"A Nation Divided, Sports United" ~ The Equality & Other Issues Thread

[Fencer reregistered]

I am in Phoenix now and have also been half-assedly planning to move to So Cal. It would be easier if I had a bigger budget. My research in the past had me thinking that the best value I would find for myself would be near the ocean in San Pedro.

I'd like to be in Cali for a number of reasons, starting with the atmosphere and the people. Of course, I also like driving, hate traffic, hate to pay for parking, and am slightly clumsy when it comes to parallel parking. So I'm not sure how that would work out.

New cars apparently have rear cameras. I think that makes parking a little easier than it used to be, but I've only tested that hypothesis in about 3 parking spaces.

[Fencer reregistered]

Americans and the uber patriotism always makes me laugh abit as an outsider. I mean, half of us in England don't even like our national anthem. The only time I ever even acknowledge or sing it is when I'm drunk as **** before an International Football Match.

Hell, a leader of one of our main political parties openly doesn't even sing it and he's currently the most popular politician in the popularity polls

It's not even that we are super liberal or anything as we are far from it, but I suppose we aren't as in your face patriotic for this to have become such a big story here.

It's a **** song as well honestly. America the Beautiful, on the other hand, is a **** banger.

I never understood why this is such a popular opinion lol I think it sounds great (when they don't butcher the ending), I think Canada's sounds far worse. But, I would prefer a song that wasn't about war..there's too much glorifying that as it is. That's what leads to little questioning of tossing more money into Afghanistan with seemingly no strategy or clear goal...instead of healthcare, education, literally anything else hell I'd rather buy gold toilet seats for everyone. But guess that's one for another thread.

I wonder what fraction of national anthems are bloody.

US and France -- yes.
UK and Canada -- no.
Germany -- no.

That's about all I got.

[Fencer reregistered]

I voted, but I didn't vote for Hillary or Donald. I'm all done with the binary choice between 2 evils

I'd love to be able to have a (none of above) choice that could count....

However, the only way that that could become a meaningful vote would be to change the election laws....get rid of the Electoral College, and have it so that only a candidate who received a (50% or more) "majority" of the popular vote could be elected....

If no candidate received this majority, there would have to be a series of runoff elections until one candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote prevailed.....

But do you realize how difficult it would be to enact this sort of reform?

You probably would never get the two major parties to agree on this....heck you can't get them to agree on anything right now....and it's been that way since Adam and Eve spotted that apple tree in the garden....

I think the college is fine, what we need is to allow ALL canindates that are on enough State’s ballots that would allow them to win the election into the debates. It’s idiotic to base it on polls because people have to decide who they want before they hear them out. Wouldn’t be against a ranked vote as well. The biased media (Jill is not anti vaccine lol) and the crookened debates commission was never going to allow Gary and Jill to ever have a chance at getting in that debate.

Sorry for the soap box fellas hah.

Jill Stein sure used a lot of anti-vaccine code words: http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

Trump denies being a racist. Does that mean the media who portray him otherwise is biased?

[Froob]

I'd love to be able to have a (none of above) choice that could count....

However, the only way that that could become a meaningful vote would be to change the election laws....get rid of the Electoral College, and have it so that only a candidate who received a (50% or more) "majority" of the popular vote could be elected....

If no candidate received this majority, there would have to be a series of runoff elections until one candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote prevailed.....

But do you realize how difficult it would be to enact this sort of reform?

You probably would never get the two major parties to agree on this....heck you can't get them to agree on anything right now....and it's been that way since Adam and Eve spotted that apple tree in the garden....

I think the college is fine, what we need is to allow ALL canindates that are on enough State’s ballots that would allow them to win the election into the debates. It’s idiotic to base it on polls because people have to decide who they want before they hear them out. Wouldn’t be against a ranked vote as well. The biased media (Jill is not anti vaccine lol) and the crookened debates commission was never going to allow Gary and Jill to ever have a chance at getting in that debate.

Sorry for the soap box fellas hah.

Jill Stein sure used a lot of anti-vaccine code words: http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

Trump denies being a racist. Does that mean the media who portray him otherwise is biased?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/18/jill-stein-anti-vaccination-green-party-ridiculous

Just saying, you don’t have to like Trump or the media. The media coverage on some canindates was far from fair. And Bernie really got hosed too..

[ConstableGeneva]

OT but my sympathies and condolences to all those affected by the horrifying shooting in Vegas. Hope the team observes a moment of silence for all the victims and their families prior to the game tonight. My actual hope is for these senseless violence to end.

[truth18]

OT but my sympathies and condolences to all those affected by the horrifying shooting in Vegas. Hope the team observes a moment of silence for all the victims and their families prior to the game tonight. My actual hope is for these senseless violence to end.

Just woke up to this news. Holy ****, man. Orlando shooting last year was the deadliest in US history and now this? 50 dead and the number will only rise.

**** hell. **** makes you want to punch a hole in the wall that transports us to another existence.

[Fencer reregistered]

OT but my sympathies and condolences to all those affected by the horrifying shooting in Vegas. Hope the team observes a moment of silence for all the victims and their families prior to the game tonight. My actual hope is for these senseless violence to end.

Just woke up to this news. Holy ****, man. Orlando shooting last year was the deadliest in US history and now this? 50 dead and the number will only rise.

**** hell. **** makes you want to punch a hole in the wall that transports us to another existence.

My wife's pretty upset. One of her friends (daughter of a household where she'd been a guest) is a Las Vegas cop, as is that lady's husband. And they were definitely planning to attend the concert/festival (off duty).

[Fencer reregistered]

most conservatives are not interested in facts, fairness, accountability or any of that.

My only argument would be that this is for most people, not just most conservatives.

Probably true, but the intellectually responsible contingent is more significant on the left.

Almost every major conservative policy priority in the United States -- at least the domestic ones -- is in wild opposition to reality, and that's been true since the "much-needed correction" aspect of the early Reagan years was played out.

Or when they're not, they get utterly wrapped up in nonsense, since as the anti-scientific arguments used to support what could be a perfectly fact-respecting moral objection to abortion.

[Fencer reregistered]

Both Dems and Republicans tend to argue in the form of "Moderate members of my party find your parties extreme radicals to be ridiculous/terrible, which is why my party is clearly saner/better than yours"

Even mainstream Republican views are ridiculous. Denying climate change is mainstream. Claiming that tax cuts will pay for themselves because of growth is mainstream. Etc.

[cloverleaf]

most conservatives are not interested in facts, fairness, accountability or any of that.

My only argument would be that this is for most people, not just most conservatives.

Probably true, but the intellectually responsible contingent is more significant on the left.

Almost every major conservative policy priority in the United States -- at least the domestic ones -- is in wild opposition to reality, and that's been true since the "much-needed correction" aspect of the early Reagan years was played out.

Or when they're not, they get utterly wrapped up in nonsense, since as the anti-scientific arguments used to support what could be a perfectly fact-respecting moral objection to abortion.

Really? Communism with such a great record of success? Classical liberalism (the ideology of the 'right' today) isn't responsible for more prosperity and progress than any other known to the planet?

[Fencer reregistered]

So let me take it back to the social issues this thread is really about.

Assuming that the statistics bear out that there are indeed biases against black people in the US, that cannot be accounted for by other socio-economic factors: what is the solution? what can be done in terms of policy that will help?

A little of this and a little of that.

Push back hard against any NEW racism, such as increased voter disenfranchisement.

Enforce existing laws, ala Obama/Holder.

Just keep celebrating blacks who contradict the stereotypes, so the more intelligent and/or less noxious racists have to keep lengthening their list of "exceptions".

Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Froob]

Sad some do not value life at all. Feel bad for the victims' friends and family. Rough stretch of time these last few years.

[Froob]

My only argument would be that this is for most people, not just most conservatives.

Probably true, but the intellectually responsible contingent is more significant on the left.

Almost every major conservative policy priority in the United States -- at least the domestic ones -- is in wild opposition to reality, and that's been true since the "much-needed correction" aspect of the early Reagan years was played out.

Or when they're not, they get utterly wrapped up in nonsense, since as the anti-scientific arguments used to support what could be a perfectly fact-respecting moral objection to abortion.

Really? Socialism with such a great record of success? Classical liberalism (the ideology of the 'right' today) isn't responsible for more prosperity and progress than any other known to the planet?

Any system can be a big failure, I think the people matter more than what political system we use. I feel like there's far too much focus on that. It's like watching the Knicks try to run the triangle that Phil Jackson had won 11 titles with in Chicago and LA.

[Fencer reregistered]

Is there a remaining defensible reason to be a Trump supporter?

If you truly equate abortion to murder, then you can vote Republican on that one issue alone.

I can't think of a second answer, however.

[Fencer reregistered]

My only argument would be that this is for most people, not just most conservatives.

Probably true, but the intellectually responsible contingent is more significant on the left.

Almost every major conservative policy priority in the United States -- at least the domestic ones -- is in wild opposition to reality, and that's been true since the "much-needed correction" aspect of the early Reagan years was played out.

Or when they're not, they get utterly wrapped up in nonsense, since as the anti-scientific arguments used to support what could be a perfectly fact-respecting moral objection to abortion.

Really? Socialism with such a great record of success? Classical liberalism (the ideology of the 'right' today) isn't responsible for more prosperity and progress than any other known to the planet?

I don't think you're using your buzzwords at all accurately.

[Captain_Caveman]

So many interesting ideas here... just to respond to a few, but possibly not coherently:

-The immigration thing really bothers me. Canada should accept far more lesser skilled immigrants than we have in previous years. And far more refugees (this is a topic I can get worked up about fairly readily). My favorite place in NYC (also my fave city in the world; in part because of its great history of incorporating immigrants) is Ellis Island. That journey in pursuit of a better life is remarkably resonant to me and they do such a great job telling the story of it in that museum.

-I vaguely remember reading a piece about public institutions driving a disproportionate number of medical innovations (adjusted for size) vs. private industry. It's interesting to me: it seems intuitive the profit motive would lead to more innovation in this area - and yet the application of universal health care leads to better societies IMO (It's hardly without its faults of course but on balance, I think it's the best platform on which to build a society). Globally, it makes sense to have both.

-Relevant anecdote: I was down in Boston playing ball around the Sloan conference a few years back and dumb enough to show up with two bad knees and no travel insurance. I cut a deal with my friend in Boston. If I blew a knee out, he'd drive me across the border to get treated so I didn't run up some ludicrous hospital bill. I don't think I went near a contested rebound that day.

-You made a good point about Canadian cities being sanitized versions of U.S. cities. This is by design. Our economic floor (on average) is higher and our ceiling lower (on average). This is for better and worse. I tend to like U.S. cities better overall.

-The FP and military stuff would be well served by a conversation over drinks some night. I'll buy. I'll also ask many, many stupid questions. But I suspect we mostly disagree in interesting ways.

As to California... I really should move to L.A. for career reasons. But while I'm coming around on the city as not horrible, it's unappealing for a whole host of reasons. I'm a wine nut so Santa Barbara appeals. I could just drive down south when I needed to. If I had a choice, I'd probably live in SF. But that's out of the question.

Thanks, and likewise. No question that TO is an amazingly diverse place. To some extent, Montreal and Vancouver as well. They lack the grime of NYC and LA, which is good and bad, I guess.

Definitely glad I didn't get hurt while in Canada. I'm sure the health care is fine, but just didn't want to navigate another country's system. Seemed to be hard to get appointments too.

As to CA, Have lived in SF (3 years), Orange County (2 years, suburban LA), San Diego (8 years) and now the Sierra Foothills (3 years). Favorite place by far was San Diego, but then, I lived right on the beach. Don't see the point of being there if you are not. I feel like everyone should live in SF at some point in their lives, but like everyone else for the past 50 years, I feel like people already missed the glory days.

LA is cool, but maaaaaan, the traffic is just something else. I know many people who have carved out awesome lives there, living and working in places like Silver Lake or Santa Monica/Venice, but it's just not for me. Santa Barbara also a no, but San Luis Obispo is sweet if you don't mind college kids. The Sierra Nevada are pretty awesome, and I am glad that I'm getting a chance to experience them. Currently own a truck and do wilderness ****. When I look back at living in Boston, and miserably riding the Red Line to work in an office with other miserable people in the middle of a miserable winter, I just laugh. Why would anyone live that way? Why did I, for so long?

All in all, despite the flaws and costs of living, I can't really imagine NOT living in California. And if you are within walking distance of a beach, well... you don't really need much else. For my money, the best places to live are not actually the cities, but places near them or smaller cities (Marin/Sonoma counties, Chico, SLO, Tahoe). Anyhow, hit me up if you pull the trigger on it or if you have any questions.

My wife and I want to move to Santa Rosa. It seems like a nice and somewhat affordable place, and the closest place with such distinctions to SF.

People really like Sonoma County. Not sure it's my speed, but it's a nice place.

[Captain_Caveman]

My only argument would be that this is for most people, not just most conservatives.

Probably true, but the intellectually responsible contingent is more significant on the left.

Almost every major conservative policy priority in the United States -- at least the domestic ones -- is in wild opposition to reality, and that's been true since the "much-needed correction" aspect of the early Reagan years was played out.

Or when they're not, they get utterly wrapped up in nonsense, since as the anti-scientific arguments used to support what could be a perfectly fact-respecting moral objection to abortion.

Really? Communism with such a great record of success? Classical liberalism (the ideology of the 'right' today) isn't responsible for more prosperity and progress than any other known to the planet?

Who is out there pushing communism? And no on classical liberalism. For starters, what actually happened to provide us this wealth was that we left WW2 with unprecedented manufacturing power due to massive government investment during wartime. The middle class was then built through extensive public subsidization of multiple industries (military-industrial complex, agriculture, health care, etc), our infrastructure, and social investment (education, GI Bill, etc). The reality has never met the myth the right wing puts out there. Not even close.

Classical liberalism as conservatives would practice it is a discredited ideology. Completely and repeatedly. Alan Greenspan had to get up in front of Congress a decade ago during the housing crisis and flat out admit to the fallacy of a free market self-correcting itself. Truth is, anyone with a clue knows that the government and the market must serve as checks and balances to each other, to guard against each others excesses and weaknesses. Reagan, Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, Romney... none of them are confused about this in any way. Truth is, there is relatively little difference among those names in their views of domestic policy and the role of government. Most of the bigger differences between them are in foreign policy, and in George W Bush's case, his competence.

[Slartibartfast]

Free universal healthcare and a well funded and secular public education system, including university education. It is no great mystery that if you make your population smarter and healthier, negative health and social issues will decrease. It's not going to make a nation some sort of crime free utopia, but it would help.

We could do more of all that with more equitable taxation levels, and should.

But simply put, the money doesn't exist for that. A lot of times, people's ideological perspective looks past the reality IMO. Things that worked in other times or places won't work in America in 2017. I mean, Norway does all that stuff, and it's great. They are also an oil-rich nation of 5m homogeneous, affluent and educated people.

It's my biggest issue with Bernie Sanders, quite frankly. He is stuck in a moment in time where we were in the midst of a baby boom and unprecedented manufacturing power. In the 1960s, there were something like 4 working aged people (aka taxpayers) for every retired person. If people had a pension, great. They'd retire and then drop dead in 5 years. Now, we keep an aging population alive for an extra 5-10 years, with crazy high end-of-life costs. Free education used to mean subsidizing a few thousand dollars a year for each student. Now, it would mean an average of $30k or so.

Free basic/preventative health care and community college or trade school? Cool. Cancer treatments or top 100 university tuition? Subsidized to an extent, but not free. Even with tax increases on the rich and corporations.

That's just the reality of globalization (which I nevertheless support on balance). Heard a very interesting quote from Jeffrey Sachs once. He said that throughout human history, at any given moment, 5/6ths of people lives in abject poverty. With globalization, that ratio is down to 2/3rds and falling. This is inherently a good thing for the most part, but there are winners and losers in everything, and it's not lost on the Brexit and Trump or Sanders voters that they are on the wrong side of that line.

They are being displaced from low-skilled jobs, and they have tremendous fear and anger over that. These are the first generations who didn't automatically have everything better and easier than their parents, and they want to turn back the clock to a brief moment in time where their parents and grandparents could graduate high school and support a family off one income pulling a **** lever at a car factory 8 hours a day.

In their own way, Trump and Sanders and the Brexit folks both promise them that this can happen. That it should happen. It's a call for hegemony and empire, both in the UK and the US. At least the Trump people are up front about that, lol.

Truth is, there is no success to be found, in this generation or any other, in using 50 year old ideas and looking backwards. Always forward, never back. We are in a period of massive change. More change in the last 50 years than in all of human history to that point, in fact. Adapt or perish. We need to accept reality and plan for 2060, not 1960 (or 1860, as these libertarian types would have us do). Workforces need to be retrained, entitlement programs need to be streamlined, and we need to suck it up a bit.

Still the best time ever to be alive... if you are white and from the Western world.

Well put, but some quibbles and bits.

Given that the world's most explosive population growth is occurring in abjectly impoverished countries (the same African countries + Afghanistan dominate both lists) with terrible infrastructure and massive corruption, it seems like the rising tide lifts all boats momentum of globalization could be vulnerable to a big reverse.

The globalism of the 20th century was mostly an exchange of goods and tech. Towards the end of the century, global labor arbitrage kicked in, but much of that was through outsourcing.

The next wave could be all about people. Wealthy countries with negative birthrates and huge boomer cohorts looking at 20 year retirements + poor countries with massive populations of young people looking to escape nightmarish infrastructure.

Of course right wing Westerners made the same projections about the Indians (Raspail's Camp of the Saints) and Chinese in the 70s (Monty Python's I Like Chinese), but both countries population growth rates took a steep dive as they successfully launched manufacturing and service economies.

Africa seems to have a much tougher road to hoe - much, much greater disunity leading to huge problems with political stability and the establishment of all types of infrastructure. I think the current debates about Latin American immigration to the US and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe that animate the platforms of the right in the West could pale in light of the coming debates about massive emigration from Africa.

[Slartibartfast]

...
LA is cool, but maaaaaan, the traffic is just something else. I know many people who have carved out awesome lives there, living and working in places like Silver Lake or Santa Monica/Venice, but it's just not for me. Santa Barbara also a no, but San Luis Obispo is sweet if you don't mind college kids. The Sierra Nevada are pretty awesome, and I am glad that I'm getting a chance to experience them. Currently own a truck and do wilderness ****. When I look back at living in Boston, and miserably riding the Red Line to work in an office with other miserable people in the middle of a miserable winter, I just laugh. Why would anyone live that way? Why did I, for so long?

All in all, despite the flaws and costs of living, I can't really imagine NOT living in California. And if you are within walking distance of a beach, well... you don't really need much else. For my money, the best places to live are not actually the cities, but places near them or smaller cities (Marin/Sonoma counties, Chico, SLO, Tahoe). Anyhow, hit me up if you pull the trigger on it or if you have any questions.

That's the big if here - California that's not within 10 miles of the beach is nothing special. I've lived in Sacramento, OC, LA and the IE, and really only one place didn't mostly suck (Westminster). And I had to move out of there when I wanted to buy a house because property values were so insane (not like Westminster is a beach town either - blue collar ville).

If you make great money, avoid commutes longer than 10 miles and live with 10 miles of the beach, California is great. If not, it feels a lot like Arizona or Nevada only ridiculously overpriced and overcrowded.

Harsh take! I've lived 4 places in CA (SF, Irvine, SD, Sierra Foothills) and Westminster would be a distant 5th there.

Could easily name 30 cities or towns that are good places to live, and there are plenty of little pockets that are not on the coast that are nice spots. Tahoe, Chico, Davis, Nevada City, Auburn, Healdsburg, Quincy, Sonora, Bishop, Mammoth, Palm Springs, Ojai, Dunsmuir, St Helena, Sonoma, etc... Just so many small spots where you can just have this unbelievable, epic natural environment practically all to yourself.

Plus, when we are talking about the "coast" it is practically the equivalent of the entire Eastern Seaboard. We haven't even mentioned places like Santa Cruz, Arcata, Grover Beach, Dana Point, Mendocino, Monterey, Half Moon Bay, South OC/North SD County, or the little pockets of place that lie in close proximity to the major cities (Pasadena, Solana Beach, Palo Alto, Pacifica).

I mean, I understand that there are plenty of suck places too (most of LA, Stockton, El Centro, San Bernadino, Bakersfield, Modesto, most of Sacramento, Lancaster/Palmdale, Fresno), but they are easily avoidable for the most part.

Auburn is great. So is the coast. I like the little mountain communities like Idyllwild and Cool and Angel's Camp too. Heck, I even like Weed.

But there are great pockets of Arizona and Nevada too. My point is, take away the coasts (which cost of living does for most of us) and California just isn't that special.

[ZeroTolerance]

On the premise that we are "A Nation Divided....I think it is both proper and necessary that we discuss what happened last night in Los Vegas Nevada....Where well over 500 innocent people were shot and at the latest count 58 people died at the hands of a 64 year old gun nut....

I think it is obscene that this country continues to look the other way and does nothing to prevent the sale of automatic weapons.....

PERIOD!

As far as I'm concerned if you are a card carrying NRA member or a person who attends gun shows or goes overboard in any way shape or form about the right to bear arms, then the blood of all those innocent people is on you!

You should feel both ashamed and responsible every time an incident like this happens.....

I feel sick that this country, as great as it is, continues to look the other way.....and I'm sure that I'm far from being alone on this issue...

This is the year 2017....not 1776....there is need for a constitutional change....