The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

This all ties into Obama's longstanding wish to get rid of the nasty Guantanamo "Gitmo" Bay facility, which is also one of Cuba's highest priorities regarding normalized relations. Something that would also help enormously would be money to fix the countless crumbling, dangerously un-maintained and really pretty buildings across Cuba, but I don't know how readily that will happen. It would be horrible to see all that gorgeous heritage just fall apart though.

 

This is probably going to end up becoming a bit of a political football for the presidential nominee candidates, isn't it? "America, I say no to commie Cuba!" "Why yes, I say yes, that's a darned good point old bean" etc. Debate fuel. General anti-Obama point scoring fuel.

 

It's going to happen though, Cuba can't be frozen out forever, and at least if there are good relations with the US, the US can try to influence its internal politics and bring about "favorable outcomes."

 

 

Also, the SCOTUS just tore a whole in the decades-old Three Strikes system, hopefully spelling its doom.

 

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down part of a federal law intended keep people convicted of repeated violent crimes in prison longer.

The justices ruled that a catchall phrase in the Armed Career Criminal Act defining what crimes make a defendant eligible for a longer prison term is too vague.

Six justices agreed that the phrase is unconstitutional. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said using "so shapeless a provision to condemn someone to prison for 15 years to life" violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/28/1397483/-Speaking-of-the-SCOTUS-3-Strikes-Law-Struck-Down-Private-Prisons-Haz-a-Sad

 

In writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia laid out the court’s decision to declare the three-strikes provision as unconstitutional. In it, he pointed out that there was no mechanism in place, nor any hope of one, to ensure that the law could be applied impartially and fairly.

"It has been said that the life of the law is experience. Nine years’ experience trying to derive meaning from the residual clause convinces us that we have embarked upon a failed enterprise."

It is not often that one will find left-wing minds in agreement with Justice Antonin Scalia, but this is just such a case. Laws which are too broad in scope, or are unclear in specifics, are easy to abuse. Note how our prison system has blossomed with the rise of such sentencing, until today we have a prison population which is larger then the Soviet Union’s at its peak.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/30/three-strikes-struck-down/

Get it gone! While we're at it, let's get rid of mandatory minimums, too.

[Kevin]

This is probably going to end up becoming a bit of a political football for the presidential nominee candidates, isn't it?

It wouldn't surprise me if that were to be the case. In regards to the embargo itself, eventually it will be lifted. The younger generation sees it as unnecessary vs the older the generation's views on it.

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm, it sounds like the overturning of three strikes only applies to federal law for now.

It's a small step, but it's the state level that will need the most focus. If nothing else though, I imagine this will be a huge dent in the War on Drugs given how many states have started to say screw it, leaving the federal laws as the only ones convicting people.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tv-land-pulls-dukes-hazzard-reruns/story?id=32152437

And now the Dukes of Hazard has been dropped from reruns due to having a car with the Confederate battle flag on it.

Needless to say, the Confederate flag debate is starting to cave in on itself now that it's moving from political into cultural.

I don't support banning the flag in entertainment. That's just bullshit. I don't want to be like Germany with its "holy shit swastikas ohmahgerd" policies.

It makes perfect sense to remove the flag from government buildings because of its very mixed history. But one can't deny its cultural impact and different meanings to different people, and I see no reason to expand this into the private sphere accordingly.

Let the market decide. I sincerely doubt many people will quit watching a channel because it has the battle flag in one of its shows or buying at a store just because it has battle flag merchandise.

This is purely a private sector decision, but I'm still rubbed the wrong way for some reason by all this.

Well, calling the establishment of a battle flag-focused vendor before long. Where there's demand, there will be supply. All these companies are just missing out on a market.

[Patticus]

Removing the flag from state buildings and generally not waving it about in public is fine, but you can't just wipe it from the history or culture of the country. The knee-jerk reactions like Civil War videogame removals and select TV show cancellations will not last, I feel - they will be gone only as long as this movement lasts, and then they'll quietly return. There will be a much reduced CSA flag presence in the future, I'm sure, but you can't just erase it, or its impact.

 

It's a massive racist symbol though, and I'd prefer not to see it bandied about like the American flag already is. If you want to celebrate your heritage, use your state flag, or one from whatever country(s) your family hails from, not one held up by a bunch of slave owners.

