|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots.
|
On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots.
Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton?
|
On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well.
|
House Republican leadership’s crackdown against dissenters is continuing.
Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the No. 3 House Republican, is laying plans to boot lawmakers from the leadership’s elite vote-counting team if they oppose party-line procedural motions. That might sound like insignificant inside baseball, but it’s a critical development — and yet another sign that top Republicans are looking to ostracize troublemakers in the Capitol.
Procedural motions are crucial for the majority party. The rule vote, for example, is a party-line motion that allows the speaker to control the House floor by laying out the guidelines for legislative debate. If the House cannot pass a rule, the majority often must drop consideration of key legislation. In the worst-case scenario, control of the floor could shift to the minority.
But Scalise is also is considering not allowing anyone who votes against the Republicans’ nominee for speaker to join the whip team. Republicans will still be permitted to vote against legislation they oppose, but if they are on the whip team they cannot vote against proceeding to debate.
As of now, there is no formalized policy on snubbing leadership. Scalise began talking about the policy with senior lawmakers on the whip team this week in the Capitol. Scalise’s whip team is an important part of keeping the Capitol working. Members of the group have to arm-twist to help pass the leadership’s priorities, and also have a voice in the party’s strategy.
Scalise’s allies say that this was always the informal policy, but the Louisiana Republican wants to strengthen it.
“Part of being on the whip team is abiding by the rules of the club,” said one Republican staffer familiar with the meeting.
The timing is especially interesting, because nine Republicans have formed the Freedom Caucus, a group whose members suggest they will vote as a bloc against some of leadership’s priorities.
House Republicans have struggled, at times, to pass the rule. In 2014, the procedural motion that allowed a vote on the yearlong government funding bill narrowly passed.
Moira Smith, Scalise’s spokesman, said her office doesn’t “talk about organizational issues within the whip team.”
Source
|
On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Even personally, Paul's foreign policy positions have differed from mine more than any other leading contender for 2016. Libertarians are often mistaken for conservatives, particularly by the left, since our economic prognoses are similar, but when it comes to foreign policy and social issues, it's black and white.
Lately, Paul opposed Rubio and Cruz on topics of Cuba normalization and Iran. It won't be an easy road convincing others he's got the better read on things.
|
On January 28 2015 20:05 Simberto wrote: And surely that is not corruption at all. People regularly spend a billion dollar on things and expect absolutely nothing in return. Especially super-rich people are known for that behaviour.
I find it exceedingly silly that you don't have any laws against that stuff.
I find it exceedingly silly that Germany has laws against parents teaching their own children.
There shouldn't be laws against private parties donating money to causes they deem worthy. In this case, it's perfectly fine for a private party to donate their own money to a political candidate who will vote a certain way. After all, isn't that why any of us vote for any political candidate? Because we expect them to vote the way we want them to?
|
On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots.
This is true and all, but if she admits to that, it undercuts what is basically her only real qualification beyond who she's sleeping with*. A term and a half in the Senate is something, but it's really underimpressive for the role she's trying to stake out as elder statesman. Inexperience is a powerful charge in the post-Obama election where a lot of people (myself included) are feeling pretty burned by the inexperienced but charismatic kind of candidate.
*The fact that she owes her position to marriage is really the reason why I have so much trouble with any notion that she's the "feminist" candidate. I'd really rather have the first female president be somebody who didn't owe their position to the influence of their husband. Marrying into position seems far too medieval for my taste. But hey, if she's running against Jeb, that's some monarchic shit too.
|
On January 29 2015 09:42 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 20:05 Simberto wrote: And surely that is not corruption at all. People regularly spend a billion dollar on things and expect absolutely nothing in return. Especially super-rich people are known for that behaviour.
I find it exceedingly silly that you don't have any laws against that stuff. I find it exceedingly silly that Germany has laws against parents teaching their own children. There shouldn't be laws against private parties donating money to causes they deem worthy. In this case, it's perfectly fine for a private party to donate their own money to a political candidate who will vote a certain way. After all, isn't that why any of us vote for any political candidate? Because we expect them to vote the way we want them to? Part of receiving an education is putting children in a social setting where they can learn independently of their parents and at least have a chance to hear outside points of view. Not only that, the children have the opportunity to interact with their peers and figures of authority which enables them to learn important social skills. I would love if America got on board with banning homeschooling. Money in politics is an affront to a democratic society. We expect a political candidate to do what we want but we also expect them to do, to an extent, what the majority of the country wants them to do. That balance is jeopardized when money can change the platform and the message that voters receive, often causing them to act in ways that are harmful to themselves and/or society.
|
On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well.
Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy?
|
On January 29 2015 11:05 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. This is true and all, but if she admits to that, it undercuts what is basically her only real qualification beyond who she's sleeping with*. A term and a half in the Senate is something, but it's really underimpressive for the role she's trying to stake out as elder statesman. Inexperience is a powerful charge in the post-Obama election where a lot of people (myself included) are feeling pretty burned by the inexperienced but charismatic kind of candidate. *The fact that she owes her position to marriage is really the reason why I have so much trouble with any notion that she's the "feminist" candidate. I'd really rather have the first female president be somebody who didn't owe their position to the influence of their husband. Marrying into position seems far too medieval for my taste. But hey, if she's running against Jeb, that's some monarchic shit too.
I kind of agree with this. I think she very well could of been a Senator (probably not from New York) on her own though had she chosen that path. But yeah she wouldn't have a remote shot at president were it not for being tied to Bill, Although I'm sure Hillary did her fair share of work in front of and behind the scenes to get Bill where he is too.
|
On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs.
|
On January 29 2015 11:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs.
Oh She's running alright. She's running for what Krauthammer calls the "Runner-up prize" for the Republican nomination (A Fox News show). Although I have to say her rambling at "cantaloupe calves" rally wasn't a very good audition tape.
|
A few good reads:
Florida Health Officials Hope To Test GMO Mosquitoes This Spring The FDA is considering whether to approve the experimental use of genetically modified mosquitoes in the Florida Keys to help stop the spread of dengue fever and other diseases. Mosquito control officials in the region say they hope to get approval to begin releasing the insects in the Keys as soon as this spring. + Show Spoiler +There are few places in the United States where mosquito control is as critical as the Florida Keys. In this southernmost county of the continental U.S., mosquitoes are a year-round public health problem and controlling them is a top priority.
Michael Doyle, an entomologist who oversees the Mosquito Control District in the Keys, is worried about one species in particular: Aedes aegypti.
"They love people," Doyle says. He puts his hand near a fine-meshed cage full of the insects, in one of the district labs, to demonstrate his point. The mosquitoes immediately respond, clustering at Doyle's side of the cage. They've clearly noticed him, and they're interested.
"I'm not going to touch them," he says, "because these are wild types and they could be carrying something. But if you put your hand up, they'll fly over and land on the screen to try to bite you through the screen."
These are the mosquitoes that carry dengue fever and chikungunya, another tropical disease that's swept through the Caribbean and is now showing up in Florida.
A woman protects her child's face in Managua, Nicaragua, as health workers fumigate for mosquitoes that carry chikungunya. The virus started spreading through Nicaragua and Mexico in the fall.
After years of spraying, local health officials say, A. aegypti mosquitoes in the Keys have developed a resistance to most chemical pesticides. Now, the Mosquito Control District wants to become the first in the U.S. to try something new: genetically modified mosquitoes. The strain of insects was developed more than a decade ago by a British company, Oxitec.
Experiments already conducted in Malaysia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands have found that releasing bioengineered male mosquitoes can reduce the A. Aegypti population by 90 percent. For the past five years, officials in the Keys have been working with Oxitec to get approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for similar experimental trials in Florida.
Derric Nimmo, Oxitec's head of mosquito research, says only male A. aegypti are released in these experiments. "It mates with the females in the wild," he explains, "and passes on that gene to all the offspring. The female goes off and lays her eggs. The eggs hatch. But then they die before reaching adulthood."
AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon is seen swimming behind a much smaller wild Atlantic salmon of the same age. AquaBounty has been trying to get government approval to sell its salmon for more than a decade.
The district says surveys it has commissioned of area residents suggest that 60 percent are OK with the trials, and 10 to 20 percent are opposed. In public meetings, though, opposition to the bioengineered mosquitoes has been strong. Some residents question whether dengue is enough of a problem in the Keys to warrant such an experiment.
"It makes no sense to me," Deb Curley, a resident of Cudjoe Key, said at a recent public meeting. "We don't want to be guinea pigs."
In 2009 and 2010, Key West was hit with an outbreak of dengue fever, the first in 75 years. There haven't been any cases since. But Doyle compares the situation to a smoldering fire. "We've got 2.5 to 3 million people that visit the Keys every year," he says. "We're very popular. So the likelihood of it arriving at any given time is good."
Other residents say they're concerned by how a bioengineered mosquito may affect them and the environment. Patty Crimmins, a resident of Key West, says her concerns go beyond mosquitoes. "We're not particularly thrilled with genetically modified anything," she says.
