California Doing California Things

[Toni]

I used to be against a universal basic income but I've come to appreciate just how much that could go towards solving some basic problems for a lot of people, including people I know and some I am related to.

What is infuriating is that if we “took” from the top 1% of earners ‘self net worth increasers’, enough to alleviate homelessness for the bottom 1%, they wouldn’t even feel it. It would be a fourth digit from the left kind of thing. I think it should help the bottom 15% or so, should the amount “taxed” to the top 1% be raised to a level where it had any impact whatsoever upon the mega billionaires’ daily wants and needs.
What we need now is a bit of good old fashioned socialism! No tax havens for the uber- rich, no deductions for loan interest payments against assets (a federal surcharge on such loans above 8-9 digits might be helpful)…
Hell, there is only one billionaire I ever heard of (though I’m sure there are others) who would be penniless if all accounts were settled. Let the rest tough it out with the billions they are already “worth”.

Won't work.

Nowhere near enough money, and when you're looking at the bottom 1% you're looking at mostly druggies and mental cases. And don't chant "treatment"--often there isn't. And it's never easy, and the side effects of the psych drugs are often bad.

You could tax the top earners enough to improve access to treatment.

Quit being so dismissive of people with substance abuse problems and mental health problems. Either could happen to anyone--even you-- and they are not always so easily solved.

 

[Toni]

Direct testimony from victims? Not proof. Published statements of perpetrators? Not proof. Statistical evidence? Not proof. The legal record? Not proof. Anything at all? Not proof.

Proof is for math and booze. But sure, all of these things can be evidence. The question is, what does that evidence support?

If the only thing your statistical evidence supports is unequal outcomes, that is not evidence of discrimination by race. If your direct testimony evidence shows that "victims" are feeling discriminated against, that is not evidence that they are actually being discriminated against.

To racists, nothing is proof of racist intent unless the perpetrator was Black, Latino, or a liberal. That cannot be the standard on which we choose to act on the critical issues of our time.

And to you, everyone you disagree with is a "racist".

The funny thing is, as bad as it is that the police are racist,

Again, what evidence do you have of that?

racist intent isn't actually what makes police misconduct illegal.

True. For once.

It's just the bias that motivates the police to break the law and violate our constitutional rights most frequently. You're not wrong that classism, sexism, religious bigotry, legal illiteracy, ineptness at their jobs, and other factors also tempt police into becoming thugs-for-hire for the kleptocracy, but why would we be any happier about those?

Any police conduct should be impartially investigated. But your Ilk thinks that police just doing their jobs and going after criminals is misconduct.

You're incorrect on every point.

Referring to others as 'ilk' does not help your case. It makes you seem closeminded and prejudiced and stuck in your position without any chance of being reached by logic or facts.

Politesse is correct: no data or even video footage is enough for racists. If there is a rare case when they must concede the point, it's because 'that one is an exception to the rule.' Like OJ.

 

[Derec]

You're incorrect on every point.

You like to say stuff like that, but you never show how I am wrong on any of my points.
Care to elaborate, for a change?

Referring to others as 'ilk' does not help your case. It makes you seem closeminded and prejudiced and stuck in your position without any chance of being reached by logic or facts.

It wasn't me who started the use of "ilk" language. But in this case it fits. A big part of the movement fauxgressivism is ACAB/FTP and will always side against the police no matter the evidence.

Politesse is correct: no data or even video footage is enough for racists. If there is a rare case when they must concede the point, it's because 'that one is an exception to the rule.'

Politesse is definitely not correct. He did not offer any evidence, and casting aspersions (implying that people disagreeing with him are "racists") is not a substitute for evidence.

Like OJ.

What about the Juice?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The irony of your response is astounding. Racism apologists can always manipulate a complex enough data set to “prove” relationships.

Which still doesn't address the issue.

Simple enough test: run down the confounders. See if the issue goes away once you control for them. Pretty basic science--but it's never done. The Freakonomics guys actually ran some of them down--and found the confounders. I'm sure they picked ones to run down where they thought success was most likely (they were looking for cases where there were hidden economic drivers), but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

The irony of your response is astounding. Racism apologists can always manipulate a complex enough data set to “prove” relationships.

Which still doesn't address the issue.

Of course it does. It shows your rhetoric works both ways. Which, in other words, shows that you are simply blowing smoke.

Simple enough test: run down the confounders. See if the issue goes away once you control for them. Pretty basic science--but it's never done. The Freakonomics guys actually ran some of them down--and found the confounders. I'm sure they picked ones to run down where they thought success was most likely (they were looking for cases where there were hidden economic drivers), but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

According to you, there are always undiscovered confounders.

Also, statistically, "confounders" do not show causation. It is entirely possible from a statistical POV, that the "confounders" are simply linearly correlated with the other variables, which means the regression analysis cannot distinguish between the effects.

 

[Toni]

You're incorrect on every point.

You like to say stuff like that, but you never show how I am wrong on any of my points.
Care to elaborate, for a change?

Referring to others as 'ilk' does not help your case. It makes you seem closeminded and prejudiced and stuck in your position without any chance of being reached by logic or facts.

It wasn't me who started the use of "ilk" language. But in this case it fits. A big part of the movement fauxgressivism is ACAB/FTP and will always side against the police no matter the evidence.

Politesse is correct: no data or even video footage is enough for racists. If there is a rare case when they must concede the point, it's because 'that one is an exception to the rule.'

Politesse is definitely not correct. He did not offer any evidence, and casting aspersions (implying that people disagreeing with him are "racists") is not a substitute for evidence.

Like OJ.

What about the Juice?

In the parlance of my father (may he rest in peace) OJ was one of the good ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

This is not a sin. It has been found that sending patients home as soon as they don't need hospital-level care produces a better outcome. People in hospitals tend to acquire infections from others in the hospital. Finish healing at home!

When your home is an alley?

The hospital does not measure that, nor should they be expected to.

And even in that case--rehabilitation hospitals exist. They are for patients who don't need hospital level care, but need care that is not available at home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Evidence is evidence. Whether you accept it as convincing is a different matter.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm calling out a false claim.

It's evidence of something. That doesn't mean you get to decree without proof what it is evidence of.

 

[Politesse]

And we see you falling into the standard trap of disparate outcomes being taken as proof of discrimination.

Being asked for evidence for your outrageous claims is not some rhetorical trick. It's common sense.

The problem here is you have it backwards. You are not proving causation. Don't expect us to disprove your hypothesis.

The basic problem is that we see "proof" after "proof" of supposed discrimination--which consistently fails to address obvious confounders. We have clear evidence of widespread discrimination before the civil rights era, these days we find some racists--but the evidence that pervasive discrimination still exists is awfully shaky. A plethora of poor data usually means the claim is false.

What evidence are you referring to?

 

[laughing dog]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Evidence is evidence. Whether you accept it as convincing is a different matter.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm calling out a false claim.

It's evidence of something. That doesn't mean you get to decree without proof what it is evidence of.

There you go again, misrepresenting arguments. It really is dishonest.

 

[Elixir]

Won't work.

Bullshit. Show your work.
It won't work if we keep criminalizing drugs and overtaxing the poor, but nothing will. Many businesses depend on that fact.
The "bottom 1%" of taxpayers is comprised of about 1.5 million taxpayers. You could pay each of them a hundred grand out of Leon Musk's spare change jar and it would never be missed. What's fucked up, is the tax system.
If that problem was solved, the desperation that drives crime could be drastically reduced overnight. I'm not talking about handing it all out in cash; some oversight would be involved, but it would "work" to some effect. All you can argue might be that the effect would insufficient to justify the cost. And I'd say you can't estimate the benefit, and the cost to most of us would be insignificant if our contributions were tied to net worth on a hockey stick curve..

 

[Elixir]

we see "proof" after "proof" of supposed discrimination--which consistently fails to address obvious confounders.

Your problem is that confounders or not, you lack a better explanation for the evidence. Repeatedly and loudly pronouncing "CONFOUNDERS!!" does nothing to provide alternation explanations, nor does it begin to justify elevating such explanation above the obvious one, which happens to be distasteful to you. Discrimination is what it looks like, and believe it or not, the obvious explanation is often the correct explanation.

 

[TSwizzle]

Things are starting to unravel for governor Goodhair.

Last week, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined Governor Gavin Newsom $31,500 for failing to timely report more than $5.6 million in behested payments. Newsom solicited these “behest” payments from private sector companies, and then failed to timely report this to the FPPC, the State Campaign Finance Watchdog. “Behested” payments are donations that Gov. Newsom solicits from donors for his chosen nonprofits, charities, or government-related purposes. Between 2018 and 2019, UnitedHealth donated $220,000 to political committees controlled by Newsom, who later awarded $492 million in contracts to UnitedHealth subsidiaries That’s a $220,000 investment for a $492 million return. In 2020 alone, while Newsom had the state under his ordered lockdowns, he “behested” $226,520,000+ from various corporations that operate in California. “California Governor Gavin Newsom helped bankroll his wife’s charity with nearly $2 million he solicited from a Native American tribe – while fighting on its behalf to kill a rival casino,”

News

 

[Harry Bosch]

Things are starting to unravel for governor Goodhair.

Last week, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined Governor Gavin Newsom $31,500 for failing to timely report more than $5.6 million in behested payments. Newsom solicited these “behest” payments from private sector companies, and then failed to timely report this to the FPPC, the State Campaign Finance Watchdog. “Behested” payments are donations that Gov. Newsom solicits from donors for his chosen nonprofits, charities, or government-related purposes. Between 2018 and 2019, UnitedHealth donated $220,000 to political committees controlled by Newsom, who later awarded $492 million in contracts to UnitedHealth subsidiaries That’s a $220,000 investment for a $492 million return. In 2020 alone, while Newsom had the state under his ordered lockdowns, he “behested” $226,520,000+ from various corporations that operate in California. “California Governor Gavin Newsom helped bankroll his wife’s charity with nearly $2 million he solicited from a Native American tribe – while fighting on its behalf to kill a rival casino,”

News

I don't know about your news source. Sorry, but I'm always suspicious. However, the left will be forever under suspicion due to the incredible high integrity exhibited by Trump. I suspect that history will show that very few politicans will be able to maintain the incredible integrity that Trump has demonstrated while in office. It is an incredibly high bar that very few will be able to approach.

 

[Elixir]

I suspect that history will show that very few politicans will be able to maintain the incredible integrity that Trump has demonstrated

Thank god for the intelligent people who voted for him!

while in office

May he ever remain! Let his vigilance and courage light our way!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Evidence is evidence. Whether you accept it as convincing is a different matter.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm calling out a false claim.

It's evidence of something. That doesn't mean you get to decree without proof what it is evidence of.

There you go again, misrepresenting arguments. It really is dishonest.

Stop claiming I'm misrepresenting things.

Reality: we see a disparate outcome. There's enough data to infer it's not a statistical fluke, the difference is real.

But you are asserting without proof that the difference is due to discrimination. All "evidence" being presented is subject to confounders, generally socioeconomic status. The only time I've been aware of attempts to control for confounders has been the Freakonomics guys--who found multiple cases were race dropped out as a factor once socioeconomic variables were added. That was many years ago--but we continue to see study after study that fails to control for the confounders, even though they have been proven relevant in multiple cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Won't work.

Bullshit. Show your work.
It won't work if we keep criminalizing drugs and overtaxing the poor, but nothing will. Many businesses depend on that fact.
The "bottom 1%" of taxpayers is comprised of about 1.5 million taxpayers. You could pay each of them a hundred grand out of Leon Musk's spare change jar and it would never be missed. What's fucked up, is the tax system.
If that problem was solved, the desperation that drives crime could be drastically reduced overnight. I'm not talking about handing it all out in cash; some oversight would be involved, but it would "work" to some effect. All you can argue might be that the effect would insufficient to justify the cost. And I'd say you can't estimate the benefit, and the cost to most of us would be insignificant if our contributions were tied to net worth on a hockey stick curve..

You think I'm for the drug war?!?!

I'm strongly for either legalization of basically all recreational drugs, or addiction is explicitly specified as a valid reason for prescribing them. And dumping all the controlled substance prescribing hoops. Take care writing an initial script, but if long term use is in the best interest of the patient they write accordingly.

Across the board expect about half of crime to go away, perhaps even more from secondary effects.

But doing that is not going to magically solve the problem. Putting a roof over the head of those who are on the street for economic reasons is a good thing--but a lot of them it's more than economic reasons. Homeless often avoid homeless shelters because they're dangerous--because all too many of the homeless are dangerous. (Selection bias--they're homeless because they can't properly handle interactions with others.)

As for the specific economics--yeah, you could take $150B from the Muskrat once. You couldn't keep don't it.

 

[laughing dog]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Evidence is evidence. Whether you accept it as convincing is a different matter.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm calling out a false claim.

It's evidence of something. That doesn't mean you get to decree without proof what it is evidence of.

There you go again, misrepresenting arguments. It really is dishonest.

Stop claiming I'm misrepresenting things.

When you stop misrepresenting my position, I will.

Reality: we see a disparate outcome. There's enough data to infer it's not a statistical fluke, the difference is real.

But you are asserting without proof that the difference is due to discrimination.

All "evidence" being presented is subject to confounders, generally socioeconomic status. The only time I've been aware of attempts to control for confounders has been the Freakonomics guys--who found multiple cases were race dropped out as a factor once socioeconomic variables were added.

Sigh, if socioeconomic factors are sufficiently correlate with race, then statistically, the regression will be unable to distinguish the effects properly. It is called "mulitcollinearity" and its effect is increase the standard errors of the estimated coefficients which reduces the measure of statistical significance.

That was many years ago--but we continue to see study after study that fails to control for the confounders, even though they have been proven relevant in multiple cases.

Is that the royal "we"? I'd wish you stop the bs about confounders, because statistically there are always confounders. And when "confounders" are "controlled for", you then say there other confounders that weren't included.

Dismissing studies because they don't include every possible "confounder" is easy, because no study can include every possible "confounder". And to be fair, lots of studies are either poorly designed or their conclusions are too generous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

we see "proof" after "proof" of supposed discrimination--which consistently fails to address obvious confounders.

Your problem is that confounders or not, you lack a better explanation for the evidence. Repeatedly and loudly pronouncing "CONFOUNDERS!!" does nothing to provide alternation explanations, nor does it begin to justify elevating such explanation above the obvious one, which happens to be distasteful to you. Discrimination is what it looks like, and believe it or not, the obvious explanation is often the correct explanation.

But we do see alternative explanations. Namely, socioeconomic. The vast majority of the evidence does not distinguish these cases. But it's just taken as faith that it's discrimination--and when things are repeatedly taken as faith that usually means they're false.

 

[Toni]

Neighborhoods with higher crime rates get policed more heavily in general.

As a result, more crimes are detected in those neighbourhoods.

This increases the crime rate. Thereby justifying increased policing.

It's neatly circular, and only needs a pinch of racism to prime the pump, after which the system carries on producing racist outcomes without racists having to act on their racism at all, other than to occasionally defend the system as being non-racist because it is based only on "crime rates", which clearly have no racial component whatsoever and just happen to expose the fundamental fact that niggers are a bunch of criminals some neighbourhoods are more prone to crime than others.

Pretending it's racism doesn't make it so.

A simple yardstick that doesn't involve policing at all: look around, how much property damage could you readily do/how much could you steal? If the answer is lots, you are in a safe location (at least assuming you aren't specifically targeted.) If the answer is little, the location very well might not be safe. This is measuring the risk evaluation of the people in the area. Looking along our street, I see multiple garden hoses, multiple pots holding plants, some lawn furniture, a truck with some tools in the back. Security bars are in the minority, no bars on the second floor windows. The fact that you see such things is a very clear indication that we consider the theft risk low enough that we have no problem leaving them out there.

The fact that more people are arrested in a location doesn't draw police. The fact that it's easier to find someone that should be arrested (or ticketed) does draw police--they're human, they'll go for the low hanging fruit.

And, yes, some neighborhoods are more prone to crime than others. Low socioeconomic status and transient populations both lead to crime.

Pretending it isn't racism doesn't work, Loren.

Not everybody wears the same kind of goggles you do.