Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Cefte posted:

I found the first sentence reminded me of something, and it was the LaCour fiasco, which for those who aren't glued to news of scientific retractions, was a faked social science study that claimed that transgender canvassers, but not straight canvassers, could effect a significant and maintained improvement in attitudes to transgenderism. What I hadn't followed was that a non-faked follow-up showed that a real effect of canvassing could be measured, but was independent of the status of the canvassers, which really double-underlines your argument. Anyone can do it! Get involved!

I don't have the links to articles about it now, but many Democratic campaigns this past election really tried to implement the conclusions of this research. The methods on the ground always lag the best practice in the literature, but people are paying attention.

eke out posted:

Florida has the highest Venezuelan expat population of any state and my impression is that they are not on the left. They're still relatively small compared to other nationalities (something in the range of 100,000 as of 2010 census, probably somewhat larger now), but Cubans certainly aren't the only conservative hispanic demographic.

Yes but most of these are people who immigrated within the last decade I believe. Probably the vast majority are not yet citizens and couldn't vote.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

evilweasel posted:

I suspect that's going to start going away. Israel for a long time has benefited by being an area of bipartisan agreement (or more accurately, that support for Israel wasn't a partisan issue where Republicans were on one side and Democrats were on the other; there was substantially more dispute within the Democratic party/coalition regarding support for Israel). I think that was always going to start getting more polarized, but Netenyahu basically took a sledgehammer to that by explicitly and openly becoming a Republican partisan. That killed off a lot of the support for Israel within the Democratic party, but the full consequences of that haven't yet rippled all the way through the Democratic party system. It's going to though, and I think in a decade or so Israel's going to look back on it as one of their biggest geopolitical mistakes once that fully takes effect.

This seems optimistic. Pro-Israel organizations remain important Democratic fundraisers. Netanyahu will be gone some day, they will not.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Cross posting from the Middle East thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-attack-jaghori-district.html

Taliban Slaughter Elite Afghan Troops, and a 'Safe' District is Falling

quote:

A small team of journalists from The New York Times went into Jaghori’s capital, Sang-e-Masha, on Sunday morning to report on the symbolic importance of what everyone expected to be a fierce stand against the insurgents.

Instead, we found bandaged commandos wandering the streets in apparent despair, and officials discussing how they could flee an area almost entirely surrounded by the Taliban. By the end of the day, we were on the run, too.

Officials told us that more than 30 of the commandos had been killed, and we could see, on the streets and in the hospitals, 10 other wounded commandos. An additional 50 police officers and militiamen were also killed in the previous 24 hours, according to the militia’s commander, Nazer Hussein, who arrived from the front line with his wounded to plead for reinforcements.

“This is genocide,” Commander Hussein said. “If they don’t do something soon, the whole district will be in the Taliban’s hands.”

One So when the State Department released their most recent report about the Afghan war, they had some interesting facts about the Afghan security forces. While total casualties didn't change much from the same period last year, the proportion taken out doing things like patrolling decreased, while the number suffered defending static bases and checkpoints increased.

What this indicates is that the security forces are losing their initiative and capacity to fight offensively. Instead they are holding up in their bases and waiting for the Taliban to come to them. In the meanwhile the Taliban are seizing the countryside. Special forces units like those described in the article are meanwhile are being run ragged cleaning up the messes of local forces, and are being attrited away faster than they can be replaced. Probably in the near future the Afghan government is going to start losing big towns and cities as their defenses become increasingly exposed and isolated.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

I feel weird saying this but after fixing healthcare raising taxes is practically my number 1 issue. The US needs to tax more, a lot more.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

evilweasel posted:

Obama's first diplomat to South Africa was definitely a major donor. The wikipedia page on the second one is less clear but doesn't seem to have been a career diplomat either. Countries like China, Russia, etc get real diplomats. I don't even know if European countries rate real diplomats, usually.

Euro countries definitely get the big donors.

quote:

Some Obama backers have been posted to glamorous European countries. Britain's new US ambassador is Louis Susman, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama. The new ambassador to France is Charles Rivkin, a former TV executive who helped raise $800,000, while Germany is getting Philip Murphy, an ex-finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has donated $1.9m to the party since 1989.

I also vaguely remember a bunch of Europeans passive-aggressively bitching about this during Obama's second term, and also complaining that they didn't even get any ambassadors at all because they kept getting stuck in Senate confirmation limbo.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

eke out posted:

quoting because paywall:

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much here we didn't already know. We even already knew about the call from the Prince's brother, although I guess it's interesting the CIA was listening in. Then again, US intelligence probably secretly monitors more calls then it doesn't so it's not that surprising.

