Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 12, 2016, 04:49:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 166
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie could win New York on: Today at 01:08:40 am
Wonder who the Upper West/East sides vote for in a Clinton/Sanders matchup. Probably splits down age lines again. A lot of the old money/old jewish communities are more mainstream Hillary type people while Sanders could do well with the younger liberals in Manhattan.

Are white Manhattanites actually that left-wing, or are they mostly "social liberals"?  

What's the ratio of business-oriented professionals to "creative class" professionals and educators in Manhattan?  Brooklyn?

In Brooklyn, I presume that Blacks are the plurality of Democratic primary voters.

Manhattan is filled with "creative class" professionals but they tend to be wealthy or upper middle class and, thus, not all that amenable to Sanders' message, which is partially why the reaction to his campaign from the New Yorker or the Atlantic has been one of bafflement/bemusement. It's noteworthy that venerable publications that are read by liberals seem to be "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, even while they publish great in-depth articles about social problems that Bernie discusses. There's no reason to believe that the wealthiest "creative class" types, who tend to be left-leaning through the West, would break for Bernie, who if he was running elsewhere, would be red and not green.

I imagine that large swathes of New York might be more amenable to Bernie than we might think but they're probably in unexpected quarters of the city. If someone knew where so-called "gentrifiers" live/tend to live or where lower middle class/middle class creative class types tend to live, I think that's where Bernie would find his support imo.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie could win New York on: Today at 12:58:29 am
Sure, if everyone in the state outside of Williamsburg, Park Slope and Lower Manhattan forgets to vote. Roll Eyes

edit: And when I say Lower Manhattan I'm obviously not including the Financial District and Chinatown.

You're being too generous to Bernie, I doubt that he'll do much better than break even in Park Slope.

I'd expect him to do better than expected in some of the gentrifying neighborhoods, where white gentrifier turnout might outpace Black turnout. Maybe he could come close to winning Bushwick or "Bed-stuy"?
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Black NYT columnist: Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters on: February 11, 2016, 08:38:11 pm
If he doesn't explicitly mention African Americans in every speech, he's ignoring Black issues. If he explicitly mentions African Americans in every speech, he's "Bernie-splaining". It's clear Bernie could do nothing to please the people who write articles like this, so he shouldn't try.

I hate to empty-quote Mortimer but he's right. While some articles written about Black voters' love of Hillary are quite condescending, this is true of progressives in general, who have the tendency to make claims about "interests". "If only Group X could see where their interest would lie, they would vote for Candidate Y." Articles in this vein have been written about the white working class time and time again. This has nothing to do with racism, it's related to a certain tone-deafness that exists in certain quarters of the left.

That said, it is fairly accurate that Black voters know little about Bernie Sanders. There's nothing condescending about stating this; they tend to make less money and to have lower levels of education. They're also concentrated in states where Sanders has run little advertising or radio ads. They might know his name and understand his positions on a few issues but I don't think that, for the most part, they have been paying much attention to the primary. Does this mean that they will ultimately end up backing him in large numbers? I doubt it but I don't think that Clinton-luvrs can afford to be so complacent.
4  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Is 'white privilege' a thing? on: February 02, 2016, 11:57:38 pm

5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Popular Rage: A Trump Timeline on: January 29, 2016, 09:25:46 pm
Note: this TL was inspired by Mencken's TL but, as will become apparent soon, will take a very different track.

From East LA to Miami, from Corpus Christi to Chicago, from Yakima to New York City, Latin America's diaspora was glued to its television screen. Some were watching Univision or Telemundo, others were watching CNN or ABC, a few were furiously refreshing web pages instead. They were to see what their fate would be. They paid no attention to Donald Trump's pivot towards the center nor were they re-assured by the words of Republican Senators and Congressmen who assured them that they would place a check on Trump's authority, they knew what his intentions were, they could see it in livid rage of his supporters, who were increasingly bold, harassing anyone with brown skin or a Hispanic surname. So, when the results poured in, the sense of despair was palpable: Donald Trump was the President-Elect. Families were quick to reach for liquor, tears flowed down the cheeks of many. However, a few took to social media to post vitriolic "tweets" and "posts", posts that spread like wildfire. A mass movement was soon in the making. While first generation immigrants, particularly the undocumented tried to numb the pain of defeat, their children were ready to fight. This was their country. English was their language. They bled "red, white and blue". They had siblings in the military. They were angry. So, one by one, they took to the streets, meeting up at set locations, early in the morning, starting at 1 but slowly cascading towards 4 and 5. At first, the marches were peaceful, near solemn affairs but they turned into riots rapidly; all it took was a few drunk high schoolers throwing a rock at a vehicle with a MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN bumper sticker or a trashcan into the storefront of a known Trump supporter. This was not a universal event; in farming communities, the entire population came together to grieve and to vent, there was no one to assault. The same was true in most of southern California, where any Trump supporter with an IQ above 30 knew to hide their political views. Elsewhere, particularly in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Dallas, many residential areas were engulfed in flames, many police officers were on virtual strike and the sense of doom was palpable. President Obama, his approval ratings mired in the mid-30s, took to the screen at 5 in an attempt to calm the rioters, his last "hail marry" to demonstrate that there was one America. He failed miserably.

As dawn broke on that grim Wednesday, Trump supporters were meeting up, locked and loaded to "do something". Police departments, at least the ones packed with Trump fans, were in a state of rage, assaulting kids left and right. Due to the media's palpable dislike of Trump, most national outlets were quick to cover the police brutality, so, when Officer Troy O'Donnell opened fire on a scattered line of fleeing Mexican youth in Mesa, the country knew within minutes. At that moment, a constellation of Latino interest groups, labor unions, student groups and "latte liberals" was spurred to act. As the riots died down rapidly, running out of fuel towards late morning, a trend brought to its conclusion by the news of multiple police shootings, leaders from the SEIU, Unite HERE, UFCW, LIUNA, Council of La Raza and more met. Although they had discussed contingency plans in the run-up to election day, they were not prepared for the violence nor were they prepared for the roving bands of angry white men patrolling the streets of suburbs. They were in a collective state of shock, unsatisfied with the initial plan to hold mere candle light vigils or silent marches but entirely unsure of any other desirable alternatives. When a staffer, venting that "this country can't function without immigrants", a lightbulb went off in the leaders' minds: in order to demonstrate the utter stupidity of Trump's "big beautiful wall" and his promised deportations, they would need to pull Latinos out of the labor market for weeks. Thus, the Month Without Immigrants was born. In an afternoon press conference, covered by every major news network, they announced the plan: starting on Monday of the next week, Latinos and any of their allies were encouraged to not show-up for work, and to continue to stay home for three weeks.

Was this a recipe for disaster? Of course it was, no one could think straight in those dark days, racial minorities, not just Latinos, were not emotionally prepared for a Trump victory, they could not fathom why their friends and their neighbors would vote for someone who appeared to despise their very existence. They weren't willing to sit through four years of Trump, they weren't willing to wait until the 2018 midterms to elect a favorable Congress. So, democracy died on November 1st, 2016: it lost its legitimacy in the eyes of millions of immigrants, students and latte liberals when Trump, who they were told was an unelectable fascist, triumphed over Hillary Clinton. It lost its legitimacy with everyone else when it became clear that they didn't care about democracy, demonstrating that every right-wing trope about the inherent authoritarianism of Democrats, immigrants and non-white people was true. They just wanted gifts, they wanted to be coddled, and if they weren't, they would shred the Constitution.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Could cocaine and khat be legalized in another 50 years? on: January 29, 2016, 07:32:57 pm
Khat actually is a decent cash crop for impverished areas, which makes it a pretty bad blow to criminalise it.

Also, our government has just randomly decided to ban, like everything, from poppers to laughing gas. Ugh.

laughing gas is a great example of a drug that should be legal and easy to purchase.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Could cocaine and khat be legalized in another 50 years? on: January 29, 2016, 07:31:54 pm
No?

I think that there's a non-negligible possibility that MDMA, LSD and psilocybin mushrooms will be legalized, along with powerful new synthetic nootropic-type drugs that induce happiness but not euphoria along with increased cognitive capacity.

