Wow. This brought up an old memory. Back in the 90s in the college town where I grew up, a student was fucking around in a creek on campus after a storm, got caught in the current and ended up being whipped around through city storm drains for quite some distance. He ended up being fine.
Then, a few months later, Penn and Teller come into town. They’re doing some sort of trick on stage that involves getting someone from the audience and having them say something unique about them. I’m really sure it was not part of the act, just a coincidence, but that’s the guy they call on. Of course, he gets a huge round of applause, especially since the big performance theater is right in the middle of campus.
Obviously, that guy was lucky he wasn’t killed, but I haven’t thought about that since it happened in the 90s.
For those not in the know, Springfield, IL, is the state capital (capitol?). It's waaaay down in the generally rural middle of the state, with a 2022 population of just over 113,000. It is not anything like the Chicago metro area.
It’s weird and dumb and arbitrary, but just to answer your uncertainty, it’s “capital” in this context.
Capital means, in vague terms, the highest of something. So in regards to a city, it refers to the most important city (for the government, anyways) in a given administrative region (e.g., state capital, national capital).
Capitol, with an O, refers specifically to the building where the US government is housed and the hill it sits on.
I don’t know if they have a shared etymology but it wouldn’t surprise me.
According to etymonline.com, capital comes from “Latin capitalis ‘of the head’”. Capitol comes from “Latin Capitolium, [the] name of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, protector of the city, on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome”. The American architecture “deliberately evokes Roman republican imagery”. The “relationship of Capitoline to capital is likely but not certain”.
It’s almost exactly like one of the many generic looking suburbs, maybe a little ghetto, definitely not Hicksville some some other places. There’s pockets of suburban areas in Central Illinois such as Bloomington/Normal and Champaign/Urbana
Enough is enough. Shit like this is putting us on a path for another insurrection.
Here is a sample letter to provide George Lang, especially if you are an OH resident.George Lang contact form
subject: “Call for Resignation Due to Undemocratic Remarks”
Dear Senator Lang,
I am writing to express my profound disappointment and concern regarding your recent comments about the potential need for a civil war if certain political outcomes are not achieved. Your statement, “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,” is not only deeply irresponsible but also fundamentally undemocratic. Such rhetoric is dangerous and unbecoming of a public servant in a democratic society.
As a concerned citizen, I am compelled to voice my strong objection to your words. They undermine the very principles upon which our nation was founded: the peaceful transition of power and the rule of law. Democracy thrives on debate, disagreement, and ultimately, the will of the people as expressed through free and fair elections. The suggestion that violence is an acceptable response to losing an election is antithetical to these principles.
An apology for this grave error is simply not sufficient. The damage caused by promoting the idea of civil unrest as a solution to political disagreement cannot be undone with mere words of regret. Your statement has the potential to incite division and violence, putting our nation and its citizens at risk.
In light of the seriousness of your comments, I call on you to resign from your position as a United States Senator. The responsibilities of your office require a commitment to uphold democratic values and to lead with integrity. Your recent remarks have shown a disregard for these responsibilities, and as such, stepping down is the most honorable course of action you can take for the sake of our country’s stability and unity.
The United States faces numerous challenges that require thoughtful, collaborative solutions. It is imperative that our leaders prioritize dialogue and cooperation over divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. I urge you to consider the impact of your words and to take responsibility for them by resigning your seat.
Subject: “Urgent: Call to Denounce Undemocratic Rhetoric and Advocate for Resignation”
Dear Senator [Senator’s Name],
I am writing to express my profound disappointment and concern regarding recent comments made by Senator George Lang about the potential need for a civil war if certain political outcomes are not achieved. His statement, “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,” is not only deeply irresponsible but also fundamentally undemocratic. Such rhetoric is dangerous and unbecoming of a public servant in a democratic society.
As your constituent, I am compelled to voice my strong objection to such words. They undermine the very principles upon which our nation was founded: the peaceful transition of power and the rule of law. Democracy thrives on debate, disagreement, and ultimately, the will of the people as expressed through free and fair elections. The suggestion that violence is an acceptable response to losing an election is antithetical to these principles.
An apology for this grave error is simply not sufficient. The damage caused by promoting the idea of civil unrest as a solution to political disagreement cannot be undone with mere words of regret. His statement has the potential to incite division and violence, putting our nation and its citizens at risk.
In light of the seriousness of these comments, I call on you to take a stand against such rhetoric. I urge you to publicly denounce these remarks and advocate for Senator Lang’s resignation from his position. The responsibilities of a United States Senator require a commitment to uphold democratic values and to lead with integrity. His recent remarks have shown a disregard for these responsibilities, and as such, stepping down is the most honorable course of action he can take for the sake of our country’s stability and unity.
The United States faces numerous challenges that require thoughtful, collaborative solutions. It is imperative that our leaders prioritize dialogue and cooperation over divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. I urge you to consider the impact of these words and to take a firm stand for democracy.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing our representatives uphold the values that make our country strong.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Make sure to send to both senators, regardless of their party.
