Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dckingsfan]

TGW - so what is the answer? Since we are talking Chicago, what would you do there?

[Zonkerbl]

Actually, the witch hunt has gone both ways. Scientist that have brought up research that challenged the "status quo" of global warming were eviscerated (even though they were later proved correct). Same way back in the day when we had the "population bomb" issue. If you brought up any facts to the contrary the "scientific establishment" would eviscerate you.

I believe Lamar Smith is absolutely correct that their is a "Politically Correct" speak on global warming. If you don't "believe" you must be a whack job. That is fine for politics - but the basis of science is to have a theory and then try to disprove it... the science of global warming has transitioned to political and not scientific, IMO.

Yes, if you are not a scientist and have no idea what you are talking about, you deserve to be eviscerated by the scientific community.

People who aren't scientists don't understand how ruthless the discipline is. Sloppiness is not tolerated. Don't come into the ring and complain when you get knocked out cold cause you have no idea what you're doing.

And people who use the term "political correct" deserve to get knocked out. We're talking about using your political position to distort the scientific process. This is corruption on a level we haven't seen since Galileo was accused of heresy in the Middle Ages.

Actually - it is the scientific community that was eviscerating the scientific community in both cases.

And funding for the science is both sloppy and political - I have been involved the process for years. Talk to any scientist and they will vent their frustration with the process. Including who is now getting funding for global warming studies.

Edit: see the stimulus waste as well...

And the "political correct" verbiage is definitely influencing said funding. And yes, it is corrupt - but not by the folks you are thinking. Ask Al Gore.

And go back a generation and find out the funding that went into the "population bomb".

You have zero proof the scientific community was "eviscerating" anybody.

Even if there was it doesn't mean a thing. Scientists are snarky to each other. That's part of the process. There's no politically motivated witch hunt here, just scientists battling it out. God knows I've had some heated arguments with my economics colleagues that scared the non-economists out of the room - they thought we were about to fight.

If some incompetent gun-for-hire for the oil lobby gets eviscerated in the process that's his own damn fault for being a schlub.

[Zonkerbl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/25/chicago-protesters-confront-police-shut-down-interstate-after-release-of-laquan-mcdonald-video/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_chicago-5am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

If you watch the video, kid is walking around with his hand in his pocket. Cop arrives at the scene, doesn't know that the weapon is a knife, something happens (there's no audio so you don't know what the cop said), maybe the cop tells him to get his damn hands out of his pockets, kid ignores him, cop opens fire. Because if you had peaceful intentions you would pull your damn hands out of your pockets. And he did have a deadly weapon in his pocket.

I don't know what that kid was thinking. I think it's fair of the cop to be afraid of a weapon being pulled out of a pocket after a cop orders him to get his hands out of his pockets. But he should have waited for the kid to actually pull a weapon out and make a threatening move with it. Maybe he would've seen it was just a knife. Seems like a panic move by the cop.

I'm not going to go back and forth over this because it gets tiring, but the kid already had the knife in his hands before the police killed him. He was clearly walking away from them, so I don't see the threat, unless the kid is a master knife thrower going away from his body.

There's a reason that cop got charged with murder...being "scared' didn't come close to justifying 16 shots out the clip in this situation.

And I see Nate is building his Fox News narrative of black youth "lacking respect" from authority. No Nate--ALL youth disrespect authority. Want proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhsZHBGaBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3KZWpHzZdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYCKWN5kaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lpwg-DbKB4

It's just that one demographic gets killed by the cops. The other demographics get subdued.

Because of the racial bias, these marginal cases are more likely to end badly for black rather than white kids. But eliminating racial bias isn't going to eliminate the marginal cases. Only eliminating hand guns will do that.

[dckingsfan]

Yes, if you are not a scientist and have no idea what you are talking about, you deserve to be eviscerated by the scientific community.

People who aren't scientists don't understand how ruthless the discipline is. Sloppiness is not tolerated. Don't come into the ring and complain when you get knocked out cold cause you have no idea what you're doing.

And people who use the term "political correct" deserve to get knocked out. We're talking about using your political position to distort the scientific process. This is corruption on a level we haven't seen since Galileo was accused of heresy in the Middle Ages.

Actually - it is the scientific community that was eviscerating the scientific community in both cases.

And funding for the science is both sloppy and political - I have been involved the process for years. Talk to any scientist and they will vent their frustration with the process. Including who is now getting funding for global warming studies.

Edit: see the stimulus waste as well...

And the "political correct" verbiage is definitely influencing said funding. And yes, it is corrupt - but not by the folks you are thinking. Ask Al Gore.

And go back a generation and find out the funding that went into the "population bomb".

You have zero proof the scientific community was "eviscerating" anybody.

Even if there was it doesn't mean a thing. Scientists are snarky to each other. That's part of the process. There's no politically motivated witch hunt here, just scientists battling it out. God knows I've had some heated arguments with my economics colleagues that scared the non-economists out of the room - they thought we were about to fight.

If some incompetent gun-for-hire for the oil lobby gets eviscerated in the process that's his own damn fault for being a schlub.

Exactly, its political - and it is fair game for both sides to call the other out... balance the science funding on both sides. Let the process play out and get to the truth.

[TGW]

TGW - so what is the answer? Since we are talking Chicago, what would you do there?

Well, for one, I would go after the gun makers to ensure that their products don't make it from the factory to the streets. A gray area exists where military/police grade weaponry is somehow finding it's way in the hands of teenagers. How and why does that happen? Are the Chicago teens sneaking in the Colt manufacturing plant and stealing machine guns from the warehouse? Are collector getting robbed?

There are middle men in play that the government does not go after. The underground market is flooding the street with weapons, and the manufacturers get to wipe their hands clean. I GUARANTEE if manufacturers were held accountable for their products and where they end up, you'd see a swift decline in gun-related homicides.

Secondly, I would do a guns-for-cash exchange program, and it would be wholly sponsored by the gun manufacturers. Or maybe a "Kicks for guns" program that had spectacular results in Orlando.

http://www.realradio.fm/pages/kicksforguns.html

I would also have them sponsor an online "see and report" website where rewards are given to tipsters who report a past or active crime that ends up in a conviction.

Thirdly--I would kill the privately owned prison system in Illinois. They are complicit in ensuring that Chicago is a crime haven so that there prisons stay stocked with inmates (and ultimately they get to line their pocket with state funds). I would also bring back the degree programs (for inmates with 7 years or less) in prisons so that inmates can actually rehabilitate and not come out of prison worse than they were when they went in.

Chicago isn't as hopeless as people make it out to be...the corruption needs to stop at the top. From there, it will trickle down to the streets.

[dckingsfan]

TGW - so what is the answer? Since we are talking Chicago, what would you do there?

Well, for one, I would go after the gun makers to ensure that their products don't make it from the factory to the streets. A gray area exists where military/police grade weaponry is somehow finding it's way in the hands of teenagers. How and why does that happen? Are the Chicago teens sneaking in the Colt manufacturing plant and stealing machine guns from the warehouse? Are collector getting robbed?

There are middle men in play that the government does not go after. The underground market is flooding the street with weapons, and the manufacturers get to wipe their hands clean. I GUARANTEE if manufacturers were held accountable for their products and where they end up, you'd see a swift decline in gun-related homicides.

Secondly, I would do a guns-for-cash exchange program, and it would be wholly sponsored by the gun manufacturers. Or maybe a "Kicks for guns" program that had spectacular results in Orlando.

http://www.realradio.fm/pages/kicksforguns.html

I would also have them sponsor an online "see and report" website where rewards are given to tipsters who report a past or active crime that ends up in a conviction.

Thirdly--I would kill the privately owned prison system in Illinois. They are complicit in ensuring that Chicago is a crime haven so that there prisons stay stocked with inmates (and ultimately they get to line their pocket with state funds). I would also bring back the degree programs (for inmates with 7 years or less) in prisons so that inmates can actually rehabilitate and not come out of prison worse than they were when they went in.

Chicago isn't as hopeless as people make it out to be...the corruption needs to stop at the top. From there, it will trickle down to the streets.

Thoughtful answers. I think that stopping the political corruption in Chicago would have to happen before the rest can happen. Difficult when the prison guards and police unions work directly with the politicians. Seems like there would need to be a change of the guard for that to happen. Which make me (maybe too pessimistically) think that it is more hopeless than not.

[DCZards]

It seems like the same story over and over again.

The black suspect fails to follow reasonable orders from a scared cop, and bad things happen. We obviously have a problem with cops being too aggressive and/or scared in these types of situations, but we also have a problem with the now endemic lack of respect for authority from black youth. These two things are a very bad combination.

Do we really know what, if any, "reasonable orders" were given since there is no audio? Was it necessary to start shooting less than 10 seconds after giving those orders?

[nate33]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/25/chicago-protesters-confront-police-shut-down-interstate-after-release-of-laquan-mcdonald-video/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_chicago-5am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

If you watch the video, kid is walking around with his hand in his pocket. Cop arrives at the scene, doesn't know that the weapon is a knife, something happens (there's no audio so you don't know what the cop said), maybe the cop tells him to get his damn hands out of his pockets, kid ignores him, cop opens fire. Because if you had peaceful intentions you would pull your damn hands out of your pockets. And he did have a deadly weapon in his pocket.

I don't know what that kid was thinking. I think it's fair of the cop to be afraid of a weapon being pulled out of a pocket after a cop orders him to get his hands out of his pockets. But he should have waited for the kid to actually pull a weapon out and make a threatening move with it. Maybe he would've seen it was just a knife. Seems like a panic move by the cop.

I'm not going to go back and forth over this because it gets tiring, but the kid already had the knife in his hands before the police killed him. He was clearly walking away from them, so I don't see the threat, unless the kid is a master knife thrower going away from his body.

There's a reason that cop got charged with murder...being "scared' didn't come close to justifying 16 shots out the clip in this situation.

And I see Nate is building his Fox News narrative of black youth "lacking the respect" of authority. No Nate--ALL youth disrespect authority. Want proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhsZHBGaBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3KZWpHzZdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYCKWN5kaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lpwg-DbKB4

It's just that one demographic gets killed by the cops. The other demographics get subdued.

Those videos are anecdotes, not data. I've already pointed out that the statistics show white people getting killed by cops more than black people relative to their violence rate.

But I'm not even trying to "build a narrative". I was talking about the general trend we've been seeing lately, not this specific instance. From what I can see in the video, the cop here was 100% in the wrong. McDonald was not walking directly toward the cop, he was continuing on his path of travel. And there was no excuse to shoot 16 times - particularly when none of the other cops even shot once.

[nate33]

It seems like the same story over and over again.

The black suspect fails to follow reasonable orders from a scared cop, and bad things happen. We obviously have a problem with cops being too aggressive and/or scared in these types of situations, but we also have a problem with the now endemic lack of respect for authority from black youth. These two things are a very bad combination.

Do we really know what, if any, "reasonable orders" were given since there is no audio? Was it necessary to start shooting less than 10 seconds after giving those orders?

That's what the cop's story was, but we have reason to question that sequence. I'm not going to defend the cop in this particular scenario. He looked to be completely in the wrong.

[nate33]

TGW - so what is the answer? Since we are talking Chicago, what would you do there?

Well, for one, I would go after the gun makers to ensure that their products don't make it from the factory to the streets. A gray area exists where military/police grade weaponry is somehow finding it's way in the hands of teenagers. How and why does that happen? Are the Chicago teens sneaking in the Colt manufacturing plant and stealing machine guns from the warehouse? Are collector getting robbed?

There are middle men in play that the government does not go after. The underground market is flooding the street with weapons, and the manufacturers get to wipe their hands clean. I GUARANTEE if manufacturers were held accountable for their products and where they end up, you'd see a swift decline in gun-related homicides.

Secondly, I would do a guns-for-cash exchange program, and it would be wholly sponsored by the gun manufacturers. Or maybe a "Kicks for guns" program that had spectacular results in Orlando.

http://www.realradio.fm/pages/kicksforguns.html

I would also have them sponsor an online "see and report" website where rewards are given to tipsters who report a past or active crime that ends up in a conviction.

Thirdly--I would kill the privately owned prison system in Illinois. They are complicit in ensuring that Chicago is a crime haven so that there prisons stay stocked with inmates (and ultimately they get to line their pocket with state funds). I would also bring back the degree programs (for inmates with 7 years or less) in prisons so that inmates can actually rehabilitate and not come out of prison worse than they were when they went in.

Chicago isn't as hopeless as people make it out to be...the corruption needs to stop at the top. From there, it will trickle down to the streets.

I don't know how you can hold gun manufacturers accountable for making guns that effectively kill people. That's what guns are for.

If there is a problem with guns leaking out into the black market, there are individual criminals responsible. If those criminals actually work for gun manufacturers, then, sure, the gun manufacturers can be sued. But if middlemen gun dealers are involved, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility.

[dckingsfan]

I would think that you could cut out the middleman - have all sales go through government stores. Kind of like alcohol in some states

[crackhed]

an anti-trump ad from kasich

[DCZards]

Thoughtful answers. I think that stopping the political corruption in Chicago would have to happen before the rest can happen. Difficult when the prison guards and police unions work directly with the politicians. Seems like there would need to be a change of the guard for that to happen. Which make me (maybe too pessimistically) think that it is more hopeless than not.

C'mon dckingsfan. You're smarter than that. You really think it's the guards and unions that are working with politicians to keep the private prisons open and thriving? It's the corporations that own the prisons that are fostering the corruption. Corporations led by men and women who will do anything to keep feeding at the public trough.

In fact, most of the private prisons are not even unionized. You really need to stop blaming the workers and their unions...and dig deeper.

[Dat2U]

Republicans have taught us that blaming workers and their unions was cool and actually the right thing to do. You ask any right wing nut and they'll tell you unions are there to protect the lazy and the people that should be fired. That it's not fair to expect a living or decent wage anymore...'your paid what your worth and if your struggling to feed your family, its more of an indictment of your lack of skills and education then anything else. Maybe you shouldn't have had as many kids either if you don't have a way to pay for 'em. Either way, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, learn a skill and learn how to market yourself as they say... then maybe you'll get a job that pays more.'

[dckingsfan]

Thoughtful answers. I think that stopping the political corruption in Chicago would have to happen before the rest can happen. Difficult when the prison guards and police unions work directly with the politicians. Seems like there would need to be a change of the guard for that to happen. Which make me (maybe too pessimistically) think that it is more hopeless than not.

C'mon dckingsfan. You're smarter than that. You really think it's the guards and unions that are working with politicians to keep the private prisons open and thriving? It's the corporations that own the prisons that are fostering the corruption. Corporations led by men and women who will do anything to keep feeding at the public trough.

In fact, most of the private prisons are not even unionized. You really need to stop blaming the workers and their unions...and dig deeper.

Well actually you have a point. It is the corporations AND the unions AND the politicians together. I am sorry if it came off as just the unions - really not my intent. I will point to the budget and unfunded liability problems in Chicago and Illinois as the tip of the iceberg of the corruption. The unions ARE corrupt in Illinois - but I guess you know that too - well, at least if you have ever lived in Chicago.

But until the corruption ends, there is no chance for blacks in Chicago, IMO.

[dckingsfan]

Actually - it is the scientific community that was eviscerating the scientific community in both cases.

And funding for the science is both sloppy and political - I have been involved the process for years. Talk to any scientist and they will vent their frustration with the process. Including who is now getting funding for global warming studies.

Edit: see the stimulus waste as well...

And the "political correct" verbiage is definitely influencing said funding. And yes, it is corrupt - but not by the folks you are thinking. Ask Al Gore.

And go back a generation and find out the funding that went into the "population bomb".

You have zero proof the scientific community was "eviscerating" anybody.

Even if there was it doesn't mean a thing. Scientists are snarky to each other. That's part of the process. There's no politically motivated witch hunt here, just scientists battling it out. God knows I've had some heated arguments with my economics colleagues that scared the non-economists out of the room - they thought we were about to fight.

If some incompetent gun-for-hire for the oil lobby gets eviscerated in the process that's his own damn fault for being a schlub.

Exactly, its political - and it is fair game for both sides to call the other out... balance the science funding on both sides. Let the process play out and get to the truth.

And just to pile on - about this being political. Follow the legacy agenda and the money.

Our administration plans to reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 25% by 2025. In return, China has agreed to “peak” its carbon-dioxide emissions in 2030. In my mind this Obama trying to cement is legacy.

$3 billion of taxpayers’ money to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund.
$400 million DOE stimulus loan losses
$4 billion fund to bolster renewable energy

That's a lot of $$s - just saying. And it all starts with the - politically correct speak, IMO.

[dckingsfan]

Lots of interesting discussion about the Paris Climate change talks. And lots of political maneuvering but inside the US and outside.

Seems like many of the emerging economies are looking for $$s. I think that Obama is making a tactical mistake going into the meetings.

And before there is a discussion about if global warming is happening. I think it is (just for the record). But I also think we should be strategic about how we approach the subject. IMO, Obama is giving away the store in advance of the negotiations. That might be unfair - but that is my opinion based upon what I have read (and the outcome of the China negotiations).

[cammac]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

My whole point is that this equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam is manifestly false. If Christianity had the same percentage of radical kooks, then we'd have a lot more religious turmoil and homegrown terrorist attacks in the name of Christianity. Furthermore, these radical Christians would drive out the moderate Christians, who would then be knocking on the doors of our neighbors for refuge. That has not happened.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You say we don't have these hardliners taking over because we have a stable democracy. I say, we have a stable democracy because we don't have a significant percentage of hardline Christian kooks and sympathizers in the first place.

As proof to the arrow of causation, I point to Europe. They used to have religious peace and stable democracy. Now that they've added Muslims, they still have a stable democracy but much less religious peace. What is the x-factor? Muslims.

France is a example of a stable democracy but it has also marginalized the Muslim population to a 2nd class citizens where youth unemployment, education and poverty is significantly higher than average. This could be equated somewhat to the Afro American population in the USA. France had a murder rate of 1.4 people per 100,000 versus USA 5 people per 100,000.

Gun deaths in the USA till November 27th is 11,965 including 305 mass shootings.

If you look at 3 countries Canada has 2.8% Muslims, France 7.5% and USA .8%. Much of the French Muslim population is due from it's colonial past in North Africa and obviously a influx refugees in the past couple of years. Canada has had few terror related problems due to Muslims 2 in 2014 and one was perpetrated by a white Muslim which was gun related. Muslim clerics for the most part in Canada try too rout out radicals and co-operate with the authorities. Canada is also bringing in 25,000 refugees from the Middle East in 2015 and the Muslim population has integrated well in the overall Canadian population. In the USA at least the Republicans are fear mongering at the prospects of bringing 10,000 refugees in a Canadian context would be Canada taking in 1000 refugees.

You are throwing a canard equating religious peace into the equation while religion is part of the factor in France it is basically racism which is a significant factor in the USA.

[Zonkerbl]

Lots of interesting discussion about the Paris Climate change talks. And lots of political maneuvering but inside the US and outside.

Seems like many of the emerging economies are looking for $$s. I think that Obama is making a tactical mistake going into the meetings.

And before there is a discussion about if global warming is happening. I think it is (just for the record). But I also think we should be strategic about how we approach the subject. IMO, Obama is giving away the store in advance of the negotiations. That might be unfair - but that is my opinion based upon what I have read (and the outcome of the China negotiations).

Some interesting US climate change negotiation trivia - due to a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA is already required to use all of its (extremely ill-suited) regulatory tools to attempt to address the US contribution to climate change. This makes the internal negotiations different - if you continue to do nothing about climate change, then you get EPA's clunky version. You can't actually stop the US from imposing controls on carbon emissions, you can only make them more predictable and less costly.

So as far as international negotiations are concerned, we've already done our bit. China and India will ask us to pay for their emissions, perhaps by limiting emissions from developed countries more severely and then setting up a carbon trading system so we end up having to buy a lot of emissions permits from China and India.

It would be completely unenforceable, particularly if we try to address deforestation in Brazil which is contributing just as much to global warming as China and India's emissions. I will be pleasantly surprised if they come up with a solution but I imagine the developing countries approaching the negotiations as an opportunity for a $100 billion handout (rather than seriously addressing climate change) is going to gum up the works considerably.

[Zonkerbl]

You have zero proof the scientific community was "eviscerating" anybody.

Even if there was it doesn't mean a thing. Scientists are snarky to each other. That's part of the process. There's no politically motivated witch hunt here, just scientists battling it out. God knows I've had some heated arguments with my economics colleagues that scared the non-economists out of the room - they thought we were about to fight.

If some incompetent gun-for-hire for the oil lobby gets eviscerated in the process that's his own damn fault for being a schlub.

Exactly, its political - and it is fair game for both sides to call the other out... balance the science funding on both sides. Let the process play out and get to the truth.

And just to pile on - about this being political. Follow the legacy agenda and the money.

Our administration plans to reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 25% by 2025. In return, China has agreed to “peak” its carbon-dioxide emissions in 2030. In my mind this Obama trying to cement is legacy.

$3 billion of taxpayers’ money to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund.
$400 million DOE stimulus loan losses
$4 billion fund to bolster renewable energy

That's a lot of $$s - just saying. And it all starts with the - politically correct speak, IMO.

How much is the oil lobby pouring into its pseudo-science attempting to block scientific progress?

The only need for balance is on the side of goodness and light - independent scientists. There's no need to fund anti-science in the interest of "fairness."