Where would you guys guess the leak is coming from? I'd bet the Senate intelligence committee or Trump's cabinet before the CIA itself.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Party Plane Jones posted:

Similarly from what I remember right post election there were a bunch of sites coming from Macedonia of all places where it was kids spreading bullshit and making bank because there were no opportunities for employment otherwise.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen-earns-thousands-publishing-lies-n692451

There have been other "parody" new sites run by liberals in America too doing exactly the same thing. I don't have the article anymore but there was one based out of Las Vegas if I remember correct. It even had several paid staff writing for it.


edit: I still can't believe how absurdly profitable this grift is.

Squalid fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 18, 2018

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

RasperFat posted:

So I wouldn’t worry too much about it because we have people actually knowledgeable on their fields that come in with sources to correct common misunderstandings.

You should. The problem with blind spots is you can’t see them. Just having smart people around doesn’t protect you from systemic bias.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008


Just reading this now, but truly the most shocking accusation of the article:

quote:

Ms. Pirro told Mr. Trump in the Oval Office last November that the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal, two people briefed on the discussion have said. During that meeting, the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, told Ms. Pirro she was inflaming an already vexed president, the people said.

Shortly after, Mr. Sessions wrote to lawmakers, partly at the urging of the president’s allies in the House, to inform them that federal prosecutors in Utah were examining whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton. A spokeswoman for the United States attorney for Utah declined to comment on Tuesday on the status of the investigation.

Motherfucking Jeanine Pirro is setting the agenda at the Justice Department.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Ogmius815 posted:

What's wrong with that turkey?

Those are just the ripe turkey berries, ready to be plucked.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008


There's no reason these statements can't both be true.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Lemming posted:

Who gives a poo poo, without gerrymandering it doesn't matter where you live.

This is not correct. Even if districts are drawn by machines with no intention or capability to gerrymander, extreme partisan geographic clustering is likely to produce results skewed towards the more dispersed party under the existing rules of American elections. The reasons for this are complicated but in order to mitigate this effect without gerrymandering in favor of Democrats you need something like multi-member districts.

Of course this kind of natural skew is no where near as dramatic as the intentional kind, but it’s definitely a major structural weakness inherent to the Democratic coalition.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Lemming posted:

Fine, it almost doesn't matter. Who cares. The point is that if gerrymandering is fixed, the problems more or less instantly go away. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough that a solid majority will win a majority of the seats. Since a majority of voters vote Democratic, that's all that matters.

It actually matters a lot and if politicians make the same assumptions as you are making here they are going to lose.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Hellblazer187 posted:

Isn't "natural" gerrymandering worth about 3%? I'm having trouble finding a number but that's what I recall from looking at it before. Someone feel free to correct the actual number if you have it but basically that means even with machine drawn districts, Dems can win a slight majority and still lose.

What we need is proportional representation.

That sounds about right to me but I think it should vary a bit by state depending on the local partisan distribution.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Megillah Gorilla posted:

I remember when the US first started with the whole 'torture is cool and good' after 9/11 and people brought up a book written by a US officer back in WWII on interrogating nazi prisoners of war.

The entire book was about treating them well and making a human connection with them - even the complete monsters like the gestapo- and how the success rate was insanely high for getting good information out of them.

We've known what works for the better part of a century, we just don't do it because the people in power are insatiable sadists.

Yeah, and if you look at Marine guides on intelligence gathering from the "Small Wars" in Latin America during the 1930s, they basically say the same thing. Torture doesn't work, and you should use techniques basically analogous to modern best practice.

However by the 1970s or so torture does start appearing as a recommended technique in material produced by the US government, or at least CIA produced anti-communist manuals distributed to allies abroad. It's not clear that gathering intelligence was even really the aim of such tactics, as simply terrorizing peoples was itself seen as a goal.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Dapper_Swindler posted:

well the GOP would always do that. my view is it would be a rebellion against trump but also a push to keep the out and out racist poo poo underground and the return of the dog whistle. so its probaly gonna be romney or kasich since they can both pull that kinda bullshit. my guess is trump would run third party against them out of pure spite.

I suspect that while the base is unlikely to ever turn on Trump, the big money donors may have different limits. Like I'm not sure what exactly motivates the Koch brothers but if they wanted to they could put immense pressure on Congress. How likely that scenario is I don't know.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

So has anyone else heard the long NPR investigation into the new black lung epidemic?

