Ten oz

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The most rational argument would, by definition, be based on logic.

This cannot tell you if something is true, only that it would be true if the initial premises were true.

Right. If my wife texts me at 1pm that she is heading home for the day and I know her commute is only 15 minutes it would be logical for me to assume come 2pm she is home. However it wouldn't make it true. 

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we going to consider ALL the effects of slavery , CharonY ?

The argument could be made that, in the absence of slavery, a large number of black people would not even be living in the US.
Assuming comparable immigration by Canada and the US, I would think the US would have a similar percentage of black people.
Canada's population is about 3% black, while the US is closer to 13% ( all numbers from Wiki ).

A large number of American black citizens, without slavery, would now be living in central Africa.
Assuming they survived the brutal civil wars of the Congo, famines, Ebola and abysmal health care.

By all means let's talk about it. Discussion can only clarify people's opinions.
But trying to second guess what would have happened in the absence of an event, several hundred years past, gets very complicated, very quickly.

Assuming you understand the problem with guessing what would have happened if history were different I am confused why you'd list problems in Central Africa. Who is to say what Africa would be like today had slavery never existed? It doesn't matter though because this thread isn't asking anyone to imagine a world where slavery didn't happen. Slavery did happen. This thread is asking about potentially doing something in response to things which happened. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

First, reparations are largely disliked in the population, that is a given.

While true I would argue that misinformation drives that dislike. There is a lot of propaganda out there regarding how Affirmative Action has been implemented, the way organizations discriminate against white males, that welfare is reparations by another name, and etc, etc, etc. 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Rather, the case is that there should be an investigation to study e.g. effects and legacy of slavery and try to figure out which and whether there are processes to remedy them. While there are bits and pieces of historic studies, there has (to my knowledge) no official and comprehensive report from a commission that outlines or even acknowledges these issues in a comprehensive way. HR40 was such an attempt that has been introduced since the 90s. Similar aspects could conceivably also be attempted to resolve the status with indigenous people, though the issue is seemingly even more complicated.

The problem I see with a study is that I don't believe it would change minds. People ignore climate studies, deny evolution, and are will & able to justify police shooting unarmed people in the thousands nationally. There is no limit to the cognitive dissonance. 

The ongoing ramifications of slavery and segregation are different in GA than in CA. I don't see a one size fits all solution. In GA blacks voters are still be disenfranchised at polls after all. My opposition to reparations isn't rooted in how unpopular it is. I just think there are many other things that need to happen which can better ensure equality. Things people are already fighting for. 

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Swansont. Not only I think, that in this particular case, reaction was too hasty, therefor entire @studiot thread about prematurity of closing it (and couple others shared this point of view by upvoting his post)..

 

Going such way of moderation, threads about "flat Earth", "hollow Earth", "anti-vaxxers", etc. etc. should be immediately closed down after the first post, because they might (and will!) attract supporters of these controversial ideas. That's ridiculous and silly. This way you won't be able to learn what are their arguments from the first hand. And you won't be able to teach these people how science is actually working and teach them scientific method used to measure something.

All discussion isn't honest. Not only do some people troll for S&Gs but certainly key words attract bots. 

On 3/30/2019 at 11:54 AM, jajrussel said:

Thousands of years is a long time for the belief of God's to just simply be passed from family to child through imitation over such a wide diverse area as Earth. 

Hatred between ethnic groups has existed for thousands of years as well. I think you conflating how long something has existed within human culturals with value/purpose. Go back 10k yrs and people have been dancing, painting, wearing jewelry, played games, tattooing their bodies, and etc too. Many things have existed within human cultural for a very long time. You are looking at religion in isolation and asking why be the same is true for many things. 

19 minutes ago, Sensei said:

@swansont

You're talking about completely different kind of threads. Threads which are immediately deleted are made by people who are e.g. seeking for help making explosives or drugs, obvious spam, insulting, made by sockpuppets etc. etc.

 

I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site. My thread didn't contain anything objectionable and hadn't broken any forum rules yet was closed. I accept the Moderators choice as they felt it was beat for the site. I don't consider it unfair. 