[Tani Coyote]

It's also incorrectly used as a racist symbol, given that it represents the military of the Confederacy and not the Confederacy itself.

"What difference does it make?" Because you often fight on the wrong side in retrospect. We like to sift through wars and decide "good" and "bad" ones but they're all the same: one group of powerful people and another have a scuffle, so they send innocent young people to die for the sole purpose of expanding their power. Then they make sure to wrap the war up in feel good bullshit so no one will question it.

I can see why the real Confederate flag and the battle flag would have different perspectives to different people. I think the vast majority are in agreement the Confederacy proper was vile and would not praise its government flag. However, the battle flag is not so clear cut. To a Northerner, it will represent an army fighting for racism and slavery. To a Southerner, it very likely represents the fact one's great great whoever fought for his home and family.

Most Americans don't fly flags of their ancestral homelands though, so unless you're from a military family that's very big on distinguishing its services, I don't see much reason to choose the flag personally. Just for full disclosure, when I see someone with the flag, my first thought is "they must be a redneck." I imagine the choice of the battle flag is mostly that moist and gushy sensation we get deep down inside when we're special in some manner. It won't do to fly the US flag like everyone else; better pull out ye olde stars and bars.

I'm an avid believer in free expression no matter how much someone is offended, however, so I think this issue shouldn't go beyond governments, courts, etc. Absolutely take the battle flag down from any legal significance; it is a symbol of treason against the U.S. government (which won, which is all that matters in this case).

[nintega137]

You know I've had a rough day when one of my friends post this.

 

[Patticus]

 
Bernie Sanders just held the largest rally of the campaign so far, drawing a crowd of 10,000 in a Democratic stronghold. Now, clearly it'll be beaten in size as we progress, but I'm betting that he'll draw larger crowds later on, too. It's very encouraging to see that he has a lot of supporters, though, and that he's been raising substantial sums of campaign money from small time donors, rather than the wealthy big buck donors the rest of the candidates are gunning for.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders, the liberal Vermont senator who has been rising in recent polls in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, raised $15 million in the last two months, his aides said.
 
The sum represents a third of what Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign reported raising by going after high-dollar donors. Instead, Mr. Sanders appealed largely to grassroots donors who could give smaller amounts to finance his candidacy.
 
The figure is surprisingly large for a fund-raising effort that has been primarily from small donors. And it will allow Mr. Sanders to air ads introducing himself to voters, as well hire staff that could help him maintain his candidacy.
 
Aides to Mr. Sanders said that since April 30, nearly 400,000 contributions had come into the campaign, with 99 percent of those donations in increments of $250 or less.
 
The disclosure of his fund-raising prowess comes as he has shown continued strength in polls in early nominating states, getting the support of 33 percent of likely caucus goers in Iowa in one new poll and narrowing what was once a wide gap with Mrs. Clinton, who had 52 percent support.
 
On Wednesday evening, Mr. Sanders drew a crowd of roughly 10,000 at a speech in Madison, Wis., a Democratic stronghold.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/02/bernie-sanders-raises-15-million-from-a-wide-donor-base/

 

Looking good, hope the trend continues.

[Tani Coyote]

You know I've had a rough day when one of my friends post this.

The best part is, it would make plenty of sense to marginalize rap, at least in its current state.

Pop culture rap is largely a fiction made to cater to white people. I say this because a lot of rappers, it turns out, actually have degrees and the like, but have this persona of the uneducated, thuggish "hoodrat" that they play up.

What is the popular rapper but the modern American minstrel? You can't have an educated black man eloquently arguing against hate, oh no. The crowd craves the ice cold killer who guns down people for looking at him cross eyed and has women of easy virtue on each arm.

This isn't to say anything about indie rap, though, which is of course not as susceptible to this because it doesn't need to market itself to millions of people.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's also incorrectly used as a racist symbol, given that it represents the military of the Confederacy and not the Confederacy itself.

Actually...it's a bit more complicated than that.

 

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

 

EDIT: Derp...nevermind. I re-read your post. That's what I get for reading while half-tired.

[Tani Coyote]

The mosquito status earlier today prompted further research.

As we develop a new type of mosquito that would exterminate the species worldwide, there's a mosquito topic more relevant to the United States.

Health officials in Florida are arranging to bring GM mosquitoes to Florida so as to deal with an increase in mosquito-borne diseases.

