Amerika, zemlja velika

[Shan Jan]

 

 

POLICAJAC UBIO GLUVONEMOG VOZAČA Čovek je koristio znakovni jezik, a onda se začuo pucanj

spiegel.de / metro.co.uk / M.A. | 23. 08. 2016 - 20:07h

| Komentara: 41

 

Pripadnik saobraćajne policije u SAD upucao je gluvonemog vozača Danijela Kevina Harisa, koji nije reagovao na zahtev da zaustavi vozilo. Kako je saopštila saobraćajna policije Severne Karoline, u toku je istraga o smrti 29-godišnjeg muškarca, koji se u svakodnevnom životu sporazumevao isključivo znakovnim jezikom.

 

 

U saopštenju policije se navodi da je policajac hteo da zaustavi vozača zbog prebrze vožnje, ali da je on zaustavio vozilo tek posle nekoliko kilometara, ispred svoje kuće. Kako prenosi sajt “Metro”, pozivajući se na izjave očevidaca, Haris je izašao iz automobila i počeo da komunicira znacima s policajcem Džermejnom Sondersom, koji ga je sve vreme pratio. Sonders je pucao i Haris je izdahnuo na licu mesta. Okolnosti se još ispituju, a prema podacima TV-kanala ABC, žrtva je bio belac i otac trogodišnjeg deteta.

 

 

Lokalna televizija WSOC objavila je da vozač nije bio naoružan. Njegovi prijatelji su šokirani zbog nemilog događaja. “Nije čuo policijsku sirenu, ništa nije čuo”, rekao je komšija Mark Barindžer za ovaj kanal, ocenivši da je “apsolutno neprihvatljivo” što je policajac pucao.

Porodica ubijenog otvorila je račun kako bi prikupila dobrovoljne priloge za sahranu i saopštila da će višak novca biti poklonjen fondaciji koja obučava policajce za ophođenje prema gluvim ljudima.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Shan Jan

[iDemo]

Sve(t) se menja, samo kauboji/sherif ostaju isti kao sto su bili pre 150-200 godina

[Prospero]

American Democracy Betrayed

Elizabeth Drew

August 18, 2016 Issue

 

Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy

by David Daley

Liveright, 257 pp., $26.95

 

 

Political paralysis. Hyperpartisanship. Decline of political civility. Denial of voting rights to groups that support the opposition. Low voter turnout. There may be other valid grievances about what’s become of our democracy, but that’s a useful list to start with. To mention them raises the question of where to begin to resolve at least some of our political problems. I’m not alone in thinking that the single problem most worth attacking first, the solution to which could go a long way toward untangling our political morass, is the blatantly partisan manipulation of our system of decennial redistricting by the states.

Redistricting works in a circular fashion by which the states get caught up in an ongoing cycle of self-protecting exploitation of the advantages of incumbency. Thus a party wins control of the legislature of a state that then draws its state and congressional districts in a way that maintains that party in power. (Also winning the governorship helps a lot.) With that power the controlling state party can decide to try to limit the voting rights of groups that might disturb this convenient arrangement and elect a president of the other party.

...

One result is that the Republicans are overrepresented in Congress. They’ve pulled that off by working to dominate state governments and thereby get themselves in a position to draw most of the congressional districts, which gives them the power to perpetuate themselves in Congress. Thus—if they’re of a mind to—they can block whatever a Democratic president wants to do. As a result, we have a distorted contest for power between the two parties for control of the

executive and legislative branches.

...

The sorry story of how the House of Representatives became unrepresentative is clearly laid out in a new book, Ratf**cked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy. Despite the wise-guy title, David Daley, editor in chief of Salon and digital media fellow at the Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia, has written a sobering and convincing account of how the Republicans figured out the way to gain power in the state legislatures and, as a consequence, in the federal government through an unprecedented national effort of partisan redistricting.

 

By contrast the Democrats simply weren’t as interested in such dry and detailed stuff as state legislatures and redistricting. Besides, as a Democratic strategist told Daley, “The Republicans have always been better than Democrats at playing the long game.” Daley argues that the Democrats blew it after their triumphant election in 2008 of the nation’s first black president. The celebration went on too long. For the Republicans, Obama’s victory represented the threat of long-term Democratic dominance.

 

The thing to do, some Republican operatives concluded, was to focus on winning as many seats in state legislatures as possible in the 2010 midterm election and then press that advantage in the redistricting that would follow—picking up federal and state seats to offset Obama’s 2008 victory. The result was the Republican 2010 sweep of state governments as well as the House of Representatives—they picked up a stunning sixty-three House seats (taking control of the House) and six Senate seats (expanding their minority status), and also took control of twenty-nine of the fifty governorships and twenty-six state legislatures (to the Democrats’ fifteen).

 

At the time, national attention was on the congressional sweep, which resulted mainly from a major Republican assault on Obama and the recently passed Affordable Care Act and an effort (essentially guided from Washington) to form the Tea Party, an antigovernment “grassroots” movement. But arguably the more significant result of the 2010 election was that in the states the Republicans were in a position to redraw most of the congressional districts—and they did so with an unprecedentedly high-powered national project called REDMAP, or Redistricting Majority Project.

 

REDMAP was a new way to aim for successful partisan redistricting by concentrating first on winning the greatest majority possible in the congressional and state elections preceding the next Census and using the state majorities to redraw the districts. So successful was the Republican-dominated redistricting after 2010 that, in 2012, while the Democrats won 1.5 million more votes for Congress than the Republicans did, they gained only eight seats, hardly a change at all. Thus the Republicans, sheltered by the previous redistricting, held a thirty-three-vote advantage in the House despite the fact that they’d been decisively outvoted.

 

And then, in the next midterm election, in 2014, the Republicans parlayed dislike of Obama and their advantage from the redrawn districts into another wave of successes in gaining more congressional and state-level seats. The resulting situation was overwhelming Republican political power at the state level after 2014: they controlled thirty-two governorships, ten more than they had in 2009; they also controlled thirty-three of forty-nine state houses of representatives, and thirty-five of forty-nine state senates. (Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature.) Democrats held 816 fewer state legislative seats than they did before Obama was sworn in as president.

 

The Democrats to some extent brought this on themselves by not bestirring themselves to vote in the midterm elections. Only 36.6 percent of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot in 2014. The Democrats didn’t begin to organize themselves to offset the Republican advantage in drawing congressional lines until 2014, when they formed a super PAC, Advantage 2020, to do so; but they didn’t hold their first national meeting until December 2014. As far as control of the House is concerned, barring an overwhelming landslide this year the Democrats lost the decade.¹

^...

 

[ObiW]

Nesto slicno ovome (da su Demokrate porazene one godine kada se crtaju distrikti, sto su GOPeri iskoristili pa zato ima vise nego sto treba) je WTF napisao jos pre 2-3 godine. David Daley my dodje $26.95 

[bigvlada]

Kako mogu tako da prekrajaju administrativne granice?    Zar ne treba i stanovništvo da se pita želi li to?

[iDemo]

Kako mogu tako da prekrajaju administrativne granice?    Zar ne treba i stanovništvo da se pita želi li to?

U josh nekim #normalnijim zemljama se stvar odvija na isti nacin. Ko ima vecinu on prekraja... Ako je tesno onda se poteze "poslovnik"™ k'o u najbolja vremena kod Slobe... Mada, konj bi ga znao - mozda ima nekih drugih zemalja u kojima se i stanovnistvo pita. 

[Weenie Pooh]

Ipak, tamo su morali da izmisle naziv za tu rabotu.

 

Gerrymander (ˈdʒɛrɪˌmandə)
- Manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class.
- Achieve (a result) by gerrymandering.
"an attempt to gerrymander the election result"

 

Po ovom uvaženom gospodinu:

[hazard]

Kako mogu tako da prekrajaju administrativne granice?    Zar ne treba i stanovništvo da se pita želi li to?

 

To nisu administrativne granice - opstine, gradovi, okruzi itd. - to su izborne jedinice. Izborne jedinice ne moraju da prate administrativne granice. Teoretski gledano, to je OK, jer izborne jedinice treba skrojiti tako da imas otprilike jednak broj glasaca u svakoj izbornoj jedinici. Medjutim ovde se to zestoko zloupotrebljava, spajaju trecinu jednog grada i sedminu treceg sa petinom drugog izmedju, jer to garantuje pobedu ovoj ili onoj partiji, a analize rade na nivou ulice (gde su ciji glasaci). Posto su izborne jedinice deo izbornog zakona, to je skroz u nadleznosti skupstine. Administrativne granice i granice lokalne samouprave je zapravo malo teze menjati, obicno mora na neki nacin da se konsultuje lokalno stanovnistvo (mada i to ne nuzno, zavisno od zakonodavstva od drzave do drzave).

[ObiW]

To nisu administrativne granice - opstine, gradovi, okruzi itd. - to su izborne jedinice. Izborne jedinice ne moraju da prate administrativne granice. Teoretski gledano, to je OK, jer izborne jedinice treba skrojiti tako da imas otprilike jednak broj glasaca u svakoj izbornoj jedinici. Medjutim ovde se to zestoko zloupotrebljava, spajaju trecinu jednog grada i sedminu treceg sa petinom drugog izmedju, jer to garantuje pobedu ovoj ili onoj partij....

... ali to nije bila namera dzerimenderinga u pocetku.

 

U poceteku je ideja bila da ako recimo u 5 okruga koji su jedan do drugog imas u proseku po 20% crnaca u svakom, napravis 5 izbornih jedinica tako da u jednoj crnci budu vecini da bi mogli da izaberu "svog: kandidata.

 

To je i dalje dobra ideja, a da bi se "duh" dzerimenderinga sacuvao, treba crtanje granica dodeliti komisiji koja bi bila vanstranacko telo. I ta komisija treba da bude na saveznom nivou, sa jednim vanstranackim ekspertom za svaku drzavu.

 

Ako za 5 godina vidite da je neko ove dve recenice napisao na engleskom, razvezao tezu na 5 stranica i trazi $26.95 da vam posalje kopiju clanka, javite mi.  

[hazard]

... ali to nije bila namera dzerimenderinga u pocetku.

 

U poceteku je ideja bila da ako recimo u 5 okruga koji su jedan do drugog imas u proseku po 20% crnaca u svakom, napravis 5 izbornih jedinica tako da u jednoj crnci budu vecini da bi mogli da izaberu "svog: kandidata.

 

 

Kom ,,pocetku"? Kada je nastala rec gerrymandering na pocetku 19. veka, crnci uglavnom jos uvek nisu imalo pravo glasa, niti verujem da je tada iko mario za crnacke kandidate (ako ih je uopste i bilo).

 

Ne sporim da je u 20. veku radjen takav gerrymandering sa ,,plemenitim" namerama kakav navodis.

Naravno, postoje i nacini da se takve stvari ostvare i bez gerrymanderinga, ali to zahteva da se napusti 18.-vekovni FPTP sistem glasanja.

[Weenie Pooh]

Mnogo pitaš, jesi uplatio $26.95?

 

Naravno da plemenitih motiva nije bilo, i da su se crnački okruzi krojili zajedno iz istog razloga kao i svi ostali - zato što se računalo da njihovi glasovi idu više opciji A a manje opciji B. 

 

Ko god tvrdi drugačije i veruje u plemeniti altruistički system-gaming sigurno veruje i da Klintonovi osećaju suštinsku empatiju sa svojim crnim državljanima zato što Bil svira saksofon a Hilari nosi hot sauce u tašni.

[kobayashi maru]

http://ekonomskevesti.com/rusija/rusija-izvoz-u-ameriku-porstao-za-63/

 

Amerikanci ce da izoluju Rusiju do poslednjeg Evropljanina.

[Eraserhead]

http://ekonomskevesti.com/rusija/rusija-izvoz-u-ameriku-porstao-za-63/

 

Amerikanci ce da izoluju Rusiju do poslednjeg Evropljanina.

 

Nemoj previse da brines:

 

Gasprom: Izvoz gasa u Zapadnu Evropu porastao za 14,2%

[ObiW]

Kom ,,pocetku"? Kada je nastala rec gerrymandering na pocetku 19. veka, crnci uglavnom jos uvek nisu imalo pravo glasa, niti verujem da je tada iko mario za crnacke kandidate (ako ih je uopste i bilo).

 

Ne sporim da je u 20. veku radjen takav gerrymandering sa ,,plemenitim" namerama kakav navodis.

Naravno, postoje i nacini da se takve stvari ostvare i bez gerrymanderinga, ali to zahteva da se napusti 18.-vekovni FPTP sistem glasanja.

U ovom slucaju koji sam naveo bi postojao privid rasne diskriminacije ako bi kompaktno crnacki distrikt iseckao na nekoliko delova i pripojio distriktima gde zive belci, gde bi oni cinili veliku vecinu. Da ne bi bili optuzeni za rasnu diskriminaciju, a i da bi obezbedili legitimno izabranog predstavnika manjine, napravi se jedan kompatni crnacki distrikt. E sad sto taj jedan distrikt uvek glasa za jednu partiju a nikad za onu drugu, to je vec problem partije koju boli ona stvar za manjine (Republikanaca) a ne onih koji su crtali te granice (Demokrate). 

 

Ne moras da mi saljes $26.95, al kupi sladoled ovom sto dobacuje iz zadnjeg reda.

[hazard]

U ovom slucaju koji sam naveo bi postojao privid rasne diskriminacije ako bi kompaktno crnacki distrikt iseckao na nekoliko delova i pripojio distriktima gde zive belci, gde bi oni cinili veliku vecinu. Da ne bi bili optuzeni za rasnu diskriminaciju, a i da bi obezbedili legitimno izabranog predstavnika manjine, napravi se jedan kompatni crnacki distrikt. E sad sto taj jedan distrikt uvek glasa za jednu partiju a nikad za onu drugu, to je vec problem partije koju boli ona stvar za manjine (Republikanaca) a ne onih koji su crtali te granice (Demokrate). 

 

Ne moras da mi saljes $26.95, al kupi sladoled ovom sto dobacuje iz zadnjeg reda.

 

Sve je to OK, ali nema veze sa tezom da je gerrymandering nastao sa motivom pomaganja crnaca da izaberu ,,svog" poslanika. Gerrymandering je nastao mnogo pre nego sto crnci imali pravo glasa, sa identicnim motivima sa kojima se danas koristi. Samo sto su danas metode daleko napredovale.