Open Thread and Link Farm, happy robot edition

  1. An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That’s Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border
    “Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz.”
  2. After two trans migrant women died in ICE detention, Tucker Carlson says trans detainees are treated better than American citizens
  3. Inside the horrors of migrant detention centers – Axios
    “At a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility in El Paso, Tex. more than 150 migrants were held in a cell meant for just 35 people…”
  4. What’s Actually Causing Infectious Disease Outbreaks in Immigrant Detention Centers? – Pacific Standard
  5. Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy — and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show | Opinion
    People underestimated Hitler, because you don’t have to be competent to do a lot of harm.
  6. Could Oregon Become the First State to Ban Single-Family Zoning? – Willamette Week
    “… allowing smaller dwellings or breaking up single-family homes into multiple units creates more housing and the chance to make housing more affordable in pricey neighborhoods.”
  7. Every NIMBY’s Speech At a Public Hearing – McSweeney’s Internet Tendency
    “I’ve lived in the same house in the Elm Heights neighborhood for the past twenty years, and I just love everything about this town except for the problems that my politics have directly created.”
  8. I’m from a Mexican family. Stop expecting me to eat ‘authentic’ food. – The Washington Post
  9. Why Elizabeth Warren Left The GOP – POLITICO Magazine
    “Warren says the first trip to a bankruptcy court in San Antonio upended her feelings about Law and Economics and the more theoretical, free-market approach she had espoused.”
  10. Incels are now mad about women smiling at them :: We Hunted The Mammoth
    “Now I have been black pilled about female smiles just being another form of teasing.”
  11. A Year After Internet Infamy, Ronaldo Sculptor Gets Another Shot
    The weird thing is, the first sculpture is so much more engaging and interesting than any better-done sculpture could be. But I’m glad he’s gotten another chance; hopefully he’ll get to keep on sculpting.
  12. My Jewish Trek | Jewish Journal
    “‘Gene was anti-Semitic, clearly,’ Nimoy replied as my heart sank.”
  13. Global Implications of FOSTA | Slixa
    “The passage of FOSTA rests on an extensive history of abolitionist attempts to pass legislation that restrict sex work or apply paternalistic narratives to workers.”
  14. Baby Anacondas Born At New England Aquarium — Without Any Male Snakes Involved
  15. Political Cartoonist Not Sure How To Convey That Large Sack In Senator’s Hand Is Full Of Money – The Onion
  16. Report: Google News Does Not Have an Anti-Conservative Bias So Much as a Pro-Credible Source One
    And, unsurprisingly, a pro-gets-a-lot-of-clicks bias. (Conservatives will respond that the measures used to access “credible” are also biased against conservatives.)
  17. Virginia EMT who made racist remarks on podcast loses his job – CNN
    As y’all know, I’m generally against firing people for their off-the-clock political speech. Well, here’s a case where I completely approve of the firing.
  18. The Trade Secret: Firms That Promised High-Tech Ransomware Solutions Almost Always Just Pay the Hackers
    Via Ozy.
  19. Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them – The Atlantic
    “For the study, a team at the University of Portsmouth’s Dog Cognition Centre looked at two muscles that work together to widen and open a dog’s eyes, causing them to appear bigger, droopier, and objectively cuter.”
  20. Black Missouri drivers 91% more likely to be stopped, state attorney general finds | PBS NewsHour
  21. The Political and the Principled: A Different Take On Grievance Studies
  22. Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results
    Journal article giving the same data to 29 teams of analysts; the various teams found significantly different results, despite using the same data. “These findings suggest that significant variation in the results of analyses of complex data may be difficult to avoid, even by experts with honest intentions.” Thanks to Harlequin for the link!
  23. The kidnapped Yazidi children who don’t want to be rescued from ISIS – The Washington Post
    What a nightmare.
  24. Animals Are Becoming Nocturnal To Avoid Interacting With Humans
  25. Pleading Guilty to Get Out of Jail – The Appeal
    Too many people have a choice between 1) remaining in jail because they can’t afford bail, or 2) pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in order to get free.
  26. Which is why there are movements to end cash bail. But the politics can be complicated, plus there’s the worry that without cash bail, DAs and judges will try to divert more people into simply being jailed with no bail possible.
  27. D.C. Sex Workers Want Decriminalization—and City Council Members Agree – Reason.com
    The article doesn’t give a sense of how likely the bill is to pass, however. Anyone got a feel for that?
  28. Everyone Got the Dutch Teen ‘Euthanasia’ Story Wrong – Reason.com
    The real story – a complex story of a suffering teen choosing not to eat and her parents choosing to no longer force-feed her – became, in English newspapers, a completely fabricated cautionary tale about euthanasia.

