That's exactly what they (the US) do. I don't believe the sole intent is to obfuscate the facts (there are different categories of prisoners, as you rightly say), but I do think that's a nice fringe benefit.

But you certainly count low, compared directly to other countries (excluding juveniles for example).

But yeah, that's all kinda beside the point. That being that you imprison an offensively high proportion of your population and an equally offensively high proportion of your minorities (way higher than an increased crime rate would justify, in both cases).

I agree with your assessment - too many prisoners for non-violent crimes. And I'd reiterate that while the rich and powerful (including the political class) profit from this. They'll continue to drum up (massively out of proportion) fear of crime, campaign on 'tough on crime' and line their pockets.

It's a broken system. You're the most advanced and wealthy nation in the history of the world and yet you lock up a greater proportion of your citizens than any nation in history. It's not right.

I'll respond to the rest in a separate post cos it's a separate issue.

 

Ok, this is just a general response about USA party politics in general.

We generally don't respond to this stuff because we (i.e. those of us outside of the US) can't really relate to it. Your politics doesn't really bear much resemblance to anything outside the US.

You've got two centre-right parties (in European terms) neither of which has a really solid historical ideological basis. Both are really (if indirectly, in the case of the Republicans) descended from the Democratic-Republican Party which did exist in a genuine ideological dichotomy with the Federalists. The fact that both of your parties (in what is a de facto two party system) descend from the same ideological base is quite telling. You essentially have two parties of Whigs.

The only real political difference between the two is that the Democrats are margianlly more socially liberal. In broad terms you couldn't really get an ant's bollock between them in terms of economic or foreign policy.

So they create issues to split the vote: Abortion, 'Big vs. Small Government', 'Family Values' and meaningless shit like that.

Abortion is a good example of the absolute fucking nonsense of US politics. It's probably the most superficially divisive of all US political issues with vehement sentiments on both sides and countless hours wasted talking, arguing, writing, debating and (as it all really amounts to) posturing over it.

The reason it's bollocks is that the vast majority of the general public agree on abortion: It's unfortunate, it should happen as little as possible and it should be legal and safe. The reason it's even more bollocks is that the (national) political parties agree on that, too. In terms  of national policy there's really fuck all difference between either party on this issue. 

So why is so much time spent on such a non-issue? Because the Republicans can keep the support of the Christian right (and the funding they bring) by talking about it and the Democrats can mobilise their left (and the funding and grass-roots support they bring) by talking about it. It's an issue that works beautifully for both of the parties, maintaining party unity but is absolutely meaningless in terms of actual politics, party politics. the majority of the electorate or national policy.

The fact that the Christian right and the Republican party are in bed togther is another example of the absolute nonsensicality of US politics. These two entities agree on absolutely nothing of substance. Abortion keeps them together but they don't even really agree on this - for the Christians it's an absolute moral issue whereas true political republicans simply consider it a state rather than federal issue. That's not political agreement, it's strategic alliance. Which would be fine except that it hugely distorts the issue and does immense harm to the democratic process.

And then there's the libertarians who do at least have something resembling a political philosophy and one which makes sense in the context of US political and cultural history. It's an utterly insane ideology in a United States where the political and economic discourse is already dictated too much by corporate self-interest, but at least it's cohesive. 

The US is, in a global context, an extremely politically unified country - that is to say that most people by far agree on most things, especially the big things (i.e. economics and foreign and (in broad terms) domestic policy). The parties use wedge issues to create artificial and largely meaningless divisions in order to create this false sense of polarisation where really none exists.

The real defining difference between the two parties is (a little over-)simply:

• Republicans believe strongly in trickle-down (and the rest of their policy grows from this).
• Democrats believe slightly less in trickle-down (and ditto)

Everything else  - Big Govt. vs. Small Govt. for example - stems from this.

I honestly believe that most people in both parties genuinely want what's best for the country. And that they both genuinely want to help those worst off - that they want to make a fairer, more prosperous and more peaceful society. They simply disagree on how to best achieve that.

An ongoing national debate on that topic would be of enormous value to the electorate and would constitute a real exploration of actual political issues - the other issues would be placed before the electorate in a meaningful context - and the public would be able to make sense of them, make meaningful, informed political decisions on all the issues.

But it won't happen because it's hard and complicated and it's not what the entities that fund political campaigns want politicians to talk about. 






 
 

The point of that is to say: from my point of view US politics bears no resemblance to what is called politics anywhere else in the world.

Seeing it from the outside it's like looking at lunatics wrestling in their own shit as a crowd of shit-splattered lunatics cheer on. And I'd rather just not get involved nor waste much thought on it.

Notwithstanding your previous post, presumably.

I don't think there's need to drag Ant's bollocks into this, old boy.

I was just about to cross the line into too much thought, there.

Oh there's always a need for Ant's bollocks, old bean.

There isn't much I will diagree with in your post. It is well thought out and nearly [if not] entirely on point.

I want to caution you on one point in fact however which makes a difference when we talk about idealogies and where they came from and why:

The real reason, aside from anything anyone will ever tell you (but I suspect you may already know), is that the United States was not formed just to promote religious freedom and get representation. Sure, we didn't want to pay taxes to mean old King George. We abhorred the taxes imposed by Parliament. But more importantly, the spectre of continued English, King -rule threatenened the interests of moneyed, propertied whites. The fact that freedoms became part of the reasoning was a bit of subterfuge really on the part of our Statesmen; they had to make it attractive to the everyman in order to get them to do the fighting for them. You didn't see Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry painted in battlefield artworks brandishing muskets, they were newsmen and landowners, respectively and they got common people to fight for them.

Interestingly enough, one of the first things politicised was divorce, not typically legal at the time. Any woman who considered herself a Patriot was granted a divorce from her Loyalist husband if so desired. Native Americans were not really sympathetic to the American rebels or British (fearing reprisals from either), but the Iroquois did join against the rebels hoping to halt American expansion into their lands. As time went on, various tribes sided with one or the other; unfortunately they were sort of in a no win scenario with either. When the Iroquios fled to Canada, they found after the war was over that the British had ceded land they didn't control to America. So the problems with NAs started early. Blacks also were politicised early on, the British trying to encourage slave revolts, but they had to be careful doing this lest their own slave trade be endangered or the social order be disrupted by revolts (West Indies) by their own slaves. Interesting times, and it was later easy to demonise Indians (as Columbus called them, but he was an idiot of the highest order).

So really, we started out as unified then broke apart so to speak. There are always some who think theyhave a better idea or a better way of doing things. So we had multiple parties; I think every possible political name combination has been used to describe groups and their political style of representation. Patriots, Whigs, Americans - whatever.

I am with you that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps years ago there was but now it is just about power and control. That is where the demonisation comes in. They have to demonise each other so they can get into power. Fortunately our system, albeit a very imperfect one, kepps the pendulum swinging, but it never stays in the middle lest the middle be also demonised. Libertarians don't have a chance of winning because the money machines (MIC) are well entrenched in conventional D vs. R politics.

Abortion should never be allowed to be a part of politics. It is a moral issue rather than either a legal or political one. The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed. Simple as that. Yes, oversimplification and the feminazis will bitch about it (ever notice they never much look like they'd ever need an abortion?) but in this day and age there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy in most cases, rape aside. Rape is often used as a crutch in support of abortion, but rape pregnancies are difficult to actually account for. I agree that abortion should be rare, although legal.

Your example of Republicans and Christians is actually an excellent example, but that is not to say there aren't Christian Democrats because there are. Being Methodist, I see both sides. One area where there seems to be a lot of disagreement is where alcohol is concerned. Methodism does not allow alcohol, either for communal wine or events such as Beef and Beer as a fundraiser with any other festivity. Interestingly, Catholics (despite the protestations of some Methodists and Other Protestants) are indeed Christians and let the alcohol flow freely for the aforementioned events - gambling as well! Why do the Methodists not allow drinking? Perhaps because John Wesley was a bit of a kook with an estranged wife and he felt it should be forbidden (although emphasis was given to "strong drink"). But Protestants and Catholics are Christian, and according to American law, both drink and gambling are legal. Abortion only adds to the confusion because of traditional church stances. Abortion is nothing more than a political football. Candidates have to be careful how they speak of it for fear alienating their base or in appealing to their opposition for support.
  Abortion, voter IDs, welfare, health care, immigration are all issues that all are largely agreed on but are turned into bargaining chips for political support.

Republicans: Pro-business and for people to make their own way rather than having government provide. Allow the marketplace, free enterprise and competition work to strike the balances.

Democrats: Pro-Union, have the government force businesses (taxes) to help take care of what people may not be able to do for themselves, the government will provide the rest. The government will oversee and regulate so that businesses cannot control the money. Claim to be for the "little guy"
  …[Message Truncated] View full message.

>> The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed

I'm sure the rest of your post is well thought out and reasoned but I'm afraid I stopped reading at that sentence.

I guess that makes me a feminazi, but surely the easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid men to keep their junk in the trunk.

This all day long.

When it comes to stupid men and women, it's a two-way street. A game of two halves.

Trouble is, because they're stupid nothing you can say will make the slightest difference.

That too. It is a too way street. But stupid men never do. Even smart men don't.

I figured you would know what I was talking about. The smart women already keep their legs closed, insist on precautions or take the steps themselves.

Actually here, it might be construed to mean they should engage in bum fun instead. Anyway, I thought you called it a boot over there...

What Kos said. I agree with (and enjoyed) the bulk of your post but that line about women is totally unacceptable.

Oh boy. I started to formulate a reply but what Truffy said is too true -  to paraphrase, nothing you say to stupid makes the slightest difference.

Try me.

Well, nothing like focusing on one aspect of something and only commenting on that.

Obviously, you didn't get it. The comment was not directed at all women, because all women are decidedly not stupid. But in this day and age, women who become pregnant against their wishes - with all the possible forms of contraception available - nearly everywhere, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy to occur. Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here.

Stupid: Ill-advised, foolish, shortsighted, unthinking. I think they all fit. The Apostle Paul used silly to describe certain women. Perhaps that would have been a better fit.

Silly: irresponsible, imprudent, immature. Yes, that is a better fit.

Terry: Say Karen, how's about a bit of boom-boom?

Karen: Not prudent at this juncture, Terry - you've got no protection.

Terry: Aw, c'mon luv! Just a bit o...

Karen: No!

She has to carry it, I'd say the woman's got a bigger stake in it than the cad who is likely love 'em and leave 'em. The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many.

Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, or just old.  :-{)

Literally commented on the entire post, you madman.

The problem is singling out the women. In fact you say later:

Ok I can't do proper quotes any more, so here's an old fashioned quote:

"The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many."

You kinda excuse the men. The tone is: Boys will be boys, so it's up to the women to take responsibility.

Regardless of who bears the brunt of the consequences, if someone gets pregnant then (in usual circumstances) two people are equally responsible.

"Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here."

I really don't believe that many do. I'm sure that some do, a tiny fraction, and you're right in that anyone behaving this way is 'too many'. But really it's entirely up to them, if they want to behave that way then that is their responsibility, that's the point of choice. While I believe that's wrong, I don't believe the state has any right to proscribe that behaviour (though I do think healthcare professionals should intervene).

I DO NOT excuse the men AT ALL. Don't try to put words in my mouth by telling me what my tone was. If you don't know or understand, please ask in the future because you don't know me well enough to know my mind.

The simple fact that some if not many men are in fact quite adept at walking away from responsibility and the women know it means that someone has to be the sensible one. For the sake of the woman who has to carry the child and be responsible for bringing the child up through the years (if the male refuses), she then has to put on the limits. The men won't and you know it. They will press for advantage at any opportunity. Surely you aren't young and naive enough not to know this. I have seen it time and again within my own extended family.

Ever heard this: How do you know it's mine?

My grandmother was given to say, "A stiff prick has no conscience". She knew that as a young girl in the 1930s and it is still true today. Yes, two people are responsible. But if the man walks away, the girl is left holding the bag. It isn't fair or right, but it is how it ends up all too often.

Fathers should teach their sons responsibility and restraint. I taught mine to be a gentleman, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. But at some point he has to make choices for himself. I can't be there forever.
 

In this case, what you believe is irrelevant. Although the data may be somewhat flawed because people tend not to be truthful in this situation, many women - 40% or more - report to not have been using any form of birth control when being counseled for abortion.

 

So if one is not using birth control and decides tohave an abortion, it would seem to follow that pregnancy is undesired. Who has the abortion: the woman. Why? Because her and the man... Where's the man? Well, he... Yeah, like a shit he just turned his back.

 

A stiff clit has no conscience either. I still think you're excusing the men and the 'stiff prick' thing is an example of that. Men are animals when they're aroused and can't be expected to think straight but women are what? Passive observers during sex and should be expected to think straight?

You keep re-iterating that it's generally the woman who bears the brunt of the consequences and, while of course I agree, that's irrelevant. Suggesting it ought be more the woman's responsibility inherently absolves the man.

  That is not the same as 'using abortion as birth control' which strongly implies habitual, planned behaviour. Things happen in the heat of the moment. Yes, it's stupid, but that's kinda the point. "Using abortion as birth control" implies forethought and in such situations there clearly was none (which is the problem).