SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that he has directed his federal prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible, including mandatory minimum sentences, in his first step toward a return to the war on drugs of the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in long sentences for many minority defendants and packed U.S. prisons.
[...] In the later years of the Obama administration, a bipartisan consensus emerged on Capitol Hill for sentencing reform legislation, which Sessions opposed and successfully worked to derail.
In a two-page memo to federal prosecutors across the country, Sessions overturned former attorney general Eric H. Holder's sweeping criminal charging policy that instructed his prosecutors to avoid charging certain defendants with offenses that would trigger long mandatory minimum sentences. In its place, Sessions told his more than 5,000 assistant U.S. attorneys to charge defendants with the most serious crimes, carrying the toughest penalties.
More at Washington Post, Fox News, Huffington Post, The Hill
Memorandum on Department Charging and Sentencing Policy - US Department of Justice PDF
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jIyajbe on Tuesday May 16 2017, @03:51PM (9 children)
Is this familiar quote a summary of your point?
"...the purpose of the presidency is not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it."
I am coming round to this point of view.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 16 2017, @06:25PM (8 children)
I have not heard that quote before and don't know its provenance, but it feels descriptive of what we see now.
I recall from history class that historians often write that America's original sin was slavery. There's the famous quote from Sojourner Truth about the Constitution having "a little weevil in it!" they repeat. I believe there's another, worse original sin in the American system, in its unwritten Constitution: aristocracy.
The Founding Fathers were aristocrats. They were British subjects who were fine with the notion of aristocracy--they just didn't like the king at the time. So they jettisoned the king and kept the aristocracy, and enshrined it in the Way Things Are Done.
We're still trying to unwind the effect of slavery on the country, and that's after specifically, formally, openly dealing with it for 150 years. We have never openly and honestly tried to formally, and completely, root out aristocracy.
Up until now the aristocracy has been fine to allow the appearance of democracy, the endless see-saw between the Republicans and Democrats, that, gosh, just never seems to resolve anything real, because it doesn't change the underlying power or wealth of their Deep State. Now that we have the technological means to find out all about the shape and contours of the Deep State, we have a reality to match to our ongoing observation of our social wealth and human vitality and collective potential being leached away by invisible, vampiric forces whose collective aspirations seem to amount to nothing more than greater piles of blow and larger numbers of hookers.
I think we can do better than that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:26PM
As I understand it, the USA governmental system design is heavily based on the Roman Republic.
Only citizens may vote. The citizens are the land owners/aristocrats. The vast majority of the people are only residents. Thats the way USA was for the first ~70 years of time as well in terms of voting. USA was explicitly set up from the initial start to favor the wealthy. The voting system ensures there are only two parties. It is broken by design? No, because it has worked/lasted a long time, it works mostly as intended. And one those intended things is being able to get laws in place that allow discrimination against the poor.
My point? It will not be easy removing the upper class from control when it was explicitly designed for them to be in control.
One possible option I see is to linearize income + wealth: tax wealth progressively say .5% per magnitude starting at 1% at the million dollars of equity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 16 2017, @11:27PM (6 children)
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Someone didn't like nobility to the point of preventing the US from creating them. We also ignore both the US's strong connection to the revolution in France which also was happening at the time and which was strongly egalitarian, and the ease of obtaining land in the US. It wasn't hard to become a land-owning "aristocrat" in the US and circumstances didn't really change on that front until public lands were withdrawn from sale starting around the beginning of the 20th century.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 17 2017, @12:42PM (5 children)
You're getting hung up on the titular component of "aristocracy," whereas I'm talking about the functional aspect of aristocracy, which is hereditary entitlement and entrenched privilege. So you're correct that we don't have dudes swanning around calling themselves the "Baron of the Hamptons," or the "Duke of Las Vegas," but we do very much have dudes swanning around claiming all the rights and benefits that would accrue to said formal titles.
But, sigh, fine, if you like, call it "plutocracy" instead, but that rather misses the hereditary, entrenched nature of what I'm talking about and can be shaded into the salutory "meritocracy," meaning, which implies that those jackasses earned what they have and the rest of us are just jealous and lazy.
Are you one of them, khallow? If not, is it because you're mentally torpid and lazy, and merely envious but aspiring?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 17 2017, @01:21PM (4 children)
You're getting hung up on the titular component of "aristocracy," whereas I'm talking about the functional aspect of aristocracy, which is hereditary entitlement and entrenched privilege.
No, I'm making a point here. The founders went out of their way to eliminate a common component of aristocracy. And titles aren't as irrelevant as you think. They've been used as gatekeepers for the aristocracy and power for a long time in Europe. When reading biographies of ambitious people in Europe during the Middle Ages, you often see them go to enormous effort just to get a better title.
In the US, you have to keep the wealth and property in order to keep the class. Plenty of people can't do that and hence, don't stay aristocrats.
But, sigh, fine, if you like, call it "plutocracy" instead, but that rather misses the hereditary, entrenched nature of what I'm talking about and can be shaded into the salutory "meritocracy," meaning, which implies that those jackasses earned what they have and the rest of us are just jealous and lazy.
No, plutocracy doesn't miss that. And you're grossly exaggerating the "hereditary, entrenched nature". Further, are you ever going to take these contrary indications into account, or will we a few months from now, have this debate reset once again to the same starting point? There's considerable nuance that needs to be grasped here even if we fully grant your point of view.
The real problem with the idea is the huge power of bureaucracies throughout the world. Technocracy is really the proper label for this system. Everyone sees the flashy bits, the CEOs, wealthy investors, politicians, etc at the top of these pyramids, but it is the people under them who create the real power. Those bureaucracies whether private or public know more about us and enable far more powerful infrastructure (which can be and often is used to control us) than the bureaucracies of the past.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:28PM (3 children)
Nobody's ever heard of the Rockefellers, Fords, Vanderbilts, or Du Ponts? All the stuff about wealth inequality being the worst in American history is fake news? The data about how CEOs make 1000 times the median wage of their employees is fabricated?
What is the "considerable nuance" you're talking about that debrides that? Do you know of some path to capturing a reasonable share of the value of our output that the rest of us don't? Is the secret getting an MBA, going to med school, or making the right friendship in your college fraternity? I would really like for there to be such a thing, so if you know it, share it. That sounds flippant, because I am a flippant guy, but seriously, please tell us how to escape the crumbling middle class and join the ranks of the rich and powerful. I'm pretty sure we'd all like to know. What is the source of the hope and confidence in the justice of this status quo that feeds you?
You seem to be weighting bureaucracy more than I do, here, but you're not going to get much argument out of me there. I'm no fan of big government. I think I would be a fan of efficient government, but I don't know of many real-world examples.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18 2017, @12:57AM (2 children)
Nobody's ever heard of the Rockefellers, Fords, Vanderbilts, or Du Ponts?
And your point is? I didn't say that people couldn't inherit wealth. None of those families have any notable power or history-making ability now. Even the more politically oriented families like Kennedys and Bushes see a considerable dilution of their power with subsequent generations. Meanwhile coming from the other direction, we have a lot of new wealth. For example, of the wealthiest ten people in the US, only two had extremely wealthy parents (Charles and David Koch, known as the "Koch brothers" who inherited a considerable oil company from their father and grew it into one of the largest privately owned (that is, not publicly sold on a stock market) companies in the US).
The data about how CEOs make 1000 times the median wage of their employees is fabricated?
That is entirely irrelevant and ignores that the CEO can be worth a 1000 times the median wage of their employees.
What is the "considerable nuance" you're talking about that debrides that? Do you know of some path to capturing a reasonable share of the value of our output that the rest of us don't?
No. But I do know that saving and investing your money does the trick. Due to labor competition with the developing world, labor is not as great a way to generate wealth. But owning capital remains a great way to do so.
Is the secret getting an MBA, going to med school, or making the right friendship in your college fraternity? I would really like for there to be such a thing, so if you know it, share it.
First of all, you have to want that. I should be stating the obvious in noting that most people simply aren't behaving in a way that would accumulate wealth at a class-shifting level. Have you tried to do the things that very rich people have done to get rich? Most of them have run multiple businesses and tried aggressively to make advantageous connections.
Second, they tend to be really competent at what they do which comes from learning from experience combined with a lot of experience.
Third, be really focused on growing the value of the businesses and investments they own.
That sounds flippant, because I am a flippant guy, but seriously, please tell us how to escape the crumbling middle class and join the ranks of the rich and powerful. I'm pretty sure we'd all like to know
Moving on, did you know that more [reason.com] of the US middle class crumbles up into the upper class than crumbles down into the lower class? Sounds like there might be a lot of people who have figured this thing out.
What is the source of the hope and confidence in the justice of this status quo that feeds you?
I pay attention to what is actually going on. Today we have the greatest improvement in well-being of all humanity in history and have in addition a considerable drop in global wealth inequality. Second, wealthy societies result in improvements in every enormous human problem such as overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, government and societal corruption, etc. That has come at a slight increase in the amount of relative poverty in the US. We have enormous technological developments underway that can completely change how we view the universe as something out there, our acceptance of the limitations of our bodies as something we can't do anything about, planets and stars as colored lights in the sky, and thinking itself. A primitive view of society as run by aristocracy completely ignores the society (you also have yet to explain your earlier use of the term, "deep state" - could it be that you actually agree with me without realizing it?). It's yet another prison of the mind.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 18 2017, @03:31AM (1 child)
Ah, OK. They want it more. As for doing the things very rich people have done to get rich, do you mean using my buddies to hand me a sweetheart, no-bid contract? No, of course not. You imply they have better instincts and business savvy than everyone else. One question, khallow, do you really know any rich people?
Do you really know any rich people?
Haha, OK. I've got to stop you there. Jesus. Social Darwinism really is forever here, isn't it? It's all about the breeding, you see...
As for the rest, you have an oddly insousciant view of how things are going in the world, and moreover, how everyone else thinks things are going in the world. I think it's safe to say that the consensus is that the status quo is broken. Great Britain voted for Brexit because they think the status quo is broken. People voted for Trump because they think the status quo is broken. Marine Le Pen, who couldn't get the time of day in France for decades, was the runner-up candidate in France this time. France, where people who are homeless and unemployed go on strike when their benefits are cut, and win! Markets don't wring their hands about the potential break-up of the Eurozone because, well, nearly everyone in it thinks things are swell. Billionaires don't gather in Davos and chatter about their bug-out bunkers because they think the plebes are fat and happy. We have Michael Moore and Pat Buchanan nearly on the same page about where Americans' heads are at, and that is not normal.
It's like you live in a parallel universe. Do you not see any of these things, or is it that you're paid not to? I don't get it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18 2017, @12:23PM
Ah, OK. They want it more. As for doing the things very rich people have done to get rich, do you mean using my buddies to hand me a sweetheart, no-bid contract? No, of course not. You imply they have better instincts and business savvy than everyone else.
Well, looking at those ten people on the richest list that I mentioned yesterday, not a one got that way through sweetheart deals.
You imply they have better instincts and business savvy than everyone else.
No, if I had implied that, I would have implied that. However, if you don't do anything that would develop those instincts, then why do you think you would have better instincts?
One question, khallow, do you really know any rich people?
How does "knowing" rich people help you figure out how to get rich? Is that working for you?
As for the rest, you have an oddly insousciant view of how things are going in the world, and moreover, how everyone else thinks things are going in the world.
The current developed world troubles are temporary. There isn't an infinite supply of cheap developing world labor. My view is that the developed world is currently under an economic stress that can't be fixed with politics, but only by elevating most of the rest of the world to developed world status. Further, we're well on our way to getting that done. I believe 2050 will see a very different developed world than the present.
I think it's safe to say that the consensus is that the status quo is broken. Great Britain voted for Brexit because they think the status quo is broken. People voted for Trump because they think the status quo is broken. Marine Le Pen, who couldn't get the time of day in France for decades, was the runner-up candidate in France this time.
So what? Those activities are all completely democratic and legal, and are examples of voting populations attempting to fix perceived problems in their countries. Sure, good intentions don't magically result in good outcomes, but you do want voters to try to fix the things they see as wrong, right?
It's like you live in a parallel universe. Do you not see any of these things, or is it that you're paid not to? I don't get it.
The problem is your provincial perception. Look at all that verbiage you wrote. What continents did the various activities you mention fall on? North America and Europe. At best, that's roughly a billion people, a seventh of the world's population. You ignore what happens to a much greater portion of the world's population. China and India are each elevating more than a billion people into the developed world, for example.