Totally agree. Have thought it about schools, and happy to see the other examples. I'll give a more controversial one: the military. Rich people would feel differently about sending folks off to war if their kids had to go.
Actually, I think Biden scaling back the drone war and finally getting America out of Afghanistan might have had something to do with that. I get the impression that the war dead are a bit more real to Biden than they were to Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
Then again, Bush was in the national guard. So it's obviously not perfectly reliable.
...come to think of it, the old powers that be were quite willing to send their sons into the meat grinder of the First World War. And the further back in time you go, the more likely military service is to be an elite thing. Warrior aristocrats used to run most of the world. Maybe the nature of war changed, or the powerful did; the World Wars might well have been a sort of breaking point for that kind of thing.
The difference though is subtle yet significant. Biden's son enlisted in the military. If we still had a draft but with NO exceptions (college enrollment was an out during Viet Nam) I think collectively there would be more hesitancy from the war mongers to start wars.
"One of the most direct ways to improve a flawed system is simply to end the ability of rich and powerful people to exclude themselves from it."
Interesting point.
"If, for example, you outlawed private schools, the public schools would get better."
Alternatively, one can also collect enough taxes to make the public good good enough. Where I went to school in Germany the state schools were better than the private schools. Private schools had the reputation of being schools for rich kids who were not bright enough to make it in an ordinary "gymnasium".
"Alternatively, one can also collect enough taxes to make the public good good enough"
... and that won't happen so long as rich people can send their children to private school. (Their rational response is oppose a tax increase that doesn't benefit them).
I am a big fan of the German public education system, having spent a month in a gymnasium.
A huge difference is that German teacher unions cannot strike and they cannot pour staggering funds into elections and control the school boards-their bosses.
On the other hand, in Germany teachers are "beamtet", that is employed for life, cannot be fired, have health insurance, guaranteed pension and a range of other benefits.
Sadly, in the US there is almost zero correlation to education spending and outcomes. The solid public schools I attended because my parents had the ability to buy a house there, spent $6500 per pupil and were ranked in the top 10 in the State. St. Louis City public schools, controlled by the AFT radicals, spent over $14,000 per pupil and could barely graduate 25% of their kids.
Amen. The rot of a system that has a loaded "Supreme" Court, where the majority of the "justices" are followers of just what you're talking about here, and a large group of people--mostly the underserved, who bear the brunt of all this injustice, are like ants to be crushed by those who can afford their own brand of "justice", yet choose to worship a man who hates them and should be given the same justice that they have always received.
Excellent crystallization of this phenomenon diminishing any ethos of the common good.
I’ll add one other example. Here in Minnesota, we have a few carpool lanes which single drivers can use for a fee, so-called “Lexus Lanes.” The earliest Lexus Lane is 394, the freeway from downtown to the wealthier suburbs of Lake Minnetonka. For those not carpooling or paying the fee, the 394 to 94 interchange is one of the worst grinders in the country. And I’ll add there is fairly robust State Patrol enforcement of Lexus Lane violators i.e. not the well-off.
In this case, the fee is a voluntary tax that could presumably provide revenue for better roads. This kind of model seems like a better strategy than feeling guilty about paying extra for something because you can afford it. Global Entry and TSA Precheck might be other examples. Wouldn’t paying a fee for better service be more effective than “writing a letter” if the revenue stream for the program is designed to split the benefit between the provided service and its less efficient default?
As for schools, paying private school tuition doesn’t exempt people from paying property tax to support the local public schools as far as I know. Raise and/or distribute property tax better.
This point has been made forever. But we can't control what rich people care about. There needs to be a way to leverage what they do care about in the direction of better funding for public schools. Maybe tax private tuition ...
I'd say no because it doesn't fix the problem. And I'd wager that that revenue stream wouldn't go into fixing the problem either. It would be bookmarked for some other project
I feel the bit about human nature...I wasn't really aware of food deserts until I lived in one. And even then, I was okay because I could afford a good car. But I felt awful for my neighbors, many of whom didn't own a car. And our public transit is shit. So their only option was the family dollar like 3 blocks from my old house.
I try to advocate for more local grocers and expanding public transit, but it took me being personally affected, and I'm ashamed of that.
As usual, great work Hamilton. I want to believe that there are some coherent people out there. Even if they can afford it, they will not go private. Perhaps it is a fantasy. As a socialist, what are you doing Hamilton?
Buying one’s way out of the various miseries the unprivileged endure is a feature of every dominance system since the dawn of agriculture and property ownership.
Your local PTA (parent-teacher association) is another pressure-release valve. Vote against local taxes, then donate $$$ to your neighborhood PTA to rehire the art teacher that was laid off after the bond measure failed. (Too bad about those poorer districts who couldn't donate and lost their teachers!)
Okay, so, HamNo, feel free to tell me this comment section isn't the place for the thing I'm about to bring up, but I gotta ask it somewhere, so here goes:
I so, SO so want to feel good about the DSA, but I just can't. The New York DSA was involved in a protest with goddamn swastikas and other gross bullshit. Every time I get a DC Metro DSA newsletter, I recoil a bit, and I have ever since that protest. I just can't feel good about the DSA as an organization if I'm going to have to apologize for my existence every minute I'm involved with it. If you couldn't surmise already, I'm Jewish.
Also the DSA is getting huffy with its own people (AOC, Jamaal Bowman etc.) when they govern like their constituency is more than just their local DSA chapter.
Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me IF I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, where do I go that's the DSA without the Purity Tests?
I'm not HamNo, but I can say with some confidence that you don't have to be Jewish to recoil when the local DSA doesn't immediately boot out the swastika-flag wavers.
You are using the OJ jury nullification argument which is really a bad path.
Releasing OJ for double murder might feel good from the standpoint of some twisted view of balancing it out, but it was ironic that those making the argument ignored that he was just another rich guy buying himself a little injustice.
Arguing that we should be targeting the wealthy just jettisons the notion of blind justice and devolves into the violent anarchy of the French Revolution. It’s a step away from “let’s kill all the bourgeoisie.”
And really, if we locked up everyone in private companies for paperwork filing slightly outside the lines, just because they are candidates from the opposition party, no one would run for office, or even form a business.
That’s clearly not a concern of your political tribe.
New York Democrats have said it out loud, that this treatment is only for Trump. We don’t want businesses to flee New York because of one little guillotine.
Trying to make this about rich and poor and gaslight the obvious is clever by half.
You missed the point. Pull over *everyone* who drives 36 in a 35, and that speed limit will be changed to something more reasonable in a jiffy. An unfortunate side effect is cops won't have probable cause to pull over anyone they please (either for speeding or for suspiciously not speeding). But on the bright side, they'll be so busy pulling over white folks that they won't have as much time to harass people of color.
Ahem. You, my friend missed the point. I was responding to the comment (I hope tongue in cheek) that we arrest everyone who inflates assets.
Democrats are in a national full court press to lock up Trump on anything they can invent, including disgorging Trump of $400million for a totally victimless, non-crime. You guys celebrate the crucifixion/s and totally miss the truly serious point.
This is entirely Democrat prosecutor, Democrat judges and Democrat juries going after him. I have been in more candidate recruitment meeting than I can count. I have contemplated recruiting many times more than that, as I meet truly quality, accomplished leaders in their fields, but don't suggest a run for office for fear of the laughing out loud.
We say Trump is a narcissist and many content ALL politicians are. Well, when good people see the way Trump has been treated, why would anyone drag themselves and their families into that?
Only narcissists, whose egos superseded their better judgement will be our candidates. Keep uo the great work, Johnny!
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying the same thing HamNo said, which is that everyone should be treated equally, and rich people shouldn't be able to buy their way out of consequences. To extend your hypothetical, OJ should have been tried and found guilty of double murder (if he did indeed kill Brown and Goldman, which is likely based on everything I've seen about the case). His wealth should not have bought him better treatment than some regular schmo who did the same thing. That's not "targeting," that's equal treatment.
Donald Trump illegally paid $130,000 to cover up an embarrassing story prior to an election where he was running for President of the United States. That's illegal under campaign finance laws. He also inflated his assets to secure favorable terms on loans and insurance policies. That's fraud. There are laws against fraud. Trump and his organization broke those laws. We're not cheering because we were out for blood regardless of the facts of the cases, we're cheering because FINALLY the rich dude who skirted responsibility for decades because of his money was found guilty of breaking laws.
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
This is the nominee for President of the United States. Try removing your partisan hat for a moment, as you just expressed your blood lust and willingness to shred the Constitution to get the rich guy, never mind that he’s the nominee for President so you’re election interfering.
