wemptronics
7d ago
Francis Fukuyama publishes a letter to Musk with regards to DOGE. He tells Musk that the number of Federal employees have remained about the same for 50 years. Young people don't go into the Federal government jobs, so they're filled with older people and about a bagillion contractors.
Under these conditions, you cannot fire your way to excellence. Government work needs to be made attractive to younger, tech-savvy people; they need the flexibility to go in and out of federal employment and not be subject to a Government Service pay scale for job categories created 70 years ago, when most bureaucrats were clerks and typists.
This probably won't happen. I thought this was interesting though:
Many conservatives believe that government bureaucrats have too much discretionary authority and use it to enact a liberal agenda, thereby eluding democratic control. This does occur in some instances. But the real truth is rather the opposite: bureaucrats spend way too much of their time complying with hundreds of rules mandated by Congress, rather than using their independent judgment to make decisions that lead to good results for citizens
We need to cut back government regulation of many parts of the private sector. But we also need to deregulate the government itself, and allow those who work for it to actually do their jobs.
I agree that bureaucrats spend too much time in byzantine labyrinths and upending many of those could be good. However, if faceless bureaucrats act upon me as a lowly private citizen I have little to no legal recourse.
Fukuyama -- and Musk probably -- want a younger, more efficient bureaucracy with less red tape and nonsense. I would also like the boot to not be wasteful and do good things. Still, I hope Musk, et. al. keep in mind what he means to destroy, rebuild, and design. He means to resole the boot that can and will stamp on my face. It's not exactly a great boot in its current form, but let's not go making it more monstrous than it needs to be.
wemptronics
9d ago
I think I'm familiar with many of the grievances and worries, yes. Of those that I consider real friends I even have shared some opinions of my own.
Anyway, it didn't put a damper on it for most near as I could tell. Gay marriage didn't even come up. That's why I rated 2024 as a 5-6/10.
federal level legislation to make it more difficult to exist as openly queer
There's a lot wrapped up in this that doesn't start or end with gay marriage. General trans issues is a more common topic within this group. If a make-or-break gay marriage case makes it up to SCOTUS it'll definitely be at the forefront. I understand, yeah.
If you can't Drawl The Y'all without feeling like a self-conscious phony it's going to hamper the affect and remove the joy of y'alling.* That's a predicament. I wouldn't think you would have to Drawl the Y'all to find a natural tone, but I'm not anyone but me.
If you find yourself talking with real salt of the earth rednecks, then I'll recommend you moderate your y'alling so you don't appear like or feel like a phony. They generally won't find "you guys" problematic in the ways urbane, middle class professionals might."
"You all" sounds like a compromise. In an environment where the Appropriated Y'all is dominant for less than authentic reasons I can see the measured use of a good you all. I like "folks" as well, but it can appear as unnatural and forced as a self-conscious y'all-- being employed by the same types for the same reasons.
That's why I say no shame, consideration, or fear. If it's gonna be appropriated by urbane, middle class professionals for weird cultural sensitivities you may as well y'all away, y'all freely, and y'all without remorse. Y'all around the world.
If anyone calls me out over it I plan to play extremely dumb -- but nobody ever does.
Lol. If it happens at least write about it here so our ancestors can one day read about how off the rails we went.
EDIT: You do not say it like an antebellum Southern gentleman if that's what you're asking. Although it'd probably be pretty awesome if you did do that-- in a non-professional setting.
My Dad said y'all. My Grandpa said y'all. His father probably said y'all.
I hope one day you may be find the courage and fortitude to return to "you guys", but in the mean time I'm giving you your y'all pass. No longer should you feel like a y'all carpet bagger. Y'all away. Y'all freely. Y'all without any shame, consideration, or fear.
Progressives want to claim it for themselves. Edgelords want to re-re-code it into oblivion. They can come and take it.
If we create a negative reaction Doom Scale that accounts for impact and prevalence I'll grade the 2016 reaction as something like a 7. Negative reactions were maxxed out without trudging into the upper end of the scale. If the scale only includes reactions to elections I've seen in my own lifetime as a reference, as it probably should, then 2016 earns an easy 10.
I attended a gay, queer-lesbian wedding post-election. Maybe a 40/60 normie to gay queer-lesbian ratio in terms of attendance. The attendees included lots of people that I know to talk about Trump's evils, genocides, and so on. I only ran into one person that couldn't not talk about Trump.
"Hi, good to meet ya I'm wemptronics, this is yadda yadda"
"I'm Incredibly Gay and Queer-Lesbian Wedding Guest"
"This is great isn't it?"
"Yeah. Well. If only, you know, something bad hadn't happened."
"..."
"Oooooh I don't know, might there have been something that happened? Something huge and terrible?"
"Yeah, I get it"
[Speaking to Gay and Queer-Lesbian Partner] "I know, I know, I said I wasn't gonna talk politics but you know it effects all of us the most and..."
Whatever stern look Gay and Queer-Lesbian Partner gave must have partially worked, because the mourning and diatribe only went on for a minute or so. Afterwards, politeness, drinks, and good cheer won the day.
In 2016, I recall making a "it'll be ok" post in response to the wave of the doomposts by blue friends, colleagues, and family. Doesn't feel necessary this time around, but I'm also less online. Gay and Queer-Lesbians will talk plenty of Trump, but the threshold for imposing their politics on me at a wedding has been raised it seems. I might rate 2024 as a 5-6/10 compared to 2016's 10/10. I do expect the #resistance gears to get turning as we approach inauguration day, but it'll be less of an oppressive cultural zeitgeist and more of a bog standard party-out-of-power deal.* Hopefully.
I do expect every culture war issue to make a return to the limelight. All the fan favorites: police misconduct, every school shooting, rape allegations. It's living, I guess.
My wife and 2nd daughter were aghast that this happened.
Cheers, then not all is lost. I wasn't trying to cast you into inceldom. Vaguely recognizing like shapes. Maybe that's uncharitable.
Jumbles, rumbles, and rambling:
Because it seems the evidence is mounting that there may actually be an out-group, largely composed of some type of woman that can't be identified or encircled; something like Vance's cat-ladies but not quite.
People make such identifications, but I agree it's difficult to land on any particular one. AWFL exists. I'm not sure it's accurate, because I don't know if white or liberal is necessary to yell-at-baby or badger an authority to Do The Right Thing. White women are the acceptable target of the day. There's a brand of white trash that's not really afraid to pull any lever, other than cops, to settle a grievance or perceived slight. Narcissists. The internet loves that one. Black women have a stereotype around around the kind of self-interested, righteous grievance balloon.
The lower class offender looks more like narcissism to me, whereas the higher class offender has more sophisticated (cultural, political) justifications for (what I consider) bad behavior. Perhaps that's the tie in to race. So, uh, are we just talking about intelligence? How are the Asian women doing out there compared to white women?
There's been an absolute increase in the number of jerks and a lot of jerk behavior gets covered in America by culture warring. Women more likely to utilize authority for little reason other than it's something to do-- or easily convinced it's The Right Thing to Do? Probably, yeah. Women more likely to yell at baby? Probably that too, but maybe because a man has more experience thinking of consequences when it comes to other people's kids. At least compared to pretty girls.
The prototypical Karen is the bored busybody. Karen adopts and uses the HOA as an extension of herself. Because. Type A Karen. If that is related to yelling at babies at a political event I'm not sure how. Maybe it boils down to 100 years ago the yell-at-baby girl would have had a husband drag her off before she could embarrass herself in front of the entire nation?
Don't get hysterical, darling. Protesting is uncouth.
And maybe that's all it is. Men know they can leave the small stuff to the ladies to clean up and the Internet simply opened the door to every level-one nudnik to run rampant.
A lower trust society, they say. If we want a more polite society we will need women to enforce it. Tying all this together feels like it is doing too much. But that could be my lack of imagination.
With Peanut, a lady in Texas presumably sent the complaint to a lady in New York who sent the city services to take the squirrel out back and shoot it. Clearly that's just a coincidence...right?
No, it's probably not a coincidence. Ignoring petty complaints, that's a Boys' Club thing. The Boys' Club decides it's not worth the time and ignore it. Sometimes the Boys Club decides to ignore the casting couch. Sometimes it decides to ignore women who complain about too many ice cubes. Sometimes The Boys Club isn't a Boys' Club at all and is instead a restaurants wait staff full of Non-Boys.
You guys talk about a decrease in state capacity. How's'a'bout the capacity to investigate and euthanize wild pets in an orderly and timely fashion? Didn't think of that one, did ya? I would have guessed that the NY Department of Environmental Conservation would just ignore complaints from out of state. It's what I would do. Where did you learn it was a lady from Texas sent a complaint? I just see "anonymous" complaints. Why not a neighbor?
If my neighbor in the next apartment kept weird wild life pets I'd probably ignore it. If they posted cute videos online I'd ignore it. If those pets did things like cause minor problems for my dog I'd be less inclined to ignore it. If that happened more than once I'd probably report it after speaking with them*. This seems possible. If you want to collect wild life without consideration of your neighbors, then live somewhere you can do that.
A lot of people seem fine critiquing this event. Not a lot of defenders. Biden hasn't denounced all garbage squirrels. Maybe he should though, because they are crafty assholes that empty bird feeders.
Why did that lady at the Harris rally scream about Palestine at a baby?
Young woman lost sight of herself and actions at a political event. Her political ally recognizes the malfeasance and polices her behavior. That's a learning experience for most.
A lot of people seem fine critiquing this event. Including one in the video. Not a lot of defenders. We can all make mistakes. Ping me if we see her again.
Like....is the Karen meme deserved and legitimate?
Probably. People's wills can be overbearing and annoying. I wanted to attribute a defense of 'Karen' as a social policing agent to a Freddie deBoer article, but all I can find at the moment is this regarding Covid.
