The Analytically Political

News, Politics & Kritiks


Reblogged from devilduck
Devaluing a currency is like peeing in bed. It feels good at first, but pretty soon it becomes a real mess. A senior U.S. Federal Reserve official (via devilduck)
Reblogged from thedailywhat
thedailywhat:

White House Petition of the Day: Make Legislators Wear Logos of Corporate Backers
The latest brilliant idea to come out of We The People website is this petition suggesting that lawmakers should be required to be more transparent about their financial backers by wearing logos of their corporate “sponsors,” just like the NASCAR drivers do. As of Thursday evening, it has accrued more than 9,000 of the 100,000 signatures it needs to be formally addressed by the White House. GOOD magazine previously explored this idea with photoshopped mockups of New York Senator Charles Schumer and Florida Senator Marco Rubio donning logo patches of their contributors on their suits.
Hat tip goes to Dangerous Minds.

thedailywhat:

White House Petition of the Day: Make Legislators Wear Logos of Corporate Backers

The latest brilliant idea to come out of We The People website is this petition suggesting that lawmakers should be required to be more transparent about their financial backers by wearing logos of their corporate “sponsors,” just like the NASCAR drivers do. As of Thursday evening, it has accrued more than 9,000 of the 100,000 signatures it needs to be formally addressed by the White House. GOOD magazine previously explored this idea with photoshopped mockups of New York Senator Charles Schumer and Florida Senator Marco Rubio donning logo patches of their contributors on their suits.

Hat tip goes to Dangerous Minds.

Reblogged from america-wakiewakie
spytap:

pberntsen:

peterfeld:

america-wakiewakie:

You know, when Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA in the Cold War years as an ally… That part of our imperialist history your textbooks keep hush hush.

Awesome. Here is the full 1993 article.

Talk about your chickens coming home to roost

The proper intelligence term is blowback - this is often the (literal) textbook answer.

holy shit

spytap:

pberntsen:

peterfeld:

america-wakiewakie:

You know, when Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA in the Cold War years as an ally… That part of our imperialist history your textbooks keep hush hush.

Awesome. Here is the full 1993 article.

Talk about your chickens coming home to roost

The proper intelligence term is blowback - this is often the (literal) textbook answer.

holy shit

Reblogged from inothernews

Reblogged from evil-trash-can-kid
Reblogged from revolutionary-afrolatino
missingdinosaur:

jethroq:

kemetically-afrolatino:

China denounces America’s treatment of Afro-descendants

“In conclusion, The People’s Republic of China demands that America stop using their cry of human rights violations against other sovereign nations in order to declare war on them to steal their resources when America flagrantly violates the human rights of Afro-descendants and other minorities within its own country.”

this article just drops stat. after stat. on the racial inequalities in the U.S. good read.

When China calls out your shit about human rights. And has the numbers to back it up. Then you know you’ve fucked up.

Holy shit I have never seen an official statement from China be so on point.

missingdinosaur:

jethroq:

kemetically-afrolatino:

China denounces America’s treatment of Afro-descendants

In conclusion, The People’s Republic of China demands that America stop using their cry of human rights violations against other sovereign nations in order to declare war on them to steal their resources when America flagrantly violates the human rights of Afro-descendants and other minorities within its own country.”

this article just drops stat. after stat. on the racial inequalities in the U.S. good read.

When China calls out your shit about human rights. And has the numbers to back it up. Then you know you’ve fucked up.

Holy shit I have never seen an official statement from China be so on point.

(Source: revolutionary-afrolatino, via amodernmanifesto)

Reblogged from confrontingmywhitegirlprivilege
zeram:

caitlinchronic:

White privilege is killing 26 people and being the ‘quiet friendless boy’ meanwhile murdered brown people are undisciplined drug dealing thieves. 

This.

zeram:

caitlinchronic:

White privilege is killing 26 people and being the ‘quiet friendless boy’ meanwhile murdered brown people are undisciplined drug dealing thieves. 

This.

(Source: confrontingmywhitegirlprivilege, via amodernmanifesto)

Reblogged from meineigenesblog

(via ommegang)

Reblogged from skepticalavenger
skepticalavenger:


Chris Howard:  America really looks like this - I was looking at the amazing 2012 election maps created by Mark Newman (Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012 ), and although there is a very interesting blended voting map (Most of the country is some shade of purple, a varied blend of Democrat blue and Republican red) what I really wanted was this blended map with a population density overlay. Because what really stands out is how red the nation seems to be when you do not take the voting population into account; when you do so many of those vast red mid-west blocks fade into pale pink and lavender (very low population).
So I created a new map using Mark’s blended voting map based on the actual numbers of votes for each party overlaid with population maps from Texas Tech University and other sources. 
Here’s the result—what the American political voting distribution really looks like.