Oxitec's Nimmo says that since A. Aegypti mosquitoes are nonnative, removing them would actually be an environmental plus. He says the bioengineered mosquitoes don't live long after they're released. "And then," he says, "the offspring will die. We've shown that after trials where we stop releasing, [this strain of mosquito] doesn't last very long in the environment. So, we've got a very self-limiting, safe, species-specific technology." Link
The Moynihan Report: 50 Years Later Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died in 2003, was a U.S. Senator from New York for four terms from 1977 to 2001. Before that, he was Ambassador to the United Nations. Before that, he was U.S. Ambassador to India. Back in the 1960s, he held various positions in the Kennedy and Johnson administraions. He was also a Ph.D. sociologist who among his writings included 19 books, leading the newspaper columnist George Will to remark (if I remember correctly) that Moynihan had written more books than most Senators had read. But in discussing Moynihan's career, the talk inevitably at some point goes to a famous report that he authored a half-century ago in 1965 while working for the Office of Policy Planning and Research in the Department of Labor, called "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action." (The text of the report is available at the DoL website here, although the tables and figures are not.) Less than a year after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Moynihan wrote in the introduction: + Show Spoiler +In this new period the expectations of the Negro Americans will go beyond civil rights. Being Americans, they will now expect that in the near future equal opportunities for them as a group will produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups. This is not going to happen. Nor will it happen for generations to come unless a new and special effort is made.
There are two reasons. First, the racist virus in the American blood stream still afflicts us: Negroes will encounter serious personal prejudice for at least another generation. Second, three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment have taken their toll on the Negro people. The harsh fact is that as a group, at the present time, in terms of ability to win out in the competitions of American life, they are not equal to most of those groups with which they will be competing. Individually, Negro Americans reach the highest peaks of achievement. But collectively, in the spectrum of American ethnic and religious and regional groups, where some get plenty and some get none, where some send eighty percent of their children to college and others pull them out of school at the 8th grade, Negroes are among the weakest.
The most difficult fact for white Americans to understand is that in these terms the circumstances of the Negro American community in recent years has probably been getting worse, not better.
Indices of dollars of income, standards of living, and years of education deceive. The gap between the Negro and most other groups in American society is widening. The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence — not final, but powerfully persuasive — is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the past few years, but the general post war trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.
The thesis of this paper is that these events, in combination, confront the nation with a new kind of problem. Measures that have worked in the past, or would work for most groups in the present, will not work here. A national effort is required that will give a unity of purpose to the many activities of the Federal government in this area, directed to a new kind of national goal: the establishment of a stable Negro family structure.
This would be a new departure for Federal policy. And a difficult one. But it almost certainly offers the only possibility of resolving in our time what is, after all, the nation's oldest, and most intransigent, and now its most dangerous social problem. What Gunnar Myrdal said in An American Dilemma remains true today: "America is free to chose whether the Negro shall remain her liability or become her opportunity."
Anyone schooled in the ways of political correctness can predict what happened next, even if you have never heard of the Moynihan Report. Moynihan's analysis of the problem and his obvious sympathy with the plight of African-Americans addressing a legacy of government-sanctioned discrimination was ignored. Instead, he was harshly criticized for blaming the victims of discrimination and for being a racist. Sara McLanahan and Christopher Jencks describe the reaction in their essay "Was Moynihan Right?" in the Spring 2015 issue of Education Next. They write:
Moynihan’s claim that growing up in a fatherless family reduced a child’s chances of educational and economic success was furiously denounced when the report appeared in 1965, with many critics calling Moynihan a racist. For the next two decades few scholars chose to investigate the effects of father absence, lest they too be demonized if their findings supported Moynihan’s argument. Fortunately, America’s best-known black sociologist, William Julius Wilson, broke this taboo in 1987, providing a candid assessment of the black family and its problems in The Truly Disadvantaged. Since then, social scientists have accumulated a lot more evidence on the effects of family structure.
The same issue of Education Next includes a group of articles on the state of the American family, timed for the 50th anniversary of the Moynihan report. For example, James T. Patterson offers an overview of the Moynihan report itself, how it was received, and how Moynihan viewed the controversy. A list of the other articles is available here.
Several decades later, Moynihan eventually received considerable credit for the prescience and force of his 1965 arguments, and for his willingness to make those arguments while facing some very ugly rhetoric. But to my knowledge, at least, none of those who so enthusiastically strafed Moynihan's reputation in 1965 took any responsibility for an important subject being pushed off the national radar for the next two decades.
Moynihan's 1965 argument can be broken down into two parts: a claim that family structure was in the process of shifting dramatically, and a claim that this change was injurious to the life prospects of children. The first claim has copious support. The second claim is harder to demonstrate, because disentangling cause and effect is always tricky, but McLanahan and Jencks point to the recent evidence suggesting that it probably holds true as well.
As a starting point, here's some facts about changes in family structure as presented by McLanahan and Jencks. The percentage of U.S. children under the age of 18 living with an unmarried mother rose sharply from the 1960s up through the mid-1980s.