Can we not agree that if you are seriously going to prosecute a Presidential candidate, or any high level politician, it ought not to be on novel criminal theories, but should be on clear crimes, with clear intent, and clear victims?
Can we agree we ought not to be by partisan prosecutors who ran on Stalinist platforms of finding a crime to get the man?
Heretofore, we never (nor should we) put people on trial for “falsifying business records” in private companies, where no one was defrauded AND do such prosecution years after the statute of limitations ran.
We never prosecute FEC violations in state courts, especially after the FEC declared the act was not a crime.
Bragg shouldn’t get to say the FEC was wrong, take up the case and then ignore the statute of limitations.
Trumped up charges brought before a blood lust judge and a never trump jury to complete the kangaroo court, is a deep slide to banana republic level. Can you not see that?
How many loans have you applied for?
Did you hire an independent appraisal for each property or go on Zillow and use the high estimate number?
Putting people on trial years after transactions were totally settled, everyone was paid, no victims were hung out, is both novel and asinine as well as dangerous.
I’m sure you popped the champagne to celebrate. The city of New York literally put out a statement that this was just for Trump and no other business should be in fear. Forget who he is, he is the nominee for President!
Do you want to live in a country that throws out the 4th Amendment as the FBI arrests your lawyer AND your accountant and then raids your home in order to seize every financial record, every privileged legal communication and every memo in order to get you?
You do realize that’s what they did to Trump. Target the lawyer, target the accountant, wiretap you, wiretap your associates, and prosecute everyone you know for novel “crimes.”
Your tribe failed in multiple novel efforts to kick him off ballots.
Your New York, false records witch trial will be overturned.
The Atlanta bullshit is falling apart.
Every one of these cases has ties right to the White House.
Were this a Democrat nominee would that not bother you?
Hi, great article. Isn't mass incarceration caused by past government policies that encouraged single moms to marry the social welfare system? Aren't many who end up incarcerated the product of broken homes and substandard educational systems? These need to be addressed so they not? Instead Universities through affirmative action accept those with substandard SAT scores into programs they are unprepared for which doesn't help the student and displaces other more qualified applicants. We need a system where everyone starts off on an equal footing because trying to fix it later is near impossible and results at best in educated but unqualified people and at worst in people who will engineer bridges that fall down, pilots who will endanger passengers and doctors who will endanger their patients.
Also, statistics show that people who come from a two parent household, graduate high school have less of a chance of being incarcerated. Kids that come from single parents are more likely to drop out of school, get involved in criminal activities. In 1960, 27 % of black kids came from single parent families, today that number is around 75%. What chance do young black kids have today with this working against them. These results have happened because Lyndon Johnson encouraged the breakdown of black families.
Simple statistics, what have you got as a rebuttal. I am only saying that fathers in the house make a difference. Also the problem in the states is that school systems are funded by city taxes so the poorer kids end up in poorer schools. Do a little reading and hit me back when you have got better than opaque and oblique answers.
Jesus Christ. Okay, I'll spell it out. Lower performance in school can definitely be CORRELATED with single parent households, but both of those things can be CAUSED by something much more basic. Like, for example, the decades society spent warehousing men of color for minor offenses, or redlining that prevented generations of Americans from building wealth and being consigned to poor and underperforming school districts with no power or resources to change that situation.
My father passed away before I became a teenager, and despite some PTSD from the whole experience I've turned out relatively successful. It should be noted that I'm a white male whose mother was very gainfully employed and whose father took out an extremely generous life insurance police before getting sick. I've never been in trouble with the law and attended top-rated universities for both undergrad and grad school. A single-parent household is not a death knell, but it can be symptomatic of larger issues.
Maybe read books that aren't on Laura Ingraham's Amazon wish list.
But Stephen, the average black family was more successful before LBJ broke it apart in the 60's. All of the factors you say are true but I will call your attention to other minority groups who have started off in dire straits and elevated themselves namely Asian Americans who are now the most wealthy of all Americans. How did they achieve this? Culturally they are disciplined, family oriented, hardworking. This was true of Black Families before Johnson had them hooked on welfare.
Good on you for overcoming challenges. But you are one case, stats are there for a reason. Also you should read a book before you use ad hominem's to dismiss them.
