I Had A Random Thought...

[Twig]

Just according to keikaku.

 

(Translator's note: keikaku means plan.)

[Brannigan]

I love it when an avatar comes together

[SecretAsianMan]

It bothers me that whenever Google makes a new doodle, there are more search results for the doodle itself than the actual topic of the doodle.

[Bjorn]

Doodles were a lot more neat when they weren't damn near every day (or at least it seems like they are now). 

[Dewar]

There was a period in the early 2000s, while I was living in Dallas, when several sheriffs gave endorsements to various mayoral candidates, saying that they knew them best and that they'd be easiest to work with. I found that a little distasteful, because a couple of the candidates had no notable political experience and it was obviously a partisan rather than practical endorsement, but nothing compares to a sheriff endorsing a gubernatorial candidate. It has as much relevance as an endorsement from the assistant comptroller of civic waterworks, northeast district.

 

As soon as police became funded by the government, they became political. I don't blame them for wanting the candidate that's most likely going to help their budget. The endorsement might not have much relevance to me, but to others it might mean a lot.

[Merus]

As soon as police became funded by the government, they became political. I don't blame them for wanting the candidate that's most likely going to help their budget. The endorsement might not have much relevance to me, but to others it might mean a lot.

 

That's not universal - the police here aren't politicised, but they're also not elected. Laws, laws are politicised, and the police mostly try to enforce them as best they can. (That also means it's unseemly for a government employee, essentially, to make political comments other than 'here is a problem we keep seeing and cannot act on' or 'here is a law that is a pain in the ass and we'd be happy to see it go away'.

[JonCole]

In my local area, there are elections for Mayor, City Council and Sheriff. Often you'll see single-ticket style cross campaign promotion, where a prospective incumbent mayor will campaign with the sheriff of his choosing. If memory serves, most prospective sheriffs spend upwards of $300,000 locally on ad campaigns.

[Griddlelol]

I find the whole idea of police officials being elected rather foreign. In the UK it was originally all internal, however they've recently politicised it and had the first police commissioner election 2 years ago.

I don't really like the idea of the police being linked to a party, it makes much more sense if they're separate from partisan politics and just uphold whatever laws are in place at the time, without bias. Britain is slowly becoming Americanised without any thought put into it. I don't see the need for more people to be elected, just choose the ones who are best at their job - i.e. best at organising and managing a police force. As soon as political affiliation come into it, there's quite a large chance that a poor candidate will be chosen just thanks to the local area's party affiliation. 

 

I guess it boils down to the shit parts of democracy. How could I, or anyone not remotely involved with police work really understand who is the best candidate? Yet my vote is equal to a specialist in the area. People can make an informed (or biased) decisions, whereas those in the job actually know who's the best. 

[JonCole]

Typically, non-political positions aren't listed with party affiliations. That includes judges, sheriffs, school board officials, and so on. It's also customary to not really disclose your party if you're running in those positions, even if you happen to be campaigning with someone who does identify with a political party. I do agree that voting for these positions seems stupid - why should I have a voice about how my city does police work, teaches our kids, or judges people in a court of law? If there are particular issues that would be sorted by picking one person over the other, the issue at hand should be a ballot initiative rather than it be a matter of bureaucracy.

[Griddlelol]

The UK crime commissioner candidates had party affiliations - only one per party was allowed to stand, which I find particularly ridiculous. Many of them weren't even ex-police officers.

 

Schools in the UK also drive me insane. Many are highly politicised or with very strong religious connections which I find rather gross. There are even some Islamc schools under review at the moment because they refuse to hire women into positions of authority (i.e. anything higher than cleaner or teaching assistant - only male teachers). Not to mention their incredibly poor education. Similarly there are awful, awful Christian schools, but they're not in the news so much.

[Bjorn]

I do agree that voting for these positions seems stupid - why should I have a voice about how my city does police work, teaches our kids, or judges people in a court of law?

 

I'm not sure if you meant this exactly as you wrote it, but I find that sentiment kind of horrifying.  I'm not sure that the American democratic system of electing them is right, but people having a voice in how the criminal justice systems and the school systems in their local area are run is really important. 

[JonCole]

I'm not sure if you meant this exactly as you wrote it, but I find that sentiment kind of horrifying.  I'm not sure that the American democratic system of electing them is right, but people having a voice in how the criminal justice systems and the school systems in their local area are run is really important. 

 

Well, that wasn't exactly as I wrote it considering my very next sentence was making a distinction between voting for a person who holds x position versus voting for x policy. If the big difference between one school board candidate and another is that one supports common core and the other doesn't, why am I not just able to vote on that issue separately? Then we can hire a qualified education expert rather than someone who can politicize a single issue and get hired because of it.

 

It's honestly a big problem I have with government in general - why are politicians making laws about issues with which they have no expertise? It really irks me most when a politician makes a definitive yet wrong statement about a clearly scientific topic on which they were briefed 10 minutes before a hearing by a lobbyist who put $10,000 in their campaign coffers.

[Bjorn]

Well, that wasn't exactly as I wrote it considering my very next sentence was making a distinction between voting for a person who holds x position versus voting for x policy. If the big difference between one school board candidate and another is that one supports common core and the other doesn't, why am I not just able to vote on that issue separately? Then we can hire a qualified education expert rather than someone who can politicize a single issue and get hired because of it.

 

It's honestly a big problem I have with government in general - why are politicians making laws about issues with which they have no expertise? It really irks me most when a politician makes a definitive yet wrong statement about a clearly scientific topic on which they were briefed 10 minutes before a hearing by a lobbyist who put $10,000 in their campaign coffers.

 

I'm not convinced that voting for policy is any better.  There's no guarantee that the public will vote for good policy anymore than they will vote for a good candidate.  If you vote for candidates, you get a group of people discussing (arguing?) about the best policy to implement, which is better to me than a mandated policy that voters picked (for bad examples, see the gay marriage bans voted in by people).  If a board decides bad policy, it can be reversed easier than reversing policy voted in by the public. 

 

Without elected representatives, how does a group of people take any kind of action for decisions a school might make that they believe are wrong?  When my daughter was in high school, a budget crisis was forcing some significant cuts. The board had made the decision to make some deep cuts to the music program while leaving sports completely untouched.  The threat to their elected positions gave us power that we wouldn't have had otherwise, and we helped convince the board that more balanced cuts were needed to be fair and to minimize the impact to any one program.  That was more work for them, but better for the district.  If it was an unelected official, I don't know what would have happened.  You can't protest an elected policy.

 

I completely agree with legislating scientific issues based on bad facts and little knowledge.  It's ridiculous.  The solution is not to let unelected scientists make decisions, it's to try and convince experts in fields beyond law and politics to run for office.  I think that's what was always envisioned for our Congress, that it would be made up of diverse expertise, not the narrow focus that now exists. 

 

I really think the entire system is broken and fucked, but I don't see other solutions that are improvements. 

[Xercies]

Yeah I wouldn't trust people electing policy with a barge poll, I mean there are loads of people in the UK and I'm sure in many countries that would like to put the Death Penalty back in just because. 

[JonCole]

I'm not convinced that voting for policy is any better.  There's no guarantee that the public will vote for good policy anymore than they will vote for a good candidate.  If you vote for candidates, you get a group of people discussing (arguing?) about the best policy to implement, which is better to me than a mandated policy that voters picked (for bad examples, see the gay marriage bans voted in by people).  If a board decides bad policy, it can be reversed easier than reversing policy voted in by the public. 

 

Without elected representatives, how does a group of people take any kind of action for decisions a school might make that they believe are wrong?  When my daughter was in high school, a budget crisis was forcing some significant cuts. The board had made the decision to make some deep cuts to the music program while leaving sports completely untouched.  The threat to their elected positions gave us power that we wouldn't have had otherwise, and we helped convince the board that more balanced cuts were needed to be fair and to minimize the impact to any one program.  That was more work for them, but better for the district.  If it was an unelected official, I don't know what would have happened.  You can't protest an elected policy.

 

What you're saying makes sense to me in theory and definitely in your anecdotal practice, but I still think that single issues obfuscate local elections to the point that in the area I live in we often have fairly unqualified people in office because they challenged an incumbent on a single issue and got in just for that political act. I mean, theoretically you're supposed to trust officials in positions like the police, judges, and school board members to make the right decisions 99% of the time and you may need to step in as part of the constituency 1% of the time where maybe they don't handle things properly. But if the political aspects of getting into these offices are making it so someone less qualified secures the position, it's much harder to trust them with that 99%-of-the-time-they've-got-it-handled thing.

 

This could not be more true than in Florida's gubernatorial races, where single issues frequently get jackasses like Rick Scott elected who proceeded to singlehandledly destroy everything in his path whether it was public transportation, Medicaid expansion or what have you.

 

That said, there's probably some weird other way that we haven't discovered to handle things like this, especially when you look at California's messed up propositions over the recent years.

[SecretAsianMan]

 

[Bjorn]

What you're saying makes sense to me in theory and definitely in your anecdotal practice, but I still think that single issues obfuscate local elections to the point that in the area I live in we often have fairly unqualified people in office because they challenged an incumbent on a single issue and got in just for that political act. I mean, theoretically you're supposed to trust officials in positions like the police, judges, and school board members to make the right decisions 99% of the time and you may need to step in as part of the constituency 1% of the time where maybe they don't handle things properly. But if the political aspects of getting into these offices are making it so someone less qualified secures the position, it's much harder to trust them with that 99%-of-the-time-they've-got-it-handled thing.

 

This could not be more true than in Florida's gubernatorial races, where single issues frequently get jackasses like Rick Scott elected who proceeded to singlehandledly destroy everything in his path whether it was public transportation, Medicaid expansion or what have you.

 

That said, there's probably some weird other way that we haven't discovered to handle things like this, especially when you look at California's messed up propositions over the recent years.

 

Oh god, governors.  Read up on Kansas' current governor to see similar things in action.  Also, on all the ways that school boards can go wrong, just look at Kansas trying to force intelligent design into the state curriculum a few years ago.  I'm fully away how terrible elected officials can be.

 

I'm really uncomfortable with elected sheriffs and judges, but on the same hand, if they aren't elected then an elected official will have the power of hiring for those jobs.  I think part of the reason that they are elected is to keep local judges and sheriffs from being the appointees of the local mayor or council.  Which still results in a position that is politicized, just one step removed.  So again, I don't know if that is an improvement.

[Dewar]

That's not universal - the police here aren't politicised, but they're also not elected. Laws, laws are politicised, and the police mostly try to enforce them as best they can. (That also means it's unseemly for a government employee, essentially, to make political comments other than 'here is a problem we keep seeing and cannot act on' or 'here is a law that is a pain in the ass and we'd be happy to see it go away'.

 

So your police aren't funded by the government? Do they make their money on parking tickets then?

 

All I'm saying is that once you are funded by the government, you have a right to endorse someone that is going to most likely improve your funding, and there are going to be a section of people that find that valuable. It's exactly the same as a head of a teachers' organization endorsing the government official who's campaigning for more school funding.

 

I find the concept of actually electing the sherrif kinda strange, but it's pretty much a desk job, so I guess?

[Apelsin]

Assumptions are dangerous, but I think what Merus might be saying is that the police where ever he is located do not generally publicly endorse politicians?

That's how it is here anyway, police officers are not public figures in that way. They only ever come out to speak to the public in reaction to larger criminal events and the like.

 

Of course they still have political opinions, and most probably voice them, but I've never heard of anyone ever "endorsing" a political party. Neither have I heard about any principals, teachers or doctors doing it.

[clyde]

I'm interested in the concept of liquid-democracy. If it existed in a society with reasonable constitutional protections and there was a way to ensure that voting was anonymous, it might be an improvement over the current situation in the United States of America.

[Bjorn]

I just heard a great new phrase: "the library science of everyday life".

[Dewar]

Assumptions are dangerous, but I think what Merus might be saying is that the police where ever he is located do not generally publicly endorse politicians?

That's how it is here anyway, police officers are not public figures in that way. They only ever come out to speak to the public in reaction to larger criminal events and the like.

 

Of course they still have political opinions, and most probably voice them, but I've never heard of anyone ever "endorsing" a political party. Neither have I heard about any principals, teachers or doctors doing it.

 

 

Hmm, I guess it's just a thing around here then. It seems like everyone (Firefighters, Police, School Superintendents, even the Elks Lodge) endorses someone around here. It's mostly noise to me at this point.

[tegan]

I'm a stupid jackass because all I can think of for this whole debate is that one episode of Justice League where Captain Marvel endorses Lex Luthor's presidential candidacy and gets chewed out by Superman.

[Brannigan]

I was going to just link to an image from that episode or a panel from Kingdom Come, but this is much better.

 

[tegan]

Shazam, motherfucker!