Some policy things lot of us would think are good?

[jimbogumbo]

Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out.  We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long.  We then invented others of our own...

As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.

So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.

The practice is over, but the effects go on and on for generations.

[mahagonny]

Well, speaking of values, the consensus is gone on obesity. Obesity is a big problem in the USA today. One statistic, something like 53% of Black women are obese. Not only is there a lot of it, people in the media, Hollywood, music business, et al are trying to make it beautiful. It's a disservice to our children to neglect to identify healthy living habits. How do you identify policies that are good for everyone when you don't even know what your values are?

[Wahoo Redux]

Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out.  We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long.  We then invented others of our own...

As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.

So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.

It's so funny the way people think.

1992 was not remarkably different from 2022 in regard to people's social attitudes.  If anything, we are far more empathetic and accepting of the differences between people now than we were back then with the racial turmoil of the 70s and the hedonism of the '80s still lingering in the air.  There is something about the 30 or 40 year golden past that makes people nostalgic, righteous, and just plain silly.  Sing: "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!"

And, of course, people see what they want to see in politics and social issues, like your buddy, McWhorter (who complains a lot).  If there is "regression" it is the rise of racism and xenophobia poorly disguised as patriotism.  That's just old school.

[marshwiggle]

Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out.  We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long.  We then invented others of our own...

As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.

So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.

It's so funny the way people think.

1992 was not remarkably different from 2022 in regard to people's social attitudes.  If anything, we are far more empathetic and accepting of the differences between people now than we were back then with the racial turmoil of the 70s and the hedonism of the '80s still lingering in the air.  There is something about the 30 or 40 year golden past that makes people nostalgic, righteous, and just plain silly.  Sing: "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!"

And, of course, people see what they want to see in politics and social issues, like your buddy, McWhorter (who complains a lot).  If there is "regression" it is the rise of racism and xenophobia poorly disguised as patriotism. That's just old school.

So do you honestly think more people are racist or xenophobic now than 30 years ago? If they're older than 30, did they become more racist, and if so why? If they're younger than that were they indoctrinated into it, and by who? Do racists have a higher birthrate than others? If not, how are there more?

[mahagonny]

I don't know whether xenophobia is on the rise, but I do know that it is more prevalent among those who identify as democrats. A greater percentage of democrats report that they would not be friends with or date a conservative than the portion of conservatives who say they would not date or be friends with a liberal.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't know whether xenophobia is on the rise, but I do know that it is more prevalent among those who identify as democrats. A greater percentage of democrats report that they would not be friends with or date a conservative than the portion of conservatives who say they would not date or be friends with a liberal.

Firstly, look up the definition of "xenophobia."

Secondly, the Repubs have gone insane.  Somehow they swept you along with them.

[apl68]

Here's a proposal.  How about legislation that would allow criminal charges against utility corporations that hike their rates massively when there is clearly no justification.  In a single month my land line bill went up by $16.  My cell bill went up by $10 in the same month.  I get only basic services with both--the landline doesn't even come with long distance--and in one fell swoop I'm suddenly being charged over $300 a year more for phone service!  They can't claim supply chain or fuel cost issues here, either.  It's nothing but raw corporate greed.  Dropping the landline is not really an option in my case, because I'm effectively required to be on call through that number whenever I'm at home.

[mamselle]

Does the library cover that bill already?

When I've worked jobs where I had to have phone service structures that I wouldn't have otherwise used, I turned in my phone costs with my expenses and was reimbursed (say, international calls I wouldn't have made, or service types I didn't use myself) 

For my most recent EA job, in fact, it was covered completely....they bought the phone and paid all the bills because I didn't use it for my own use much at all beyond my own, usual, occasional local family/friend calls (and the ED wanted me to have unlimited service, anyway, so there was no extra for that).

I realize those may be apples and oranges, in your situation, but maybe you could either ask the phone co. about usage, since you're working for a non-profit, or the library board to pick up the difference?

It shouldn't have to come out of your pocket, it seems to me (I realize that may also not be how they see it...).

I'd at least ask...as E. Roosevelt said, "Never be the instrument of your own oppression."

M.

[secundem_artem]

Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.

The end of the Electoral College.

Ranked choice voting.

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18. 

Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.

In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.

A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.

I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.  At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."

[mahagonny]

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18. 

Really? Interesting. I have declined to vote for either candidate when I didn't feel informed enough to make the responsible choice. I would just skip that one and vote on the others.

[dismalist]

Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.

The end of the Electoral College.

Ranked choice voting.

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18. 

Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.

In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.

A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.

I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.  At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."

Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.

You're gonna get a lot of parties. There's gold in them 'thar hills!

The end of the Electoral College.

The beginning of the tyranny of the majority.

Ranked choice voting.

Don't need it if we don't pay to have more parties.

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.

Don't know why voting should be mandatory. Voting over age 21 would be better, 40 until 60 would be best. :-)

Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.

Such people don't exist. Where I live, we have political hacks watching each other, hawk like. That's fine.

In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.

Nay, in the primaries we use Ranked Choice Voting. That'd take out the nut jobs.

A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.

Ah, coalition politics! The smallest party or parties will have the most influence.

I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.

Thank God! System is working. Don't fix it.

[waterboy]

Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)? 

[dismalist]

We have 28 Republican governors and 22 Democratic governors. Of State legislatures, 30 are Republican, 17 are Democratic, and 3 are split. No minority is running anything.

The US Senate has a slim Democratic majority and the US House of Representatives has a respectable Democratic majority. Sure, it's hard for the Democrats to do stuff with the filibuster, but a minority can't do stuff at all.

Thus, the President can't do everything he wants to. That's the way it was designed. No tyranny of the majority.

Maybe the US Supreme court? Which didn't ban abortion, but rather left it up to the States, in which majorities can decide, rather than force the same policy on every State.

[Anon1787]

Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?

As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.

[jimbogumbo]

Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?

As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.

Part of this perception is due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census