Vaccines, Infrastructure, and Kids In Cages: US Politics April 2021

Yes, perhaps I should have said how many, or what proportion of satisfactory encounters - or asking how many positive encounters? Either way it's a personal messaging / campaigning tactic, not a policy-marketing one.

I think it's a perilous road to go down in a society that, by majority across demographics, wants to trust cops more than distrust them. If you give people the opportunity to personalize their interaction with police, people who have had bad experiences will have had REALLY BAD experiences but A) I don't think data supports that being the experience of the majority of the country, which would cause the messaging to backfire, and B) I would be surprised if American psychology didn't warp inconveniences or bad situations that should be blamed on police not handling things correctly onto a nebulous, diffuse array of Other (read: ANTIFA these days, but also GANGS and STRANGERS and basically whatever the adult version of the scary thing that was hiding in your closet when you were a kid is) because people want to believe that mental image of a competent organization that will help them if they find themselves victimized by a criminal situation.

This is part of why I think positive messaging would work better as a personal campaigning tactic; talk about funding and empowering social workers trained in de-escalation and crisis management, talk about funding medical professionals who can render aid to people causing a disturbance, talk about funding risk analysts who can interpret a situation and line up the correct resources to deal with it in the correct priority order, etc etc etc. You can even pitch it as streamlining the responsibilities of the police so they can focus their training on fewer things and be more effective and less dangerous when they do need to be involved.

(Whether that last bit is actually true or not kind of doesn't matter as long as you can convince people that keeping armed police off the streets in interminable, unending training sessions will make everyone safer)

here are the 4 police encounters I can recall:

1) when I was 13, I got arrested for shoplifting, had both of my parents come into school so they could watch footage of me NOT ACTUALLY STEALING ANYTHING, then was told they had footage of me shoplifting the next day even though I wasn't at the store. I was given a $350 fine but was told if I didn't push back I'd be eligible for a "second chance" program. I had to actually go into this convenience store (which "banned" me for a year) and apologize to the owner, not even knowing what the hell it was they thought I stole (on second thought, I absolutely should have fought this, but I was 13 and scared). It was humiliating and I kept having to hear my parents say how disappointed they were. I really wish I had pushed back but I was 13 and $350 seemed like SO MUCH MONEY.

2) pulled over for expired plates. the cop made me walk home in the cold and told me he'd be waiting around the block for me. prick.

3) a buddy had a brick thrown through his car window, so he called the cops, not knowing what to do. they didn't do anything nor did they really try but they did breathalyze him and gave him a ticket for blowing a 0.02, literally a month away from his 21st birthday

4) got a speeding ticket on the highway. this cop was actually pretty nice. what can I say, I was speeding.

here's what's infuriating about it - some of the people I know who are the staunchest Blue Lives Matter and It Wouldn't Have Happened If They'd Just Complied idiots are the same people who tense up the hardest every time they see a cop car behind them. I had a Crown Vic for a while and these are the exact people who called me an asshole for driving it (tbf, they kind of had a point). Seems to me that it's got nothing to do with "supporting the law".

xp 2 Dan

Good post.

(And part of the idea is that you follow up the initial question by focusing on what these people have had go well with cops, what hasn't (eg did they get your stolen shit back?), and how reallocating resources can emphasize the things that go well, above the tanks and violence.)

Oh yeah, being breathalysed is a positive encounter. It's a public good, and the cops are usually polite.

i’m probably pretty unusual on this board for having had lengthy interactions with a number of police detectives about a pretty serious crime. i was very impressed by them. they didn’t believe my story at first, and eventually they did. i don’t doubt that my skin color and social background helped in that regard. but once they believed me they were... how do i say this? straight fire. detailed, patient, persistent, dependable. just a world away from the lunkheads on the beat. there’s got to be a way to nurture this specialist investigation strand of policing while basically getting rid of the lunkhead aspect? surely?

