You'll be surprised how quickly funding becomes available when it pertains to shipping homeless people to another jurisdiction. But if it's legalized across the US that wouldn't be an issue, right?
I'm doing a lot of research on Cuba this semester, so Marx has often come up and he's been on my mind lately New book coming out that many might be interested in. I found the author to be really insightful in this interview, thought I'd share: http://www.vox.com/conversations/20...ism-capitalism-communism-europe-neoliberalism
This shit should so thoroughly be fireable. No patience nor tolerance for this kind of toxic bullshit.
really though, there's a lot of mischaracterization going on in that article especially the interviewer - almost every word he puts down is silly. just terrible. the interviewee has clearly read more marx than the interviewer (who may have finished most of the communist manifesto audiobook)... but if his conclusion is that "marxism is stalin and we can control capitalism with politics!" then maybe he really hasn't
Small town police departments will happily pay a greyhound ticket to rid their streets of undesirables.
Trump Has Moved To Dismantle Criminal Justice Reform In His First 100 Days A new report explains how the president’s vision of America could lead to rollbacks. Spoiler By Julia Craven Donald Trump painted a dark picture of America, a nation where “crime and gangs and drugs” are causing “American carnage” in its cities. The address echoed Trump’s campaign, in which he sold increases in homicides in a handful of cities as a nationwide crime wave and presented “more law enforcement, more community engagement and more effective policing” as the solution to a nonexistent problem. A report released Thursday by the Brennan Center for Justice lists a few ways in which Trump’s vision of America, along with policies put forth by his administration, could lead to widespread rollbacks in criminal justice reform. “Trump’s dark portrait of America, however, comes at a time when the national crime rate is near historic lows ― 42 percent below what it was in 1997,” the report reads. “As his first 100 days near an end, what has the president done to address crime and criminal justice? And what can the country expect in the weeks and months ahead?” Here are a few ways, as outlined in the Brennan Center report. Fear mongering to justify a return to tough-on-crime policies Trump, who often presented himself as a “law and order” candidate in his campaign, has made repeated false claims about murder rates even though crime remained at near-historic lows in 2016. The report says that Trump’s logic in warning of a supposed rise in crime is linked to his immigration stance. “By finally enforcing our immigration laws we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars and make our communities safer for everyone,” Trump said in an address to Congress in February. He has painted calls for police reform as “anti-law enforcement.” In July, Trump accused the Black Lives Matter movement of stoking violence against cops after five law enforcement officers were killed in Dallas. Trump also supports reimplementing “stop and frisk,” a policy that violates the constitutional rights of citizens by allowing unwarranted police searches ― particularly of black and Latinx people. Trump has also claimed that too much scrutiny of police departments has resulted in a “war on police.” “Trump and his new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, insist that they must ‘Make America Safe Again,’ citing outside forces that have brought in drugs and violence ― justifying a travel ban, a border wall with Mexico and mass deportations,” the report reads. “The administration has also issued several executive orders focused on combatting this phantom crime wave, without offering solutions to solve the real and serious localized problems of violence in Chicago and Baltimore.” Trump has already signed three executive orders expanding the powers of federal law enforcement agencies ― including allowing the Department of Homeland Security to utilize “all necessary and lawful action to break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation.” The Justice Department Has Moved To Stop Policing The Police Sessions is cynical of widespread police reform and civil rights investigations into departments. He has spoken out against consent decrees and sees “bad apples” as the reason for police misconduct rather than systemic failures. To Sessions, the government shouldn’t be “dictating to local police how to do their jobs” or dishing out “scarce federal resources” to sue cities. Under Sessions, the Justice Department will “pull back” on investigations that he believes diminish the effectiveness of police departments. The Brennan Center report also notes that local police departments could evolve into a way for the government to enforce its immigration policies in sanctuary cities. “Historically, the Justice Department has played a key role overseeing and regulating civil rights violations committed by local police departments. … Sessions outright rejects this role for the federal government, labeling it as part of a broader ‘war on police,’” the report says. “He has directed a review of all existing consent decrees and attempted to stall pending agreements. This trend will likely continue, potentially emboldening police departments to become more aggressive.” Sessions Could Restart A War On Drugs And Bring Back ’90s Crime Policies Sessions isn’t a fan of criminal justice reform. Like Trump, he may part with the bulk of conservatives and require federal prosecutors to seek the most extreme charge in every case they try, which could lead to the revival of mandatory minimum laws for relatively low-level, nonviolent offenses. This ideology, in many ways, contradicts a number of conservatives who have joined progressives in the stance that criminal justice reform is needed because too many Americans are incarcerated. “Since taking office, Sessions has given several speeches calling for a return to harsher federal charging policies, and issued memoranda directing U.S. Attorneys to stand by for such major policy shifts,” the report says. “Sessions could revoke key [Attorney General Eric] Holder-era initiatives, directing federal prosecutors to pursue maximum penalties in drug cases even in states where marijuana is legal. Notably, the administration has shown interest in expanding treatment options for opioid addiction, which disproportionately affects white, rural communities, while increased marijuana prosecutions would more affect communities of color.” Rod Rosenstein, Trump’s choice to be deputy attorney general, is another fan of mandatory minimum sentences (even though the report says he has claimed they can be excessive in some cases). Eric Dreiband, who could be nominated to run the Justice Department’s civil rights division, opposes “ban the box” reform, named for the criminal history check box on job applications, which would delay criminal background checks and focus hiring on a person’s qualifications. Richard Baum, the acting drug czar, defended the “war on drugs” in 2001. Steven Cook, a prosecutor who opposes sentencing reform, was appointed by Sessions to run the new Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, which would guide the country’s approach to violent crime. Cook and Sessions are planning to prosecute a higher number of drug and gun cases while pursuing mandatory minimums, according to The Washington Post, signaling a desire to reinstitute the war on drugs and “tough on crime” policies. full report can be read at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...29ce4b070a1174fdb6a?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
What life is like on welfare dk essay pussies By Emeraldkat Wednesday Apr 19, 2017 · 2:44 PM CDT 2017/04/19 · 14:44 This is an incredibly personal story, but thanks to recent articles on TANF and what happens to people on welfare in Mississippi, I feel the need to share it finally. I live in Colorado, which has tended to be fairly progressive, even though we are a swing state. My daughter was only 15 months old when this happened and she is now 15 years old. Spoiler When I was 18, I met an older guy, well much older. He was incredibly charming but I wasn't dumb. I knew better. I thought I was in love, but I was also pragmatic enough to know that men his age love having pretty, young girls on their arm. So I did the only thing I thought would save me if he didn't feel the same: I moved across the state from him. However, within 9 months, he had moved to be with me. So I gave him a shot. He made decent money and took care of me. We partied. A lot. At 20, I had our daughter, but I thought it was fine. He seemed overjoyed at being a dad for the first time. I, in turn, decided that for our daughter to have the best life, I needed to stop all my drinking and other nonsense. So by the time I knew I was pregnant, I had settled down quite a bit. I played the housewife role, even though we weren't married. I stayed home with my daughter to nurse her and teach her. However, he must've felt betrayed in some way by my sudden change of lifestyle. No longer did I want to go out and party. I wanted to be with our daughter and make a family life. So he started having people over, but that doesn't work well when you have a baby that needs attention. So he started going to parties without me. One day, he left for work in the morning, and he never came home. He had the bank accounts, our only car, everything of monetary value. I couldn't even pay for groceries, let alone all our bills. I was starving. I was desperate and alone. So after a good, long 'poor me' cry, I got angry. I decided I would never allow my child to be put in the state I found myself. I applied to a local community college. I got financial aid and I even got a job working in the IT department of the school. I found help for childcare. I applied for everything I could think of to make things turn out differently. Welfare was one of those things. Now I had heard all the stories about welfare we hear on the news and online. People are given handouts so vast they can get video games, eat lobster, buy new cars, and even fancy houses. Well was I in for a shock. It took 3 long, desperate, scary days to get approved. And let me tell you, when you have literally nothing, 3 days can seem like months. I didn't eat for the 4 days previous to my application. By the time it got approved, it had been more than a full week. I was nursing still, but luckily she was 15 months old so I wasn't her only source of nourishment. I was packing my things up to move from the place I could no longer pay for (and lucky for me the landlord's wife took pity on me for my predicament and let me out of our lease with only the security deposit