Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
No, but like all things we aren't owed that are in our mutual interest, mutual among they who should and those who do, ...We aren't owed it. Gets closer to the feel.
No, but like all things we aren't owed that are in our mutual interest, mutual among they who should and those who do, ...We aren't owed it. Gets closer to the feel.
The SC wouldn't determine the details, no. They never do. They say, "this isn't right. Fix it." As for whether it's comparable to Brown v Board of Education, that's an interesting question. I might have to think about it more, but the answer might well be, "yes, it is similar." I was also reading something recently about the school busing fights that happened in Boston in the '70s (literal fights, in some cases). That was primarily about race, as Brown v Board was, but funding surely played into it, as the schools that were being integrated were in working-class neighborhoods that probably didn't have money coming out of their ears.Is the Supreme Court the governing body that should be determining the details of school funding? Is that a comparable situation to Brown v Board of Education?
Public education is funded out of property taxes. Wealthy people just send their kids to private schools.US educaction is funded out of local property taxes !?
You're right, yes, but let's not kid ourselves. Scalia was a Harvard Law School graduate, nominated to the Court by President Reagan, who championed the utterly boneheaded philosophy of "textualism" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution (some people call him an "originalist", but iirc, he didn't like that term). He was as conservative a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of guy as there's ever been. And if there's a boot on your neck, you just have to try harder. fwiw, I think there may have been a racial component to the case about the two schools, because the poorer town/district was predominantly Latino and the wealthier town/district was predominantly White. I don't recall whether or how Scalia address that. Obviously he must have found some way to skirt it or stiff-arm it aside, or the case might have run headfirst into Brown v Board in the same way Dobbs necessarily refuted Roe v Wade. It could have been as simple as asserting that racism must be deliberate effort and not merely a result of circumstances.My suspicion is that he said that they don't have a constitutional right to equal education, which makes it a legislative problem not a court problem. It's not easy, because we've started seeing the courts as a mechanism by which Our Betters descend from On High to correct legislators and force them to actually behave like well-intentioned adults. But the actual intention of the courts is to clarify laws that can't possibly be clarified sufficiently well during the legislative process. Americans are in deep trouble, because 'Activist Judges' was recognized as part of the winning game by the Right, and so a minority of the population foisted judges onto the populace that then forces people to obey rules written by an Elite Few.
My suspicion is that he said that they don't have a constitutional right to equal education, which makes it a legislative problem not a court problem. It's not easy, because we've started seeing the courts as a mechanism by which Our Betters descend from On High to correct legislators and force them to actually behave like well-intentioned adults. But the actual intention of the courts is to clarify laws that can't possibly be clarified sufficiently well during the legislative process. Americans are in deep trouble, because 'Activist Judges' was recognized as part of the winning game by the Right, and so a minority of the population foisted judges onto the populace that then forces people to obey rules written by an Elite Few.
All the 50/50 close elections for the last 20+ years is itself awfully suspicious.Ezra Klein:
![]()
Opinion | Three Theories That Explain This Strange Moment
Calcification, political parity and cultural backlash brought us where we are.www.nytimes.com
If your issue is "too many people are voting and this leads to less desirable outcomes because people aren't smart enough to vote for the right things" (paraphrasing), then yes, you are. The suggestions I outlined can help lead to maximal voter engagement. They raise turnout (and the quality of voter decisions). It fixes the problems you were complaining about. Are you therefore saying you support these suggestions?
Speaking of responding with insults. Bit unnecessary, don't you think? I don't think my post was at all unreasonable.
[...]
I disagree. Refusing to take part in a corrupt system does not confer approval on the system. Not voting, to me, says "I refuse to take part in this and thereby lend it legitimacy"Not voting is a vote. It says, "I'd support either of the two." Any winning candidate can consider themself to have received all the votes they got, plus all the uncast votes.
I will admit I made a mistake with my original phrasing. I apologise if that is how it came across. For the record though, I never said "IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote". I think it is bad for people to be poorly informed or misinformed and then vote. It would seem bad for a democracy if elections are ultimately decided by voters who have been either poorly informed or outright lied to and manipulated.Well, better to insult one person than half of all people. And better to be dumb than to be the sort of person who thinks IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote.
I'm reminded of William Buckley, one of the biggest *******s in modern American history, who in debate with James Baldwin said the problem is not that too few "Negroes" vote, but that too many whites do.
I will admit I made a mistake with my original phrasing. I apologise if that is how it came across. For the record though, I never said "IQ is intelligence, or that it's bad for people they consider beneath themselves to vote". I think it is bad for people to be poorly informed or misinformed and then vote. It would seem bad for a democracy if elections are ultimately decided by voters who have been either poorly informed or outright lied to and manipulated.
I would push the origins of the evenly divided situation back to the Vietnam war and how it split the country and especially the boomers. The older generations were already conservative leaning. Regan 's popularity reinforced it politically. Talk radio of the 90s and onward cemented it in place preventing more liberal views from dominating. Gay rights and women's rights still managed to struggle through to become normalized. It is the fairly even split among boomers that have given the conservatives so much influence in the past 20 years. Talk radio has persuaded many men that being liberal is being "gay" and weak and anti American. As we die off, I expect you all will see a swing to left.All the 50/50 close elections for the last 20+ years is itself awfully suspicious.
Have the conspiracy theorists looked into it?
Or have the two flavors of politician gotten so good at hugging our average line?
Quite often it's mostly "they made it systemically more difficult for people like me to vote so less of us do".Not voting is a vote. It says, "I'd support either of the two." Any winning candidate can consider themself to have received all the votes they got, plus all the uncast votes.
Quite often it's mostly "they made it systemically more difficult for people like me to vote so less of us do".
I would push the origins of the evenly divided situation back to the Vietnam war and how it split the country and especially the boomers. The older generations were already conservative leaning. Regan 's popularity reinforced it politically. Talk radio of the 90s and onward cemented it in place preventing more liberal views from dominating. Gay rights and women's rights still managed to struggle through to become normalized. It is the fairly even split among boomers that have given the conservatives so much influence in the past 20 years. Talk radio has persuaded many men that being liberal is being "gay" and weak and anti American. As we die off, I expect you all will see a swing to left.
extreme liberals (Jane Fonda types)
This should be a disclaimer at the top of every thread here.It can be frustrating though to (try) to say one thing and then everyone jumps to putting words in my mouth. If there's confusion, it's okay to just ask questions before jumping to statements (what did you mean when you said...? vs. so what you're saying is...)
I dunno it reads like the kinda thing people will stop abiding by once they convince themselves the people they disagree with don't deserve itThis should be a disclaimer at the top of every thread here.![]()
I've never said anything about putting up barriers to voting or stopping people from voting, nor am I suggesting voting is "bad". I agree, everyone should be allowed to have a say. Not sure if this is a good analogy but perhaps look at it as akin to informed consent ahead of a medical procedure. Is it not important that people are fully informed on what they are signing up for or is it only important that they show up on time? Maybe we are just talking about different things entirely.I think my issue is that the concern about level of informedness implies this is about some correct or good outcome that can be achieved by people making good choices on the basis of some sufficient degree of knowledge or information.
But again, voting isn’t good because it leads to optimal outcomes in some utilitarian or consequentialist sense. Voting is good because a society in which the people do not have a say in what happens in their lives is an unjust one. All that should matter in this question is that every person who is affected by a social decision, and who is interested in inputting their say in the process, is freely and easily able to do so. And so then the challenge isn’t in paternalistically “informing below-average people adequately,” or whatever, but in ensuring that voting is as free, fair, and accessible as possible.
Yes, people know their own interests, but how can people effectively vote based on those interests if they're not fully informed on how candidates may or may not advance their interests? Is it a "free and fair" election if voters haven't been fully informed about what they are voting on? I seem to recall a lot of people had concerns about Russian misinformation in recent US elections, but if all that matters is voter turnout, then why care about misinformation? Not asking you to answer any of this, mostly just rhetorical. And like I said above, I'm not trying to put up barriers, I just disagree with the idea that a high voter turnout alone is a sign of a good electionFair enough, I reasoned that from what you said implying that intelligence is a numerical variable following a normal distribution, which is how IQ is supposed to work. But I would echo @schlaufuchs here and say that my view of the matter is that voting is not about "being informed" or whatever, it is about having your interest represented, and ultimately people know their own interests, and who to vote for to further those interests, better than someone else does.
This doesn't mean I think more people voting is necessarily good (as a good communist™ I'm not exactly enamored of bourgeois democracy), but at the very least there should be as few barriers as practicable in place if someone does choose to vote.
It kind of doesn't matter, for two different branches.Yes, people know their own interests, but how can people effectively vote based on those interests if they're not fully informed on how candidates may or may not advance their interests? Is it a "free and fair" election if voters haven't been fully informed about what they are voting on? I seem to recall a lot of people had concerns about Russian misinformation in recent US elections, but if all that matters is voter turnout, then why care about misinformation? Not asking you to answer any of this, mostly just rhetorical. And like I said above, I'm not trying to put up barriers, I just disagree with the idea that a high voter turnout alone is a sign of a good election