AmiYumi posted:

Polls contemporary to the election blaming Katrina on Obama’s response make this, uh, not the greatest example.

AmiYumi posted:

Polls contemporary to the election blaming Katrina on Obama’s response make this, uh, not the greatest example.

quote:

Did Garland just say...?

"These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views" regarding threats against Congresspeople, judges, and school boards?

HonorableTB posted:

I can't decide if this is more Denethor from Return of the King, or Lord Farquaad from Shrek.

"Go now and die in whatever way seems best to you", vs "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."

Political stagnation like that reminds me heavily of the Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko era of the USSR. The US is more along the lines of Late Roman Empire collapse, but the Goths and Vandals haven't sacked Rome yet.

TulliusCicero posted:

We don't have a Denethor in leadership of the US. They're all Wormtongues and Saurumans

TulliusCicero posted:

It's absolutely Farquaad

Contrary to popular belief, Book Denethor was NOT trying to an evil tyrant or even trying to hold the throne: he was locked in to a war with an evil power that started thousands of years before he was born, was desperately looking for any way to get a one-up on said evil power incrementally destroying more of Gondor every year, tried to use the Palantir to spy on Sauron for info, Sauron found out, broke his brain and made him doom scroll until he went mad with grief. He genuinely wanted to save Gondor, but could only see a hopeless defeat worse than death for everyone.

Willa Rogers posted:

Dems on twitter & DU are claiming that Garland "both sides'd" his speech today:

https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/1478820369570037761

DU:

Is there a Dem whisperer here who saw the speech & can explain what Garland meant by his statement, or whether it was truncated?

Some of the DU responses said he was doing that to legitimize his inquiry.

quote:

"The Department has been clear that expressing a political belief or ideology, no matter how vociferously, is not a crime. We do not investigate or prosecute people because of their views. Peacefully expressing a view or ideology no matter how extreme is protected by the First Amendment, but illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not," he said.

Garland decried violent threats to election workers, members of Congress, judges, airline personnel, health care workers and school administrators. He highlighted the increasing violence in all aspects of society and noted that airline assaults, assaults of government personnel, and threats against elected leaders had increased by over 400% since 2019.

"These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views," Garland said. "But they are permeating so many parts of our national life that they risk becoming normalized and routine if we do not stop them. That is dangerous for people's safety. And it is deeply dangerous for our democracy."

Majorian posted:

I'm not sure I understand what point you're making here. We're talking about GWB, his mishandling of a huge crisis, and how his having to own it completely didn't lead to him resigning or anything.

\/\/\/ah, that it explains it more. But yeah, we're talking about polls in 2005, which pretty squarely placed responsibility on Bush, as well they should have.\/\/\/

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I think you are misremembering the date on those polls. There was a famous poll that said 1/3 of Louisiana Republicans said Obama was more responsible for Katrina that Bush. But, that was from 2013 and not contemporary.

Bush got most of the blame at the time (and still does outside of Louisiana Republicans). Kathleen Blanco got a smaller, but still significant ~30% of the blame at the time.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Transcript does seem a little both sides-y, but he seems to be talking about not prosecuting people for political beliefs. I can't watch the speech right now, though. So, I haven't seen it in context.

quote:

"These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views," Garland said.

Willa Rogers posted:

Thanks. I'm not sure what this bit has to do with not prosecuting for political beliefs, though.

quote:

Garland decried violent threats to election workers, members of Congress, judges, airline personnel, health care workers and school administrators. He highlighted the increasing violence in all aspects of society

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

The one-party back-and-forth has me thinking. Since every proposed system is led by corruptible humans depending on all the right handshakes to continue to happen in just the right way, every system eventually becomes more about self-preservation of the system's ruling class than any sort of adherence to a sense of duty. We really need to take humanity out of it. It sounds silly, but would the benevolent dictatorship of an Artificial Intelligence not be better at governance than the systems we've watched melt down over and over?

