Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,100]

Wisdom is a virtue, but how do we judge if someone has it?

Our team explored who is considered wise in cultures with contrasting philosophical traditions. The results surprised us.

https://psyche.co/ideas/wisdom-is-a-virtue-but-how-do-we-judge-if-someone-has-it

 

Imagine you’re facing a life-altering decision. You have been offered a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity abroad, but it means leaving behind your partner who can’t relocate. Torn between your career aspirations and your commitment to the relationship, you start wondering what the wisest way would be to make such a decision. Should you approach the dilemma with a cold mind and weigh all the pros and cons in an analytical and logical manner, or would it be wiser to tune into your feelings and make a decision in line with your heart? Moreover, which one of these ways to handle the dilemma would your friends and family perceive as wise?

The age-old question of what constitutes wisdom has puzzled great minds for centuries. From ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, who emphasised the value of logical reasoning, to Chinese sages like Confucius, who prioritised moral character and social harmony, the pursuit of wisdom has been a universal human endeavour. In today’s complex world, where many people face unprecedented environmental, economic or societal challenges and difficult decisions, the quest for wisdom remains as relevant as ever.

As social creatures, humans often look to others for guidance and inspiration. We listen to the leaders we admire, the mentors who guide us, and our partners who support us. Wise individuals serve as a contrast to the unwise; they are the ones we choose to follow, vote for, and strive to become. When faced with a difficult dilemma similar to the opening scenario, people will often turn to the role models they consider to be exemplars of wisdom. They might ask themselves, ‘What would Jesus do?’ or, jokingly, ‘What would Beyoncé say?’

But what exactly makes up wisdom? In other words, which characteristics do people perceive as central to a wise judgment – and does this vary around the world? To answer this question, we and a large group of colleagues from around the world conducted a study involving 2,707 participants from 16 cultural groups, including populations as diverse and far-flung as Morocco and Peru, Japan and Slovakia, India and Canada. We presented them with verbal portraits of 10 individuals – including a scientist, a politician and a teacher – and we asked them to compare these targets with each other, and with themselves, based on 19 ways of dealing with a complex situation where there were no right or wrong answers.

Our findings revealed a surprising commonality in how people around the world perceive wisdom

For example, participants compared ‘Dr Morgan, a scientist who gathers information about plants, animals, and people to make sense of the world’ with ‘Alexis, a schoolteacher who educates 12-year-olds about local history and literature’. They decided who was more likely to ‘think before acting or speaking’, ‘think logically’, ‘consider someone else’s perspective’ (and 16 other ways of dealing with complex situations) when trying to make a difficult choice; then, they rated the wisdom of each of these individuals and themselves. We analysed all these comparisons to work out the hidden dimensions that the participants relied upon to judge the actions and feelings of the 10 hypothetical characters; and then we calculated the weight they gave to these dimensions when inferring the wisdom of these characters.

Our findings revealed that, when people make judgments about wisdom, they are essentially linking wisdom to two key dimensions that we call reflective orientation and socio-emotional awareness. Reflective orientation is probably what first comes to mind when you think about a ‘smart’ person: it involves logic, rationality, control over emotions, and the application of past experiences. Imagine a brilliant scientist who spends all their time in the lab studying the mysteries of the Universe, carefully analysing data and drawing conclusions based on evidence. This individual exemplifies the reflective aspect of wisdom.

On the other hand, socio-emotional awareness involves caring for others, active listening, and the ability to navigate complex and uncertain social situations. Picture a compassionate teacher who not only imparts knowledge but also takes the time to understand each student’s unique needs and challenges, flexibly adapting to their needs. This teacher embodies the socio-emotional dimension of wisdom.

We found that the two dimensions are closely related, and people think about both of them when determining whether to label a character as wise. Our participants rated the hypothetical characters as most wise when they scored high on both dimensions.

We also wondered how people’s attitudes to these dimensions of wisdom might vary across cultures. Anthropological and cultural psychological studies have long suggested that wisdom is deeply embedded within specific cultural norms and values. Many researchers have emphasised the differences between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ conceptions of wisdom. The presumed collectivism of Chinese culture, for example, is often attributed to the Confucian and Taoist traditions, which place great importance on social and contextual awareness. In contrast, the individualism of Western cultures is frequently linked to a focus on analytical thinking coming from ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, as well as the intellectual ideals of the Enlightenment. Consequently, it seemed straightforward to assume that the socio-emotional awareness dimension we identified would be more closely associated with wisdom by participants in the global East whereas the reflective orientation dimension would be prioritised by those in the West.

