There must be a pattern here, somewhere. I’m sure we can find it… oh, wait…
Great gif by Pew:
There must be a pattern here, somewhere. I’m sure we can find it… oh, wait…
Great gif by Pew:
It’s not sharing if it involves buying and selling, no matter what price level. It’s more unregulated trading, which is a trait more akin to what is generally called an underground economy (usually the type of only economic system available to the most disadvantaged in a population or country. In this case, it is about the most efficient use of limited resources. If I have a car that works in a deprived environment where people have trouble getting from place to place, except through walking for hours, then, it makes sense for me to use my care to transport people: I make a little money, and they get more efficient transportation.
The only difference is that the current trend often involves Silicon Valley companies providing apps (and making money) and offering the services not to the disadvantaged in a resource-deprived environment. And so, because the media (apps) come from a privileged corner of the economy, it’s automatically defined as hip and cool, and disruptive, and revolutionary. If you read French, you can check out this fawning review of Instacart in Le Monde.
But of course, the “sharing” economy is well in line with the current labor trends and despite PR work to present it as the ultimate sociability, unencumbered by regulations and laws and all that awful government stuff. Seriously, this is how proponents talk about it:
“So it was that Natalie Foster, the former Obama campaign organizer directing the San Francisco assemblage, enthused that the sharing economy was really one big exercise in community-building. Whenever we crash in a stranger’s guestroom or rent out their car, we aren’t taking advantage of a cheap, convenient service. We’re recreating the virtues of small-town America. “We are rejecting the idea that stuff makes us happier,” Foster said, “that ownership is better than access, that we should all live in isolation.”
The insistence that the sharing economy has tapped into a deep yearning for social interaction is both the most idealistic and least questioned assumption among its boosters. “People are both hungrier for human contact and more tolerant of easy-come-easy-go fluid relationships,” David Brooks wrote in a recent mash note to Airbnb. In a Wired story this spring, John Zimmer, the co-founder of the Uber competitor Lyft, invoked a stint on the Oglala Sioux reservation to summarize his feelings. “Their sense of community, of connection to each other and to their land, made me feel more happy and alive than I’ve ever felt,” he said. “We now have the opportunity to use technology to help us get there.””
Right, nice whitewashing there. Ignore the forced relocation, the starvation, the deprivation, and all that nasty, racially-based stuff and enjoy the exotic revisionism. But it boils down to a very tired trope: that government interference destroys human sociability. The fact that venture capitalist are flocking to the startups should be an indicator of same old same old.
Thankfully, Dean Baker tells it straight:
“The “sharing economy” – typified by companies like Airbnb or Uber, both of which now have market capitalizations in the billions – is the latest fashion craze among business writers. But in their exuberance over the next big thing, many boosters have overlooked the reality that this new business model is largely based on evading regulations and breaking the law.”
“Most cities and states both tax and regulate hotels, and the tourists who stay in hotels are usually an important source of tax revenue (since governments have long recognized that a modest hotel tax is not likely to discourage most visitors nor provoke the ire of constituents). But many of Airbnb’s customers are not paying the taxes required under the law.
Airbnb can also raise issues of safety for its customers and nuisance for hosts’ neighbors. Hotels are regularly inspected to ensure that they are not fire traps and that they don’t pose other risks for visitors. Airbnb hosts face no such inspections – and their neighbors in condo, co-ops or apartment buildings may think they have the right not to be living next door to a hotel (which is one reason that cities have zoning restrictions).
Insofar as Airbnb is allowing people to evade taxes and regulations, the company is not a net plus to the economy and society – it is simply facilitating a bunch of rip-offs.”
So, it’s more a parasitic economy.
And Dean Baker does not even get into the labor issues related to this, but Natasha Singer does, in the New York Times:
“In the promising parlance of the sharing economy, whose sites and apps connect people seeking services with sellers of those services, Ms. Guidry is a microentrepreneur. That is, an independent contractor who earns money by providing her skills, time or property to consumers in search of a lift, a room to sleep in, a dry-cleaning pickup, a chef, an organizer of closets.”
