EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
10hr ago
I quite like the constitutional convention idea. I think I've even endorsed it here before. And it's notable that the Constitution even allows it, because it feels like this is precisely the sort of situation where conventions are the reasonable thing, since partisan negotiations aren't working and problems are obvious.
Lowering numbers seems good, but I'm reluctant to part with the whole 6-year staggered approach which usually balances presidential elections with off-cycle ones and acts as a further brake on spur of the moment changes. Making them come from the state legislature again seems at first glance to be somewhat reasonable. I think one thing that's under-optimized in the system as it currently is, is personal integrity/judgement. Too much selection on issues alone, and not enough on someone we trust to think about the issues deeply and make a good decision.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
10hr ago
A pet theory of mine is actually that the last 50-70 (?) or so of history is qualitatively different than previous eras because leaders are too easy to kill or remove. It used to be that movements would generate Washingtons and Jeffersons and Lafayettes and such who built up their reputation and fame and could lead after winning, or at least strike a deal. But in the modern era, assassinations and executions are relatively more common, and emigrating relatively easier, such that countries suffer "leadership drain" during civil conflict and make civil wars worse than in previous eras. Also, compromise is more difficult because leaders have less political capital at their command. At least, so the thinking goes.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
10hr ago
Hmm, that's an interesting take. For the IGs, I'm not sure if I want to go digging, but I was definitely getting the impression that there was still some substantial weakness going on including vacancies. "Acting" IGs are much less empowered and vacancies matter (reached 75% in October). Also, a few of the IGs were removed while investigating something politically sensitive. And courts literally did find that Trump broke the law in removing many, since giving a reason is required (the fact that the judge didn't reinstate them notwithstanding). In addition, all the offices have received significant budget cuts - doubly worrisome because allegedly the government was trying to eliminate waste and fraud, which sort of exposes the priorities.
More broadly Trump has also elevated people with notable pasts of lawbreaking and unethical behavior to higher posts. One that comes immediately to mind was now-Judge Bove, who multiple very, very reliable witnesses with impeccable credentials alleged had planned to deliberately lie to a judge and illegally evade their orders. You have Homan with the allegations of bribery, you have Noem even caught with 80k unreported donations as governor in a personal cut to herself, etc.
Something I didn't spend enough time on was Hatch act violations. They have become practically the norm. Originally the rules were pretty strict about splitting campaigning activity from official duties, but many Trump cabinet members have practically ignored them quite often, even during Trump I. And they continue, for example blaming Democrats for a government shutdown via multiple official channels.
A lot of liberals get up in arms about the special counsel position stuff. I'm a little torn. On the one hand, I thought the system was reasonable and so were the actions taken. Up to and including packing things up when Trump won re-election, to be clear, and also including the Clinton email stuff. On the other hand, they already changed the law on that once in 1999 because the prior system also had issues.
The overall effect however is a substantial chilling effect on doing stuff about unethical behavior, and removing safeguards to replace them with... nothing, really. That's why I called it naive. Congress is not stepping up to the plate, especially under Republican leadership. But we need fairness and clarity desperately. We only need it more, not less, when people distrust the system!
If he already had his gun out, that would be an unnecessary escalation unjustified by law enforcement policy. If he pulled out his gun on approach, ditto. Is there any reason to conclude otherwise? There's a reason cops during traffic stops do not pull their gun out on everyone, every time. I do not claim that he wanted to kill her anywhere. It's possible though. It's also not the point I was making in the OP. At any rate, there is, yes, clearly a point with sufficient evidence where pulling out a gun on someone driving at you is justified. Why would I think any different? Don't play slippery slope games unless you're actually alleging something.
hopefully-quick edit: I'm also not, and nowhere did, claim that we have indisputable proof that she was murdered. We had some evidence that cuts both ways. We have enough evidence in favor of "murder" that we should at least be discussing punishment. And more relevant to the original point, we have enough evidence that Ross did at least something wrong to be, again, at least discussing punishment.
I should add that my mental model of police is basically very, very rarely would they ever deliberately kill people. Somewhat common is killing people due to bad priors, however, partially due to the nature of the job but also partially due to flaws in ICE/law enforcement. I should reiterate that the standard is not "murder or not murder". It's "did he/they do something wrong" or "they were 100% innocent". The former is grounds for reasonable disagreement. The latter is what the OP discusses as being ridiculous and worrisome.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11hr ago
"On some level" means exactly what it says on the tin, dude. Again I'm begging you to re-read before replying and apply some critical thinking skills.
