Gypsy out of there, not commit a murder on her behalf.
On “Gasp! A Trump Supporter!”
My frustration stems from my perception (which is anecdotal) that legitimate criticisms of Clinton are being treated as the same as conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. I know everyone in blue America (of which I am reluctantly a part, at least in terms of demographics) is supposed to be uniting against Trump but I still hate all the tribalism and blind loyalty. It reminds me of the Bush (whose foreign policy we are most likely about to return to office) years in the worst ways
"
What an insightful meme. The best way to determine the validity of an opinion is the race/religion/sex of the person stating it. Not sure why no one else ever thought of that.
"
What about people who instead of tax policy see continued military intervention in the middle east as a deal breaker? I am not voting Trump but Iraq, Libya, and HRC's general hawkishness completely disqualifies her from the presidency in my opinion. Now I suppose it's possible Trump could be worse on this issue (I think it's impossible to say) but people need to stop acting like there aren't principled reasons to oppose Clinton or that there is some sort of clearly greater sense in embracing the race to the bottom view of voting that Jaybird articulated.
Not saying voting 3rd party (which I will do) isn't without plenty of flaws but the its Clinton or eternal damnation argument that progressives and the MSM are pushing is itself flawed and quite self serving.
On “If You Want to Know Who We Are”
I think it's a challenging issue. On the one hand social mores are always evolving and some things that were once considered appropriate but no longer are don't seem to raise a lot of controversy. That said, I think there are reasons to be concerned about all art being subject to the whims of the most easily offended and/or arbitrarily sensitive. Art needs to be able to be subversive or weird or just plain dumb. In particular I think about the kimono incident at the Boston Gallery of Fine Arts a year or so ago. When something that strikes me as a pretty bland, NPR-style celebration of a foreign culture can trigger protests of the type it did I worry about our ability to run a diverse, multicultural society.
Of course the biggest sin with any changes to an old piece is doing it poorly. It sounds like they did this well which makes it hard to fault too much.
On “Not An Ordinary Time”
I wonder if there isn't some kind of happy medium. The comments that were related to starting World War 3 I can see coming off as pretty nuts to someone without any experience with that poster. Six months is a long time but a little lurking mightve tipped her off that there was no obligation to engage with that. Not sure if the outcome would've changed and I saw north trying to explain but the damage was done.
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
I see where youre coming from and dont think its a meritless position. There's a past me (circa, say 2002-2006) that would say the Khan speech is perfect and just what someone needed to say/do. There's another past me (circa, say 2006-2010) that would've said, 'kinda cynical at this point, but I'll take it.' Somewhere after that my own cynicism overwhelmed me.
I'd also be lying if I said that the candidate this is coming from doesn't color my feelings on it (i.e. probably the most important Democrat to support the disastrous and pointless war where Khan was killed). I accept any hits to my own credibility on the topic that comes with that admission, and fully cop to being a very bad, and unreliable anti-Trump person.
"
I can see how I probably wasn't clear previously on the issue of pushing back. I meant that, in other circumstances if someone were to push back on the use of soldiers or their families as political props in a presidential campaign I would find it very refreshing. I find a lot to agree with in the OP on this issue.
Trump's response did not do what I would like to see happen, nor do I find the demagoguery Trump engages in about American Muslims more generally, to which Clinton's actions were no doubt a response, to be anything other than detestable.
See also my comment just above to Morat.
"
Fair enough and maybe I am missing something in my frustration with militarism I've been stewing on the last 15 years (for awhile I was seriously waiting for loyalty oaths to be required to buy a hot dog at a baseball game).
My more recent frustration that there is even a need to refute the types of claims Trump is making about American Muslims and numerous others may also contribute.
"
All you're doing is reaffirming mine, and what I interpret the author's point to be, which is that soldiers (the deader the better) in our political culture have become the most useful political props to the big parties. I don't have to like or agree with Trump to recognize that and I find the tactic concerning even when it's employed against politicians I don't like.
Also being in the military in itself or even dying in the line of duty doesn't demonstrate anything about an individual's politics (though by all accounts I've seen Kareem Khan served honorably). Just ask Nidal Hassan.
"
I don't entirely disagree, but there's a reason the Clinton campaign chose the family of a soldier. Why wasn't it a physician or a teacher or engineer or successful business owner? That would've made the same point about assimilation.
The criticism I'm making here isn't specific to Clinton (the Republicans were shameless about it during the Bush years).
"
Point number 3 is both important and is maybe being missed in the discussion of Khangate or whatever we're calling it. There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago that argued that a number of factors have moved most Americans too far away from its military to really understand it, and one of the results has been blind hero worship of anyone involved in the institution and even of the institution itself.
This isn't to say we shouldn't have respect for individuals who have made sacrifces, or that Trump isnt guilty of his usual idiocy and tasteless in response to Khan's speech. However, and maybe this was what @aaron-david was saying above, I do think that Khan was used here as a partisan prop, the same way the military and their families have been for decades, and particularly extensively since 9/11. In other circumstances I'd almost be impressed that a major party presidential nominee was willing to aggressively push back in the face of the tactic. Of course it's Trump so instead of the eloquent criticism I'd love to see its the usual wild eyed egotistical and racially charged bluser
"
This is pretty close to my view on the subject. Not saying I'd be against any proposed regime of voter ID laws but the unique history of the United States combined with the unreliable and at times tough to access agencies that would administer the rules make them inherently suspect to me.
I've also never seen convincing evidence that we have a voter fraud problem, which again, raises questions to me about the true intentions.
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.08.16.T}”
As though my post wasn't long enough as it was in support of such an unremarkable point. :)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.