Obviously it isn't an option today, but eventually an AI powerful enough will be created.

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

The one-party back-and-forth has me thinking. Since every proposed system is led by corruptible humans depending on all the right handshakes to continue to happen in just the right way, every system eventually becomes more about self-preservation of the system's ruling class than any sort of adherence to a sense of duty. We really need to take humanity out of it. It sounds silly, but would the benevolent dictatorship of an Artificial Intelligence not be better at governance than the systems we've watched melt down over and over?

Obviously it isn't an option today, but eventually an AI powerful enough will be created.

Gatts posted:

Let’s consult the AI in Automated cars that can’t identify black pedestrians and end up trying to run them over…

AI isn’t good enough, depends on who is coding it, and it really boils down to having the right capable just people in power which isn’t easy

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

I mean, the last sentence I typed literally said the AI we have available today isn't an option...

HonorableTB posted:

Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.

Or Ultron. I'm pretty sure Ultron was created for this specific reason and the first conclusion he came to was that humans have to go ASAP

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

I don't necessarily buy the AI-will-destroy-humanity argument at face value, I think it's a trope for movies. Like aliens species invading earth. These are all metaphors for colonialism.

AI could be provided the data necessary and not decide to nuke us/put us in a matrix/etc.

Gatts posted:

Like AI that extrapolates development of virus and disease in the environment so you could create cures in advance would be cool

Majorian posted:

Yeah, exactly, what I envision AI doing wouldn't really be all that different from what we're trying to get it to do more effectively in the real world today. It would just be, you know - coordinated for the purposes of central planning and all that fun stuff.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I think it was in reference to this:

sounds like he was trying to do kind of a both sides-y "We're not prosecuting anyone for political beliefs. We're just prosecuting people who do violence or threaten airline workers, teachers, health care workers, judges, school administrators, and members of congress regardless of what their political beliefs are."

Killer robot posted:

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

Username Killer robot, can you tell me your thoughts on AI-controlled government?

Pure Liquid Ice posted:

If the system still allows a Marjorie Taylor Greene access to the levers of power then those AI are only as useful as the hairless ape in charge of them. What I'm saying is, give them access to nukes and dams and satellites.

BiggerBoat posted:

Well, first they have to clear out the giant I95 parking lot. Is this a failure or infrastructure, a climate change thing, a result of gutted resources or just some freak occurrence? Just too many cars out there? Some combination of all that?

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Transcript does seem a little both sides-y, but he seems to be talking about not prosecuting people for political beliefs. I can't watch the speech right now, though. So, I haven't seen it in context.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Another poll where a majority of people say their personal economic situation is good/excellent, but the economy in general is bad.

Only 18% saying their personal financial situation is poor is pretty surprising.

Willa Rogers posted:

Some results from the cnbc/change research poll that was taken the week before xmas & released last week:


Guess those COBRA & Obamacare subsidies didn't really pay off when it came to the healthcare sentiments.

Willa Rogers posted:

I mean, it's 52-49 excellent/good vs. not-so-good/poor, and another 30 percent in addition to that 18 percent say "not so good." Hardly a ringing endorsement, unless you want to ignore half the country experiencing economic insecurity.

And those "grades" for Biden on helping the middle class, helping the economy & helping your wallet don't augur well.

I think the worst news, for Dems, is that no one expects anything to get better this year. Or maybe it'll be good news, as far as exceeding expectations.

eta: oh lol, I just noticed the Biden/Trump ties on favorable/unfavorable.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's not the specific numbers that are interesting; it's the ratios. Literally twice as many people say their personal economic situation is good/excellent compared to the economy overall and 4x more people say their personal economic situation is excellent than overall. 2021 was the first time that perceptions of personal economic sentiment were higher than the economy in general and the gap seems to be getting larger in 2022 (mostly because the same amount of people are saying they are personally fine, but more people saying the economy overall is bad).

