Ferguson

[tberton]

But at the same time, the Articles of Confederation were widely acknowledged to be a failure, sufficient for it to be replaced by a federal government that was seen as egregiously invasive but still necessary. I don't deny that America's always had some ambivalence about the relationship between government and society, but it's an ambivalence that's been expanded and recast over the years to be prophetic post hoc about current social ills.

 

I agree with this. When I was saying "founding myths" I really meant more "founding myths that are still strongly believed today", so I should have been more specific.

[Badfinger]

When my father was born, the top marginal income tax rate was 90%. Two years before I was born, it was 70% The year I was born, it was 50%. The year my sister was born, it was 30%. Those events are in chronological order.

 

In that 6 years from when Reagan took the presidency to when my sister was born, he* (*Reagan in tandem with congress, but reaganomics let's be real) lowered the taxes of people who made adjusted for inflation $20,000 by 10% net! That's a lot! He lowered the taxes of people earning ten times that ($250k) by 40% net. Working class people in the post-war period had higher taxes than we do now, but did not pay monstrously more of their income to the government. Wealthy people paid way WAY more than they do now. I am willing to bet a lot of money that people who complain about taxes don't understand how much more of the tax burden used to be assumed by people who could easily shoulder it, and if they were in that class of person it wouldn't matter like it does now.

 

The problem is you can't run an election on the platform of "I'ma make some rich people pay some taxes again please so we can have a government".

[Gormongous]

The problem is you can't run an election on the platform of "I'ma make some rich people pay some taxes again please so we can have a government".

 

Especially because it's a proven phenomenon that people vote on economic policy based on how rich they want to be, not how rich they are. Until the Republican owner of a small business making $60,000 a year can be persuaded that the entire sum of their income could be taxed from the super-rich without them even noticing, making sure that the US has a viable tax base is a loser's game.

 

When I was reading about the collapse of urban society in late antique Rome a couple of years ago, I learned a new word: "euergetism." It's a concept from ancient Greece that wealthy people are expected to reinvest a large portion of their wealth back into the community and society that allowed them to become so wealthy. I'm not surprised that Western civilization kept around the concept of democracy but not another less-convenient sociopolitical practice, and yet it's still disappointing.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I'm aware this might be a racist presumption, but is the voting on the basis of how wealthy you expect to be a phenomenon in other countries? It feels like a particularly American sentiment and it doesn't seem like people do that here, most people openly criticise when taxes for richer people are disproportionately cut. But maybe I'm just blind to how it works here.

[Twig]

Only the rich people have the power to protest something like that, and of course they won't. I mean there was the whole Occupy movement somewhat recently, so the previous statement isn't really true, but even that wasn't about taxes. Also I'm not sure it actually achieved anything?

[BobbyBesar]

I wouldn't say that it's a founding myth. It's certainly a post-Nixon myth (and also something of a post-Nixon fact), which for most Americans, with their dim awareness of history, is tantamount to being a founding myth.

 

Also, district attorney of some place like St. Louis County is a thankless job that no one would normally seek to do, so the only people who would run for it are people like McCulloch with an ulterior motive. The problem's not necessarily replacing McCulloch, the problem's finding someone better to replace him.

It depends on how you read it. The idea that _individual_ politicians are selfish and can't be trusted is a pretty distinctly post-Nixon phenomenon. The idea that Government in general is prone to abuse of power despite the best intentions of the individuals in it is closer to a founding principal, the source of the whole checks-and-balances theory of government.

 

I'm aware this might be a racist presumption, but is the voting on the basis of how wealthy you expect to be a phenomenon in other countries? It feels like a particularly American sentiment and it doesn't seem like people do that here, most people openly criticise when taxes for richer people are disproportionately cut. But maybe I'm just blind to how it works here.

It may be less pronounced. America has the myth of social mobility, which allows people to envision themselves as becoming members of the super-wealthy class. Many countries with more explicitly stratified societies don't even entertain the idea that people can better their position, socially. It's absolutely a myth at this point, as social mobility in the US is, as I recall, at an all time low, and even at it's high point was never really all that much better than other countries. But the idea that you just need money as opposed to money AND a title, for instance, makes people think they've got a chance.

[SuperBiasedMan]

It may be less pronounced. America has the myth of social mobility, which allows people to envision themselves as becoming members of the super-wealthy class. Many countries with more explicitly stratified societies don't even entertain the idea that people can better their position, socially. It's absolutely a myth at this point, as social mobility in the US is, as I recall, at an all time low, and even at it's high point was never really all that much better than other countries. But the idea that you just need money as opposed to money AND a title, for instance, makes people think they've got a chance.

 

For the record, in Ireland the concept of titles denoting classes isn't really a thing, but we definitely still have distinct classes.

And I do agree that people just expect social immobility. I see a lot of TV on this side of the Atlantic depicting the fact that people are resigned to their fate, those that try to break out are dreamers and when they succeed they're an exception with talent, perseverance and luck on their side, not proof of what sheer determination can get you.

[Bjorn]

I have an idea that part of the reason for the myth of class mobility is that a lot of folks aren't very self aware about what class they are in.  That there is an illusion that middle class folks (myself inlcuded) have that they are poor, and that it is part of the reason for the myth of social mobility existing.  I genuinely thought my family was poor when I was a kid, because my mom was constantly stressed about money.  Every penny of the family's budget had to be accounted for, minor economic emergencies were treated as disasters.  So I thought we were poor.  Turns out we weren't.  But it helped create an illusion where I thought we were poor when I was young, and then I perceived us as being much better off later in life.  

I know other people who almost like to brag about how *poor* they were in college or in their early 20s.  But again, that isn't like living in poverty.  They still had a bunch of resources and advantages that someone who was genuinely poor never had.  Then later on once they are established in a career, they perceive themselves as having gone from being poor to being okay, without recognizing that their earlier poor state was one that was highly likely to be temporary anyways.

[Merus]

Australia does have a myth of social mobility, but there's a broad expectation that you're probably middle class unless you're a "battler" (a positive descriptor, and probably the one good thing current affairs shows have given us) and the rich are tall poppies and are suspect.

[Badfinger]

I'm aware this might be a racist presumption, but is the voting on the basis of how wealthy you expect to be a phenomenon in other countries? It feels like a particularly American sentiment and it doesn't seem like people do that here, most people openly criticise when taxes for richer people are disproportionately cut. But maybe I'm just blind to how it works here.

 

I'm not sure how this could be construed as racist. Classist or nationalist possibly? There are plenty of white Americans who are either actually poor or have very little financial freedom who will happily vote against their best interests every single time.

 

See: The seemingly endless parade of people across the spectrum against socialized healthcare who it would benefit enormously. Why? Because a rich white dude said it was bad for America. It's almost comical how stark the difference in support is for healthcare when it's called the Affordable Care Act vs Obamacare.

 

 

 

Something relevant to Ferguson: https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/540294625408593920

[SuperBiasedMan]

I'm not sure how this could be construed as racist.

(I meant racist of me to be anti american and presume it's an issue there more than one other countries)

[Badfinger]

(I meant racist of me to be anti american and presume it's an issue there more than one other countries)

 

Thankfully very few people consider "American" to be a race, and those that do can be safely ignored literally forever.

[JonCole]

It's an Itchio to benefit the Ferguson Public Library

 

Includes 9 games for $9, most notably Eidolon which was mentioned on the cast.

[Bolegium]

Just donated. I've been meaning to get The Floor is Jelly for a while.

 

Also should point out that the games won't be downloadable after the bundle expires, so make sure you download before then (11:59 PM EASTERN ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH).

[JonCole]

That's in 1 hour, 16 minutes 13 hours, 5 minutes for those of you who don't want to convert to local time.

 

Edit: haha, I'm the worst.

[Bolegium]

PM, so add another 12 hours?

[JonCole]

PM, so add another 12 hours?

 

lol, THE PERILS OF TIME

[tberton]

Bunny Coleman tells it like it is.

 

[Problem Machine]

nvm

[Griddlelol]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for it, without starting a new thread (which I'm too uninformed to do), but it seems related - racial profiling, brutality etc.

 

So yeah, that CIA report is pretty fucked up. I've been incredibly disgusted by the way Jihadists have treated western hostages - beheadings and the like are utterly brutal and repulsive - but this stuff is just as bad, if not worse. I don't want to be associated with this stuff, I've never opposed any of the wars or terror legislation in my country, however if this is how they treat prisoners, I regret not saying something. I thought we - the west - were above such stuff. Honestly, this stuff makes me feel ashamed rather than angry. I wish it was the other way around.

 

I think something that worries me the most is that the US government didn't seem to know about it. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but I have no reason other than to take that denial at face value. 

[Nachimir]

We (as in, the west) are really not above that, and I don't think we ever have been. There's a long history of the CIA torturing people, but since 9/11 they've just been doing it closer to home and seeking more and more legal sanction to do it.

 

Edit:

 

Here's some historical context on British use of torture in the 80s (The C.I.A were using similar techniques in South America at the same time):

http://www.alicerosebell.com/blog/2014/12/10/scientists-torture-and-history

 

This New Yorker article is fascinating:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-takes

tl;dr: TV glamourised torture while G.W. Bush's government sanctioned it, but those actually teaching interrogation knew how useless it was as a technique. Meanwhile, recruits were reporting for interrogation training with a head full of scenes from 24 thinking "Torture! Fuck yeah!". Once they've been tortured enough, people will do or say anything to make it stop and that tends to not yield accurate or useful information. It just gives abusive asshole torturers a outlet and impunity, and that has some eerie parallels with cop behaviour as it relates to black people in the US and UK.

 

This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan—wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals—aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his “call” was.

 

 

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”

[Bolegium]

I think the scope and importance of the CIA documents deserves its own thread. I don't have anything to post, other than stating my own opinion on torture being that it should be banned even in a hypothetical situation where it is 100% 'effective'in getting lifesaving information.

Pointing out the evidence that torture is not an effective means of obtaining information is super important, but at the end of the day engaging in that line of argument still distracts from the issue that torture should be considered unjustifiable.

[Problem Machine]

Frankly I'm uncertain if there's any justification for the existence of the CIA at this point.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Frankly I'm uncertain if there's any justification for the existence of the CIA at this point.

Part of what DiFi and Udall have complained about was that the redactions in the executive summary served only to keep certain unclassified knowledge privileged. For instance, the executive summary apparently mostly refers to CIA staff with pseudonyms -- but those pseudonyms have been redacted. Part of the reason for doing something like this is to hide how few people are involved, and by doing that pressure people to say "why do we need a CIA" instead of saying "holy shit, Director Killemall deserves to be behind bars." The CIA isn't going away but someone could very well be put on trial -- and inaction is better than a deeper inquiry.

Hahaha I might sound like a crazy conspiracy theory nut oops

Also this was mostly done by independent contractors. I think it was something like 80% independent contractor work, if I'm remembering right? I'm at work, so I can't really pull up the report right now. I'll double check when I get home. So, you know, be pissed at the CIA, but also be pissed at independent contractors, and the weaponizing of redactions.

[Bjorn]

But a big part of the reason to outsource certain work to "independent" (hahahahahaha) contractors is to provide cover and distance between them and the government employees who are supposed to oversee them.  Plausible deniability, and all that. So being pissed at the CIA is still the most appropriate target.