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/675253856/an-epidemic-is-killing-thousands-of-coal-miners-regulators-could-have-stopped-it

quote:

A multiyear investigation by NPR and the PBS program Frontline found that Smith and Kelly are part of a tragic and recently discovered outbreak of the advanced stage of black lung disease, known as complicated black lung or progressive massive fibrosis.

A federal monitoring program reported just 99 cases of advanced black lung disease nationwide from 2011-2016. But NPR identified more than 2,000 coal miners suffering from the disease in the same time frame, and in just five Appalachian states.

And now, an NPR/Frontline analysis of federal regulatory data — decades of information recorded by dust-collection monitors placed where coal miners work — has revealed a tragic failure to recognize and respond to clear signs of danger.

For decades, government regulators had evidence of excessive and toxic mine dust exposures, the kind that can cause PMF, as they were happening. They knew that miners like Kelly and Smith were likely to become sick and die. They were urged to take specific and direct action to stop it. But they didn't.

quote:

It's a familiar tale across Appalachia. Two hours north and east, beyond twisting mountain roads, Danny Smith revved up a lawn mower. He wore jeans, a T-shirt and a white face mask stretching from eyes to chin, and he pushed only about 15 feet before he suddenly shut off the mower, bent to his knees and started hacking uncontrollably.

"Oh God," he gasped, as he spit up a crusty black substance with gray streaks, and then stared at the dead lung tissue staining the grass. Still coughing and breathing hard, Smith settled into a chair on his porch and clipped an oxygen tube to his nose.

After spending just 12 years underground, his lungs are so bad he faces what coal miners decades older and with decades more in mining have endured. His lung tissue is dying so fast, his respiratory therapist says, it just peels away.

"I'm terrified," Smith said, as he remembered his father's suffering when he was struggling with the same coal miner's disease.

"I sure don't want to go through what he went through. I seen a lot of guys that died of black lung and they all suffered like that."

I remember being horrified and outraged learning about black lung when I read October Skies 15 years ago, a book that was set in the sixties. Decades later thousands of people are still being exposed to dangerous particulate matter and developing a disease that is entirely preventable. The coal companies are monstrous and this disease only happens through the willful disregard for the safety of their workers. Just look how its plagued the families in this story for generations.

Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Dec 20, 2018

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Dapper_Swindler posted:

yeah. its depressing gently caress. like i legit teared up listening/reading it. like we could genuinly help these people but they keep begging their abuser to come back over and over again because they think this time it will be different.

The craziest part is they all seemed to know about the risk too. I mean the same disease killed a lot of their parents and grandparents. Yet they still worked without proper safety equipment, in choking dust, and lied to healthcare providers out of fear they'd be fired if their illness came to light. It seems like everyone involved new exactly what was happening but nobody wanted to do anything, even when they were themselves dying.

Are American mines just uniquely and unavoidably dangerous? Or do miners still suffer the same problems in European and Australian mines? I don't even want to know what conditions are like in Chinese and Indian mines.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Doctor Spaceman posted:

I think these days the majority of Australian coal comes from open cut mines (it certainly does in NSW) where black lung rarely occurs.

It's absolutely a problem in the underground mines though.

So I had assumed this too, but a lot of the people described in this program were working surface mines. Most American mining now occurs at the surface. It's possible large surface mines can even put workers at greater risk, since they may involve the removal of large volumes of silica rich overburden which present an extremely severe hazard.

https://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/156377872/surface-coal-miners-at-risk-for-black-lung

quote:

The most surprising finding involved those miners who never worked underground.

"We identified coal workers' pneumoconiosis and severe pneumoconiosis in surface miners who reported no years of underground mining in their tenure," Halldin says.

Dust 'Comes Up Through The Floorboards'

Most of those with black lung are from the same region in Appalachia where the increase in the disease in underground miners is most pronounced. That suggests that a possible cause may be exposure to silica. Surface mines in the region include coal seams laced with silica-laden rock.

"These findings suggest that current federal permissible dust exposure limits might be insufficient to protect against disease or are not being adequately controlled to prevent excess dust exposure," the study says.

Miners who have worked on the surface describe clouds of dust around mining and drilling machines, around coal trucks and along mine roadways.

"You breathe a lot of dust when you drive a coal truck, even inside," says Jim Harper, who hauled coal for three years before his retirement in 2010. Harper suspects he may have black lung and was tested recently at a clinic in Beckley, W.Va.

