I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's and 60's it was the federal government stepping in if things got out of hand. With what is happening today, who will step in to cool things down?
I agree that violence from federal agents, who then get backed up by the federal government, is extremely concerning. Nonetheless, it's not a new development; feds have been involved in innumerable fatalities that never got properly investigated by leadership going all the way back to the inception of the FBI.
One example of many, Lon Horiuchi was charge by the state of Idaho for the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver. His case was then moved into the federal system which promptly dismissed it and made him a free man. Even today,trying to discuss this case gets bogged down in irrelevant debate about the validity of Randy's political beliefs, which shouldn't matter a single wit.
Yes, in the case of a business giving out free services or things. But, government is not and has never been a business so this doesn't apply in this case.
Across the US, the majority (2/3-ish) of children already live in families where both parents are employed. I don't see free childcare moving that statistic more than a few percentage points at best.
I'm skeptical that this policy would encourage more parents to work and further raise housing costs, especially since this would mostly affect families with children who are pre-K. It is a big policy change but the number of families it will affect is quite small I think. If it does have any effect on housing cost I would expect to see it at the very low-end since it would help low-earners the most.
Using firearms against the state never works. However, the oppression isn't in the enforcement of laws it is in how those laws are being enforced, selectively, against brown and black people. Also, something being a law doesn't make it right or just. For examples of this just look at slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc at a certain point in time all of those things were against the law but people agonized, organized and resisted enough to change the law. By your logic those groups weren't oppressed since the law allowed for their oppression.
Your statement assumes that nations only use this technology against other nations but from the article it is clear that this technology is being used within nations to target people who disagree with the state. Tolerating those who think differently is a democratic value and hence using this technology against those who disagree with the state is anti-democratic. Treating political differences as security threats is exactly why this is a moral issue rather than an ideological one.
Clearly this is a huge deal for Korea, their news sites have been talking about it non-stop since it happened and they've zeroed in on the humiliation and treatment of their people. The workers arrested weren't just laborers they were skilled labor and engineers which is another point they keep coming to. I've seen stories point out how they were shackled and forced to lick water from plates. As a tech worker in manufacturing I know that the entire industry depends on cross-training and manufacturing with other countries, sending engineers to and from is everyday practice. If the administration keeps with their policies then manufacturing will be affected negatively.
I'm trying to read that in a charitable way: you're pointing out that, to a person who is fine with being cruel to laborers, they might not be comfortable with the cruelty and humiliation if it impacts people they might find deserving of respect and decency, yeah?
I'm roughly in the same camp and my take is: it's wrong when you're being cruel to migrant workers from poor countries willing to work for pennies.
It's also wrong, but not just that, it's wrong and stupid when you do the same thing to employees of a multi-national corporation building a factory that was going to be a major economic boost to your town.
yes, this is korean culture (and other asian countries too)
we also expect white collar workers to be treated differently than blue collar workers. even if we agree that this particular treatment is unacceptable for both.
> we also expect white collar workers to be treated differently than blue collar workers.
How should we treat someone (a Korean in this particular case) who doesn't wear his collar ? "Sorry i struck you, but you didn't wear your white collar. Better luck next time". What if a blue collar worker wears a white collar ? Is he excepted from humiliation ?
are you unfamiliar with the term blue collar/white collar, or are you being sarcastic? i don't mind the sarcasm, i just want to make sure i understand you correctly.
My Korean colleagues have been asking me to explain this case to them, and I haven't been able to dig up enough reliable info to give much of an answer. I do think I can give a less inflammatory explanation for the shackling, though.
ICE sweeps mostly pick up undocumented laborers in the fields and factories. The people have nothing to lose by trying to run away, as they as just going to be deported anyway. So it stands to reason they would be restrained upon arrest. Documented workers on the other hand have a great deal to lose by further aggravating their situation. It is extremely unlikely that a documented worker would try to run away. However, I expect that ICE has to use the same procedures on all demographic groups to avoid charges racial discrimination.
Now that it's legal for ICE to racially discriminate do you think they will change their procedures? Or do you think ICE is more worried about the public perception of discrimination rather than the legality?
On time.com article is titled: 'Nobody Is Going to Stay and Work When It’s Like This’: South Koreans Reluctant to Return After Harrowing ICE Detention'
Speaks to the disconnect between our representatives and the people they represent so many of these policies are extremely unpopular and yet they still get pushed through to terrible effect. I don't understand why 'we' can't hold them accountable. Is it due to lack of education in what is happening? A lack of understanding in our political system? Is the populate just completely disconnected?
> When the authors look only at the preferences of average citizens, it appears that they do have a pretty big effect on policy change. But when they add the preferences of economic elites and interest groups to the analysis, the impact of average citizens vanishes entirely. Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it.
This botched operation shows how representative government has been subverted in America. Power should flow bottom-up, rather than top-down.
Would putting this operation to a democratic vote ever result in approval? Highly doubtful. This suggests our current form of democracy is deeply broken and urgently needs fixing.
IMO the issue is how we think about power itself. The assumption underneath it all is that once we vote, power becomes fully vested in our elected officials rather than remaining with the people who conditionally granted it to them. The "representative" part of our democratic republic has become the hack that allows crappy politicians to take over and use power for their own benefit.
We grant power through voting, but that power should stay accountable to us - not disappear into secret operations that would never survive public scrutiny.
"Would putting this operation to a democratic vote ever result in approval?"
As a civilian, I understand the intention. But, unless all are warriors of equal rank, I don't want the public voting on how the military will be run minute-by-minute, nor do I think it's helpful for the public ( i.e. our adversaries in a very real sense ) to have access to information of classified operations. That sounds like a recipe for an authoritarian / tyrannical government to absolutely steamroll us...which would negate the advantages of a democracy in the first place.
Not sure what you mean. This is exactly what you get with representative government. In theory accountable, but nearly all decisions are made by proxies, and not by the people as a whole.
Putting special ops up to democratic vote is absurd.
It would be nice if we can add another a plot to track when claude says "genuinely". It uses for almost all long responses, to the point that I can pretty much recognize when someone uses claude by looking for any instances of "genuinely".
No, not the ones with the highest crime but the poor/black/brown neighborhoods, at least in my city. I know, I live in a majority brown neighborhood and I've mapped the flock cameras in my city. There are more cameras in my neighborhood by about 3:1. To me this really shows the bias in my local PD because while there are pockets of high crime in my neighborhood, it is a huge neighborhood and the crime rate outside of those pockets is about the same as the rest of the city nevertheless, the cameras are not concentrated in the high-crime pockets but throughout the entire neighborhood.