As they point out, these kinds of comparisons over time need to be made with care. For example, back around 1960 most children living with an unmarried mother had been born to married parents, but the couple had separated, divorced, or the father had died. In addition, in 1960 unmarried cohabitation was rare. Children living with an unmarried mother in one year were often not in that category a few years later, if their mother remarried. As time went on, children born out of wedlock became much more common and cohabitation became more common. In other words, the situation of living with an unmarried mother was not the same experience in 1960 as in 1970 or 1980. As one example, unmarried motherhood spread fastest among those with lower levels of education who were most likely to be in poverty. Also, as McLanahan and Jencks write: The historical shift from formerly married to never-married mothers has meant that single motherhood usually occurs earlier in a child’s life. Mothers who marry and then divorce typically spend a number of years with their husband before separating. Today, many women become single mothers when their first child is born. The shift to never-married motherhood has probably weakened the economic and emotional ties between children and their absent fathers.
It's tricky to think about how growing up with a single parent might affect the life prospects for a child. For example, it would obviously be foolish just to compare children with single parents and children with two parents, because children with single parents are not an event that is randomly distributed across all other population characteristics. As one of many possible examples, single parents on average have lower education levels, so perhaps differences are traceable to the education level of the parent, not the marital status. Or perhaps a mother is less likely to marry or live with a father who she suspects might be a negative influence on their children.
But social scientists have come up with a number of more plausible ways to look at causal effects of single parenthood. Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider review a number of studies concerning "The Causal Effects of Father Absence" in the Annual Review of Sociology (July 2013, pp, 399–427). For example, one can use statistical techniques to adjust for various observable parental and family characteristics--including characteristics that existed before the child was born. One can compare across children in a given family, including full-siblings, half-siblings, and unrelated siblings, as well as looking at how events like divorce affect the path that children are on over time. One can look at the difference in the effect of parental death, which can be taken as a random event, and the effect of divorce or separation, which are clearly not random. One can compare across states that have more or less permissive laws about divorce. One can use "propensity score matching," which seeks to compare children who look the same on all other measurable characteristics, but some of whom are growing up with one parent while others are growing up with two.
The authors look at about four dozen differerent studies of father absence using these techniques and others. Here is part of their summary of their findings across the studies:
We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability. Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.
The research base examining the longer-term effects of father absence on adult outcomes is considerably smaller, but here too we see the strongest evidence for a causal effect on adult mental health, suggesting that the psychological harms of father absence experienced during childhood persist throughout the life course. The evidence that father absence affects adult economic or family outcomes is much weaker. A handful of studies find negative effects on employment in adulthood, but there is little consistent evidence of negative effects on marriage or divorce, on income or earnings, or on college education. What changes would help to address to the dissolution of the family that so many children experience as their day-to-day reality? In their Education Next essay, McLanahan and Jencks conclude:
Unmarried parents are not that different from married parents in their behavior. Both groups value marriage, both spend a long time searching for a suitable marriage partner, and both engage in premarital sex and cohabitation. The key difference is that one group often has children while they are searching for a suitable partner, whereas the other group more often has children only after they marry.
Changing this dynamic would require two things. First, we would need to give less-educated women a good reason to postpone motherhood. The women who are currently postponing motherhood are typically investing in education and careers. These women use contraceptive methods that are more reliable, and they use these methods more consistently. Postponing fertility in these ways would also have benefits for women who currently do not do so. They would be more mature when they became mothers, and they would probably do a better job of selecting suitable partners.
Nonetheless, postponing fertility will not solve the problem of nonmarital childbearing unless the economic prospects of the young men who father the children also improve. Women are not likely to marry men whom they view as poor providers, regardless of their own earning capacity. Thus, in addition to encouraging young women to delay motherhood, we also need to improve the economic prospects of their prospective husbands, especially those with no more than a high school diploma. This will not be easy. But it would improve the lives of the men in question, perhaps reduce their level of antisocial behavior, and improve the lives of their children, through all the benefits that flow from a stable home.
I know, I know: Easy to say, hard to do. But when the terrain is difficult, it's useful to know what direction to take. Link
What “broken windows” policing is IN JULY 2014 an unarmed black man named Eric Garner died at the hands of a police officer after allegedly resisting arrest. Garner’s presumed crime was selling “loosies”, or untaxed cigarettes, on a street corner in Staten Island. His death, along with that of other unarmed black men accused of petty offences by white police officers, has raised questions about police tactics. Some say the problem is “broken windows” policing, an approach to law enforcement based on the theory that cracking down on minor crimes helps to prevent major ones. Critics argue that the effect is discriminatory, as police statistically tend to target non-whites. Defenders such as Bill Bratton (pictured), the head of the New York Police Department (NYPD), and George Kelling, the architect of the original theory, champion the theory as the reason why crime is plummeting in so many cities. So what exactly is “broken windows” policing, and does it really explain the drop in crime? + Show Spoiler +The term “broken windows” refers to an observation made in the early 1980s by Mr Kelling, a criminologist, and James Wilson, a social scientist, that when a building window is broken and left unrepaired, the rest of the windows will soon be broken too. An unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, they argued, and so breaking more windows costs nothing. More profoundly, they found that in environments where disorderly behaviour goes unchecked—where prostitutes visibly ply their trade or beggars accost passers-by—more serious street crime flourishes. This theory is supported by a number of randomised experiments. Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, for example, found that people were twice as likely to steal an envelope filled with money if it was sticking out of a mailbox covered in graffiti. What this means for law enforcement, Messrs Kelling and Wilson prescribed, is that when police officers keep streets orderly, and punish even small signs of misbehaviour with a warning or an arrest, people will behave in a more orderly way.
When the “broken windows” theory was first published, urban crime was a seemingly uncontainable problem in America and around the world. But in the past two decades crime has fallen at an extraordinary rate. This change has been especially profound in New York City, where the murder rate dropped from 26.5 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.3 per 100,000 in 2013—lower than the national average. Plenty of theories have been concocted to explain this drop, but the city’s decision to take minor crimes seriously certainly played a part. While Mr Bratton was head of New York’s transit police in 1990, he ordered his officers to arrest as many turnstile-jumpers as possible. They found that one in seven arrested was wanted for other crimes, and that one in 20 carried a knife, gun or other weapon. Within a year, subway crime had fallen by 30%. In 1994 Rudy Giuliani, who had been elected New York’s mayor after promising to clean up the city’s streets, appointed Mr Bratton as head of the NYPD. Scaling up the lessons from the subway, Mr Bratton found that cracking down on misdemeanour offences, such as illegal gun possession, reduced opportunities for crime. In four years, the city saw about two fewer shootings per day.
“Broken windows”-style policing has arguably helped to reduce crime. But other factors have also helped. Many police departments, particularly in big cities, have got better at using data to locate criminal hot-spots and target resources more effectively. The sharp decline in crime also coincided with the end of the crack-cocaine epidemic, improved security technology (it has never been harder to steal a car) and a reduction in the amount of lead in the atmosphere, which some studies show may reduce impulsive behaviour. Yet “broken windows”-style policing has also drawn serious criticism, with some saying it increases friction between police and citizens, particularly in poor and minority areas. Such neighbourhoods tend to receive a disproportionate amount of police attention, in part because they experience more crime: though blacks and Hispanics made up 53% of New York city’s population in 2013, they were 83% of its murder victims. But there are also signs of racial discrimination. Evidence that drug arrests imposed disproportionate costs on poor and minority residents, for example, encouraged the NYPD to relax its marijuana policy in November. But for all the complaints about uneven enforcement and racial prejudice, a majority of New Yorkers—both black and white—still say they want their broken windows fixed. Link
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. benghazi x iran gonna nuke us isn't the kind of foreign policy expertise we need.
On January 29 2015 11:05 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. This is true and all, but if she admits to that, it undercuts what is basically her only real qualification beyond who she's sleeping with*. A term and a half in the Senate is something, but it's really underimpressive for the role she's trying to stake out as elder statesman. Inexperience is a powerful charge in the post-Obama election where a lot of people (myself included) are feeling pretty burned by the inexperienced but charismatic kind of candidate. *The fact that she owes her position to marriage is really the reason why I have so much trouble with any notion that she's the "feminist" candidate. I'd really rather have the first female president be somebody who didn't owe their position to the influence of their husband. Marrying into position seems far too medieval for my taste. But hey, if she's running against Jeb, that's some monarchic shit too.
that's a very patronizing view of hillary. her expertise is in political organization and fighting for policies, something she is qualified for at the highest level.
i was cautiously optimistic about obama but would have preferred hillary. in terms of actual policy expertise none of these guys are experts. they are politicians.
|
On January 29 2015 11:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs.
It feels like your argument is essentially "zero is more than negative!", but I don't think that is a very realistic interpretation and I don't think most moderates would classify Clinton's foreign policy experience as negative. Benghazi ended up being viewed as trying too hard to blame it on her for most people. I think you are ignoring the fact that independents are what make an election, not republican or democrat bases. In the end, Clinton will be able to cite her resume and make a good impression. Republicans will point out that things went wrong under her watch, but I don't think many people will see that as worse than someone with absolutely zero experience. Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, etc all are at absolute zero experience regarding foreign policy. My view/understanding is that independents tend to base their vote both on "resume" and status quo blame. Things are looking good for Obama right now statistically and independents don't have much reason to say "fuck this shit, we need something new".
I understand that in your position, it is easy to rail on Clinton as dropping the ball, but I don't think independents will view her in that light when she's making statements and the like. I think that even if people see some blunders as her mistake, they will ultimately assume her experience has to be a huge upgrade over downright zero. Can you elaborate on why you don't think that's the case?
|
On January 29 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:A few good reads: Show nested quote +The Moynihan Report: 50 Years Later Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died in 2003, was a U.S. Senator from New York for four terms from 1977 to 2001. Before that, he was Ambassador to the United Nations. Before that, he was U.S. Ambassador to India. Back in the 1960s, he held various positions in the Kennedy and Johnson administraions. He was also a Ph.D. sociologist who among his writings included 19 books, leading the newspaper columnist George Will to remark (if I remember correctly) that Moynihan had written more books than most Senators had read. But in discussing Moynihan's career, the talk inevitably at some point goes to a famous report that he authored a half-century ago in 1965 while working for the Office of Policy Planning and Research in the Department of Labor, called "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action." (The text of the report is available at the DoL website here, although the tables and figures are not.) Less than a year after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Moynihan wrote in the introduction: + Show Spoiler +In this new period the expectations of the Negro Americans will go beyond civil rights. Being Americans, they will now expect that in the near future equal opportunities for them as a group will produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups. This is not going to happen. Nor will it happen for generations to come unless a new and special effort is made.
There are two reasons. First, the racist virus in the American blood stream still afflicts us: Negroes will encounter serious personal prejudice for at least another generation. Second, three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment have taken their toll on the Negro people. The harsh fact is that as a group, at the present time, in terms of ability to win out in the competitions of American life, they are not equal to most of those groups with which they will be competing. Individually, Negro Americans reach the highest peaks of achievement. But collectively, in the spectrum of American ethnic and religious and regional groups, where some get plenty and some get none, where some send eighty percent of their children to college and others pull them out of school at the 8th grade, Negroes are among the weakest.
The most difficult fact for white Americans to understand is that in these terms the circumstances of the Negro American community in recent years has probably been getting worse, not better.
Indices of dollars of income, standards of living, and years of education deceive. The gap between the Negro and most other groups in American society is widening. The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence — not final, but powerfully persuasive — is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the past few years, but the general post war trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.
The thesis of this paper is that these events, in combination, confront the nation with a new kind of problem. Measures that have worked in the past, or would work for most groups in the present, will not work here. A national effort is required that will give a unity of purpose to the many activities of the Federal government in this area, directed to a new kind of national goal: the establishment of a stable Negro family structure.
This would be a new departure for Federal policy. And a difficult one. But it almost certainly offers the only possibility of resolving in our time what is, after all, the nation's oldest, and most intransigent, and now its most dangerous social problem. What Gunnar Myrdal said in An American Dilemma remains true today: "America is free to chose whether the Negro shall remain her liability or become her opportunity."
Anyone schooled in the ways of political correctness can predict what happened next, even if you have never heard of the Moynihan Report. Moynihan's analysis of the problem and his obvious sympathy with the plight of African-Americans addressing a legacy of government-sanctioned discrimination was ignored. Instead, he was harshly criticized for blaming the victims of discrimination and for being a racist. Sara McLanahan and Christopher Jencks describe the reaction in their essay "Was Moynihan Right?" in the Spring 2015 issue of Education Next. They write:
Moynihan’s claim that growing up in a fatherless family reduced a child’s chances of educational and economic success was furiously denounced when the report appeared in 1965, with many critics calling Moynihan a racist. For the next two decades few scholars chose to investigate the effects of father absence, lest they too be demonized if their findings supported Moynihan’s argument. Fortunately, America’s best-known black sociologist, William Julius Wilson, broke this taboo in 1987, providing a candid assessment of the black family and its problems in The Truly Disadvantaged. Since then, social scientists have accumulated a lot more evidence on the effects of family structure.
The same issue of Education Next includes a group of articles on the state of the American family, timed for the 50th anniversary of the Moynihan report. For example, James T. Patterson offers an overview of the Moynihan report itself, how it was received, and how Moynihan viewed the controversy. A list of the other articles is available here.
Several decades later, Moynihan eventually received considerable credit for the prescience and force of his 1965 arguments, and for his willingness to make those arguments while facing some very ugly rhetoric. But to my knowledge, at least, none of those who so enthusiastically strafed Moynihan's reputation in 1965 took any responsibility for an important subject being pushed off the national radar for the next two decades.
Moynihan's 1965 argument can be broken down into two parts: a claim that family structure was in the process of shifting dramatically, and a claim that this change was injurious to the life prospects of children. The first claim has copious support. The second claim is harder to demonstrate, because disentangling cause and effect is always tricky, but McLanahan and Jencks point to the recent evidence suggesting that it probably holds true as well.
As a starting point, here's some facts about changes in family structure as presented by McLanahan and Jencks. The percentage of U.S. children under the age of 18 living with an unmarried mother rose sharply from the 1960s up through the mid-1980s.
As they point out, these kinds of comparisons over time need to be made with care. For example, back around 1960 most children living with an unmarried mother had been born to married parents, but the couple had separated, divorced, or the father had died. In addition, in 1960 unmarried cohabitation was rare. Children living with an unmarried mother in one year were often not in that category a few years later, if their mother remarried. As time went on, children born out of wedlock became much more common and cohabitation became more common. In other words, the situation of living with an unmarried mother was not the same experience in 1960 as in 1970 or 1980. As one example, unmarried motherhood spread fastest among those with lower levels of education who were most likely to be in poverty. Also, as McLanahan and Jencks write: The historical shift from formerly married to never-married mothers has meant that single motherhood usually occurs earlier in a child’s life. Mothers who marry and then divorce typically spend a number of years with their husband before separating. Today, many women become single mothers when their first child is born. The shift to never-married motherhood has probably weakened the economic and emotional ties between children and their absent fathers.
It's tricky to think about how growing up with a single parent might affect the life prospects for a child. For example, it would obviously be foolish just to compare children with single parents and children with two parents, because children with single parents are not an event that is randomly distributed across all other population characteristics. As one of many possible examples, single parents on average have lower education levels, so perhaps differences are traceable to the education level of the parent, not the marital status. Or perhaps a mother is less likely to marry or live with a father who she suspects might be a negative influence on their children.
But social scientists have come up with a number of more plausible ways to look at causal effects of single parenthood. Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider review a number of studies concerning "The Causal Effects of Father Absence" in the Annual Review of Sociology (July 2013, pp, 399–427). For example, one can use statistical techniques to adjust for various observable parental and family characteristics--including characteristics that existed before the child was born. One can compare across children in a given family, including full-siblings, half-siblings, and unrelated siblings, as well as looking at how events like divorce affect the path that children are on over time. One can look at the difference in the effect of parental death, which can be taken as a random event, and the effect of divorce or separation, which are clearly not random. One can compare across states that have more or less permissive laws about divorce. One can use "propensity score matching," which seeks to compare children who look the same on all other measurable characteristics, but some of whom are growing up with one parent while others are growing up with two.
The authors look at about four dozen differerent studies of father absence using these techniques and others. Here is part of their summary of their findings across the studies:
We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability. Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.
The research base examining the longer-term effects of father absence on adult outcomes is considerably smaller, but here too we see the strongest evidence for a causal effect on adult mental health, suggesting that the psychological harms of father absence experienced during childhood persist throughout the life course. The evidence that father absence affects adult economic or family outcomes is much weaker. A handful of studies find negative effects on employment in adulthood, but there is little consistent evidence of negative effects on marriage or divorce, on income or earnings, or on college education. What changes would help to address to the dissolution of the family that so many children experience as their day-to-day reality? In their Education Next essay, McLanahan and Jencks conclude:
Unmarried parents are not that different from married parents in their behavior. Both groups value marriage, both spend a long time searching for a suitable marriage partner, and both engage in premarital sex and cohabitation. The key difference is that one group often has children while they are searching for a suitable partner, whereas the other group more often has children only after they marry.
Changing this dynamic would require two things. First, we would need to give less-educated women a good reason to postpone motherhood. The women who are currently postponing motherhood are typically investing in education and careers. These women use contraceptive methods that are more reliable, and they use these methods more consistently. Postponing fertility in these ways would also have benefits for women who currently do not do so. They would be more mature when they became mothers, and they would probably do a better job of selecting suitable partners.
Nonetheless, postponing fertility will not solve the problem of nonmarital childbearing unless the economic prospects of the young men who father the children also improve. Women are not likely to marry men whom they view as poor providers, regardless of their own earning capacity. Thus, in addition to encouraging young women to delay motherhood, we also need to improve the economic prospects of their prospective husbands, especially those with no more than a high school diploma. This will not be easy. But it would improve the lives of the men in question, perhaps reduce their level of antisocial behavior, and improve the lives of their children, through all the benefits that flow from a stable home.
I know, I know: Easy to say, hard to do. But when the terrain is difficult, it's useful to know what direction to take. Link It's a nice reminder of an era with liberal politicians that had a conscience beyond the reach of their politics. He couldn't sit idly by as the destruction of the black family condemned generations of young black children and teens to poor upbringings. Even in this article, I hear the author's wish to cloak any discussions of race in his view that racism in the US today is a "virus" not yet eradicated, with a pervasive effect easily witnessed as "serious personal prejudice." There will never be an end to racism, because you can't begin anything without restating it's nefarious reach.
He saw disaster at something like 25% of black children in single-mother homes. Now we're looking at African American unwed mothers sitting at 72%. The destruction of the black family is one of the saddest stories looking back just 50 years.
|
On January 29 2015 13:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs. It feels like your argument is essentially "zero is more than negative!", but I don't think that is a very realistic interpretation and I don't think most moderates would classify Clinton's foreign policy experience as negative. Benghazi ended up being viewed as trying too hard to blame it on her for most people. I think you are ignoring the fact that independents are what make an election, not republican or democrat bases. In the end, Clinton will be able to cite her resume and make a good impression. Republicans will point out that things went wrong under her watch, but I don't think many people will see that as worse than someone with absolutely zero experience. Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, etc all are at absolute zero experience regarding foreign policy. My view/understanding is that independents tend to base their vote both on "resume" and status quo blame. Things are looking good for Obama right now statistically and independents don't have much reason to say "fuck this shit, we need something new". I understand that in your position, it is easy to rail on Clinton as dropping the ball, but I don't think independents will view her in that light when she's making statements and the like. I think that even if people see some blunders as her mistake, they will ultimately assume her experience has to be a huge upgrade over downright zero. Can you elaborate on why you don't think that's the case?
Who cares about Benghazi when there are so many other foreign policy failures to point at? Russia, Syria, Egypt, Libya (and this one is getting worse).... the list goes on. All republicans have to do is give their usual "USA! USA! USA!" foreign policy platform to look favorable when compared to Hillary.
EDIT: How many reset button commercials and jokes do you think will be made about Hillary alone?
|
If only neoliberal policies with their emphasis on destroying workers' bargaining power, elevating individual pursuit of money over community, racist drug laws, etc. hadn't destroyed the black family.
|
On January 29 2015 13:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 13:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs. It feels like your argument is essentially "zero is more than negative!", but I don't think that is a very realistic interpretation and I don't think most moderates would classify Clinton's foreign policy experience as negative. Benghazi ended up being viewed as trying too hard to blame it on her for most people. I think you are ignoring the fact that independents are what make an election, not republican or democrat bases. In the end, Clinton will be able to cite her resume and make a good impression. Republicans will point out that things went wrong under her watch, but I don't think many people will see that as worse than someone with absolutely zero experience. Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, etc all are at absolute zero experience regarding foreign policy. My view/understanding is that independents tend to base their vote both on "resume" and status quo blame. Things are looking good for Obama right now statistically and independents don't have much reason to say "fuck this shit, we need something new". I understand that in your position, it is easy to rail on Clinton as dropping the ball, but I don't think independents will view her in that light when she's making statements and the like. I think that even if people see some blunders as her mistake, they will ultimately assume her experience has to be a huge upgrade over downright zero. Can you elaborate on why you don't think that's the case? Who cares about Benghazi when there are so many other foreign policy failures to point at? Russia, Syria, Egypt, Libya (and this one is getting worse).... the list goes on. All republicans have to do is give their usual "USA! USA! USA!" foreign policy platform to look favorable when compared to Hillary. EDIT: How many reset button commercials and jokes do you think will be made about Hillary alone? Yes, I hope the GOP runs on a 'we should have fought 4 more middle eastern wars!' platform.
|
On January 29 2015 13:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2015 13:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 11:12 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 08:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 29 2015 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2015 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 28 2015 16:17 oneofthem wrote: can't wait for months of foreign policy derping as republicans attack hillary on that front. She's an incredibly soft target on that point. The sad thing is that I'm not even sure how responsible she is for American foreign policy bungling during that time because my impression is that Obama was the one really calling the shots. Which republican hopefuls do you see as having a foreign policy advantage over Clinton? Probably all of them. The difference is that Hillary has actual liabilities from experience. The only exception might be Rand Paul, whose more libertarian message on foreign policy may not play well. Are you actually saying you'd rank Sarah Palin over Clinton in foreign policy? Hey, at least Palin got Russia right! That said, I do not consider Palin a serious candidate. I doubt she runs. It feels like your argument is essentially "zero is more than negative!", but I don't think that is a very realistic interpretation and I don't think most moderates would classify Clinton's foreign policy experience as negative. Benghazi ended up being viewed as trying too hard to blame it on her for most people. I think you are ignoring the fact that independents are what make an election, not republican or democrat bases. In the end, Clinton will be able to cite her resume and make a good impression. Republicans will point out that things went wrong under her watch, but I don't think many people will see that as worse than someone with absolutely zero experience. Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, etc all are at absolute zero experience regarding foreign policy. My view/understanding is that independents tend to base their vote both on "resume" and status quo blame. Things are looking good for Obama right now statistically and independents don't have much reason to say "fuck this shit, we need something new". I understand that in your position, it is easy to rail on Clinton as dropping the ball, but I don't think independents will view her in that light when she's making statements and the like. I think that even if people see some blunders as her mistake, they will ultimately assume her experience has to be a huge upgrade over downright zero. Can you elaborate on why you don't think that's the case? Who cares about Benghazi when there are so many other foreign policy failures to point at? Russia, Syria, Egypt, Libya (and this one is getting worse).... the list goes on. All republicans have to do is give their usual "USA! USA! USA!" foreign policy platform to look favorable when compared to Hillary. EDIT: How many reset button commercials and jokes do you think will be made about Hillary alone?
I don't think any of the Republican candidates will be able to bundle non-Benghazi foreign policy failures into either commercial soundbites or two minute debate answers which are the only things that matter.
Their campaign managers are just too crappy and/or drink way too much of the party Kool-Aid.
Edit: This doesn't speak to the new candidates, though. Just the stable that couldn't beat McCain or Romney.
|
|
|
|