"On some level" means to some degree, to a certain extent, or from a particular perspective, acknowledging something is partially true or valid without being entirely so, often used to qualify agreement or understanding
I do my best to substantively reply to every major aspect of a comment when I choose to comment, even when it weakens the argument, because I feel that it's more transparent and honest; and yes it does annoy me when people don't do the same. Which is more than I can say for a lot of people who edit their comments to be maximally persuasive instead. I'm attempting to optimize for light, or failing that, honesty. You're out here slinging accusations of "transparent manipulative bullshit". I transparently said that the original transcript called it a murder, but nowhere did I myself say that, and I acknowledged that it was a little confusing. Then, I attempted to clarify. What more do you want from me? Isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Jesus Christ.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11hr ago
Probably does us a disservice to get into it, but I begrudgingly accepted them for the first half a year or so as an emergency measure, and then opposed them after (emergencies can't be indefinite, nor did the facts suggest it should have been). I was the only one in my liberal family (I'm more of a moderate) to oppose the (massed, non-distanced) BLM protests on grounds of hypocrisy, so no issues there.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11hr ago
What? No. It's strictly a one-directional formulation. If super controversial -> then charge someone seems like a perfectly reasonable take to me. Nothing there violates due process. The whole issue about prosecutorial discretion (which to be fair isn't quite "due process") is a tricky one, and honestly probably the weakest part of our system (though possibly the "least bad" attempt at a solution), but that kind of "patch" seems super reasonable, yeah?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11hr ago
Yeah, and in fact I hate that. I would never in a million years consider moving to Minnesota. It's definitely a violation of due process. My feelings are quite strong on the lack of sufficient public defenders and judges too, don't even get me started about speedy trials, though that's more universal (albeit no less serious!)
However if you had to choose between selective empathy and zero empathy the choice seems pretty... obvious?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11hr ago
Facial expressions are not super strong indicators of panic, and the video is way too blurred to draw conclusions, I just rewatched it. She also could have simply misjudged the distance to the hood. At least personally I can attest I'm quite bad at knowing when my bumper will hit something, despite being a zero-accident driver for 15 years. But at any rate, the statement "You can see her on camera, extremely plainly, not panicking" is untrue, I don't know how else to say it.
Blocking strongly implies - to me - a complete block. She's in the way, but cars are passing. Therefore calling it blocking alone lacks significant context. I would never say "I-5 is blocked by a truck" unless I meant the whole road was closed. I would say "the truck is blocking a few lanes" because blocking is typically an all-or-nothing thing. So I think this one might be chalked up to differing personal connotations.
The point about cars being only directionally threatening to people was clear and I guess I can't help you if you claim not to understand it.
Okay, minutiae aside, let's talk about the meta-conversation and point.
People are free to sympathize with the cop. People are free to think the shoot was justified. My whole point is that thinking that "ICE did nothing wrong and does not even need investigation" is a higher bar than that. Please reread my intro/conclusion. On a meta level, the point is that the way the Trump administration portrayed the event is deceitful, and reactions along those same lines as their portrayal are callous and polarizing.
I was going to say that you avoided answering my question, but I can now see how you thought I might have misworded it. To be clear, this is a follow-up question, and no, it's not about Good, it's about what biases you may or may not have about leftie protestors, and I think it's highly relevant, because we're talking about the meta-reaction of people. So I'll ask again: do you truly believe that the portrayal I described ("if he were to die, that'd be great, and totally justified") is what a large chunk of lefties think? But sure, if you want, I'll ask it about Good too. How confident are you that that portrayal is accurate of Good? Where are you epistemically there?
I think you'd do yourself some favors re-reading my comments and waiting a few minutes before replying because you're mischaracterizing me. I'm attempting to engage in a way you don't seem to be, so I can't understand why you'd think I wasn't serious?
Let me repeat that. I'm talking about the Trump administration's official response, and not just that it's inaccurate, but that people echoing it is callous and polarizing in the extreme
This was my point, maybe I should have put it at the end and not the beginning. The official position is that Good, after "stalking, harassing, and impeding" then committed a coordinated pre-trained "domestic act of terrorism" and "violently, willfully, and viciously" ran over an officer with who "followed his training and did exactly what he was taught to do." Nearly every load-bearing part of that entire position is false. And it's batshit insane that people read that, do not seem to care that it's so clearly incorrect (falling back to an unintentionally bailey of their own interpretation).