They are many reasons for a thread to be closed and no single rule can account for all scenarios. 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Implicit in your question is the suggestion that it must be all or nothing. I suspect an acceptable compromise somewhere in between is available if only all parties approach the issue in good faith and in earnest. 

Surely, we can do a better job at honoring their history and claim to the land while also acknowledging what claims have been legitimately made since. 

I literally said "I doubt we would" after the question. The suggestion was that the situation is more complicated than the question implies. The last sentence in the post was "I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it". That clearly lays out that all or nothing at all is not the the way I see this. I think you read my post with an assumed subtext which wasn't there. 

Reparations has historically been about land. It is what slaves were promised and what Natives have been fighting for and are still fighting for. The ability to purchase land where they want or get equal treatment by banks is what Blacks were denied during Segregation. The Case for Reparations linked in the OP talks about land. The  first section of the article is about land. It opens with the telling of how Ross family lost their land:

Quote

"When Clyde Ross was still a child, Mississippi authorities claimed his father owed $3,000 in back taxes. The elder Ross could not read. He did not have a lawyer. He did not know anyone at the local courthouse. He could not expect the police to be impartial. Effectively, the Ross family had no way to contest the claim and no protection under the law. The authorities seized the land"

The case for Reparations continues and follows Clyde Ross through his life and addresses predatory lending behavior and mortgage discrimination:

Quote

Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank. And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither. Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.

The first sections continues and discusses the Contract Buyers League. The article discusses wealth inequality and how even black families with higher incomes have less wealth than white families with lower income. Connections are made to white flight and in pacts it had on poverty values and the neighborhoods Blacks lived in:

Quote

 

Weatherspoon bought her home in 1957. “Most of the whites started moving out,” she told me. “‘The blacks are coming. The blacks are coming.’ They actually said that. They had signs up: don’t sell to blacks.”

Before moving to North Lawndale, Lewis and her husband tried moving to Cicero after seeing a house advertised for sale there. “Sorry, I just sold it today,” the Realtor told Lewis’s husband. “I told him, ‘You know they don’t want you in Cicero,’ ” Lewis recalls. “ ‘They ain’t going to let nobody black in Cicero.’ ”

 

All of this is NOT to say that we must discuss reallocating land. Rather I am pointing out that land is a major part of the discussion. It isn't some off topic item. Blacks not receiving the land they were promised, not being able to buy and live in the locations of there choosing even when they could afford to, and predatory lending which made (makes) property more expensive and difficult to own is one of the central causes of the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites to this day.  

2 hours ago, iNow said:

As laid out above, that is hard to oppose. 

So that seems like a reasonable starter. Where is becomes more complicated to consider is contemplating what happens in the events like if SCOTUS were to side with Natives in the Carpenter v. Murphy case:

Quote

 

Carpenter v. Murphy is a pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States and raises the question of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. Although this question is specific to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the Court’s decision is likely to also apply to reservations of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations because all five nations have similar histories within the state of Oklahoma.

In 1866, Congress established reservation boundaries for the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation boundaries composes three million acres in Eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa. The boundaries for all five nations consist of over 19 million acres and nearly the entire eastern half of Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._Murphy

 

If you and I agree that it might be a good idea to let Natives own the Reservations they have tribal sovereignty over does that mean we think Natives should own 19 million acres of Oklahoma if SCOTUS were to open the door to it being Reservation land!? I doubt we would . Sometimes what is reasonable or logical at one level doesn't seem that way anymore when expanded out or scaled up. 

For me what promises the Govt has made is one of the central arguments for Reparations. For slaves the foundation for Reparations started with the promise of  40 acres and a mule ( also see Special Field Order 15). What was promised, taken, and or denied serve a central component to any discussion about Reparations. 

**I am not in favor of Reparations nor am I in favor of giving 19 million acres of Oklahoma to Natives. I am trying to have a conversation that addresses the history and takes a sober look at the issue. Extrapolating out these concepts isn't easy which is one of the reason they've been debated for over a hundred years. I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it.   

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps. Like the reparations topic, details matter here. 

I am not referencing the full idea of restoring promised lands (the discussion with Zapatos). Rather I am specifically addressing allowing Tribes ownership of the Reservations they currently have Tribal Sovereignty over.  I think most lay political observers already assume this to be the case anyway. The collective geographical area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres. The average value in the U.S. of an acre of land is around $1,200. Natives living on Reservations can't access any of that value. They do not own the land. The have governance over it but not ownership. Giving Natives ownership of land they already have tribal sovereignty is an easy win in my opinion. It doesn't require taking land from anyone.  

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

It seems obvious to me that support for this is far higher. It’s easier to justify and is more palatable.

It also shows that reparations as a concept isn’t de facto a nonstarter when we discuss it in the right context.

After that, it’s just a matter of degree, and determining where passion for that support wanes or falls to zero. 

You wouldn't agree that allowing Natives to own Reservation land as opposed to it being manage by the federal govt in a trust would also be palatable?

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

And in my mind would be next to impossible.

And yet to a degree is currently being considered in the Supreme Court. In Carpenter vs Murphy Patrick Murphy was sentenced to death in Oklahoma for a murder and argued that he was tried in the wrong court. His team argued that most of Oklahoma is Indian Territory and that Murphy should be tried in Federal Court which is responsible for Reservations. The argument contends that  the Indian Removal Act forcibly moved under Andrew Jackson but that Congress had never properly disestablished Reservations in Oklahoma. The ramifications of the ruling could make the Eastern part of Oklahoma including Tulsa a reservation. 

You may feel it is an arbitrary line which entire (govt, state, township, colony, etc) took land but courts do have a standard they follow. If Oklahoma loses its authority it will open up countless legal challenges regarding property rights. 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court hears a capital case in which it will have to decide whether nearly half of Oklahoma, a massive area including much of Tulsa, is an Indian reservation.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

Today the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the entire eastern half of Oklahoma should be considered an Indian reservation. A case that began with a murder could end up having broad implications for everyone who lives in that part of the state, Native American or not. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: As most Americans think of it, there's no formal Indian reservation in Oklahoma today. But then most Americans know little about Indian history. Indians were forced off their land in the southeast of the United States by order of President Jackson and forced to march more than a thousand miles to relocate on reservations mainly in Oklahoma. What's left of those reservations is essentially a system of Indian identity and governance in the eastern half of Oklahoma that coexists with the state government.

That all got thrown into question when Patrick Murphy, a Native American sentenced to death in state court for killing another Indian, challenged his conviction, contending that he'd been tried in the wrong court. A federal appeals court subsequently ruled that he should have been tried in federal court because the eastern part of Oklahoma was still technically an Indian reservation. And crimes committed on reservations must, under federal law, be prosecuted in federal, not state court.

JAMES FLOYD: We were really forced into this case to defend our sovereignty.

TOTENBERG: James Floyd, chief of the Muscogee Creek Nation, said that when Oklahoma appealed to the Supreme Court, the tribe had to defend itself.

FLOYD: We have sovereignty. We have the reservation that was never diminished or taken away. And so if we didn't stand up, we'd basically ceded that point to the state of Oklahoma. And we refuse to do that.

TOTENBERG: Indeed, while Congress has revoked treaties regarding other Indian reservations, it never did that in Oklahoma. Today in the Supreme Court, lawyer Lisa Blatt representing Oklahoma told the justices that when the state became a state, that automatically stripped Indian lands of their reservation status. Justice Kagan, however, noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly required that Congress explicitly terminate Indian land rights. And while Congress has done that in other places and for other reservations, it did not do that in Oklahoma. Justice Breyer noted that in 1906, Congress explicitly continued all tribal rights for the five tribes in Oklahoma.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/671285316/supreme-court-should-eastern-oklahoma-be-considered-an-indian-reservation

 

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Reparations need not be equivalent to land seizure and reallocation. 

It doesn't need to but there are cases in court now where it is. Reservations for example can't be bought or sold. The land is controlled in a trust controlled by the Federal Govt. Natives are not able to build wealth via buying of selling. That system is being challenged around the country.   https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/native-americans-property-rights/492941/

You brought up reparations for those wrongly locked up. That also is currently being being fought in court. As mentioned in my early objections to reparations I feel there are other ways to to promote equality and reaching catharsis. There are already a thousand plates spinning. People are battling against gentrification, abusive police departments, prejudicial drug laws, unequal representation in govt, and etc. 

Reparations need not be equivalent to any one singular thing. However there are numerous things being battled that do need to be addressed (by the govt as a whole not by this thread specifically). 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

You are treating your opinion of how things should be as a position of authority rather than merely an opinion. Eminent domain cases have failed. You act like land can be taken from one person and given to another person for private use in all cases.

No I never said in ALL cases. Nor does it need to be all cases for my statement to stand. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Your goalposts seemed to have moved. You've added the line about "The U.S. govt... specifically made". Your original post on this subject said...

I didn't move the goalposts. It simply hadn't accorded to me when typing the previous post that one would read it as the U.S. should identify all property I'll gotten throughout all of history. I assume one would understand it applied to what we (U.S.) was liable for. 

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If you move all the doctors and nurses etc who currently work in the private sector into the public sector, does that actually affect GDP?

There are currently sick people who don't get treated.
If they were treated then that would mean there were more medical staff working- which would boost GDP and it would mean that the sick people could (in many instances) get back to work which would also boost GDP.

My understanding is that only about a third of the money goes to care.The rest goes to profit and administrative costs. There are a lot of wealthy @##holes cruising around in yachts off the back of our ridiculous system. So even it every Doctor and Nurse were retained at full salary there would be a decline. 

Your point about more people getting care is what the Healthcare mandate in the ACA addresses. Private Insurance companies agreed to expand care in trade for more paying customers. It was a good first step in my opinion. I think the mandate needs be better enforced and and cost control at current levels. All new expansion of coverage should be handled by Medicare. That basically freezes the private healthcare industry where they are without a significant decline in spending and allows the nation to shift over to a single payer program overtime. It isn't bumper striker material though. 

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...the Mexicans should build a wall...and make Americans pay for it! 

(just kidding)

Kidding or not the suggestion would be far less expensive than what is happening. 

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes it is arbitrary. The US can give back Manhattan back as it is part of the US. Stolen property does not stop being stolen simply because it changes hands multiple times. If your car is stolen you don't lose your moral or legal right to retrieve it simply because it has passed through multiple hands.

Choosing the line at which the US government made the promise is arbitrary, as would be any line you pick. It's a fine place to start but that doesn't give it some unassailable quality.

I don't follow your logic. If I make a promise I am responsible for that promise. If numerous others also made promises I am still only responsible for the ones I made. The U.S. govt would be addressing promises it specifically made.

New York City was founded in 1624 as a Dutch settlement. The United States Govt wouldn't exist for another 164yrs. 

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

The government has a limited right to take property (see the 5th Amendment). They cannot arbitrarily take what they want and use it for any purpose they want. 

Nice of you to declare this part of the discussion off limits as you've made your ruling.

Arbitrary is your word. Its Prejudicial language. You are treating your opinion of how things should be as a position of authority rather than merely an opinion. Land has been taken from one individual and given to another. We can debate over whether or not it should be done but there is nothing debate over whether or not it can be done. It can.

Quote

 

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Perhaps they could hire some temporary workers from Mexico.

You joke but I have long felt that the U.S. should pay Mexico to handle border security. Here in the U.S. we spend $30 billion a year directly on agencies like Border Patrol, Immigration Custom Enforcement, and Custom Border Protection. That $30 billion doesn't cover the additional money spent by local govts, detention centers & prisons,  or on assistance provided by DOD other DHS agency like Coast Guard, TSA, or etc. The number probably closer to $50 billion. By contrast Mexico whole national budget is $291 billion. If we gave Mexico even a quarter of what we are spending to police the border it would be a massive incentive for their govt to police it. We'd could put different metrics in places promising a center amount of money provided illegal crossing are held to a certain threshold.  

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How did that happen?

Greed

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In percentage terms, how big is this change?