Coal dust "comes up through the floorboards and ... through the windows," he says.

Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Dec 20, 2018

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Discendo Vox posted:

Fwiw there is a throughline to the RT family of propaganda, a common unified goal which is to encourage democratic and civic disengagement. While they'll take virtually any route to get to that point, it's a strong unifying feature of all of their stories- make you hate what's going on, distrust or hate other people or feel helpless to do anything, so you stop caring or being involved or evaluating source information. Or drive you so far into the fringe that you can't (and don't) engage in discourse.

There is one exception which proves this rule however: It's the Russian bought "Russia Beyond the Headlines" insert that was included in Sunday print editions of WaPo until recently and maybe still the NYTimes. If you are not familiar, its an extremely whitebread bunch of articles on Russian culture and economic news. It's comparable to VOA or even just the regular WaPo, very high quality articles meeting the highest standards of traditional print journalism. So it would be stuff on native Siberian whaling traditions, or a profile of modern balerinas in St. Petersburg, or an article about the development of a new oil field.

I'm fairly sure this insert was not targeted at the American public though. It's target was specifically American politicians and business leaders. I think it's purpose was to create positive impressions of the country and suggest business opportunities to potential investors, to encourage a softer or cooperative relationship between the countries that would facilitate investment.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Peacoffee posted:

So the argument for posting RT is basically just whataboutism? Clearly exposure to it has caused some harm already....

Maybe the pool of material which deserves even healthy skepticism could do with straining out the literally intentional white noise that says all news is pointlessly corrupt and therefore we need to eat all of it to parse out the truth.

I think its worth considering why when RT is so similar in content and form to Fox news, why do many people associated with the left like watching it? At least for revolutionary leftists I think the answer is pretty clear: when one believes it is necessary to overthrow the American government, RT's relentless message that the system is rigged, illegitimate, and broken is exactly the kind of message you want to promote. So its not surprising it appeals to a lot of the left.

I would argue though its not a good news source even for revolutionary leftists though, for the same reason Fox news is a bad news source for conservatives. That is it it is designed to tell you what you want to hear and expect to hear, more so than what's important. There's nothing I distrust more than someone who wants to tell me how much they're just like me and share my feelings and concerns.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Lightning Knight posted:

This is an interesting response that I didn't consider but I will let the point go.

U.S. RAMPS UP BOMBING OF ISIS IN EASTERN SYRIA FOLLOWING TRUMP WITHDRAWAL ANNOUNCEMENT from The Intercept, in partnership with Al Jazeera, by Trevor Aaronson and Ali Younes.

This operation was widely reported to be in the works for almost a year before Trump’s withdrawal announcement. It was almost cancelled before the withdrawal was turned into slow and gradual instead of rapid and immediate.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

awesmoe posted:

you're wrong about this and it's the difference between RT and news. the washington post publishing the snowden leaks is the biggest example I can think of from this decade.

It's pretty hard to argue there's no substance to that statement. This is interesting practice in the big publications, its old enough and common enough to have a specific name though I'm forgetting it at the moment. Basically whenever there's new leadership in the house or on the Republican/Democrat national committee, papers like WaPo and NYTimes will publish some fawning congratulatory article about the new hero shaking up Washington. It doesn't matter how stupid the person is they always do it. People in the industry straight up admit they do this, and the idea is they build up good will with the person, mine them for quotes while acting as their trusty ally in the media, and then when you have enough dirt burn them with an article tearing them apart.

These kinds of profiles meant to butter up sources are easy to recognize because without fail somebody will post them in USPol saying something like "wtf. . . this papers really going to the dogs how could they like Politician X so much that rear end in a top hat." They're common enough that private media can sometimes resemble state media in tone and content, at least superficially.

I do disagree though with Lil Mama Im Sorry on the idea that RT or other foreign media are likely to report on US covert ops before American media. Having sources with the US government means the NYtimes can get information before other sources. The US government is leaky as a sieve and almost always telegraphs its activity before it acts. Usually you only get vague statements from public officials or specific statements from anonymous sources, but for example I found the NYtimes was by far the best source for tracking US activity in Somalia from 2004 forward. The problem of course is nobody in America gives a gently caress about secret Special forces operations in Yemen or whereever unless they die, so the articles on the subject will necessarily be buried on page 20 or something, so you have to actually look for the details. Talking heads like Rachel Maddow or any other punditry are of course useless as a source of information and that's true whatever channel they are on.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

EdithUpwards posted:

Puff pieces are the genre he describes.

I mean basically, I'm pretty sure though there's a highly specific journalistic trade word just for complementary profiles written to ingratiate journalists with potential sources. Can't find it though so maybe I dreamed it? Anyway, here's a quote from NPR's training blog on the subject for aspiring journalists:

https://training.npr.org/blog/the-art-and-skill-of-working-with-sources/

quote:

Tell stories to build sources (but be willing to whack them)

The stories you report can help improve relationships with sources by building trust and credibility. But the correspondents add two qualifiers:

1) Always do rigorous journalism.
2) Set expectations early.

Doing a profile on a source, Tom and Mary Louise say, is a good way to expand your contact list as you seek out people who know the subject of the profile. Just be sure you’re doing strong reporting and telling valid stories.

Sources “know what a puff piece is, and they like it if they’re the subject of it,” Mary Louise says. “But it’s not going to get you a return engagement because they don’t respect you.”

You build respect, the correspondents say, by showing you’re willing to tell harsh truths about your sources.

This quote is pretty clear on the subject imo. You build "trust" and "credibility" profiling a source by saying things they like to hear and see reported. If you slam them nonstop they aren't going to return your calls next time. The article has to specifically caution young journalists from writing "puff pieces" because that's what a lot of real journalists often end up writing. I.E. its a common pitfall the author wants to help steer people around. Of course what exactly makes an article a puff piece is subjective, and given how narcissistic pols typically are I expect the article has to be pretty egregious before many sources stop respecting the authors.

Of course not all profiles are written with this intent, but a lot are. This kind of tactic isn't as bad as official state propaganda because private media tends towards polyamory as far as sources go. . . they want to cultivate access with everyone and anyone who might be important and hedge bets their bets to insure access whoever wins an election.

Squalid fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 5, 2019

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

I'm increasingly convinced forcing the Democrats to embrace tax increases must be one of the biggest priorities for left activists. Second only to healthcare reform. It's time to break the stranglehold of Reaganomics on our country.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008


I've noticed this usage myself and it definitely stands out. I don't think Russian media uses words like neocon as a slur, but rather they directly try and associate the word with things/people that are unpopular to give the terms negative connotations. That is to say they are primarily propagandizing against neoconservatism as a concept. This often results in tweets and statements that are logically a bit garbled and nonsensical, but conveying a literal statement of fact isn't the point. The point is just to create an emotional association between <bad thing> and neoliberalism.

edit: here's an example of what I mean in a tweet by a Russian account that pretends to be a black Republican woman

https://mobile.twitter.com/Treshiq/status/1072183909121589249

This tweet is referring to Brett Kavanaugh and is calling him a neocon after he declined to hear a case challenging public funding of planned parenthood. This should leave anyone politically aware scratching their heads, because of course neoconservatism refers to a collection of ideas about foreign policy regarding an aggressive right and willingness interfere abroad, and theoretically has little to with judicial theory or planned parenthood.

My guess though is that whoever manages these accounts noticed there were trending tweets expressing upset over this decision among conservatives, so they sought to use it as an opportunity to insert their own message into the conversation while pretending to share concerns about this court case.

Squalid fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jan 9, 2019

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008


What are the odds this talking point was written directly by a Russian propaganda organ?

I'd take a bet at 2:1

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

The quiet coup that could devastate human rights in Guatemala

quote:

a slow-motion coup is unfolding largely unnoticed in Guatemala. President Jimmy Morales, members of Congress, certain business people and powerful military officers are taking swift, dramatic steps to consolidate power before the presidential elections in June. Morales is not eligible for re-election and so once his successor takes power he will lose his immunity from possible prosecution for corruption.
. . .
These moves have paved the way for Congress to push for reforms to the 1996 National Reconciliation Law, developed as part of UN-brokered peace accords following Guatemala’s 36-year civil war. The law currently provides amnesty for political crimes committed during the war, but explicitly denies it for grave internationally recognised crimes including genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. If Morales and certain members of Congress, widely known as the Pact of the Corrupt, succeed in reforming the National Reconciliation Law, it will provide blanket amnesty for serious human rights crimes.

The proposed changes would also annul the convictions of former soldiers and paramilitaries for crimes including torture, ‘disappearance’, execution and aggravated sexual violence. It would release anyone convicted in this way since 1996 – within 24 hours of the law’s promulgation. Those in jail awaiting trial would be released.

Human rights activists in Guatemala are profoundly concerned. The law could be amended within days or weeks, and perpetrators could be back on the streets shortly thereafter, free to retaliate against the activists, judges and prosecutors who worked so hard to secure justice for victims of the civil war, as well as target survivors and witnesses who bravely testified against them.


Bad things are happening in Guatemala

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Oracle posted:

they're booties for sled dogs (well any dogs really) to help keep them from tearing up their feet/getting frostbite on their tootsies in extreme cold. It uh... takes awhile for the pups to get used to them, with the hilarious results seen.

They can also cause frostbite if used improperly by restricting natural blood flow. Not recommended for normal dog owners unless they have a good idea what they are doing.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Lightning Knight posted:

No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time.

Really though practically everything anyone said about this event at the time was just baseless speculation. It's kind of an inherent problem with parsing current events, and why we should always be suspicious of mob mentalities. We can only make sense of these things after a real investigation. That impulse to jump to conclusions was WRONG, and that is true both for those who were overly quick to defend and denounce Smollett. Even now I'm not especially comfortable interpreting the meaning of what is known.

The worst though are those who will post hoc justify their mistakes with bland excuses like "well maybe it was fake, but it felt true at the time, so really I was completely justified in all those things I said and did, and really its still true in a higher moral and philosophic sense, so what I said is still fundamentally right even if it was objectively wrong." Those people are doomed to be caught again and again by future frauds, and they won't always be easily discredited.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

Silver2195 posted:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I’m posting it here because I was pretty shocked by it: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death

Certainly not the first US-based organization to fund atrocities abroad, but if I had made a list of ones likely to do so, WWF would not have been on it.

Unfortunately this story shouldn't surprise anyone involved in international conservation. In many of the most remote reserves Park Rangers are a basically a law unto themselves. The 1988 film Gorillas in the Mist even include scenes in which Sigourney Weaver, depicting an American researcher, burns down a village/camp and stages a mock execution of a captured poacher. When there's no local law enforcement, people resort to settling problems through raw force and intimidation. It's a situation ripe for abuse.

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

median wealth for American households older than 65 is ~$250,000

I pulled that figure from a random article which sourced the 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances so I'm not sure if that figure includes home equity but I'm pretty sure it does. The vast majority of Americans will never have $1,000,000 in their life and achieving that is not a realistic goal for middle class households either before or after retirement. From the same source 35-44 year olds have a median wealth of $61,000.

If American wealth were distributed with perfect equity there would be about $300,000 per adult, so redistributive policies should probably be set with that in mind. It's sometimes a pet peeve of mine that Democrats sometimes talk about policies "for the middle class" that are obviously really aimed at the people with $ 1 million in assets and $100,000 a year in income, but I guess that's just how politics works.

Of course in places like California where housing is really hosed up building new housing is probably one of the best ways to reduce inequality, both by reducing the value of existing stock and providing more wealth to those without. Seriously LA has a housing shortfall of like 500,000+ units, its just absurd. Building new houses is the only way to fix these absurd prices. When places like marin set the poverty level at an income of $100,000 per year its not done arbitrarily.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Squalid
Nov 4, 2008

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

Building more homes (or apartments) is necessary but it won't fix the prices.

They built homes like mad during the previous bubble (and this one) and prices did nothing but skyrocket nearly the whole time.

I know you aren't denying that more housing needs to be built, but you might be underestimating the scale of the problem. California has had a consistent deficit of new housing since even before prop 13, since like 1970. The housing bubble didn't come close to resolving those shortages. California requires so much more housing that its difficult even to wrap your head around it.

Just to keep prices steady at the current absurd levels, the state would have to double annual construction. So in a scenario where someone passes new policy that "only" increased new housing construction by 50%, housing prices would still continue to increase. People might then come to their leaders and complain "oh my god you're building homes like mad but prices are still skyrocketing! You said building more would reduce costs but rent's now higher than ever! Building new houses clearly doesn't reduce housing costs!" The problem of course, is that the state is so far away from meeting new housing needs that even good policies only just reduce the rate of increase, rather than actually bringing real costs down.

I'm concerned that some people want to downplay the need for new housing because they are afraid policies that increase construction of new homes are going to disproportionately benefit developers. If you don't want private entities handling construction however, you need some other mechanism. You can't just ignore the problem.

and yes I know politically nobody wants to hear this kind of thing. I'm hopeless at political communication however, which is why I mostly stick to policy.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply