Ran a bit long today, sorry about that. More time, shorter letter, that whole thing. Useful info about thorium-based nuclear power. Spoiler: they discontinued it because it's too much of a pain to make. Plus the ingredients were actually so expensive that it was barely profitable.
"This is a question that defund activists need to answer. There are good opportunities for police reform, but can be nuanced."
This is interesting to me; are you under the impression defund activists don't have an answer for this? In much of my reading, the answer is quite clear; move funding from over-budgeted police departments buying surplus military toys (the great circle of government spending life) and funnel it to mental health services and other intervention/deescalation programs. The primary people who don't think this is the intent seem to be those operating in bad faith to discount the idea entirely.
Cori Bush is a defund activist, and her answer appears to be private security. Personally, I don't think private security as a solution is a good outcome. Spending more on social services, getting rid of police unions, these are reasonable and probably good ideas. But in a world of complete police abolition, private security for the wealthy is the primary outcome.
I'm not convinced our issues with police come from over funding. For just one example: the murder investigation clearance rate in the US is pretty bad, and fixing that requires policy changes, but it also requires paying detectives to like, solve crimes. Currently they're clearly quite bad at it, but firing them or paying them less isn't going to make them better.
Well this is interesting. Apparently police don't pay for the surplus equipment outside the shipping and maintenance costs; it works as an intergovernmental transfer. Now I'm curious to know that that figure might be.
Yeah, I don't agree with Cori Bush at all. Private security is not the answer.
"This is a question that defund activists need to answer. There are good opportunities for police reform, but can be nuanced."
This is interesting to me; are you under the impression defund activists don't have an answer for this? In much of my reading, the answer is quite clear; move funding from over-budgeted police departments buying surplus military toys (the great circle of government spending life) and funnel it to mental health services and other intervention/deescalation programs. The primary people who don't think this is the intent seem to be those operating in bad faith to discount the idea entirely.
Cori Bush is a defund activist, and her answer appears to be private security. Personally, I don't think private security as a solution is a good outcome. Spending more on social services, getting rid of police unions, these are reasonable and probably good ideas. But in a world of complete police abolition, private security for the wealthy is the primary outcome.
I'm not convinced our issues with police come from over funding. For just one example: the murder investigation clearance rate in the US is pretty bad, and fixing that requires policy changes, but it also requires paying detectives to like, solve crimes. Currently they're clearly quite bad at it, but firing them or paying them less isn't going to make them better.
Well this is interesting. Apparently police don't pay for the surplus equipment outside the shipping and maintenance costs; it works as an intergovernmental transfer. Now I'm curious to know that that figure might be.
Yeah, I don't agree with Cori Bush at all. Private security is not the answer.
As far as policy choices, giving out free military gear is clearly a poor choice.