I used to contact the Trib about him. I said they could keep him as I don't believe in censorship. But that he was so unbelievably one-sided that in no way did he deserve a spot at the front of the paper. That at the very least he should be kicked back to the editorial pages. When he took the buyout, the paper improved a lot. I'm surprised he doesn't work for one of the well-known conservative rags. Maybe he's too toxic even for them.
Got my Wisconsin absentee ballot in mail today. This is only second presidential election in decades where my vote actually means something (after almost 50 years in Illinois). 98% sure who I’m voting for, but holding on to ballot for a while in case Kamala reverts to 2019 mode and says something supremely woke-stupid.
Frankly, I am sick of the term woke. What exactly does that mean? Her beliefs and past actions are different that those like Trump. Does that mean woke? If liberals are woke, does that make conservatives asleep? Frankly, I'd rather have woke. I would never describe Trump as asleep. I wish he were. Then we wouldn't need to listen to his ramblings about Haitians eating neighbors' pets and hundreds of other half baked lies. I'm not a big Harris fan. I wasn't in 2020. But Trump is a proven disaster with no moral character whatsoever. Conservatives are really doing a number on her personally. How does she compare with the cheating lying no class womanizer political opportunist she is running against?
I think “woke” means (1) respecting transgender people and understanding their legitimate medical needs, (2) acknowledging that our country was founded in institutional racism and hasn’t yet completely moved out from under that, and (3) seeing immigrants to our country as people, human beings like us and our neighbors.
Woke has been culturally appropriated by the Right to mean anything they are against. It's replaced Political Correctness. Just like DEI has replaced Affirmative Action.
FWIW, accd'g to a google search: The phrase “woke” and to “stay woke” is not new — it began appearing in the 1940s and was first used by African Americans to “literally mean becoming woken up or sensitised to issues of justice”, says linguist and lexicographer Tony Thorne
Like if she still favors tax payer funded gender reassignment surgeries for incarcerated illegal immigrants? Odd that Trump brought this up in the debate, prompting our supposedly fact check savvy media to hiss and scoff at him, even though it was completely true, at least in 2019.
We should provide necessary medical care to people whom we lock up and thereby prevent from accessing medical care on their own. Gender dysphoria is a real medical condition in the DSM-5-TR, and the considered judgment of medical professionals is that in certain cases gender confirmation surgery is necessary. I know it was in my case. So if you hold up as bizarre the idea that we should provide necessary transgender medical care to people we incarcerate, all you’re really proving is that you are transphobic.
Joanie, I don’t think you can call Steven transphobic for that statement. If he were against taxpayer funded breast augmentation would he be suffering from mastophobia? Or is it mastrophobia? I found both in my search. 🤷♂️
Breast augmentation is elective surgery, not necessary health care. Gender reassignment surgery is necessary health care for patients with severe gender dysphoria, like care for cancer or heart disease.
How do you know that, Garry Spelled Correctly? I will venture to say that have never experienced gender dysphoria and don’t have any friends who have experienced it. There is lots of literature on how gender conforming surgery in appropriate cases reduces suicide and suicidal ideation. In addition, I have no doubt that untreated gender dysphoria can lead to a number of stress-related deaths, such as deaths caused by heart attack. The American Medical Association has stated that gender-affirming surgery is widely accepted as a medically necessary intervention for appropriately selected patients with gender dysphoria. See article below. Not to mention, short of death, gender dysphoria is defined in the DSM-5-TR as a condition in which “causes clinically significant distress or impairment in life activities.” But good old Garry Spelled Correctly knows it’s all bullshit. He knows better than the doctors and the American Medical Association. And he’s quick to condemn and mock people and things he knows nothing about.
People die every day from not being able to live their authentic life. People tell them they are not who they know themselves to be and can't be who they know themselves to be and it gets to be too much.
For me it's not about deducing "transphobia" or "woke-ness" from that particular statement, but what I detest is the use of "campaign language" designed specifically to be as manipulatively emotive as possible rather than informative. If he were to say instead, "she supports giving flu vaccines to kids in juvenile detention," it's essentially the same thing -- i.e. inmates should be given appropriate medical treatment -- but no one would raise an eyebrow at that as it sounds completely reasonable. But each term in my example gets put through the campaign-speak machine to change it to the most extreme example to set people off and turn off the thinking parts of their brains. Watch here how it's done:
"Supports" is changed to "taxpayer-funded" because that riles people up more than "public support" or even "government support" even though they are the same thing.
"Flu vaccines" (medical care) is changed to the most extreme form of medical care one can think of - "gender reassignment" - because that evokes something that's instantly attention-grabbing because it's about sex, and sounds strange because it's extremely rare and the vast majority of people don't understand it. And those who have heard of it recently have only in the context of children, so it's even more shocking and bizarre to them.
"Vaccines" (a medical treatment) is changed to "surgery," when it really might mean simply medication, because surgery is dramatic and expensive.
"Kids in juvenile detention" is changed to its opposite, the most un-sympathetic inmate one can think of, which to Steven K's target audience right now isn't even murders but "illegal immigrants."
And THAT is how to turn any candidates policy position into a campaign weapon. Go ahead and play the game with your kids to teach them the parts of speech and new vocabulary words!
And for all of this semantical dice loading, word twisting and linguistic contortion Monica, you can thank the ACLU, who provided Harris with the questionnaire that asked her her views on this specific treatment, when of course, they could have just asked if she favored “giving flu vaccines to children in juvenile detention”.
I'm not saying it's only done by one side. I just hate manipulative wording everywhere -- polls, marketing, sales, etc., it's just particularly egregious in campaigns.
I don’t have any problem with it on principle (although I think the word “necessary” does some Herculean lifting here), but with public resources being finite as they are, I have a hard time placing this particular extravagance any higher than about 756,342 on a list of items that require the allocation of those resources.
My comment wasn’t about me, though, was wondering what Harris thinks.
There is nothing Herculean about the use of the word “necessary” to describe gender conforming surgery for appropriate patients. Or do you know more than the American Medical Association, like Garry Spelled Correctly?
Again, that is not the opinion of the AMA, just the opinions of three doctors who wrote an article the editor of that AMA journal decided to publish! I wonder what the responses to that article were, or are you afraid to include a link to that?
I’m not afraid of any responses to the article. I didn’t do anything to limit anyone’s access to the responses as you falsely suggested that I did. And I’m certainly not afraid of a bloviating transphobe like you. I’ve met plenty of them.
You missed the point. Trump was, as usual, priming his base. You don't like Trump's stand. I like very little that Trump is for. But there actually was a time when the government didn't pay for it.
i moved to MIch in 2020, after living in IL for 40 yrs prior. i've never liked my major party choices for POTUS since i voted for mcgovern in '72 - and i still admire mcgoven as a person, as an intellect, and as far morally superior to his Repub opponent.
however, from 1976 to 2016 i voted for a 3rd party candidate every time - both because i didn't like my Dem vs Repub binary choice, and because my vote for POTUS in IL didn't matter - the Dem was going to win in IL regardless, and receive all of its electoral college votes
i did have a reckoning in 2020. now a Mich resident. and despite my disdain for biden's tax & spend [& spend] proposals, he was the far superior candidate to trump - pick a level, any level. in Mich, my vote for POTUS mattered.
FF, 4 yrs later, the choices are harris and trump. harris - tho a vast improvement over biden 2024 - is no better now than biden 2020. maybe younger and livelier. i am put off by her economic 'policies' - such that she has articulated any economic policies - which demonstrate either ignorance of economics, or willful BS'g of an electorate that is generally ignorant of economics. most knowledgeable reviews of her proposed policies say they will either make inflation worse, and make the budget deficit/national debt worse, &/or not achieve their intended goal.
not that trump's policy proposals are any better - in fact, he & they are far worse. he's just looney tunes, and dangerous.
oh, & BTW, harris won't give a straight answer to any moderator's or interviewer's question. i know trump doesn't either - but that is not a pt in favor of harris.
i'm tired of being presented with the less worse alternative, and told that, if i vote for a 3rd party candidate, i've de facto voted for trump. i explained the math rebutting this contention in this forum, and won't bother doing so again.
no, i haven't [or won't have] voted for trump if/when i vote 3rd party this year. the US govt is too big, it's functioning poorly, both major party candidates want to increase the size of the fed govt, and neither apparently cares about, or understands, the rapidly increasing federal debt.
so i'll vote for the Libertarian candidate [i knew it was chase oliver, before EZ asked], and feel no remorse, no shame, no guilt, regardless of the outcome of the election. because, just as in 2016, the Dems have nominated a seriously flawed candidate. trump shd be easily beatable by any literate, numerate, emotionally stable, knowledgeable, center-left candidate. if harris can't beat trump, you can blame harris, you can blame the nomination process, you can blame the electoral college - but don't blame me and the other 3rd party voters.
no sir, i'll be voting for the Libertarian guy. he's neither fat nor a traitor.
if i had any doubt about voting for harris [remember, i'm a never-trumper], it was discarded yesterday. now she wants to suspend the filibuster in the senate to pass an abortion rights law. assuming there comes a time soon where the Dems have a majority in both the House & the Senate [unlikely, and she's Prez [not unlikely], suspending/removing the filibuster would be a huge mistake, regardless of the merits of such a law.
She should remember what happened when Nev. Senator Reid championed the vote to remove the filibuster for approval of federal judges - Republicans later removed the filibuster for SCOTUS justices, and Trump was able to nominate and get bare minimum approval for 3 conservative nominees - who helped overturn roe v wade.
If the Democrats suspend/remove the filibuster for abortion rights, Republicans, when they next have a majority, will vote to remove those rights. And they will likely suspend/remove the filibuster for any other conservative/MAGA legislation they want to pass and implement.
It will become a race to the bottom - and the Senate will [dys]function, just like the US House of Representatives.
The filibuster is an entirely undemocratic disaster for the country!
And no, the Re Thug Licons will never ever repeal an abortion rights law, for the simple reason they've seen so many women rise up & vote them out of office & vote for state constitutional amendments making abortion legal!
Eric, I am suggesting that Journalists police themselves in the same manner as lawyers.
They can organize a set of license requirements and a code of ethics.
You have sometimes quoted from a set of unenforceable guidelines for Journalists, why not make it enforceable by agreement?
Having doctors, nurses, lawyers and motor vehicle operators licensed is good for the public, why not Journalists?
I find there is a lot of irresponsible journalism being fed to the public. It is attacking our rule of law, our democratic institutions and in some cases plain lies to deceive the public. But we only have opinions as to what is and is not honest journalism.
Remember the mess we had with Covid. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the medical profession had no standards? So that anybody with a medical opinion on Covid could claim equal weight with anyone else? Dr Fauci, Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. all chiming in claiming equal expertise on how to treat Covid. Yikes, glad they had standards.
There are ethical standards for journalists and reputable outlets insist on them. Having the government or anyone else license or otherwise police journalists is a slippery slope to censorship. How does one even define journalism today, what with traditional media being clobbered by podcasts, "citizen journalists," and other new media?
Really? Care to tell the ethical standards “reputable” are using? I assume they are guidelines and not enforceable.
On the contrary, a self regulating journalism profession would surface lies, bias and just plain propaganda via its own regulations. No government, no censorship just better information to the public.
And just as doctors, nurses, lawyers and motor vehicle operators can define their activities, I think journalists can do so as well.
Some follow the Society of Professional Journalists standards, for just one of the hundreds of codes. When I worked in local TV news, we had an internal code of ethics that was basically the ethics as traditional journalists learn in J school - like many other professions, it boils down to "do no harm." Tell the fact-based truth, be objective and impartial, report fairly, and be accurate.
The problem is that many purveyors of alleged journalism don't consider themselves bound by any ethics and already choose to not follow any code of ethics. Fox News, for instance, does not consider itself a news outlet (see the Dominion lawsuit where Fox says they are not a news outlet but rather entertainment). Traditional broadcast journalism - TV, radio - can be sanctioned by the FCC for demonstrably false statements. But Fox, not a news licensee, doesn't even have that kind of accountability.
The podcasters, online "news" networks, and social influencers are never going to follow any kind of ethical framework. The only news sources following ethical guidelines are the ones already doing so. The problem is that the average person doesn't know the difference between ethical journalism and ethics-free "journalism."
How do we determine who is a journalist and license them? Many never graduated from journalism school (I didn't, but worked as producer in TV news; I wrote up stories, interviewed people on camera, and more "journalistic" tasks). Anyone can report the news, as they see it, on a website, podcast, etc. If we can't even define who is a journalist today, how do we license it?
It might be useful if there was the equivalent of a Certified Public Accountant test and training requirements. Journalists that passed the test and took the annual training would be able to use the CPJ after their names in the by line. AP and others would be required to use CPJ people for non-bylined content. No degree would be required. A CPJ could be sanctioned by the certifier (like the AICPA - American Institute of CPA). Anyone could write, but readers would be able to see which writers had been certified.
But I think there are two other problems that are very difficult. I think one of the ethics of modern journalism is doing positive good. This can easily transform objective reporting into advocacy and bias. The ideas in standpoint theory, which say there is no objective truth, only perceived truth, have also supported the shift. This tendency is reenforced by the editorial decisions on story content, length, and frequency. FOX is a handy whipping boy for the obvious bias on many of its offerings, but there is ample evidence for the editorial bias of every major media provider. I am sure that all of their editorial leadership believe they are serving the public good.
I related a little while ago my distaste for the term "woke". "Mainstream press" is another one. What does that mean? Press and media take in a wide range of territory. Anyone with a computer can start a blog or other form and declare themselves journalists. Mainstream seems to describe any of the traditional news outlets that are considered to be left in their news coverage and editorials. Are Fox News and any of the conservative leaning news outlets "mainstream"? Let's ask our resident expert, Eric. What is your definition of "mainstream"?
I would consider "mainstream" to be mass media outlets traditionally using television, cable, and print to reach a large audience. I don't define it by their leaning left or right.
Maybe mass media is a better term. I too would like to hear what Eric thinks.
Actually, Adam Toledo would be alive today if that 13 year old wasn't running around in the middle of the night with an adult gang member criminal who then handed him a gun, because juveniles are treated far more leniently, when arrested with a gun than adults! Shotspotter was just an add on to that mistake he made & his moron parents made by letting him out at that hour to be with a criminal!
And using the Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch" to make of of how that fool Musk has destroyed Twitter is perfect!
I don't understand how casting a vote for a protest candidate sends a meaningful message. For example, if a pro-democracy "never-Trump" person chooses to vote for Oliver rather Harris, what should future Democrats make of it? Is the voter saying they oppose Harris's desire to protect choice? or to shift the tax burden away from those who work to those who invest? to support Ukraine?
Perhaps, simply, that both options are deplorable to that voter (as opposed to the voter who is 98% sure they'll vote for one of the leading candidates): someone who prefers to be counted somehow as a participant, as opposed to those who do not vote at all.
That makes sense. But then my calculation as a candidate is that such a voter disagreed with me on so many issues that I wouldn't bother trying to win their vote. Their vote wasn't a meaningful protest--it was a sign that I should give up on them and focus on strengthening my ties with those who voted for me reluctantly.
How do you propose the parties do better next time? Currently anyone with enough money and a little recognition can run in the primary. It is the voters who decide who will represent the party in the general election. In the beginning the Republicans did not want or support Trump. Only when he became their candidate did they rally behind support him unconditionally.
Now it can be argued the voters did not select Harris and the 3rd party vote will tell them to do better next time. Which person would have been better? Which person would have united the Democratic base as Harris has done? Also, unless these unique circumstances come up again it will be the voters in future elections who decides which candidate will represent their party.
The question shouldn’t be “which candidate will unite the Democratic base”. Whomever they nominate is going to enjoy the full support of the party. The question should be “which candidate is most likely to win over voters in the crucial swing states”. The failure to grasp this concept is what lead to the catastrophe of Hillary Clinton, a woman who was adored by the elites within the Democratic establishment, but loathed among the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.
The love fest that is currently being rained down upon Harris by her party and the media is blinding many to the fact that the race is a dead heat in most of the swing states. I don’t think this would be the case if Whitmer, Newsom, Kelly or Khanna were heading the ticket. That is what is meant by “doing better”.
Anyone would be loathed by many people if they, their family, and their character had been ruthlessly attacked in a campaign of lies, insinuations, distortions, etc., for decades. Somehow, the "loathed" Secetary Clinton received 3 million more votes than the truly loathsome Trump (a victory in any sensible organised election) and won the states of Ilinois and Minnesota, populated by the rubes and riff raff of middle America.
hillary was disliked/loathed by a lot more than just 'the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.'
forget, for a moment, she was running against trump [BTW, i'm a never-trumper]. her character flaws were egregious. and one of her lesser, but obvious flaws was talking down to her perceived social inferiors - the 'deplorables'. to which you are now referring as 'the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.'
hillary was a bad nominee. trump was so feckless back in '16 - he's more dangerous now, because he's more organized, and has a bigger heard of MAGAts supporting him - that any credible, literate, numerate, ethical Dem candidate could have, should have and would have beaten him by 5-10 %-age pts, or more, in the swing states in 2016.
Politicians love to declare that an election has given them a mandate to pursue their agenda. So, when a winning candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, I hope that they are humbler about their political capital and more likely to seek compromise.
I'd love to see humility in such cases, but fear that the ego required to prevail in any political contest. Not that I've seen it yet: neither Clinton in 1992 (plurality win, with Perot in the race) nor Bush is 2000 (plurality win in Florida, the deciding state, with Nader in the race, perhaps affected by questionable application of butterfly ballot design in and around Fort Lauderdale).
You do remember that Chicago had that exact same butterfly ballot as Fort Lauderdale & we didn't vote for the wrong people here. Just shows how stupid Floridians actually are!
To me, it's tricky. How should a person vote? I understand the thinking that goes with an uncast or third party vote being for Trump. But let's look at in other words. This is a pretty liberal crew in this forum. Couldn't conservatives say the same thing about a vote not for Trump actually being for Harris? How should people vote in the first place? Should they for or against candidates? I am well aware that votes for third party candidates are considered wastes of time that affect one or the other of the main candidates? But how about conscience voting where a person simply detects either or both of the main candidates? I have no issue with anyone not liking either Trump or Harris. They then have the options of a third party candidate, an independent such as Kennedy, or sitting it out. Try to remember that we have all these options. Think about despotic countries where freedom of choice is a pretense. One can vote. But there might be only one legal party and no slate of candidates from which to choose. Think about Russia where Putin simply arrests the opposition. Look, I personally wish a hunk of Martian cheese would drop on Trump and end the speculation. But the truth is that I am glad that Americans have the options of voting for someone, against someone, or not at all.
I respect conscience voting--that's what I think I do. But I hope people make an informed choice. If a person sincerely feels that the overriding issue for them is outlawing abortion or cutting taxes for the wealthy, and they understand and can accept the consequences of that vote on all other issues, then voting for Trump makes sense.
My concerns are with people who are too uninformed to see a difference between Trump and Harris or so demanding that I can't imagine them voting for anyone who has ever won the presidency. Or they have just given up on democracy.
It depends on one's point of view and who the opposition is. If a race is considered close, some might see a protest or third party vote as a vote against their candidate. In your particular example, a person might not like either of the major candidates. Due to voting rules and the political situation in this country, it is unlikely that anyone running that is not a Republican or Democrat could win. So some might think, why vote for someone you know has no chance of winning, that it's a wasted vote. On the other hand, someone who's a Trump supporter might think that someone not voting for Trump is lessening Trump's chance to win, especially in a close race- therefore it's like a vote for Harris even if not actually cast for Harris. Welcome to American politics. Vote totals in most American elections have been miniscule for years, especially if it is not a presidential year. Many don't even bother with protest votes. They simply don't vote. Either they figure it's a waste of time because the person they favor has no chance. Or they don't care who wins because they distrust all politicians. So if one doesn't bother voting, it means to some that a vote is not being cast for the correct candidate, which is the one they support. So Trump supporters will see any vote not cast for Trump as being in Harris's favor even if the person doesn't vote.
In my opinion, voter apathy is more serious than choosing a third or fourth party candidate. There obviously was a jump in voter interest and registration after Harris replaced Biden. I don't see Trump attracting many new voters at this point. As a result, Republicans are more into voter suppression than trying to broaden their base. I don't think protest voting is the serious problem that some people make it out to be.
I agree with your math: apathy is a bigger issue than voting for candidates who won't win. But the conventional wisdom that political professionals give to volunteer canvassers is that changing who a likely voter will support is far more likely than getting a nonvoter to vote.
A pro life person who can’t stomach the Republican candidate can make a protest vote. I may be writing in Peter Sonski (feel free to look him up). I didn’t look too hard, since I know he won’t win.
Eric, your comparison of Shot Spotter to 911 calls was spot on. Does Mayor Johnson not want people to call 911 because it brings too many police into the neighborhoods? But the fact that he is just now looking into a replacement for it, possibly another Shot Spotter type technology, is just another example of how ill equipped he is to be mayor of a large city.
I viewed his statement about looking at other venders or technologies as the usual political sleight of hand. At best some 'study' will be produced and shelved. Or claim that there is no technology solution.
Probably true, but if he had started the planning process to shift to any other method of violence reduction months ago, when he first announced ending Shot Spotter, it would at least look like he was being a responsible executive. Instead we have absolutely no planning for any transition and the appearance of complete disarray.
there's no accounting for 'taste' - i thought the dog 'expert' was the funniest - i howled w- laughter, sitting by myself. the photo of the dog, especially the eyes, was perfect.
tho i thought the bologna/baloney one was funny too.
The discussion about journalistic integrity and possible ways to enforce it reminded me of Stephen Glass and the scandal caused by his fabricated stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass
This all happened in the late 90's and he was basically run out of the profession following the revelations.
These days it seems there are hundreds of Stephen Glasses posting complete or partial falsehoods all over the internet with complete impunity and lack of any shame. I don't see how any official enforcement might work in the age when it only takes a few clicks to set up a website or post something to social media and when crowds of followers easily buy into even the wildest conspiracy theory. Trying to stop this would amount to complete government crackdown on expression and would never fully work. I think the only way to address this is emphasizing critical thinking skills in schools, and the only hope is that our general culture starts to value truth and facts.
I freely admit that I was like a kid in a candy store the first time I got my CPD media card. I was so excited about having official proof that I was a reporter, it didn't even occur to me to worry about anything besides whether I took a good picture. It was better than my driver's license, at least.
Giant vigorous tip of the hat to Skeptic for pointing out that 911 calls reporting gun shots function the same as Shotspotter, a point never acknowledged by its opponents. Can't believe how much I've read about Shotspotter at this point and never seen this mentioned. Or blame my reading comprehension. Either way it was a new point to me and astonishingly salient.
I cannot believe that I am the only person who has thought this. The puzzling thing is why it has not been surfaced in public discussion.
I guess the point is based on the premise that Johnson is relying on fake reasons. That is a non-starter for people who want to get rid of ShotSpotter.
I guess that there are two problems. First poor critical thinking skills, or lack of skepticism, of reporters and editors. The OIG report was obviously flawed in many aspects - both data and conclusions. But it was accepted as authoritative by reporters. They failed to question any part of it, did not seek or could not find alternate analysis of the report. I was surprised that the ShotSpotter company was not better at directly challenging the report. I assume that this is due to their desire to avoid offending the administration.
You may have just given Johnson another idea. Maybe now he’ll want to ban 911 calls since they might lead to “over policing of black and brown communities”!
I mostly agree with David L. about Brandon Johnson's opposition to Shot Spotter. But we need to differentiate between far left and racist. They are not equal. Johnson has made his position clear on a number of issues. He wants more for blacks and seems to want to make up for all the wrongs of history in one term. I have no doubt in my mind that racism by whites still exists. But there are also whites that are not racist and I don't believe in collective guilt. Johnson is not only responsible for the ills of racism in the city. He should also be concerned and is also the mayor for downtown and white communities. He would have a much more difficult time solving problems than he is already if more whites and white owned businesses packed up and moved out due to higher taxes and fees and feelings about a lack of safety in the city. Whatever else one can say about Rahm Emanual, he understood a basic financial truism. The city has more money if people and businesses with money want to be there. Emanuel caught a lot of crap for supposedly caring a lot more about downtown than the neighborhoods. But the neighborhoods aren't going to get much help without downtown. Just ask places like Detroit and Stockton, CA. Detroit is still in recovery mode and Stockton has barely started. It doesn't happen without injections of cash. That cash needs to come from somewhere and it doesn't all come from Springfield and Washington. Even if it did, do we need a basic civics lesson on where Sprinfield and Washington get their cash?
Have you been to downtown Detroit lately? Detroit has come SO far since I lived there during law school, 1990-1993. I lived downtown (Lafayette Park) when it wasn't such a popular decision. Detroit has radically transformed its downtown area since then, it's now a great place to live (if only the casinos weren't there, imho). I had to drive out to the suburbs for groceries because pickings were quite slim, now one can live downtown and rarely have to leave the city.
Yes, I have been to downtown Detroit on a number of occasions. I go primarily for ballgames or crossing to Windsor by way of the tunnel. Try to remember that cities are more than just downtown. Detroit slashed a lot of services. They just couldn't afford them. They went so far as to offer free parcels of land if buyers would agree to build on them within a certain period. But there is still a lot of blight and abandonment in Detroit. Chicago is obviously not at that point. But it should be an object lesson for Brandon Johnson. Yes, past wrongs need to be rectified. But ignore or punish downtown and people with money at one's peril.
The neighborhoods are improving all the time in Detroit, it's much, much better than when I lived there. I lived in the Cass Corridor before moving downtown after my parents, 200 miles away, read about a murder on my block and asked if I knew the area and I told them that I could still see the blood stain on the sidewalk from my apartment window. Parents determined that they could supplement my funds so that I could move to a doorman building in a safer 'hood. There are grocery stores in the city again (Farmer Jack made a mass exodus from the city, leaving almost the entire city as a food desert in the 90s). There are community gardens now, many of the abandoned homes have been torn down to make way for new development and much development has occurred.
Big improvements since the 2014 city bankruptcy. But the city still has only about 630,000 residents and the metro area has stayed pretty static around 3.5 million. The oversight of Detroit and Detroit school district finances by the state Financial Review commission has improved the fiscal health of Detroit, which still has quite a way to go. Detroit is also still ranked second of large cities for the most violent crime per capita and in the top ten for property crime.
I enjoyed your story about Betsy's guitar and the fact that the guitar is still with you. I have my first Ludwig drum set, which my dad purchased for me in 1965. It has a story, too. The drum set was originally purchased by a young man named Jim Still in 1963. Jim was an up and coming drummer who performed with the local university big band. Sadly, Jim was killed in a lumber mill accident during that summer. Two years later, his father Adolph decided to sell his son's drum set, searching for a deserving young drummer. Somehow, Mr. Still learned about me. My dad and I went to his house and talked for quite a bit. After some discussion, and with Mr. Still shedding many tears, he said that he would sell the drum set to me. My dad couldn't pay the entire amount up front, so he wrote out a contract on a yellow legal pad, which both Mr. Still and my dad signed. Once the contract was signed, we carried Jim Still's Ludwig Classic white pearl drum set to our station wagon. I still have the drum set, although I upgraded to a DW kit a decade ago. I still use all of the original Zildjian cymbals even though I have added more cymbals.
3 outstanding visual jokes this today - which to choose?🤔 eenie, meenie, miney ...
I never saw the ‘above knee/bologna’ before so I had to vote for that.
I actually laughed out loud at that one.
"Fat shamer" is about the kindest thing anyone could say about the vulgar, sad Royko-wannabee Kass.
I used to contact the Trib about him. I said they could keep him as I don't believe in censorship. But that he was so unbelievably one-sided that in no way did he deserve a spot at the front of the paper. That at the very least he should be kicked back to the editorial pages. When he took the buyout, the paper improved a lot. I'm surprised he doesn't work for one of the well-known conservative rags. Maybe he's too toxic even for them.
Got my Wisconsin absentee ballot in mail today. This is only second presidential election in decades where my vote actually means something (after almost 50 years in Illinois). 98% sure who I’m voting for, but holding on to ballot for a while in case Kamala reverts to 2019 mode and says something supremely woke-stupid.
Holding on: fair enough, although I'm not sure what she could say that could make her a worse choice than he.
Frankly, I am sick of the term woke. What exactly does that mean? Her beliefs and past actions are different that those like Trump. Does that mean woke? If liberals are woke, does that make conservatives asleep? Frankly, I'd rather have woke. I would never describe Trump as asleep. I wish he were. Then we wouldn't need to listen to his ramblings about Haitians eating neighbors' pets and hundreds of other half baked lies. I'm not a big Harris fan. I wasn't in 2020. But Trump is a proven disaster with no moral character whatsoever. Conservatives are really doing a number on her personally. How does she compare with the cheating lying no class womanizer political opportunist she is running against?
I think “woke” means (1) respecting transgender people and understanding their legitimate medical needs, (2) acknowledging that our country was founded in institutional racism and hasn’t yet completely moved out from under that, and (3) seeing immigrants to our country as people, human beings like us and our neighbors.
Woke has been culturally appropriated by the Right to mean anything they are against. It's replaced Political Correctness. Just like DEI has replaced Affirmative Action.
"Woke" simply means being civil and respectful to others and treating them as you, yourself, would want to be treated.
FWIW, accd'g to a google search: The phrase “woke” and to “stay woke” is not new — it began appearing in the 1940s and was first used by African Americans to “literally mean becoming woken up or sensitised to issues of justice”, says linguist and lexicographer Tony Thorne
This makes as .ugh sense to me as anything else said about it. The name had to come from somewhere, no matter the definition.
And you forgot Felon as one of TFG's disgusting traits.
What little brain he has has been asleep for decades!
Like if she still favors tax payer funded gender reassignment surgeries for incarcerated illegal immigrants? Odd that Trump brought this up in the debate, prompting our supposedly fact check savvy media to hiss and scoff at him, even though it was completely true, at least in 2019.
We should provide necessary medical care to people whom we lock up and thereby prevent from accessing medical care on their own. Gender dysphoria is a real medical condition in the DSM-5-TR, and the considered judgment of medical professionals is that in certain cases gender confirmation surgery is necessary. I know it was in my case. So if you hold up as bizarre the idea that we should provide necessary transgender medical care to people we incarcerate, all you’re really proving is that you are transphobic.
Joanie, I don’t think you can call Steven transphobic for that statement. If he were against taxpayer funded breast augmentation would he be suffering from mastophobia? Or is it mastrophobia? I found both in my search. 🤷♂️
Breast augmentation is elective surgery, not necessary health care. Gender reassignment surgery is necessary health care for patients with severe gender dysphoria, like care for cancer or heart disease.
Not disputing that. Just that the statement doesn’t make him transphobic. I try to avoid name calling unless it’s clearly warranted.
It’s warranted.
Utterly ridiculous! You won't die if you don't get the surgery!
How do you know that, Garry Spelled Correctly? I will venture to say that have never experienced gender dysphoria and don’t have any friends who have experienced it. There is lots of literature on how gender conforming surgery in appropriate cases reduces suicide and suicidal ideation. In addition, I have no doubt that untreated gender dysphoria can lead to a number of stress-related deaths, such as deaths caused by heart attack. The American Medical Association has stated that gender-affirming surgery is widely accepted as a medically necessary intervention for appropriately selected patients with gender dysphoria. See article below. Not to mention, short of death, gender dysphoria is defined in the DSM-5-TR as a condition in which “causes clinically significant distress or impairment in life activities.” But good old Garry Spelled Correctly knows it’s all bullshit. He knows better than the doctors and the American Medical Association. And he’s quick to condemn and mock people and things he knows nothing about.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/exclusion-medically-necessary-gender-affirming-surgery-americas-armed-services-veterans/2018-04
People die every day from not being able to live their authentic life. People tell them they are not who they know themselves to be and can't be who they know themselves to be and it gets to be too much.
For me it's not about deducing "transphobia" or "woke-ness" from that particular statement, but what I detest is the use of "campaign language" designed specifically to be as manipulatively emotive as possible rather than informative. If he were to say instead, "she supports giving flu vaccines to kids in juvenile detention," it's essentially the same thing -- i.e. inmates should be given appropriate medical treatment -- but no one would raise an eyebrow at that as it sounds completely reasonable. But each term in my example gets put through the campaign-speak machine to change it to the most extreme example to set people off and turn off the thinking parts of their brains. Watch here how it's done:
"Supports" is changed to "taxpayer-funded" because that riles people up more than "public support" or even "government support" even though they are the same thing.
"Flu vaccines" (medical care) is changed to the most extreme form of medical care one can think of - "gender reassignment" - because that evokes something that's instantly attention-grabbing because it's about sex, and sounds strange because it's extremely rare and the vast majority of people don't understand it. And those who have heard of it recently have only in the context of children, so it's even more shocking and bizarre to them.
"Vaccines" (a medical treatment) is changed to "surgery," when it really might mean simply medication, because surgery is dramatic and expensive.
"Kids in juvenile detention" is changed to its opposite, the most un-sympathetic inmate one can think of, which to Steven K's target audience right now isn't even murders but "illegal immigrants."
And THAT is how to turn any candidates policy position into a campaign weapon. Go ahead and play the game with your kids to teach them the parts of speech and new vocabulary words!
And for all of this semantical dice loading, word twisting and linguistic contortion Monica, you can thank the ACLU, who provided Harris with the questionnaire that asked her her views on this specific treatment, when of course, they could have just asked if she favored “giving flu vaccines to children in juvenile detention”.
I'm not saying it's only done by one side. I just hate manipulative wording everywhere -- polls, marketing, sales, etc., it's just particularly egregious in campaigns.
I don’t have any problem with it on principle (although I think the word “necessary” does some Herculean lifting here), but with public resources being finite as they are, I have a hard time placing this particular extravagance any higher than about 756,342 on a list of items that require the allocation of those resources.
My comment wasn’t about me, though, was wondering what Harris thinks.
There is nothing Herculean about the use of the word “necessary” to describe gender conforming surgery for appropriate patients. Or do you know more than the American Medical Association, like Garry Spelled Correctly?
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/exclusion-medically-necessary-gender-affirming-surgery-americas-armed-services-veterans/2018-04
Again, that is not the opinion of the AMA, just the opinions of three doctors who wrote an article the editor of that AMA journal decided to publish! I wonder what the responses to that article were, or are you afraid to include a link to that?
I’m not afraid of any responses to the article. I didn’t do anything to limit anyone’s access to the responses as you falsely suggested that I did. And I’m certainly not afraid of a bloviating transphobe like you. I’ve met plenty of them.
You missed the point. Trump was, as usual, priming his base. You don't like Trump's stand. I like very little that Trump is for. But there actually was a time when the government didn't pay for it.
i moved to MIch in 2020, after living in IL for 40 yrs prior. i've never liked my major party choices for POTUS since i voted for mcgovern in '72 - and i still admire mcgoven as a person, as an intellect, and as far morally superior to his Repub opponent.
however, from 1976 to 2016 i voted for a 3rd party candidate every time - both because i didn't like my Dem vs Repub binary choice, and because my vote for POTUS in IL didn't matter - the Dem was going to win in IL regardless, and receive all of its electoral college votes
i did have a reckoning in 2020. now a Mich resident. and despite my disdain for biden's tax & spend [& spend] proposals, he was the far superior candidate to trump - pick a level, any level. in Mich, my vote for POTUS mattered.
FF, 4 yrs later, the choices are harris and trump. harris - tho a vast improvement over biden 2024 - is no better now than biden 2020. maybe younger and livelier. i am put off by her economic 'policies' - such that she has articulated any economic policies - which demonstrate either ignorance of economics, or willful BS'g of an electorate that is generally ignorant of economics. most knowledgeable reviews of her proposed policies say they will either make inflation worse, and make the budget deficit/national debt worse, &/or not achieve their intended goal.
not that trump's policy proposals are any better - in fact, he & they are far worse. he's just looney tunes, and dangerous.
oh, & BTW, harris won't give a straight answer to any moderator's or interviewer's question. i know trump doesn't either - but that is not a pt in favor of harris.
i'm tired of being presented with the less worse alternative, and told that, if i vote for a 3rd party candidate, i've de facto voted for trump. i explained the math rebutting this contention in this forum, and won't bother doing so again.
no, i haven't [or won't have] voted for trump if/when i vote 3rd party this year. the US govt is too big, it's functioning poorly, both major party candidates want to increase the size of the fed govt, and neither apparently cares about, or understands, the rapidly increasing federal debt.
so i'll vote for the Libertarian candidate [i knew it was chase oliver, before EZ asked], and feel no remorse, no shame, no guilt, regardless of the outcome of the election. because, just as in 2016, the Dems have nominated a seriously flawed candidate. trump shd be easily beatable by any literate, numerate, emotionally stable, knowledgeable, center-left candidate. if harris can't beat trump, you can blame harris, you can blame the nomination process, you can blame the electoral college - but don't blame me and the other 3rd party voters.
So you're actually voting for the fat traitor in the swing state of Michigan!
no sir, i'll be voting for the Libertarian guy. he's neither fat nor a traitor.
if i had any doubt about voting for harris [remember, i'm a never-trumper], it was discarded yesterday. now she wants to suspend the filibuster in the senate to pass an abortion rights law. assuming there comes a time soon where the Dems have a majority in both the House & the Senate [unlikely, and she's Prez [not unlikely], suspending/removing the filibuster would be a huge mistake, regardless of the merits of such a law.
She should remember what happened when Nev. Senator Reid championed the vote to remove the filibuster for approval of federal judges - Republicans later removed the filibuster for SCOTUS justices, and Trump was able to nominate and get bare minimum approval for 3 conservative nominees - who helped overturn roe v wade.
If the Democrats suspend/remove the filibuster for abortion rights, Republicans, when they next have a majority, will vote to remove those rights. And they will likely suspend/remove the filibuster for any other conservative/MAGA legislation they want to pass and implement.
It will become a race to the bottom - and the Senate will [dys]function, just like the US House of Representatives.
The filibuster is an entirely undemocratic disaster for the country!
And no, the Re Thug Licons will never ever repeal an abortion rights law, for the simple reason they've seen so many women rise up & vote them out of office & vote for state constitutional amendments making abortion legal!
Eric, I am suggesting that Journalists police themselves in the same manner as lawyers.
They can organize a set of license requirements and a code of ethics.
You have sometimes quoted from a set of unenforceable guidelines for Journalists, why not make it enforceable by agreement?
Having doctors, nurses, lawyers and motor vehicle operators licensed is good for the public, why not Journalists?
I find there is a lot of irresponsible journalism being fed to the public. It is attacking our rule of law, our democratic institutions and in some cases plain lies to deceive the public. But we only have opinions as to what is and is not honest journalism.
Remember the mess we had with Covid. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the medical profession had no standards? So that anybody with a medical opinion on Covid could claim equal weight with anyone else? Dr Fauci, Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. all chiming in claiming equal expertise on how to treat Covid. Yikes, glad they had standards.
.
The way the mainstream press is covering the election is proof enough that standards for journalists are long overdue.
There are ethical standards for journalists and reputable outlets insist on them. Having the government or anyone else license or otherwise police journalists is a slippery slope to censorship. How does one even define journalism today, what with traditional media being clobbered by podcasts, "citizen journalists," and other new media?
Really? Care to tell the ethical standards “reputable” are using? I assume they are guidelines and not enforceable.
On the contrary, a self regulating journalism profession would surface lies, bias and just plain propaganda via its own regulations. No government, no censorship just better information to the public.
And just as doctors, nurses, lawyers and motor vehicle operators can define their activities, I think journalists can do so as well.
Some follow the Society of Professional Journalists standards, for just one of the hundreds of codes. When I worked in local TV news, we had an internal code of ethics that was basically the ethics as traditional journalists learn in J school - like many other professions, it boils down to "do no harm." Tell the fact-based truth, be objective and impartial, report fairly, and be accurate.
The problem is that many purveyors of alleged journalism don't consider themselves bound by any ethics and already choose to not follow any code of ethics. Fox News, for instance, does not consider itself a news outlet (see the Dominion lawsuit where Fox says they are not a news outlet but rather entertainment). Traditional broadcast journalism - TV, radio - can be sanctioned by the FCC for demonstrably false statements. But Fox, not a news licensee, doesn't even have that kind of accountability.
The podcasters, online "news" networks, and social influencers are never going to follow any kind of ethical framework. The only news sources following ethical guidelines are the ones already doing so. The problem is that the average person doesn't know the difference between ethical journalism and ethics-free "journalism."
How do we determine who is a journalist and license them? Many never graduated from journalism school (I didn't, but worked as producer in TV news; I wrote up stories, interviewed people on camera, and more "journalistic" tasks). Anyone can report the news, as they see it, on a website, podcast, etc. If we can't even define who is a journalist today, how do we license it?
It might be useful if there was the equivalent of a Certified Public Accountant test and training requirements. Journalists that passed the test and took the annual training would be able to use the CPJ after their names in the by line. AP and others would be required to use CPJ people for non-bylined content. No degree would be required. A CPJ could be sanctioned by the certifier (like the AICPA - American Institute of CPA). Anyone could write, but readers would be able to see which writers had been certified.
But I think there are two other problems that are very difficult. I think one of the ethics of modern journalism is doing positive good. This can easily transform objective reporting into advocacy and bias. The ideas in standpoint theory, which say there is no objective truth, only perceived truth, have also supported the shift. This tendency is reenforced by the editorial decisions on story content, length, and frequency. FOX is a handy whipping boy for the obvious bias on many of its offerings, but there is ample evidence for the editorial bias of every major media provider. I am sure that all of their editorial leadership believe they are serving the public good.
I think you're absolutely right, Marc. Well said.
I related a little while ago my distaste for the term "woke". "Mainstream press" is another one. What does that mean? Press and media take in a wide range of territory. Anyone with a computer can start a blog or other form and declare themselves journalists. Mainstream seems to describe any of the traditional news outlets that are considered to be left in their news coverage and editorials. Are Fox News and any of the conservative leaning news outlets "mainstream"? Let's ask our resident expert, Eric. What is your definition of "mainstream"?
I would consider "mainstream" to be mass media outlets traditionally using television, cable, and print to reach a large audience. I don't define it by their leaning left or right.
Maybe mass media is a better term. I too would like to hear what Eric thinks.
I think mainstream media largely has a commitment to facts.
This rules out Faux News, X, Truth Social....
Actually, Adam Toledo would be alive today if that 13 year old wasn't running around in the middle of the night with an adult gang member criminal who then handed him a gun, because juveniles are treated far more leniently, when arrested with a gun than adults! Shotspotter was just an add on to that mistake he made & his moron parents made by letting him out at that hour to be with a criminal!
And using the Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch" to make of of how that fool Musk has destroyed Twitter is perfect!
Adults who get in trouble with minors should have extra charges (like contributing to the delinquency of a minor).
I don't understand how casting a vote for a protest candidate sends a meaningful message. For example, if a pro-democracy "never-Trump" person chooses to vote for Oliver rather Harris, what should future Democrats make of it? Is the voter saying they oppose Harris's desire to protect choice? or to shift the tax burden away from those who work to those who invest? to support Ukraine?
Perhaps, simply, that both options are deplorable to that voter (as opposed to the voter who is 98% sure they'll vote for one of the leading candidates): someone who prefers to be counted somehow as a participant, as opposed to those who do not vote at all.
That makes sense. But then my calculation as a candidate is that such a voter disagreed with me on so many issues that I wouldn't bother trying to win their vote. Their vote wasn't a meaningful protest--it was a sign that I should give up on them and focus on strengthening my ties with those who voted for me reluctantly.
The message isn’t for the rejected candidates. It’s for the parties to do better next time. Though only the losing party may notice.
How do you propose the parties do better next time? Currently anyone with enough money and a little recognition can run in the primary. It is the voters who decide who will represent the party in the general election. In the beginning the Republicans did not want or support Trump. Only when he became their candidate did they rally behind support him unconditionally.
Now it can be argued the voters did not select Harris and the 3rd party vote will tell them to do better next time. Which person would have been better? Which person would have united the Democratic base as Harris has done? Also, unless these unique circumstances come up again it will be the voters in future elections who decides which candidate will represent their party.
The question shouldn’t be “which candidate will unite the Democratic base”. Whomever they nominate is going to enjoy the full support of the party. The question should be “which candidate is most likely to win over voters in the crucial swing states”. The failure to grasp this concept is what lead to the catastrophe of Hillary Clinton, a woman who was adored by the elites within the Democratic establishment, but loathed among the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.
The love fest that is currently being rained down upon Harris by her party and the media is blinding many to the fact that the race is a dead heat in most of the swing states. I don’t think this would be the case if Whitmer, Newsom, Kelly or Khanna were heading the ticket. That is what is meant by “doing better”.
Anyone would be loathed by many people if they, their family, and their character had been ruthlessly attacked in a campaign of lies, insinuations, distortions, etc., for decades. Somehow, the "loathed" Secetary Clinton received 3 million more votes than the truly loathsome Trump (a victory in any sensible organised election) and won the states of Ilinois and Minnesota, populated by the rubes and riff raff of middle America.
hillary was disliked/loathed by a lot more than just 'the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.'
forget, for a moment, she was running against trump [BTW, i'm a never-trumper]. her character flaws were egregious. and one of her lesser, but obvious flaws was talking down to her perceived social inferiors - the 'deplorables'. to which you are now referring as 'the unsophisticated rubes and riff raff of middle America.'
hillary was a bad nominee. trump was so feckless back in '16 - he's more dangerous now, because he's more organized, and has a bigger heard of MAGAts supporting him - that any credible, literate, numerate, ethical Dem candidate could have, should have and would have beaten him by 5-10 %-age pts, or more, in the swing states in 2016.
Politicians love to declare that an election has given them a mandate to pursue their agenda. So, when a winning candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, I hope that they are humbler about their political capital and more likely to seek compromise.
I'd love to see humility in such cases, but fear that the ego required to prevail in any political contest. Not that I've seen it yet: neither Clinton in 1992 (plurality win, with Perot in the race) nor Bush is 2000 (plurality win in Florida, the deciding state, with Nader in the race, perhaps affected by questionable application of butterfly ballot design in and around Fort Lauderdale).
You do remember that Chicago had that exact same butterfly ballot as Fort Lauderdale & we didn't vote for the wrong people here. Just shows how stupid Floridians actually are!
To me, it's tricky. How should a person vote? I understand the thinking that goes with an uncast or third party vote being for Trump. But let's look at in other words. This is a pretty liberal crew in this forum. Couldn't conservatives say the same thing about a vote not for Trump actually being for Harris? How should people vote in the first place? Should they for or against candidates? I am well aware that votes for third party candidates are considered wastes of time that affect one or the other of the main candidates? But how about conscience voting where a person simply detects either or both of the main candidates? I have no issue with anyone not liking either Trump or Harris. They then have the options of a third party candidate, an independent such as Kennedy, or sitting it out. Try to remember that we have all these options. Think about despotic countries where freedom of choice is a pretense. One can vote. But there might be only one legal party and no slate of candidates from which to choose. Think about Russia where Putin simply arrests the opposition. Look, I personally wish a hunk of Martian cheese would drop on Trump and end the speculation. But the truth is that I am glad that Americans have the options of voting for someone, against someone, or not at all.
I respect conscience voting--that's what I think I do. But I hope people make an informed choice. If a person sincerely feels that the overriding issue for them is outlawing abortion or cutting taxes for the wealthy, and they understand and can accept the consequences of that vote on all other issues, then voting for Trump makes sense.
My concerns are with people who are too uninformed to see a difference between Trump and Harris or so demanding that I can't imagine them voting for anyone who has ever won the presidency. Or they have just given up on democracy.
I'me not really clear on how a vote for a third-party or write-in candidate is a vote for Harris. Why isn't it a vote from Trump, as you ask?
It depends on one's point of view and who the opposition is. If a race is considered close, some might see a protest or third party vote as a vote against their candidate. In your particular example, a person might not like either of the major candidates. Due to voting rules and the political situation in this country, it is unlikely that anyone running that is not a Republican or Democrat could win. So some might think, why vote for someone you know has no chance of winning, that it's a wasted vote. On the other hand, someone who's a Trump supporter might think that someone not voting for Trump is lessening Trump's chance to win, especially in a close race- therefore it's like a vote for Harris even if not actually cast for Harris. Welcome to American politics. Vote totals in most American elections have been miniscule for years, especially if it is not a presidential year. Many don't even bother with protest votes. They simply don't vote. Either they figure it's a waste of time because the person they favor has no chance. Or they don't care who wins because they distrust all politicians. So if one doesn't bother voting, it means to some that a vote is not being cast for the correct candidate, which is the one they support. So Trump supporters will see any vote not cast for Trump as being in Harris's favor even if the person doesn't vote.
In my opinion, voter apathy is more serious than choosing a third or fourth party candidate. There obviously was a jump in voter interest and registration after Harris replaced Biden. I don't see Trump attracting many new voters at this point. As a result, Republicans are more into voter suppression than trying to broaden their base. I don't think protest voting is the serious problem that some people make it out to be.
I agree with your math: apathy is a bigger issue than voting for candidates who won't win. But the conventional wisdom that political professionals give to volunteer canvassers is that changing who a likely voter will support is far more likely than getting a nonvoter to vote.
A pro life person who can’t stomach the Republican candidate can make a protest vote. I may be writing in Peter Sonski (feel free to look him up). I didn’t look too hard, since I know he won’t win.
Eric, your comparison of Shot Spotter to 911 calls was spot on. Does Mayor Johnson not want people to call 911 because it brings too many police into the neighborhoods? But the fact that he is just now looking into a replacement for it, possibly another Shot Spotter type technology, is just another example of how ill equipped he is to be mayor of a large city.
I viewed his statement about looking at other venders or technologies as the usual political sleight of hand. At best some 'study' will be produced and shelved. Or claim that there is no technology solution.
Probably true, but if he had started the planning process to shift to any other method of violence reduction months ago, when he first announced ending Shot Spotter, it would at least look like he was being a responsible executive. Instead we have absolutely no planning for any transition and the appearance of complete disarray.
How is above knee/balogna not winning? People, people, people.
Perhaps you could explain the joke to me? Maybe I'm thick as well as old but I did not see the point of that joke.
Above the knee & below the knee, baloney!
Bologna; pronounced “below knee”.
Many thanks, I think ... I pronounce "bologna" something like "bolon'yah" so did not get the pun.
Sorry for not responding sooner! I'm glad someone explained it to you.
First time I ever saw it. It got my vote.
Maybe if it was spelled correctly (bologna) more people would have caught on)
there's no accounting for 'taste' - i thought the dog 'expert' was the funniest - i howled w- laughter, sitting by myself. the photo of the dog, especially the eyes, was perfect.
tho i thought the bologna/baloney one was funny too.
The discussion about journalistic integrity and possible ways to enforce it reminded me of Stephen Glass and the scandal caused by his fabricated stories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass
This all happened in the late 90's and he was basically run out of the profession following the revelations.
These days it seems there are hundreds of Stephen Glasses posting complete or partial falsehoods all over the internet with complete impunity and lack of any shame. I don't see how any official enforcement might work in the age when it only takes a few clicks to set up a website or post something to social media and when crowds of followers easily buy into even the wildest conspiracy theory. Trying to stop this would amount to complete government crackdown on expression and would never fully work. I think the only way to address this is emphasizing critical thinking skills in schools, and the only hope is that our general culture starts to value truth and facts.
Dan Proft comes to mind.
I freely admit that I was like a kid in a candy store the first time I got my CPD media card. I was so excited about having official proof that I was a reporter, it didn't even occur to me to worry about anything besides whether I took a good picture. It was better than my driver's license, at least.
Giant vigorous tip of the hat to Skeptic for pointing out that 911 calls reporting gun shots function the same as Shotspotter, a point never acknowledged by its opponents. Can't believe how much I've read about Shotspotter at this point and never seen this mentioned. Or blame my reading comprehension. Either way it was a new point to me and astonishingly salient.
Well thank you, Cate.
I cannot believe that I am the only person who has thought this. The puzzling thing is why it has not been surfaced in public discussion.
I guess the point is based on the premise that Johnson is relying on fake reasons. That is a non-starter for people who want to get rid of ShotSpotter.
I guess that there are two problems. First poor critical thinking skills, or lack of skepticism, of reporters and editors. The OIG report was obviously flawed in many aspects - both data and conclusions. But it was accepted as authoritative by reporters. They failed to question any part of it, did not seek or could not find alternate analysis of the report. I was surprised that the ShotSpotter company was not better at directly challenging the report. I assume that this is due to their desire to avoid offending the administration.
You may have just given Johnson another idea. Maybe now he’ll want to ban 911 calls since they might lead to “over policing of black and brown communities”!
I mostly agree with David L. about Brandon Johnson's opposition to Shot Spotter. But we need to differentiate between far left and racist. They are not equal. Johnson has made his position clear on a number of issues. He wants more for blacks and seems to want to make up for all the wrongs of history in one term. I have no doubt in my mind that racism by whites still exists. But there are also whites that are not racist and I don't believe in collective guilt. Johnson is not only responsible for the ills of racism in the city. He should also be concerned and is also the mayor for downtown and white communities. He would have a much more difficult time solving problems than he is already if more whites and white owned businesses packed up and moved out due to higher taxes and fees and feelings about a lack of safety in the city. Whatever else one can say about Rahm Emanual, he understood a basic financial truism. The city has more money if people and businesses with money want to be there. Emanuel caught a lot of crap for supposedly caring a lot more about downtown than the neighborhoods. But the neighborhoods aren't going to get much help without downtown. Just ask places like Detroit and Stockton, CA. Detroit is still in recovery mode and Stockton has barely started. It doesn't happen without injections of cash. That cash needs to come from somewhere and it doesn't all come from Springfield and Washington. Even if it did, do we need a basic civics lesson on where Sprinfield and Washington get their cash?
Have you been to downtown Detroit lately? Detroit has come SO far since I lived there during law school, 1990-1993. I lived downtown (Lafayette Park) when it wasn't such a popular decision. Detroit has radically transformed its downtown area since then, it's now a great place to live (if only the casinos weren't there, imho). I had to drive out to the suburbs for groceries because pickings were quite slim, now one can live downtown and rarely have to leave the city.
Yes, I have been to downtown Detroit on a number of occasions. I go primarily for ballgames or crossing to Windsor by way of the tunnel. Try to remember that cities are more than just downtown. Detroit slashed a lot of services. They just couldn't afford them. They went so far as to offer free parcels of land if buyers would agree to build on them within a certain period. But there is still a lot of blight and abandonment in Detroit. Chicago is obviously not at that point. But it should be an object lesson for Brandon Johnson. Yes, past wrongs need to be rectified. But ignore or punish downtown and people with money at one's peril.
The neighborhoods are improving all the time in Detroit, it's much, much better than when I lived there. I lived in the Cass Corridor before moving downtown after my parents, 200 miles away, read about a murder on my block and asked if I knew the area and I told them that I could still see the blood stain on the sidewalk from my apartment window. Parents determined that they could supplement my funds so that I could move to a doorman building in a safer 'hood. There are grocery stores in the city again (Farmer Jack made a mass exodus from the city, leaving almost the entire city as a food desert in the 90s). There are community gardens now, many of the abandoned homes have been torn down to make way for new development and much development has occurred.
Big improvements since the 2014 city bankruptcy. But the city still has only about 630,000 residents and the metro area has stayed pretty static around 3.5 million. The oversight of Detroit and Detroit school district finances by the state Financial Review commission has improved the fiscal health of Detroit, which still has quite a way to go. Detroit is also still ranked second of large cities for the most violent crime per capita and in the top ten for property crime.
Voting 3rd party is a good way to let marginalized groups know that your abstract principles are more important than their very real lives.
The Musk-Python Dead Parrot skit visual is quite old. It was funny when it first came out, though. I voted for the cheese experts' advice visual.
The Python visual might be old, but it still made me laugh. That's what gets my vote.
Thanks for the Heavens to Betsy story. Enjoyed.
I enjoyed your story about Betsy's guitar and the fact that the guitar is still with you. I have my first Ludwig drum set, which my dad purchased for me in 1965. It has a story, too. The drum set was originally purchased by a young man named Jim Still in 1963. Jim was an up and coming drummer who performed with the local university big band. Sadly, Jim was killed in a lumber mill accident during that summer. Two years later, his father Adolph decided to sell his son's drum set, searching for a deserving young drummer. Somehow, Mr. Still learned about me. My dad and I went to his house and talked for quite a bit. After some discussion, and with Mr. Still shedding many tears, he said that he would sell the drum set to me. My dad couldn't pay the entire amount up front, so he wrote out a contract on a yellow legal pad, which both Mr. Still and my dad signed. Once the contract was signed, we carried Jim Still's Ludwig Classic white pearl drum set to our station wagon. I still have the drum set, although I upgraded to a DW kit a decade ago. I still use all of the original Zildjian cymbals even though I have added more cymbals.