Oppression

 I referred to a couple of questions about oppression in another thread, and I wanted to develop those further before risking the possibility of Dan running off on a tangent.   I’ll take time to flesh this out over the next couple of days.  But until then I’ll use this a a place for any comments from Dan that don’t fit in the other thread.  

 

 No, the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities. The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies.

 

Still haven't had the time or the motivation to flesh this out, and with Dan's obsessive desire to jump right in and comment based on assumptions, I may realize that fleshing this out is a waste of time.   Yet, I do want to throw out one other thought.

If these discussions are to be fruitful, the one things that needs to be agreed on is what measure will define success.    The most common measure I see used is economic.   The other is political.   While I'm fine with either,  I think that looking at the economic condition is probably the best broad measurement of group success.   It's also the one that can be best applied across societies and cultures, which seems like the only way to accurately measure the results of oppression among groups that also cross national boundaries and cultures. 

Stimulus

 I’ll probably go into detail regarding the idea of the stimulus later, but I wanted to throw this out there.   

I’ve been thinking about what to do with this potential windfall, and I’ve come to a couple of tentative conclusions.   

1.  Although 2K would put a big dent in my car loan, I don’t plan to pay that off.

2.  Whatever I spend it on will be something tangible/manufactured, and made in the USA.   

3.  Wherever I purchase, whatever it is, will not be from  a national chain or from Amazon.    I’ll be shopping local or ordering directly from the manufacturer.

4.  If we were free, I’d consider expensive dinners out at local restaurants, with large tips.  Depending on the amount, I may save some for exactly this   

If I’m going to get the check, I’m going to spend it in a way that’ll hopefully drive a little domestic business.

What will y’all do if you get a stimulus check?

How exciting

 Mayor Pete, will be the first openly gay cabinet secretary in the history of the US.   What big, exciting news.  

"Common Ground"

Dan's been prating on about finding "common ground" and although it usually seems like "common ground" means "agree with Dan", I thought I'd take a shot.  Dan has a list of things that he thinks should be grounds for compromise, so let's see.

 

" 1. We are in the midst of this pandemic. We have a vaccine now starting to come out. Let's find effective ways to distribute that vaccine. That goal should be something we can all agree upon."

 Sure.  

"2. The spread of covid is skyrocketing. We don't have to like the measures suggested by medical experts, but we need to cooperate to stop the spread from getting worse. We should be able to agree to this. If you truly don't want to follow the guidelines, that's fine, but then stay home. If you can't wear a mask in a store, stay home. It's your right to not wear a mask if you don't want to, but it's not your right to insist upon going wherever you please without a mask and put other people at risk."

 

Interesting take that seems to downplay the lack of evidence that masks make a significant difference, that what is portrayed as "wearing  a mask", is really closing down significant sectors of the economy and inflicting varying degrees of harm on people beyond COVID.  

"For a short time, we can do this. We should be able to agree upon this goal."

 

If by "short time" you mean "months on end"...

"3. Our economy has taken a big hit this last year. We need to find ways that are safe to get us working again and we can do it. Social isolation and masks are a convenience, but it's also an opportunity to find new ways of doing things. Groceries need to be delivered more. Restaurant food can be delivered. We can be smart about this and create jobs and help one another in the process."

 

Yes it has.  Unfortunately much of the damage is because we've closed down businesses without regard to actual risk.  Unfortunately, restaurants can't survive for months on carry out business, small retail can't compete with Amazon,  people/businesses who own rental property can't pay their mortgages, taxes, and utilities without rental income.  Mental health issues and suicides are increasing.   The notion that we can take millions of people and tell them to work for Insta Cart as a way to rebuild the economy is absurd.   While, I'm not a fan of excessive government spending in general.  The notion that the state or federal government can unilaterally shut down someone's business or take a way their ability to earn a living without compensating them for their loss is incredibly disturbing. 

"4. While we're figuring it out, many people are hurting. We need financial aid package and we need it now. This should be an area of common ground. We can disagree upon the exact numbers, but we have to work together to get something out."

 

Especially now that Biden is POTUS elect, now it's time for Pelosi to negotiate a deal that provides LESS help that various options she's rejected in the past months.  In all seriousness, as I said above, the notion that the government can unilaterally take away someone's livelihood  without compensation is disturbing. 