It's a weird first for polling and not clear exactly why it is happening. In 2021, you could theorize that people were saying their personal economic situation was good despite the bad economy overall because of stimulus, but it has been a year since the stimulus bill and the gap is just getting bigger.

Majorian posted:

It's because there's a widespread feeling of precariousness among a lot of Americans, whether or not they themselves are doing well economically. I posted this back in November, but here it is again: "Job Market Ratings Set Record, but Economic Confidence Slides." A lot of the folks who think they're doing okay financially right now are still really afraid that it's all going to go up in smoke over the next few years:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

That's a reasonable explanation, but never in modern polling history did people feel insecure about their economic situation despite doing pretty well at present? I doubt it, but they didn't express it that way before. It's just interesting that people's perceptions about "the economy" and "how I am doing economically" have decoupled for the first time ever.

I don't think there is a 100% definitive explanation for it, but it has decoupled significantly. People used to say they were doing economically terrible - regardless of their situation - if they felt the economy overall was bad and said they were doing great - regardless of their situation - if they felt the economy overall was good. They used to track nearly 1:1 for ~60 years and now there is a massive gap.

quote:

Why More American Children Are Dying by Gunfire

Toddlers are discovering guns under piles of clothes and between couch cushions. Teenagers are obtaining untraceable ghost guns made from kits. Middle school students are carrying handguns for protection.

Kendall Munson was so worried about the gun violence in her neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side that she sent her sons to live with their grandparents outside Atlanta. But death found them anyway.

On Dec. 9, her goofy, football-loving 11-year-old son, Elyjah, and some friends were walking to a gas station for after-school snacks when one of Elyjah’s best friends, a 12-year-old, pulled a gun from a backpack and shot Elyjah in the head.

It was the second time last year that the family had been jolted by gun violence. Two weeks before Elyjah was killed, his 5-year-old cousin, Khalis Eberhart, was fatally shot after a 3-year-old cousin found a gun under a sofa cushion.

“It’s easy to get a gun. It’s easy for our kids to get one,” said Elyjah’s mother, Ms. Munson, who believes that her son’s death was not intentional. “When you’re a kid frivolously playing with something you think is a toy, this is what happens.”

The number of children and teenagers killed by gunfire has risen sharply during the coronavirus pandemic. Researchers describe the increase as a fatal consequence of rising nationwide homicide rates, untreated traumas of Covid-19 and a surge of pandemic gun-buying that is putting more children into close contact with guns — both as victims and those wielding guns.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the rate of gun deaths of children 14 and younger rose by roughly 50 percent from the end of 2019 to the end of 2020.

And it appears the toll grew worse last year. More than 1,500 children and teenagers younger than 18 were killed in homicides and accidental shootings last year, compared with about 1,380 in 2020, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a publicly sourced database that tracks gun deaths in real time ahead of official government counts.

Toddlers are discovering guns under piles of clothes and between couch cushions. Teenagers are obtaining untraceable ghost guns made from online kits. Middle school students are carrying handguns for protection.

While children die of gunfire at far lower rates than adults, the rise in young lives cut short has raised alarms with police officials and families across the country.

“We keep seeing the same thing over and over again,” said Keith Meadows, the police chief in South Fulton, Ga, where two young children, including Khalis Eberhart, have recently died of accidental shootings. “When the pandemic hit, we just had this big influx of people getting gun permits. People are buying these weapons without getting the right type of education.”

Police departments and cities across the country are struggling to intervene. Larger cities like Philadelphia tormented by rising youth violence are plowing millions into violence-intervention programs, youth leadership groups and community groups. In December, Chief Meadows held a gun safety course that 50 parents attended, some with their children in tow.

A day later, a 3-year-old boy was wounded after he found a gun under a bed and shot himself in the stomach.

Much of the toll is concentrated in a few dozen big cities, with Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and Milwaukee at the top of the list, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

But few American places go unscathed. In Sedalia, a city of 22,000 in central Missouri, 4-year-old Andre Walker fatally shot himself at home after finding the loaded family handgun. D’Shaunti Kyanni Hunter, 17, was found shot to death in a rural Georgia cemetery.