By the way do you believe in meritocracy? If you went in for heart surgery would you want the doctor who finished top of his or her class to be your surgeon?
Hi, read the "Diversity Delusion " by Heather MacDonald for all of the SAT stuff. The hard sciences in the Ivy League Universities such as UCLA are lowering their standards in Engineering to accommodate those with lower SAT scores. Most of these kids end up switching to Social Sciences because they are unprepared. If you want to make an argument come up with something better than no!
"Ivy League Universities such as UCLA" where do you think the Ivy League is?
Also - whether true or not - stating that most of these kids switch to a different major negates your previous concern about "people who will engineer bridges that fall down", almost like engineers/pilots/doctors actually have to do well in school once they get there, huh!
I know you've already read your one conservative pundit book about why DEI bad, but consider reading the background of some of the stereotypes and myths entwined in it. "Equal footing" is a nice idea that cannot realistically exist in a country where minorities - especially black people - have been disenfranchised for its entire history, unless we make systemic changes and put support systems - like welfare - in place.
You cannot fix a situation by lowering standards to fit the inequities of society. Lowering SATs do not help anyone, it puts a salve on your guilt you feel. I agree with the original author that the public school system has to be greatly reformed so people start off on an equal footing. As far as welfare and single moms and incarceration it is has been well studied and established that children who come from a two parent household, finish high school and get married before having children fare much better in society. Kids fro single moms tend to drop out, get in trouble and end up incarcerated. The numbers don't lie. This is the result of LBJ's great society where he encouraged predominantly black women to marry the welfare system. In the early 60's approximately 27% of children came from single moms, today it is 72%. Do you not believe that this is a factor. Also, why is it that American Asian people are faring better economically than White Americans. Many who came to the US with nothing? Because they believe in family, hard work and education another fact. The Black Community was fairing far better until LBJ broke them apart. Also you conveniently never answered my question on the Meritocracy. My guess is you want the surgeon who finished top of his class. And yes I believe that putting DEI first above competence is dangerous and we will see more Boeing situations in the future if this continues to be the trend.
Gen, read the "Diversity Delusion " , students are getting into courses with SAT scores 400 points below average because of affirmative action. In fact Asian applicants have taken Yale to court because of this. What I am saying is that all kids should start off on an equal footing at the elementary level.
The Meritocracy is what protects us from having bridges falling down, medical mistakes and planes falling out of the sky. Who would you prefer operating on you, the person that finished head of the class or the person who entered medical school because of affirmative action?
The "equal treatment" and "innocent until proven guilty" "pillars" of American justice have long since fallen, if they ever stood. Ask any low-income person who must sit in jail before trial because they can't pay the bail.
It's not a matter of public safety that keeps that person in jail--away from work, family, school, community; remember, the wealthy person in the same "legal" situation can easily pay up and go free to take care of responsibilities while awaiting trial. (I myself would quickly avail myself of the bail/bond opportunity--of course.)
"Wink" is a trivializing response to this situation; like rolling eyes. We must change this "system" of "justice." And the sooner, the better.
Totally agree. Have thought it about schools, and happy to see the other examples. I'll give a more controversial one: the military. Rich people would feel differently about sending folks off to war if their kids had to go.
The President literally had a son who died in a war and it doesn't seem to have affected his feelings about war at all
Actually, I think Biden scaling back the drone war and finally getting America out of Afghanistan might have had something to do with that. I get the impression that the war dead are a bit more real to Biden than they were to Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
Then again, Bush was in the national guard. So it's obviously not perfectly reliable.
...come to think of it, the old powers that be were quite willing to send their sons into the meat grinder of the First World War. And the further back in time you go, the more likely military service is to be an elite thing. Warrior aristocrats used to run most of the world. Maybe the nature of war changed, or the powerful did; the World Wars might well have been a sort of breaking point for that kind of thing.
The difference though is subtle yet significant. Biden's son enlisted in the military. If we still had a draft but with NO exceptions (college enrollment was an out during Viet Nam) I think collectively there would be more hesitancy from the war mongers to start wars.
I have never loved the notion of conscripting more people into wars as a strategy to maybe avoid future wars
ditto...volunteer standing armies...NOT a good idea
"One of the most direct ways to improve a flawed system is simply to end the ability of rich and powerful people to exclude themselves from it."
Interesting point.
"If, for example, you outlawed private schools, the public schools would get better."
Alternatively, one can also collect enough taxes to make the public good good enough. Where I went to school in Germany the state schools were better than the private schools. Private schools had the reputation of being schools for rich kids who were not bright enough to make it in an ordinary "gymnasium".
"Alternatively, one can also collect enough taxes to make the public good good enough"
... and that won't happen so long as rich people can send their children to private school. (Their rational response is oppose a tax increase that doesn't benefit them).
I am a big fan of the German public education system, having spent a month in a gymnasium.
A huge difference is that German teacher unions cannot strike and they cannot pour staggering funds into elections and control the school boards-their bosses.
On the other hand, in Germany teachers are "beamtet", that is employed for life, cannot be fired, have health insurance, guaranteed pension and a range of other benefits.
Sadly, in the US there is almost zero correlation to education spending and outcomes. The solid public schools I attended because my parents had the ability to buy a house there, spent $6500 per pupil and were ranked in the top 10 in the State. St. Louis City public schools, controlled by the AFT radicals, spent over $14,000 per pupil and could barely graduate 25% of their kids.
Interesting. What happens if one does a country wide data analysis of this? There must be a lot of research on this.
Certainly, there is.
Florida ranks 5th best in the nation, with average per pupil spending of $11,000 and teacher pay around $60,000.
California ranks 7th best, spending $17,775 per pupil and $93,000 average teacher pay.
DC Comes in at number 8 (which I have a hard time believing), but they spend a staggering $32,000 per pupil.
(1) Striking is a fundamental right that should be withheld to protect public safety
(2) If US teachers' unions are so good at controlling school boards, then why are they so badly paid?
Amen. The rot of a system that has a loaded "Supreme" Court, where the majority of the "justices" are followers of just what you're talking about here, and a large group of people--mostly the underserved, who bear the brunt of all this injustice, are like ants to be crushed by those who can afford their own brand of "justice", yet choose to worship a man who hates them and should be given the same justice that they have always received.
Excellent crystallization of this phenomenon diminishing any ethos of the common good.
I’ll add one other example. Here in Minnesota, we have a few carpool lanes which single drivers can use for a fee, so-called “Lexus Lanes.” The earliest Lexus Lane is 394, the freeway from downtown to the wealthier suburbs of Lake Minnetonka. For those not carpooling or paying the fee, the 394 to 94 interchange is one of the worst grinders in the country. And I’ll add there is fairly robust State Patrol enforcement of Lexus Lane violators i.e. not the well-off.
Everyone into the grinder of 394!
In this case, the fee is a voluntary tax that could presumably provide revenue for better roads. This kind of model seems like a better strategy than feeling guilty about paying extra for something because you can afford it. Global Entry and TSA Precheck might be other examples. Wouldn’t paying a fee for better service be more effective than “writing a letter” if the revenue stream for the program is designed to split the benefit between the provided service and its less efficient default?
As for schools, paying private school tuition doesn’t exempt people from paying property tax to support the local public schools as far as I know. Raise and/or distribute property tax better.
The argument being made is that rich people don't care about the state of the public schools because their kids don't go to them
This point has been made forever. But we can't control what rich people care about. There needs to be a way to leverage what they do care about in the direction of better funding for public schools. Maybe tax private tuition ...
"we can't control what rich people care about."
The point of the post is that we can: by making use different services (i.e., the ones everyone else uses)
I'd say no because it doesn't fix the problem. And I'd wager that that revenue stream wouldn't go into fixing the problem either. It would be bookmarked for some other project
So back to feeling guilty and writing letters?
Excellent piece, 10,000 thumbs up! :)
Okay all yes, but I’m in convulsions from the caption 😆😆😆
I feel the bit about human nature...I wasn't really aware of food deserts until I lived in one. And even then, I was okay because I could afford a good car. But I felt awful for my neighbors, many of whom didn't own a car. And our public transit is shit. So their only option was the family dollar like 3 blocks from my old house.
I try to advocate for more local grocers and expanding public transit, but it took me being personally affected, and I'm ashamed of that.
As usual, great work Hamilton. I want to believe that there are some coherent people out there. Even if they can afford it, they will not go private. Perhaps it is a fantasy. As a socialist, what are you doing Hamilton?
Take care mate. Keep on fighting
Thought provoking - thank you
Buying one’s way out of the various miseries the unprivileged endure is a feature of every dominance system since the dawn of agriculture and property ownership.
Your local PTA (parent-teacher association) is another pressure-release valve. Vote against local taxes, then donate $$$ to your neighborhood PTA to rehire the art teacher that was laid off after the bond measure failed. (Too bad about those poorer districts who couldn't donate and lost their teachers!)
Why are you not going to Canada on your book tour? :(
Fly me up and I'll be there.
Okay, so, HamNo, feel free to tell me this comment section isn't the place for the thing I'm about to bring up, but I gotta ask it somewhere, so here goes:
I so, SO so want to feel good about the DSA, but I just can't. The New York DSA was involved in a protest with goddamn swastikas and other gross bullshit. Every time I get a DC Metro DSA newsletter, I recoil a bit, and I have ever since that protest. I just can't feel good about the DSA as an organization if I'm going to have to apologize for my existence every minute I'm involved with it. If you couldn't surmise already, I'm Jewish.
Also the DSA is getting huffy with its own people (AOC, Jamaal Bowman etc.) when they govern like their constituency is more than just their local DSA chapter.
Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me IF I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, where do I go that's the DSA without the Purity Tests?
I'm not HamNo, but I can say with some confidence that you don't have to be Jewish to recoil when the local DSA doesn't immediately boot out the swastika-flag wavers.
Oh, this is just so stupid. You are pandering. Arrest everyone who has inflated their assets!
Yes! Arrest everyone who has broken the law, not just poor people! Then maybe the law will treat EVERYONE better!
You are using the OJ jury nullification argument which is really a bad path.
Releasing OJ for double murder might feel good from the standpoint of some twisted view of balancing it out, but it was ironic that those making the argument ignored that he was just another rich guy buying himself a little injustice.
Arguing that we should be targeting the wealthy just jettisons the notion of blind justice and devolves into the violent anarchy of the French Revolution. It’s a step away from “let’s kill all the bourgeoisie.”
And really, if we locked up everyone in private companies for paperwork filing slightly outside the lines, just because they are candidates from the opposition party, no one would run for office, or even form a business.
That’s clearly not a concern of your political tribe.
New York Democrats have said it out loud, that this treatment is only for Trump. We don’t want businesses to flee New York because of one little guillotine.
Trying to make this about rich and poor and gaslight the obvious is clever by half.
You missed the point. Pull over *everyone* who drives 36 in a 35, and that speed limit will be changed to something more reasonable in a jiffy. An unfortunate side effect is cops won't have probable cause to pull over anyone they please (either for speeding or for suspiciously not speeding). But on the bright side, they'll be so busy pulling over white folks that they won't have as much time to harass people of color.
Ahem. You, my friend missed the point. I was responding to the comment (I hope tongue in cheek) that we arrest everyone who inflates assets.
Democrats are in a national full court press to lock up Trump on anything they can invent, including disgorging Trump of $400million for a totally victimless, non-crime. You guys celebrate the crucifixion/s and totally miss the truly serious point.
This is entirely Democrat prosecutor, Democrat judges and Democrat juries going after him. I have been in more candidate recruitment meeting than I can count. I have contemplated recruiting many times more than that, as I meet truly quality, accomplished leaders in their fields, but don't suggest a run for office for fear of the laughing out loud.
We say Trump is a narcissist and many content ALL politicians are. Well, when good people see the way Trump has been treated, why would anyone drag themselves and their families into that?
Only narcissists, whose egos superseded their better judgement will be our candidates. Keep uo the great work, Johnny!
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying the same thing HamNo said, which is that everyone should be treated equally, and rich people shouldn't be able to buy their way out of consequences. To extend your hypothetical, OJ should have been tried and found guilty of double murder (if he did indeed kill Brown and Goldman, which is likely based on everything I've seen about the case). His wealth should not have bought him better treatment than some regular schmo who did the same thing. That's not "targeting," that's equal treatment.
Donald Trump illegally paid $130,000 to cover up an embarrassing story prior to an election where he was running for President of the United States. That's illegal under campaign finance laws. He also inflated his assets to secure favorable terms on loans and insurance policies. That's fraud. There are laws against fraud. Trump and his organization broke those laws. We're not cheering because we were out for blood regardless of the facts of the cases, we're cheering because FINALLY the rich dude who skirted responsibility for decades because of his money was found guilty of breaking laws.
To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
Dude,
Take a breath, please.
This is the nominee for President of the United States. Try removing your partisan hat for a moment, as you just expressed your blood lust and willingness to shred the Constitution to get the rich guy, never mind that he’s the nominee for President so you’re election interfering.
Can we not agree that if you are seriously going to prosecute a Presidential candidate, or any high level politician, it ought not to be on novel criminal theories, but should be on clear crimes, with clear intent, and clear victims?
Can we agree we ought not to be by partisan prosecutors who ran on Stalinist platforms of finding a crime to get the man?
Heretofore, we never (nor should we) put people on trial for “falsifying business records” in private companies, where no one was defrauded AND do such prosecution years after the statute of limitations ran.
We never prosecute FEC violations in state courts, especially after the FEC declared the act was not a crime.
Bragg shouldn’t get to say the FEC was wrong, take up the case and then ignore the statute of limitations.
Trumped up charges brought before a blood lust judge and a never trump jury to complete the kangaroo court, is a deep slide to banana republic level. Can you not see that?
How many loans have you applied for?
Did you hire an independent appraisal for each property or go on Zillow and use the high estimate number?
Putting people on trial years after transactions were totally settled, everyone was paid, no victims were hung out, is both novel and asinine as well as dangerous.
I’m sure you popped the champagne to celebrate. The city of New York literally put out a statement that this was just for Trump and no other business should be in fear. Forget who he is, he is the nominee for President!
Do you want to live in a country that throws out the 4th Amendment as the FBI arrests your lawyer AND your accountant and then raids your home in order to seize every financial record, every privileged legal communication and every memo in order to get you?
You do realize that’s what they did to Trump. Target the lawyer, target the accountant, wiretap you, wiretap your associates, and prosecute everyone you know for novel “crimes.”
Your tribe failed in multiple novel efforts to kick him off ballots.
Your New York, false records witch trial will be overturned.
The Atlanta bullshit is falling apart.
Every one of these cases has ties right to the White House.
Were this a Democrat nominee would that not bother you?
Now tell the truth.
Asset inflators and flawed business record keepers are a threat to us all! Lock em up. Well, at least the rich ones.
Hi, great article. Isn't mass incarceration caused by past government policies that encouraged single moms to marry the social welfare system? Aren't many who end up incarcerated the product of broken homes and substandard educational systems? These need to be addressed so they not? Instead Universities through affirmative action accept those with substandard SAT scores into programs they are unprepared for which doesn't help the student and displaces other more qualified applicants. We need a system where everyone starts off on an equal footing because trying to fix it later is near impossible and results at best in educated but unqualified people and at worst in people who will engineer bridges that fall down, pilots who will endanger passengers and doctors who will endanger their patients.
No.
Also, statistics show that people who come from a two parent household, graduate high school have less of a chance of being incarcerated. Kids that come from single parents are more likely to drop out of school, get involved in criminal activities. In 1960, 27 % of black kids came from single parent families, today that number is around 75%. What chance do young black kids have today with this working against them. These results have happened because Lyndon Johnson encouraged the breakdown of black families.
I thought we had figured out the whole "correlation does not equal causation" thing. Apparently a few people still haven't heard it.
Simple statistics, what have you got as a rebuttal. I am only saying that fathers in the house make a difference. Also the problem in the states is that school systems are funded by city taxes so the poorer kids end up in poorer schools. Do a little reading and hit me back when you have got better than opaque and oblique answers.
Jesus Christ. Okay, I'll spell it out. Lower performance in school can definitely be CORRELATED with single parent households, but both of those things can be CAUSED by something much more basic. Like, for example, the decades society spent warehousing men of color for minor offenses, or redlining that prevented generations of Americans from building wealth and being consigned to poor and underperforming school districts with no power or resources to change that situation.
My father passed away before I became a teenager, and despite some PTSD from the whole experience I've turned out relatively successful. It should be noted that I'm a white male whose mother was very gainfully employed and whose father took out an extremely generous life insurance police before getting sick. I've never been in trouble with the law and attended top-rated universities for both undergrad and grad school. A single-parent household is not a death knell, but it can be symptomatic of larger issues.
Maybe read books that aren't on Laura Ingraham's Amazon wish list.
But Stephen, the average black family was more successful before LBJ broke it apart in the 60's. All of the factors you say are true but I will call your attention to other minority groups who have started off in dire straits and elevated themselves namely Asian Americans who are now the most wealthy of all Americans. How did they achieve this? Culturally they are disciplined, family oriented, hardworking. This was true of Black Families before Johnson had them hooked on welfare.
Good on you for overcoming challenges. But you are one case, stats are there for a reason. Also you should read a book before you use ad hominem's to dismiss them.
By the way do you believe in meritocracy? If you went in for heart surgery would you want the doctor who finished top of his or her class to be your surgeon?
Hi, read the "Diversity Delusion " by Heather MacDonald for all of the SAT stuff. The hard sciences in the Ivy League Universities such as UCLA are lowering their standards in Engineering to accommodate those with lower SAT scores. Most of these kids end up switching to Social Sciences because they are unprepared. If you want to make an argument come up with something better than no!
"Ivy League Universities such as UCLA" where do you think the Ivy League is?
Also - whether true or not - stating that most of these kids switch to a different major negates your previous concern about "people who will engineer bridges that fall down", almost like engineers/pilots/doctors actually have to do well in school once they get there, huh!
UCLA is considered a public Ivy League school.
Not if they make it through. Boeing?
Do you think Boeing is an example of the failure of individual engineers? Their CEO has spent decades pushing out those with experience and de-emphasizing quality in order to achieve higher profit margins. https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-03-28-suicide-mission-boeing/
I know you've already read your one conservative pundit book about why DEI bad, but consider reading the background of some of the stereotypes and myths entwined in it. "Equal footing" is a nice idea that cannot realistically exist in a country where minorities - especially black people - have been disenfranchised for its entire history, unless we make systemic changes and put support systems - like welfare - in place.
https://newrepublic.com/article/154404/myth-welfare-queen
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-ending-racial-inequity-in-incarceration/
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons-the-sentencing-project/
You cannot fix a situation by lowering standards to fit the inequities of society. Lowering SATs do not help anyone, it puts a salve on your guilt you feel. I agree with the original author that the public school system has to be greatly reformed so people start off on an equal footing. As far as welfare and single moms and incarceration it is has been well studied and established that children who come from a two parent household, finish high school and get married before having children fare much better in society. Kids fro single moms tend to drop out, get in trouble and end up incarcerated. The numbers don't lie. This is the result of LBJ's great society where he encouraged predominantly black women to marry the welfare system. In the early 60's approximately 27% of children came from single moms, today it is 72%. Do you not believe that this is a factor. Also, why is it that American Asian people are faring better economically than White Americans. Many who came to the US with nothing? Because they believe in family, hard work and education another fact. The Black Community was fairing far better until LBJ broke them apart. Also you conveniently never answered my question on the Meritocracy. My guess is you want the surgeon who finished top of his class. And yes I believe that putting DEI first above competence is dangerous and we will see more Boeing situations in the future if this continues to be the trend.
Gen, read the "Diversity Delusion " , students are getting into courses with SAT scores 400 points below average because of affirmative action. In fact Asian applicants have taken Yale to court because of this. What I am saying is that all kids should start off on an equal footing at the elementary level.
The Meritocracy is what protects us from having bridges falling down, medical mistakes and planes falling out of the sky. Who would you prefer operating on you, the person that finished head of the class or the person who entered medical school because of affirmative action?
OH MY GOD WE GET IT YOU READ A BOOK.
Hooooooo buddy. You must've taken a wrong turn somewhere around Albuquerque, because this is NOT the neighborhood you thought you were traveling to.
🤣🤣🤣
Hi Steven, read "The Diversity Delusion " and edumacate yourself!
Right on, Hamilton! Thank you.
The "equal treatment" and "innocent until proven guilty" "pillars" of American justice have long since fallen, if they ever stood. Ask any low-income person who must sit in jail before trial because they can't pay the bail.
It's not a matter of public safety that keeps that person in jail--away from work, family, school, community; remember, the wealthy person in the same "legal" situation can easily pay up and go free to take care of responsibilities while awaiting trial. (I myself would quickly avail myself of the bail/bond opportunity--of course.)
"Wink" is a trivializing response to this situation; like rolling eyes. We must change this "system" of "justice." And the sooner, the better.