Now THIS is the most accurate map that I’ve seen, and it is fascinating.

skepticalavenger:

Chris Howard:  America really looks like this - I was looking at the amazing 2012 election maps created by Mark Newman (Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012 ), and although there is a very interesting blended voting map (Most of the country is some shade of purple, a varied blend of Democrat blue and Republican red) what I really wanted was this blended map with a population density overlay. Because what really stands out is how red the nation seems to be when you do not take the voting population into account; when you do so many of those vast red mid-west blocks fade into pale pink and lavender (very low population).

So I created a new map using Mark’s blended voting map based on the actual numbers of votes for each party overlaid with population maps from Texas Tech University and other sources. 

Here’s the result—what the American political voting distribution really looks like.

Now THIS is the most accurate map that I’ve seen, and it is fascinating.

(via amodernmanifesto)

Reblogged from fuckyeahmarxismleninism
i think someone forgot that we have a black president in the USA.. but.. yeah the image is pretty spot on. 

i think someone forgot that we have a black president in the USA.. but.. yeah the image is pretty spot on. 

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism, via amodernmanifesto)

Reblogged from contextual-awareness
same old shit

same old shit

(Source: contextual-awareness, via stfuconservatives)

Reblogged from thebowspring

An Israeli airstrike killed a UN school teacher in Gaza on Wednesday, a UN spokesman said

israelfacts:

Marwan Abu El Qumsan was in a car near the scene of a strike on the Palestinian territory. The Arabic teacher at a UN school was killed and his brother severely injured in the blast, said Chris Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Palestinian refugees agency, UNRWA.

The Huffington Post

fuck this genocide.

(Source: thebowspring, via amodernmanifesto)

Reblogged from sandandglass

underthemountainbunker:

VETERANS DAY. 

Veterans vs. the Republican Party.

“40 Republicans senators thought it would be wrong to spend $1 billion on a bill to reintegrate veterans into the domestic workforce, partly because of the amount of money we had already gladly spent on wars that made them veterans in the first place.”

truthbombs.

(via stfuconservatives)

Reblogged from thepeoplesrecord
thepeoplesrecord:

The “McDonaldization” of Justice
November 14, 2012
Between 1925 to 1974, the U.S had an incarceration rate between 90 and 150 per 100,000 people.  Today, that rate is seven times that. Researcher Matthew DeMichele, Ph.D and Postdoctoral Scholar at the Penn State Justice Center, likens our current justice system to fast-food restaurants, “in which quality goes out the window, and quantity takes over. Why is this and how did it come to be this way? Below, DeMichele discusses his research work to answer to that question as well as provide effective alternatives to methods of mass incarceration: 
—-
DeMichele: The U.S. incarcerates more people than any Western democracy. Our incarceration rates are roughly seven to ten times larger than other similar countries. In fact, we have an incarceration rate over 700 per 100,000 adults, whereas Australia, Canada, and Germany have rates between 90 and 150 per 100,000 in the population. Strangely, the incarceration rate in the U.S. remained around 120 per 100,000 from 1925 to 1974. Then, something happened to cause a drastic change to how we punish. No longer were law breakers to be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society. No longer were criminal justice officials expected to find ways to alleviate incarceration. Instead, the criminal justice system focused on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and managerialism. And, to some extent, the justice system adopted the mentality of fast-food restaurants in which quality goes out the window, and quantity takes over. Simultaneous to the McDonalidization of justice, the U.S. also experienced drastic shifts in the treatment of working class populations with the discrediting of unions and labor protections.
Some years ago I began studying why the U.S. incarcerates so many more people compared to other countries and why we lock-up so many more now than in the past. Ironically, I was surprised to find that crime had not increased during this time, but rather decreased. So, I knew other mechanisms were at play, but what could be driving such an approach to justice? I looked at our legal system and how it is embedded within a particular political-economic culture.
Some countries choose to incarcerate, whereas others seek to treat the underlying causes of crime as a manifestation of social problems through welfare, education, and vocational training.
An inherent feature of capitalist societies is that there are poor people. In fact, capitalism is an economic approach that relies on income inequality to motivate the public. This approach allows some to amass great wealth, develops a strong middle class, and supports innovation, but it also promotes some of the largest income gaps in the world. All governments have approaches to dealing with individuals that fall to the bottom of the economic ladder. These people can be thought of as William Julius Wilson’s underclass in which they are trapped in a feedback look of poverty, criminality and substance abuse. Some countries choose to incarcerate, whereas others seek to treat the underlying causes of crime as a manifestation of social problems through welfare, education, and vocational training.
Of course, poverty is not unique to the U.S. What is unique to the U.S. is how we have decided to treat our underclass. We have decided to demonize, criminalize, and institutionalize large sections of our population. Policy choices have been made to limit public education, welfare, and ameliorative approaches for the underclass. Instead, we have built more jails and prisons, hired more police officers, and passed laws for longer sentences.
I argue that in the U.S. there is a relatively unique way of thinking about crime, criminals, and crime control. This way of thinking encourages a high degree of subjectivity in legal decisions. U.S. prosecutors have an unheard of amount of discretion compared to other countries. Similarly, U.S. judges have little oversight and tremendous flexibility when making decisions. These may sound like small things, but they allow prosecutors and judges – many of which are elected – to make decisions with little evidence of their effectiveness. And, they are situated within a social narrative dedicated to punitiveness in which each legal actor tries to be more punitive than the next. This becomes most obvious during election cycles in which prosecutors and judges profess their commitment to incarceration. No doubt this is something that appeals to voters, especially because most of the people that have been incarcerated cannot vote due to felony restrictions.
Legal culture alone has not made the incarceration boom possible. Instead, our legal system is embedded within a political-economic context in which conservative politics have replaced the once dominant social contract. At least since the mid-1970s, the U.S. political environment has shifted toward the right. This shift has altered the nature of the right-left divide in which, as Paul Pierson documented in Off-Center: A Republican Revolution, centrist political expectations have moved toward the right. Many may wonder what this has to do with incarceration. First, the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system ensures that the poorest of in our society are most susceptible to punishment. Second, working class protections such as powerful unions, wage negotiations, and welfare programs have been severely cut, if not eliminated. Third, mental health facilities have been closed, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics tells us that a bulk of jail inmates have been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Combining a legal culture favoring the wealthy, a society that limits worker protections, and the incarceration of the mentally ill creates a powder keg in which mass incarceration is nearly inevitable.
The question now is how to do we stop? How do we shift from a mass incarceration society to a society that consciously works to reduce the inequality of our justice system? I should point out that I do not have all the answers, and, if I did, they could not be spelled out so clearly in this short essay. However, what I do know is that the mass incarceration of adults, of children, and of the mentally ill is a result of policies. It is not an unintended consequence. No, mass incarceration has occurred because policymakers have passed laws that require long sentences, they have dedicated money to hiring more police, they have broadened prosecutorial discretion, among other changes. And, let us not forget that alternatives are available. Instead, of building prisons, we could build schools. Instead, of hiring more cops, we could hire more teachers. And, instead of sending the mentally ill to jails and prisons, we could be dedicated to understanding mental illness and treating it like any other medical condition.
There is no scientific evidence supporting prison as a way to improve people.
These are only a few policy suggestions, but what is really needed is a new way to think about crime, criminals, and crime control. Some may think I am suggesting that we go “soft” on violent criminals. I am not. Some people do very bad things and need to be separated from society. But, we need to restrain the use of institutionalization and use it as sparingly as possible. We also must keep in mind that when a child commits such an act, the neighborhood, community, and society in which they live are responsible. When children commit heinous crimes, and a few do, we must ask: how did our education, welfare, and child protection services fail these children? There is no scientific evidence supporting prison as a way to improve people. Just as we know that eating too much fast-food leads to obesity and a host of health problems, we also know that a fast-food approach to justice fosters a host of social problems.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The “McDonaldization” of Justice

November 14, 2012

Between 1925 to 1974, the U.S had an incarceration rate between 90 and 150 per 100,000 people.  Today, that rate is seven times that. Researcher Matthew DeMichele, Ph.D and Postdoctoral Scholar at the Penn State Justice Center, likens our current justice system to fast-food restaurants, “in which quality goes out the window, and quantity takes over. Why is this and how did it come to be this way? Below, DeMichele discusses his research work to answer to that question as well as provide effective alternatives to methods of mass incarceration: 

—-

DeMichele: The U.S. incarcerates more people than any Western democracy. Our incarceration rates are roughly seven to ten times larger than other similar countries. In fact, we have an incarceration rate over 700 per 100,000 adults, whereas Australia, Canada, and Germany have rates between 90 and 150 per 100,000 in the population. Strangely, the incarceration rate in the U.S. remained around 120 per 100,000 from 1925 to 1974. Then, something happened to cause a drastic change to how we punish. No longer were law breakers to be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society. No longer were criminal justice officials expected to find ways to alleviate incarceration. Instead, the criminal justice system focused on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and managerialism. And, to some extent, the justice system adopted the mentality of fast-food restaurants in which quality goes out the window, and quantity takes over. Simultaneous to the McDonalidization of justice, the U.S. also experienced drastic shifts in the treatment of working class populations with the discrediting of unions and labor protections.

Some years ago I began studying why the U.S. incarcerates so many more people compared to other countries and why we lock-up so many more now than in the past. Ironically, I was surprised to find that crime had not increased during this time, but rather decreased. So, I knew other mechanisms were at play, but what could be driving such an approach to justice? I looked at our legal system and how it is embedded within a particular political-economic culture.

Some countries choose to incarcerate, whereas others seek to treat the underlying causes of crime as a manifestation of social problems through welfare, education, and vocational training.

An inherent feature of capitalist societies is that there are poor people. In fact, capitalism is an economic approach that relies on income inequality to motivate the public. This approach allows some to amass great wealth, develops a strong middle class, and supports innovation, but it also promotes some of the largest income gaps in the world. All governments have approaches to dealing with individuals that fall to the bottom of the economic ladder. These people can be thought of as William Julius Wilson’s underclass in which they are trapped in a feedback look of poverty, criminality and substance abuse. Some countries choose to incarcerate, whereas others seek to treat the underlying causes of crime as a manifestation of social problems through welfare, education, and vocational training.

Of course, poverty is not unique to the U.S. What is unique to the U.S. is how we have decided to treat our underclass. We have decided to demonize, criminalize, and institutionalize large sections of our population. Policy choices have been made to limit public education, welfare, and ameliorative approaches for the underclass. Instead, we have built more jails and prisons, hired more police officers, and passed laws for longer sentences.

I argue that in the U.S. there is a relatively unique way of thinking about crime, criminals, and crime control. This way of thinking encourages a high degree of subjectivity in legal decisions. U.S. prosecutors have an unheard of amount of discretion compared to other countries. Similarly, U.S. judges have little oversight and tremendous flexibility when making decisions. These may sound like small things, but they allow prosecutors and judges – many of which are elected – to make decisions with little evidence of their effectiveness. And, they are situated within a social narrative dedicated to punitiveness in which each legal actor tries to be more punitive than the next. This becomes most obvious during election cycles in which prosecutors and judges profess their commitment to incarceration. No doubt this is something that appeals to voters, especially because most of the people that have been incarcerated cannot vote due to felony restrictions.

Legal culture alone has not made the incarceration boom possible. Instead, our legal system is embedded within a political-economic context in which conservative politics have replaced the once dominant social contract. At least since the mid-1970s, the U.S. political environment has shifted toward the right. This shift has altered the nature of the right-left divide in which, as Paul Pierson documented in Off-Center: A Republican Revolution, centrist political expectations have moved toward the right. Many may wonder what this has to do with incarceration. First, the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system ensures that the poorest of in our society are most susceptible to punishment. Second, working class protections such as powerful unions, wage negotiations, and welfare programs have been severely cut, if not eliminated. Third, mental health facilities have been closed, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics tells us that a bulk of jail inmates have been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Combining a legal culture favoring the wealthy, a society that limits worker protections, and the incarceration of the mentally ill creates a powder keg in which mass incarceration is nearly inevitable.

The question now is how to do we stop? How do we shift from a mass incarceration society to a society that consciously works to reduce the inequality of our justice system? I should point out that I do not have all the answers, and, if I did, they could not be spelled out so clearly in this short essay. However, what I do know is that the mass incarceration of adults, of children, and of the mentally ill is a result of policies. It is not an unintended consequence. No, mass incarceration has occurred because policymakers have passed laws that require long sentences, they have dedicated money to hiring more police, they have broadened prosecutorial discretion, among other changes. And, let us not forget that alternatives are available. Instead, of building prisons, we could build schools. Instead, of hiring more cops, we could hire more teachers. And, instead of sending the mentally ill to jails and prisons, we could be dedicated to understanding mental illness and treating it like any other medical condition.

There is no scientific evidence supporting prison as a way to improve people.

These are only a few policy suggestions, but what is really needed is a new way to think about crime, criminals, and crime control. Some may think I am suggesting that we go “soft” on violent criminals. I am not. Some people do very bad things and need to be separated from society. But, we need to restrain the use of institutionalization and use it as sparingly as possible. We also must keep in mind that when a child commits such an act, the neighborhood, community, and society in which they live are responsible. When children commit heinous crimes, and a few do, we must ask: how did our education, welfare, and child protection services fail these children? There is no scientific evidence supporting prison as a way to improve people. Just as we know that eating too much fast-food leads to obesity and a host of health problems, we also know that a fast-food approach to justice fosters a host of social problems.

Source

(Source: thepeoplesrecord, via stfuconservatives)

Reblogged from think-progress