After a gunman killed four teenagers at Oxford High School in Michigan, the local prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents of the 15-year-old suspect. The prosecutor accused the teenager’s parents of buying him the handgun as a Christmas present and leaving it available to him in an unlocked bedroom drawer, even as school officials raised alarms about their son’s violent fantasies. The parents have pleaded not guilty.

But for the most part, adult gun owners are not charged when their weapons are involved in shootings that kill children and teenagers, legal experts say. And some families said they were frustrated that the shootings — which disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic children and teenagers in poorer neighborhoods — did not seem to stir much wider concern.

“It’s like a normal thing,” said Kim Sipes, whose 16-year-old nephew, Ramon Sosa, was shot and killed with his grandmother over the summer in Oklahoma City.

A 16-year-old has been charged in their deaths, reflecting how the number of youths 19 and younger who commit homicides rose by nearly 20 percent between 2019 and 2020, according to F.B.I. crime data.

Ms. Sipes said she wanted Oklahoma legislators to pass laws that would prevent 16-year-olds from gaining access to handguns, but said she had little hope that her nephew and sister’s killings would galvanize them to act. Even a fund-raising website her family set up to cover funeral costs struggled to reach a third of the $10,000 goal.

Researchers say public health agencies and schools strained by two years of the pandemic are now falling behind in addressing the roots of the current surge in violence affecting children.

“We hoped that as life resumed things would go back to the way they were,” said Sarah Burd-Sharps, senior director of research at Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group funded largely by Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor. “It’s clearly not happening.”

Instead, anti-violence activists say a sense of helplessness and anger has taken root.

“Is it Covid? Is it mental disorders? Are these guns getting into the hands of younger kids?” asked Malissa Thomas-St. Clair, an activist in Columbus, Ohio, who co-founded the group Mothers of Murdered Columbus Children after a 14-year-old boy shot and killed his 2-year-old nephew last year. “There’s nowhere you can hide.”

A recent tally from Mike McLively, who directs the Community Violence Initiative at the gun control group Giffords, found that 15 states have pledged nearly $700 million toward gun-violence prevention. The pandemic interrupted many of these programs, and cities are now scrambling to catch up.

“It is absolutely a crisis,” said Erica Atwood, senior director of Philadelphia’s Office of Policy and Strategic Initiatives for Criminal Justice and Public Safety. More than 30 children and teenagers died in shootings in the Philadelphia area last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

In Columbus, Ohio’s booming capital, activists say a rise of chaotic, sometimes inexplicable eruptions of gun violence aimed at children has left neighborhoods reeling and children too frightened to walk home from bus stops.

In 2019, three children 17 and younger were killed by gunfire. That number rose to 20 in 2020 and 17 last year, according to police statistics.

Bereaved families have begun organizing to demand action from the police and community leaders. Mothers march in matching orange T-shirts and wave posters of their slain children. They visited impromptu vigils at murder scenes until one was shot up over the summer.

In Columbus, 2021 began with the murder of two young children. Late on New Year’s Day of last year, Ava Williams, 9, and her sister, Alyse, 6, were shot and killed by their father, who had spent the pandemic in and out of work and hoarding guns.

“I was worried about Covid,” said Vanecia Kirkland, the girls’ mother, who described her daughters as loving and inseparable sisters. “I should have been worried about their father.”

Then in early December came the grim news that another pair of children had been killed.

Demetrius Wall’Neal, a football-loving 9-year-old, and his 6-year-old sister, Londynn, who never left home without a favorite sparkly purse, were climbing into a car with their mother’s boyfriend when gunmen walked up and sprayed the car with bullets, killing all three.

“How could you kill two babies?” their grandmother Jessica Jones wondered as she sat inside a bakery one morning in the Columbus suburb where Demetrius had played football. “I just don’t understand. When does it end?”