I feel like even cops would welcome being relieved of a lot of those functions of their job that they aren't really prepared for

but then I don't know really know the mentality of who becomes a cop now, violence seems to be the point so I don't know how to reform

yeah.

Oh yeah, being breathalysed is a positive encounter. It's a public good, and the cops are usually polite.

well, not in the situation I mentioned. someone damaged his car, he called the cops because he couldn't afford to fix it, and instead of helping him they gave him a $200 citation because he drank a Bud Lite a month early. the cops were polite, sure, but what's the public good?

I think you really have to consider both the background a police officer is coming from and which job they’re doing; beat cops and detectives and station administrators aren’t all coming into their jobs by the same avenue or with the same perspectives.

There’s a guy from my college class who is a police chief in New Hampshire and I would really like to corner him at a reunion and ask him what he *really* thinks of American policing

Being relieved of functions weakens cops’ social position. Even if they made the same money for less work they’d oppose it reflexively (as a body, maybe not individually) because it drains their base of power.

like sometimes we get ants in the house because the kids drop food on the floor. if I were to deal with the problem using America's policing philosophy instead of telling them "you gotta stop dropping food and not cleaning it up" I'd say "I'll give you a buck for every 10 ants you kill" and once they got smart they'd be leaving raisins everywhere

applying for grants to open a for-profit private ant farm

We’ve known the danger of letting internal security forces build up independence since ~41CE.

thank u I’ve never been otm before feels good
― Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:59 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

don't OD on the otm, nabisco rip

it's repetitive and annoying, doubly so because it's always posted as if it's a big truth bomb that has never been posted before

As others brought up, I was merely agreeing with our dearly departed Morbz.

But also as others have brought up, it's just as annoying when people post what amounts to state propaganda about "our enemies" or whatever.

When posters here say "we already know all of this and agree with you" to more hard-left posters, what I often read is, "we wish you wouldn't keep bringing us down," or alternately, "we disagree with your rhetorical tactics." Both are fair responses, but to be quite honest, I don't actually know that many of you "know all of this," because otherwise I would expect many of you to take very different positions on sociopolitical matters. Sometimes when I vent frustration here, that's what it's about--.

In any case, I've never had a positive interaction with a cop, and I'm a white cis guy who grew up middle-class.

To be fair, though, I've been arrested a number of times, and have spent some time in different parts of the carceral system, so my experience is different.

(One of these times was when I was thrown in juvie for four days for protesting the RNC in 2000. A lovely time that was)

6 years ago I had a close buddy overdose on fentanyl and I'm getting pissed off all over again thinking of the way the cops essentially terrorized one of my closest friends - he was the guy's roommate, who'd just returned from Afghanistan all fucked up, and since some of the drug paraphernalia was his they made a deal where they wouldn't arrest him if he agreed to do some recorded phone calls, including one to me, after which he felt so guilty and wrecked that he started franticly calling his friends saying he was about to kill himself. apparently the cops were just badgering him relentlessly and as far as I can tell he really did tell him everything he knew, which was not much, because the guy who OD'd kept a number of secrets. at the end of the day they wound up jailing 3 people, one of whom was just selling his prescription meds to pay his child support, none of which provided any sense of "justice" to the family, but it did make a lot of people's lives much worse. go ahead and count the levels of systematic failure there.

Well!

https://theintercept.com/2021/04/14/house-and-senate-democrats-plan-bill-to-add-four-justices-to-supreme-court/

I don't actually know that many of you "know all of this," because otherwise I would expect many of you to take very different positions on sociopolitical matters.
― it's like edging for your mind (the table is the table), Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:04 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

In reality, people react differently to matters, each of us can care in a different way. It would be a little more peaceful if some here gave the benefit of the doubt that we are all mostly good people here who don't approve of death and destruction abroad.

We probably all have a personal list of which issues are most important to us, and those lists are probably all over the place. Doesn't necessarily mean there's huge differences on where we stand on individual issues, but the order in which we want them addressed could be very different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkQEq75y18

It occurred to me last night that I care about politics because I believe change is possible, and I believe change is possible because I believe there are good, well-intentioned people who are capable of effecting it within the halls of power.