Instead, our findings revealed a surprising commonality in how people around the world perceive wisdom in themselves and others, with both the key dimensions receiving a similar weighting across all cultures. We think this commonality is likely rooted in the need to get ahead and the need to get along, which some scholars have referred to as fundamental human needs. Getting ahead involves recognising who is competent and has the agency to make things happen – qualities that align with the reflective orientation dimension of wisdom. Getting along requires abilities related to the socio-emotional awareness dimension of wisdom.

People are willing to acknowledge their cognitive imperfections but believe they excel in empathy

Part of our study also involved asking our participants to rate their own wisdom in comparison with the hypothetical characters. This revealed an interesting bias in self-perception that was also present across cultures. People generally acknowledged their own cognitive limitations, rating themselves lower in reflective orientation than the wisest individuals. However, they tended to see themselves as more socially and emotionally aware than most others. In other words, they were willing to acknowledge their cognitive imperfections but believed they excelled in empathy, communication and awareness of social context.

This degree of cross-cultural consistency surprised us again. Previous research had suggested an overly favourable view of one’s socio-emotional awareness is a characteristic of Western cultures, but in our data this self-perception bias was present across multiple cultures, including those typically depicted as non-Western, such as in China, India, Japan and Morocco. This again challenges some of the persistent stereotypes people hold about East vs West and South vs North.

We propose that this universal bias in self-perception stems from differences in the feedback we receive in everyday life about ourselves in relation to the two dimensions of wisdom. It is much harder to preserve an inflated sense of one’s reflective and analytic qualities because school grades and career outcomes constantly force us to calibrate our self-opinions. However, when it comes to our socio-emotional awareness, there are fewer forms of objective feedback that compel us to adjust an inflated opinion. Imagine an unpopular manager who believes he is caring and approachable because he has an ‘open-door policy’ – even if he hears a negative comment or two, it might be easier to ignore or downplay them than to ignore an exam failure or job rejection.

As we navigate our busy days, it is worth all of us taking a moment now and again to reflect on our own wisdom. Have we been acting with enough wisdom? How can we balance reason with empathy in our lives? In many ways, the path to wisdom is a deeply personal one, shaped by reflection on our individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and the wise exemplars we choose to follow. But, at the same time, when it comes to judging where others are on this path, it seems that all of us, wherever we are in the world, are looking through a shared lens.

[Vesper 30,100]

Just now, cosmicway said:

That was certainly marxist as they come, but without the power to terminate elections.
About old Pasok you can argue what they were - several posts above I posted a video.

You clearly do not understand what actual Marxism and/or communism are, especially at an actual controlling political system level.

The basic tenets of Marxism are dialectical materialism, historical materialism, the theory of surplus value, class struggle, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. Communism is an ideology based on common ownership in the absence of social classes, money, and states.

The government of Greece in 2015 to 2019 never remotely governed in such manner and fashion.

All you do is toss the terms about in some sort of nebulous attempt to inject a perjorative slant against anything remotely leftish/centre left.

[cosmicway 1,333]

11 minutes ago, Vesper said:

You clearly do not understand what actual Marxism and/or communism are, especially at an actual controlling political system level.

The basic tenets of Marxism are dialectical materialism, historical materialism, the theory of surplus value, class struggle, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. Communism is an ideology based on common ownership in the absence of social classes, money, and states.

The government of Greece in 2015 to 2019 never remotely governed in such manner and fashion.

All you do is toss the terms about in some sort of nebulous attempt to inject a perjorative slant against anything remotely leftish/centre left.

There are phases of course.
Before sacking Varoufakis and caving in or after ?
Started life as 100% marxist - but always without the power of the gun necessary for communism and of course always at odds with the "original gate 21" who don't like anybody.
After their "sommersault dive" in July 2015 they were marxist for coffee house talk purposes only and -effectively- waiting for the time to come to pass the government to Mitsotakis.

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by cosmicway

[Vesper 30,100]

Sweden loses ground in global equality index

my add (hello RW government austerity ghoul government, a massively regressive tax structure, plus a further cementing of a permanent underclass here due to the massive immigration levels over the past 2+ decades, and the utter failure to integrate them)

https://www.thelocal.se/20241021/today-in-sweden-a-roundup-of-the-latest-news-on-monday-164/

Sweden has plummeted 14 places in four years in the Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index, a global ranking of 164 countries by Oxfam and Development Finance International. In the latest index, Sweden ends up in 24th place, below all its Nordic neighbours.

Sweden is ranked relatively highly in the labour category (sixth place) and somewhat less impressively in the public service category (16th place), but it's final score is dragged down by the tax category, in which the index puts it in 114th place. Norway places top of the table. 

The lowered marginal tax rate in combination with previous decisions from around a decade ago to scrap Sweden's inheritance tax and wealth tax are to blame for Sweden's poor equality ranking in terms of taxes. 

"Current tax policies benefit the wealthiest, whereas those in poverty carry the heaviest burden," Suzanne Standfast, secretary-general for Oxford's Swedish branch, said in a statement.

Swedish vocabulary: taxes – skatter

absolutely shameful for Sweden, we were always in the top 3 for decades, often number 1

Edited October 21, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,100]

[Vesper 30,100]

Loopholes galore

Politicians love to say they’re closing a loophole – it sounds eminently sensible, a simple fix to a gap in the law created either by lobbying malice or bureaucratic incompetence. But as many of those politicians then discover, they end up creating another one. It seems to be so with private school fees, which Labour are putting VAT of 20 per cent on from January, with the claim that it is closing the loophole of using charitable status to avoid tax.

But many of the richest schools, instead of losing out, are set for a substantial windfall. There is a clause in the scheme that allows schools to recover historic VAT they paid on capital expenditure including buildings and land acquisition over the past ten years. That has prompted accusations that schools attended by children of wealthier parents will benefit from Labour’s policy, as they are less likely to use the recouped money on keeping fees low. To take one example: Eton, which last year opened a £21.5 million aquatics centre, could gradually reclaim £4.8 million from the Treasury for its spending since 2020. The same school has already said it will pass on the full 20 per cent to parents in fees. Win-win, for some.

[Vesper 30,100]

Harris and Trump locked in dead heat in seven-state poll, with some voters still deciding

Former president Donald Trump shows strength in Arizona while Vice President Kamala Harris runs strongest in Georgia, according to a Post-Schar School survey.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/harris-trump-post-schar-school-poll/

Voters wait in line to cast their ballots during early voting Wednesday in Decatur, Ga. (Erik S Lesser/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

With two weeks of campaigning left before the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump are running nearly evenly across the seven battleground states among a critical portion of the electorate whose votes likely will determine who becomes the next president.

A Washington Post-Schar School poll of more than 5,000 registered voters, conducted in the first half of October, finds 47 percent who say they will definitely or probably support Harris while 47 percent say they will definitely or probably support Trump. Among likely voters, 49 percent support Harris and 48 percent back Trump.

Trump’s support is little changed from the 48 percent he received in a spring survey of six key states using the same methodology, but Harris’s standing is six percentage points higher than the 41-percent support registered for President Joe Biden, who was then a candidate.

In addition to swing-state voters overall, the Post-Schar School survey focuses on a sizable group of registered voters who have not been firmly committed to any candidate and whose voting record leaves open whether they will cast ballots this fall. With another part of the electorate locked down for a candidate for many months, this group of “Deciders” could make the difference in an election where the battleground states could be won or lost by the narrowest of margins.

The new results show changes among this group of voters compared with the first survey conducted last spring. About three-quarters of battleground-state voters say they will definitely vote for Harris or Trump (74 percent). That’s up from 58 percent who were committed to Biden or Trump this spring. The percentage who are uncommitted has dropped from 42 percent to 26 percent over the past five months. Among likely voters, the latest poll finds that a smaller 21 percent say they are not fully committed to Harris or Trump.

Younger registered voters are more likely to be uncommitted: 43 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds are uncommitted, a larger share than any other age group. Non-White voters are more likely to be uncommitted than White voters, 34 percent vs. 23 percent.

Trump is strongest in Arizona, where he holds an edge of six percentage points among registered voters. That shrinks to three points among likely voters. His four-point edge in North Carolina among registered voters ticks down to three points among likely voters. That echoes a Post poll conducted last month but contrasts with a Quinnipiac poll suggesting Harris may have a slight edge. Those advantages are within the margin of error.

Among these key-state voters, Harris runs strongest in Georgia, where she has an advantage of six percentage points among registered voters and four points among likely voters, which is within the margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Harris also is slightly stronger than Trump in the three most contested northern states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — but by percentages within the margin of error.

The seventh battleground state, Nevada, is tied among likely voters though Harris is three points stronger than Trump among registered voters.

Overall in these seven states, 37 percent of registered voters say they will definitely vote for Harris and 37 percent will definitely back Trump, or already voted for each. An additional 10 percent say they will probably vote for Harris, 10 percent probably for Trump. Harris’s 37 percent “definite” support is up sharply from Biden’s 26 percent this spring. Trump’s firm support has grown by a smaller six points, from 31 percent to 37 percent.

The poll sample also includes some voters who had been interviewed last spring and who said they were uncommitted at the time. The new survey finds that about half (46 percent) have shifted to definitely supporting one of the two candidates, with more moving to Harris than have moved to Trump.

Six percent of all key-state voters say they are unlikely to support either Harris or Trump and most of these voters say that, if Trump and Harris are the only two candidates on their ballot, they are likely not to vote in the presidential race. These voters tend to be younger, more likely to be people of color and more likely to identify themselves as independents.

Among voters who have a record of voting in just one of the past two presidential elections, 78 percent say they will definitely vote this year or have already voted. They are about evenly divided between Trump (47 percent) and Harris (46 percent). Among voters who turned out in both 2016 and 2020, 49 percent support Harris while 47 percent support Trump.

The poll underscores how dependent Trump and Harris are on halfhearted supporters. Only 13 percent of “probably Harris” voters say they would be enthusiastic if she wins, while 11 percent of “probably Trump” voters say the same about him. About 4 in 10 of each group say they would feel “upset” if the other candidate wins, compared with about 8 in 10 voters who are locked in for each candidate.

Steven Grissom (Courtesy of Steven Grissom)

Steven Grissom, a 54-year old White stagehand in Las Vegas said, “I sure as hell don’t like my choice,” but that he was going to vote for Trump. “I could leave it blank,” he said, “I don’t want my lack of vote to give [the election] to Kamala.”

Harris’s job approval rating as vice president is net negative with these swing state voters: 44 percent approve of the job she is doing while 55 percent disapprove, with 42 percent disapproving strongly. Asked for a retrospective judgment on Trump as president, 51 percent say they approve of the way he handled the job while 49 percent disapprove, 37 percent strongly.

Two groups of voters have drawn significant attention this fall: Hispanic and Black Americans. Among Hispanics, Harris is faring slightly worse in these seven states than Biden did four years ago among Hispanic voters throughout the country. She leads Trump by 22 points across all seven states among registered voters, which compares with Biden’s national margin of between 25 and 33 points against Trump, according to 2020 exit polls, AP VoteCast and Pew’s validated voter study.

But in two battlegrounds with higher percentages of Hispanic voters she’s about even with Biden in 2020. Harris leads by 24 points among Hispanic voters in Arizona and 16 points in Nevada. Both are roughly on par with Biden’s advantages in those states four years ago, according to exit polls and other post-election estimates.

Harris leads by an 82 to 12 percent margin among Black voters in these seven swing states, a 70-point margin that is slightly smaller than Biden’s national advantage with Black voters four years ago.

Black voters make up one-third of the electorate in Georgia and about one-fifth in North Carolina. The poll finds Harris with slightly more support among Black voters in Georgia (83 percent) than in North Carolina (78 percent). Meanwhile, in the northern trio of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, 85 percent of Black voters currently back Harris. The issue for Harris there is ensuring strong Black turnout in the cities of Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

Kobe Sifflet, a 21-year-old Black deli clerk in Atlanta, said he was still undecided and wanted to hear more about Harris’s plans. Trump “seems a bit extreme,” to him.

Kobe Sifflet (Alex Wroblewski for The Washington Post)

Malik Williams, 27, a Black voter in Stone Mountain, Ga., who manages a tattoo parlor, said he would probably vote for Harris. “I think Trump’s trying to push a more police state in terms of creating unnecessary conflict with citizens, versus actually trying to make the country better.”

The gender gap between the candidates amounts to 14 percentage points. Harris leads among female voters in swing states by seven points while Trump leads among all men by the same percentage. The divide is largest among younger voters, with women under age 30 favoring Harris by 20 points while men under 30 favor Trump by 15 points.

Education is the principal dividing line among White voters in the survey. White voters with college degrees support Harris by 50 percent to 45 percent. White voters without degrees back Trump by about 2 to 1.

Kacey Campbell, a 30-year-old school administrator from Milwaukee who is White, said she is leaning more toward Harris, but calls it “just a slight lean.” She watched both debates to try to lock in a decision but is disappointed in how both candidates have addressed the Israel-Gaza war. She said the “scale of destruction” in Gaza affects her confidence in voting for the Democratic Party. She criticized Democrats for saying “we’re not Donald Trump, we’re not Project 2025,” rather than running on their own policies.

Kacey Campbell (Courtesy of Kacey Campbell)

“Being disaffected or discontented with the choices is not an irrational sentiment for people to have, said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, “especially when they see the hyperpolarization going on, the inability of parties to work well together to solve problems.”

Trump’s current margin among White voters without college degrees in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is about the same as it was in 2020. In Michigan, however, he’s running better with these voters than he did four years ago. Meanwhile, Harris is running ahead of Biden’s 2020 margins among Whites with college degrees in Wisconsin but about the same in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Emily Dembs, a 33-year-old White voter from St. Clair Shores, Mich., said they are torn about whom to vote for. “I really don’t like Trump at all. I think he’s a lying scumbag.” But the Democratic Party to them, “has felt so phony.” If they do vote, they will vote for Harris. “Voting for Harris is probably a good idea, I just wish we had more options or different people.”

Threats to democracy rank high as an issue to the voters in these states, with 61 percent overall saying it is extremely important, including 71 percent of Democrats, as well as 61 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents.

Slightly more registered voters in these states trust Trump over Harris to handle threats to democracy in the United States, 43 percent to 40 percent. This is also true among uncommitted voters, with 32 percent saying they trust Trump, 28 percent Harris and 26 percent trusting neither candidate.

At this point, the economy and inflation stand out as more important to the remaining uncommitted voters than other issues, a potential problem for Harris.

Potential Harris voters are much more likely to feel the economy is getting worse (56 percent) and inflation is getting worse (69 percent) than are committed Harris voters (25 percent and 36 percent). In fact, the annual rate of inflation was 2.4 percent in September, a significant improvement over the 9.1 percent in June 2022.

A majority of probable Harris voters call the economy extremely important (55 percent) and inflation extremely important (59 percent), compared to a minority of committed Harris voters (44 percent and 43 percent).

By contrast, a majority of probable Trump voters call climate change a crisis or major problem (67 percent) compared to a majority of firm Trump voters who call it a minor problem or no problem at all (61 percent). Probable Trump voters are more likely to rate climate change as extremely or very important (39 percent) than firm Trump voters (24 percent).

A similar gap exists between likely and committed Trump voters on abortion. A majority of probable Trump voters support legal abortion in all or most cases (60 percent), while a majority of committed Trump voters want it to be illegal in most or all cases (59 percent).

Nearly two-thirds of voters (65 percent) think Trump will make “fundamental changes to the country,” including 40 percent who think he’ll make fundamental changes for the better while 25 percent say he will for the worse. Fewer than half of all key-state voters think Harris will make fundamental changes to the country (47 percent), 30 percent for the better and 17 percent for the worse. Smaller shares of uncommitted voters say both candidates will make fundamental changes to the country than key-state voters overall.

The voters in these states are keenly aware of the importance of what happens in each of them in November. Three in 4 voters say this makes them feel empowered that their vote can make a difference in the outcome.

More than 6 in 10 say they do not feel pressure to make the right choice and, when asked whether they do not care which candidate wins, 85 percent say that does not describe them.

“I take it as a pretty big responsibility,” said Richard Schall, a 31-year-old White postal worker and U.S. Army veteran from Latrobe, Pa., who plans to vote on Election Day. Despite his concerns about Trump frequently being disrespectful, he “leans more toward Donald Trump on the basis that I’ve seen him as president and the uncertainty of Harris … I don’t think the way Trump handled things was so inherently bad that it was dangerous.”

There are some disadvantages to being in competitive states, among them being the saturation level of advertising aimed at the voters. About 3 in 4 voters in the Post-Schar School poll say they are “annoyed” by these advertisements, but there’s not likely to be any escaping them between now and Election Day.

This poll was conducted by The Post and George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government Sept. 30 to Oct. 15 among a stratified random sample of 5,016 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, state sample sizes ranged from 580 to 965 voters with error margins between 3.9 and 5.0 points. The sample was drawn from the L2 database of registered voters in each state; all selected voters were mailed an invitation to take the survey online, with additional contact efforts from live-caller interviewers, text messages and emails. Sample design, data collection and processing was conducted by SSRS of Glen Mills, Pa.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

The problem is Americans, in fact most so called 'democracies' have marketed the electoral binary option - do you want this crazy rich cunt or this slightly less obnoxious rich cunt ?

[Fernando 6,585]

35 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

The problem is Americans, in fact most so called 'democracies' have marketed the electoral binary option - do you want this crazy rich cunt or this slightly less obnoxious rich cunt ?

We need to have more options then just two. That is always been the issue. We have two poor runners and for many people they are not sure who to pick. 

So I would love that change. Yes you have the primary but many people don't vote on those like in the general elections. 

As well would love to have the electoral vote to change a bit. Because the big city has too much power over the rest of the state. 

Take example here in NYC the majority will rule over the entire NY state. Maybe have the big city have their own electoral y vote and the rest of the the state it's own but yet smaller electoral vote. So that the population that is living in the state vs the city get a voice. 

[Vesper 30,100]

Trump and other Republicans are running and have run tens of millions of dollars in adverts slamming Harris and other Democrats over transgender care in prisons......................

well......................................

Under Trump, U.S. Prisons Offered Gender-Affirming Care

The Trump administration’s approach is notable in light of a campaign ad that slams Vice President Kamala Harris for supporting taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for prisoners and migrants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons-transgender-care-harris.html

 

Appointees at the Bureau of Prisons under President Donald J. Trump provided an array of gender-affirming treatments for a small group of inmates during his four years in office. Credit...Anna Watts for The New York Times

A campaign ad released by former President Donald J. Trump in battleground states slams Vice President Harris for supporting taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for prisoners and migrants, concluding: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

But the Trump administration’s record on providing services for transgender people in the sprawling federal prison system, which houses thousands of undocumented immigrants awaiting trial or deportation, is more nuanced than the 30-second spot suggests.

Trump appointees at the Bureau of Prisons, a division of the Justice Department, provided an array of gender-affirming treatments, including hormone therapy, for a small group of inmates who requested it during Mr. Trump’s four years in office.

In a February 2018 budget memo to Congress, bureau officials wrote that under federal law, they were obligated to pay for a prisoner’s “surgery” if it was deemed medically necessary. Still, legal wrangling delayed the first such operation until 2022, long after Mr. Trump left office.

“Transgender offenders may require individual counseling and emotional support,” officials wrote. “Medical care may include pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., cross-gender hormone therapy), hair removal and surgery (if individualized assessment indicates surgical intervention is applicable).”

The statement, in part, reflected guidelines that officials in the Obama administration released shortly before they left office in January 2017, which were geared at ensuring “transgender inmates can access programs and services that meet their needs.”

The most significant change the Trump administration made in the treatment guidelines after it took over was the addition of the word “necessary,” which created a higher but not insurmountable barrier to federally funded surgeries.

“Kamala Harris has forcefully advocated for transgender inmates to be able to get transition surgeries, President Trump never has,” Brian Hughes, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, said in an email response to a request for comment.

The Trump administration did not consider the issue a central policy priority at the bureau, which was in the middle of a push to enact sentencing reforms. That process caused rifts with Justice Department leaders, prompting the bureau’s director to leave in 2018.

Transgender inmates are among the most vulnerable people in the roughly 145,000-person federal system, and have received significant protections under federal law. Court rulings have fortified those safeguards and found that denying treatment, including gender-affirming surgery, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Trump’s conservative appointees at the bureau did take some significant steps to reverse other policies related to transgender inmates. The number of transgender inmates was estimated to be 1,200, according to a court ruling in 2022 that paved the way for the first federally funded surgery.

Most notably, they rewrote the bureau’s procedural manual to remove a provision that would have assigned housing on the basis of a person’s gender identity rather than assigned sex at birth. Under the Obama-era guidance, transgender inmates had been allowed to use facilities, including bathrooms and cellblocks, that matched their self-identified gender.

President Biden restored the Obama-era policy.

The American Medical Association defines medically necessary care for people in transition as treatments that “affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria,” the intense psychological distress associated with being unable to live according to one’s gender identity. Appropriate services in such instances include psychological counseling, hormone therapy, hair removal and surgical procedures.

The Bureau of Prisons is the only federal agency under court order to provide gender-related surgeries. But the number of inmates requesting such operations within the bureau is minuscule, with only two known surgeries approved via court action.

The amount the bureau has spent on hormone therapy was also very small — ranging from $60,000 to $95,000 a year during Mr. Trump’s term, according to internal department estimates obtained by The New York Times.

The Trump ads, which have been running in several battleground states — often during events with high male viewership, like football games — focus on a response by Ms. Harris to a question about transgender care for incarcerated people on a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union candidate questionnaire.

In her answer, Ms. Harris told the group that she “pushed” the state corrections department “to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates” while serving as California attorney general from 2011 to 2017.

“I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained,” she wrote. “Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.”

Initially, Ms. Harris represented the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in its refusal to provide gender-affirming surgery to an offender convicted of murder who was born male.

But she agreed to a settlement in 2015, clearing the path for what was believed to be the first taxpayer-funded operation for an inmate in U.S. history.

Later, in 2019, she embraced the position as a political priority, telling members of a transgender rights organization that she had “worked behind the scenes” to ensure the state gave “every transgender inmate in the prison system” access to the care they needed.

 

[Vesper 30,100]

Elon Musk’s daily $1 million giveaway to registered voters could be illegal, experts say

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/20/politics/elon-musk-voter-giveaway-legal-questions/index.html

While stumping for former President Donald Trump on Saturday, tech billionaire Elon Musk announced that he will give away $1 million each day to registered voters in battleground states, immediately drawing scrutiny from election law experts who said the sweepstakes could violate laws against paying people to register.

“We want to try to get over a million, maybe 2 million voters in the battleground states to sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendment. … We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election,” Musk said at a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The X owner and Tesla CEO was referring to a petition launched by his political action committee affirming support for the rights to free speech and to bear arms. The website, launched shortly before some registration deadlines, says, “this program is exclusively open to registered voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.”

Musk, the richest man in the world, has given more than $75 million to his pro-Trump super PAC, and said he hopes the sweepstakes will boost registration among Trump voters. He recently hit the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, holding events advocating for Trump, promoting his petition and spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

“This is a one-time ask,” Musk told the crowd shortly after announcing the $1 million prize. “Just go out there and talk to your friends and family and acquaintances and people you meet in the street and … convince them to vote. Obviously you gotta get registered, make sure they’re registered and … make sure they vote.”

The first million-dollar winner was named Saturday, with Musk handing a giant check to a Trump supporter at his event in Harrisburg, saying, “So anyway, you’re welcome.” He announced the second winner Sunday afternoon during an event in Pittsburgh, handing out another check on a stage adorned with big signs reading, “VOTE EARLY.”

In an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said Musk’s giveaway was “deeply concerning” and is “something that law enforcement could take a look at.” Shapiro, a Democrat, was previously the state attorney general.

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” It’s punishable by up to five years in prison. After legal outcry over the weekend, Musk’s group tweaked some of their language around the sweepstakes.

“When you start limiting prizes or giveaways to only registered voters or only people who have voted, that’s where bribery concerns arise,” said Derek Muller, an election law expert who teaches at Notre Dame Law School. “By limiting a giveaway only to registered voters, it looks like you’re giving cash for voter registration.”

Offering money to people who were already registered before the cash prize was announced could violate federal law, Muller said, but the offer also “can include people who are not yet registered,” and the potential “inducements for new registrations is far more problematic.”

Most states make it a crime only to pay people to vote, said Muller, who is also a CNN contributor. He said it’s rare for federal prosecutors to bring election bribery cases, and that the Supreme Court has been narrowing the scope of bribery statutes.

Regardless of the long odds of a Musk prosecution, other respected election law experts strongly condemned the billionaire’s behavior.

“This isn’t a particularly close case — this is exactly what the statute was designed to criminalize,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department official handling voting rights cases and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Becker said the fact that the prize is available only to registered voters “in one of seven swing states that could affect the outcome of the presidential election” is strong evidence of Musk’s intent to influence the race, which could be legally problematic.

“This offer was made in the last days before some registration deadlines,” Becker said, bolstering the appearance that the cash prizes are designed to drive up registration.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law and a Trump critic, said in a blog post that Musk’s sweepstakes was “clearly illegal vote-buying.” He pointed out that the Justice Department’s election crimes manual specifically says it’s illegal to offer “lottery chances” that are “intended to induce or reward” actions such as voter registration.

In a social media post late Sunday night, the Musk-backed group reframed the giveaway as a job opportunity, saying winners “will be selected to earn $1M as a spokesperson for America PAC.” The two winners picked over the weekend have appeared in promotional videos on the super PAC’s account on X, formerly Twitter.

Both Muller and Becker said the distinction likely didn’t have much impact on the potential illegality of the program. The fine print on the super PAC’s website hasn’t changed as of Monday morning, and the lottery is still only being offered to registered voters, they pointed out.

Another top Democratic official, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, blasted Musk on Saturday for “spreading dangerous disinformation” about the integrity of the voter rolls after he falsely claimed there were more voters than citizens in the state.

 

52 U.S. Code § 10307 - Prohibited acts

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307

(c)False information in registering or voting; penalties

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

 

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

Trump prepares to seize power even if he loses election

Power grab plan

According to lawmakers, congressional investigators, party figures, election officials, and constitutional law experts, the plan looks something like this:

・He will deepen distrust in the election results by making unsupported or hyperbolic claims of widespread voter fraud and mounting longshot lawsuits challenging enough ballots to flip the outcome in key states.

・He will lean on friendly county and state officials to resist certifying election results — a futile errand that would nevertheless fuel a campaign to put pressure on elected Republican legislators in statehouses and Congress.

・He will call on allies in GOP-controlled swing-state legislatures to appoint “alternate” presidential electors.

・He will rely on congressional Republicans to endorse these alternate electors — or at least reject Democratic electors — when they convene to certify the outcome.

・He will try to ensure Harris is denied 270 votes in the Electoral College, sending the election to the House, where Republicans are likely to have the numbers to choose Trump as the next president.

Some of the necessary ingredients for this extraordinary campaign are already in place. Trump has launched a clear mission to stoke as much uncertainty as possible about the election results.

--------------

Its hard to understand how any Republican Senator can endorse this man who is bent on creating the next Dictatorship. The vote means nothing to this man. He will just disregard anything that he does not agree with with. Its a long time since he threw his pacifier out of the pram, and he obviously hasn't grown up!

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

Deir Al Balah refugee camp

Palestinian journalist who has shown children with heads and limbs missing, skulls of children burned out.

The journalist and her family have just been targeted and bombed in their house

[Vesper 30,100]

Poltically, I am mostly a synthesis of these 3 interrelated ideological camps:

In order from most infused to least infused:

Social democracy

Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism^[1] that supports political and economic democracy and also supports a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach to governance. In modern practice, social democracy has become mainly capitalist, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income.^[2][3]

Social democracy maintains a commitment to representative and participatory democracy. Common aims include curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation.^[4][5] Economically, it supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest.^[6]

Social democracy has a strong, long-standing connection with trade unions and the broader labour movement. It is supportive of measures to foster greater democratic decision-making in the economic sphere, including co-determination, collective bargaining rights for workers, and expanding ownership to employees and other stakeholders.^[7]

 

secondly:

Social liberalism

Social liberalism^[a] is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical liberalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance. While both are committed to personal freedoms, social liberalism places greater emphasis on the role of government in addressing social inequalities and ensuring public welfare.

Economically, social liberalism is based on the social market economy and views the common good as harmonious with the individual's freedom.^[9] Social liberals overlap with social democrats in accepting market intervention more than other liberals;^[10] its importance is considered auxiliary compared to social democrats.^[11] Ideologies that emphasize its economic policy include welfare liberalism,^[12] New Deal liberalism and New Democrats in the United States,^[13] and Keynesian liberalism.^[14] Cultural liberalism is an ideology that highlights its cultural aspects. The world has widely adopted social liberal policies.^[15]

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centre to centre-left, although there are deviations from these positions to both the political left or right.^{[b][10][16][17]} Addressing economic and social issues, such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care and education using government intervention, while emphasising individual rights and autonomy, are expectations under a social liberal government.^[18][19][20] In modern political discourse, social liberalism is associated with progressivism,^[21][22][23] a left-liberalism contrasted to the right-leaning neoliberalism,^[24] and combines support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism.^[25]

 

and finally, by the ideological grouping I have the least amount of affinity for (but I do agree with some thinkers on some issues in this camp) of the three would be:

Left-libertarianism

Left-libertarianism,^[1] also known as left-wing libertarianism,^[2] is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality. Left-libertarianism represents several related yet distinct approaches to political and social theory. Its classical usage refers to anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as anarchism, especially social anarchism.^[3]

While right-libertarianism is widely seen as synonymous with libertarianism in the United States, left-libertarianism is the predominant form of libertarianism in Europe.^[4] In the United States, left-libertarianism is the term used for the left wing of the libertarian movement,^[3] including the political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.^[5] Although libertarianism in the United States has become associated with classical liberalism and minarchism, with right-libertarianism being more known than left-libertarianism,^[6] political usage of the term libertarianism until then was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism, and social anarchism; in most parts of the world, such an association still predominates.^[3][7]

Left-libertarians are skeptical of, or fully against, private ownership of natural resources, arguing, in contrast to right-libertarians, that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights, and they maintain that natural resources should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.^[8] Those left-libertarians who are more lenient towards private property support different property norms and theories, such as usufruct^[9] or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community.^[10][11]

Like other forms of libertarianism, left-libertarian views on the state range from minarchism, which argues for a decentralised and limited government, to anarchism, which advocates for the state to be abolished entirely.^[12]

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

'Those were crack-smoking times,' admits May

 

THERESA May has admitted she smoked up to ten rocks of crack a day while prime minister because 2016 to 2019 were very much crack-smoking years. 

Following Boris Johnson’s claim that he needed to spend £200,000 on refurbishing Downing Street because it ‘looked like a bit of a crack den’, his predecessor has confirmed it was her recreational substance of choice.

She said: “Cast your mind back. The minute that referendum verdict dropped, the entire nation went insane.

“Brexiters immediately decided it meant a dictatorship run by themselves. Remainers who hadn’t existed a week earlier demanded the flow of time be reversed. These were not challenges one could surmount with the aid of a sweet sherry.

“One night, after we’d watched Vera, my husband Philip turned to me and said: ‘You know what I really fancy? Crack cocaine,’ so we dispatched a constable to score us some. And it went down beautifully.

“After that, and after long days of David Frost and the Malthouse Compromise and all of that nonsense, it became a regular thing. We’d get out our glass pipes and smoke our rocks while listening to only the hardest Jamaican dancehall. It helped us relax.

“And yes, after a while we began to sell the furniture, a dealer moved in, all the usual stuff. But come on. We were on three Brexit votes a night by the end. Crack was the least of it.”