In a separate interview Monday with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sanders said he is “sure” he will ultimately endorse Harris for the Democratic nomination but stressed that he wants to see her put forth an agenda “that speaks to the long-neglected needs of working families,” specifically calling for a permanent expansion of the child tax credit and an increase in the stagnant federal minimum wage.
“I just want to make sure that her campaign understands that for too many people in this country, when they look at Washington, D.C., they feel ignored. They feel insulted that people are not understanding what is going on in their lives,” said Sanders. “Life expectancy for working-class people is 10 years shorter than it is for the rich. And working-class people want a government that represents them and not corporate America.”
She’s willing to go along with moderates when that’s what the teams she’s on has already decided (see; her time as California AG dealing with a moderate governor, her time as a VP dealing with Biden), but when she’s starting from square one she looks left for support. She’s not my favorite Dem ever, but she’s absolutely someone we can work with.
Biden managed to get a bunch of unions to endorse him for the elections, both due to negotiations and his policy. Given that Kamala was in his team, the only thing she needs is the will to declare that she will continue along Biden’s lines.
If Harris becomes president, the number one thing I want from her is to listen to the experts. I want her to listen to climate experts, public health experts, economic experts, etc. I think Democrats are generally better than Republicans at listening to and following the advice of experts, so I think she will meet this requirement.
However, there can be peril in this, as the experts don’t always agree on everything and aren’t always objective. For instance, one of the preeminent economists of the mid to late 20th century was Milton Friedman, who argued that just about everything the government did was bad. His opinions about deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, etc, became gospel, and then policy. We are living with the effects of that gospel and those policies today.
I am certain that Friedman believed his ideology would result in the best outcomes for the largest number of people. I don’t for a minute believe he thought his policies would hurt people or make them worse off. But while economists (or any experts, really) like Friedman may have had the best of intentions, what they lacked was a willingness to be wrong. This is the true weakness of ideologues, and why they can make for poor scientists.
We don’t only need leaders who listen to experts, we need experts who can see beyond their own ideological biases, and rely on evidence and data instead of belief. If we can achieve this, I think many things will improve in the United States.
When I learned about him I was surprised that a big part of Friedman’s ideology was the Negative Income Tax. A form of Universal Basic Income. That would have made a big difference if that was implemented also.
I refuse to believe economists have the best of intentions in mind when they write in absolutes lol. Too many refuse to factor human costs and irrationality into their calculations, Friedman being one of main examples.
I’m sure there are economists that do, but the few I’ve spoken to talk about people abstractly and as expendables.
Yeah it’s batshit that an economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing to predict reality.
Like, I’m sure it wasn’t obvious and I’m not trying to sound like I’m smarter than economists, but holy fuck duh
duckduckgo’d: ‘economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing’ results was this:(theconversation(dot)com link), so I guess Richard Thaler is who you’re looking for.
This kind of technocratic approach can sound great and it’s always good to have policy and positions formed by those most knowledgeable in the relevant field. The problem is that the “experts” that will likely have her ear will be the ones that are vetted and approved by the power elite, the wealthiest in this country who will largely recommend what is best to protect their privilege, wealth and position.
I haven’t so much as heard them talk about the issue in I don’t even know how long. (Aside from Biden saying we should give cops MORE funding) But now, 3ish months out from the election…
What are they trying to do? I see a soundbite. An empty platitude. D doesn’t have the votes. No one, including Biden, thinks this bill will now get passed because he made this statement.
It would have been pretty hard for me to call it empty platitudes for votes, aside from the 1 month ago window. But what would really cook my goose would be if they’d said it 18 months, 12 months, 6 months, 1 month, 3 months, 9 months and a shitload of other times ago. The way you message on issues that matter to you.
The person you’re replying to is a contrarian troll. No matter what you say, they’re gonna blame Democrats and not Republicans. Because they are a troll. stop, feeding the troll.
contrarian /kən-trâr′ē-ən/ noun One who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that >contradict prevailing wisdom, as in buying securities that are unpopular at the time.
A person who habitually takes a view opposite to that held by the majority. “the contrarians in the stock market prefer to sell when most analysts advise us to buy”
A person who expresses a contradicting viewpoint, especially one who denounces the majority persuasion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
so Chinese dissidents or any political dissident such as Martin Luther King Jr or Jewish people in Germany during the Nazi Reign are by this definition contrarian trolls that denounced the majority persuasion?
You are talking about voting. I’m already voting for them. Aren’t I at least allowed to criticize them while also voting for them, or is that a bridge too far?
You are. I just worry about what one sided criticism might bring for us in November, and I say that while completely agreeing with you that policing reform is needed.
You are. I just worry about what one sided criticism might bring for us in November,
They could have avoided the criticism by skipping the empty platitude that triggered it. But a sincere thank you for acknowledging that it’s OK to criticize them. (though I’m unsure what one-sided means in this context)
It is when it’s not paired with calls for oversight regarding how that training is used and specific results of said training.
I’m starting to sympathize with the 2A folks who are like “why more gun laws when we don’t enforce the ones we have” but in a different way.
What training (using only this singular current example) would you say should be required for an officer of the law to know he shouldn’t shoot a woman in the face with her hands up from 10 + feet away when he was under no threat? Do you need training to know that’s wrong? Training beyond what every single person given state power to kill should receive at an absolute minimum?
All that heartache and pain, and the final net result was Biden calling for more police funding.
And before you get into your don’t blame dems thing again, I routinely post the meme below for how unreasonable people are about blaming Democrats. I get it.
But you’ll forgive me for being a bit cynical when I hear not a damn peep from anyone in the administration about police reform all the way from “Biden says fund the police” to “Hey it’s 3 months before the election, cops killed someone again (which has happened many, many times since then), so NOW we’ve got these platitudes trickling out again.”
I get it, here’s the evergreen infographic I post over and over that makes your exact point. But damn I’d like some indication of “give a shit” other than when there’s an election close by.
I’m not claiming to know what kind of training would help, just that “train them better” isn’t a particularly controversial statement. I’m also not arguing against police reform, which is desperately needed. I’m simply observing that Republicans are to blame for the GFJPA repeatedly not advancing in Congress. Were there a more significant Democratic majority in Congress, their intransigence would be irrelevant and reform would have already been implemented. Voters simply didn’t send that sizeable majority to DC.
I’m not claiming to know what kind of training would help, just that “train them better” isn’t a particularly controversial statement. I’m also not arguing against police reform, which is desperately needed.
It’s a controversial statement when it’s the closest we’ve been able to come to anything resembling police reform, and is frankly insultingly little after everything that has transpired around those sorts of issues. If you don’t like how angry I am about it, I’m sorry to tell you that telling me not to be angry isn’t going to make me less so. I’m far more pissed off now that everyone has woken up to attack me for criticizing the party I was already going to vote for because I had the gall to call it like I saw it than the mild disgruntlement I was experiencing when I made the first comment.
Fucking rise up like this to demand better from Dems, folks!
and is frankly insultingly little after everything that has transpired around those sorts of issues
Due to Republicans.
If you don’t like how angry I am about it, I’m sorry to tell you that telling me not to be angry isn’t going to make me less so.
Nobody told you not to be angry, so not sure why you’re so defensive. Just be angry at the people actually keeping things from happening and the voters who keep sending them to DC, not the politicians drafting laws and trying to negotiate their passage.
I’m far more pissed off now that everyone has woken up to attack me for criticizing the party I was already going to vote for because I had the gall to call it like I saw it than the mild disgruntlement I was experiencing when I made the first comment.
Nobody “woke up” to attack you. This is a public discussion forum. Don’t take everything so personally.
Fucking rise up like this to demand better from Dems, folks!
Republicans HAVE NOT stopped Dems from being able to message and signal around this issue to their heart’s content, and try to stir up more public support. They DID NOT force Biden to boil all that down to nothing more than calling for more police funding and then shutting the fuck up about the topic until we got close to an election.
The crazy thing seemed fairly relaxed until she said she “rebuked him unto Jesus”. Seemed like it went from “haha I don’t want to be around a person carrying boiling water”, and she seemed to respond jokingly with the Jesus thing, which immediately made the cop respond as if she just pointed a gun at him?
Does this guy think this lady is some kind of biblical sorcerer?
“She said she was going to ‘rebuke me in the name of Jesus’ and I felt my soul was in imminent danger from this woman and her boiling cauldron of witchcraft”
I definitely don’t think it was a joke. Her twitchy nature and constant fear strike me as someone facing a mental health issue. Specifically schizophrenia as she said she was hearing people around the house. All that said, a cop should be able to recognize those signs immediately and should have used less lethal force at the most. His first instinct shouldn’t have been to bridge the gap and get closer after he felt “threatened.”
Essentially: Cops are taught that everyone and everything is trying to kill them and anything that seems remotely dangerous is a lethal threat they need to “neutralize”. Also, as soon as you let your guard down, you’re dead. This leads to overreactions and unjust killings…
Now, that’s not entirely wrong as police frequently deal with higher levels of unknown dangers but in this case…holy shit wtf?
I fully support others spending a half hour learning about what law enforcement are taught. If you’ve not seen something like this before then it’s definitely worth your time.
I want to add that Park Rangers are law enforcement. They’ve exceptionally high standards for hiring. And, the pay sucks.
I’ve broken rules in many parks, sometimes with good reason and sometimes without, usually very safely but once or twice definitely not. I’ve been “busted” about a dozen times by Park Rangers.
Every single time I’ve been treated with dignity, respect, and honoring the spirit of justice over the letter of the law. I’ve not been punished when I thought I should be, then been told that’s the reason there’s no punishment. And, when I’ve been punished I’ve agreed with the severity and nature of it wholeheartedly. It’s quite literally the opposite of what I’ve experienced as a colored man in big cities.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.