In other words, these companies create, and take advantage of, a fully precarized workforce, with no stable income, no benefits, no protections whatsoever, and no labor regulation.
“In a climate of continuing high unemployment, however, people like Ms. Guidry are less microentrepreneurs than microearners. They often work seven-day weeks, trying to assemble a living wage from a series of one-off gigs. They have little recourse when the services for which they are on call change their business models or pay rates. To reduce the risks, many workers toggle among multiple services.
“Having a diverse portfolio is the best protection,” says Sara Horowitz, the founder and executive director of Freelancers Union, an advocacy organization. “People are doing this in the midst of wage stagnation and income inequality, and they have to do these things to survive.””
And that is pretty much the bottom line of it: the economy stinks, stable jobs are hard to come by, insecurity is prevalent and people are desperate:
“A huge precondition for the sharing economy has been a depressed labor market, in which lots of people are trying to fill holes in their income by monetizing their stuff and their labor in creative ways. In many cases, people join the sharing economy because they’ve recently lost a full-time job and are piecing together income from several part-time gigs to replace it. In a few cases, it’s because the pricing structure of the sharing economy made their old jobs less profitable. (Like full-time taxi drivers who have switched to Lyft or Uber.) In almost every case, what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust.
Add to this the fact that 3.7 million Americans are long-term unemployed (meaning they haven’t had a job in the last six months), and the rise of the sharing economy makes total sense. When wages fall and full-time jobs are hard to get, workers seek out flexible part-time gigs to sustain themselves while they look for something better.”
But it does not work:
“As Sarah Kessler discovered in her Fast Company investigation, it’s hard to make it in the sharing economy. Many of the people renting out their labor and goods through these services will end up making a fraction of what they did at their full-time jobs, and having none of the benefits.”
So, there is no glorious march toward voluntary microentrepreneurship, or a great wave of communitarian and trust revival, simply people who are a lot more financially insecure than before (both on the buyer or seller side).
This is what it looks like from a worker’s perspective:
“To try to insulate herself from the uncertainty, Ms. Guidry makes herself available to drive most weekdays in the predawn darkness. At that time, she figures, ride seekers are likely to be business travelers headed to the airport, a profitable fare.
Around 4:30 a.m., Ms. Guidry ushered me upstairs to her home office, careful not to wake her family sleeping down the hall. She pulled up TaskRabbit on her laptop to check if any new offers had come in. She scrolled through Craigslist, where she occasionally picks up work as a private chef. Nothing doing.
She glanced at the sofa bed by her desk, musing aloud whether she could rent it out on Airbnb. “The thing is, I have kids,” she said, gesturing to a child-size desk on the other side of the room where her son Aden, who is 5, does his schoolwork. So much for the couch-rental idea.
Resigned, Ms. Guidry activated her Uber iPhone, a device that the company issues to its drivers. On her personal Samsung Galaxy phone, she activated the driver modes for her Lyft and Sidecar apps.
Moments later, the Uber phone pinged with a ride request. She accepted immediately. But, ever in risk-mitigation mode, she waited two minutes before leaving, lest the rider change his mind.
“There’s nothing worse than driving all the way over to some place and then having them cancel,” she explained, heading down to the driveway.
A little over an hour later, Ms. Guidry returned home, having completed an airport drop-off. She had made $28, not accounting for the cost of gas. She would do a second airport run, then come back to wake her family and make breakfast.”
Can you feel the entrepreneurial freedom? Rather, this is what the precarized look like. Time for everybody to brush up on Guy Standing’s The Precariat. He laid it all out years ago (I wrote about it then, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
One of the arguments proposed in favor of the “sharing” economy is that either sharing companies can offer services for cheap (but that’s the Walmart model, and that’s not very attractive), or because the current model is bad. Taxicabs are often offered as an example. However, this article shows that the deterioration of taxicab model started with privatization and risk shift:
“t has experienced similar upheaval before. “Forty years ago, drivers went from laborers to independent contractors,” Desai explained. In the seventies, corporations lowered costs by hiring contract labor and leasing medallioned cabs to drivers. As contractors, drivers lost basic labor protections, like health insurance and paid vacations. Ed Rogoff, a professor at Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business (and a former New York City cab driver), told me, “The independent-contractor taxi model is like sharecropping. Previously, cabbies and garage owners split proceeds fifty-fifty, with drivers keeping tips. The new system totally changed the structure of the industry by shifting all of the risk to the drivers.” The erosion of labor’s strength, Desai argues, explains the industry’s vulnerability to companies like Uber.”
But the bottom line is that these sharing companies behave like any other large corporations, attracting venture capital, and hiring political insiders, as I mentioned above. Profit, power, and political access are essential ingredients. But again, that is done on the back of labor. Take Uber, for instance:
“To keep spreading quickly, Uber needs to aggressively recruit new drivers, which could be difficult if price cuts also meant cuts to driver pay. Fiddling with prices has led to driver unrest, and the company’s assurances that drivers can make more than $90,000 per year in New York have been met with skepticism. On Twitter,Kalanick argued that lower prices meant drivers could make more, because increased demand would lead to more rides booked per hour.
The uncertainty that comes with attempting to regulate Uber out of existence can’t be too comforting to investors, though it also didn’t deter more than $1.2 billion in funding so far. Some of that money is going toward hiring high-powered lobbyiststo push back. But more powerful political leverage comes in the form of popularity. “The more they sort of popularize themselves, the stronger their argument becomes” against crackdowns, New York University Stern School of Business professor Arun Sundararajan told Businessweek.”
But is it yet another high-tech bubble? The labor trends are real and there is no reason to assume they will change anytime soon. This is bad time for labor, organized or not. On the other hand:
“Friday’s Uber valuation should mark a nadir in tech insanity: not only has the last sane person in the Valley left and switched out the lights, but someone probably paid him at least a billion dollars to do it.
Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists have collectively decided that a much-impersonated piece of taxi-despatch software – you might know it as Uber – is worth $18bn.
In reality, almost no-one will even blink at the number, because this sort of fantasy is created (and marketed) every day. So long as there are greater fools down the line – prepared to buy into the hype and load up on tech stocks – the train will carry on: founders cash in on the venture capitalists, who in turn get rich off the backs of our pension funds and 401ks, who load up on these stocks after buying into the West Coast hype.
Here’s how that theory works: sure, companies like Uber aren’t making much money now. But they’re growing fast and changing the world – so, after they have reach, suddenly it’ll be possibly to turn one’s investment into huge, world-changing profits.
But when you buy a tech stock at a huge multiple – and Uber’s revenues have been (generously) estimated at around $200m a year, which makes $18bn a borderline-insane 90x valuation – you’re making a bet that its profits down the line will be vastly larger than they are today. In fact, you’re betting that they will be almost unimaginably larger.
There is absolutely no reason to believe this is true.”
Why does it matter?
“It’s easy to think that this mad exuberance is victimless idiocy. It’s not. In any society, in any economy, there’s only so much investment cash to go around. The cash that’s getting thrown at overinflated companies in sunny California isn’t doing anything in the rest of the economy.”
Which gets us back to Dean Baker:
“If these services are still viable when operating on a level playing field they will be providing real value to the economy. As it stands, they are hugely rewarding a small number of people for finding a creative way to cheat the system.”
That is why they hire political lobbyists, so they don’t have to face a playing field, but to re-engineer a playing field that is vastly favorable to them.
Also, isn’t it amazing that every new innovation is always really good for the same people, and really bad (but good, because disruption!!) for the same people (labor)?