taken), when the call came that I was approved for TANF. "Congratulations!" I heard the voice declare. "You've been approved for the max weekly benefits." I thought it was my saving grace. I swore that if god exists, this was his doing. I was in for a rude awakening. When I went that same afternoon to pickup my benefits card, my case worker met with me to sign the agreement. It was like signing your life away. They gave a massive list of rules I had to follow while on it. They said I couldn't get help for more than 6 months. I was allowed to leave the program voluntarily at any point I wished. If I was found to be lying about anything, I could be jailed or even be denied any state or federal assistance for life. Then came the real shock. She handed me my benefits card and said I'd get a weekly deposit starting that same day as long as I was on the program. She also mentioned that the absentee parent must pay back all funds within 6 months, but that I shouldn't worry about that. Then she told me my benefits amount: $49. All that paperwork and proof of your life and money and everything, for $49 a week! I wasn't even sure that would feed and put diapers on my kid for that amount. But I was starved. So I took it greedily. I only had a month before my job started, school started, and my grants would come through. I thought one month won't hurt me and I should be able to pay it back without too many issues. So I went about getting whatever few necessities I could for the week and hoped it would last. I also had WICK and though I never needed the formula, I would get it and sometimes use it instead of milk in cereal or other cooking. I figured those two programs together would help ensure I'd make it until school started. My dad helped me get a cheap car. Things were starting to look up. Then my second week on the program, I got a call from my case worker. She told me that she had found out my daughter's father was hiding out from both of the court cases (I was required to get a child support and custody hearing before I could even apply for TANF). But she said that it shouldn't be an issue still. I was worried though. Because I had just gotten my financial aid receipts and because I hadn't been in school before, I couldn't qualify for work-study grants until after my first semester. So I asked my case worker, will I have to pay this back? She said no. A month of scrimping and starving went by. School finally started. I got my check from my leftover financial aid. I cancelled my TANF benefits the day I got my check. I did well in school. Life went on. In the spring, I finally got my work-study grant and could take that job I'd been waiting on. It was hard to work outside the college, what with the weird class schedules and a baby to take care of. So that eased my load a ton. Now I simply dropped my kid off in the morning, went to class, then worked, then picked her up again, ate dinner together, then dropped her off at a second daycare around 6pm, and went to night classes. It was a struggle. Even with perfect A's in every class, finding scholarships was stupidly hard. Federal Aid was the only thing that saved me. Then around the fall of my second year, I get this nasty looking envelope from social services. It said that repayments had not been made in a timely manner. All attempts at correspondence had been ignored (even though this was the first time I had gotten a letter). It said that more than I owed more than $450 to them for TANF payments. That the extra were court fees that were incurred. It also gave vague threats of loss of financial aid and other benefits if it wasn't repaid within 30 days. I immediately called my old case worker. She explained that since my daughter's father was not found and they weren't even sure he was still in the country, that it fell on me now to repay the costs of them trying to get him to repay my TANF benefits. That the court costs were not all listed there. I actually owed them now more than $2500. She affirmed I could lose all aid for childcare and schooling if I refused to pay it. I was heartbroken. A month of starvation and determination and yes, just about $200 of taxpayer money, and now I owed more than 10 times that back. If I knew then what I know now, right? So with my parents meager help, what was left of my work-study check, and a bit of savings, I got that $2500 paid within the 30 day limit. It was again a struggle. I couldn't pay my bills for the next 3 months. I only had enough for gas, food, and school supplies. I did laundry only once a month and wore clothes that were disgusting. I paid electricity ($35) one month, then the next, it might be the gas bill. It took me more than 2 years from the time I got off of TANF to finally be free of the burden it left me with. I graduated school with honors and as an officer in Phi Beta Kappa. I went to a full state university after that. But it took years off my credit ratings (thanks to not being able to meet my bill payments), my savings, and time spent with my child. All of those things can never be fixed fully. And yet, somehow, welfare recipients are still hated on by conservatives, the media, and many of the public. What a laugh. If you'd ask me now if I'd still take that tiny benefit, my immediate response is no... but there is that small voice. That quiet, honest, and painfully sorrowful voice in my heart that says "if you have no choice, than how can you say no?"
I'm familiar with Eagleton's work on theology but haven't read this. Will check it out yeah I think there's fair criticism that the author of that book is claiming to give a historical account of Marx's thinking, but ends up cherrypicking and refining Marx's thinking into a modern package with a neat bow on it
I've been a long-time advocate of a tax on land. It'll never happen, but in theory you'd encourage people to put their land to work, or sell it, rather than just sit on it. But I don't think land-use laws are necessarily bad. I mean Houston is an example of laissez-faire planning, and its an environmental catastrophe. Portland is the opposite, a very highly-regulated community that turned out pretty well. These sorts of regulations can be used to varying ends. I do kinda agree, though, that NIMBYism from landowners can be really bad. And TBH that's just as big a problem in left-leaning communities as right-leaning ones. Some of the biggest rentier-style land use restrictions are in coastal, northern California where well-off former hippies drive up their own home prices by restricting supply.
to be fair, even academics that consider themselves to be marxist fight bitterly over interpretation/modern application (most recently andrew kliman & david harvey on the falling rate of profit) because there is a lot to read and digest, yet he died before he could finish all of capital (not to mention over 100 years ago). and then self-proclaimed "marxian economists" (as if that is a real thing) and assorted "leftists" muddy the waters even more so. and then you have the folks from the early-mid 20th century and their... questionable ideas the sum of the anti-capitalist left literature is incoherent for a lot of reasons, and to seriously read marx you need to have some background on where he's coming from (smith/ricardo/hegel/feuerbach/etc) and who he criticizes (stirner/proudhon/bauer/anarchists in general/etc) and why. so doing this interview/book well is an impossible task unless you sit them down and yell "read marx, not marxists" which is not realistic time commitment to demand but then again it doesn't matter i guess because he's clear that all this theory (nor anything that "leftists" or economists project onto his theory) doesn't cause revolutions, only material conditions do in summary nothing matters, eat arbys
the purity piss test is so fucking stupid, esp from a minority party. (but fuck off Zell Miller and his ilk) but do not chase the votes of racist or supporting racist policies
i thought "marxian" referred specifically to his critique of capitalism and "marxist/marxism" was the whole shebang
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...did-in-1975/?tid=sm_Fb&utm_term=.dc51e999fb00 The average millennial worker makes less than the average baby boomer did in 1975 Over the past four decades, young American workers saw their average incomes decline by 5.5 percent after adjusting for inflation, according to new figures published Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1975, workers aged 25 to 34 had a median personal income of $37,000 in modern dollar terms. In 2016, that number was down to $35,000. Earnings have declined despite the fact that today's young people are better educated than 40 years ago. Thirty-seven percent of young people had a bachelor's degree last year, compared to 22.8 percent in 1975. ... The stagnant fortunes of young people comes amid broad overall gains for the American since 1975. Median personal income for all Americans has increased from about $23,000 in 1975 to $30,000 today in 2015 dollars. (Those figures include many retirees and students.)
im not sure what the custom for that is - but im mostly referring to the likes of richard wolff, yanis varoufakis, david harvey, and other "marxian economists" that simply advocate for standard bourgeois economics with added moralizing ("its outrageous that there are more empty homes than homeless", etc), something marx took great steps to not advocate
War college podcast has an episode from last week called "the baby boomers were not heroes". Basically talks about the lengths baby boomers went to get out of Vietnam and how our military has basically has become the poor, black and brown because of it.
Yep. Those who were affluent or college bound could get repeat deferrals or otherwise game the system, while those of lesser means had to ship off to war. A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America has a chapter or two on it.
a pie to the face is really the best i think there are specific laws in some places here about pieing a public official
Bernie Sanders should join the Democratic Party if he truly wants to influence the party's views. Bernie is the most popular politician in the country, lending his popularity to a group of people that aim to achieve his goals, but not necessarily as fast as Bernie wants would seem a step in the right direction.