These mosquitoes have a gene that causes all mosquitoes to die before they reach adulthood, effectively curbing the population. Since the gene only lasts one generation, it wouldn't threaten the species as a whole, but if there was ever a large number of the bugs, the local health officials could release more to quickly curb their numbers. If the experiment is successful, though, we could likely see this introduced in more states.

The "kill them all" mosquitoes are intended for use in places like Africa, by contrast. To be frank though, I wouldn't mind if we added "first mosquito-free nation" to our list of medical achievements. Species go extinct all the time and the mosquito has no real ecological value that can't be filled in by others, unlike say, a honeybee. Most species - even ourselves - are expendable. The real reason for preservation is beauty, pure and simple.

And those things aren't beautiful. By all means, let us embrace mass mosquitocide.

[Patticus]

That is a solid plan, but then you get alarmist, ignorant news headlines like, "Scientists want to release millions of GMO mosquitoes in South Florida!" with zero context, which make my conservative colleagues at work wrinkle their noses and bemoan the country heading, apparently, to hell in a handbasket. Again.

[Tani Coyote]

I find it amusing if it's conservatives who are anxious at GM life.

Whatever happened to taming the wilderness, improving the economic potential of the environment, etc.?

Other species are but the next frontier in human expansion.

[Patticus]

They obviously consider selective breeding and the like to be entirely different to genetic tinkering and such, but frankly the two are the same, even if the means differ.

 

We should be embracing GMO, because if nothing else we can change up the chloroplasts within our food crops to make them much more efficient and thus enable more and higher yields.

[Tani Coyote]

I can just imagine the heart attack they'd have if vertical farms got off the ground (no pun intended).

If there were large quantities of high-rise farmland on the outskirts of major cities, we'd have year-round crop production, use less pesticides, fresher food, and drastically reduced pollution from the lack of transportation from farm to city.

We'd also see huge tracts of the countryside reclaimed by nature due to the fact we could terminate most farms, never mind the dissolution of a lot of rural towns.

Though that would probably result in the demise of a large part of the GOP voter bloc so I can see why they'd be opposed to the measure.

[Patticus]

If every major city in the world could be weaned onto vertical farms, not only would mankind be much better placed to handle the worst effects of climate change, but it could also feed itself - all of it - properly and probably also turn over large tracts of land back to nature, which would be one hell of a boon to wildlife. Given that many scientists believe that we have brought on the sixth great mass extinction in the world's history, it is vital that the vertical farm concept be thoroughly road tested, due to the tremendous benefits to society that it'd confer if successful.

 

The Capitol Steps are amazing:

 

 

[Tani Coyote]

Happy 4th of July! The United States turns 239 today.

It is regretful that there wasn't a peaceful resolution to Anglo-American tensions in the late 1700s (you can blame a handful of hawks on each side hijacking discussion for that), but it fills me with joy to know that we have long since put aside our differences and co-exist peacefully.

I'm not a nationalist, but I would like to take a moment to praise George Washington. Not for military prowess; he lost most battles he engaged in. I want to praise him for surrendering his command not long after peace was signed. In the modern era, it is all to common for the leader of a revolutionary movement to seize power, but Washington did not.

But it goes back to before victory, too. Despite constant frustration with an incompetent elected body, Washington never once disobeyed their orders. When Congress relieved Washington of the need to constantly be in touch with them (they were kind of in a panic as they scrambled away from the coast, what with the British Army moving in on Philadelphia) he still opted to get their approval where he could.

He had an enormous respect for democracy, the rule of law, and for avoiding accumulation of power. It is Washington's stern commitment to serve only two terms as President that gave rise to the tradition of Presidents retiring after two terms, and later on the legal term limit.

I discuss this because of an important fact: the United States is the only pre-1945 democracy to not be overthrown by the military or any other body at some point in its history. Every President - no matter how immensely powerful many became - has honored the end of his term. And no matter how unpopular a President or Congress has been, the people and the institutions of this country have honored their right to serve until the next election. Washington arguably established a precedent that those who renounce power rather than retain it are the ones to be admired.

Before one assumes exceptionalism, I will note that the Presidential system is objectively terrible and has resulted in dictatorship or abuse of power in most countries it has been tried in; consider the fact most liberal democracies are Parliamentary in nature. It hasn't here, however, and I would argue this is in large part due to Washington's example setting the standard for the public and politicians alike.

The best part of all this is that for all we owe him for but a few small acts of honor, Washington basically insisted on being forgotten about. Such is humility.

I guess the 4th just prompted me to give some historical background to our modern democracy. And with that, good day everyone. Have a good one!

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

They obviously consider selective breeding and the like to be entirely different to genetic tinkering and such, but frankly the two are the same, even if the means differ.

 

We should be embracing GMO, because if nothing else we can change up the chloroplasts within our food crops to make them much more efficient and thus enable more and higher yields.

Not just that, but we can make food even more nutrient rich and maybe even longer lasting. Imagine what that could do for people's health, making an apple or carrot more vitamin rich and fighting off certain deficiencies in the world? Bringing more K-vitamins to those that hardly get any of it, and modifying fruits and vegetables that don't produce it to do so for that very reason?

 

If anything, we should not only be embracing GMO and vertical farming but also hydroponics as far as agriculture goes, but we might as well see how long we can hold our breaths till we get that far. Especially with the stigma toward hydroponics...

 

boy does this world let us down a lot.

[Tani Coyote]

The main drawback with vertical farming is the hugely increased energy needs.

But I think that if we use cleaner fuels this isn't as much of an issue when we look at the drastically increased amount of plant life in the countryside and the huge savings from fewer pesticides, less water waste, better health from fresher, chemical-free food, etc.

[Patticus]

A vertical farm could be blanketed with photovoltaic window film, and have a couple of wind turbines put up top. It might not totally free the building from the energy grid, but it would certainly help out a lot. It would also help protect against the energy grid going down for whatever reason.

 

 

RE: July 4th, a.k.a. Treason Day, a.k.a. Good Riddance Day

 

I find it a little sad that John Adams was a little off in his assessment that July 2nd would become Independence Day, celebrated "from one end of this continent to the other" with "pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations." He was off because on July 2nd, 1776, the Continental Congress voted for independence - the declaration was adopted on this day, but it wasn't until July 4th that it was signed. Although in actuality, given the ongoing war, the declaration's signatories weren't all there at once, as the famous John Trumbull painting of the event suggests. No, that fictionalized vision of the signing was way off. The signatories trickled in and out of Philadelphia over the course of that summer - it wasn't fully signed for some time.

 

Oh well, at least his assessment of the festivities that was spot on. For his part in the process, and despite the whole "alien and sedition" thing (which he wasn't that into anyway), he really does deserve a big ol' monument in D.C.

 

 

Oh and on another note, a lot of the depictions of the British Union Flag, in depictions of the Anglo-American Civil War and other events around or before that time, are wrong.

 

This is not the British flag you use:

 

 

This is the flag you use, because Ireland wasn't considered a part of the union at that time:

 

 

There you go.

[Tani Coyote]

Perhaps it's for the best July 2nd wasn't adopted. July 2nd is the exact center of the year.

The United States already has a problem of feeling itself the center of space, it doesn't need to be the center of time as well!

I will say I've always pondered what might have happened had the American Revolution not transpired. Its occurrence is largely an accident since most people on both sides were hopeful for a compromise; a few American hawks' letters to each other, however, found their way into British hawk hands, and the rest is history.

I can't help but imagine a scenario where a Dominion-esque status was granted. Where the real impact of the revolution comes from is the ripples, though: without the American Revolution, France doesn't go into debt and the monarchy likely survives a while longer. If the French monarchy lasts, Napoleon doesn't destabilize the political order, which means Latin America remains Iberian (never mind, without the example of the United States as a successful colonial revolution, other revolts might not have been so bold). On top of that, nationalist and republican ideals don't spread across Europe like wildfire. America provided the powder, but it was France that lit the keg of modern democratic and national ideals.

America's real contribution to modern history is the dominoes that fell as a result of French debt and (to a lesser extent) the idea that a colonial nation could successfully defeat a European empire.

[Patticus]

Ogilvie, I hope you know that you've opened a massive can of worms.

 

If there had been no independent USA, which would have required many events previously to not have happened, or to have happened differently (the English Civil War, for example, which taught the colonies how to be independent), the British Empire would not have focused on India. There would have been a British presence, certainly, but with the North American colonies remaining British, the focus would probably have been on kicking the other great powers out of that arena and taking all of North America, instead securing dominion over the Indian subcontinent and then some. That would have totally changed the 19th century, particularly as in reality Britain learned valuable lessons in maintaining an empire from the loss of its most valuable American territories - lessons which allowed its power to grow and keep its colonies from breaking away. This may not have happened if the American colonies had remained loyal to the crown, or would have happened differently. There might still have been an American war for independence, taking place a few decades later than yours, across a larger area, possibly resulting in the complete expulsion of Britain from North America - Canada and all falling to the Liberty Armies.

 

America could easily have become independent peacefully though, most likely around the time Canada did in the 1850s, and the spread of its territory would have gone differently too. With a monarchical France still in the game, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, and we probably would have seen more re-runs of the Seven Years' War further west. With no Napoleonic Wars to keep Britain distracted in Europe, the Duke of Wellington would have been sent to America, to quell any uprisings and handle the French and Spanish threats in the west. Hell, it would've been interesting to see the Duke of Wellington enter the War of 1812 in the Americas, which alone might very well have turned the tide against the nascent republic.

 

Spain was an empire in steep decline at this time. While the independence movements its American holdings fell to were a success, they were protracted, bloody affairs with many atrocities committed by both sides. We can't know if they would have erupted without America and France leading the way, but they most likely would have ended up as independent states by the end of the 19th century anyway. Britain being the pussycat of the European empires, I feel that America go off lightly, compared to what would have happened if the Seven Years' War had gone the other way, and France had become the dominant power in the American arena. So, as debt ridden and corrupt as the old Spanish empire was, I don't think that the Spanish colonies would have been able to gain independence peacefully, but waiting until the end of the century could at least have meant that the Spanish arms were old and outdated, as they were when American ships encountered old, rotting Spanish galleys in the Spanish American War.

[Tani Coyote]

While I'm in agreement that the downfall of Spain was probably inevitable, I'm not as sure about the first part.

 

The West Indies and India were far more lucrative for the British Empire than the Thirteen Colonies. While the colonies were useful as an export market, the real money at the time lay in sugar plantations like those in the Caribbean.

 

The British economy was notably resilient as seen in the embargoes prior to the War of 1812; Britain didn't even flinch. The odd thing being boycotts of British goods were quite successful prior to the Revolution, though this shows how easily Britain could re-orient its trade networks.

 

It's also important to note a secondary grievance the colonies had with the Empire: the restriction of settlement west of the Appalachians. The fact Britain wasn't Manifest Destiny'ing it up shows they most likely weren't that interested in expanding the American holdings.

 

That's not to say the policy might not have changed with time, of course. Given the American status as a sole superpower in the present day, it's possible some politician with forethought might have seen the potential of the Colonies or an expanded North American presence. Napoleon saw the rise of a power that would displace Britain in the United States, so maybe some British politician would as well.

[Tani Coyote]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-wooing-vietnam-readies-red-carpet-communist-chief-050800638.html

 

Or, in which Obama actively working to curb the influence of Russia and China by going to former communist rivals with open arms is construed as weakness.

 

We all saw the rage train that left the station when he wanted to improve relations with Cuba, so I can only imagine what we'll be hearing from right wing pundits in light of this.

 

The way to spread democracy isn't to go in guns blazing, but to stimulate economic development to a point an emerging middle class demands political power.

 

Improving relations with Vietnam is a victory for both human rights as well as American international power.

[Patticus]

India's potential at the time was just that, however - potential, that wouldn't be realized until the mid 19th century. If Britain had retained its American holdings, don't you think it likely that lucrative trades like sugar would have thrived across the deep south, necessitating further expansion as British coffers filled with the profits? Cotton, another major export of the south, was also very important to British trade - so much so that the city of Liverpool grew up around it (so you can thank slavery for the Beatles!), and it played a major role in Britain almost siding with the Confederacy during the Civil War you lot had. Boy would that have had consequences! British naval vessels bombarding New York and D.C., Yankee armies distracted trying to guard against attacks from the north as well as the south...

 

Now, the Civil War. You can say it was about this and that, but it was largely fought over slavery, and we've already discussed that. But what happens when America's British governors begin banning it in 1807, when Britain abolished it? Seems like the next most likely spark for a war for independence, among certain colonies at least, would have been then.

[shdowhunt60]

Mmm. Have to wonder what HK Edgerton thinks of all this going on with people trying to tear down the Confederate Flag.