For a really, really good critical analysis of this with cartoons! Go read this.
Via the Pew Research Center, the name of the game is concentration:
It is interesting to note that the only two religions that have spread far wide beyond their place of origin are Christianity and Islam, and this was accomplished through political means, military expansion, colonialism, not because of any voluntary adoption.
I’ve been writing about the militarization of policing on this blog (The Power-Elite) since I started it in 2007, and have been teaching about it in Criminology and Punishment and Society since 2000. With the grotesque events unfolding in a place called Ferguson, Missouri, suddenly everyone seems to be cognizant of the disaster that comes when you give military equipment to domestic law enforcement with little or no training in how or when to deploy such force. It’s Keystone Cops meets the Battle for Baghdad, right here in your backyard.
In fact, you get classic footage like this SWAT video, posted by a Georgia police department to their website (but recently removed after national outrage).
The defense for jack boots, body armor and camo at McDonald’s is found in the following exchange:
Ever see St. Louis County cops in camouflage military fatigues on the street and wonder why they’re dressed like they’re going to Iraq instead of Creve Coeur?
That’s the county’s Tactical Operations Unit — the SWAT team — and Sergeant Matthew Pleviak tells Daily RFT that the camouflage is worn so the SWAT cops can “blend in with the environment.”
Blend in with the environment of Creve Coeur?
“If you go to any subdivison, there’s grass and trees and bushes,” Pleviak explains.
Snicker. From Walter Olson at the Cato Institute:
Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?
Plus, the Hamburgler is often present at McDonald’s, so there’s that.
Oddly (or maybe not, if you can put away your ideological blinders for one second and think rationally), the outrage over the heavy handed SWAT tactics on display in Ferguson have cut across party and ideological lines, one of the best articulations I’ve found comes from Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (Republican):
When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.
Again, “duh” for those of who have been studying this insanity for years now, but welcome to the debate, ideologues right, middle and left.
The one thing that’s missing in all the coverage, however, is historical context. Most of this militarization is chalked up to post-9/11 and the buildup of surveillance, technology, etc. following the advent of the War on Terrorism. But the militarization of policing has been going on since the Johnson administration and the creation of the LEAA (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) in 1968.
The LEAA funneled federal monies directly to local police departments to increase training, build up firepower and armor and, among other things, create SWAT teams in any department that wanted one. SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) was designed for urban hostage situations. Now, under Nixon’s increase of LEAA funding, even Chief Smith of the Podunk Police Department in rural nowhere can have a SWAT team (and does).
This continued throughout the 70′s (Ford, Carter), the drug wars of the 80′s (Reagan, Bush), then kicked into high gear following the end of the Cold War in the early 90′s. Once we stood down from the threat of nuclear war and Communism, all the surplus Defense Department equipment began to find its way to the streets and local police. The Clinton administration (via the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act; aka “The Biden Bill“), accelerated the flow of bayonets, grenade launchers, armored personnel carriers and military firepower to the streets of America.
Following 9/11, the Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security, which took over LEAA and turned on the spigot of funding for more military equipment (including mine-resistant trucks) in the newly launched War on Terror. The Obama administration has continued the flow, more targeted towards the War on Immigration (for more, see our featured sociologist of the semester Christian Parenti and his book “Lockdown America”).
And so we stand today a true garrison state, as originally envisioned by sociologist Harold Lasswell back in 1941: a state maintained by military firepower (Constitution, Posse Comitatus, and common sense be damned).
As Parenti notes in Lockdown, all of this spectacle put on by local law enforcement is not about the immediate threat of convicts, druggies, rioters or even terrorists. Spectacle is a way you control people through brute force and state terror, and these kinds of egregious uses of force have been on display in poor, minority neighborhoods for decades. What seems to have changed here is the Ferguson PD took this into middle class areas, and the immediate social media reaction was swift and intense.