Instead their conclusion is, to tweak your phrase, "it should have been immediately clear to the ICE officer and to viewers that that suddenly-accelerating SUV did pose a threat of death or grievous injury" and that there is zero doubt about that conclusion whatsoever. It's an affirmative claim that is plainly wrong. Perhaps coupled with a claim: "None of the ICE officers did a single thing wrong in the leadup to the shooting". And it's coupled with an emotional "she deserved it" reaction. That final point about emotional response makes it worse, but is not indispensable to the argument.
Another more central statement of the thesis (of the original video, perhaps more accurately, since my own was the first quote up top):
The idea that there's just no accountability, you can't they can wear plain clothes or have a mask and they can kill people and then the vice president will say they have absolute immunity is not a reasonable path for for America. I don't care what politics are on. You have to agree that that is not that is not the right direction to go.
Do you think the administration's reaction to the shooting is a "reasonable path for America"?
edit: edits to second half
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
The whole point of the Constitution and our rule of law is that we must take great pains to limit collateral damage to innocents when pursuing the guilty. "Just trust me bro" is not a long-term viable route for justice, no matter how correct you might think Trump personally might be about stuff. The twitter guy said that innocents should cower in their homes. Those two things are not the same.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
Sorry, I guess that was unclear. I was referring to the whole conversations about some liberals being happy Kirk was dead, or even celebrating. So that example was more about "cheering for death" rather than "claiming immunity". A second, perhaps better example, was how many people seemed to be sad that Trump's assassination didn't work.
However there have been several comments here highly upvoted along the lines of 'that nasty protestor got what's coming to her and agitators are evil for putting her in that situation too' and 'the case is so clear-cut self-defense that we don't need the judicial process'. The behavior I'd like to see changed is less cheering on for one side and less 'revenge makes rules irrelevant'.
More broadly I'm seeing a worrying slide towards a pro-revenge society. You see it on reddit, instagram, tiktok, facebook, everywhere, and on non-political topics too. And I see intellectual apologists here saying with a straight face stuff like this comment.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I think we largely agree even if we don't conclude the same thing about reasonableness. My original point was that some people don't consider it a tragedy, they don't think the whole situation was anything other than the higher standard we expect, and in some cases don't even think that a higher standard even exists in the first place! That's what makes the Trump admin response so ghoulish, and parts of the discourse so concerning. I'm interpreting the statement "Ross and ICE did nothing wrong" broadly, and it's insane that people seem to be defending that statement when it's so plainly untrue. It's a statement that can exist and be evaluated independent of how you feel about Good specifically, although opinions on that might reasonabaly affect the degree of outrage about it.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
The fact that the case generated extreme controversy ipso facto suggests that a trial is likely needed.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
The correct response is to want better processes, not to cheer when "left-wing agitators" get killed.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12hr ago
I think FBI abuses are very difficult to entirely prevent. But the scale is far less. If you've read nearly anything on J Edgar Hoover for example, it will give you a sense of scale. Even at the "worst" of the Biden-era or Trump I-era stuff, they really don't compare at all.
Now some of the problems we've encountered under Trump involve revealed weaknesses in the reforms, but there are a few direct examples of undermining existing reform. A few examples. Here says:
"First, he fired 17 inspectors general, a job established in the Watergate era to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse in government. He also fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency created by legislation in 1978 legislation to protect government whistle-blowers. Then he fired the director of the Office of Government Ethics, created around the same time to guard against financial conflicts of interest by top government officials."
...Take the protections of federal workers from political influence. In the early 1970s, a Nixon aide wrote a secret manual for implanting political loyalists in the federal work force and turning government workers and contracts into tools for Nixon’s re-election campaign. Once revealed, that secret plan became a trigger for the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, meant to further protect the government work force from politics and constrain presidential powers to hire and fire. In both of his terms, Mr. Trump and his aides have been aggressive at expanding his ability to replace more of the federal work force that he derides as the “deep state” aligned against him. Loyalty is a priority. An administration hiring plan issued in May said its goal is to find “only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans.” One new essay question asks job applicants to identify one or two of Mr. Trump’s executive orders or priorities “that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
One provision of the 1978 law established the Office of Special Counsel, which is charged with protecting federal workers from mistreatment, particularly retaliation against whistle-blowers. To assure independence from presidential control, the Special Counsel serves a mandated five-year term and can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” On Feb. 7, Mr. Trump fired the counsel, Hampton Dellinger, without explanation (although he had partly blamed whistle-blowers for his first impeachment).
...After Nixon, attorneys general sought to re-establish the integrity of the department, partly with “contact” rules to keep the White House from meddling in prosecutions. As Attorney General Griffin Bell said in a 1978 speech, “in our form of government there are things that are nonpartisan, and one is the law.” That does not appear to be the vision guiding the current Justice Department. In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi introduced Mr. Trump for an unusual, rally-style speech to Justice Department employees. “We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country,” she said. A month earlier, she had announced in a memo the department’s Weaponization Working Group, a task force established largely to examine investigations of Mr. Trump and his political allies. Her memo said the department would “provide quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review.” (Goes on to also give the example of a seemingly Trump-mandated investigation into former FBI director Comey, NY AG James, and Senator Schiff)
...The law established the Office of Government Ethics to handle newly mandated financial disclosure requirements for government officials and to detect and resolve conflicts of interest. To assure its independence from politics, office directors were appointed with the consent of the Senate to five-year terms, with the intention that they would bridge administrations. (Talks about Elon Musk concerns)... Days later, Mr. Trump fired the director of the Office of Government Ethics, David Huitema, who was just months into his term. No reason was given, nor does the law require one. He has been replaced by a succession of three part-time acting directors, all White House political appointees with other major administration jobs. When asked what safeguards were in place to handle conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts, a White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said the news “media’s continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible” and that “the president is and always has been motivated solely by what is best for the American people.” Meanwhile, the intermingling of Mr. Trump’s businesses and his presidency has accelerated. Last year, he helped start a family crypto business, World Liberty Financial, with the family of his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. Once in office, his administration loosened crypto regulations and pulled back on investigations involving crypto businesses. (Goes on to give examples of CZ Zhao being pardoned only to turn around and help the same crypto business, and the timing of the family memecoin shortly before the election)
Even the right-wing AEI says:
Trump’s challenges to the Watergate reforms are broader, however, than those of previous presidents—he seeks to undo the Watergate framework entirely. Trump removed all IGs at a stroke. He ordered a spending freeze to examine unconstitutional or wasteful appropriations, and he is challenging the Impoundment Act in court. He has reduced agencies, such as USAID and the Education Department, to their bare minimum functions—effectively shuttering them as engines of social change. He is cutting the bureaucracy through buyouts, firings, and transfers. Civil servants who disagree are resigning.
Now the AEI takes the interesting position that destroying Watergate is good, actually, because it devolves responsibility back to Congress "as the Constitution demands", but this seems pretty naive to me. But it's notable that even Trump supporters appear to acknowledge outright that it's happening.
Possibly would have been worth a top-level with some more effort, because I think this is important context to the trend of "zero accountability".
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
This is an extremely dangerous opinion and I thank God few people think this way because otherwise we really wouldn't have a country.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
Oh no! Too much empathy! Too much due process! What horrific threats to the stability of the country! How pesky.
I suppose an excess of empathy can be a thing. At risk of getting too philosophical though, I'm pretty sure most schools of thought consider an excess of apathy (or worse, contempt) to be more dangerous in virtually every sense, yes? If we must err, let us do so on the side of empathy. And due process, for crying out loud.
Bad shoot? Maybe.
Yes! That's mostly what I'm asking for. My thesis was, if you recall:
I'm talking about the Trump administration's official response, and not just that it's inaccurate, but that people echoing it is callous and polarizing in the extreme
Let's not whitewash the administration's position to be something more reasonable. The official position is that Good was a domestic terrorist, that leftists are "being trained and told how to use their vehicles to impede law." The official position is that ICE officers are immune from everything. That's baseless and insane.
Even now, a few days later, the narrative is further doubled down on and even supplemented:
the individual and her partner had been stalking, harassing and impeding law enforcement.
I'm going to be on the lookout for more information, but based on a video released today or yesterday of the minutes leading up to the shooting (conveniently clipped with a fade to black right before the actual shooting), this is also false. There are no agents around the vehicle until very shortly before the confrontation.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
The complicated but true thing is that Good appears to be de-escalating, but her wife is obviously escalating. It's tempting to treat them as a single unit, but that's not really true. Shocker: they are different people. And anyways, good policing is telling Good, "if you continue to block the road you will be arrested" and then taking it from there. Bad policing is for example the other agent reaching his hand into her window to try and unlock the door from the inside as she's got the car in gear. Bad policing is boxing in a car from all sides including the front with bodies. Good policing is using the minimum necessary force for a situation, something the policies and law alike instruct to do. Bad policing is jumping directly to force on a whim, and lethal force on a split second.
But all of this is beside the point to some extent. You are implicitly (!) alleging that Good is correctly and objectively categorized in with dishonest protestors who would punch a man while screaming they are being attacked. There's insufficient evidence to claim this. And that's the point about how strong the biases have become that you see this shooting and go "well, she/they deserved it".
Do you believe that the officer should be charged, or punished in some alternate way? I'm not asking what you think the result should be. I'm asking whether you think he should even be investigated and considered for punishment.
I'd also like you to address the Trump and Noem comments. It's plainly obvious that they are deceitful, that's not even really up for debate. How serious a problem do you think the comments are and why?
How on earth is insisting we go through the process for Ross risking not having a country? Talk about hyperbole. And you really don't think the overall response was callous in the slightest?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
Although one thing to keep in mind is that the video (unless you're talking the 2019 one?) is not a body cam video, which might lead to some unhelpful priors. It was filmed from a cell phone in his left hand. So for example, the perspective is inherently off - you might think that the video is shot from the center of his body, but it's actually forward and to the left of his torso a distance that normally wouldn't be super meaningful but with this perspective actually skews things quite a bit. (Also, it appears to be icy, so the normal physics are slightly affected)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
Apologies for the length of the transcript muddying the points (chalk it up to my fear of destroying too much context), but I did put pretty specific disclaimers at the top and bottom about the topics I was most concerned about. I made exactly two main points and called them explicitly (I even said the words "primary point" and "second point"), so I'm confused why you seem to be so confused.
You seriously think the cop did nothing wrong? Nothing at all? None of the cops? For all liberals have made a big deal about power dynamics, they are real. To quote the relevant piece from the transcript, helpfully bolded for your reading pleasure: "there has to be a higher standard for the people in masks with guns that have been trained than the mom in the car".
Do you believe this, yes or no?
...the idea that this there can't be any ICE officer who went too far. There's not one fuckin guy who didn't follow the training that this guy can't suffer some consequences for killing a woman. That's the bare minimum
Do you believe this, yes or no?
The idea that there's just no accountability, you can't they can wear plain clothes or have a mask and they can kill people and then the vice president will say they have absolute immunity is not a reasonable path for for America.
Do you believe this is a reasonable thing for the VP to say?
And then, as I'm making my way down the thread, it's incredibly revealing that so far no one has engaged with this quote by Trump at all, which is a fucking insane thing to say:
"Are there any limits on your global powers?" He said, "Yeah, there's one thing, my own morality, my own mind."
That is a direct quote. That's not at all what the constitution or common sense say. He is literally saying that as far as he's concerned, there are ZERO checks on his global power. Of course this is somewhat distinct from domestic power, but do you see where I'm going with this? Trump and his administration are nakedly breaking rules over their knees and making it a game of pure unadulterated power dynamics, and that's a major threat to our democratic, and relatively stable, prosperous, peaceful, just way of life. Checks and balances and limiting power conflict to constrained arenas is a cornerstone of the game theory that underpins the country. Trump is messing with that. And this incident is perfect proof.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
13hr ago
Her panicking is not "deceit", nor is the point that she very well might not have seen or been aware of him (both of these directly contradict nearly everything we know about human attention and psychology), nor is the point that she wasn't fully "blocking" traffic (that we know of, this could well turn out to be wrong). We only see her wave cars by, we don't see her actually stop an ICE vehicle. And there's the point about the "third shot" which seems a valid point. Cars insofar as they are weapons, are inherently directional weapons. Unlike a sword or a gun or a person, cars only go forward and backward. So any threat is inherently focused on a small moment in time. Why? Contextually her intent does matter. If she's actually trying to kill officers, as the administration deceitfully suggested, then sure maybe a third shot is merited because otherwise she's going to turn around and come at them a second or third time. Such is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And it's correct and just to be horrified that that's the messaging they decided to go with.
But if he were to die, that'd be great, and totally justified
This seems like pure, unadulterated projection of a caricature of the modal anti-ICE protestor, and is a second thing that has upset me, specifically around here. Do you truly believe that this is what a large chunk of lefties think?
I myself probably would shy away from calling it outright "murder", but I wouldn't blink if someone used that word; I essentially posted that statement as my own so I'll own that I guess. However, the more salient point here from the OP: "the reflexive defense of it is grotesque". I realize this is a cerebral forum. But I think nearly everyone claiming to not be affected by the emotionally charged aspects of the case are lying to themselves on some level. It shapes what things we pay attention to, what things we say or do not say. And I think it's genuinely distressing and worrisome that tribalism even here has progressed to the point where the first instinct of some is to bad-mouth protestors and throw the blame entirely at their feet for brainwashing some poor lady as if the Trump administration's plan were not essentially, as one Mottizen put it, "cruelty is the point". I realize that's reading between the lines a little bit to say that they believe the unspoken "and thus we shouldn't even bother to ask if Ross should be punished", but some of the responses here above and below seem to demonstrate the point quite nicely.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
14hr ago
Not only is there is zero legal punishment for being an insufferable, society destroying cunt of a human, there is an incentive structure and tribal reward if you behave this way towards certain groups.
Honestly I agree. At least mostly - there's a reason legal standards are slightly different than moral standards. Part of what bothers me about the Good case particularly is that there's nothing stopping a delayed legal punishment. They have cell phone video, several officers' testimony, license plates, the wife even acknowledges they might talk again later, why not mail in a misdemeanor charge? Most protestors, traditionally, are willing to eat that, so it's some form of fair all around. I think felonies need to be treated with a little more care due to how they work and affect people, but protestors are regularly charged with felonies for assault during protests, are they not? Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that this idea that protestors are all getting away with horrible things feels like a false narrative.
What is seems quite true however is that the law enforcement apparatus appears incapable of self-regulation. Just like you said, zero-punishment paradigms are inherently dangerous, and I feel like ICE internally has no real brakes. They aren't regularly telling people to tone it down, demoting people who make mistakes, nope, it's all rah-rah us v. them.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
14hr ago
I attempted to bold a few key parts to ameliorate the length, but yeah it could have used another editing pass. I have a preference for transcripts because I feel they are more honest and fully contextualized. It's entirely possible that that's striking the wrong balance, however.
It's my understanding that absent actually aiding a specific crime, it's perfectly legal albeit obnoxious to whistle and make people aware of police/ICE presence (lookout for a robbery no but generally warning people about ICE or a speed trap is fine) and is not sabotaging an arrest. Although you may get arrested anyways despite it being plainly unlawful for ICE to do so (personally I think the incentive structure regarding illegal arrests is pretty damn flawed but that's an issue for another day). Blocking a street on the other hand, against a specific patrol, is obstruction, yes. Blocking a street more generically is nominally a traffic crime and therefore not ICE jurisdiction, though obviously the line between those two is pretty weak. Blocking a street as part of a larger group is a different kind of discussion that has to do with "authorized" vs "unauthorized" protests and generally you can't march on a street that normally has traffic unless you have a permit.
It is historically true that the American rationale for when revolution is justified vs unjustified is a little muddled, although the Declaration of Independence attempts a standard. I mean, we did have a civil war over more or less that same issue. However speaking on the Constitution more broadly, despite some flaws I find it hard to argue too hard against it seeing as it's still the oldest democracy in the world. Norway is the second oldest and only dates to 1814 and even then it and many others typically went through far more extreme changes over the years to the core structure than ours did. The American Constitution notably stands virtually unchanged in its core formulation (the most significant change, in the long view, being merely senators being popularly elected). The rest were details, or adding in new rights, and not a fundamental reshaping of the balance of power or the structure of the checks and balances! This is quite rare. IIRC Belgium has a better claim and even that is almost 50 years later (amusingly they did somewhat the opposite than we did about 15 years ago, changing their senate from direct election to an assortment of regional parliaments).
I suppose it's fair to think that the loose interpretation helped its longevity, but to me rather it's that the checks and balances were generally done well, that the amendment process usually worked all right, and thus it's still a success I attribute to strength of structure, not looseness of structure. And although history is not a great experimental proving ground, that longevity is pretty decent evidence that at least something has worked. A lot of Americans at least are often surprised at how many democracies have had to toss out or totally rejigger their constitutions much more recently than you'd naively expect.
More options
Context Copy link