Psychedelic drugs and empathogens actually have a lot of value to society. I realize that this makes me sound like a crank or an idiot but there have been a number of studies indicating that MDMA has value in treating patients with PTSD and that it has a lot of value for therapeutic reasons. The same goes for "magic mushrooms" and LSD with regards to therapy. In general, these drugs are not fully understood but I imagine that, MDMA in particular, could become a mainstay of later 21st Century and 22nd Century society in terms of common social rituals and the like.

Like it or not, many drugs are here to stay in society, the question is which ones will have staying power and which ones will be discarded; drugs are too potent, too exhilarating to be disposed of and no war and no social controls can stop people from using them in some form or fashion. It's pretty taboo to say this, of course, but I don't see what's so terrible about the notion of people imbibing something on occasions that makes them feel pleasant or euphoric or whatever; that's, you know, our society's experience with alcohol, which has a lot of terrible consequences. It would, in the end, be a good thing if we substituted some drugs for binge drinking, I think.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict the final DMR Iowa poll on: January 29, 2016, 07:18:29 pm
Because predicting the DMR poll is nearly akin to prediction the caucus results, I'll give this a try

Hillary Clinton 47
Bernie Sanders 45
Martin O' Malley 3

Donald Trump 25
Ted Cruz 22
Marco Rubio 18
Ben Carson 5
Rand Paul 5
Jeb Bush 5
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My crystal ball reveals itself on: January 29, 2016, 07:10:38 pm
That's pretty generous, Torie.



I suspect that the final result would look something like this.

I have a theory. Can you figure out the theme(s)?

Class, of course, but Connecticut is also filled with poor and working class people. There's a reason why Dan Malloy was re-elected...

I doubt that Bernie Sanders would win over any Romney or McCain voters but he'll almost certainly shed some wealthier white voters and some Latinos/Asians against Rubio, which would be enough to tip the scales in a lot of swing states but not in Connecticut.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: My crystal ball reveals itself on: January 29, 2016, 12:36:16 pm
That's pretty generous, Torie.



I suspect that the final result would look something like this.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who are worse? Hillary Hacks or Bernie Hacks? on: January 29, 2016, 02:31:50 am
In general? Berniebots. On this forum? Hillary fans, of course.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: IA-Monmouth: Clinton up 5 on: January 29, 2016, 02:16:40 am
If only this f**** thing had been on January 4 like it was supposed to be.

If only Supreme Dark Overlord Debbie "Satan Lucifer Hades" Wasserman Schultz moved the date back!

Welcome back, by the way. Wink

I've been meaning to resurrect the old feud: how does it feel to be wrong about Democratic primaries! I told you long ago, last year, that Hillary's support was overstated and you didn't believe me. Yung DFB never forgets, friend. Even if Bernie loses Iowa and New Hampshire, I win!

(sorry but I really wanted to re-litigate this and rub it in, if it means anything, I have a better opinion of Hillary now)
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Houston clears Planned Parenthood... and indicts prolife activists instead. on: January 29, 2016, 12:23:40 am
A family cannot a burden imposed by someone else?  That's funny, I don't remember choosing to come into existence into a family.

Um, that's my point, the experience of being a parent is distinctly different from being a baby; having a child without that being an active choice is a pretty terrible/disorienting/horrific experience. Being a child without choosing to be a child is, well, it's what everyone has been through.

That was my point: being a mature adult is qualitatively different from being a child and it's very different from being a fetus. From a moral standpoint, different rules apply, and the moral standing of a fetus is clearly different form the moral standing of a mature adult who can do Calculus or cook a tasty bowl of pasta or whatever. Our legal system acknowledges this distinction, as it should.

Am I saying that parents should be allowed to kill their children? No, of course not, children are also qualitatively different than fetuses seeing as, you know, they're not physically dependent upon their biological mother or surrogate mother.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Houston clears Planned Parenthood... and indicts prolife activists instead. on: January 28, 2016, 11:43:22 pm
Doesn't make abortion any less wrong.