Meanwhile we live among a Praetorian guard of busybodies who want everyone to know that the rest of us aren’t taking Covid seriously enough. These are people who are existentially similar to the “Karen,” 2020’s favorite archetype, except that they’re used to calling other people Karens. But they are precisely that figure of clueless white deference to authority that self-nominates as the world’s hall monitor. And while they want you to mask up and vaccinate and obey other rules, what’s much more important to them than regulating your behavior is that they let you know that you don’t feel the right way about Covid.
Which reads like a truncated version of Planet of Cops. Which is not a defense of Karen.
There's a some Defense of Karen thinking out there. This one is kinda one. as an important (if elevated) part of society. We have a need for Karen. Some business interests want to stop Karen, but they are powerless. Karen keeps the trains running on time. Except for the times where the train isn't on time and she inconveniences the line of people behind her by not shutting up about it. Then she makes me late.
I don't consider myself a woman-hater. Hell, once upon a time I considered myself a feminist. Is it just my imagination or has something in our national psyche gone and unleashed the worst aspects of womanhood upon the land?
Are you particularly sympathetic to gender critical view? Smarmy, scolding Karen might be annoying, but men do a violence and rape. I don't think making men an outgroup is necessary to denounce or police murder and rape. I'm not saying you can't or should not police Karen's gross excess. The culture even still allows and, sometimes, encourages this. If the conditions are right.
I have sympathy for the view that detests the feminization of society. Not all of it is bad. I'm glad not every dispute is concluded with a rock to the head. I would like to work towards something... healthier and more easily appreciated. I wouldn't make women your outgroup, though. Go find you a nice girl that doesn't like yelling at babies or killing squirrels. And there's always Sam Hyde's sage advice.
Meh, nothing very exciting.
Different programs vary, but many have some form of regional directors that do annual inspections. The Big Unit Inspection. The director brings some folks from a nearby honor guard to help inspect. That's meant to be impressive, but it's only impressive to the interested. Form up, do some drill, uniform inspection, grooming standards, basic knowledge, and so on. Some poor kid that didn't listen locks their legs and passes out-- doesn't crack their head on the way down, thankfully.
Gigs then compared against your school's history and the rest of the region. The student leadership is meant to be somewhat responsible for this performance. The director is serious about stuff. That's his entire job at this point, but of course his inspectors are mostly having fun spending a day talking shit with youth, telling them to shine their shoes better, re-measure this re-remeasure that holding back a half-smile on their face. Bring the parents out. There's my little sweetie!
Attention to detail and yadda yadda. If a program is filled with the unwilling, then the soft bigotry of low expectations is communicated well enough. "Do better next year!" doesn't get stated anymore. When the guest Muhreen drill instructor judge at exhibition whatever -- meant to be a man you impress -- takes you aside and, rather than give a point-by-point breakdown of stuff that went wrong like he did for everyone else, says, "That was... tough. I think it was good you got them to reform." That hurts the 16 year old autist.
If you're a part an underachieving and particularly shit team, not something intentional like Softball and A Keg on Shitface Saturday, while all the other nearby (suburban) teams appeared to be filled with motivated individuals, not dragged by their heels, and playing to win. That's demoralizing and embarrassing in the context.
I know it's orthogonal, but that NYT piece is pretty thorough. Let me yap about it.
The NYT piece ultimately doesn't really investigate the why schools are mandating enrollment-- and why those schools are often majority minority. It kinda does the journalist thing and quietly alludes to Big Army being behind it, but doesn't provide any evidence for this.
From experience, lots of admin and parental decisions send troublemakers into JROTC with the mistaken belief it will straighten them out. Which I guess is how a school decides to make a program 100% mandatory. Almost universally, troublemakers figure out that JROTC instructors have the same authority and tools as a teacher. Whose authority they have already beaten or frustrated. Some instructors have more talent at discipline having had more practice, but a 100% mandatory enrollment program must be a nightmare. Miserable for any kids with a genuine interest.
Except for a few the program is already perceived by the kids as geeky and uncool enough as is. For those who actually want to be there and those who enjoy it, but won't say as much, it's demoralizing and embarrassing. (There are inter-school events & competitions to be embarrassed at.)
For school admins that have run out of ideas applying the "straighten them out" theory of the unwilling at scale makes sense. So, less about recruitment. I would be interested to see if the mandated JROTC participation has any effect on discipline. I would suspect not. There are definitely some success stories. Some kids do get straightened out or distracted enough to graduate -- enlisting or not. Maybe they would have done the same learning to play an instrument, but the structure does provide some different things than marching band.
“I have issues with behavior, and issues with grooming requirements and other things,” Colonel Anderson said. He said he struggled constantly to maintain a structured class “for teenagers who don’t want to be in the program.”
A lot of kids that never encounter concepts found in a JROTC program in a more positive light: discipline, self-respect, pride, accountability and so on outside of their urban contexts. Many have a warped view on what respect actually means. Traveling and outdoorsing for kids that had never left the city, or never stepped foot into a forest before.
A good program will offer volunteer opportunities and college admissions bait. Even if you've not an interest in going to an academy/ROTC or enlisting it's a plus for admissions. Giving teens an opportunity to manage large budgets, plan and coordinate trips involving 50+ kids across the country, and possibly fuck it up to learn a lesson is generally good. Active duty folks encountered on trips, mostly enlisted, tend to do a decent job counter-weighting any idealized versions of military life.
Recruiters are never going to be hard to find. You want to volunteer to take the ASVAB? That's gonna be a clear opportunity at least once a year. It's fucking obviously used as a recruitment pipeline. However, for a lot of kids and their families enlistment is seen as an increase in station and a direct path out of the hood. Some moms don't like they babies wearing a uniform, but many others insist that they do. I think it's trivially true that, for a lot of kids at the dysfunctional schools from dysfunctional homes, some years of active duty service are probably their easiest, most direct path to a more stable, functional life. Plenty of them enlist, remain fuck ups, and make the military more frustrating for those around them. Oh well.
Maybe a PIJ camp is the same thing, but it looks pretty different from my experience. JROTC camps are more like "Leadership Course Summer Camp." PIJ camp does look like more fun than the actual military for the most part. They all have that in common I imagine. I don't know anything about the America/Israel, Fuck Yeah, Patriotism Camp. That may be closer to PIJ camp than a huge national program like JROTC. Which has expended a fair amount of effort justifying itself, so it's seen as not-just-a-recruitment pipeline, while remaining a recruitment pipeline.
wemptronics
17d ago
My guess is that once the escape hatch construction got under production it became a matter of motivation. Easier to stay involved in development when it is known a switch would definitely happen. They added a lot of features the place would never have on reddit, so that's probably another bonus that mods would value more highly than users.
I think I would have preferred the escape hatch remain dormant until necessary too, but I don't blame them for the full commit. If the place is gonna move it's better to do so in an orderly fashion over an emergency. If it's going to die or fail because of it, so be it. Not like the place didn't see evaporative cooling complaints after the move to the standalone sub.
Are the AAQC's not reviewed? I assumed mods looked at the reports and used discretion to make a cut. Which I guess means the janitor duty thing goes all the way and the AAQCs are only reviewed by the handful of people as temp jannies. But @naraburns is still (thankfully) editing these lists so I imagine they are glancing?
AAQC inflation makes sense in a period of decreased activity, decreased quality, or both. If jannies we want to encourage Good Posts to keep coming the gold star is all we have besides uptokes. Which can include bread-and-butter top level posts without big surprises, such as mine there, if the place is lacking them. But to compare my submission to a contribution like Dean's series of comments-- these are in a different weight class with regards to quality, insight, and effort.
and arguably wasn't even at its conception
Yes. Eternal struggle doomed to failure. It's fine.
From memory... for a long time concerns about the CW thread being targeted by admins were elated through security through obscurity wisdom. Once the admin notices came -- and enough examples of subs of similar/smaller size being whacked or castrated -- that was a confidence shot. I do recall one point was that admins wouldn't clarify certain things for the mod team.
Reddit shuts down subs they don't like. Reddit admins gut and replace subreddit moderation teams they don't like. Subreddits change rules, like "don't mention trans issues at all", and similar requests at the behest of admin interactions. As I recall in one of those meta threads there was a mod from /r/PoliticalCompassMemes that chimed in with his dealings with admins and the moderation changes he had to make because of admin requests. Or maybe it was the /r/drama mods, because I remember they offered to host The Motte.
I don't recall Zorba or mods claiming TheMotte was being especially targeted or persecuted. Being targeted wasn't necessary to get dunked on or ordered to change. Somewhere back there it is explicitly said that the decision to move included the fact that Zorba would rather the project end than have to do something like censor all discussions on Topic X. Plenty of people said don't bother or not a big deal to censor whatever as I imagine you've seen from looking through the old threads.
The CW thread hosts holocaust deniers, HBD autists, and that one time that guy candidly admitted he was a (non-offending) pedophile. It's not a reddit friendly space-- which polices content and not just tone. It's not that strange to consider its time on reddit is limited by how long its controversy remains unknown. Even without the details of the admin correspondence or principles, when a place like the gendercritical sub gets booted off the site there's not a lot of confidence that a place like The Motte is secure. Maybe they're less heavy handed now, but there was lots of overt admin actions in that time period on reddit.
Maybe Zorba moved as a big ruse so he could put in a bunch of volunteer work and pay for webhosting. Seems unlikely though?
wemptronics
20d ago
Seems like you could probably work with the big corporate chains to encourage their employees to testify. A day's wage to have an employee testify should reduce losses that pay dividends, or a tax break for collaboration with local law enforcement & courts on this matter. Ma and Pop shops seem like they'd be encouraged by necessity and a glimpse at actually tackling the problem, but getting them into court for a day might be more difficult.
Either way these things should be made (some amount) easier just by proving they are having an effect. People become motivated when they believe they're contributing to tackling a problem they've dealt with first hand.
I admit even typing them they sound like optimistic "just solve the problem lol" ideas, but it shouldn't be some impossible feat of man to convict thieves. At least if we are looking at a power law, then resources can be focused. That darn constitution and protections do be causing inconveniences. Sad!
I do wish we could figure out real rehabilitation methods for those that could be receptive. We can program people to think and believe lots of things. Norway, Denmark, and Japan all have seemingly more successful release programs. Although, I have read on Wordcel Substacker #300 differences in recidivism may not be as stark as they are made out to be as commonly understood.
This 20% vs 76.6% comparison is particularly egregious as the Norwegian figure is more narrowly defined and measured over a much shorter time frame. The American 76.6% figure above was based on rearrest within 5 years (Durose et al., 2014), whereas the Norwegian 20% figure described the number who received a new prison sentence or community sanction that became legally binding within 2 years (Kristoffersen, 2013). Both figures refer to prisoners released in the year 2005.
Of the American recidivism statistics mentioned in the previous section, the 28.8% incarceration figure is arguably the most comparable in definition to that of the 20% Norwegian figure.2 Thus, when the comparison is closer to apples-to-apples, the difference between Norway and the United States is far more modest.
Norway still releases more young people in their 20's that reoffend less than the US. So, something over there works better. Whether that's ethnic, cultural, procedural, or a combination. Intaking people young and releasing them old will decrease crime, yes. Clara would probably say it isn't fair to keep someone in jail for 20 years after stealing $500 of shampoo (for the 5th or 25th time).
Bleeding heart advocacy might be better aimed at separating the extreme serial offenders (who should remain in jail) at the tails from the less dedicated (but regular) criminal. Instead it appears to all be wrapped together in the general Prison Bad memeplex and abolitionist impulse. Effective parole programs should keep former criminals busy and out of trouble, but they don't do this very well. The profit incentive for a private probation contractor is another, if often overstated, complicating factor in my eyes.
I don't trust the state to throw up its hands and say, sorry the best we can do is hand out X year sentences to everyone until they're 40. Thankfully this isn't proposed. For the person on their 12th conviction? I don't know what else can be done. Either accept the trade off (more criminals more crime), ship them to Australia, or some Prospera-style project where Progressive Abolitionist, Inc. can run their own rehabilitation experiments.
wemptronics
20d ago
Had the west stayed out of this, or not gotten involved in Israel, both conflicts would likely be over.
If Israelis had no considerations other than victory at all costs, sure. Maybe they would have wiped the slate clean in 1948. Israel makes a decision to not "end" the conflict, because Israelis will not or cannot end it in whatever manner you have in mind. Yes, there is pressure and considerations from its allies, because it finds value in these things.
If Israel decides to, it can go door-to-door next week and win forever. Arab states might fling cruise missiles at them for some decades, but the US isn't going to invade. Winning forever is too violent, destructive, and unpopular in Israel. Very unpleasant.
They have considerations other than American college students when it comes how to wage war. Like their own voting populace.
Is it better to feed thousands of men into a conflict that is probably going to last until we run out of Ukrainian men to fight it and probably eventually get conquered anyway.
Better for who? It still seems like they will avoid regime change. If you value that sort of thing. Making land grabs a costly endeavor is good, actually. You and I can decide what an appropriate cost is. You say 160 billion and a few hundred thousand slavic souls is too much. It's a lot. But you seem to think that, absent some donated anti-tank weapons and training, this would all be over and pleasant and nice. I don't think this is a given. Russia is paying an insane cost for what it has gained thus far in its endeavor for strategically questionable gains. Ukraine has paid a terrible cost, too.
Ending conflicts the old fashioned way of letting them go to their natural end instead of creating perpetual stalemates that aren’t resolved.
Depending how you define "the old fashioned way" it's easy to land on conflicts that lasts decades or centuries. We don't even have to go medieval. I'm sure if you asked a Prussian in 1872 whether the question of Alsace and Lorraine was settled, they would have said definitively. Lo and behold.
Winning forever with permanent conflict resolution is not the norm. Permanent resolution is more pleasant for those of us mostly uninvolved abroad, but not very pleasant for those getting permanently defeated.
(1) Another Scott Watch. Note: I am not a California resident.
How's about this essay and comments on ACX?
The Case Against California Proposition 36
Scott publishes a guest essay by Clara Collier who argues against California's Proposition 36. Prop 36 modifies California's Prop 47 which increased the value required in crimes such as shoplifting and theft ($950) before qualifying as a felony charge. Readers of this forum should be familiar with the basic story arc here. Prop 47 passed, 2018-2022 came, more compassionate district attorneys were elected, less thieves kept in prison, and policing was softened. Now it is common in the big CA metropolises for stores lock up items like toothpaste to deal with an increase in opportunistic and organized retail theft.
Offenders repeatedly arrested with hard drugs (now including fentanyl) will face felony charges if Prop 36 passes. It allows judges to send presumed dealers or suspects with large quantities of drugs to prison instead of county jail. It carves out some exceptions for mandated or opt-in treatment-- which Clara Collier thinks is useless, because CA doesn't have enough in-patient beds anyway. Collier also shares there's not enough room in prison and identifies Prop 47 as a response to an overcrowded prison population. The money saved from not putting people in jail is spent on various treatment and rehabilitation programs.
No real comment on the efficacy of treatment programs that California mandates through Prop 47. It sounds like they're probably not very effective.
The comment section on this article is lively for ACX. Lots of finger pointing and blame to go around.
As Collier says, California can lock people up for longer, but there's a hard limit for how many prisoners can be housed. I would think this answer would be obvious: build more prisons. Personally, I still think there's a place for work camps and chain gangs for offenders less likely to run off. Probably more personnel heavy, but less structural overhead to build a camp out and dig a well out in the wilderness. Maybe this is an impractical romanticized idea, or it is considered cruel and unusual these days.
There's an additional argument between people pointing out that an increase in prison time doesn't matter if prosecutors don't prosecute. Which became more common since 2018 in liberal cities and was supercharged in 2020. The other side, including Clara, points fingers at police for being lazy good-for-nothings (my words, not hers) that don't do their job right. For me, it is obvious that police who don't expect the criminals they arrest to be punished are less inclined to arrest people. I would expect this to be the conclusion of rationalists who are interested in incentive structures, but I guess there's enough compounding problems, and policing unpopular enough, it can be quietly asserted that cops are bad, or swept under the carpet.
I do agree that following through with prosecution and "clearing" cases matters more than whether something is a felony or misdemeanor. The value in making it a felony is that it should encourage prosecutors and police to go after cases. It is a signal from the people saying, lock these people up actually and felony convictions hold more weight in law enforcement and DA offices. "I have X felony arrests or X felony convictions" is a metric most police and prosecutors will point at as a record, unless your police and prosecutors consider more arrests/convictions as a bad thing. It can be a bad metric for performance that leads to unnecessary prosecutions and pleas, but maybe it's still better than this alternative.
If I were a California resident, and my city left me dissatisfied, I would probably vote for Prop 36 just to send a signal to officials. Deal with this problem. That's pretty much it. I wouldn't care about how ineffective prison is, or impossible it is to jail more people. I'd start with this, then ask for more. The alternative, which Collier advocates, is more of the same. Which, as a dissatisfied resident, would not appeal to me. Then, I'd probably vote for DA's that do stuff like convict criminals and a state leadership that builds more prisons when they're full instead of releasing criminals.
(2) Among the comments was posted this piece by City Journal earlier this year. I had missed this whole story, it is more interesting than the ACX post, and it probably deserves its own post. Maybe you guys already did that.
The The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 is starting to bear fruit for convicts in the California penal system.
"The Act, in part, allows a person to challenge their criminal case if there are statistical disparities in how people of different races are either charged, convicted or sentenced of crimes. The Act counters the effect of the widely criticized 1987 Supreme Court decision in McClesky v. Kemp, which rejected the use of statistical disparities in the application of the death penalty to prove the kind of intentional discrimination required for a constitutional violation."
The Act, however, goes beyond countering McClesky to also allow a defendant to challenge their charge, conviction or sentence if a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin or if one of those same actors used racially discriminatory language during the trial.
The RJA allows convicts that can show racial disparities in sentencing and various other flavors of racial bias. Including one example in the article of a policeman who, claiming that he did not see the race of an individual driver in a car before he pulled it over, where it was argued this could be true-- but still racially biased because of "unconscious" implicit bias.
Judge Cheri Pham wrote, a person could reasonably conclude that Shore “believes certain racial or ethnic groups commit more crimes than others.” (They do.) Just as bad, Shore may not “give weight to statistical evidence that indicates there is an implicit bias against certain racial or ethnic groups.” (Fittingly, Pham earned her J.D. from the Berkeley law school.)
The San Diego Public Defenders Office had sought to prevent a San Diego Superior Court judge from hearing an RJA motion in a homicide case. The judge’s sin? In a previous prosecution, he had questioned the defense claim that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately incarcerated—a claim based on population ratios, rather than crime commission. “There is absolutely no evidence that . . . the proportion of persons in an ethnicity committing a crime must be the same as the proportion of the population,” Judge Howard Shore had said in court. In another case, Shore had questioned whether the criminal-justice system is infected by racism.
I'm open to the idea City Journal is being uncharitable and misrepresentative here, but it seems like California's legal system faces a number of crises. Which, given the statistics of crime and prosecution, is what I would call this trend. Ok, I'm out of steam.
By most metrics, Russia should have steam rolled their way into Kiev and won a victory in a few weeks. When weakness appeared it was an invitation to invest in the years old conflict-- one that the US and Europe had mostly ignored. This investment was also an opportunity to take rearmament somewhat more seriously. Neighbors making land grabs tends to cause justifiable concern among the security minded.
I can understand the frustration with the popular narratives. The overnight consensus that Ukraine, a corrupt and poor state on the outskirts of Europe the West had decided wasn't important enough to bother with a few years prior, became the last stand for Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy (tm). Sure, that's all bullshit and annoying propaganda. Conflicts generate plenty of bullshit and annoying propaganda. Alas.
It is equally frustrating reading the scattered visions among contrarians and dissidents. A gish gallop of reasoning and geopolitical theories. Might makes right justifications were in vogue, but then so were don't stick your nose where it don't belong. Strength is good, but we shouldn't work out our own muscles, or bother with our own ambitions. Alliances are bad and messy, but the US should embrace multipolarity and not bother with the aims of its competitors and adversaries. Often attached is the idea that the US should staunchly defend its (rarely defined) direct interests and nothing more. Even if those interests were defined and consensus formed, this makes an assumption that staunchly defending direct interests doesn't ever land a sea faring nation in a major conflict half a world away.
I read an underlying current of desire for an aggressive empire that does what it wants and eats when/where it wants. Then I read a longing for a different world with an assumption that a commitment to isolationism doesn't change much of anything except the US spends less money and arms. This assumption is often provided by the same people who say they would very much like to destroy the current globalized order of the world.
I'm not sure where you get the trillion dollar figure below. Isn't it more like 100 billion in aid including equipment when valued at replacement cost? When it comes to weapons systems and the US trading capability for Ukraine I am not sure there's a good analysis of whether this is true. My basic opinion is that when it comes to Taiwan, it is likely this conflict is fought by sea and air, and not with 10 million artillery shells. If China invades Taiwan tomorrow because US has loss its deterrent by donating to Ukraine I guess we'll learn about that. But it's probably more likely the US fails to intervene because of a lack of political consensus/support.
wemptronics
22d ago
What is best theory for a trade? Trump gets a not-that-bad signal from a known media enemy and Bezos gets tax cuts?
How did it come to be that the LA Times did something similar? That part is strange. As mentioned, the lack of endorsement is more significant than an endorsement itself. I assume a place like the LA Times is far more doomed than WaPo.
A lot of what he writes suggests it is political. Just not in a quid pro quo way. WaPo benefited from one Trump presidency. It could continue to downsize and remain a bastion of resistance for some years, or maybe it can't and that is why this signal has to be sent. Bezos doesn't want to own the bastion of resistance anymore.
Maybe he is tired.
wemptronics
22d ago
Given events, how does an Israel act upon and within Gaza if its goal is its security and not stealing land?
wemptronics
22d ago
I had a nice phonepost that got blasted. So this one will be more brief.
Last week we had discussion on the LA Times and Washington Post's decision to forgo an endorsement for the election.
Since then, Jeff Bezos has posted his reasonings in an opinion piece. It is fairly short, but the gist of it is: credibility, principles, and failings. It's a nice little letter that tickles my fancy.
Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.
Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions.
There are some complications.
We know WaPo is hemorrhaging money. Some 80 million last year. Now on top of that, NPR reports up to 200k subscribers have cancelled. Which is an astounding number. 8 percent of their subscriber base. That's not a good way to make more money.
This is all for the Democracy Dies in Darkness paper. Many years have been spent cultivating a image and brand that appeals to progressive liberals. If there was a newspaper of the #resistance it was WaPo. So, why now?
Jeff doesn't think there's a future in the brand. He bought the paper in 2013. He oversaw the building of this identity. Seemingly, he was fine with it. Now, he sees the numbers and wants to see if there's a different future. I won't make a strict judgment of his sincerity, but the paper's record does make one wonder just what happened if not the whole this memory of an industry is dead deal.
As much as it tickles my fancy to see media outlets struggle with concepts credibility, trust, and take some (minor) responsibility-- I think he is wrong. There is space for one NYT. There is space for a NY Post. There is a small space for a Free Press, and there's space for a leaner probably meaner WaPo. It's going to take much more for me to believe there's even demand for a less righteous, more journalistic WaPo. I'd find value in that, but I'm pretty sure I'd find better value elsewhere.
If the attempt to make a more viable business lines up with his vision of a more trusted media, and Bezos is committed to reform, I wish him the best of luck.
Yup. There is some irony there considering how in vogue collective responsibility is right now for those with a progressive proclivity. Progressives in 20 years will feel no responsibility for a tired, irrelevant movement of yesteryear that, thankfully, didn't succeed. If it plays out that way. People's hearts were in the right place, after all. Until we grow enough time that we can well and truly consider the past as ignorant and backwards as any other.
It's not necessary to scrub the Internet Archive. Unless we get the really bad ending.
Let society make history. Irrelevant, old, and forgotten. The progressive drive and impulse maintains direct connection, but the cause of day in the future won't be directly related. Except maybe transhumanist stuff. It is not as if we can't go read Days of Rage today. Perhaps if conservatives take the cultural reins they can bring up the historical excesses of progressivism more frequently. There will be no introspection at scale and nobody should expect any-- and that is the good ending.
Learning from history is not a commoner's interest, but learned men are meant to know how we got where we are. We are all too great and unique and, for progressives, too sophisticated to repeat mistakes or learn from the inferior past.
If they use some underpowered subsonic assassin setup, then it's possible it could be slow enough to just make a hole an embed in the skull at close range. Most of the bullets in the images look like 5.56 (?), and it's really not the tool for the job. It'd likely not work reliably in the IDF issued rifles (are they mostly using Tavor's still?) as this kind of ammo usually requires a special setup or tinkering beyond what infantryman has in the field.
If there's death squads going around giving Moscow neckties to Palestinian children, then they would probably choose something else. Mossad used to like those nifty .22's. They also probably wouldn't let the kids they just shot in the head get carted off to the hospital. On the other hand, if a child catches a strays, ricochet, or misidentification there's less reason to prevent them from going to the hospital.
Soldiers blasting kid's skulls for fun with their issued rifles on a regular basis seems unlikely given the details in the article if only for the fact there are so many kids going to the hospital after getting blasted in the skull with a rifle cartridge. "44 doctors, nurses and paramedics saw multiple cases of preteen children who had been shot in the head or chest in Gaza" with a couple X-ray's doesn't sell me on death squad or even misconduct. It shows me kids have been shot in the head according to some doctors.
The lethal combination of what Human Rights Watch describes as indiscriminate military violence, what Oxfam calls the deliberate restriction of food and humanitarian aid, near-universal displacement of the population, and destruction of the health care system is having the calamitous effect that many Holocaust and genocide scholars warned of nearly a year ago.
I think this paragraph tells me enough about the journalist's sympathies and where her biases lay. Doesn't mean the IDF hasn't had misconduct or committed war crimes. I suspect they have just based on what I've seen make it online. Especially in the early months of the war. But, probably not to the degree, frequency, or relevancy (genocide) that this writer believes.
wemptronics
1mo ago
This is an interesting post that should be dropped on Monday. (Real Monday. That's Monday EST. Not fake Australian Monday's.)
The Banshees of Inisherin Top Gun Maverick
I clearly didn't read the list. I saw both of these and enjoyed them both. Top Gun was, ironically, a breath of fresh air in its formula. That was the normie take and I agree with it.
I enjoyed Banshees. Tragedy, absurdity, and a story told through a dialogue that wasn't convoluted for the sake of complexity. Carried by a pair of actors with a chemistry and history together I appreciate. I also recall it being smartly humored. It kept me entertained and it worked. But, I may well be the cinema equivalent of a midwit, so a slightly different artsy but not-arthouse film might be my kryptonite.
Tár
Is on my list. I'll add Decision to Leave and give Suzume a try. My boomerism typically limits my anime viewings, so my exposure is limited to Miyazaki films (great!)
I agree this is strange.
I think there's something we aren't hearing in this case. Mrs. Patterson is a real estate agent in the city of Blue Ridge. She even has an office in the charming main street of the mountain-lake town. She probably has a billboard somewhere. She places Emerson quotes in her real estate biography.
Blue Ridge has boomed as a tourist destination the past 25 years. The city government and county surrounds it has all the typical trappings of a quiet place finding more and more money flowing in. Every small town has petty feuds, power struggles, and usually some corruption and/or incompetence. Add in the fact that New York millionaires and retired baseball players are setting up shop there it seems to raise the stakes.
The place is being gentrified. It wouldn't surprise me if local authorities might go out of their way to make trouble to the people selling out their culture as agents of change. It could also be something pettier, too. Maybe Patterson did someone's cousin dirty in a wrong way. Officer Powertrip happened to hear all about this story and never liked the woman or anything she represents. So she finds her kid wandering, decides to drop him off with gramps, and when she finds out that was her-- a quick call to Cousin Jimmy. A Sheriff that either looks the other way or himself was the one to receive a phone call and Make Things Happen. Bam. She done got what was coming.
That's all fiction, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than Blue Ridge police demanding parents keep their kids on a leash at all times. As far as I know it is a place where the locals will give little Sam a deer rifle for his 13th birthday. The charge is one thing, but the follow through makes me think Patterson has upset someone at some point. It is a place where you do business, make friends with the local powers, do County Commissioner Rick a solid, and stuff like this never happens.
Could also be overzealous enforcement by Officer Karen. All the follow through is the typical signifier of loyal backing. Cops can do that. I don't blame Mrs. Patterson for assuming she lived in a safe place where her 11 year old could enjoy some freedom. Very strange.
More options
Context Copy link