All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[PaulBullion]

You seem to be under the impression that an organization or a movement is defined by its name, and nothing else. If you accepted that in other contexts, there would be major political implications as it shuts down a lot of discussion if we unquestionably accept the premise of every group's name.

No one could disagree with the pro-life movement, because everyone likes life.

No one could call for restrictions against North Korea because it calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea, so opposing it is equivalent to standing against democracy and Koreans.

By this logic, there's nothing wrong with the alt-right (which is somewhat analogous to Antifa in that there isn't any leadership hierarchy and that different segments are largely autonomous), because they simply want an alternative to the mainstream political right wing.

"An organization or a movement."

"A computer or a cheese grater."

"A man or a bicycle."

[Tami]

Do you believe that because North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea, if you are opposed to the country, you dislike Democracy and Koreans?

Likewise is the alt-right everyone who is conservative but pissed off at the establishment of the Republican party?



Powell has endorsed the Democratic candidate in the previous three elections. It's not surprising that someone who backed Obama over Romney would also back Biden over Trump.

Notably Colin Powell in @jaketapper interview doesn’t just eviscerate Trump for lying, dividing and threatening the Constitution, but also condemns GOP lawmakers for not speaking up and acting. “We’re not a country of just a president. We have a Congress. We have a Supreme Court”

Twitter Link Powell isn't just voting Democrat, he's P.O.'s at the Republicans in government.

As for the other, I do get that a group can call themselves 'The High Holy Worshipers of the Sacred Constitution' and still be a violent extremist group out to kill anyone whose skin color isn't as pale as a pearl and/or whose last name isn't West Germanic.

However, most groups do tend to name themselves as they see themselves. If there is any confusion, there are plenty of books and articles written on various political groups that give clear definitions or assessments of these groups and how they see themselves.

[aja_christopher]

I'm not so much "antifa" as I am "f***fascistslikeforever".

[Mister Mets]

"Trump/DeVos budget slashes education funding"

-----

"Democratic Party on Education"

Party Platform -- "Reduce class size, modernize facilities, hire new teachers"

We need to put one million new teachers in our classrooms. We must reduce class size by hiring 100,000 teachers. We need to pay teachers like professionals. We should rebuild school buildings to assure students can attend schools that are modern and safe. We need to construct new schools to meet the needs of the largest generation of students in history.

We must assure that schools have the resources to meet the challenges of an increasingly diverse student population.

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/de..._education.htm

-----
"House Dems Want More Education Spending in Stimulus"

"Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are planning to propose adding more money for education aid for states in the next coronavirus relief package, a House Democratic aide told Inside Higher Ed.

Democratic lawmakers said they want to add more money for state and local governments, which face large budget shortfalls from the economic fallout from the pandemic. And Representative Bobby Scott, the Virginia Democrat who leads the education committee, said during a morning call with reporters that helping states is essential for preventing cuts to education, including higher education.

“If we don’t help states with their revenue estimates, they have to balance their budgets and -- to a large extent -- we believe it’s going to come at the expense of education, so we have to come up with state and local funding,” he said, but he didn’t mention giving higher education additional money beyond the $14 billion the CARES Act provided for higher education, which included emergency grants for students.

Democrats, who control the House, are working on their proposal for a new stimulus package, and it’s unclear if their proposal will include an amount anywhere close to the additional $46.6 billion in funding colleges and universities have said they need. Associations representing the industry also are pushing for the state aid to come with requirements to not cut state funding for higher education.

However, the aide said in a statement, “In addition to flexible state aid, House Democrats strongly believe that services like K-12 and higher education need dedicated funding. Just as in the CARES Act, we will provide dedicated education funding in addition to state and local fiscal relief.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/quick...nding-stimulus

-----
"Democratic candidates seek a big and unprecedented K-12 funding boost"

"Democratic presidential candidates are proposing new approaches to the federal government’s role in public education.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders want to triple the US$15 billion spent annually on Title I, a program that sends extra federal dollars to school districts that educate a high percentage of poor children.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to go further and quadruple funding for that same program.

Other candidates have similar proposals to substantially increase funding for public education, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn’t yet issued his education platform, or indicated where he stands on federal K-12 funding.

Funding increases of this scale would transform the federal role in education policy, making it easier for school districts to pay teachers higher wages while reducing class sizes. This focus on funding would mark a departure from previous administrations, which instead emphasized policies intended to increase accountability and strengthen teacher evaluation.