As I said, right wingers don't understand the concepts of legal and illegal.  You don't run a country based on what each individual determines in their head is right and wrong.  That is called anarchy.  Democrats support what we call laws.

I'm very far left. I just know that abortion is wrong.

Excellent riposte!

I know that abortion is right and very good because it prevents women from having children that they do not want, which increases their autonomy,

This is a potentially good argument for abortion in a utilitarian moral framework.

Quote
promotes gender equality

This is indisputably a good argument for abortion in a utilitarian moral framework.

Quote
and is also very good news if one enjoys casual sex.

This is a disgusting argument for abortion in practically any moral framework.

I mean, it would be more congruent if you said "utilitarian moral framework" as well seeing as sex produces a lot of happiness when it's consensual but that's of little import.

Anyways, I'd argue that a fetus obviously and clearly impinges upon the autonomy of the mother. I'm not exactly breaking new ground by making this argument, of course, but it's worth re-stating that there are clear deontological grounds for abortion as a social good, which is actually the grounds for my argument. Coming from a perspective in which moral laws, set from by the self as a free/rational agent who has the capacity to choose between different conceptions of the good, are the highest form of ethics, it's not exactly hard to see why I would support "the right to choose" and why, as an individual, I might support abortion. Because I believe in family planning, the act of starting a family as an active rather than as a passive choice, I cannot condone the idea of a "unwanted" pregnancy, which flies in the face of my view of the family as a consensual arrangement freely chosen rather than as a burden imposed by someone else. The decision to have a child cannot be taken lightly and it is a choice. If it is not a choice, the child should not come into existence, that's preposterous.

To add to this, I think your argument is "fetus is a person" or something rooted in your faith, which is understandable, but I will stand for the claim that I am a utilitarian because I care more about living human beings and their capacity to live fulfilling lives crafted by their will than potential human beings. This is not to say that I do not think that the potential human beings, who have the genetic structure of a human being and who are living beings, don't have moral standing, they do, but that standing is clearly trumped by the mother's standing and both standings cannot be decoupled.
15  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: An Economics Platform for SoCons on: January 28, 2016, 11:28:02 pm
Conservatism isn't all that compatible with unfettered markets, anyone who is intellectually serious ought to understand this fact. There's a stark gulf between the demands of "tradition" or "cultural continuity" and market outcomes; there's a contradiction between a system that simply allocates resources according to the preferences of consumers and the demands/objectives of various strands of conservatism, whether theological or simply reactionary. The logic of the market will tell you that liberalized labor flows and liberalized capital flows are highly desirable but this is the cause of "McDonaldization" and has certainly resulted in rapid/dramatic cultural change. As a result, I'm going beyond Cathcon here: I don't think it's possible to be a genuine conservative and a proponent of, say, the Republican Party's pablum on economics.

Of course, I don't think that Republicans are actually conservative or that America is a conservative nation. America is arguably the embodiment of "liberalism". It's a country that can't be described as a nation-state, founded upon religious toleration and widely-distributed property ownership; a country where most people hail from somewhere else relatively recently. It's not exactly a breeding ground for conservative thought of the Burkean sort.
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Tender Branson Repository of Sexist/Racist Posts and Pejoratives on: January 28, 2016, 11:16:24 pm
What the anti-Trump crowd here has demonstrated is a clear lack of multi-dimensional thinking. They assume a rather linear structure to electoral politics, which is about as pertinent as the "rational consumer" model in macroeconomics.

do you mean microeconomics?
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Houston clears Planned Parenthood... and indicts prolife activists instead. on: January 28, 2016, 11:10:55 pm
Doesn't make abortion any less wrong.

As I said, right wingers don't understand the concepts of legal and illegal.  You don't run a country based on what each individual determines in their head is right and wrong.  That is called anarchy.  Democrats support what we call laws.

I'm very far left. I just know that abortion is wrong.

Excellent riposte!

I know that abortion is right and very good because it prevents women from having children that they do not want, which increases their autonomy, promotes gender equality and is also very good news if one enjoys casual sex. That's my rebuttal.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: January 28, 2016, 10:26:49 am
i'm a big fan, if only because it pisses off sexists like wulfric.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the Trumpster do among Hispanics? on: January 25, 2016, 01:06:10 pm
Trump's message, that America is in decline and is very weak, does not appeal to Hispanics, even if his nativist garbage is discounted. Latinos have experienced a lot of social mobility in the United States, they believe in "the American Dream" etc. That doesn't mean that they don't tend towards left-leaning, if not outright leftist, views on economic issues but they, along with Asians and African-Americans, have not perceived the past few decades through the lens of a narrative of decline.

As a result, I'd expect that Trump would receive ~20% of the Hispanic vote.
20  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: An Economics Platform for SoCons on: January 25, 2016, 02:12:36 am
It's pretty difficult to square the welfare state with the objective of promoting "family values" in the traditional sense. In truth, the welfare state promotes alternative family structures and reduces the strength of traditional family structures by granting women more autonomy. One has to look at families as an economic arrangement; they have been throughout human history and they remain economic arrangements. As a result, social programs will necessarily change the shape/structure of households/families. After all, families were the original social safety net and the creation of the social safety nets/insurance schemes of the 20th Century almost certainly played a role in dramatically altering families.

I think the way we square that circle is to tweak the incentives in the welfare system to strongly encourage 2-parent households and marriage in order to retain or get additional benefits.  I agree that both markets and the welfare system can have disruptive effects on the nuclear family, so the socon position should be to direct government action toward the preservation of that institution.

That sounds easy but, in practice, it could produce a lot of perverse effects. I suppose, what I'm trying to say, is that there isn't an easy way to utilize public policy to produce particular cultural or social outcomes. I'm sure that the marriage rate would increase if various welfare benefits were attached to marriage but would those marriages be "de jure" and not "de facto"? Would those marriages be healthy or expressions of your notion of "family values"? I don't think so!

Keep in mind that I'm actually sympathetic to "social conservatism" insofar as a few Christians on this forum, who are genuinely concerned about families and do not simply use the term "family values" to refer to gay marriage or abortion, use the term. In a certain sense, I share your concerns but from a different angle that treats "families" as a very broad term that encompasses any sort of tight-knit, intimate, long-term social group. Unfortunately, the same problems are present as far as that concerned: how can social policy build a stronger sense of community or stronger/long-lasting social networks? I'm not sure but it's a difficult challenge.

Policies that I think that "social conservatives" ought to consider and policies that I support:
-paid daycare/tax credits for parents to finance daycare(if you think that mothers should be in the labor market, that is)
-universal, free preschool
-some sort of access to a universal trust that's given to every parent per child; there could be a sovereign wealth fund in the vein of norway and proceeds from this could finance the trust. at "majority" age, the child would receive a second "trust" but the parents would receive the first.
-increased funding of public recreational facilities, which would give families a better means to give their children an enjoyable/healthy upbringing.
21  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: When does Human life begin? on: January 24, 2016, 04:26:53 pm
This is pretty controversial but I think that human life only begins when speech capabilities and agency develop. I don't mean "human life" in the biological sense but in a meaningful sense when the facts of human life that make it worth living are present. Obviously, this is not an argument for legalizing the murder of babies or whatever, it's simply a personal philosophy about the meaning of being a human.
22  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: An Economics Platform for SoCons on: January 24, 2016, 04:17:49 pm
It's pretty difficult to square the welfare state with the objective of promoting "family values" in the traditional sense. In truth, the welfare state promotes alternative family structures and reduces the strength of traditional family structures by granting women more autonomy. One has to look at families as an economic arrangement; they have been throughout human history and they remain economic arrangements. As a result, social programs will necessarily change the shape/structure of households/families. After all, families were the original social safety net and the creation of the social safety nets/insurance schemes of the 20th Century almost certainly played a role in dramatically altering families.

This is my attempt to stay that there's no "going back" to the idealized family/household model of the 1950s. So long as women remain in the labor force and birth control is easily accessible, divorce rates and single motherhood/fragmented families will be a relatively normal fact of life. I think increased welfare provisions could ameliorate the negative social impacts of these facts but it remains to be seen how a subsidy would promote "nuclear" families: in all likelihood, the idea of long-term marriages being a widespread/desirable phenomenon was not the result of preferences but rather the result of constraints.

Basically, I don't think that the welfare state and "social conservatism", as it is commonly understood, are all that compatible. I suppose that there could be incentives built into the system that promote "marriage" but one has to ask whether or not this would be a good thing. It could just as easily promote bad marriages that lead to domestic abuse as it could lead to stable families. Social conservatism really needs to evolve beyond the nuclear family and accept the fact that other family structures are workable/desirable and worth defending.

Edit: by the way, I'm not attempting to bash/condemn social conservatives here. If more conservatives thought long and hard about this topic, they'd almost certainly come to the conclusion that markets erode traditional familial structures as much as left-wing social policy. I'd be willing to support some of these proposals because I see the former by-product of the market as being even more despicable/disgusting as attempts to foster traditional families.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico Spotlight on Potential Hillary running mate Julian Castro on: January 23, 2016, 04:25:57 pm
Hilda Solis is a vastly superior choice to Julian Castro, the same goes for Xavier Becerra or Luis Gutiérrez.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Could the U.S. purchase the northern Mexico states? on: January 22, 2016, 05:52:20 pm
Why would the U.S. want to purchase the most culturally bland part of Mexico? Trust me guys, you do not want Monterrey or Chihuahua, neither of these cities have any charm that extends beyond the beauty of the surrounding landscape. Then there's the case of Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, which would certainly be net negatives to America.

Look, if you're interested in conquering Mexico, at least go after the regions that have value. Plant the American flag on the top of the Pyramid of the Moon or Chapultepec, don't plant it on the top of a maquiladora. Also: do you really want to take in the parts of Mexico where the worst variant of folkloric Mexican music is popular? Unless you're into polka, I'd strongly advise you to be opposed to forcibly annexing anything north of Saltillo.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Reparations for AA too radical for Bernie Sanders on: January 19, 2016, 09:35:48 pm
I can't say that I'm surprised but I'm still disappointed by his response.

To the idiot who claimed that Ta-Nehisi Coates demanded "free money": are you illiterate or did you not even bother reading his strong case for reparations? To be clear, reparations are not a "controversial" policy when fiscal or physical harms, experienced by living individuals, can be traced to the actions of currently living individuals or public institutions. Housing discrimination, discrimination in the labor market, segregation and more are all responsible for causing direct fiscal harm to living individuals: this can be measured quite precisely.

No one is saying that "whitey" has to give the Black community money; that's a total misconstrual of reparations as a policy proposal/concept. Here are some examples of "reparations":

Quote
Canada – For more than 100 years, Canada retained a practice of removing indigenous Canadian children from their families and placing them in church-run Indian residential schools (IRS). This process was part of an effort to homogenize Canadian society, and included the prohibition of native language and cultural practices. In 1991, the Canadian government established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), charged with exploring the relationship between aboriginal peoples, the government, and society.

As a result of the commission’s recommendations, the government symbolically issued an apology in a “Statement of Reconciliation,” admitting that the schools were designed on racist models of assimilation. Pope Benedict XVI also issued an apology on behalf of church members who were involved in the practice. In addition, the government provided a $350 million fund to help those affected by the schools. In 2006, the federal government signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, agreeing to provide reparations to the survivors of this program. The Settlement totals approximately $2 billion, and includes financial compensation, a truth commission, and support services.

Chile – In 1990, Chile’s newly elected president Patricio Aylwin created the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate the human rights abuses of General Augusto Pinochet’s 1973-1990 dictatorial regime. The commission investigated disappearances, political executions, and torture, publishing the Rettig Report with its findings in 1991. Afterwards, its work was continued by the National Corporation for Reparations and Reconciliation. These programs recommended reparations for the victims, including: monthly pensions, educational benefits for the children of the disappeared, exemption from military service, and priority access to health services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_(transitional_justice)

If reparations are controversial, it's only because white America, and I'd note that this does not mean "white people, is ignorant and/or bigoted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 166


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines