Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Woke Marcelo? Didn't see that coming.

[Speaking at an event with foreign correspondents late on Tuesday, Rebelo de Sousa said Portugal "takes full responsibility" for the wrongs of the past and that those crimes, including colonial massacres, had "costs"."We have to pay the costs," he said. "Are there actions that were not punished and those responsible were not arrested? Are there goods that were looted and not returned? Let's see how we can repair this."]

REUTERS - https://www.reuters.com/world/portugal-must-pay-costs-slavery-colonial-crimes-president-says-2024-04-24/

LISBON, April 24 (Reuters) - President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa said late on Tuesday that Portugal was responsible for crimes committed during transatlantic slavery and the colonial era, and suggested there was a need for reparations.

For over four centuries, at least 12.5 million Africans were kidnapped, forcibly transported long distances by mainly European ships and merchants, and sold into slavery.

Those who survived the voyage ended up toiling on plantations in the Americas, mostly in Brazil and the Caribbean, while others profited from their labour.

Portugal trafficked nearly 6 million Africans, more than any other European nation, but has failed so far to confront its past and little is taught about its role in transatlantic slavery in schools.

Instead, Portugal's colonial era, during which countries including Angola, Mozambique, Brazil, Cape Verde and East Timor as well as parts of India were subjected to Portuguese rule, is often perceived as a source of pride.

Speaking at an event with foreign correspondents late on Tuesday, Rebelo de Sousa said Portugal "takes full responsibility" for the wrongs of the past and that those crimes, including colonial massacres, had "costs".

"We have to pay the costs," he said. "Are there actions that were not punished and those responsible were not arrested? Are there goods that were looted and not returned? Let's see how we can repair this."

The idea of paying reparations or making other amends for transatlantic slavery has been gaining momentum worldwide, including efforts to establish a special tribunal on the issue.

Activists have said that reparations and public policies to fight inequalities caused by Portugal's past, including systemic racism, are essential.

Rebelo de Sousa said last year that Portugal should apologise for transatlantic slavery and colonialism but stopped short of a full apology. He said on Tuesday that acknowledging the past and taking responsibility for it was more important than apologising.

The first two questions are the most interesting.  I may get around to questions #3 and #4 if I have time.

1.  Trump won the primary by dominating the "moderate" lane of the GOP primary while his main rivals (Rubio and Cruz) split the smaller and less powerful "conservative" lane.  Exit polling from the 2016 GOP primaries supports the idea that Trump's base was with moderates - mostly non-Evangelical, non-college educated voters in the Midwest/Northeast.  This is actually very similar to how McCain 2008 and Romney 2012 won their primaries against splintered conservative opposition.

2. The initial operating assumption of Clinton's campaign and everyone else in the political world circa 2016 was that she would just "Obama 2012" the thing to victory. What upset the conventional wisdom was Trump's appeal to working class voters in the Upper Midwest, which re-made the electoral map by shattering the blue wall.  I doubt Rubio, Bush, Cruz or Kasich could win PA or MI. 

Re: 2, also Clinton's (probably almost any other Dem too) inability to get Obama level black turnout. The total number of votes in Detroit fell by 15% and the Democratic margin fell from 277,160 votes to 228,379 votes, for a loss in margin of 48,781 -- Trump only won Michigan by 10,704 votes, so if black turnout had remained the same he probably would have lost the state.

I think it's possible that, against a more traditional GOP opponent like Bush, Clinton would have leaned more heavily into Obama's 2012 coalition than trying to moderate and capture more college-educated support.  She would have made more outright appeals to Black voters on racial and economic issues, and possibly even picked someone like Cory Booker or Deval Patrick as VP.

I think the black voting surge under Obama was extremely specific to Obama himself -- after all, wasn't 2012 the only time in history when the black turnout rate exceeded the white? How do you imagine Booker or Patrick mirroring that?

The first two questions are the most interesting.  I may get around to questions #3 and #4 if I have time.

1.  Trump won the primary by dominating the "moderate" lane of the GOP primary while his main rivals (Rubio and Cruz) split the smaller and less powerful "conservative" lane.  Exit polling from the 2016 GOP primaries supports the idea that Trump's base was with moderates - mostly non-Evangelical, non-college educated voters in the Midwest/Northeast.  This is actually very similar to how McCain 2008 and Romney 2012 won their primaries against splintered conservative opposition.

2. The initial operating assumption of Clinton's campaign and everyone else in the political world circa 2016 was that she would just "Obama 2012" the thing to victory. What upset the conventional wisdom was Trump's appeal to working class voters in the Upper Midwest, which re-made the electoral map by shattering the blue wall.  I doubt Rubio, Bush, Cruz or Kasich could win PA or MI. 

Re: 2, also Clinton's (probably almost any other Dem too) inability to get Obama level black turnout. The total number of votes in Detroit fell by 15% and the Democratic margin fell from 277,160 votes to 228,379 votes, for a loss in margin of 48,781 -- Trump only won Michigan by 10,704 votes, so if black turnout had remained the same he probably would have lost the state.

I think it's possible that, against a more traditional GOP opponent like Bush, Clinton would have leaned more heavily into Obama's 2012 coalition than trying to moderate and capture more college-educated support.  She would have made more outright appeals to Black voters on racial and economic issues, and possibly even picked someone like Cory Booker or Deval Patrick as VP.

US aid package is in

"If an opportunity involving a non-compete isn’t a given worker’s best option, according to that worker’s own preferences and values regarding the trade-offs involved, then the new legislation is useless because the worker wouldn’t have signed the non-compete anyway" (from the pro-non-compete argument that H/R linked) is not a sentence that was written in the real world.

I never said the legislation was useless. The legislation is harmful because it will remove from the economic system the benefits of non-competes, by stopping employers and employees from using non-competes.

If I'm honing in too much on that and missing your point on workers not really having a choice: If I had two job offers and one made me sign a non-compete and the other didn't, and all else was equal, I would take the latter job.

Now, you're going to say that's unrealistic. Sure. Most people don't have that exact situation. But the market logic is still the same -- all else being equal, jobs that require non-competes pay a premium for that because workers have a preference against non-competes. And workers can always work in industries where non-competes are the norm.

BTW Nathan, you're a mod. What do you think of MasterJedi's comments? Do you think they violate the TOS? Are they appropriate for this board/discussion? Do they constitute a personal attack? I was once infracted for calling Laki a child -- should I have accused him of "spreading his cheeks" for Hamas instead?

How the hell did DePasquale win without getting even 3rd in many of the Philly collars or the city?

Because he won just about everything else.

It's a Dem primary though, isn't the majority of votes coming from the Southeast?

There are 11 million people in Pennsylvania who live outside of Philadelphia.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/bats-are-going-through-a-rare-evolutionary-phenomenon/ar-AA1nwHP5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=548b8a59a5aa497fcb9af056510174aa&ei=103

An interesting story.
Do you consider this as evidence that Darwin was correct about evolution or are you a sceptic.

The concept of parallel evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution

These are big time outliers but Michigan being the most Democratic of the 7 states makes sense

These polls don’t seem too different from most polls we’re seeing right now

There is no way Trump wins NC by 10

The first two questions are the most interesting.  I may get around to questions #3 and #4 if I have time.

1.  Trump won the primary by dominating the "moderate" lane of the GOP primary while his main rivals (Rubio and Cruz) split the smaller and less powerful "conservative" lane.  Exit polling from the 2016 GOP primaries supports the idea that Trump's base was with moderates - mostly non-Evangelical, non-college educated voters in the Midwest/Northeast.  This is actually very similar to how McCain 2008 and Romney 2012 won their primaries against splintered conservative opposition.

2. The initial operating assumption of Clinton's campaign and everyone else in the political world circa 2016 was that she would just "Obama 2012" the thing to victory. What upset the conventional wisdom was Trump's appeal to working class voters in the Upper Midwest, which re-made the electoral map by shattering the blue wall.  I doubt Rubio, Bush, Cruz or Kasich could win PA or MI. 

Re: 2, also Clinton's (probably almost any other Dem too) inability to get Obama level black turnout. The total number of votes in Detroit fell by 15% and the Democratic margin fell from 277,160 votes to 228,379 votes, for a loss in margin of 48,781 -- Trump only won Michigan by 10,704 votes, so if black turnout had remained the same he probably would have lost the state.