Federal funding has never surpassed 10% of total public school funding, except from 2010 to 2012 when the federal government sought to reduce the school spending cuts brought about during the [Republican-initiated] Great Recession."

https://www.insidehighered.com/quick...nding-stimulus

It's very easy to talk past one another if terms like smaller class sizes are not defined.

If you want classes of less than ten people to be the norm, that is a very different policy discussion than wanting classes with about 20 students each.

We could probably get to significantly smaller classrooms, by reprioritizing current spending.

The state with the lowest spending per student is Arizona, at about $4,077 a student for instruction (with an additional $3,105 allocated per student for support services.)

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...upil-data.html

That leaves over $80,000 an year to pay for the teachers for those 20 students. I get there are complicating factors (average spending doesn't indicate disparities between wealthier and poorer districts, teachers have prep time so you'll always need more than one teacher per class, etc.) but this is a different discussion than whether we should have classes with 3-10 students.

[Kirby101]

I suspect that most people recognize that antifa does not refer solely to everyone opposed to an authoritarian political system that peaked prior to World War II.

The idea that the slogan is all that matters would mean that one should definitely be on the side of the pro-life movement, and that one would only be against North Korea (AKA "Democratic People's Republic of Korea") if they don't like Democracy or Koreans.

Which doesn't discount that Trump is a fascist.

[aja_christopher]

"Trump Tax Cuts Helped Billionaires Pay Less Taxes Than The Working Class In 2018"

"For the first time in American history, the 400 wealthiest people paid a lower tax rate than any other group, according to a new study by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman at the University of California, Berkeley.

The startling data was brought to light on Monday in a New York Times column, and is based on an analysis by Saez and Zucman in their new book, The Triumph Of Injustice. Some critics of the new research say that the data is skewed, or even potentially wrong. However, the fact that the ultra-rich potentially pay a lower tax rate than the working class is a massive problem. The Trump administration’s tax cuts for the wealthy highlight the fact that policy is moving in the wrong direction. Especially when there’s worry of a potential recession.

Bill Gates agrees and has previously said, “There’s no doubt that what we want government to do in terms of better education and better health care means that we need to collect more in taxes. And there’s no doubt that as we raise taxes, we can have most of that additional money come from those who are better off... I need to pay higher taxes.”

Our schools lag those of other countries (the U.S. ranks 30th in math and 19th in science), our citizens are less healthy (the U.S. ranks 26th in life expectancy and 29th in infant mortality), and Americans are unhappy (the U.S. ranks 19th in happiness). Improving our schools, health care, and well-being all require a large collective investment in the form of taxes.

One worrying trend however, is the fact that views of taxation are increasingly falling along political party lines. The breakdown between Republicans and Democrats is fairly even among income brackets until you get to incomes below $30,000, at which point more identify as Democrats. This leads me to believe that an outsized portion of low-income Republicans still believe that the present federal tax system is very or moderately fair.

This comes into conflict with the reams of data available to show that the system is, after all, not fair. Income inequality is widening to record levels and there’s no reason to believe the trend will slow down.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the largest tax overhaul in over three decades. It was rushed through congress and it’s working exactly as it was intended to do so: to line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the working class. Optically, it was championed as a way to boost the economy, but the fact is that unemployment was already low and the cuts came amidst a long bull market.

The tax cuts are deficit-financed which, according to William Gale, the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy at Brookings, means that “resources will be taken away from future generations as well as today’s working class.” In the past, we’ve seen that the government can create innovations like the 401(k), so clearly, it’s possible to pass tax reform that will actually help the average person.

A more fair tax system isn’t intended to curb income inequality, but rather make sure that billionaires pay their fair share for public works and shared resources. The very same resources they rely on to build their companies. Shrinking inequality would simply be a nice side-effect.

If nothing else, it’s clear that there’s a taxation problem in America and the current solution is only making it worse. I don’t know about you, but fair isn’t the word that I would use to describe a system in which those with the most contribute the least, by virtue of lower tax rates.

But the data shows a lot of you disagree, and it might be due to the fact that you didn’t realize the current system really only benefits those at the very top.

Now we know."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilom...class-in-2018/

[PaulBullion]

[Deleted.]

It's a mood.

[aja_christopher]

It's a mood.

Took about ten seconds to find some relevant Repbulican social darwinism.

Instead of arguing with those who can find it themselves.

[MiddleMan]

It's very easy to talk past one another if terms like smaller class sizes are not defined.

If you want classes of less than ten people to be the norm, that is a very different policy discussion than wanting classes with about 20 students each.

We could probably get to significantly smaller classrooms, by reprioritizing current spending.

The state with the lowest spending per student is Arizona, at about $4,077 a student for instruction (with an additional $3,105 allocated per student for support services.)

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...upil-data.html

That leaves over $80,000 an year to pay for the teachers for those 20 students. I get there are complicating factors (average spending doesn't indicate disparities between wealthier and poorer districts, teachers have prep time so you'll always need more than one teacher per class, etc.) but this is a different discussion than whether we should have classes with 3-10 students.

find me a public school teacher who isn't using their own money to buy supplies for their classes/students

take the money out of police budgets and put it in education and you fix a lot of these problems

and when this administration is done, bring DeVos in front of a Congressional panel and demand answers

then charge her with criminal malfeasance and defrauding in various states where she has slashed budgets to funnel money to private schools

[Jack Dracula]

Some news from my corner of the forest:

Trump announced a reduction in troop numbers in Germany:



https://twitter.com/Julie_C_Smith/st...887325698?s=20

I hope this does not affect my friend who works as a translator on a US base.


Video of Merkel calling George Floyd's killing a racist murder, while acknowledging that Germany has to look at its own racism as well.

He just keeps helping Russia. Possibly in exchange for Putin's continued help until November.

find me a public school teacher who isn't using their own money to buy supplies for their classes/students

You're likely corresponding with one there.

[Tami]

CDC: 19% Of Americans Have Put Bleach On Food To Kill Coronavirus, How Instead To Keep Food Clean

There are some simple things that you can do to stay safe. Such as look both ways before you cross the street. Don’t use a toaster while taking a bath. Oh, and don’t eat or drink bleach.

The last piece of advice should be relatively straightforward, because after all, you are not a toilet bowl. Yet, according to survey results just published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 39% of the Americans surveyed have done high-risk things with household cleaners in attempts to stay safe from the Covid-19 coronavirus. Yeah, when people encourage you to take risks in life, this is probably not what they mean.

These high-risk activities included drinking or gargling diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, and other cleaning and disinfectant solutions, which 4% of the survey respondents said they have done. (A total of 502 adults were administered the Internet-based survey on May 4.) It also including trying to clean their hands or skin (18%) or misting their bodies (10%) with household cleaning and disinfectant products. There was also the 6% that have inhaled the vapors of such products, even though such products are not bacon or fresh-baked cookies.These are all no-no’s, as in “noooooo.”

But the most common high-risk thing to do was applying bleach to food items such as fruits and vegetables, which 19% did. Umm, don’t do this. Your food isn’t a bathroom tile. You can’t just apply bleach to food and then expect to wipe it off completely. Anything that you put on food could potentially seep into the food and eventually make it into your mouth, assuming that’s where you end up putting your food.

[XPac]

CDC: 19% Of Americans Have Put Bleach On Food To Kill Coronavirus, How Instead To Keep Food Clean

For what it's worth, putting bleach in drinking water to make it safe is a thing. Though it's an incredibly small diluted amount.

BUt yeah... cleaning food with bleach probably isn't a great idea.

[Tami]

Screenshot_2020-06-07 Steven Beschloss on Twitter This is where we are We turn to the valuable k.jpg

Twitter Link

[shooshoomanjoe]

"Majority of Republicans Say Colleges Are Bad for America (Yes, Really)"

"The United States of America were much less divided just two years ago, when the majority of citizens largely agreed on some fundamental beliefs across party lines. Of those, that higher education leads to a better nation.

But in 2017, where it seems even nonpartisan issues and institutions have become boxed into sets of beliefs based on the major parties' political agendas, stark divisions have been drawn on everything from the media to colleges and universities.

A Pew Research Center survey published Monday revealed voters have grown apart in their support of secondary education since the 2016 presidential election season, when a majority of Democratic and Republican Americans agreed the nation's universities serve as a benefit for the U.S. Whereas 54 percent of Republicans said "colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country" in 2015, the majority now believe the opposite, with 58 percent saying such institutions negatively impact the state of the union.

As Republicans took to the campaign trails last year, with many candidates vowing to reverse course on former President Barack Obama's student loan protections and his administration's push for college affordability, voters identifying with the party sharply began to withdraw their support from universities altogether.

Forty-five percent of Republicans said they believed colleges and universities had a negative impact on the U.S. in 2016, compared with just 37 percent the year prior."

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...ke-news-634474

I've always thought that the GOP like to keep their base under educated.

[aja_christopher]

You're likely corresponding with one there.

I pay for copies of my drawings for students at FedEx because a lot of schools can't spare the paper.

And don't get me started on their art and technical supplies -- or lack thereof.



The primary thing preventing progress on that front -- and many others -- is the Republican party.