'The Supreme Court May Be About to Blast Another Hole in Gun Control
[...] the conservative-controlled Supreme Court will not allow us to have commonsense gun regulation, let alone any ambitious, progressive legislation to get guns off the streets, like they do in other countries that don't have mass shootings every other day.
[...] There is no new gun regulation or reform that can survive six bloodthirsty conservatives on the Supreme Court, just like there is no way to "win" a game of Russian roulette when there are six bullets in the revolver.
This Friday, the justices will meet to decide whether to take a case [...] designed to create a brand new constitutional right to carry firearms outside the home, whenever a person wants to.
[...] getting rid of the permitting process for handguns (or liberalizing them to the point where functionally anybody can get a permit), effectively inventing a new unequivocal right to bear these weapons outside the home. That's different from the last gun right they invented in 2008: the right to bear arms for self-defense. The astute reader will remember that the original constitutional right was merely to bear arms to form militias and kill Black people who didn't want to be held in bondage.'
https://www.thenatio...rt-gun-control/
'How the Supreme Court Could Supercharge the GOP's Voter Suppression Agenda
A new case could open up the door to unapologetic discrimination.
[...] this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, a case that Republicans very much hope will grind what little remains of your right to vote into a fine, democracy-tinged dust.
[...] Voting Rights Act's "effects test," which applies to seemingly neutral laws that nonetheless disproportionately affect minority voters. [...] the effects test has emerged as the last, best tool for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
The effects test isn't all that's at stake, though. Also before the justices is the appeals court's finding that the ballot collection ban's impact is
not an accident—that Arizona lawmakers actually
intended it to disenfranchise voters of color. In Brnovich, the court's conservatives could insulate this sort of unapologetic voter suppression from legal scrutiny for good.
[...] Across the country, revanchist Republicans are working to pass literally hundreds of anti-democracy bills that target minority voters, drafting off Donald Trump's outraged insistence that fraud cost him the 2020 election.
Like many states, Arizona has a long history of excluding people of color from democracy. [...] In the 1960s, a Republican Party initiative known as "Operation Eagle Eye" challenged the qualifications of minority voters at polling places in the name of "ballot security." Among the participants, witnesses said, was a young lawyer named William Rehnquist, who would go on to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.
[...] ballot collection had become a key get-out-the-vote tool in poor, remote, or predominantly minority communities where many Democratic voters live—and where voting is especially difficult. In urban areas where mail theft is common, volunteer collection enabled voters to cast a ballot without risking its disappearance. Outside the state's two most populous counties, just 18 percent of Native voters have access to home mail service. Native voters who live on reservations sometimes must travel two hours to the nearest mailbox, and between a quarter and half of households don't have access to a car. Ballot collection relieves some of Arizona's most marginalized residents of the burden of embarking on hours-long journeys just to cast a vote.
[...] Shooter secured 83 percent of the nonminority vote, but only 20 percent of the Hispanic vote. In a remarkable coincidence, he proposed the ban the following year even though[...] there was no evidence that ballot collection fraud in the state has ever taken place.
[...] appealing not to the veracity of the purported problem but instead to rapidly metastasizing fears of its existence. "What is indisputable is that many people believe it's happening," [...] "And I think that matters."
At the Supreme Court, Arizona and the Arizona GOP urged the justices to treat this history as if it did not exist. "Evidence of how legislators came to a particular, good-faith, non-discriminatory motivation cannot taint that motive or the resulting bill," the party writes. In other words, as long as lawmakers like Mesnard believed they were acting to, say, safeguard election integrity—even if they arrived at that objectively wrong belief after absorbing a series of racist lies—the ban can't be illegal.
The perversity of Republicans bemoaning this supposed loss of faith is that it is the product of the party's purposeful efforts to bring it about. Using tales about shadowy, democracy-hijacking plots to disenfranchise marginalized people is among the oldest tricks in American politics. Well before Election Day, Trump was warning of a "rigged" contest that would take its place among the "most fraudulent elections ever." Since then, Trump and company have parroted this lie so many times that it has become an article of faith for party leaders and supporters alike: [...] found that some three-quarters of Republicans believed the 2020 election was tainted by "widespread" fraud. The line between pretextual fearmongering about the supposed dangers of voter fraud and sincere belief in their existence—to the extent such a line ever existed—is vanishingly thin.
Republican lawmakers have been laying this groundwork for months. Securing the Supreme Court's formal endorsement, however, would launder their rhetoric using bone-dry legalese, allowing the success of the party's cynical misinformation campaign to justify the party's voter suppression agenda. At oral argument, the conservative justices seemed ready to buy it, sometimes invoking talking points about speculative dangers and worst-case scenarios that would not be out of place in a Tucker Carlson monologue. [...]
[...] to the chief justice, [...] Nothing matters, apparently, except the publicly stated positions of the specific elected officials who voted to enact the ballot collection ban into law.
This logic badly misconstrues how racist disenfranchisement works: Obviously, lawmakers need not discriminate explicitly in order to act intentionally.'
https://slate.com/ne...ct-arizona.html
'Postmaster General Louis DeJoy announced a 10-year plan to overhaul the U.S. Postal Service [...] that would slow down deliveries, raise prices for services, and shorten hours at post offices. The sweeping overhaul, called "Delivering for America," [...]
[...]
Biden cannot directly fire DeJoy; only the board of governors, which oversees the USPS and is currently dominated by Trump appointees, has that power. Last week, [...] House Democrats called on Biden to fire the six members currently sitting on the board for cause, though it's unclear whether such a move would hold up in court. DeJoy first came under fire in summer 2020 when he instituted a raft of cost-saving measures like cutting overtime and limiting extra trips for trucks to deliver late mail that contributed to a major slowdown in postal services. Ever since then, USPS has never quite gotten back on track with delivery rates
[...] DeJoy told a House panel in February that he was considering such an extension. "Does it make a difference if it's an extra day to get a letter?" [...] "It's a terrible message to send, because it's tolerating poor service at the top," he said. "It's tolerating mail service that is not as good as it was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago." [...] service also took a nosedive the last time USPS formally codified a reduction in standards in 2012, which included shifting much of the mail that would normally be delivered overnight to a two-day or three-to-five-day window instead. From 1971 to 2012, USPS had a one-day delivery standard for a good portion of its first-class mail. The one-day standard was eliminated completely by 2015. The Delivering for America plan augurs a further decline. [MAGA!]
DeJoy is downgrading mail delivery services with an eye toward reorienting the Postal Service around packages under the premise that many communications have already moved online, and therefore that part of the service has become less economically beneficial for the agency. [Because making public services strictly for profit is WJWD!]
"The mission of the Postal Service has been to deliver mail, [...] They're the only folks who can deliver mail. There's a lot of other folks who can deliver packages out there." [...] many people still depend on letters for essential errands in a timely manner. [...] like prescriptions and taxes,"'
https://slate.com/bu...-slowdowns.html
'Why Did Border Security Firms Bet on Biden in 2020?
The 13 top border contractors for CBP and ICE donated three times as much money to the Biden campaign than they did to Trump.
[...] 15-foot wall (that Senator Joe Biden voted for), followed by high-tech surveillance towers, courtesy of a multi-billion-dollar contract with the Boeing Corporation.
[...] the forces that shaped our southern border over the decades have been far more powerful than Donald Trump or any individual politician. [...] Underneath the theater of partisan politics, there remains a churning border-industrial complex, a conjunction of entrenched interests and relationships between the US government—particularly the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and private corporations that has received very little attention.
[...]
In the 12 years from 2008 to 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dolled out 105,000 contracts, or a breathtaking average of 24 contracts a day, worth $55 billion to private contractors. [...] many of them—including the most expensive—went to companies creating high-tech border fortification, ranging from sophisticated camera systems to advanced biometric and data-processing technologies.
This might explain the border industry's interest in candidate Biden, who promised: "I'm going to make sure that we have border protection, but it's going to be based on making sure that we use high-tech capacity to deal with it."'
https://www.thenatio...security-biden/
'National Security AI Commission Recommends Ramping Up a Military Tech Race with China
"In the future, warfare will pit algorithm against algorithm," [...]
[...] the report bolsters a widely held perception among senior policy-makers—Democrats and Republicans alike—that the United States is engaged in a protracted struggle with China for global supremacy and risks losing out to its more tech-savvy adversary. "For the first time since World War II, America's technological predominance—the backbone of its economic and military power—is under threat," the report asserts. "China possesses the might, talent, and ambition to surpass the United States as the world's leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change." If this country is to avert such a calamity, "the US government must embrace the AI competition and organize to win it."
[...] while some might question the need for more ships and planes to confront the Chinese, few debate the need for increased investment in advanced technologies. "We believe we have powerful bipartisan consensus to win the technology competition with our strategic competitors," [...]
Should US policy-makers adopt the commission's recommendations and organize to "win" the tech competition with China, American society will be profoundly altered. The nation's top research universities will be converted into outposts of the Department of Defense, and scientists at these and other institutions will be recruited for work on military-related AI projects. Formerly unfettered educational exchanges between US and Chinese educational institutions will be shut down, and corporate connections heavily monitored. Scholars with even the slightest connection to China will be forced out of academia and, if Chinese nationals, driven out of the country. Money that could be spent on medical research or climate change mitigation will instead be devoted to military-oriented tech applications.
Such bold and intrusive measures are needed, the commission argues, because China appears to be sprinting ahead of the United States in mastering the AI revolution. "China's plans, resources, and progress should concern all Americans," the report reads. [...]
[...] "AI systems will extend the range and reach of adversaries into the United States just as the missile age…brought threats closer to home," they wrote. And just as the USSR once viewed ballistic missiles as the way to overpower the United States, "China sees AI as the path to offset US conventional military superiority by 'leapfrogging' to a new generation of technology."
[...] The commissioners view AI as a "breakthrough" technology that will transform global society as extensively as did the invention of the steam engine and the harnessing of electricity. But whereas those earlier breakthroughs reduced the need for human muscular energy, AI will reduce the need for human mental energy.
[...] As machines are endowed with aspects of intelligence, the tempo of warfare will be vastly accelerated and the role of humans greatly diminished—with profound and frightening consequences. [...] Humans will still have a role to play in such encounters, but the key players will be intelligent machines.
A possible response to this dilemma—one advocated by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and several dozen countries—would be to impose an international prohibition on the deployment of AI-enabled weapons systems. However, claiming that China and Russia cannot be trusted to comply with such a pact, the commissioners determined that the United States cannot agree to one. Instead, we must race ahead in the development of autonomous weaponry and other AI-enabled systems [...]
[...] Whereas America's principal engines of tech innovation are privately owned and largely devoted to private gain, China's top tech firms—even those in private hands—are beholden to the central government and so must do its bidding. Although Silicon Valley firms can (and often do) bid on lucrative Pentagon contracts for military-related AI work, they are not obligated to do so.
To further complicate matters, the report notes, many of America's top programmers and computer techies are reluctant to work for the Department of Defense[...]
These disparities, the report claims, have prevented the United States from moving as swiftly as China in exploiting commercial innovations for military use. [...] must find ways to harness the private sector for military purposes—in other words, to become more like China.
If all its proposals are embraced by US decision makers, we can expect a Cold War–like environment in which technological competition with China becomes the defining factor of American society. Aside from its distorting impacts on education and the economy, such a posture would fuel a new arms race in emerging technologies with little end in sight; other national priorities, such as medical research and climate change, would be brushed aside.'
https://www.thenatio...na-ai-military/
Granted, technologies developed for the military have historically been adapted for civilian use... early digital computers, the internet, etc. But it would almost certainly be better to apply those resources directly to more pressing issues like climate change etc.
'US sinks to new low in rankings of world's democracies
The US's new ranking places it on par with countries like Panama, Romania and Croatia and behind countries such as Argentina and Mongolia. It lagged far behind countries like the United Kingdom (93), Chile (93), Costa Rica (91) and Slovakia (90).'
https://www.theguard...m-house-new-low
This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 25 March 2021 - 05:07 PM