Total tax revenue brought in by the U.S. Govt in 2018 was $3.3 trillion. If you are asking how much tax revenue was specifically generated by private insurance companies and associated industries like pharmacies or medical  equipment manufactures I do not know the answer to your question. It would require a level of research I have not performed. This link outlines how much is spent per type of service: Dental, Hospice, Nursing, etc Link. It amounts to $3.5 trillion or 18% of national GDP.

The situation is stupid. People have retirement accounts investigated in private insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and etc. I want the country to move towards single payer but believe it must be done in steps overtime. We cannot transform and eliminate spending to a $3.5 trillion dollar a year industry over night. As an industry, in dollars, it is large as the federal Govt itself and employees millions of people.

Quote

 

While about 11 percent of private-sector workers work in health care establishments nationwide, that percentage varies from one metropolitan area to another. In many metropolitan areas—including Duluth, Minnesota-Wisconsin; McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, Texas; Morgantown, West Virginia; and Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas–the proportion of private-sector workers employed in health care exceeds 20 percent. In large metropolitan areas the number of workers employed in health care may be in the hundreds of thousands, yet the percentage of workers in health care in those areas is closer to the nationwide figure. 

https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2009/health_care/

 

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not the case, and why limit yourself to insulators?

Charges like to spread out, to minimize the potential energy of the system. You can’t have as much charge on a sharp point, or put another way, it would take a higher potential to put more charge there. So all else being equal (as in, the amount of stored charge), pointy structures tend to discharge more easily. Maximizing surface area reduces the energy.

Another factor is that points tends to stick up, and so are possibly closer to another point, at a different potential, to where they might discharge.

I limited it to address the specific idea that shape matters with the most brevity. I assume, perhaps incorrectly but it remains to be seen, that Dark0717 doesn't know the basics. 

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

On the subject of reparations to those wrongfully convicted, I had assumed it already happens.
At least it does in Canada.
Does it not happen in the US ?

It varies by State. In most cases one must file a lawsuit against the authority which prosecuted them. There is not a national standard. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Okay. I'm trying to gauge willingness to pay reparations to those individuals wrongly locked up for years/decades, and potentially to their family/children who also suffered from the mistake. Curious what others think, as well.

I think the govt should. There is also legal precedence for it. Many exonerated people have been award payment though not nearly enough of them. 

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your line is arbitrary and your footing is weak on whether or not land was "given" or "stolen using the pretext of trade with people who had a different understanding of land ownership or understood the implications of what they were agreeing to". 

Even if you could get the government to pursue and the electorate to accept, you'll never get past the ownership rights of people today.

It is still a non-starter.

No it isn't arbitrary. If the objective is for U.S. govt is to fulfill promises it made than it (U.S. govt) would need to have existed and made the promise. The U.S. govt would not be attempting to fulfill or correct promises made by England, Spain, France, or etc. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 so that would serve as the line. Nothing arbitrary about it. 

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Even if you could get the government to pursue and the electorate to accept, you'll never get past the ownership rights of people today.

The Govt has the right to take property. We can debate whether or not it should in our opinions or how popular doing so might be but legally it can take land. They is nothing to debate there. 

Quote

 

The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may take private property directly by passing an Act transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_States#Constitutional_powers_and_limits

 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Not only would returning the land never be acceptable to the electorate, it would probably be illegal.

If we returned all the land previously belonging to the natives the rest of us would have to leave the continent. It's a non-starter.

 

Not all land was inhabited by native thus not all land was taken from them. Some land was even given to the English and French via agreement or trade with varies Native tribes. Post revolutionary War after the Country was established there were established native communities recognized by the Govt.. It is that land I am referencing. Like the land taken via the Indian Removal Act. 

Likewise for slaves specific things were promised people by the government. For example during the Civil War many freed slaves were promised land and some who fought were even rewarded land for their service. Then after the war the land was taken from them and returned to white owners, Link. 

I think the electorate could accept the idea if it was handled specifically enough. It would just be all the land returned to all native and slaves. Rather it would be specific land that was promised or taken from Natives or slaves and is still owned (past down through heirs) by the same families. Land which has long since become part of a park, property of the county, owned by a utility, and etc, etc, etc would be left out of it. 

1 hour ago, DARK0717 said:

If electricity likes to shoot out of pointed things or the sharp edges of things, then what shape or geometrical figure does it like to go into?

Electrons orbit the atomic nucleusis. Different electrons orbit at different distances creating shells. The Valence Shell is the outer most electron shell around an atom. Atoms with Valence shells of 1 or 2 electrons are good conductors of electricity because an electron in a valence shell of 1 or 2 can be more easily dislodged allowing for electron flow. Atoms with valence shells consisting of 3-5 electrons are insulators. Their electrons are not easily dislodged which hinders electron flow. A valence shell of 1 is the best conductor and of 5 is the best insulator. 

Electricity is made of negatively charged electrons. They move to ground because it is positively charged. The electricity moves via the path of least resistance and as described above least resistance is determined by the valance shell of atoms.  

It doesn't matter how sharp an insulator is electricity won't like to "shoot out" of it. Likewise it does matter how dull or sharp a conductor is electricity will like to "go into" it. 

On 3/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, Ten oz said:

Case by case when tangible I agree. In gentrification unduly displaces a family that family should be adequately compensated. If a person is injured by aggressive police they should be adequately compensated. It is harder to address as a catch all nationally. There might be common ways people have been disenfranchised but it is still a unique experience for everyone. Do all cases receive the same retribution? I don't think that is fair per se. The same prescription for all ills.

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Separate, but related:

What about people mistakenly locked away in prison for decades, then later exonerated for being shown to have been falsely convicted; when evidence comes forth confirming their innocence from day 1... should the state pay any reparations to this population?

I think it fits in with what I previous mentioned.

On 3/24/2019 at 8:36 AM, Ten oz said:

Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified. 

 What do you think of the govt returning land previously belonging or promised to Natives & Slaves?

17 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Really? When studying a species don't we rationalize every little thing they do? Why they eat what they eat? Why they solve their problems the way they do? For thousands of years people have believed in an eye for an eye. Where is the faith in that? I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. 

I'm just suggesting that after thousands of years of irrational behavior that it might be a little irrational to assume that a handful of years of enlightenment will win the day. I used to want to have faith in people, so maybe you are right about faith being irrational.

There is a difference between identifying a behavior and passing judgement on behavior. Science studies lots of direct things animals do but seldom from the perspective of certain behaviors being rational, good, bad, or whatever. Every trait every species has isn't useful and evolution isn't purposeful. 

After thousands of years humans still murder, commit suicide, and etc. That doesn't mean murder or suicide is rational. Most kids hate learning to read. The consistency of that among children doesn't mean humans are hardwired not to read. Correlation does not imply causation.

17 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I agree, accept to note that at first it was science that was thought to be irrational.

Rational is relative. Men having several wives and public executions were once considered rational.  

For those who find community and comfort in religion their beliefs are rational relative to the positive impact within their own lives. Irrationality in my opinion only exists when it is expressed. Thoughts, emotions, fears, wants, beliefs, and etc are never irrational. It is the choices people make based on their feelings that can be deemed irrational. 

Quote

 

The Border Patrol, a component of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, faces a crisis in hiring, training and retaining agents as well as keeping track of what exactly its 19,555 agents are doing at any given time, according to internalwatchdog reports. 

As the Border Patrol struggles to maintain current workforce levels, its greatest challenge will be President Trump's executive order from two years ago calling for the hiring of an additional 5,000 agents to seal off the southern border.

Since that Jan. 25, 2017, order, what should have been a flood of hiring has been, at best, a trickle. In 2018, the agency added 118 Border Patrol agents, with only three stationed along the southern border. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/29/border-patrol-struggling-to-hire-5000-agents-president-trump/3155869002/

 

As the National Emergency continues and Agency search for ways to give reallocate money to Trump's wall it is worth discussing the fact that previous executive orders at the remain unfinished. 

Border Patrol hasn't been able to hire more agents despite increases in their recruitment budget and spending. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I used to think this was partisan behavior, but now I'm pretty sure it's just how extremist capitalism works the political systems. The uber wealthy are always eager to find newer and bigger ways to leech more money away from where it's supposed to go.

Boom!!!!

Whether it is climate change, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, or etc no solution can be considered free from how those who will profit will respond.