This entry posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink. 

234 Responses to Open Thread and Link Farm, happy robot edition

  1. 201
    Michael says:

    @Gracchus#200- I think they were definitely right about Communism being evil when many on the Left tried to pretend it wasn’t- between 1917 and 1956.

  2. 202
    Gracchus says:

    @Michael: The idea that communism was OK wasn’t mainstream in the western left during the 1930s. Most left wing parties and intellectuals denounced Stalin’s purges. Which is not to say every single individual leftist did, I will give you that, but I assume you realise when I talked about “the left” as a whole I wasn’t talking every single leftist in the world.

    I notice you marked 1956 as the date on which “the left” apparently turned against communism, and it’s true Hungary drove a lot of people away from communism. But if we look at most mainstream left wing parties in Europe prior to 1956 – the French socialists, British Labour, the German social democrats – they were all anti-Soviet and specifically committed to a military alliance against the USSR. In the UK it was the left, while in government, that took the initiative in building nuclear weapons; who do you think the British socialists thought those nuclear weapons were going to be used against? I will give you a clue – it wasn’t the USA.

    What the left did say was that actively seeking violent confrontation with Soviet communism wasn’t a good idea. Which is something that was pretty much vindicated. British conservatives in 1940 wanted to bomb the Soviet Union – probably a good thing they didn’t.

  3. 203
    desipis says:

    Celeste may not have meant every single incident in history, Richard, but I mean it. There hasnt been a time since the birth of conservatism as an intellectual movement (roughly the 1780s) that conservatives have got it right on a big issue.

    I think it’s worth pointing out that same-sex marriage was brought in by Conservative parties in Australia, Canada and the UK. Of course it’s probably necessary to point out that social conservatism is only a part of the broader make up of those parties.

    But then it’s also necessary to point out the broader role of social conservatives in general. Their role isn’t to be on the right side of history, their role is to stop the progressives being on the wrong side of it.

  4. 204
    Michael says:

    @Gracchus#202- And when I said the Left I didn’t mean every single person on the Left was pro-Communist until 1956. I also meant the Left, not the Democratic Party in the United States.
    For example, take a look at this chart of how the Communist Party did in France after 1945:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_French_Communist_Party#/media/File:Vote-communiste-1945-2007.png
    It was consistently getting over 20% of the vote from 1945 to the 1970s.
    The Italian Communist Party also got over 18% from the 1940s until the break with the Soviets:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party#Post-World_War_II
    The British Left made excuses for the Soviets before World War II- see, for example, Giles Udy’s book Labour and the Gulag.

  5. 205
    Celeste says:

    LimitsofLanguage & Sebastian:

    Yes, you absolute goobers, of course I was talking about US politics post-1950 or so. Richard Jeffrey Newman got it right, and I thought I was being pretty straightforward by using only examples from that time & place.

    I mean, I didn’t bring up Chilean death squads or Germany in world war 2 or witch burnings or anything. I’m clearly not playing the, “what are the worst things conservatives have ever done,” game. Don’t be dicks about this.

    Also, as I said before but apparently need to repeat, I’m talking about mainstream civil rights positions on the left and right. That means you can leave your “this one commie killed JFK” and “a fringe element of a fringe element on the left said some good things about pedophilia in the 70’s” arguments at home where they belong.

    Was support for pedophilia mainstream within the left at any point in the postwar US? How about support for communism? Obviously not on both counts.

    If you want to back up your statements, please do! But you can’t just say things that don’t pass the smell test and give such flimsy evidence.

    Finally, I 100% do NOT believe that conservatives can do no right and liberals can do no wrong. My hope in pointing out the troubling history of conservatives on matters of discrimination and prejudice is to trigger soul searching in the conservatives here. Guys, there’s a reason you made such wild and flimsy arguments (Support for pedophilia? That’s insulting and lowers us both.) rather than something substantive or responsive.

    I swear, I’m not trying to dunk on you or score points or anything. Please stop treating this like it’s about “winning.”

  6. 206
    Gracchus says:

    @desipis: Those are all conservative parties, and notably, they were all against same-sex marriage at a point when the national left-of-centre parties were for it; sometimes for as long as a decade. Notably, the Australian liberals fought three elections where opposition to marriage equality was part of their platform before reversing their position. So, this is hardly a case of conservatives being on the right side and the left on the wrong side – it’s a matter of conservatives being on the wrong side for a while and eventually coming around, but coming around at a time when they were in power. I am not sure that is really a good example of conservatives getting it right on a social issue – unless there is some reason that same sex marriage is a good idea in Australia in 2017 but a bad idea in 2011. (Spoiler alert: there isn’t)

    @Michael: I’m aware you don’t mean the American democrats – you’ll note none of my examples related to the USA.

    If communists supporting communism is an example of “the left” supporting communism, then I think it is kind of a meaningless metric – it would be unfair to say that conservatives supported fascism in countries like Romania or Hungary because fascists existed, especially when non-fascist conservatives were opposed to fascism. The same holds true for communism. You are right, some British leftists defended Stalinism, but I don’t think that is a meaningful metric. For every book written or speech given by a British Labour member supporting Stalinism or minimising Stalin’s crimes, there were three or four attacking them. For every Udy there is a Foot, an Orwell and also an Atlee. But even if we go beyond what was written, on the one hand we have some pro-Soviet books on the left, on the other hand we have a left wing government joining an international military alliance to fight the USSR. So, I would say the balance is pretty firmly on the anti-communist side. (I would say exactly the same thing for the French socialists).

    I think this argument hinges on what it means to “support”. But to draw back a bit, you will recall that I was prepared to accept there were times both conservatives and the left got it wrong. I would say that the meta issue is not supporting communism specifically, but supporting totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Both the left and right got this wrong to about the same extent in the interwar period. Yes, conservatives didn’t support communism, and yes, the left didn’t support fascists, but overall the failure is not in supporting a specific totalitarian system, it’s in being prepared to contemplate (or, more commonly, minimise the horror of) totalitarian solutions to social problems.

  7. Celeste,

    Please refrain from calling other commenters names. Thanks.

  8. 208
    Kate says:

    This is a reminder that the Trump administration is putting legal asylum seekers and their children into concentration camps right now, as we debate which side was worse in the mid 20th century. We have an incipient right wing authoritarian regime forming in the U.S.. There is no need to fear the excesses of the left at this point in U.S. history, because even if they were to gain control of the presidency and both houses of congress, the courts are controlled by Republican appointees and the Democrats still respect the rule of law.

  9. 209
    Celeste says:

    I apologize for calling LimitsofLanguage and Sebastian “absolute goobers.”

  10. 210
    Gracchus says:

    “This is a reminder that the Trump administration is putting legal asylum seekers and their children into concentration camps right now, as we debate which side was worse in the mid 20th century. ”

    I apologise for derailing the conversation away from the modern concentration camps.

  11. 211
    Sebastian H says:

    At the very minimum civil asset forfeiture and misuse of imminent domain are civil rights issues that the right was better on much earlier than the left—a practice which is incredibly destructive to black communities. The left caught on to the evils of the first in just the last 10 years (all the best reporting on it until very recently was associated with Reason magazine) and the left still hasn’t turned on misuse of eminent domain even though it devastated black communities (which were always over represented in ‘blight’ condemnations in the 50s-70s.)

  12. 212
    Kate says:

    At the very minimum civil asset forfeiture and misuse of imminent domain are civil rights issues that the right was better on much earlier than the left…

    If this is correct (and I’d need to see data on that*), it still seems relatively minor compared to:

    …putting legal asylum seekers and their children into concentration camps…

    As important as property rights are, the right to bodily autonomy (and imprisonment is a violation of bodily autonomy which should not be undertaken lightly) is more fundamental.

    *My understanding is that most of the worst states for civil asset forfeiture are in the south. That may have started under southern Democrats, but I would absolutely not describe them as “the left”. Now, my understanding is that Republicans are worse on that. Abuse of imminent domain, I would expect to be a bigger issue in urban areas generally, no matter which party is in control.

  13. 213
    Kate says:

    I’m putting out a challenge to everyone in this thread who cares about the concentration camps at the U.S. border, before you add anything more to this theoretical discussion, do something – write to your senators and congressman; contribute to RAICES; more ideas here.

    The fact that the facilities at the border are not death camps means that they have cleared the lowest conceivable bar. Both the mistreatment of migrants in these facilities, and the harsh measures taken in the name of deterrence, predate the Trump administration. Yet the same immigrant advocates who protested Obama’s record deportations over the course of eight years have warned that Trump’s approach represents a steep escalation in cruelty. source

  14. 214
    Chris says:

    Kate, I feel like that quote brings up an important point, and a great rebuttal to those that argue “Why didn’t you care about the camps when Obama was in office?” that I hadn’t heard before: there were people who protested Obama’s immigration policies on the grounds that they were too harsh, and those people say that Trump is far worse.

  15. 215
    desipis says:

    It looks like antifa have escalated from giving reporters brain injuries to armed assault on government facilities. Presumably connected to the left wing obsession with the detention centres, their hyperbolic language over “concentration camps” and statements that the detainees need to be liberated “by any means necessary“.

  16. 216
    AJD says:

    On what grounds do you believe the use of the term “concentration camps” to be hyperbolic?

  17. 217
    Kate says:

    desipis

    Are you defending putting people who have not broken any laws in prison and taking away their children? Are you defending conditions in U.S. detention facilities along the border?

    I still think peaceful protest is both the right thing to do and the most politic. However, I don’t think, given current conditions, discussing moving to physically free detainees should be off the table for discussion. But, it needs to be done right. Individuals committing suicide by cop aren’t going to do any good.

  18. 218
    J. Squid says:

    The position that desipis has taken as their own is that antifa is objectively worse than the fascists, the nazis and the concentration camps. The only thing that desipis contributes here is a fanatical dedication to enumerating every single bad or violent act that can be pinned on antifa. desipis cares not a whit about concentration camps nor other forms of current right wing violence. desipis is, based on their commentary, a devoted follower, promoter and enabler of all current right wing violence in the US because, they say, antifa is inarguably worse.

    I see no point in paying further attention to them on this subject. They can take comfort in the fact that they are not alone in this awful position. The rest of us can merely despair that this is happening here. Again.

  19. 219
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    Sigh.

    The armed ICE assailant was trying to commit suicide by cop in his own anarchist way. He was ill, his death is tragic, and I really don’t think his story tells us much about the state of US politics. Way too many people on all sides of all political disputes like to spin tragedies like his into narratives.

    I think antifa is shitty and harming many causes of the democratic party, but they aren’t about to escalate the culture war into an armed conflict.

  20. 220
    desipis says:

    AJD:

    On what grounds do you believe the use of the term “concentration camps” to be hyperbolic?

    Because the images and implications that the term bring to most people’s minds are vastly different to the current reality.

    Kate:

    Are you defending putting people who have not broken any laws in prison and taking away their children? Are you defending conditions in U.S. detention facilities along the border?

    It’s a normal function of any state to detain people who haven’t been through the proper immigration channels and haven’t (yet) established a right to be in the country. Some of the reports of the conditions people are detained in certainly seem to be below the standards I would expect of a developed country. The policy to remove children from parents was certainly misguided, however it no longer appears to be in effect.

  21. 221
    Gracchus says:

    @Kate: Thanks for the guide – it seems to be based on the assumption that the reader is a US citizen and/or based in the USA. Do you have any advice on how non-Americans and residents of other countries can meet their obligation to help?

  22. 222
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    J. Squid,

    The idea that non-white people destroy camaraderie is a racist belief.

    Yet that’s what Putnam found in his famous study.

    Nancy St. John studied 100 schools that students were bused to and found no cases in which significant black academic improvement occurred, but many cases where race relations suffered due to busing. Researcher David Armour found that busing “heightens racial identity” and “reduces opportunities for actual contact between the races.”

    The idea that non-white people cause increased discipline problems is a racist belief.

    Crime statistics in general and school detention/punishment statistics specifically show that non-white people transgress far more often.

    Taken together, these racist beliefs constitute a coherent racist attitude.

    I understand that many progressives see acknowledging an unpleasant reality as racist and prefer to deny reality. However, I respectfully disagree with such a definition of ‘racism.’ Not in the least because it doesn’t actually help non-white people.

    Note that many black people and black leaders opposed busing. All racists, I guess.

  23. 223
    J. Squid says:

    Busing was a success even asracist politics effectively ended the practice.

    All those beliefs you hold that you argue are not racist… could the results be caused by something you’re not acknowledging but are widely understood to be the actual causes? Yes. Yes, they can. Your support of and agreement with the racist statement by the RAND corporation has been noted and acknowledged.

  24. 224
    Chris says:

    desipis:

    It’s a normal function of any state to detain people who haven’t been through the proper immigration channels and haven’t (yet) established a right to be in the country.

    Citation needed.

  25. 225
    Petar says:

    no cases in which significant black academic improvement occurred, but many cases where race relations suffered due to busing

    Crime statistics in general and school detention/punishment statistics specifically show that non-white people transgress far more often.

    This is just silly. What makes you think that this has anything to do with skin color?

    Mixing populations with different cultural norms and traditions leads to an increase in crime. There are so many EU studies showing an obvious correlation, that it is not even funny. What is funny though, is that the effect is pronounced even if the influx is by Europeans or Chinese. That has been well observed and recorded, among other places, in Japan, Malaysia, and Libya (back in the 80s, by Commies, before the recent shittification)

    The crime does not even have to originate in the newly arrived population – it increases in both the locals and the immigrants, inversely correlating with wealth. (Duh!)

    And if you stop to think for even a second, the mechanism is obvious. The two cultures have different social norms. Members are suddenly exposed to a different set of values, thus come to question what earlier was a given. They see behaviors that were previously unthinkable go unpunished, and we all know what unpunished rule-breaking leads to.

    If you want examples, recent news are full of it. But I much prefer to babble about my personal experience. Back in the 80s, I had to deal with trouble arising after relatively secluded [redacted] villages had a large dam constructed nearby by a company of [reacted] students labor (yeah, that was a thing in ‘Socialist’ countries)

    The locals men saw incoming women dressing unmodestly and interpreted it as asking for it. The incoming men saw the locals openly wearing knives and brawling casually (and did not understand that the knives do not come out, ever) Both sides had a serious case of “the others are getting our women”. The locals saw electronics which they could not dream of obtaining legally (Western cassette players) The incomers were supposed to work hard on food that had been pilfered by three separate middlemen, and were surrounded by fields of abundant produce.

    And let me tell you. Neither the traditional villages nor the three departments of the country’s best Engineering Institute were hotbeds of violent crime. But after they got mixed, they were mass brawls, two homicides, at least one guy crippled for life, rapes galore, and so much property crime that no one had time to address it.

    The military got called in, because the militia simply did not have the resources to deal with it. Even we (counter-intelligence) got called in, for some covert work to figure out how to quiet things down without breaking the local economy, the dam construction, or a four years of engineering students. And maybe it was because of my assumed position as a (fake) mufti, but the college boys and girls did not seem all that civilized. And after the dust settled, and order was restored, no one looked good, no matter what their religion, education, or the shade of their skin. (‘Bulgar’ originates from ‘mixed’, but we are all Caucasian, which of course did not prevent me from being called a “blackass”, i.e. Tatar, despite being three quarters Slavic.)

    By the way, a lot of the trouble was due to quartermasters enriching themselves and local patriarchs stirring trouble to make themselves relevant. I like remembering that cover, because everyone whom we fingered got punished, and let me tell you, that was not the rule in Communist Bulgaria.

    All this to say, it is not that colored people are crime prone. It’s that mixing cultures increases disorder, and the poor and powerless minority (not necessarily non-white) usually ends up blamed and repressed for it.

  26. LOL wrote:

    Yet that’s what Putnam found in his famous study.

    At the very least, the picture is more complicated than his response makes it out to be. From a 2016 paper refuting “what Putnam found:”

    Specifically, we ask whether the members of all groups are equally averse to diversity. Our findings indicate that only whites report lower levels of trust when they live among out-group members.

    This article from Scientific American summarize the findings of this second paper. Also, this article in The Chronicle discusses Putnam’s own reservations about the ways in which people have used his paper to reach the conclusion that is at least implicit in LOL’s comment:

    The Thernstrom brief [which was filed in a court case concerning race conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin] summarizes those findings by Putnam [that diversity seems to increase distrust, etc.], but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad. In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.” Putnam cites the integration of institutions like the U.S. Army as proof that diversity can work.

  27. 227
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    Petar:

    Mixing populations with different cultural norms and traditions leads to an increase in crime.

    I’ve also seen studies supporting this, but in no way does this disprove LOLs claims. It is entirely possible for populations to have different rates of criminalality/detention/school-attendance/whatever-really without the cause being a difference in skin color, genealogy or whatever. This has to be the position for anyone who isn’t a scientific racist because some of these population differences are big, even with normal SES controls.

    Homicide is the number one cause of death for young black men (a source: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/juan-williams/juan-williams-no-1-cause-death-african-americans-1/) it’s imperative that we don’t deny the disparity, which is 10-1 between black and white people.
    We need to accept the problem and work to solve it, but too often stats like these are either sheepishly ignored, or used to further pet causes, like linking income inequality or economic growth to crime rates (nope & nope). Or denying solutions that do work, but are unpopular, like more police officers on duty.

