Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[Susan]

I don't understand why we need to pay elected officials enough to be set for life. It would cause people to run for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be a financial sweepstakes. It should be fairly paid, so people won't shy away from it, but not overpaid either.

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

[dougthonus]

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

Not sure that is true. I'm not that active in politics, so I don't mean this in some definitive way, but it seems to me that politicians get tons of money in kickbacks based on what they do while in office as well.

[League Circles]

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I don't disagree with your intent musiq, but I think you have to be careful to select numbers like that, as others could do so in an equally selective way to try to prove their side. For example:

Black people are over-represented among all federal employees (like 18% vs 12%)

Black people have been over-represented in the presidency since roughly the end of ww2 (8 years vs expected time span that would proportionally yield 8 years).

Black people are currently roughly proportionally represented in congress (10.8% vs 12.1% of population by my googling - over-represented in the house and under represented in the senate).

I only point out these facts because I think too few people know them, too few people frankly understand what they mean to those on the other side of the political aisle, so to speak, and especially because looking at outcomes alone is a very questionable way to inspect society IMO.

I picked the Senate because it is the most powerful group of people in the country. If not the world.

Black under-represented powers in the highest areas include:

1) Presidency
2) Senate
3) Supreme Court

I dont care if my local DMV has higher proportion of Black people. That's NOT helping that community frame laws that bridge the systemic racial divide.

Yes, the senate is powerful and has underrepresented blacks. That's factually not true in the past 50 years regarding the presidency or the supreme court though, FWIW.

I'd also argue that the presidency and the supreme court are very much not supposed to be deciding on policies of law, though that supports your notion that the underrepresentation in the senate has been a big problem.

I'd disagree with the implication that more black people in the government, even if not in positions of writing policy, isn't important. Exposure to the normalcy of integration is crucial IMO.

[League Circles]

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

[dougthonus]

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

174k a year is enough to get very good people, but I agree, not enough to get the best people, unless they're supplementing that income with kickbacks, which I believe to be the case (which also makes them not the best people anymore).

[TheSuzerain]

Idk, I think having almost the entire federal government living part time to full time in one state would be something of an inherent conflict of interests. They'd ALL be incentivized to favor legislation which would benefit DC relative to other states, indefinitely. It's not like it was an accident that it wasn't made a state. Also worth considering that notions of racist gerrymandering (if that's what you were getting at) weren't a concern in any way when these decisions were made.

This is the kind of stupid reasoning one falls for that keeps the number of black senators in US history at 10.

Are the reasons you list worthy of preventing 2 additional, permanent black senators? Of course not.

Maybe if you want to have a good discussion, idk, address the logic instead of dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning?

2 additional permanent black senators? Huh? Because black people would only be capable of or interested in voting for black candidates? That's racist as hell IMO. Against blacks. Who, btw, don't constitute a majority in DC anyways.

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

[Michael Jackson]

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I am not sure where this went? Are you saying that more representation changes the problem we have in Chicago? I don't think that is a turnkey solution. I also don't think a balancing of numbers of racial equality to some equilibrium really changes anything. The simple fact is that it is disgusting to think whatever race is in any office that a blind eye can be turned on this problem. I am all for a lopsided balance in the different offices across the country to favor minorities to have some different voices in politics I just don't know that is really the core problem. NO ONE NO MATTER WHAT RACE should be allowed to IGNORE this problem.

We as a nation have ignored this particular problem for decades and at best the attention has been given to it has only given it a nickname of Chiraq, which bothers me, that so many people are so callous to OUR OWN AMERICAN CITIZENS BEING RUTHLESS MURDERED FOR DECADES.

Goodness I am shouting because it has frustrated me that we have acceptance of this, that this to me personally is more tragic than anything. I mean the first step has to be that some law enforcement has to get out of being in business with the major powers who keep that area so violent. I mean not only does law enforcement not do anything, and if they do, it is often a statement message ruining someones life who isn't part of that corrupt system that goes on there, which most of America, Illinois, Chicagoland and even Chicago just turn mostly a blind eye to. We acknowledge it but we sit on our hands and hem and haw over what is to be done. We don't enact solutions, we generally just say well.... that won't work, and honestly maybe it won't. So instead of digging deeper we just put our hands collectively in our pockets whistle and walk by.

Breaking it up and gentrifying the neighborhood seems to be the only action that is thrown out there. Which I guess is somewhat of a solution, if not one that is heartless. Displacing families etc... is pretty awful and moving them into less violent, more Caucasian neighborhoods, where they the whispered words are "there goes the neighborhood" isn't very caring or morally correct. It is better than outright murder and violence, but it really isn't a good solution.

I clearly don't have an answer, I am truly responding on emotion and not much logical thought, that being said, yup no turnkey solution is available, but maybe a dialogue starts and we can come up with some viable solutions? I am willing to be part of the discussions and actions on what needs to be changed. I just simply don't know, it is a tragedy we all know it but it just keeps going on. We have to be able to figure something out.

Yes I am aware that the statistics of actual murders were worse in the early 90's and even if we want to argue about questionable reporting etc.... Things are still at a failing grade.

[League Circles]

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

174k a year is enough to get very good people, but I agree, not enough to get the best people, unless they're supplementing that income with kickbacks, which I believe to be the case.

The thing is, 174k a year for a measly 2 years ignores all the opportunity costs. It's a very fickle career path. You don't get to that 174k unless you've already been underpaid for a long time, OR are otherwise wealthy which is probably often the case.

The real "offer" IMO, is more accurately framed like this:

Offer as it amounts to someone fresh out of school: "are you interested in working for the next 20 years making 8-40k per year where you are constantly subject to a 50% chance of losing your job so that you can, in 20-35 years time, have a very very small chance of making 174k for 2 years, after which you'll be subject to that 50% chance of losing your job every 2 years?

Offer as it amounts to someone who already has money from an unrelated field/family/etc: "are you interested in severing all ties from what you've built your whole life in exchange for having a 50% chance to take a paycut for a 24 month contract position where half the people might hate you?

What kinds of people do we expect to take these offers overall on a population level? Why would it be our best?

[League Circles]

This is the kind of stupid reasoning one falls for that keeps the number of black senators in US history at 10.

Are the reasons you list worthy of preventing 2 additional, permanent black senators? Of course not.

Maybe if you want to have a good discussion, idk, address the logic instead of dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning?

2 additional permanent black senators? Huh? Because black people would only be capable of or interested in voting for black candidates? That's racist as hell IMO. Against blacks. Who, btw, don't constitute a majority in DC anyways.

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

According to the 2018 census bureau estimates it is 45.5% black and 42.2% white. Either way, as I said, they don't constitute a majority, and why would you assume they'd always, only vote for black candidates? That stereotyping hasn't proven true elsewhere, why would it in DC?

DC is a special area, for a reason. I explained the reason, which doesn't have anything to do with racism (though I definitely agree there may be a number of modern day racists that favor lack of statehood, though also plenty who just oppose the move for non racist reasons of political agenda).

Saying "of course both DC senators would be black" is equivalent to saying "of course the president will be white". It's false and racist, by definition.

How is it racist to restrict a basically equal number of blacks and whites living in a TINY area from having senate representation? You do realize that the policy was in place when racism could not possibly be the reason, and then, after that, tons of blacks (and whites, etc) voluntarily relocated there despite knowing they would always lack that representation?

[TheSuzerain]

Maybe if you want to have a good discussion, idk, address the logic instead of dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning?

2 additional permanent black senators? Huh? Because black people would only be capable of or interested in voting for black candidates? That's racist as hell IMO. Against blacks. Who, btw, don't constitute a majority in DC anyways.

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

According to the 2018 census bureau estimates it is 45.5% black and 42.2% white. Either way, as I said, they don't constitute a majority, and why would you assume they'd always, only vote for black candidates? That stereotyping hasn't proven true elsewhere, why would it in DC?

DC is a special area, for a reason. I explained the reason, which doesn't have anything to do with racism (though I definitely agree there may be a number of modern day racists that favor lack of statehood, though also plenty who just oppose the move for non racist reasons of political agenda).

Saying "of course both DC senators would be black" is equivalent to saying "of course the president will be white". It's false and racist, by definition.

How is it racist to restrict a basically equal number of blacks and whites living in a TINY area from having senate representation? You do realize that the policy was in place when racism could not possibly be the reason, and then, after that, tons of blacks (and whites, etc) voluntarily relocated there despite knowing they would always lack that representation?

Washington DC has had 7 mayors in its history. Take a wild guess as to how many of them have been black.

The only "rule" to abide by is that the seat of government not exceed 10 square miles. That could easily be achieved while granting statehood to all the people who actually live in the district.

[League Circles]

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

According to the 2018 census bureau estimates it is 45.5% black and 42.2% white. Either way, as I said, they don't constitute a majority, and why would you assume they'd always, only vote for black candidates? That stereotyping hasn't proven true elsewhere, why would it in DC?

DC is a special area, for a reason. I explained the reason, which doesn't have anything to do with racism (though I definitely agree there may be a number of modern day racists that favor lack of statehood, though also plenty who just oppose the move for non racist reasons of political agenda).

Saying "of course both DC senators would be black" is equivalent to saying "of course the president will be white". It's false and racist, by definition.

How is it racist to restrict a basically equal number of blacks and whites living in a TINY area from having senate representation? You do realize that the policy was in place when racism could not possibly be the reason, and then, after that, tons of blacks (and whites, etc) voluntarily relocated there despite knowing they would always lack that representation?

Washington DC has had 7 mayors in its history. Take a wild guess as to how many of them have been black.

I know it's all 7 if you want to pretend they didn't ostensibly have a mayor until 1975, as you're doing. But of course that's irrelevant. I don't know why you think blacks are so racist, but it's a free country. We also had 43 white presidents.......until we didn't.

The only "rule" to abide by is that the seat of government not exceed 10 square miles. That could easily be achieved while granting statehood to all the people who actually live in the district.

I'm not sure I follow. The "rule" is that Washington DC is not a state. There have, and continue to be many territories that are not states. Should they all be made states as well or only DC?

I'm not suggesting that the policy cannot be changed. I'm not even all that strongly against changing it. I just think it's silly to frame it in such strict racist terms, because doing so involves a rejection of the sound and by-definition not racist logic that led to the creation of the policy, and also involves treating blacks in a racist, stereotyping way which I oppose morally.

EDIT:

Btw, the "10 miles square" language you're referring to, is, as I understand it, reflective of a 10 x 10 mile square of land in the language of those times (and by many today, confusingly). So it's actually 100 square miles, and DC is only like 68 square miles. DC is TINY!!!! It's only about 1/4 the size of the city of chicago.

Further Edit:

There are other reasons why it makes sense to not make DC a state. For example, it would be the only state that would not be directly concerned with rural (agricultural) interests, which is kind of a big deal in the sense that agriculture keeps us all alive and is a major, major export last I checked.

[Ccwatercraft]

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

170k isnt remotely competitive? Apparently we live in two different worlds. My household has never made close to that even on our best single year and I havent felt the need to act in a corrupt fashion. The opportunity is certainly there, I've seen it and turned people in for being corrupt.

Should I rethink my approach to workplace ethics?

FWIW I wish we actually pursued corruption in govt agressively, we seem to have just accepted it.

[League Circles]

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

170k isnt remotely competitive? Apparently we live in two different worlds. My household has never made close to that even on our best single year and I havent felt the need to act in a corrupt fashion. The opportunity is certainly there, I've seen it and turned people in for being corrupt.

Should I rethink my approach to workplace ethics?

FWIW I wish we actually pursued corruption in govt agressively, we seem to have just accepted it.

Yes, 170k isn't remotely competitive with the best offers for the best people coming out of our best institutions, generally speaking. Those people are often making several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in fields like medicine, data science, business, law etc.

EDIT: I'm not saying I wouldn't jump at the chance to be a congressman for 170k, but there's also no objective reason that society should think I'm among the best of the best.

[Ccwatercraft]

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

170k isnt remotely competitive? Apparently we live in two different worlds. My household has never made close to that even on our best single year and I havent felt the need to act in a corrupt fashion. The opportunity is certainly there, I've seen it and turned people in for being corrupt.

Should I rethink my approach to workplace ethics?

FWIW I wish we actually pursued corruption in govt agressively, we seem to have just accepted it.

Yes, 170k isn't remotely competitive with the best offers for the best people coming out of our best institutions, generally speaking. Those people are often making several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in fields like medicine, data science, business, law etc.

EDIT: I'm not saying I wouldn't jump at the chance to be a congressman for 170k, but there's also no objective reason that society should think I'm among the best of the best.

Honestly, I dont think we need the best of the best, we need honest, thoughtful independent minded individuals, vs the current crop of partisan button pushers that do what the party leader dictates. Frankly what we need is actual independents, not D's and R's beholden to their party boss. American voters might not be ready for that but I sure as hell am.

[Dresden]

I don't understand why we need to pay elected officials enough to be set for life. It would cause people to run for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be a financial sweepstakes. It should be fairly paid, so people won't shy away from it, but not overpaid either.

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

I don't believe that for a second. Look at who we got now for president. Trump is a billionaire- he didn't need the money.

[Dresden]

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

I don't think the candidates we have are poor or that greater financial compensation would shore up the types of weaknesses they have.

Fair enough. I generally think that 95%+ of politicians are very bad and that doesn't surprise me, as, financially, it's generally a terrible career choice. Though maybe I'm presuming that more of them get started early in terribly paid positions at the local and state level than is actually the case. I know for myself and multiple friends, compensation is the primary thing that kept us out of politics entirely.

Let's put it this way - I think some of the people who come out of school making 200-300k (these are many of our best and brightest and most diligent) would be great politicians but would never consider it because the "entry level" is basically poverty line compensation in many places.

The ones making 200-300k are not necessarily the best and brightest, but those who decided to go into lucrative careers. I know many MBA's from quality schools, and while they are bright, I don't consider them any smarter or more qualified to run things as a whole than people I've met in less paid careers like teaching, social work, even construction.

[League Circles]

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

I don't believe that for a second. Look at who we got now for president. Trump is a billionaire- he didn't need the money.

You'll never eliminate rich people wanting to control government, but we can at least incentivize better people to compete with them.

[Dresden]

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I don't disagree with your intent musiq, but I think you have to be careful to select numbers like that, as others could do so in an equally selective way to try to prove their side. For example:

Black people are over-represented among all federal employees (like 18% vs 12%)

Black people have been over-represented in the presidency since roughly the end of ww2 (8 years vs expected time span that would proportionally yield 8 years).

Black people are currently roughly proportionally represented in congress (10.8% vs 12.1% of population by my googling - over-represented in the house and under represented in the senate).

I only point out these facts because I think too few people know them, too few people frankly understand what they mean to those on the other side of the political aisle, so to speak, and especially because looking at outcomes alone is a very questionable way to inspect society IMO.

Why are you looking at black presidents just since end of WW2? Why not look at since the founding of the country, if you are interested in looking at systemic racism? Seems like you're cherry picking your starting point here.

You could also look at CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, or law partners at top 100 law firms, etc, etc. Any positions of power have seen under-representation of minorities since our founding. And it's ridiculous to say that looking at outcomes is not a valid way of judging how well societal policies are working.

[League Circles]

I don't think the candidates we have are poor or that greater financial compensation would shore up the types of weaknesses they have.

Fair enough. I generally think that 95%+ of politicians are very bad and that doesn't surprise me, as, financially, it's generally a terrible career choice. Though maybe I'm presuming that more of them get started early in terribly paid positions at the local and state level than is actually the case. I know for myself and multiple friends, compensation is the primary thing that kept us out of politics entirely.

Let's put it this way - I think some of the people who come out of school making 200-300k (these are many of our best and brightest and most diligent) would be great politicians but would never consider it because the "entry level" is basically poverty line compensation in many places.

The ones making 200-300k are not necessarily the best and brightest, but those who decided to go into lucrative careers. I know many MBA's from quality schools, and while they are bright, I don't consider them any smarter or more qualified to run things as a whole than people I've met in less paid careers like teaching, social work, even construction.

Agreed. Notice I didn't mention "MBAs". We're talking about a population level trend. IMO, the reality is that the very best students from the very best schools, are, IMO, on average, smarter and harder working than the rest of us, and they have opportunities to make big money. If we want to consistently appeal to them over the long term, we need to pay up. Of course there are exceptions. We have very complex problems. I just don't know why we'd want to stop short of sending our most capable people to try to solve them.

[League Circles]

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I don't disagree with your intent musiq, but I think you have to be careful to select numbers like that, as others could do so in an equally selective way to try to prove their side. For example:

Black people are over-represented among all federal employees (like 18% vs 12%)

Black people have been over-represented in the presidency since roughly the end of ww2 (8 years vs expected time span that would proportionally yield 8 years).

Black people are currently roughly proportionally represented in congress (10.8% vs 12.1% of population by my googling - over-represented in the house and under represented in the senate).

I only point out these facts because I think too few people know them, too few people frankly understand what they mean to those on the other side of the political aisle, so to speak, and especially because looking at outcomes alone is a very questionable way to inspect society IMO.

Why are you looking at black presidents just since end of WW2? Why not look at since the founding of the country, if you are interested in looking at systemic racism? Seems like you're cherry picking your starting point here.

I think you've got it confused. I wasn't cherry picking a period of time to use as evidence to suggest that systemic racism is not a reality in America. I was simply tempering musiq's numbers to provide what I consider better context to consider the scale of the problem. What I did was look at how many years of black presidency we have had and then using the proportion of the population that is black calculate the approximate amount of time that has passed where blacks have been proportionally represented in the presidency (and, separately, the supreme court).

You could also look at CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, or law partners at top 100 law firms, etc, etc. Any positions of power have seen under-representation of minorities since our founding. And it's ridiculous to say that looking at outcomes is not a valid way of judging how well societal policies are working.

The point is that obviously these levels are continuously changing, so how America looked during slavery and jim crow, for example, isn't as relevant to how it looks today as more recent data is. Studying the history of our country and it's current state are two different things.

Outcomes isn't a foolproof way to judge policy effectiveness because it would presume that preferences are identical across society, ignoring the specific history, experiences and values of whatever group differentiator you're looking at. I agree outcomes should be looked at. I disagree that a disparity in them is always sufficient to identify discrimination.