The debate over militarization is, again, much welcomed by those of us who have been sounding the alarm for years now (and met with essentially deaf ears and eye rolls). Let’s hope we reach the point soon where our local police departments can stand down from militarization insanity and go back to the business of keeping the peace.
Cross posted from: The Power-Elite
I had the privilege of speaking on this panel at The University of Auckland about two weeks ago, which addressed the ongoing conflicts in the occupied Palestinian territories. We had a solid crowd of approximately 350 attendees. Two of the panellists were Palestinian speakers who offered vivid, moving accounts of daily life in Gaza and the West Bank under apartheid. It is a lengthy conversation, but parts of it, I believe, are worth a listen.
Appropriately enough, considering the latest news of police shooting yet another African American young man, Pew had a survey regarding the demographics of gun ownership a few weeks back and they reveal no big surprises.
First, regional map:
Except for the Northeast, the other three regions have a roughly the same percentages, with some advantage to the South.
More specific demographics:
The gender quasi-equality was a bit surprising considering the fact that American masculinity is so tied up with guns, and, for instance, they are much more likely to use guns to commit suicide compared to women, as noted by the CDC a while back:
So, ownership and use might lead to different data.
The breakdown by race is more interesting and dramatic, with whites almost twice as likely to have guns than other racial and ethnic categories. We can also see that, by age, older individuals are more likely to have guns than younger individuals.
Rural dwellers have the highest numbers (one can suspect that hunting is a factor). The presence of children on household does not seem to make a difference one way or the other. Republicans are more likely ot be gun owners (shocking, I know), followed by independent, and then, Democrats. And unsurprisingly, ideology follows party affiliation when it comes to gun ownership: conservatives are twice as likely than liberals to be gun owners, with moderates somewhere in the middle (where they always are).
So, in other words, the guns are mostly in rural households, populated by conservative, Republican, older, whites, probably the category of people who see themselves as most besieged in 21st century America.
As illustrated by Maru and Hana: social conflict happens when scarce resources are unequally distributed and power arrangements may be reconfigured…
Arizona had never tried the two-drug cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone before it injected an unknown dose into Joseph Wood’s veins Wednesday afternoon. Most executions by lethal injection take between 10 and 20 minutes once the drugs are injected, if performed properly. This experimental cocktail took almost two hours to end Wood’s life, so long that his lawyer had time to file an emergency stay of execution in federal court, claiming that Wood had been “coughing and snorting for over an hour” by then. “I counted about 660 times he gasped,” reported an Arizona Republic reporter who witnessed the execution. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said in a statement that Wood “died in a lawful manner and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer.”
And of course, Jan Brewer is perfectly qualified to make that judgment given A. she wasn’t there and B. her advanced medical training and background.
Defense attorneys have repeatedly begged the courts to compel corrections officials to at least reveal the source of the drugs that would end their clients’ lives. They have repeatedly been refused. This time, Wood and his lawyers tried a First Amendment challenge to execution-secrecy laws, arguing that the public has a right to know how their government puts their fellow citizens to death. This would also give the inmates the facts needed to pursue Eighth Amendment challenges.
But so far, lower courts have deferred to the states’ claimed need for secrecy. “The information already released by the state enables informed debate about the lawfulness and propriety of Arizona’s two-drug cocktail,” replied federal Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit. Wood appealed that decision to the Supreme Court; last night, the justices denied his petition without further comment or dissent. Less than 24 hours later, Wood died choking.
Predictably, the git tuff types are howling back with false equivalents and other straw men regarding what Wood did to end up there (as if we should be using a murderer’s actions as our baseline for determining morality and legal punishments), and insisting that the witnesses themselves were wrong (even if they weren’t there).
When states were able to use the single-drug protocol with pentobarbital, the executions went smoothly. The problem here has been caused by those who pressured the suppliers to stop supplying pentobarbital, and any response should be directed at reopening that supply line.
The anti-death-penalty crowd is already throwing around their favorite word, “botched.” Wrong. Joseph Wood died, as he should have, and he was sedated, not suffering extreme pain or, for that matter, any pain. That is not “botched.”
Again, a pro-death penalty blogger (who wasn’t there and has no medical background or training) isn’t qualified to make that statement. Although I do like the way he assertively identifies the killer “Joseph Wood” by name…ironically, the Arizona Department of Corrections didn’t even know his name when they killed him initially, referring to him as “Robert G. Jones” in a press release. Jones, Wood, Smith, whoever.
More fascinating is that it took so long to be carried out, Wood’s lawyers had time to make an appeal in the courts to stop it, even getting Justice Anthony Kennedy on the phone from the Supreme Court.
In a bizarre twist, Mr. Wood’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal to a Federal District Court to halt the procedure as Mr. Wood lay on the gurney, and they even called Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court.
“He is still alive,” the lawyers said in the district court appeal, filed just after 3 p.m. “This execution has violated Mr. Wood’s Eighth Amendment right to be executed in the absence of cruel and unusual punishment. We respectfully request that this court stop the execution and require that the Department of Corrections use the lifesaving provisions required in its protocol.”
Mr. Wood died before the district court responded, while Justice Kennedy turned down the request to halt the procedure by telephone while Mr. Wood was still alive, said Robin Konrad, a lawyer for Mr. Wood.
Which makes no sense. What, “let’s see if he dies first and then make the call to stop it?” I have a hard time believing one of our supreme court justices could be that dense.
Regardless, as I wrote the other day, the death penalty itself is circling the drain and will eventually be relegated to the ash heap of history where it resides in most other civilized worlds. But it won’t be before the junkies (er pro-death penalty states experimenting with illicit drugs) and their supporters torture to death scores more in the process.
Cross posted from: The Power Elite
Two big stories in the past week regarding the DP:
A federal appeals court has delayed the imminent execution of an Arizona man, saying he has a legal right to details about the lethal injection drugs to be used and about the qualifications of the execution team.
The ruling on Saturday, by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, contrasted sharply with recent decisions by other state and federal courts defending states’ rights to keep information about drug sources secret.
“This is the first time a circuit court has ruled that the plaintiff has a right to know the source of execution drugs,” said Jennifer Moreno, an expert on lethal injection law at the Death Penalty Clinic of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
The notion that where the junkies (er, states) are obtaining their drugs from are “state secrets” in need of protection from the public is ludicrous, as I’ve written for several years now. But it is interesting that this is the first appellate-level decision to recognize the insanity behind so-called secrecy laws.
On Saturday, the appeals panel ruled that Mr. Wood “has presented serious questions going to the merits of his claim,” according to the majority opinion, written by Judge Sidney R. Thomas.
Arizona’s secrecy, he wrote, “ignores the ongoing and intensifying debate over lethal injection in this country, and the importance of providing specific and detailed information about how safely and reliably the death penalty is administered.”
In a dissent, Judge Jay S. Bybee said the court had drastically expanded the “right of access” and had misused the First Amendment “as the latest tool in this court’s ongoing effort to bar the state from lawfully imposing the death penalty.”
For those of you with short memories, Judge Bybee is the same guy who advocated for torture in the infamous “Bybee Memos” (sometimes called “The Torture Memos”) during the Bush years. He has also been the subject of discussion regarding his impeachment and removal from the bench over the years.
Regardless, Judge Thomas’s opinion recognizes the ongoing debate over the efficacy of the death penalty in the 21st century, including the recent take down by a federal judge of California’s death penalty system.
“How has it gone on this long?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer for the State of Florida during oral arguments in March on a condemned inmate’s appeal. The legal issue in that case had to do with how states define intellectual disability, but Justice Scalia was troubled that Freddie Lee Hall had been on Florida’s death row for more than three decades.
In that same session, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the last 10 people executed by the state had spent an average of 24.9 years on death row.
“Do you think that that is consistent with the purposes of the death penalty,” Justice Kennedy asked the state’s lawyer, “and is it consistent with sound administration of the justice system?”
Last Wednesday, in an unrelated case, a federal judge in California answered that question with a resounding no. The state’s death-penalty system is “so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay,” wrote United States District Judge Cormac Carney, that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
In a remarkable ruling overturning the death sentence of Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced in 1995 for the murder of his girlfriend’s mother, Judge Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, pointed out that of the more than 900 people California has sentenced to death since 1978, 13 have been executed. More than 40 percent of the rest have been on death row for at least 19 years, and the backlog is growing.
Carney’s opinion is, of course, just one district judge’s opinion. It could easily be overturned at the appellate level or even by the Supreme Court, which itself has said that 20 years or more on death row does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Knight v. Florida, 1999).
And the get tough types are immediately pushing back against both decisions. Arizona’s response, for example, to the secrecy injunction:
But Arizona officials were not backing down. On Sunday, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration by a wider panel of judges and it appeared possible that the state would appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary.
And over at my favorite pro-death penalty blogger’s site:
The California Legislature has been derelict in its duty to pass the needed reforms, killing them in committee time after time. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and ultimately the Governor, have been derelict in their duty to carry out their responsibilities to execute judgments and implement a protocol that will allow them to do so. The California Supreme Court has been derelict in its duty to resolve state habeas petitions in a reasonable time by referring them to the superior court where they belong. The federal courts have been derelict in their duty to fully implement the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, evading it at every turn despite numerous reversals by the Supreme Court.
In other words, blame everyone else for the failings of a system you advocate for but yourself and your ilk. Even funnier is their proposed “Miranda-like” solution to speeding up the appellate process and gettin’ folks dead (all the while, decrying Miranda as “lawless”). The, uh, “logic” of the pro-dp side never fails to amaze.
At the end of the day, neither of these decisions portends the end of the death penalty as we know it in the United States. But if California were to take the extraordinary step of getting rid of its apparatus of death, the trend towards abolition would undoubtedly accelerate. And under Trop, the death penalty may indeed fall at the SCOTUS level, even given the current makeup of the court.
Cross Posted from: The Power Elite
The revolution won’t happen because the revolutionary leader does not appreciate being tricked into becoming a revolutionary leader. So, once he has the choice between taking control of the system (the engine), rather than reorganize the whole social structure (the train) in a more fair manner, or blowing up the whole train, kill a big chunk of humanity’s last survivors, and maybe doom the rest to freeze to death, he picks the latter, of course.
The premise of the movies is not all that different from other dystopian, post-apocalyptic films: ecological disaster (here, global warming and a cure for it that turns out to be just as bad as it), mass death humanity. The few survivors live on a train whose engine technology allows it to run forever on a worldwide track (one circuit = one year). The train is highly stratified and functional: each car corresponds to one layer of stratification or one specific function, with the tail being the “urban”, overcrowded ghetto and the front of the train the luxury areas, with the engine at the very head.
The social structure very much resembles the setting of In Time or Panem, with the more peripheral areas being the poorest of having the least prestigious functions (making the protein blocks that feel the tail cars — if you thought Soylent Green was bad… — where cannibalism was practiced before), prison, military (with enforcement of the segregation system). The semi-peripheral areas are higher in prestige and living conditions (hydroponics, schools, meat lockers, aquarium), inhabited by what looks like the middle class. And the core area get the luxury accommodations where the wealthiest denizens live in leisure and indolence, and depravity.
The engine is populated by one person, Wilford, the corporate leader who built the train and its track system, who lives alone and whose job it is to keep the entire system working in a sustainable fashion, which includes manufacturing rebellions from the tail that will allow for some culling of the population, and keep the tail in line with the right balance of fear. It’s like the old AGIL system in action.
This is also an totalitarian system marked by repression and deprivation (even though it’s not clear what the tail people contribute to the entire system, except for children, which they have in large numbers). The inequalities are extreme and the tension is always high in the tail.
The premise and the context are actually interesting (if not entirely original) but the main characters are so completely absurd that they ruined the movie, in my not-so-humble opinion, especially Curtis Everett, the rebellion leader played by Chris Evans. As I noted above, what drives his ultimate decision is not the improvement of the well-being of the tail people or more drastic changes in the system, but rather his ego. He is ticked off at the realization that he was manipulated from the get-go into getting the latest rebellion started. Moreover, Curtis is supposed to be a reluctant leader, rejecting the label over and over, even though he gives the orders and decides on everything the rebels do.
So, when offered the opportunity to control the engine, he prefers to blow up the entire train, based on the shaky view of an imprisoned security specialist who thinks the temperatures are rising (even though a punishment for the criminal elements in the tail cars is to have a limb exposed to the cold for a few minutes, and then amputate the frozen limb). Even if that were true, a warming would probably take decade, most of the earth’s population is dead, no infrastructure works anymore, and no one has grown food is 18 years, so the whole “let’s leave the train and go live outside” makes no sense whatsoever.
So, again, I liked the premise, but the plot, oy.
Source. (and yes, it’s wealth, not income)
By now, most of us have heard of the Australian woman’s racist rant on a commuter train. If you haven’t, here it is, in all its glory (warning: racist profanity):
This is reminiscent of another commuter train rant, in the UK, a few years ago:
Both cases seem a good illustration of the frustration-aggression hypothesis of members of the dominant group who think they are not receiving the privilege and deference that they think they deserve and associate that with the macro “decline” of their country. For them, what micro-offence they have just received (such as kids refusing to give up their seats or being pushed a bit… a common occurrence on a crowded commuter train) is reinterpreted as a macro-offence against the country.
In the British video, mostly, we see women arguing. On the other hand, the man filming the ranting woman is apparently accompanied by a non-white girlfriend, which also triggers a sexist rant: only emasculated white men would get g—s as girlfriends. The underlying assumption being that “real” white men would get white girlfriends, hence establishing a sex/race hierarchy where the presence of the non-white girlfriend reveals the lower status of the man.
The different aspect to this is that now, the filming of these kinds of rants works as a shaming device that not only might bring the ranters legal troubles, but at the very least, they get vilified and stigmatized all over the Internet. So, as much as the ranters might want to use their rant as an assertion of privilege and power that they might expect to silence minorities, get some support from the white crowd, and generally reassert their status in the interaction, they actually get the opposite. The filming involves stigmatization, and an element of degradation ceremony.
I am currently (re)writing our online course on marriage and family (a topic I generally stay away from but them’s the breaks). However, as usual, I decided to integrate a module on data exploration. I stumbled upon this Pew research report on global aging that contained a lot of information and data, so I thought I’d just share some of what I found interesting.
First of all, I find this interactive visual very useful as an introduction the state of the world population by age groups, from 1950 to 2050:
You can either examine data for the US (numbers and percentages) or the world. Focusing on percentages, for the global population, you can clearly see which age group is projected to grow or shrink. So, for instance, the 15 to 64 population is stays pretty much stable from 1950 to 2050 (from roughly 61 to 63%). The under 15 category peaks in 1965 (with 38%, the end of the baby boom) but projected at just over 21% by 2050. However, for the 65 and older age group, the shift is from about 5% in 1950, to 15% projected for 2050. These increases and decreases are clearly visible just by eye-balling the graphic. Switching to the Us, that shift to a “geezerification” of the population is even clearer. as it is for most wealthy countries.
The global overview is nice but only as a starting point. There is some need for some fine-tuning by country and since my main topic here is aging, let’s look at that, for selected countries
Let’s do that below the fold: