dayman

The entire point I'm talking about with my post that caused you to start getting into it is pointing to drug crime (non-violent crime) as an overwhelming portion of our ridiculous prison rates. You point out that even if we cut it in half it would still be high, agreed...but cutting it in half would be a damn good start. And it is known that violent crime is primarily intraracial. If ou are suggesting that our melting pot is partly to blame as well...that's fine but it doesn't discount any of the damningly obvious indictments against the war on drugs at least as I see it. If that is your intention then clarify. If that is not your intention and you are just saying "ya but we're diverse too so more people are going to go to jail" then that's fine but it doesn't really address the subject. And in any event you're not really very specific about the reasons you think a more heterogeneous population causes more crime ... I'm not saying I disagree I'm just saying it is a separate issue. I do think the more heterogeneous population causes us problems other countries face to a much lower extent...most directly in education...and then education has a direct impact of wealth which flows directly into crime. So if that's the link you are suggesting I'm not opposing you. But it doesn't remotely discount the analysis in that article which (to me anyway) lays out a fairly damning indictment of our drug policy and it's effect on our prison crisis.

Well I'm talking about international opposition. It's not surprise that with less international outrage we'll have less domestic outrage.

I'll get busted for this but a large part has to do with the level of communication he has with Western leaders and friendly Eastern leaders...his reputation for multi-lateral cooperation whenever possible ( nuclear issues...economic sanctions...etc)..and (here's where it gets controversial) his Nobel speech outlining his basic philosophy that while controversial was relatively well received by most western leaders and was relatively honest (getting up and speaking about the necessity of war at a noble peace presentation lol) He's been a successful diplomat in that sense.

LMFAO. Anyway we're decimating al-Qaeda. And I know it isn't a laughing matter but: “Initially, four people were killed, but when the militants reached the spot, another strike occurred that killed many more, raising the death toll to 16,” the source said. can't help but chuckle I mean I wouldn't flock to the scene of the crime if I were militant supporters...run al-Qaeda...run away. It's also a bit disturbing military successes like this cause people on the board to be snarky at the President. But it's not surprising.

LOL what? Make yourself more clear sir.

That presents problems for our country in a number of ways...but since most crime is intra-racial why bring it up as an issue that even comes close to what is suggested above?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2110514,00.html?iid=redirect-fareed_zakaria The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. That's not just many more than in most other developed countries but seven to 10 times as many. Japan has 63 per 100,000, Germany has 90, France has 96, South Korea has 97, and Britain--with a rate among the highest--has 153. We here in America make up 5% of the world's population but we make up 25% of the [world's] jailed prisoners. This wide gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world is relatively recent. In 1980 the U.S.'s prison population was about 150 per 100,000 adults. It has more than quadrupled since then. So something has happened in the past 30 years to push millions of Americans into prison. That something, of course, is the war on drugs. Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions. In 2009 alone, 1.66 million Americans were arrested on drug charges, more than were arrested on assault or larceny charges. And 4 of 5 of those arrests were simply for possession. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons vs. $5.7 billion on the UC system and state colleges. Since 1980, California has built one college campus and 21 prisons. A college student costs the state $8,667 per year; a prisoner costs it $45,006 a year.

No doubt that it is a problem and it will be our biggest threat if we don't do something to get deficits under control long term ... but if we don't improve our workforce through education then we'll never have a shot at the kind of long-term economic success that will make paying the debt off quite easy. If you ask a lot of those same kids in college about a job like that they'll roll their eyes then graduate and wait tables or work in sales w/ a base of 30K and incentives that max out at $45 (which they never reach)...benefits + 50K in a stable industry as a skilled worker sounds pretty good after the fact....not to mention no debt! In any event the growing trend is linking R&D right next to those jobs. If we can improve higher education there will be more of those skilled-labor jobs anyway...but we can't reform education without looking at where our money goes (and doesn't go) and then doing something about it (SS/Medicare/Military I'm looking at you). http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//PolicyBasic_WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-2-12.jpg (let's give that extra half-penny on our dollar to space program, let's grow the education/transportation portion of the pie and scale down defense and hopefully SS/Healthcare over time)

It seems fairly obvious in my opinion the general recipe for preserving American competitiveness involves a immediate investments (in terms of money and political capital) in education, tax reform, the formation (today) of a long-term fiscal balancing act that is sustainable as well as a long term energy policy that will sustain us (which includes transpiration development). All obvious points, but how to implement? These are the discussions that should dominate our news cycle (not abortion, gay marriage, race, political strategy, etc). To me though, nothing trumps the value we have to offer as people. Real education reform (being the hardest of all to actually accomplish) seems to be the primary issue that we must address now to preserve our future as the obvious truth is we can't look anywhere but in the mirror if we are honest with ourselves...STEM (science, tech, engineering, mathematics) are all of primary importance that goes w/ out saying. We must address the broken Congress (as of yesterday) if we stand any chance to remotely prioritize our true objectives. Take time now to consider your own behavior (as I have my own) in what little way it effects this systemic barrier to moving in the right direction and fight to demand better from our officials and move us in what seems to be the obvious direction we have to go. This paragraph is not meant to be a divide on political affiliation...anyone w/ a brain knows both sides are equal opportunity destroyers. (It is 2Am and I don't have to wake up until 11AM tomorrow so I'm kind of drunk now...I say that b/c most of the time I get preachy and feel a bit awkward about drunk posts the next day even if I don't at the time) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64XCksP_jJE

Well on the federal level that's true but here it seems criminal reform has real traction in NY

Please explain good sir. To me it the article is summed up right here: “This simple and fair change will help us redirect significant resources to the most serious criminals and crime problems,” Mr. Vance said. “And, frankly, it’s the right thing to do.” I will admit though I do agree here: Noting the 25-gram threshold for Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, he said, “That’s a lot of pot, my friend.”

Sorry if you already saw this stuff in my other thread and chose not to respond I'm not trying to push it more but I just think it's a bad idea to just have one thread where I post the stories that interest me...probably better to just keep the number I post down but give the ones that make the cut their own thread. Below is basically pasted from the other thread so that's why it may not make sense as an OP but it is what it is. This is the link to the interview that prompted this topic. The video is in the link watch it and skip the majority of my post below which is summary (summary in italics). http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/how-to-keep-america-competitive/ On another topic. There was an interesting study discussed at the end of GPS today done by Michael Porter (a Harvard management guy) and 71% of Harvard grads in high level decision-making positions now think American competitiveness is slipping badly. He defines competiveness in 2 ways: 1) American companies competing in international markets but 2) WHILE having an increase in American's standard of living. If our companies are competing internationally by cutting wages domestically, to Porter that is a sign that we actually are NOT competitive. Ultimately he sees the path to prosperity being measured by increased productivity that justifies a high wage. And in this aspect, he proposes that we've dropped the ball. The study/survey shows that not only will factories be shifted over seas continually but R&D as well (I've seen Clinton say multiple times in recent speaking engagements posted online that manufacturers increasingly want their R&D near their plants). R&D being shifted in addition to manufacturing is particularly troubling...not having workers here sucks but not having the innovation here? That is a new level of "oh ****" for us IMO. Some reasons the majority surveyed cited for moving abroad were: -number 1 reason was that our workers were not productive enough to justify higher wages; so moving over seas turned out to be a good deal on cost/benefit analysis -about 30% surveyed said they COULD NOT find the skills they needed in America His survey also asked what companies really wanted...the most common answer? Improve the quality of the domestic work force. Not taxes, not anything like that. That is particularly interesting. He went on to say that a budding trend recently has been a bit of a turn-around in some business starting to move toward investing in domestic workforce a bit more and in some sectors bringing business activity back to teh US...a sign of businesses recognizing the tangible economic benefit from investing in what he calls "the commons." ----------- Anyway...interesting last segment there and my damn DVR actually cut the last end of the interview off. But there was both exposure to hard truths and troubling facts in his survey but some hope buried in there as well. I think it goes without saying that if we really want to get ourselves going long-term, we are going to have to fix our education problems in this country and it is going to take some real leadership from (IMO) the Federal Government on this issue. I would like to think the States could start improving themselves (and I'm not suggesting they aren't still primarily responsible) but the kind of comprehensive reform we need to improve the productivity of our future work force is going to take some sort of stronger effort from Washington (despite the questionable success of past programs that came from the Hill). That's my take anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to vilify efforts of the federal government to become MORE involved in our education. Another random article I saw recently (can cannot seem to find searching now nor can I recall the exact details) had to do with an unbelievably low percentage of American teachers having been top 20% in their class when they were educated and it compared that to Japan where an unbelievably high percentage of their teachers were top 10% when they were in school (other Asian nations follow the same trend). It cited pay, private sector forces, and the status teachers have in society over there as contributing factors. It's obvious that we should all be disgusted by the way our public education system is performing worse and costing more and the teachers we DO HAVE are a part of the problem...but we should consider the TEACHERS we WANT TO HAVE when discussion things like the Wisconsin troubles IMO. We need to get our fiscal house in order but it will all be for nothing if we fall too far behind in worker productivity. ...a loosely related video concerning education (typical interview with Doc Neil who I love...)...all these things (space, education, etc) take heavy investment the way I see it there is no other way...smart investment but investment in ourselves nonetheless...and the "cross-pollination" effect makes it a great investment! It really should be our top priority for long term prosperity in this country and not just on theory to "stay ahead" but to combat a very real problem we have RIGHT NOW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JTTWSE4Qhx0

They finally put up the interview I was talking about in the post above here's a link if anyone wants to talk about it. Can't be bothered to figure out how to link the video directly but the video is there in the link. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/how-to-keep-america-competitive/

I'm not up on this thread and don't mean to be attacked or attack by posting this but I just think this picture is classic: http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=laura-conawayEB278780-024C-6550-DF76-0E03ADABC8FA.jpg&width=600

Haha I'm not really buddies with anyone here and I don't have the best grasp of who the liberals even are we're usually interested in different issues and rarely supporting each other in actual discussion. I do know MDP was open to my one topic encouraging people to watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS and I shamelessly admit I just love that show and think highly of Fareed (not to say I'm here to defend anything a youtube search can bring up on him) so I do remember potentially being a "buddy to him" in taht sense b/c he was willing to be swayed to give it a shot.

While I would NEVER sit here and say that they haven't made mistakes...I do believe that is the job. Killing them for tactical errors isn't something I'm for either, but criticizing them when things go wrong is something I can't discount based on the views I have about their job. I mean, I know the President is a lot of things...but first and foremost to me he is the Commander in Chief. And when I say that I don't mean to suggest he's a military general btw. But he's the civilian leader of our civilian controlled military and it's his responsibility.

Well to cut to the chase the bottom line with me personally is I'm just not interested in the case. So I don't mean to suggest that I roll my eyes only at the thread here...and also I make a lot of assumption about what is in the thread I don't click on it. Well I really don't but then again I'm only leaning left in the current political climate despite my reputation. I have literally never watched Sharpton and honestly (embarrassingly so but I'll admit it) don't know who you are referring to w/ "jj." Some think it's a cop-out of pretentious to self-identify as a "centrist" but over time I generally think that's the best description. I admit though I'm certainly "the left" relative to this board and probably clearly left-leaning in 2012. But that doesn't mean I'm Al's boy or a Bush hater in unfair ways or against having money or anything like that...

Well I said the coverage was out of control and I mean it. I do believe that so I don't really disagree there. That said the story certainly had light shed on it either way....

Well I'm generally sympathetic to issues some presidents dealt with including Carter and Bush (so we're actually similar there) but it isn't unfair to criticize the the man in charge when things go wrong and it's my personal view point as I said earlier that he should be (and in fact it is his job/responsibility to be) more hands at least when compared to more hands off...if you lean towards the more hands off approach I can see how that may reasonably change the analysis.

I don't mind the Obama comment it was a tragedy and he's sympathetic as a leader. I'm sure a number of people will disagree. As for the DOJ...investigations are investigations they aren't inherently bad and they happen a lot with matter of large public concern where injustice may or may not be present. The bottom line, as I see it...is that he should have been arrested and the case should go to trial as it has. Ultimately that's what happened and now whatever the verdict is we accept. I just don't see the issue as political but it is just my opinion. Now it does shed light to stand your ground and that is political if the people of Florida decide the law is ambiguous or otherwise not good policy...but that's a separate discussion. What happened or is happening in that thread is probably everything I despise about this case from both view points but once again I haven't read it. As a side not I'll just add that it is my personal opinion that he should have been arrested (not convicted) soon after and the media attention while out of control on both sides brought the issue to light...something the media is traditionally supposed to do.

lol you are a troll of epic proportions sir I tip my hat

It is too much to read and I'll take you at your word. As far as I known from general society the initial outrage was over the no arrest for so long and right or wrong that is at least credible IMO but as for the case itself it's in court now and that's that.

lol well IDK know anything about that or the Trayvon thread...to honest the law is the law and politicizing this issue is a distraction but that's just my opinion and I recognize both sides have credible arguments of why it's a big deal one way or the other etc...not surprising of all topics that would be one that would have craziness

LOL let us be real probably not. Thing is if you are a civil liberal engaging in civil discussion w/ a civil conservative you'll still be getting snipped at/cheap shots from other conservatives here bashing you and before long you'll be on the defensive against all including the one you originally were civil with.

So the answer is mostly yes even from staunch anti-Obama folk...except in the case of Tom who writes the POTUS a blank check and gives no credit but also no blame for any actions taken in good faith.