    I think busing could be part of a long term solution, though it’ll be politically unpopular. It’s a belief I hold with low certainty, I’d need to see more individualized data on the effects of desegregated schooling on attendance/detention rates.

  28. 228
    Ampersand says:

    it’s imperative that we don’t deny the disparity, which is 10-1 between black and white people.

    I’m not aware of anyone denying that the disparity exists. I mean, I’m sure someone out there exists, but I don’t think it’s a prominent view.

    The disagreement is mainly over causes of the disparity, not the existence of the disparity. AFAIK.

    (I started to fall down a research hole about this, but then stopped myself because I have a big work deadline on August 1st.)

  29. 229
    Celeste says:

    First off, thank you, Sebastian, for actually responding. I really appreciate it.

    At the very minimum civil asset forfeiture and misuse of imminent domain are civil rights issues that the right was better on much earlier than the left—a practice which is incredibly destructive to black communities. The left caught on to the evils of the first in just the last 10 years (all the best reporting on it until very recently was associated with Reason magazine)

    I think this is fair, to some degree – my only quibble is that I’m not sure how much Reason magazine reflects the mainstream of conservatism. My understanding is that Reason often holds positions on civil rights issues that the rest of Conservatism does not.

    Again, not trying to be a jerk – I’m not sure Jacobin is the best guide to what’s mainstream on the left either, you know?

    So to try to look into this and figure out if I’m being fair or unfair, I checked out the Institute for Justice’s ratings of the state-by-state worst offenders on Civil Forfeiture and Eminent Domain. My attitude, roughly, is that is either the left or the right is actually better or worse on this, that ought to be reflected in the laws, state-by-state. If Massachusetts, New York, and California are all bad on civil forfeiture, maybe you’re right. If Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi are all bad on it, maybe I am.

    Of course, unhelpfully, it’s not that clear.

    Using 2013 data, for Civil Forfeiture, we’ve got:
    New Jersey – Democratic
    Ohio – Republican
    Oklahoma – Republican
    Pennsylvania – Republican
    South Dakota – Republican
    Virginia – Democratic
    West Virginia – Republican
    Wyoming – Republican
    Massachusetts – Democratic
    North Dakota – Republican

    Democratic: 3
    Republican: 7

    And using 2002 data, for Eminent Domain, we’ve got:
    Connecticut – Democratic
    Florida – Republican
    Illinois – Democratic
    Kansas – Democratic
    Massachusetts – Democratic
    Mississippi – Republican
    Nevada – Democratic
    New York – Democratic
    Ohio – Republican
    Texas – Republican

    Democratic: 6
    Republican: 4

    Now, this is a quick-and-dirty analysis, I didn’t go back to who had control of a state in the lead-up to the Institute for Justice’s 2013 or 2002 analysis, just went with who controls them now, so some of this will be off, but it doesn’t look like either the right or the left is entirely on the side of the angels here. (There’s also no analysis taking into account ‘moderates’ like Joe Manchin or Susan Collins or any crap like that.)

    I’ve looked a bit, and I’ve been unable to find polling gauging left vs right on Eminent Domain or Civil Forfeiture, which is too bad. I think that’s probably the best way to determine whether something is in the mainstream of political thought on either side.

  30. 230
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    I figured Sebastian was just talking about Kelo v New London, where Justice Kennedy joined the supreme court’s left to uphold a pretty sketchy application of imminent domain.

  31. 231
    nobody.really says:

    Best response on Twitter to the “Trump’s statements aren’t racist” discussion:

    “They’re not racist. To be officially racist, they must come from the Racist Region of France. Thus Trump’s remarks should be referred to as mere Sparkling Ethno-Nationalism.”

  32. 232
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    I am pleasantly surprised to see the media (well, NPR anyway) actually refer to the tweets as racist, rather than “racially divisive,” “controversial,” or whatever.

  33. 233
    J. Squid says:

    I have been unable to stand NPR’s political coverage since the 2004 primaries. Liberal, my ass.

  34. 234
    Saurs says:

    I don’t know. Doing the bare minimum and doing it late (AP, CNN, a shit-ton of regional papers et al got there first) and making sure to publicize your VP of Newsroom Diversity (good lord) and Training’s foot-dragging doesn’t really warrant headrubs, cookies, or gratitude in my book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *