We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

Michigan Politics: Republican Judges No Longer In Majority

13468961

Posts

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.
    You'd have more of a point if white Republicans weren't constantly being racist, and if every city taken over by Snyder's cronies didn't have a large black population, if not a plurality/majority. But we've experienced your apologetics before, so whatever.

    Ah, the moment where dissenting opinions become apologetics. Much like the many expected Robocop references, it was only a matter of time.

    Dissenting opinions are fine. It's when you expect us to prove something that you refuse to believe anyway that I become annoyed.

  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2013


    Of course I'm not from Michigan. And I understand perfectly if you want to stick with your perspective on this, it's certainly an opinion that is backed up by a lot of experience with the topic. I don't think it's an invalid position: merely, it's by no means a definitive one. There is no "A implies R" logic in your perspective. It's more: "A implies B, B implies C, therefore R". There is no factual link between your premises and your conclusion. You can, of course, say the same as mine, but I'm not really taking a stand on anything here. I just get annoyed at faulty logic being used to justify preconceived opinions, in general.

    I don't think you're going to find a lot of common ground in this discussion. There's several people trying to tell you that there is no smoking gun, because that kind of thing doesn't tend to exist for situations like these, and so summations have been made of tons of contextual evidence, and that's not sufficient for you. Which is fine, but now might be a good time to end this tangent, since we've reached in impasse. Your annoyance at what you perceive to be faulty logic is duly noted.

    Moreover, I'm not accusing Snyder of racism, I don't think Zagdrob (and I might be mistaken here (EDIT: His post from 7 minutes ago which I missed while I was typing this bears this out, good ) is either, and at least one other person (I'm sorry, can't remember) has posited what I'm about to repeat: What Snyder is doing is not necessarily racist, and Snyder himself may or may not be racist, but the underpinning conditions that allowed for this to happen are predicated on racially-based politics and racial demographics of the city.


    SummaryJudgment on
    Currently between signatures!
    zagdrobSeidkonaHarry Dresden
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Go ahead and find where I said I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    I'll wait.

    I find it funny you are trying to shift the conversation, while still quoting the entire conversation. It's directly above every one of our new posts.

    You said the "death of democracy" thing was bullshit. Someone replied "How is removing your elected government not someone taking away a part of your democracy?". You said "Well, it's totally legal.". Someone replied "So what, it's still wrong isn't it? Would you be ok if it happened to you or to your state by the feds?".

    Then you dissembled from then till now.

    But please, keep up the snark. It really disguises your attempt to dodge the issue you brought up well. Like, totally.

    You know, Shryke, sometimes you're all right and sometimes you're dumber than a bag of bricks.

    My main point hasn't changed. Appealing to some imagined right to pick your city government (that doesn't exist in this country) and then when the government interferes with that right calling it the end of democracy is incorrect. Maybe on a semantical level it is true, but the people of Detroit haven't been taken over by some evil dictator (except, of course, that Synder and the GOP are pretty evil).

    You may think that this is wrong, sure I do it, but until you change the laws you haven't lost anything you weren't already entitled to.

    I'm not changing or dissembling shit, I'm just not jumping on the Racism! Localism! Bandwagon and topical threads on this board cannot stand that.

    Apparently you're either with us or against us and that's damn foolish.

    So again, quote me saying I am fine with what Snyder is doing or stuff it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Of course I'm not from Michigan. And I understand perfectly if you want to stick with your perspective on this, it's certainly an opinion that is backed up by a lot of experience with the topic. I don't think it's an invalid position: merely, it's by no means a definitive one. There is no "A implies R" logic in your perspective. It's more: "A implies B, B implies C, therefore R". There is no factual link between your premises and your conclusion. You can, of course, say the same as mine, but I'm not really taking a stand on anything here. I just get annoyed at faulty logic being used to justify preconceived opinions, in general.

    And to clarify your last paragraph, you would be accusing a black, Democrat governor of racism, were he in this situation? I would probably argue against that too, were the case to arise. All in all, it just seems like a really shitty situation, and it only gets shittier when people attach dubious yet shitty motivations to people who are stuck between making Shitty Decision A or Shitty Decision B.

    Shit.


    Trimming up the quote tree a bit...hopefully no objections.

    Institutionalized racism is still racism. If the figurehead was black, everything else was equal? I hate using the term, but Uncle Tom's actions were unquestionably racially motivated.

    Here's a question for you...

    Would you agree that this EM law, as well as the decision to implement it in this particular case, are based on a multitude of motivations, both by Rick Snyder, his staff, and the legislators who drafted the law?

    Do you believe that none of those motivations - either by Snyder / his staff to implement the law in Detroit, or by the drafters who re-wrote and voted on the law Michigan voters rejected - were based on racial factors?

    One other thing...you might disagree. Part of doing the right thing, is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Basically, if it 'looks like a duck...quacks like a duck'...it's probably a duck. Thus, since we can never be definitely sure of every motivation in every case, if it looks like racism...acts like racism...we can call it racism.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular


    Of course I'm not from Michigan. And I understand perfectly if you want to stick with your perspective on this, it's certainly an opinion that is backed up by a lot of experience with the topic. I don't think it's an invalid position: merely, it's by no means a definitive one. There is no "A implies R" logic in your perspective. It's more: "A implies B, B implies C, therefore R". There is no factual link between your premises and your conclusion. You can, of course, say the same as mine, but I'm not really taking a stand on anything here. I just get annoyed at faulty logic being used to justify preconceived opinions, in general.

    I don't think you're going to find a lot of common ground in this discussion. There's several people trying to tell you that there is no smoking gun, because that kind of thing doesn't tend to exist for situations like these, and so summations have been made of tons of contextual evidence, and that's not sufficient for you. Which is fine, but now might be a good time to end this tangent, since we've reached in impasse. Your annoyance at what you perceive to be faulty logic is duly noted.

    Moreover, I'm not accusing Snyder of racism, I don't think Zagdrob (and I might be mistaken here (EDIT: His post from 7 minutes ago which I missed while I was typing this bears this out, good ) is either, and at least one other person (I'm sorry, can't remember) has posited what I'm about to repeat: What Snyder is doing is not necessarily racist, and Snyder himself may or may not be racist, but the underpinning conditions that allowed for this to happen are predicated on racially-based politics and racial demographics of the city.


    Meh, fair enough. If we can stop applying definitive statements to something supported by contextual evidence, I'm fine.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Go ahead and find where I said I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    I'll wait.

    I find it funny you are trying to shift the conversation, while still quoting the entire conversation. It's directly above every one of our new posts.

    You said the "death of democracy" thing was bullshit. Someone replied "How is removing your elected government not someone taking away a part of your democracy?". You said "Well, it's totally legal.". Someone replied "So what, it's still wrong isn't it? Would you be ok if it happened to you or to your state by the feds?".

    Then you dissembled from then till now.

    But please, keep up the snark. It really disguises your attempt to dodge the issue you brought up well. Like, totally.

    You know, Shryke, sometimes you're all right and sometimes you're dumber than a bag of bricks.

    My main point hasn't changed. Appealing to some imagined right to pick your city government (that doesn't exist in this country) and then when the government interferes with that right calling it the end of democracy is incorrect. Maybe on a semantical level it is true, but the people of Detroit haven't been taken over by some evil dictator (except, of course, that Synder and the GOP are pretty evil).

    You may think that this is wrong, sure I do it, but until you change the laws you haven't lost anything you weren't already entitled to.

    I'm not changing or dissembling shit, I'm just not jumping on the Racism! Localism! Bandwagon and topical threads on this board cannot stand that.

    Apparently you're either with us or against us and that's damn foolish.

    So again, quote me saying I am fine with what Snyder is doing or stuff it.

    Right, so we are back again to your "well, it's legal" argument, which is again ignoring the point of what was said.

    You keep retreating from the question of whether it's right to whether it's legal, despite no one asserting it's not legal. When asked how you would feel about a direct analogy with your own state government, you dissembled. Just because you want to ignore the moral argument doesn't mean it's not there.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    The only true solution for Detroit would be to forgive the debt, transfer the pension obligations to someone who could pay them (maybe even just print money to pay them and cross our fingers), and then place someone from outside the system in charge with no debt to worry about, only structural issues. Concern with debt leads to sale of city assets, which just makes things worse in the long term (like austerity)

    Snyder however is doing this to break the ability of the city to collect votes in 2014. Because he doesn't want black people to be able to vote against him or his other republican friends.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Two things I'll add to zagdrob's totally correct post about Detroit/Michigan history:

    1) Because we, like most of this stupid country, funded schools through property taxes, when the wealth left Detroit, it crippled the schools.
    2) With the downfall of the auto companies, most of your graduates from our excellent public universities started leaving immediately after college. I went to Michigan and exactly one of my fellow graduates I was friends with stayed in the state. Which is crippling both generally and to Detroit specifically.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Shryke you damn goose, if you learn to read without putting your head up your butt maybe you'd glean the answer to your (very tangential to the topic at fucking hand) question.

    BUT ALSO, THE MORAL ARGUMENT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT TO A COURT OF LAW.

    EB contended that this law would be struck down on a racial basis. This is incorrect.

    The only thing you have grounds toget this move overturned on is by bringing up the rejection of Snyder's changes to the emergency manager law on a ballot initiative, and then Snyder putting the law back into action through a budget trick.

    But I don't know that a court is going to care about that!

    This is literally all I've been arguing, which was turned into some dumbass morality play by reactionary geese like yourself and Angel Hedgie.

    Because how dare I not hop onthe crazy bandwagon that was getting pulled around in here.

    This law is dumb, if my town was taken over by Rick Scott I'd be pretty annoyed. But my only recourse would be to vote the assholes out in the next election, not whine to the courts about how bad it makes me feel.

    For fuck's sake, between this and the traffic cop tangent in the Obama thread it has been like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall on this board lately.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

    Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.

    Geth
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »

    Trimming up the quote tree a bit...hopefully no objections.

    Institutionalized racism is still racism. If the figurehead was black, everything else was equal? I hate using the term, but Uncle Tom's actions were unquestionably racially motivated.

    Here's a question for you...

    Would you agree that this EM law, as well as the decision to implement it in this particular case, are based on a multitude of motivations, both by Rick Snyder, his staff, and the legislators who drafted the law?

    Do you believe that none of those motivations - either by Snyder / his staff to implement the law in Detroit, or by the drafters who re-wrote and voted on the law Michigan voters rejected - were based on racial factors?

    I think it's entirely possible they were. I also think it's entirely possible they weren't. Mainly, I see this as a matter of necessity. Not this particular action, but action in general. Something obviously needs to be done. I see the EM law as a legitimate attempt at getting something done. You may not like it, and I may not particularly like it, but I do recognize that it is a recognized method at attempting to solve these sorts of crises.

    Essentially, it's extremely easy to justify EM without even touching any racial factors. Given the lack of evidence for racial motivation beyond White and Republican, I have to maintain that it's not logical to call racism on any of this.
    One other thing...you might disagree. Part of doing the right thing, is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Basically, if it 'looks like a duck...quacks like a duck'...it's probably a duck. Thus, since we can never be definitely sure of every motivation in every case, if it looks like racism...acts like racism...we can call it racism.

    Yeah, that's a matter of perspective. I think I went through this in the old sexism threads quite a bit. How the situation appears has a great deal to do with your mindset, and what angle you're approaching it from. As long as I see reasonable and logical motivations for said actions, I cannot in good faith assume impropriety. On the same note, those who are particularly involved in activism (or invested in activism) against such things would more naturally see the other possibilities.

    I really think it's just about what you're looking for, and that's based on personal history.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Shryke you damn goose, if you learn to read without putting your head up your butt maybe you'd glean the answer to your (very tangential to the topic at fucking hand) question.

    BUT ALSO, THE MORAL ARGUMENT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT TO A COURT OF LAW.

    EB contended that this law would be struck down on a racial basis. This is incorrect.

    The only thing you have grounds toget this move overturned on is by bringing up the rejection of Snyder's changes to the emergency manager law on a ballot initiative, and then Snyder putting the law back into action through a budget trick.

    But I don't know that a court is going to care about that!

    This is literally all I've been arguing, which was turned into some dumbass morality play by reactionary geese like yourself and Angel Hedgie.

    Because how dare I not hop onthe crazy bandwagon that was getting pulled around in here.

    This law is dumb, if my town was taken over by Rick Scott I'd be pretty annoyed. But my only recourse would be to vote the assholes out in the next election, not whine to the courts about how bad it makes me feel.

    For fuck's sake, between this and the traffic cop tangent in the Obama thread it has been like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall on this board lately.

    Except this wasn't about a court of law. Again, I suggest you reread the quote tree that is still a part of my last post. You yourself start the discussion not with an argument of the legality of the measure or it's chance of being overturned, but with an argumetn that it's not "taking away democracy". This is an argument with an explicit moral dimension.

    Specifically:
    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).
    is the quote that starts this, as a seperate point from your reply to EB about race and at no point is this argument about the legality of the action. Which is why AH didn't ask you anything about the legality of the action. But you keep ignoring that part and retreating back to "well, it's legal". An argument no one replying to you in that quote tree is arguing against.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

    Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.

    Only legally. Which is the point of the question. Would you be ok if the right to self-governance was at the federal level instead? Would you consider a change from the current situation to that to be a removal of your right to self-governance? Would the residents of Washington or Colorado consider it ok if the federal government decided, against the wishes of the state, that no, they aren't allowed to have legal weed? Would that be those state residents "loosing their democracy"?

    I think it's easily arguable that it would be.

    Although one can argue the other way and it all depends on how you want to define the various levels of government. But perhaps most importantly, in this hypothetical you would have the federal government directly contravening the established system for public input into public policy. Which is exactly what's happening here with Detroit. You have told the public they have X system to express their right to self-governance, and then going "Sorry, nope, we don't like what you chose, now it's Y".

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Entaru wrote: »
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    A bit of an aside...

    My wife's grandfather spent decades working in Detroit. He had a low opinion of black people's work ethic and thought they were lazy because - as he said - they could NEVER show up to work on time. His white crew members were always there, on time, ready to work...

    All his black crew lived in the city and had to rely on the notoriously unreliable Detroit bus system. Of course you are going to be unreliable if your transportation could be an hour late one day, not show up the next, and then not stop to pick you up the third day. All his white crew had their own cars...hard to get a car when you can't get a loan.

    That's the long-term result of redlining.

    Detroit's public transportation is garbage by design. I recall someone asking once (maybe on this forum?) why the people in Detroit just didn't ride a bike to their jobs outside of the city. Not realizing that the way the freeways / ramps / overpasses are laid out, there are places where you literally have to go five miles out of the way to get across the freeway. Can't ride a bike on the expressway...and that completely ignores how there are no sidewalks or bike lanes.

    But those are things even people who have spent their entire lives in the area don't realize. Things like low bridges / overpasses that a bus can't get under, preventing black / poor people from taking a bus to the affluent white areas. I guess that was widely used / especially bad in NYC, especially for highways leading to the beaches.

    shrykeSeidkona
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    I know it'd make some of the crazies out there in rural MI with their militias nuts, but it seems like the federal government should be stepping in here and saying "uh...you don't get to just toss out governments you don't like and do whatever the fuck you want" Isn't that precisely the sort of shit that we, you know, fought a revolution over?

    Is this something that is going to court at all? There's no way this could survive a constitutional test.

    America became a feudal barony in the fifties. The only people who rule are those who kill and shout and scream and refuse to relent.

    Here is the petition on whitehouse.gov, that you might officially move this shit up a few notches on Obama's Priorimeter.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Go ahead and find where I said I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    I'll wait.
    ...I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    /Fox news

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    How the fuck is this in any way constitutional?

    This isn't some third world country, we don't fucking dissolve our elected governments on whims because the higher ups don't like how it's going and do it how they want.

    I grew up just outside of Detroit, though I haven't lived there in well over a decade; but this shit still touches home because I have a lot of friends and some in-laws back there. I've been following the whole 'takeover' nonsense since it started and every step I've just been in complete disbelief.

    It just feels like something should be happening here, that is not. I know it'd make some of the crazies out there in rural MI with their militias nuts, but it seems like the federal government should be stepping in here and saying "uh...you don't get to just toss out governments you don't like and do whatever the fuck you want" Isn't that precisely the sort of shit that we, you know, fought a revolution over?

    Is this something that is going to court at all? There's no way this could survive a constitutional test.

    Ahh but see here's the trick. When they passed the NEW NEW law during a lame duck session they added in an appropriation for the emergency manager salaries. Funny thing about that is that it made it a spending bill and spending bills are legally shielded from referendum under Michigan law.

    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I said it then and I'll say it now - Michigan's Democrats should have left the state during that lame duck session to prevent quorum.

    Right to work, this EM law that was just voted down, and a half dozen other bullshit things I can't even think of at the moment.

    Man, some days I hate my state so much. At least, at the rate it's going, in a few years it'll just be me and enlightenedbum left.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Well, if they manage to drive all the poor people out by cutting services, and then do forced gentrification, a lot of people could become rich, and the city could actually turn around, but it won't help most of the people that actually live there now. . .

    Congratulations Detroit, you've finally become Robocop.

    Edith Upwards on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Entaru wrote: »
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    I don't understand this. Detroit has had Democrat policies in place for the last 50 years and improving public transit is always on the Democrats' To Do lists. How can auto companies scuttle public transit's plans?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

    Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.

    Only legally. Which is the point of the question. Would you be ok if the right to self-governance was at the federal level instead? Would you consider a change from the current situation to that to be a removal of your right to self-governance? Would the residents of Washington or Colorado consider it ok if the federal government decided, against the wishes of the state, that no, they aren't allowed to have legal weed? Would that be those state residents "loosing their democracy"?

    I think it's easily arguable that it would be.
    Yes of course it would, because those state residents would be losing right they currently explicitly have. It's in the federal constitution. The right to local government is not in the federal constitution, and so if it isn't in the state constitution it's not a right that is being lost.

    The analogy to state-> federal doesn't work because states have the right to self-governance. Of course a change from that would be losing that right! Regardless of whether or not it is ok, the rights you have under the law are really the only ones relevant to this discussion. Because the law is decided by democracy, it was democratically decided that local government isn't a right so it's nonsensical to say you're losing a right to democracy that you didn't have. You're simply not losing any democracy that you have a right to.

    And Detroit isn't going to fall under undemocratic rule now, it's just that the democratic rule is at the state-level rather than local.

    The only other way to argue the claim that this is losing democracy is the rather trivial observation that your vote now has less direct say over things. Which isn't a moral argument itself! It's also a nonsensical argument in a representative democracy. You lose and gain that stuff all the time.



  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Entaru wrote: »
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    I don't understand this. Detroit has had Democrat policies in place for the last 50 years and improving public transit is always on the Democrats' To Do lists. How can auto companies scuttle public transit's plans?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Entaru wrote: »
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    I don't understand this. Detroit has had Democrat policies in place for the last 50 years and improving public transit is always on the Democrats' To Do lists. How can auto companies scuttle public transit's plans?

    It's pretty much pre-50 years ago. Prior to the 1950's Detroit had a rather robust light rail system that was removed. To speak too much to the reasons is a bit of a conspiracy theory as no one ever came out and said it was pressure from GM to convert the city to diesel buses.

    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Entaru wrote: »
    On top of that Detroit has some of the worst public transportation in a city of it's size because The State of Michigan let the car companies scuttle the public transportation plans at the time.

    You may think it doesn't add into the conversation but it does because it's another direct factor into the limiting of the economic growth of Detroit.

    I don't understand this. Detroit has had Democrat policies in place for the last 50 years and improving public transit is always on the Democrats' To Do lists. How can auto companies scuttle public transit's plans?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    Huh, this was in the sources.
    http://www.detroittransithistory.info/PCC/DetroitPCC-5.html
    Initially, Mexico City had offered Detroit $1,098,000 total, or $6,000 apiece, for each car. But while the DSR and the Common Council continued to argue over the abandonment of rail service, the Kansas City Public Service Co. influenced the bidding process by also offering its PCCs for sale to Mexico City. Consequently, Mexico City lowered its Detroit offer to only $699,000, or $4,000 for the first 150 cars and $3,000 for the remaining 33 cars, after a Kansas City lower offer forced the bidding down. l Even though the book value for the cars was around $22,000 each, DSR management felt that they were fortunate to even sell the cars at all, since PCC service had been declining greatly in recent years, and there was little interest for the cars coming from other U.S. cities ... Perhaps the most troublesome part of the agreement for Detroit, and most advantageous to Mexico City, proved to be the part of the contract which required the DSR to perform a complete and thorough restoration of each car. While each car underwent a 72–point inspection by a Mexico City inspector, some of the cars that failed the inspection would require more than just touch-up work. The end result of this intense inspection resulted in each car looking like a brand new car before it left Detroit.

    http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=priceiswrong

    emnmnme on
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

    Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.

    Only legally. Which is the point of the question. Would you be ok if the right to self-governance was at the federal level instead? Would you consider a change from the current situation to that to be a removal of your right to self-governance? Would the residents of Washington or Colorado consider it ok if the federal government decided, against the wishes of the state, that no, they aren't allowed to have legal weed? Would that be those state residents "loosing their democracy"?

    I think it's easily arguable that it would be.
    Yes of course it would, because those state residents would be losing right they currently explicitly have. It's in the federal constitution. The right to local government is not in the federal constitution, and so if it isn't in the state constitution it's not a right that is being lost.

    The analogy to state-> federal doesn't work because states have the right to self-governance. Of course a change from that would be losing that right! Regardless of whether or not it is ok, the rights you have under the law are really the only ones relevant to this discussion. Because the law is decided by democracy, it was democratically decided that local government isn't a right so it's nonsensical to say you're losing a right to democracy that you didn't have. You're simply not losing any democracy that you have a right to.

    And Detroit isn't going to fall under undemocratic rule now, it's just that the democratic rule is at the state-level rather than local.

    The only other way to argue the claim that this is losing democracy is the rather trivial observation that your vote now has less direct say over things. Which isn't a moral argument itself! It's also a nonsensical argument in a representative democracy. You lose and gain that stuff all the time.



    Maybe it would be democratic if the governor's office itself took over the running of Detroit but that is not what is happening. The City of Detroit will be handed to an appointed EM with broad powers. Let's look at those powers for a second:

    -Hire/fire local government employees
    -Renegotiate, terminate, modify labor contracts with state treasury approval
    -Sell, lease, or privatize local assets with state treasury approval
    -Revise contract obligations
    -Change local budgets without local legislative approval
    -Initiate municipal bankruptcy proceedings
    -Hire support staff

    So a person, not elected by anyone, can come in kill union contracts and sell anything not bolted down. Legally. I mean sure with state treasury approval but I'm pretty sure I don't see the treasurer saying no to much of anything the EM will do.

    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I said it then and I'll say it now - Michigan's Democrats should have left the state during that lame duck session to prevent quorum.

    Right to work, this EM law that was just voted down, and a half dozen other bullshit things I can't even think of at the moment.

    Man, some days I hate my state so much. At least, at the rate it's going, in a few years it'll just be me and enlightenedbum left.

    I'm hoping to get out. Ideally to idyllic Pacific Northwestern cities designed by a bunch of nerds, but I'll take gun crime ridden Chicago (plus side: BTN footprint! and pizza), frankly.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I said it then and I'll say it now - Michigan's Democrats should have left the state during that lame duck session to prevent quorum.

    Right to work, this EM law that was just voted down, and a half dozen other bullshit things I can't even think of at the moment.

    Man, some days I hate my state so much. At least, at the rate it's going, in a few years it'll just be me and enlightenedbum left.

    I'm hoping to get out. Ideally to idyllic Pacific Northwestern cities designed by a bunch of nerds, but I'll take gun crime ridden Chicago, frankly.

    I have a long plan to leave. I carry a strong "anywhere but here" motto at this point.

    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    I basically agree with you until the last paragraph. No one is denying that the city is where it's at, in great part, due to racial reasons. That's not a thing anyone is arguing. However, I do feel obligated to point out that you can't honestly claim that an attempted fix is, by virtue of how the problem began, part of that problem.

    If racism is part of the problem ignoring that might make it harder to fix.
    In addition, you have not proven that this would happening differently in a white-majority area. Like you said, there are no good options. The situation has deteriorated for a long time. There is no easy fix, and I sincerely doubt that anyone, at this point, is going to start extending loans gain.

    The fact this hasn't happened in a white-majority city, that I know of, should be reason enough to think racism could be a serious factor in how this whole situation started. That said, no-one's stopping you from researching a similar situation occurring in a white-majority American city. I look forward to hearing your results.
    From my perspective, the only reason you feel this move is racially motivated is because the guy doing it is White and Republican. Given available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here would evaluate the situation the same way were it a black governor doing this.

    Have you paid attention to the GOP the last few years? Being a racist is practically a requirement*.

    * not that all Republicans are racists, mind you
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.

    A white Republican that's racist? That's impossible!
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    I basically agree with you until the last paragraph. No one is denying that the city is where it's at, in great part, due to racial reasons. That's not a thing anyone is arguing. However, I do feel obligated to point out that you can't honestly claim that an attempted fix is, by virtue of how the problem began, part of that problem.

    In addition, you have not proven that this would happening differently in a white-majority area. Like you said, there are no good options. The situation has deteriorated for a long time. There is no easy fix, and I sincerely doubt that anyone, at this point, is going to start extending loans gain. From my perspective, the only reason you feel this move is racially motivated is because the guy doing it is White and Republican. Given available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here would evaluate the situation the same way were it a black governor doing this.

    You have not proven anyone here would evaluate the situation differently were it a black governor doing this. Given the available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing that this would be happening the same way in a white-majority area.

    The difference, and it's key - is that I have spent my lifetime in this area and following the politics and history of Detroit. I have no reason to believe that your perspective is worthy of any merit over the things I've seen firsthand and throughout my life. So present some evidence as to why I should consider your opinion - in this specific situation - is worthy of any special merit.

    I will say this - 100% and without a doubt - that if any other governor of Michigan had done the same things Snyder has, I would be saying the same things about them. I don't care if they are black, white, Granholm, etc.

    Are you even from Michigan?

    Of course I'm not from Michigan. And I understand perfectly if you want to stick with your perspective on this, it's certainly an opinion that is backed up by a lot of experience with the topic. I don't think it's an invalid position: merely, it's by no means a definitive one. There is no "A implies R" logic in your perspective. It's more: "A implies B, B implies C, therefore R". There is no factual link between your premises and your conclusion.

    Its zagdrob's opinion. You haven't done a good job by proving he's wrong. You're also over looking how absurdly racist the Republican party is. It is by no means an impossible feat to assume Snyder is a racist for being a white Republican.
    You can, of course, say the same as mine, but I'm not really taking a stand on anything here. I just get annoyed at faulty logic being used to justify preconceived opinions, in general.

    You are taking a stand. You think Snyder isn't doing this to hurt Detriot's black community for being a racist or that the situation isn't heavily affected by racism.
    And to clarify your last paragraph, you would be accusing a black, Democrat governor of racism, were he in this situation? I would probably argue against that too, were the case to arise. All in all, it just seems like a really shitty situation, and it only gets shittier when people attach dubious yet shitty motivations to people who are stuck between making Shitty Decision A or Shitty Decision B.

    Shit.

    I don't see why not. Democrats can be racists, as well. That said, it'd depend on the situation and the politician's history and personality.
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.
    You'd have more of a point if white Republicans weren't constantly being racist, and if every city taken over by Snyder's cronies didn't have a large black population, if not a plurality/majority. But we've experienced your apologetics before, so whatever.

    Ah, the moment where dissenting opinions become apologetics. Much like the many expected Robocop references, it was only a matter of time.

    Yet you'd rather be sarcastic then prove he's wrong.
    He isn't.
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Also, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion...but an important distinction.

    I am not insisting that Snyder is personally a racist. I doubt he stops in Howell on his way back to Ann Arbor and runs around in his white robes, and I would be surprised to find out he even uses racial slurs. I wouldn't be surprised if he was (personally) very racist or even just uncomfortable around black people, but he seems like someone who has enough control and tact to internalize it.

    That said, I still think that the EM law as it's being used in Detroit has racial motivations. Those aren't necessarily the only motivations, but there are certainly motivations that are predicated on personalized or institutional racism.

    I think anything done in Detroit right now is going to have some sort of racial element, simply due to how it is. Any new law passed is going to be built on the foundation of Detroit's history, so obviously there is that. I think we agree there. I just don't think that the law being based on a history of racial problems means the law is racially motivated, more than any other law that could be passed in this situation.

    Unless we're willing to just blanket any new law in Detroit this way, I don't see how we can logically pick this one and put a white hood on it.

    Is there any situation in politics you'd consider a Republican using their racism to hurt minorities?

    Harry Dresden on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I said it then and I'll say it now - Michigan's Democrats should have left the state during that lame duck session to prevent quorum.

    Right to work, this EM law that was just voted down, and a half dozen other bullshit things I can't even think of at the moment.

    Man, some days I hate my state so much. At least, at the rate it's going, in a few years it'll just be me and enlightenedbum left.

    I'm hoping to get out. Ideally to idyllic Pacific Northwestern cities designed by a bunch of nerds, but I'll take gun crime ridden Chicago (plus side: BTN footprint! and pizza), frankly.

    You know it's gotten bad when Bum is considering moving to a part of the country where there isn't an NHL franchise you can go watch in person without bringing your passport.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Shocking truth: never been to a live NHL game!

    Been to a ton of college hockey, and that I would miss.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Tell me if I got this right,
    Assholes attempted to create a legal justification for the dissolution of the democratically elected government of Detroit and the installment of a dictatorship appointed by the state's government. This law was soundly trounced by the collective voters of Michigan.

    Having been thwarted in their aims by the mechanisms of the state's constitutional democracy, they then decided to reframe the law as a budget measure, which, for some bizarre reason, put the law's repeal outside of the popular democracy afforded to Michigan's constituency by the state's constitution.

    And the people of Michigan have no recourse.

    Edith Upwards on
    zagdrobJaysonFour
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Not for another 20 months, by which time the damage to Detroit will be done.

    And the GOP will still control the state legislature, because they always control the state legislature.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    Not for another 20 months, by which time the damage to Detroit will be done.

    So they have no recourse save assassination. Got it.

  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Yep. essentially the only hope we have is getting rid of Snyder(legally without death) and hoping the new governor fixes it.

    That's it. That's all we got.

    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Well, theoretically, we could try to recall him, but it would take something like 800k signatures to get it on the ballot and then an expensive campaign before we have another one of those in 2014.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    And then Michigan's has to foot the bill for the first election? As much as I hate the guy I'm pretty sure that's a bad option this close to the next election.

    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    And presumably like our friends in Wisconsin a good number of people would vote no on the recall because they hate the recall.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Entaru wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

    I don't necessarily have any love for local governance, but I think it's silly to pretend like this isn't someone directly taking away the "democracy" (specifically, the right to self-governance) of the people in question.

    Well what are you calling the right to self-governance? Because you don't actually have the right to your own local government. The right to self-governance is at the state level.

    Only legally. Which is the point of the question. Would you be ok if the right to self-governance was at the federal level instead? Would you consider a change from the current situation to that to be a removal of your right to self-governance? Would the residents of Washington or Colorado consider it ok if the federal government decided, against the wishes of the state, that no, they aren't allowed to have legal weed? Would that be those state residents "loosing their democracy"?

    I think it's easily arguable that it would be.
    Yes of course it would, because those state residents would be losing right they currently explicitly have. It's in the federal constitution. The right to local government is not in the federal constitution, and so if it isn't in the state constitution it's not a right that is being lost.

    The analogy to state-> federal doesn't work because states have the right to self-governance. Of course a change from that would be losing that right! Regardless of whether or not it is ok, the rights you have under the law are really the only ones relevant to this discussion. Because the law is decided by democracy, it was democratically decided that local government isn't a right so it's nonsensical to say you're losing a right to democracy that you didn't have. You're simply not losing any democracy that you have a right to.

    And Detroit isn't going to fall under undemocratic rule now, it's just that the democratic rule is at the state-level rather than local.

    The only other way to argue the claim that this is losing democracy is the rather trivial observation that your vote now has less direct say over things. Which isn't a moral argument itself! It's also a nonsensical argument in a representative democracy. You lose and gain that stuff all the time.



    Maybe it would be democratic if the governor's office itself took over the running of Detroit but that is not what is happening. The City of Detroit will be handed to an appointed EM with broad powers. Let's look at those powers for a second:

    -Hire/fire local government employees
    -Renegotiate, terminate, modify labor contracts with state treasury approval
    -Sell, lease, or privatize local assets with state treasury approval
    -Revise contract obligations
    -Change local budgets without local legislative approval
    -Initiate municipal bankruptcy proceedings
    -Hire support staff

    So a person, not elected by anyone, can come in kill union contracts and sell anything not bolted down. Legally. I mean sure with state treasury approval but I'm pretty sure I don't see the treasurer saying no to much of anything the EM will do.

    I do wonder where @spacekungfuman with his love of defending contracts is right now. He had such righteous indignation when the UAW got shares in the new GM and Chrysler for having taken over the retiree healthcare obligations. After all the poor, poor bondholders contract rights might have been affected.

    Gnome-InterruptuszagdrobHachface
Sign In or Register to comment.