California Doing California Things

[Politesse]

When the Sutro Baths were first built, this whole part of town was still "wild jungle", you had to take a train around the Yelamu hills to get to them. It's much more urban now, but still lovely, and they turned the old train tracks into an easy walking trail you can use to reach any part of the coast.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fraud in California is epic.

Federal law enforcement officers have arrested two employees of California-based homelessness non-profits on corruption charges, alleging that they misappropriated millions in taxpayer dollars. The US justice department has arrested Michael Young, a founder of the Culver City-based non-profit Home at Last, and Lakiya Malone, an employee of the Los Angeles-based Special Service for Groups. Young is charged with wire fraud in a scheme to embezzle more than $7.5m from contracts with Los Angeles county and other publicly funded agencies, which he used to open a high-end restaurant, nightclub and bingo hall. Malone is charged with taking more than $180,000 in bribes and kickbacks from the director of another homelessness non-profit, Alexander Soofer, who has agreed to plead guilty in a separate case.The Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, said in a Wednesday statement: “My administration has zero tolerance for fraud – period.

Teh Grauniad

Attorney General Todd Blanche highlighted a coordinated federal takedown Tuesday as the Justice Department charged 12 individuals with siphoning more than $10 million from programs meant to help low-income families pay for childcare. The defendants, naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents originally from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, allegedly ran licensed home daycares that existed largely on paper.

California Globe

The Republicans are screaming "FRAUD" louder and louder. Doesn't make it real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LAX "people mover" delayed again.



Fourth largest economy in the world.

Of course it is.

Any contested project will almost certainly be over budget because money/effort gets spent on dealing with the opposition.

And any large project whose extent isn't certain will almost certainly be over budget because it will always be estimated with favorable assumptions.

This has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat.

 

[Politesse]

In fairness, California has never known a project that wasn't "contested". We're meddlers for sure. (If Republicans try to tell you they don't play the game as well as any Democrat, they're drunk off their ass, though).

 

[Politesse]

*sues the transit agency to stop the project*
*sues the city to stop the project*
*sues the state to stop the project*
*sues the country to stop the project*

"WHY IS THE PROJECT TAKING SO LONG?!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation. This produces no information about current behavior, it's pure demonizing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit. If you think that won't happen, then you have your head in the sand. It's an easily foreseeable and extremely likely outcome. I would even go so far as to say it's the DESIRED outcome.

If you had evidence, you'd be citing it.

How is anyone supposed to have evidence of what's going to happen in a novel situation??

But we can see negatives, we see no positives. All we see is throwing gas on the racial fire. You are not going to solve racism with gasoline!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it sure as fuck isn't going to be a bunch of people saying "oh, well, that's fine, no biggie".

No, because most people are unaware that this law even exists, and they certainly won't be reading the hundreds of reports it generates.

That's not how reality works.

Someone will know. Someone will look at those reports and use them to demonize businesses they don't like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's say your college told you (and all other professors) as a condition of employment to research your family history and document and post all past familial slavery connections on the door of your office. Would you welcome that?

Not equivalent. A corporation I am not, nor do I have any sealed files that I'm hiding from the public about my geneaology. But if a student asked me about that, I would answer them seriously and honestly, not rail at them insanely about how they were trying to start a "race riot" by asking. I would assume that they had their reasons for wanting to know, and as a public employee I generally try to be as transparent as I can be about who I am and where I'm from and so forth.

Employer gets trickier, though. They really are not supposed to ask personal questions like that for any reason, and I suspect the union would have words.

It's equivalent.

Companies are not required to keep records like you're asking them to produce. Thus it's a big research project that very well might not even be possible. And it serves no purpose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the fuck do you think the outcome of this will be? What benefit is there to the public? Or do you only care about how much political use progressives can make by increasing division?

You're pretending that historical transparency is "inciting a race war", but you're the only one fantasizing about a race war. No one wants that. No one has called for anything of the sort.

Keeping denying that the only use for this information is provoking racial conflict doesn't make it go away.

We do not want a race war. Thus we do not like people bringing cans of gasoline around fires.

Just because the conservatives get many things wrong do not assume they get everything wrong. Most grievances have a kernel of truth to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But having the ability to extrapolate apparently makes you a racist nazi.

Thinking is forbidden! You are not allowed to figure out the logical outcome of this! (But you need to look in the mirror, also--you're doing the same thing in other areas.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It’s unjust to seek punitive action against people for crimes they didn’t commit, and weren’t even crimes at the time they occurred.

I agree. So does everyone else. That's only happened in your tortured fantasies, not in real life. No one is getting arrested for crimes they did not commit, and if they were so arrested, the court system would correctly rule that detention improper and illegal. You're so far out in La-La Land you've lost all perspective on how American law even works.

She said "punitive action", not "arrest". You're arguing a strawman.

 

[Politesse]

It’s unjust to seek punitive action against people for crimes they didn’t commit, and weren’t even crimes at the time they occurred.

I agree. So does everyone else. That's only happened in your tortured fantasies, not in real life. No one is getting arrested for crimes they did not commit, and if they were so arrested, the court system would correctly rule that detention improper and illegal. You're so far out in La-La Land you've lost all perspective on how American law even works.

She said "punitive action", not "arrest". You're arguing a strawman.

So is she? No punitive action for individuals who did not commit a crime is being pursued, no has been proposed.

 

[Politesse]

Keeping denying that the only use for this information is provoking racial conflict doesn't make it go away.

Because that's insane. There's no "race war" in California, no "race riots". No "punitive action". There is a need for justice, tranparency, and reform. Concepts all Americans understand and value, at least when applied to thenselves.

 

[Politesse]

Companies are not required to keep records like you're asking them to produce. Thus it's a big research project that very well might not even be possible. And it serves no purpose.

Then they'll report that, and that will be the end of it.

 

[Politesse]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

 

[Politesse]

Bullshit. If you think that won't happen, then you have your head in the sand. It's an easily foreseeable and extremely likely outcome. I would even go so far as to say it's the DESIRED outcome.

If you had evidence, you'd be citing it.

How is anyone supposed to have evidence of what's going to happen in a novel situation??

But we can see negatives, we see no positives. All we see is throwing gas on the racial fire. You are not going to solve racism with gasoline!

Whereas denialism will calm everyone down? In what fucking universe has "justice delayed until justice can be denied" ever resulted in the pacification of an oppressed people? Give me a single example of a real life historical situation in which this strategy actually worked.

I have not met a single Black Californian who is mad about the reparations project. Skeptical, maybe. Not mad. But you want me to believe that if a few tony companies publish some bullshit reports on their history in two years, Watts will be in flames again by sundown or something? Stuff and nonsense! Black people don't get angry when their government attempts social repair. Black people get angry when the police start murdering innocent people. That is what has led to every so called "race riot" in the state's history. Every single one. Justice denied, not justice offered, is what "fans flames".

Or do you mean that the Whites of California are going to riot? If so, I doubt it. We're lazy as fuck for the most part, and around half of us are decent people who actually want justice and honesty from our government. Quite a few of us are Latino and wouldn't mind a few more investigations opened up into the time period in question, when a lot of our family's land title or citizenship was being erased under unclear circumstances.

 

[bilby]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

Wait, what? That's not the correct analogy at all. These companies haven't died and been replaced by successors.

The question is more "Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when most of the cells that made up the original perpetrator at the time of the offence are dead?"

Should a seventy year old murderer be allowed to plead not guilty on the basis that the crime was committed when he was thirty, and he is both physiologically and psychologically a "different man" now, despite still using the same birth certificate?

That's the analogous question here (and it's quite an interesting one - both the corporation and the murderer are genuinely no longer the same as they were at the time of the offence. Maybe we should give the murderer the same right to declare innocence due to elapsed time. But most people wouldn't).

 

[Politesse]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

Wait, what? That's not the correct analogy at all. These companies haven't died and been replaced by successors.

The question is more "Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when most of the cells that made up the original perpetrator at the time of the offence are dead?"

Should a seventy year old murderer be allowed to plead not guilty on the basis that the crime was committed when he was thirty, and he is both physiologically and psychologically a "different man" now, despite still using the same birth certificate?

That's the analogous question here (and it's quite an interesting one - both the corporation and the murderer are genuinely no longer the same as they were at the time of the offence. Maybe we should give the murderer the same right to declare innocence due to elapsed time. But most people wouldn't).

Even that would only really be relevant if some sort of legal action were being taken against those companies. Which even if such were requested would not possible, California on its own has no authority to mete out such a judgement and have it recognized, unless that company's crime were committed here.

Reparations from the government are another matter. California most certainly does claim to have been a continuous state government since 1850, and bears all privileges and responsibilities that come with its actions since that time. Whether anyone alive then is alive now is irrelevant. If someone sues the state, or the state passes a law, or the state enters a binding contract with another state, or the state contracts with a business (perhaps, in full knowledge that a chattel slave will fulfill that contract) or admits a citizen (perhaps, in full knowledge that their chattel slave will move here along with their owner), or subjects a criminal or mental health patient to a prison or work camp that employs slave labor, it is the state that is rightly to be held responsible for those actions for good or ill, not the governor personally or any other individual, alive or dead.

 

[bilby]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

Wait, what? That's not the correct analogy at all. These companies haven't died and been replaced by successors.

The question is more "Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when most of the cells that made up the original perpetrator at the time of the offence are dead?"

Should a seventy year old murderer be allowed to plead not guilty on the basis that the crime was committed when he was thirty, and he is both physiologically and psychologically a "different man" now, despite still using the same birth certificate?

That's the analogous question here (and it's quite an interesting one - both the corporation and the murderer are genuinely no longer the same as they were at the time of the offence. Maybe we should give the murderer the same right to declare innocence due to elapsed time. But most people wouldn't).

Even that would only really be relevant if some sort of legal action were being taken against those companies. Which even if such were requested would not possible, California on its own has no authority to mete out such a judgement and have it recognized, unless that company's crime were committed here.

Reparations from the government are another matter. California most certainly does claim to have been a continuous state government since 1850, and bears all privileges and responsibilities that come with its actions since that time. Whether anyone alive then is alive now is irrelevant. If someone sues the state, or the state passes a law, or the state enters a binding contract with another state, or the state contracts with a business (perhaps, in full knowledge that a chattel slave will fulfill that contract) or admits a citizen (perhaps, in full knowledge that their chattel slave will move here along with their owner), or subjects a criminal or mental health patient to a prison or work camp that employs slave labor, it is the state that is rightly to be held responsible for those actions for good or ill, not the governor personally or any other individual, alive or dead.

For sure. A state is a corporate entity. It is not simply the sum of its current residents, or current officials. And the same is true of a company.

Neither dies and leaves successors who are personally blameless. The "sins of the father" doesn't apply. "I was young and stupid back then" might apply, but it has rarely been an effective defence in a court of law.

Nonetheless, it is the defence that is hiding behind the 'bait and switch' argument that these companies should be held blameless, because none of the current employees or shareholders were alive when the offences occurred. A company is not merely its employees, nor is it merely its shareholders. It is also its history.

And, of course, so is a state. Or a nation.

Germany has done fairly well with accepting the fact that its history is vile. Australia has done less well (and for those who look for koala souvenirs in Vienna, I will note that Austria too has done rather less well than Germany). The USA seems to me to be even deeper in denial than Australia - though that may just be an artefact of distance.

It could be worse; Russia refuses to take moral responsibility even for her current criminal behaviour, much less her historical crimes and immoralities.