I have to say, the prosecution in the Chauvin case did not mail it in. Their closing arguments are sound and convincing and if the jury does not convict on even the lesser charge, I have no idea what is wrong with the US.
The line of ‘the police are not on trial here,’ is sound. The reminder that a lot of the former police testified against Chauvin in this case and that it wasn’t policing should dispel the argument that he was just doing his job.
I have to say, the prosecution in the Chauvin case did not mail it in. Their closing arguments are sound and convincing and if the jury does not convict on even the lesser charge, I have no idea what is wrong with the US.
The line of ‘the police are not on trial here,’ is sound. The reminder that a lot of the former police testified against Chauvin in this case and that it wasn’t policing should dispel the argument that he was just doing his job.
It comes down to every expert who testified and everyone's own eyes (including medical professionals and fellow officers) vs. a defense that basically consists of racist Facebook posts. But you only need one juror who buys into the later. Just one.
I have to say, the prosecution in the Chauvin case did not mail it in. Their closing arguments are sound and convincing and if the jury does not convict on even the lesser charge, I have no idea what is wrong with the US.
The line of ‘the police are not on trial here,’ is sound. The reminder that a lot of the former police testified against Chauvin in this case and that it wasn’t policing should dispel the argument that he was just doing his job.
It comes down to every expert who testified and everyone's own eyes (including medical professionals and fellow officers) vs. a defense that basically consists of racist Facebook posts. But you only need one juror who buys into the later. Just one.
Well the defence just flat out lied during their closing statements regarding testimony so they’re really desperate.
I don’t think he’ll get 2nd degree murder. He should get at least third but a compromise of manslaughter might be reached.
I’ll be disheartened if he gets off, and I know a lot of others will be angry and rightfully so.
I have to say, the prosecution in the Chauvin case did not mail it in. Their closing arguments are sound and convincing and if the jury does not convict on even the lesser charge, I have no idea what is wrong with the US.
The line of ‘the police are not on trial here,’ is sound. The reminder that a lot of the former police testified against Chauvin in this case and that it wasn’t policing should dispel the argument that he was just doing his job.
It comes down to every expert who testified and everyone's own eyes (including medical professionals and fellow officers) vs. a defense that basically consists of racist Facebook posts. But you only need one juror who buys into the later. Just one.
Well the defence just flat out lied during their closing statements regarding testimony so they’re really desperate.
I don’t think he’ll get 2nd degree murder. He should get at least third but a compromise of manslaughter might be reached.
I’ll be disheartened if he gets off, and I know a lot of others will be angry and rightfully so.
They aren't arguing on the merits of the case. Nelson is quite simply hoping there is a single juror who is an avid consumer of right-wing media voting on emotion. It's obvious even down to the words and phrases he chooses to use.
The role of "cultural" issues is on a more fundamental party-building level. The current Democratic party is the civil rights coalition, built around a series of bargains. We'll support your rights, and you'll support ours. And as long as the people who want to take those rights away have a substantial power base, that coalition will hold strong.
Wedging groups out of that, saying it's OK to deny "those" people the rights they're asking for ... that's not a recipe for helping the party. It's a recipe for breaking the party. And for the people who care, it's a moral issue. I know I wouldn't stand for it - I'd probably start calling myself a socialist.
I agree with what you're saying here. And certainly I'm not arguing for casting off civil rights for unpopular minorities. As you say, that would build cracks within the current coalition of voters. And despite some complaints, the Democratic party has been one of the most electorally successful left-of-center parties in the democratic world in the 21st century.
What I was trying to emphasize was the point that much of cultural fights that have gotten large media attention since Biden took office are not the product of Democrats. As BPM says above, Seuss and Potatohead are just rightwing media outrages and private companies doing things that aren't even all that controversial when you peel away the disinformation. Controversies about diversity, sensitivity, etc in the business or education world are also not products of Democrats. Even if you feel like these corporate moves are unnecessary, divisive or cynical, they don't answer to the Democratic party.
Interesting, maybe there are still some conservatives that I can pay attention to post Trump. Agree with the premise, or not, this article at least tries to explain the dwindling influence of labor unions. Personally, I think there's at least some truth to it...
Interesting, maybe there are still some conservatives that I can pay attention to post Trump. Agree with the premise, or not, this article at least tries to explain the dwindling influence of labor unions. Personally, I think there's at least some truth to it...
Conservatives in Congress make peformative statements about corporations when they oppose them on cultural issues. They won't lift a single finger when it comes to raising wages or taking a single cent out of the pocket of their donors. We heard about the populist right-wing turn because of Trump's rhetoric, yet, in the end, they passed a massive boondoggle for corporations as their only legislative accomplishment and thought an extra $600 in temporary unemployment would cause people to sit on their couch in perpetuity.
We always hear the hypothetical "what if Democrats abandoned such and such" as a way to improve their popularity. How about we start with one for the GOP which is "when will they every support and economic policy that that benefits someone who makes less than 100k a year"??
Interesting, maybe there are still some conservatives that I can pay attention to post Trump. Agree with the premise, or not, this article at least tries to explain the dwindling influence of labor unions. Personally, I think there's at least some truth to it...
Conservatives in Congress make peformative statements about corporations when they oppose them on cultural issues. They won't lift a single finger when it comes to raising wages or taking a single cent out of the pocket of their donors. We heard about the populist right-wing turn because of Trump's rhetoric, yet, in the end, they passed a massive boondoggle for corporations as their only legislative accomplishment and thought an extra $600 in temporary unemployment would cause people to sit on their couch in perpetuity.
We always hear the hypothetical "what if Democrats abandoned such and such" as a way to improve their popularity. How about we start with one for the GOP which is "when will they every support and economic policy that that benefits someone who makes less than 100k a year"??
I don't make $100k a year and I benefit from conservative policies. When will liberals realize that not every way of making money is some evil plot to rob poor people of their livelihoods? Poor people don't really have anything to steal. Most people with money make money with their money by investing, not screwing the little guy. Unless you think that everybody that doesn't have to scrape by owes it to those that do to even the score.
Also, Republicans could gain some votes by being less assholish, unfortunately without the asshole vote they'd net less than they do now. Democrats can pull some of the non-asshole Republicans in without much compromise. They won't though, of course. C'est la vie...
Interesting, maybe there are still some conservatives that I can pay attention to post Trump. Agree with the premise, or not, this article at least tries to explain the dwindling influence of labor unions. Personally, I think there's at least some truth to it...
Conservatives in Congress make peformative statements about corporations when they oppose them on cultural issues. They won't lift a single finger when it comes to raising wages or taking a single cent out of the pocket of their donors. We heard about the populist right-wing turn because of Trump's rhetoric, yet, in the end, they passed a massive boondoggle for corporations as their only legislative accomplishment and thought an extra $600 in temporary unemployment would cause people to sit on their couch in perpetuity.
We always hear the hypothetical "what if Democrats abandoned such and such" as a way to improve their popularity. How about we start with one for the GOP which is "when will they every support and economic policy that that benefits someone who makes less than 100k a year"??
I don't make $100k a year and I benefit from conservative policies. When will liberals realize that not every way of making money is some evil plot to rob poor people of their livelihoods? Poor people don't really have anything to steal. Most people with money make money with their money by investing, not screwing the little guy. Unless you think that everybody that doesn't have to scrape by owes it to those that do to even the score.
Also, Republicans could gain some votes by being less assholish, unfortunately without the asshole vote they'd net less than they do now. Democrats can pull some of the non-asshole Republicans in without much compromise. They won't though, of course. C'est la vie...
PS:
I'm one of those conservatives that could be persuaded btw. I'm all for Community College for all. If the Dems can pull that off I may jump on board. I have a bad feeling it's a pipe dream though. The Universities are already squeamish about it affecting their bottom-line and a lot of those academic types are major Democratic Party contributers. Biden is for it, let's see what happens...
As cheap labor, yes. I'd address that with education myself. Unskilled labor should be for young people just starting out, not for adults trying to raise families. I guess I'd be OK with immigrants doing unskilled labor if it's necessary, but I'd hope that those immigrants would eventually join the skilled ranks as well. I'm not talking about trades either (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, etc...) that's skilled as far as I'm concerned.
We'll probably start to disagree here, but nevertheless I think it's good to discuss this issue. I believe that everyone produces surplus value, even highly skilled and well-payed employees.
But, to your point, the existence of self-employed workers, like plumbers and electricians, is actually one of the strongest arguments against the concept of surplus value. These individuals don't have a boss that pays their salary, so technically no one is exploiting them. Some say that they are exploiting themselves, by being their own boss. But I'm not convinced of that.
Having acknowledged that, I still think that literally all of us are working more than we actually need to. I don't think that the 8 hour working day can't be reduced to 6 hours. Here is where people usually object by saying "What if someone wants to work all day?" My reply is: go ahead, work as much as you want. All I'm saying is that I don't see why 8 hours per day should be the bare minimum.
We'll probably start to disagree here, but nevertheless I think it's good to discuss this issue. I believe that everyone produces surplus value, even highly skilled and well-payed employees.
But, to your point, the existence of self-employed workers, like plumbers and electricians, is actually one of the strongest arguments against the concept of surplus value. These individuals don't have a boss that pays their salary, so technically no one is exploiting them. Some say that they are exploiting themselves, by being their own boss. But I'm not convinced of that.
Having acknowledged that, I still think that literally all of us are working more than we actually need to. I don't think that the 8 hour working day can't be reduced to 6 hours. Here is where people usually object by saying "What if someone wants to work all day?" My reply is: go ahead, work as much as you want. All I'm saying is that I don't see why 8 hours per day should be the bare minimum.
Don't they do a 32 hour work week in France? I heard they implemented that to combat unemployment. I haven't heard how that worked out though. Do you have any info on that?
We'll probably start to disagree here, but nevertheless I think it's good to discuss this issue. I believe that everyone produces surplus value, even highly skilled and well-payed employees.
But, to your point, the existence of self-employed workers, like plumbers and electricians, is actually one of the strongest arguments against the concept of surplus value. These individuals don't have a boss that pays their salary, so technically no one is exploiting them. Some say that they are exploiting themselves, by being their own boss. But I'm not convinced of that.
Having acknowledged that, I still think that literally all of us are working more than we actually need to. I don't think that the 8 hour working day can't be reduced to 6 hours. Here is where people usually object by saying "What if someone wants to work all day?" My reply is: go ahead, work as much as you want. All I'm saying is that I don't see why 8 hours per day should be the bare minimum.
Don't they do a 32 hour work week in France? I heard they implemented that to combat unemployment. I haven't heard how that worked out though. Do you have any info on that?
Interestingly, France has a 35 hour workweek and it's Spain that's implementing 32.
If you work even 45 hours a week (which I often do) 70% of every week becomes nothing but sleep, meals, work, and about 2-3 hours of time for yourself a day. And I work from home. Bump it to 50 and add travel back in, and most people are literally working their lives away. On my vacation days, I l just do nothing for 9-10 days. I get this about every 5 months, and at around 4 months, I start to have a tough time getting through shifts.
Don't they do a 32 hour work week in France? I heard they implemented that to combat unemployment. I haven't heard how that worked out though. Do you have any info on that?
Interestingly, France has a 35 hour workweek and it's Spain that's implementing 32.
I was thinking about Sweden actually, but it's slowly starting to become discussed in other countries as well. There's a lot of hurdles that will need to be addressed though. One of them, perhaps the most obvious one, is that it seems that anyone who supports the 6 hour workday is somehow seen as an immoral lazy person. At least that's been my experience when I talk about this with other people. After all, shouldn't any honest, hard-working person want to work more, not less? Not necessarily, I'd argue. If I can get the same amount of money for less amount of work, then that means that my work is more valuable than before. It's true that you can get more money by working more, but if you get the same amount of money for working less, that means that you're actually making more money than you used to. And what rational person doesn't want to make more money for the work that they do? If you sell a product, you want to get as much money for it as possible. Now, if that product is your actual labor, why should the situation be different? You want to get as much money as possible for your work. One way of doing that is by working more, sure, but another way of doing that is by working less for the same amount.
I had a boss once, at a summer camp, who said, "I will not give you a task to do that I myself am not willing to do." That line has stuck with me through out the years and whenever I hear the phrase "unskilled labour," all I am hearing is "a job I am unwilling, or incapable of doing for what that person is being paid."
I also challenge the notion, that to actually do a job properly, there is a skill in it. Regardless of what people think "unskilled" labour actually is. There has to be a sense of worth in the job that the person is doing, and to have society to degrade it as "unskilled," degrades the quality of work that people are willing to put into it.
I am all for a shorter work week having experienced it. When I worked 40+ hours a week I was miserable. I hated my job and had a feeling that I was being over worked. One day off was used to recuperating, the other day off was used for getting household chores done. When I moved down to pt, giving up all my benefits in the process, I found that I could accomplish as much in the shortened time than a full week because I was more rested and was actually enjoying my job again. Four hours though is too short of a day (both pay and labour wise) and I think, depending on what a person does, six hours is the sweet spot to be efficient.
Derek Chauvin, the officer who murdered George Floyd - was just convicted on all 3 counts brought against him (second degree, third degree, manslaughter).
Derek Chauvin, the officer who murdered George Floyd - was just convicted on all 3 counts brought against him (second degree, third degree, manslaughter).
And it didn't take them particularly long to decide either. 30 years ago, incontrovertible video evidence showed cops beating Rodney King to within a inch of his life and they got off. Here, we had video of a murder, and the jury didn't nullify the plain reality of the situation.
Derek Chauvin, the officer who murdered George Floyd - was just convicted on all 3 counts brought against him (second degree, third degree, manslaughter).
And it didn't take them particularly long to decide either. 30 years ago, incontrovertible video evidence showed cops beating Rodney King to within a inch of his life and they got off. Here, we had video of a murder, and the jury didn't nullify the plain reality of the situation.
And that is why I said the prosecution didn't mail it in. This wasn't a 'show,' like it was in the Rodney case, or pretty much any other officer trial where the defense could just go up and say "the officer was doing his job," and the prosecution just shrugging at that statement. They had witness, after witness, stating that Chauvin wasn't doing his job and it stuck.
I do hope this is the turning point in police violence trials. I really do.
And the death stare Chauvin gave the jury as the verdict was read encapsulates his inability to grasp that what he did was wrong, that people were still questioning his authority, shows why he was found guilty.
This is the tiniest step in police reform that the US needs, but it is a step that is very much needed: Accountability.
Walter Mondale died yesterday at the age of 93. He was beaten as badly as anyone ever has been in a Presidential election in 1984. Classy enough to poke fun at his own drubbing at the polls while certifying his opponent as the winner. My how we have fallen:
Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
Ok, I am revisiting this after a teenaged girl was shot to death by a police officer and another man was shot and killed in his own home while police were conducting a warrant. I am going to glaze over the population difference between black and white americans which I first wanted to do (ok, I won't number of white deaths divided by US white population from the 2010 census per million = 64.9 vs number of black deaths divided by the US black population from 2010 census per million = 764.5. There is no other comparison that needs to be made when it comes to racial profiling).
I really don't want to talk about either cases, because the details in the latter are too vague atm (which IMO is concerning), and the other one... lets just say it was a teenage girl with a knife, and you were called to the scene about a teenage girl with a knife attempting to stab people and no one at the scene is stabbed by the time you got there, maybe your first instinct shouldn't be to put 4 bullets in her, but I am digressing from the point I want to make...
The media lately have been making a bigger deal about mass shootings, as they should be, since there have been 8 so far in 2021 with 48 deaths.
According to the link Balrog provided above there have been 213 people shot to death by police in 2021 alone. Over the 5 year span that the website provides, 4107.
48 innocent people dying at the hands of 8 depraved individuals is concerning. But 213 deaths at the hands of allegedly trained professionals?
I will grant that there are life and death situations that officers are placed in. I will understand, and feel for an officer who is compelled to use their fire arm to save themselves or another person. But it only being April 21, and it only being 111 days so far this year, you can not tell me that happens close to twice per day.
The media needs to start hammering down on this and hammering down on it hard. Every death, regardless of context, by a police officer needs to be covered and society needs to say, is it acceptable or not. Basic numbers like this do not lie. This is what police reform needs to change.
It's all connected to the ubiquity of guns in US society. This is not to excuse bad behavior by cops, but it's clear that many of them are hair-trigger because there's lots of guns out there. Some folks have called for reforming police by disarming them, except in certain circumstances. But I just do not see how that is realistic given how commonplace guns are among the population.
I don't have time to dig up the data right now but it's striking. Perhaps I will later. The US is a huge outlier on murders per capita relative to other wealthy democracies -- i.e Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. And the US is also a large outlier on per capita citizens killed by the police. Not only this but we have longitudinal data from places like Australia that show homicides dropping after gun control was enacted.
And yet it's startling how much opposition there is to even mild gun control proposals.
And yet it's startling how much opposition there is to even mild gun control proposals.
How do you propose to enact gun control? That's the main problem I think. Are you going to make them illegal and confiscate them from people? Anything less will not work in this country and everybody knows it. That's why there's such opposition to any controls whatsoever. It's the 'slippery slope' argument. I'd be OK with better mental health/domestic violence restrictions, but I'm not a card-carrying NRA member either. I can see their point that as soon as it's noticed that those policies don't reduce violence as much as advertised, it'll be on to the next restriction until guns are, mostly, illegal.
Plenty of proposals have batted around Congress over the decades including bans on certain types of weapons, ban on high-capacity magazines. Universal background checks. Mandatory waiting periods. And the assertion that "anything less" than full confiscation will not work is just an evidence-free assertion. In fact, it's more than that. We already have a ban on fully automatic weapons for example. And the usage of those in mass shootings is so rare as to indicate that yes, measures short of full confiscation do in fact work.
Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
Ok, I am revisiting this after a teenaged girl was shot to death by a police officer and another man was shot and killed in his own home while police were conducting a warrant. I am going to glaze over the population difference between black and white americans which I first wanted to do (ok, I won't number of white deaths divided by US white population from the 2010 census per million = 64.9 vs number of black deaths divided by the US black population from 2010 census per million = 764.5. There is no other comparison that needs to be made when it comes to racial profiling).
I agree with your main point, but the statistics above don't look right. The statista site you refer to says that whites were killed by police at a rate of 14 per million over the period 2015-2021, while blacks were killed at a rate of 35 per million. That is still a very significant disparity and is consistent with other data I've seen on the subject, e.g. this report in the BMJ.
It's all connected to the ubiquity of guns in US society. This is not to excuse bad behavior by cops, but it's clear that many of them are hair-trigger because there's lots of guns out there. Some folks have called for reforming police by disarming them, except in certain circumstances. But I just do not see how that is realistic given how commonplace guns are among the population.
I don't have time to dig up the data right now but it's striking. Perhaps I will later. The US is a huge outlier on murders per capita relative to other wealthy democracies -- i.e Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. And the US is also a large outlier on per capita citizens killed by the police. Not only this but we have longitudinal data from places like Australia that show homicides dropping after gun control was enacted.
And yet it's startling how much opposition there is to even mild gun control proposals.
Polling would suggest there is barely any opposition among the actual populace to mild gun control at all. Mandatory background checks and an assault weapons ban are almost 80/20 issues. It doesn't much matter when one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of gun manufacturers and 25% of the other party is too afraid of them to stand up on principle.
In every other one of these shootings (which are happening every 48 hours for the last month), it's revealed the guy bought the gun within a few days of the shooting. A week-long waiting period would at least force them to reflect a little bit about what they are about to do, rather than acting in the heat of the moment. And let's face it, if anyone needs a gun IMMEDIATELY rather than 7 days from when you initiate the purchase, odds are you plan on shooting someone with it.
I think the problems in the US are significantly more than gun control. Something is seriously broken here.
There is not one chance in hell of getting rid of all the guns right now, so... if you can keep all the people with mental issues and violent criminals away? Will that keep someone with pent up anger from from using their guns to kill someone who pissed them off on the highway? Will it keep someone from going to work and kill those that irritated them?
Though I believe in god, I don’t believe in religion at all. I have to say that I miss it though. If someone is worried about their immortal soul, they will not be killing a bunch of people then killings themselves, or suiciding via the police. From what I see it is all an evolution of humanity, we have to go through this to get to the other side. Religion has to end, growing pains will be the result.
In all of this no one is mentioning the real concern, what we are doing to the environment. The gun toting people can only kill some of us, our environmental issues will kill all of us if not checked. In the US, Australia, China, Brazil, Kenya and everywhere in between.
Meh, what do I care?
Just saying, take away accountability and you end up with what we are dealing with now. Not possible to get rid of the guns in this country without way more fear than we have now. Even that is unlikely, most of the gun owners think if they have a gun they can protect themselves. This discussion is mental masturbation, without a climax at the end.
It's also good to see Biden being keen to engage on this issue internationally. Doing that is not just essential to make the best possible progress, but also provides a good way for countries to see the benefits of working together. There's going to be plenty of tension between the US and China over lots of issues over the next few years, but climate change is one of the few where the prospects are good for a meeting of minds and cooperative action.
It seems the Russian troop maneuvers around Ukraine have ended, at least according to this article. Russian units should be back to their original bases by May 1st. Anybody here have any thoughts on this? Was this just a show, or does it indicate something bad on the horizon...?
Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
Ok, I am revisiting this after a teenaged girl was shot to death by a police officer and another man was shot and killed in his own home while police were conducting a warrant. I am going to glaze over the population difference between black and white americans which I first wanted to do (ok, I won't number of white deaths divided by US white population from the 2010 census per million = 64.9 vs number of black deaths divided by the US black population from 2010 census per million = 764.5. There is no other comparison that needs to be made when it comes to racial profiling).
I agree with your main point, but the statistics above don't look right. The statista site you refer to says that whites were killed by police at a rate of 14 per million over the period 2015-2021, while blacks were killed at a rate of 35 per million. That is still a very significant disparity and is consistent with other data I've seen on the subject, e.g. this report in the BMJ.
Ya, my math is wrong. I forgot to divide by 5 for per year and I was using old Census numbers. Point still stands, saying ‘cops kill more whites than blacks’ doesn’t take population percentage.
It also doesn’t excuse the fact that cops are killing people of all backgrounds with very little accountability for their actions. So the ‘don’t worry, cops are killing whites too argument’ isn’t productive.
Comments
The line of ‘the police are not on trial here,’ is sound. The reminder that a lot of the former police testified against Chauvin in this case and that it wasn’t policing should dispel the argument that he was just doing his job.
It comes down to every expert who testified and everyone's own eyes (including medical professionals and fellow officers) vs. a defense that basically consists of racist Facebook posts. But you only need one juror who buys into the later. Just one.
Well the defence just flat out lied during their closing statements regarding testimony so they’re really desperate.
I don’t think he’ll get 2nd degree murder. He should get at least third but a compromise of manslaughter might be reached.
I’ll be disheartened if he gets off, and I know a lot of others will be angry and rightfully so.
They aren't arguing on the merits of the case. Nelson is quite simply hoping there is a single juror who is an avid consumer of right-wing media voting on emotion. It's obvious even down to the words and phrases he chooses to use.
I agree with what you're saying here. And certainly I'm not arguing for casting off civil rights for unpopular minorities. As you say, that would build cracks within the current coalition of voters. And despite some complaints, the Democratic party has been one of the most electorally successful left-of-center parties in the democratic world in the 21st century.
What I was trying to emphasize was the point that much of cultural fights that have gotten large media attention since Biden took office are not the product of Democrats. As BPM says above, Seuss and Potatohead are just rightwing media outrages and private companies doing things that aren't even all that controversial when you peel away the disinformation. Controversies about diversity, sensitivity, etc in the business or education world are also not products of Democrats. Even if you feel like these corporate moves are unnecessary, divisive or cynical, they don't answer to the Democratic party.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/20/what-american-workers-really-want-instead-of-a-union-at-amazon-483117
Conservatives in Congress make peformative statements about corporations when they oppose them on cultural issues. They won't lift a single finger when it comes to raising wages or taking a single cent out of the pocket of their donors. We heard about the populist right-wing turn because of Trump's rhetoric, yet, in the end, they passed a massive boondoggle for corporations as their only legislative accomplishment and thought an extra $600 in temporary unemployment would cause people to sit on their couch in perpetuity.
We always hear the hypothetical "what if Democrats abandoned such and such" as a way to improve their popularity. How about we start with one for the GOP which is "when will they every support and economic policy that that benefits someone who makes less than 100k a year"??
I don't make $100k a year and I benefit from conservative policies. When will liberals realize that not every way of making money is some evil plot to rob poor people of their livelihoods? Poor people don't really have anything to steal. Most people with money make money with their money by investing, not screwing the little guy. Unless you think that everybody that doesn't have to scrape by owes it to those that do to even the score.
Also, Republicans could gain some votes by being less assholish, unfortunately without the asshole vote they'd net less than they do now. Democrats can pull some of the non-asshole Republicans in without much compromise. They won't though, of course. C'est la vie...
PS:
I'm one of those conservatives that could be persuaded btw. I'm all for Community College for all. If the Dems can pull that off I may jump on board. I have a bad feeling it's a pipe dream though. The Universities are already squeamish about it affecting their bottom-line and a lot of those academic types are major Democratic Party contributers. Biden is for it, let's see what happens...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/biden-infrastructure-plan-colleges-483052
Except for the surplus value that they produce.
As cheap labor, yes. I'd address that with education myself. Unskilled labor should be for young people just starting out, not for adults trying to raise families. I guess I'd be OK with immigrants doing unskilled labor if it's necessary, but I'd hope that those immigrants would eventually join the skilled ranks as well. I'm not talking about trades either (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, etc...) that's skilled as far as I'm concerned.
But, to your point, the existence of self-employed workers, like plumbers and electricians, is actually one of the strongest arguments against the concept of surplus value. These individuals don't have a boss that pays their salary, so technically no one is exploiting them. Some say that they are exploiting themselves, by being their own boss. But I'm not convinced of that.
Having acknowledged that, I still think that literally all of us are working more than we actually need to. I don't think that the 8 hour working day can't be reduced to 6 hours. Here is where people usually object by saying "What if someone wants to work all day?" My reply is: go ahead, work as much as you want. All I'm saying is that I don't see why 8 hours per day should be the bare minimum.
Don't they do a 32 hour work week in France? I heard they implemented that to combat unemployment. I haven't heard how that worked out though. Do you have any info on that?
Edit: Nvm, found this article.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20140312-frances-mythic-35-hour-week
Interestingly, France has a 35 hour workweek and it's Spain that's implementing 32.
If you work even 45 hours a week (which I often do) 70% of every week becomes nothing but sleep, meals, work, and about 2-3 hours of time for yourself a day. And I work from home. Bump it to 50 and add travel back in, and most people are literally working their lives away. On my vacation days, I l just do nothing for 9-10 days. I get this about every 5 months, and at around 4 months, I start to have a tough time getting through shifts.
I was thinking about Sweden actually, but it's slowly starting to become discussed in other countries as well. There's a lot of hurdles that will need to be addressed though. One of them, perhaps the most obvious one, is that it seems that anyone who supports the 6 hour workday is somehow seen as an immoral lazy person. At least that's been my experience when I talk about this with other people. After all, shouldn't any honest, hard-working person want to work more, not less? Not necessarily, I'd argue. If I can get the same amount of money for less amount of work, then that means that my work is more valuable than before. It's true that you can get more money by working more, but if you get the same amount of money for working less, that means that you're actually making more money than you used to. And what rational person doesn't want to make more money for the work that they do? If you sell a product, you want to get as much money for it as possible. Now, if that product is your actual labor, why should the situation be different? You want to get as much money as possible for your work. One way of doing that is by working more, sure, but another way of doing that is by working less for the same amount.
I also challenge the notion, that to actually do a job properly, there is a skill in it. Regardless of what people think "unskilled" labour actually is. There has to be a sense of worth in the job that the person is doing, and to have society to degrade it as "unskilled," degrades the quality of work that people are willing to put into it.
I am all for a shorter work week having experienced it. When I worked 40+ hours a week I was miserable. I hated my job and had a feeling that I was being over worked. One day off was used to recuperating, the other day off was used for getting household chores done. When I moved down to pt, giving up all my benefits in the process, I found that I could accomplish as much in the shortened time than a full week because I was more rested and was actually enjoying my job again. Four hours though is too short of a day (both pay and labour wise) and I think, depending on what a person does, six hours is the sweet spot to be efficient.
And it didn't take them particularly long to decide either. 30 years ago, incontrovertible video evidence showed cops beating Rodney King to within a inch of his life and they got off. Here, we had video of a murder, and the jury didn't nullify the plain reality of the situation.
And that is why I said the prosecution didn't mail it in. This wasn't a 'show,' like it was in the Rodney case, or pretty much any other officer trial where the defense could just go up and say "the officer was doing his job," and the prosecution just shrugging at that statement. They had witness, after witness, stating that Chauvin wasn't doing his job and it stuck.
I do hope this is the turning point in police violence trials. I really do.
And the death stare Chauvin gave the jury as the verdict was read encapsulates his inability to grasp that what he did was wrong, that people were still questioning his authority, shows why he was found guilty.
This is the tiniest step in police reform that the US needs, but it is a step that is very much needed: Accountability.
Ok, I am revisiting this after a teenaged girl was shot to death by a police officer and another man was shot and killed in his own home while police were conducting a warrant. I am going to glaze over the population difference between black and white americans which I first wanted to do (ok, I won't number of white deaths divided by US white population from the 2010 census per million = 64.9 vs number of black deaths divided by the US black population from 2010 census per million = 764.5. There is no other comparison that needs to be made when it comes to racial profiling).
I really don't want to talk about either cases, because the details in the latter are too vague atm (which IMO is concerning), and the other one... lets just say it was a teenage girl with a knife, and you were called to the scene about a teenage girl with a knife attempting to stab people and no one at the scene is stabbed by the time you got there, maybe your first instinct shouldn't be to put 4 bullets in her, but I am digressing from the point I want to make...
The media lately have been making a bigger deal about mass shootings, as they should be, since there have been 8 so far in 2021 with 48 deaths.
According to the link Balrog provided above there have been 213 people shot to death by police in 2021 alone. Over the 5 year span that the website provides, 4107.
48 innocent people dying at the hands of 8 depraved individuals is concerning. But 213 deaths at the hands of allegedly trained professionals?
I will grant that there are life and death situations that officers are placed in. I will understand, and feel for an officer who is compelled to use their fire arm to save themselves or another person. But it only being April 21, and it only being 111 days so far this year, you can not tell me that happens close to twice per day.
The media needs to start hammering down on this and hammering down on it hard. Every death, regardless of context, by a police officer needs to be covered and society needs to say, is it acceptable or not. Basic numbers like this do not lie. This is what police reform needs to change.
I don't have time to dig up the data right now but it's striking. Perhaps I will later. The US is a huge outlier on murders per capita relative to other wealthy democracies -- i.e Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. And the US is also a large outlier on per capita citizens killed by the police. Not only this but we have longitudinal data from places like Australia that show homicides dropping after gun control was enacted.
And yet it's startling how much opposition there is to even mild gun control proposals.
How do you propose to enact gun control? That's the main problem I think. Are you going to make them illegal and confiscate them from people? Anything less will not work in this country and everybody knows it. That's why there's such opposition to any controls whatsoever. It's the 'slippery slope' argument. I'd be OK with better mental health/domestic violence restrictions, but I'm not a card-carrying NRA member either. I can see their point that as soon as it's noticed that those policies don't reduce violence as much as advertised, it'll be on to the next restriction until guns are, mostly, illegal.
I agree with your main point, but the statistics above don't look right. The statista site you refer to says that whites were killed by police at a rate of 14 per million over the period 2015-2021, while blacks were killed at a rate of 35 per million. That is still a very significant disparity and is consistent with other data I've seen on the subject, e.g. this report in the BMJ.
Polling would suggest there is barely any opposition among the actual populace to mild gun control at all. Mandatory background checks and an assault weapons ban are almost 80/20 issues. It doesn't much matter when one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of gun manufacturers and 25% of the other party is too afraid of them to stand up on principle.
In every other one of these shootings (which are happening every 48 hours for the last month), it's revealed the guy bought the gun within a few days of the shooting. A week-long waiting period would at least force them to reflect a little bit about what they are about to do, rather than acting in the heat of the moment. And let's face it, if anyone needs a gun IMMEDIATELY rather than 7 days from when you initiate the purchase, odds are you plan on shooting someone with it.
There is not one chance in hell of getting rid of all the guns right now, so... if you can keep all the people with mental issues and violent criminals away? Will that keep someone with pent up anger from from using their guns to kill someone who pissed them off on the highway? Will it keep someone from going to work and kill those that irritated them?
Though I believe in god, I don’t believe in religion at all. I have to say that I miss it though. If someone is worried about their immortal soul, they will not be killing a bunch of people then killings themselves, or suiciding via the police. From what I see it is all an evolution of humanity, we have to go through this to get to the other side. Religion has to end, growing pains will be the result.
In all of this no one is mentioning the real concern, what we are doing to the environment. The gun toting people can only kill some of us, our environmental issues will kill all of us if not checked. In the US, Australia, China, Brazil, Kenya and everywhere in between.
Meh, what do I care?
Just saying, take away accountability and you end up with what we are dealing with now. Not possible to get rid of the guns in this country without way more fear than we have now. Even that is unlikely, most of the gun owners think if they have a gun they can protect themselves. This discussion is mental masturbation, without a climax at the end.
It's also good to see Biden being keen to engage on this issue internationally. Doing that is not just essential to make the best possible progress, but also provides a good way for countries to see the benefits of working together. There's going to be plenty of tension between the US and China over lots of issues over the next few years, but climate change is one of the few where the prospects are good for a meeting of minds and cooperative action.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/russia-end-troop-buildup-ukraine-border-crimea-71130445-3db1-4ad0-b988-4a6671369aa1.html
Ya, my math is wrong. I forgot to divide by 5 for per year and I was using old Census numbers. Point still stands, saying ‘cops kill more whites than blacks’ doesn’t take population percentage.
It also doesn’t excuse the fact that cops are killing people of all backgrounds with very little accountability for their actions. So the ‘don’t worry, cops are killing whites too argument’ isn’t productive.