I don't see how one can believe change is possible without believing in the people who can make it happen, and I don't see why one would care about politics without believing change is possible (except, I suppose, as a perverse spectator sport).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/daunte-wright-minneapolis-police-shooting/#click=https://t.co/OStVguFlrx

Minneapolis police union continues to be fascist shitbags even after Bob Kroll is gone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/daunte-wright-minneapolis-police-shooting/#click=https://t.co/OStVguFlrx

fucking asshole FL Republicans

We gave everything we had to give. We reasoned, we shouted, we pleaded, we cried, we broke down & left the House Floor. But today, FL Republicans passed a bill not only banning trans kids from playing sports but subjecting kids whose sex may be disputed to genital inspections.

— Rep. Omari Hardy (@OmariJHardy) April 15, 2021

I was in a rage last night.

Jesus.

Some GOPers' genitals need to be inspected with a steel-toed boot. The fuck world are we living in.

god save us from assholes who think other people's everyday physical bodies are subject to their critique and enforcement

i'd say unbelievable but i guess it's not, hope everyone who voted for it dies a painful death

I don't see how one can believe change is possible without believing in the people who can make it happen

It's fairly easy - other people view those in the halls of power as obstacles to change rather than makers of change. They have a pretty good argument, unless one is of the "America is already great!" Clintonite school. These people might be able to 'make it happen' but haven't and aren't.

I mean, yesterday your argument in favor of past Presidents and politicians was their butting up against "structures of state power that have been in place for decades"? Who was governing during these decades? Who created the structures?

The worst thing about all these terrible trans bills is the deep cynicism of them. Yes there is a level of actual freak-out, especially from evangelicals, but just like all the lgbtq-bashing legislation of recent decades, a lot of the people voting for them do not really give a fuck about it. They just know it is an easily marginalized and targeted minority that they can rally people against.

Picking on trans kids is pretty much as low as you can go, it's despicable.

don't worry everyone, the only remaining arbiter of morality, sports, is here to save us.

...

Wednesday’s vote came the day after a nearly four-hour hearing on the House floor in which Democrats tried to amend the bill 18 different ways. The policy tweaks offered by Democrats ranged from exempting elementary school children from the bill’s provisions to allowing children to prove their gender with a birth certificate. Each amendment was voted down by Republicans — almost all of them after no debate from anyone in the majority party.

One of the few amendments which provoked commentary by a Republican was a tweak which would have exempted out-of-state athletes competing in Florida from the bill’s provisions. Rep. Kristen Arrington, D-Kissimmee, who offered the amendment, said she did so in part to discourage the NCAA from boycotting Florida if the bill passes.

That sports organization issued a statement Monday saying it could pull championships from states which pass bills limiting transgender participation. Florida is set to host more than 40 regional or national NCAA championship events between the next academic year and May of 2026.

On Tuesday, Rep. Chip LaMarca, R-Lighthouse Point, pointed out the organization’s recent failure to offer equal accommodations to men and women at the Division I basketball championships. He argued the NCAA is in no position to lecture the Florida Legislature — an argument which has been repeated by other Republican proponents of the bill in recent weeks.

“The NCAA is not the moral authority that some in this chamber have set them out to be. They simply do not treat women’s and men’s sports equally,” said Rep. Chris Latvala, R-Clearwater, on Wednesday.

With the passing of HB 1475 in the House, all eyes now turn to the Senate, where a similar measure, SB 2012, is being debated.

That bill was scheduled to be heard in a committee Wednesday, but its sponsor, Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, postponed that discussion.

When asked whether the hearing was postponed because of the potential for the NCAA to pull championships from Florida, Stargel responded with one word:

“No.”

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/04/14/florida-house-passes-bill-banning-transgender-athletes-from-womens-sports/

other things of note in that article - it still has to pass the senate, in FL. and also, nationwide, 30 other states are considering bills like this right now.

It occurred to me last night that I care about politics because I believe change is possible, and I believe change is possible because I believe there are good, well-intentioned people who are capable of effecting it within the halls of power.

I don't see how one can believe change is possible without believing in the people who can make it happen, and I don't see why one would care about politics without believing change is possible (except, I suppose, as a perverse spectator sport).

..

It's fairly easy - other people view those in the halls of power as obstacles to change rather than makers of change. They have a pretty good argument, unless one is of the "America is already great!" Clintonite school. These people might be able to 'make it happen' but haven't and aren't.

i fall closer to jaymc's view here, but i have a wider definition of who can effect change, and also a wider disappointment with "people". politicians have power, of course, but at some point, that's supposed to come from "people". watching how people responded to covid-19 in this country was the last nail in the coffin for me. i no longer believe that "people" - hundreds of millions of "people" - will collectively come close to assessing the reality of a situation or the consequences of various responses. we just don't. people can be and are almost completely manipulated. basically, all the bad things said about humans in the introduction to the Fellowship of the Ring film are correct.

what does this mean? beats me

just barely related, but i am in the headspace as this _exclusive_ TPM PRIME article that i am sharing with you non-PRIME members

There’s a sizable batch of new polling out which shows that President Biden’s infrastructure plan is popular with a broad cross-section of the public. The popularity isn’t quite as overwhelming as it was for the American Rescue Plan. But by almost every standard in a polarized age the numbers are still overwhelming. A new poll sponsored by the Times shows 64% support. Democrats almost unanimously support it (97%). 72% of Independents support it. And even 29% of Republicans support it. The support is spread broadly across demographic groups and the individual components of the plan poll well too.

According to the Times, Republicans plan to focus their opposition on raising the corporate tax rate, a move that would reverse a central part of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. But polling from Quinnipiac and (to some extent) Morning Consult suggests an infrastructure bill becomes more popular, not less, if it is funded through corporate tax hikes as opposed to borrowing alone.

This is all good news for Biden’s bill. But it also highlights one of the central oddities of the political moment. I believe I’m on firm ground when I say that most political observers believe Democrats will lose control of Congress next year. That creates so much of the urgency of the political moment. I don’t mean a certainty but more likely than not. I’m less pessimistic than most. But at least for the House that’s my assumption too.

There’s redistricting which is expected to be a windfall for Republicans. Incumbent Presidents seldom do well in midterm elections, a big problem when the margins in both chambers are so close. And yet here we have a President who is reasonably popular. He is pushing bills which range between very popular and overwhelmingly popular. And the opposition party is 100% unified in total opposition.

Something here doesn’t fit.

Either our assumptions are wrong or there’s some part of the apparatus of government that isn’t working. A party operating significantly out of step with public opinion should pay a price at the polls. But our assumption is that that party will be rewarded at the polls. This diagnosis isn’t new and it’s central to much Democratic thinking and reform proposals: the substantial built in advantages which American electoral machinery grants to the current version of the GOP. Small states have more power. Rural areas are advantaged versus cities. ‘Excess’ Democratic votes are wasted in cities while Republicans win consistent if not overwhelming numbers in exurban regions. Each feature compounds on the others and is magnified by partisan redistricting.

But is that it entirely?

Another possibility is that voters won’t vote on the legislative political issues we see as central. Perhaps Biden can be popular and his legislation can be popular. But voters will say thank you very much for the great bill but vote on their polarized political identities regardless.

I don’t know the answers to these questions, though as I noted I’m not as sure we know what the 2022 will look like as many seem to be. But all of this does make for a persistent oddity to the politics of the moment. The fly wheels connecting public opinion to electoral outcomes seem broken. The President is pushing massive spending bills which were deemed anathema for decades and yet is garnering widespread public support. Finally, Republicans continue their lockstep support for President Trump even as he seems to drift further and further from the political scene. Together these disconnects and surprises create an uncanny and unsteady political moment. Political gravity doesn’t seem to function. The political equation on so many fronts doesn’t add up. And the reason is that some basic assumptions we have about the political moment and the coming years are simply wrong.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime/the-uncanny-political-moment/sharetoken/xQVFOEF4r3T4

tl;dr - 'Political gravity doesn’t seem to function. The political equation on so many fronts doesn’t add up. And the reason is that some basic assumptions we have about the political moment and the coming years are simply wrong.'

classic josh marshall closing - some of our assumptions about the future will be wrong! lol - but the rest rings true for me

The "genital inspection" aspect of these bills makes these even all the more evil and disgusting. Not to mention the overlap of people who support these bills but are also keyboard "save the children" warriors when it comes to absolutely bullshit conspiracy theories goes to show how much hate these people have in their hearts.

Yeah, the absolute insanity of these "save the children" people voting to send their kids to schools where adults have the right to look at their genitals is 100% in character but still hard to fathom.

It's fairly easy - other people view those in the halls of power as obstacles to change rather than makers of change. They have a pretty good argument, unless one is of the "America is already great!" Clintonite school. These people might be able to 'make it happen' but haven't and aren't.

I mean, yesterday your argument in favor of past Presidents and politicians was their butting up against "structures of state power that have been in place for decades"? Who was governing during these decades? Who created the structures?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:31 AM (twenty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Obviously not *everyone* who holds political power is good and well-intentioned and capable of effecting change for the better. But I don't believe that *no one* is.

pro women athletes appear to be totally opposed to these bills, rapinoe makes good arguments here: https://www.insider.com/megan-rapinoe-slams-anti-transgender-bills-womens-sports-2021-3

but what do they know, they should uh stick to sports

The worst thing about all these terrible trans bills is the deep cynicism of them. Yes there is a level of actual freak-out, especially from evangelicals, but just like all the lgbtq-bashing legislation of recent decades, a lot of the people voting for them do not really give a fuck about it. They just know it is an easily marginalized and targeted minority that they can rally people against.

bingo. same as all the hate against Mexicans who "aren't legally here". every one of these assholes knows a few of those people and often are like "oh, I love that guy, he can stay"

i fall closer to jaymc's view here, but i have a wider definition of who can effect change, and also a wider disappointment with "people". politicians have power, of course, but at some point, that's supposed to come from "people". watching how people responded to covid-19 in this country was the last nail in the coffin for me. i no longer believe that "people" - hundreds of millions of "people" - will collectively come close to assessing the reality of a situation or the consequences of various responses. we just don't. people can be and are almost completely manipulated. basically, all the bad things said about humans in the introduction to the Fellowship of the Ring film are correct.

what does this mean? beats me

― Zach_TBD (Karl Malone), Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:15 PM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Consider the amount of people I disagee with in society, I’m glad fast paced change is nearly impossible. More than anything, if any major change where to happen, I would mean I’m on the losing side of the political equation. Between that scenario and the status quo that might be characterised as a vast compromise between millions, I chose the status quo any time of the day.

It occurred to me last night that I care about politics because I believe change is possible, and I believe change is possible because I believe there are good, well-intentioned people who are capable of effecting it within the halls of power.

I don't see how one can believe change is possible without believing in the people who can make it happen,

The difference is between celebrating and being hopeful for specific aims and achievements of individual people who have shown themselves interested in using the majority of their time in the halls of power to effect or agitate for change - a Roosevelt or a Sanders or an AOC or an Oakeshott or a Ludlam or an Arden or a Sturgeon or a Whitlam - and tinkerbelling generically in anyone who happens to currently be elected, or rah-team-ing those individuals universally.

xp but clicking anyway

I think I do tend to focus on the former, for the most part, though a) we probably disagree on the size of that group of individuals, and who is included, and b) those individuals necessarily must work within a system that requires compromise and coalition-building and therefore can't entirely be separated from the political process.