"5. In Trump's four years, we never really got our infrastructure moving. Experts will tell you that our infrastructure is crumbling. We HAVE to invest in infrastructure and we can find common ground on that."

 

While I agree that Trump dropped the ball on this, after promising big things, it's disingenuous to make it sound like this is something that just happened in the Trump administration.  It's actually one of the few things that government is supposed to spend money on, yet it's been ignored.  

"6. Whatever you may feel about the police, the vast majority of the nation would like to see some systemic reform. It's going to HELP police to not to have to be social workers and mental health workers on top of being police. And we have to recognize that we don't want to see our black citizens killed because the police "feared for their lives..." Again, the majority of the nation agrees we need to do something about this. Let's find some common ground."

 

Yes, let's look to Minneapolis to see the effects of this "reform".  Violent crime up significantly, the city telling people to just give criminals what they want, and a complete abandonment of investigating property crimes.    Again, on a serious note, there should be some ways to make improvements.  Unfortunately, those in power in the cities with the biggest problems, just keep making promises they don't keep so they continue to stay in power.     However, when we see cities that are refusing to prosecute certain crimes, and allowing mayhem, it doesn't bode well.    FYI, the biggest problem with these experiments is that ultimately people have the freedom to leave the cities where things are bad.  This means that things will likely spiral downward as the cities see a loss of population and revenue, and businesses close because people won't patronize them anymore. 

"7. Likewise for our drug and prison policies. There are systemic problems with how we've handled this. We need to find some common ground. Conservatives: You all are supposed to be about fiscal responsibility. Providing education and rehabilitation to prisoners results in LOWERING the prison population and increasing their odds of making it on the outside. It is a money saver. We can find common ground there."

 

I do think that there are some options here that would make sense.    

I agree that these things are areas where some "common ground" is possible, I'm just not sure what it would look like.    It's especially hard to think that after 4 years of being referred to as a NAZI, racist, fascist,  and the like that we should just pretend that none of that happened, and hold hands around the campfire singing Friends are Friends forever.  

Commenting ground rules.   If you want to dig deeper into any of these specifically, please keep it to one topic per comment.

Thanks

I want to keep this beauty for the record.

"IF Biden develops a pattern of making false claims, every day for the first month in the office, then it's time (past time) to start talking about removing him as unfit. "

"Such behavior can not be tolerated, not as a pattern, not with no repentance when caught in a false claim."

I'll note that this statement ignores Biden's history of lies, false claims, and plagiarism.  I'll also note that "every day for the first month" caveat, as if every other day for the first two moths is perfectly fine.  

 I have absolutely no doubt that Biden will continue his pattern of lies, false claims, and plagiarism, after he's sworn in, and I think it will be interesting to catalogue them and see if they ever reach a point where Dan will make good on his pledge.  

I will NOT be publishing any comments on this thread, or related to this thread.  The intent is to preserve this quote, and related material for as long as possible. 

Time to re think things

https://winteryknight.com/2020/12/10/why-should-a-conservative-christian-have-an-alias-when-posting-online/

I've been mildly critical, at times, of people who hide behind a pen name when they blog or comment.  I've always thought that it showed a certain cowardice and unwillingness to take risks for the positions they espoused.   After reading the above, I'm thinking that hiding one's identity might not be as bad an idea as I originally thought. 

Curious

 Under what circumstances is it appropriate to refer to a black woman as a “nappy ass hoe”?

Obviously if the woman in question is literally a “nappy ass hoe”, it might be accurate, although I can’t see when it would be appropriate.   I further assume that the genius in question meant “ho”, not the garden implement.

Just curious.  

Voter Fraud

 I just saw a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.

Personally, I suspect that this will be the final conclusion.

However the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results.  I find this motion strange.  That we’d accept some level of fraud in our elections as long as it doesn’t change the results, seems unacceptable.  

I know it’s strange to some, but I value the integrity of the voting process, more than the outcome of a single election.   I’ve seen enough claims from people who don’t seem to gain anything by lying, to make me think that there need to be investigations and that the guilty parties (including political parties) should be dealt with harshly.   If not now, it’ll likely get worse going forward.