U.S. Politics

[SixFeetDeep]

Cool, I don't carry it anyway. Some of my views are slightly to the left of centre (at least in countries in which the Overton doesn't place virulent racists in "moderate") but I've never claimed or wanted to be a placard carrying Marxist. I'm a salesman, FFS. My career is built upon success at the expense of others.

DRAIN THE SWAMP

[delavan]

They were pretty poorly judged comments from him, but also consider that white people have a massively varying range of social experience with black people. I have known and I'm sure you know white people who have grown up so utterly part of black communities, usually as mathematical minorities in their own neighbourhoods, that using the term "nigga" is complete natural to them and to their friends and of no consequence, and they are completely comfortable and natural sounding doing so. Most of us, regardless of our level of wokeness and of our heart and our intellectual commitment to equality, couldn't possibly hope to sound anything other than horribly awkward and ill judged at best if we were to do the same.

I don't know enough about Biden's upbringing and history to know where he sits on that particular scale, but I do know that he is a career politician who pretty much on the left side of the tracks as a result of his objection to local Republican racial politics and then went on to serve the first black President in history. It doesn't seem like a huge leap of faith to think that Biden is incredibly comfortable around black people and isn't someone who is uncomfortable talking about colour and race.

Where the exact tipping point between upbringing-based cultural diffusion and the suburban 'wigger quotient' lies may be too nuanced a call for me but to leave it there would be a copout so here goes:  whatever Biden's comfort level around African Americans is (and recall that I  mentioned 'not doubting for a second' the sincerity of his 'presidential-like' commentary on Monday ), imho that still doesn't excuse his sloppy presumptuousness given that his upbringing hardly suggests hood/street cred, i.e. the white-in-a-black-hood minority status you described earlier.  In addition, you'd think that a Senator-turned-Vice-President who obviously knows how to work a room would have enough life seasoning let alone the political chops to not even go there, and with a sense of expectation no less.  Me, I don't think Biden's a bad dude, hardly.  Frankly, I think his background suggests he's got a lazy streak in him and he's gotten by in part via his twinkly-eyed Irish charm, i.e. the classic "kissing babies" campaigner type...someone who sells it but who leaves the heavy lifting to others.   regards and my best to your handsome, whisky-coveting dawg.

the only people who care about Biden's comment to Charlemagne

 are white people who dislike Biden

it's amazing it's being talked about while America is burning

Yup, that must be it.   Dismissing a viewpoint (whenever it is) with nothing more than a sweeping generalization is either "in the interest of brevity" or it's intellectual sloth and in this case (and speaking for myself) it doesn't automatically default to "must be a Trumper...sniff."   Note how @insanity processed it: looking past his initial take to consider what others were thinking.  In this case, not running it by his own (presumably white) filter but observing the even more relevant take from black circles.  My point is that the opinion itself is not the issue so much as the thought of shutting something down with identity politic labeling.  That's what's "amazing."  jmho 

[Johnny English]

Where the exact tipping point between upbringing-based cultural diffusion and the suburban 'wigger quotient' lies may be too nuanced a call for me but to leave it there would be a copout so here goes:  whatever Biden's comfort level around African Americans is (and recall that I  mentioned 'not doubting for a second' the sincerity of his 'presidential-like' commentary on Monday ), imho that still doesn't excuse his sloppy presumptuousness given that his upbringing hardly suggests hood/street cred, i.e. the white-in-a-black-hood minority status you described earlier.  In addition, you'd think that a Senator-turned-Vice-President who obviously knows how to work a room would have enough life seasoning let alone the political chops to not even go there, and with a sense of expectation no less.  Me, I don't think Biden's a bad dude, hardly.  Frankly, I think his background suggests he's got a lazy streak in him and he's gotten by in part via his twinkly-eyed Irish charm, i.e. the classic "kissing babies" campaigner type...someone who sells it but who leaves the heavy lifting to others.   regards and my best to your handsome, whisky-coveting dawg.

Yes, I agree with all of that. I did say that I think his comments were ill judged; for all I care he could have grown up in the projects as the adopted child of black parents, with black siblings, been the only white kid in a black school, and be known as simply one of the boys from the corner by all his peers, as an experienced politician he should know better than to say something like that, both from a political and a human perspective. I'm not trying to excuse what he said, just understand why it might have been something that would come into his head to say.

[insanity]

the suburban 'wigger quotient'

[insanity]

Thought this was pretty informative and fair.  Per usual read, trust, and fact check with AP and Reuters

[SixFeetDeep]

I get most of my news from The Alex Jones Show now that he’s been deplatformed from Infowars/society

[mj2sexay]

Thought this was pretty informative and fair.  Per usual read, trust, and fact check with AP and Reuters

I think I'll do what all the cool kids are doing in relation to this graph and pull out an Alan Moore quote, "Who Watches The Watchmen."

There is much that is disagreeable with this graph.

[SixFeetDeep]

Perhaps if the officers had been arrested quickly, these methods would have worked, but without the arrests and charges against the killer cops — which was the most basic demand of the uprisings — the movement grew and grew. The lip service of solidarity from the Democratic politicians was not enough. The firing of the four cops in Minneapolis was not enough. The pleas to “let the legal system do its work” enraged people further, and the third-degree charge for Derek Chauvin was an insult.

And so the movement continued to spread. Unable to contain this rebellion, the corporate media and political establishment of both parties worked to change the narrative. The primary strategy was to focus on the “outside agitators.” With lightning speed, the liberal and conservative factions of the ruling class united around this talking point. From the “progressive” Democratic mayors up to Donald Trump himself, all have characterized the movement as “hijacked” by violent extremists, especially scapegoating anarchists and the far-left.

Now Donald Trump calls for law enforcement’s “total domination” of the streets, and brags of attacks against D.C. protests the likes of which “the District has never seen before.”

But it is the liberal bourgeoisie — the Democratic mayors and governors and congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi — who have facilitated Trump’s latest attacks. They invented and propagated all of the political justifications that Trump and Attorney General Barr needed. They, not the White House, imposed unjust curfews that now lay the basis for the mass arrests of people exercising their free-speech rights. The curfews strengthen the police state and normalize police violence, which will be focused on the new wave of anti-racist rebellion. These same Democratic politicians did absolutely nothing against the heavily armed, nearly all-white right-wing “reopen” protests, which took place at the height of the pandemic and which were in direct violation of the lockdown.

That this Democratic establishment touts itself as the anti-Trump “resistance” is a complete joke. In truth, it has long been the velvet glove over the iron fist of state repression.

Nor can anyone pass over that so many rebellions are taking place in urban areas governed entirely by the Democratic Party. This is the main reason the Democratic Party is unable to present a political leadership that will satisfy the anti-racist movement — this movement is objectively rebelling against them as much as Trump! It is in the cities that Democrats govern where the recent police killings have taken place, where killings have gone on for decades without any justice, where gentrification has expelled Black people from their historic neighborhoods, and where budget cuts have hollowed out health services and education. No amount of rhetoric can cover up that record.

Barack Obama published an essay lecturing protesters on how to make “real change,” with more “specific demands for criminal justice” and electoral efforts. But how can anyone take this advice seriously? His own administration made no “real change” over eight years of rampant police killings and mass incarceration — despite the massive Black Lives Matter movement and uprisings in Ferguson and Baltimore.

So when Trump complains about the “weakness” of the Democratic politicians against the movement, he voices the sentiments of many within the corporate and financial establishment who see that the Democrats’ typical containment strategies are not working. At this stage, with the movement so widespread, with the feeling of rebellion capturing the minds and hearts of millions, only first-degree murder charges for all the killer cops as well as the cessation of new police killings could potentially get people to go home and out of the streets. And the state refuses to concede this basic demand. So outright repression is their alternative.

https://www.liberationnews.org/rebellion-and-repression-capitalisms-long-hot-summer-begins/

[insanity]

I think I'll do what all the cool kids are doing in relation to this graph and pull out an Alan Moore quote, "Who Watches The Watchmen."

There is much that is disagreeable with this graph.

Its an infographic that organizes new coverage by biases and analysis vs opinion.  If you want to agree how far right or left something should go or up and down, go for your freaking life.  But as a whole this is a good depiction of objective vs subjective and left vs right with the truth being AP and Reuters are the most trustworthy news outlets.

[Johnny English]

https://www.liberationnews.org/rebellion-and-repression-capitalisms-long-hot-summer-begins/

Fairy sure that I'm not going to set a huge amount of store by the view of Liberation News ("Newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation"), but I did at least read the piece you quoted. Much there to have a problem with, but I kind of got stuck on this:

Perhaps if the officers had been arrested quickly, these methods would have worked, but without the arrests and charges against the killer cops — which was the most basic demand of the uprisings — the movement grew and grew. The lip service of solidarity from the Democratic politicians was not enough. The firing of the four cops in Minneapolis was not enough. The pleas to “let the legal system do its work” enraged people further, and the third-degree charge for Derek Chauvin was an insult.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anyone of sound mind really wants to live in a society where the speed and severity of arrests and charges for an offense are determined by the size and volume of a mob. It seems to me that a speedy arrest and charge for the obvious offense (Chauvin charged with murder 3 for kneeling on Floyd's neck) was sensible and timely, not an insult, and taking a few days longer to consider all the evidence (some of which, including further videos, came to light after the protests had begun) before upgrading his charge to murder 2 as well as arresting and charging the other 3 officers is a legitimate and just process to follow.

I can understand why people, particularly some sections of the community, would feel like judicial decisions are unfairly weighted against them, and I have sympathy for that view. Raging at the process at this stage seems way off the mark though, especially when it looks to be working correctly.

[bojanglesman]

I get most of my news from The Alex Jones Show now that he’s been deplatformed from Infowars/society

I get my news solely from Jose Canseco.

[mj2sexay]

I get my news solely from Jose Canseco.

You laugh, but I remember everyone immediately moving to discredit Juiced when it came out.

Oops.

Speaking of Jose, this home run has been buried into my head for about 20 years because of what a freaking moonshot it was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3hNyAByEH8

[CatoTheElder]

Fairy sure that I'm not going to set a huge amount of store by the view of Liberation News ("Newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation"), but I did at least read the piece you quoted. Much there to have a problem with, but I kind of got stuck on this:

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anyone of sound mind really wants to live in a society where the speed and severity of arrests and charges for an offense are determined by the size and volume of a mob. It seems to me that a speedy arrest and charge for the obvious offense (Chauvin charged with murder 3 for kneeling on Floyd's neck) was sensible and timely, not an insult, and taking a few days longer to consider all the evidence (some of which, including further videos, came to light after the protests had begun) before upgrading his charge to murder 2 as well as arresting and charging the other 3 officers is a legitimate and just process to follow.

I can understand why people, particularly some sections of the community, would feel like judicial decisions are unfairly weighted against them, and I have sympathy for that view. Raging at the process at this stage seems way off the mark though, especially when it looks to be working correctly.

I cannot possibly imagine what more time the judicial system needed when Chauvin was initially arrested and charged this weekend but the other three were still walking free. Tou Thao was standing there, staring at Chauvin and doing nothing for the duration of the video. The cops and DA had enough to at least have him arrested with Chauvin and enough on both to bring them in sooner than they did. They were protected because they were cops. That’s the point.

The same amount of evidence was available to the Pittsburgh Police for that little excrement in the ALF hoodie and bandana tagging and and breaking windows on a police cruiser. PGH authorities had an arrest warrant issued for him within 24 hours of that video getting published.

[Johnny English]

I cannot possibly imagine what more time the judicial system needed when Chauvin was initially arrested and charged this weekend but the other three were still walking free. Tou Thao was standing there, staring at Chauvin and doing nothing for the duration of the video. The cops and DA had enough to at least have him arrested with Chauvin and enough on both to bring them in sooner than they did. They were protected because they were cops. That’s the point.

The same amount of evidence was available to the Pittsburgh Police for that little excrement in the ALF hoodie and bandana tagging and and breaking windows on a police cruiser. PGH authorities had an arrest warrant issued for him within 24 hours of that video getting published.

Isn't the point though that it's better to take an extra day or two, properly review all of the evidence and then arrest them, knowing what you're going to charge them with and how you're going to support that argument? If you arrest and undercharge you get immediately accused of going soft, then when you increase the charges you get accused of acceding to mob demands. If you arrest and overcharge then you get accused of letting them off the hook when you have to downgrade the charges to what you can actually make stick.

I think the key point is that in all cases, but particularly such high profile ones as this, it's best if the legal system gets it right from the outset. If it takes them an extra day or two to map the charges out, especially given the total impossibility of flight for any of the four, that seems like a fair price to pay.

[CatoTheElder]

Isn't the point though that it's better to take an extra day or two, properly review all of the evidence and then arrest them, knowing what you're going to charge them with and how you're going to support that argument? If you arrest and undercharge you get immediately accused of going soft, then when you increase the charges you get accused of acceding to mob demands. If you arrest and overcharge then you get accused of letting them off the hook when you have to downgrade the charges to what you can actually make stick.

I think the key point is that in all cases, but particularly such high profile ones as this, it's best if the legal system gets it right from the outset. If it takes them an extra day or two to map the charges out, especially given the total impossibility of flight for any of the four, that seems like a fair price to pay.

No.

The fact that Chauvin’s charges were upgraded today, 5 days after his initial arrest should probably let you know that the accused don’t have to be allowed to walk around free in order for authorities to gather further evidence.

I live in a city full of lawyers. I have not had a single lawyer tell me that the Minneapolis DA was right to wait or that there was anything missing in the open source resources that would have been grounds to delay taking all four of them into custody.