Charles Koch on the Justice System

Bogative said:
Reminds me of a certain lefty poster who is no longer with us that used to regularly refer to Herman Cain as the "pizza boy." Nothing says progressivism like referring to a black man as a boy.

Question: what do you call a black man who has a Masters degree and who was the CEO of a multimillion dollar corporation?

Answer: Pizza Boy
Click to expand...

I think the remark was not racially motivated at all. Cain said and did really dumb things.
 
Random said:
Not all rich people make money the same way. Some make money polluting the world with fossil fuels, some make money by warehousing poor people in prisons. I doubt the the Kochs have much invested in private prisions if Charles is talking about prison sentencing reform.
Click to expand...

There is an argument to be made that economic growth at the expense of climate (said growth coming from, say, cheap energy) will save more lives because it will raise living standards in places where people die from easily preventable/curable things. In the short-term they might even be right.

In the long-term though, we're playing with fire when it comes to humanity's existence. If we trigger some feedback loop which results in 1 degree of warming per decade, we won't be around for very long.

The Koch brothers aren't Bill Gates when it comes to philanthropy, but they're not Mr. Burns either. They're old guys who probably think what they're doing is best for America, and that what's best for America will trickle down to other countries and have beneficial effects.
 
His brother, David, donates to PBS too. Something I always find amusing is watching a NOVA program on how awful climate change is then get to the credits where they thank David Koch for his contributions.

They are an odd bunch. I hate them, of course, but at least they aren't 100% evil.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I like the tendentious language here. Exercising one's first amendment rights to advocate for certain governmental policies is either an attempt "to buy elections" or "to influence the justice system" (both of which imply the crime of bribery). Would you speak the same way about a rich Democrat who used his money for similar purposes?
Click to expand...

Is it inaccurate to say he's using his influence? He's using his money, his political connections and his social standing, which every does. That is how change happens, people leverage their influence. I fully support that, as long it is transparent and not sued to flat out bribe or extort anyone (and aren't lying their butts off to get a group into a frothing rage).

I don't use code words. I don't need to. If you are offended by the accurate description of what he is doing, then your problem isn't really with me.

Really, unless you actually want to further discuss what this means for the American justice system and perhaps the GOP, I really don't have anything more to say to you.
 
Travis said:
His brother, David, donates to PBS too. Something I always find amusing is watching a NOVA program on how awful climate change is then get to the credits where they thank David Koch for his contributions.

They are an odd bunch. I hate them, of course, but at least they aren't 100% evil.
Click to expand...

Because everyone is guilty of the "us vs them" fallacy. We just can't look at someone with a certain opposing opinion and imagine them as an intelligent person who came to their conclusion rationally and has a very nuanced outlook on life. Even if we actually agree on 90% of issues, if they take the opposing stance on one or two key ones, they are forever the enemy.
 
Cleon said:
That Master's was in 1971, too. Programming back in The Day took no small amount of brainpower.

Herman Cain might be crazy, he's certainly poorly informed on some issues, he might even be a "buffoon" depending on your definition of the term, but he's certainly not stupid.
Click to expand...

someone can very very smart in one topic (or a small group) and be deeply ignorant about others. Alas, many people assume that because they're really smart in X, then they can pontificate about Y and Z, about which they have no clue...
 
sunmaster14 said:
I like the tendentious language here. Exercising one's first amendment rights to advocate for certain governmental policies is either an attempt "to buy elections" or "to influence the justice system" (both of which imply the crime of bribery). Would you speak the same way about a rich Democrat who used his money for similar purposes?
Click to expand...
Here's how the Kochs exercise their first amendment rights:

Koch-backed group's fake eviction notices rile up Detroit
 
Donal said:
Is it inaccurate to say he's using his influence? He's using his money, his political connections and his social standing, which every does. That is how change happens, people leverage their influence. I fully support that, as long it is transparent and not sued to flat out bribe or extort anyone (and aren't lying their butts off to get a group into a frothing rage).

I don't use code words. I don't need to. If you are offended by the accurate description of what he is doing, then your problem isn't really with me.

Really, unless you actually want to further discuss what this means for the American justice system and perhaps the GOP, I really don't have anything more to say to you.
Click to expand...

You don't think that saying somebody is using their money to influence the justice system has negative connotations? Really? Why not use the word "reform?"
 
varwoche said:
Here's how the Kochs exercise their first amendment rights:

Koch-backed group's fake eviction notices rile up Detroit
Click to expand...

First of all, you're cherry-picking state chapter examples from a national organization which has operated for over 10 years, has 35 state chapters, and over 2.3MM members. Second of all, the Kochs have no executive role in the organization at all and almost certainly provide a minority of the funding (it's hard to tell with 401(c)(4)s, but you can see the size of the maximum donations).

Second, I don't see how these so-called fake eviction notices are any different from Ed McMahon's "you may already be a millionaire" mailers. If some stupid people got all bent out of shape about them, it's because they're stupid.

As for your second example, it sounds to me like some bureaucratic errors were made. It hardly seems worth posting, let alone writing a newspaper article about.
 
Donal said:
In the "Did Not See That One Coming" category, Charles Koch, one of the billionaire brothers responsible for influencing a lot of government policy (mainly through Republicans) wants to do things like ease sentencing on non-violent offenders and put more money into public defenders in order to make things more fair for underprivileged defendants.

And look who he is allying with



Along with the greater attention to how police deal with citizens, does this look like we're going to see some changes to a justice system that has been heavily criticized for its inequality and harshness to disadvantaged people?

Does Koch have a side game going on here? Does he benefit from this materially? Or is this real altruism from someone accused of manipulating the government for his own gain?
Click to expand...
Why did you not see this coming. It seems to align with his beliefs.
 
Because they tend to back candidates that run on "tough on crime" platforms, which entail things like mandatory sentencing and aggressively enforcing drug laws.
 
Donal said:
they are Libertarian in the "don't regulate business" sense. Granted, if I were a billionaire, I'd be preaching that "invisible hand" nonsense too.
Click to expand...

They are also civil-libertarians. They donate to Republican candidates for economic reasons, to be sure. But the majority of the money they donate does not go to partisan political causes.

And when it comes to "tough on crime" excesses, if you think Democrats as a group are significantly different from Republicans, then you're not paying attention. "Tough on crime" is what the voters demand, and both parties act accordingly.
 
Oh absolutely. It is easy, visible, and appeals to our base instincts. Just mention doing it for "the children" and you have a plank no candidate in his right mind would oppose. But one party does seem to run point on the topic more than the other.

Which is why this interests me so much. If the Koch brothers become more visible for this type of stance, are we moving further away from that attitude? We've already seen the national attitude on marijuana ...mellow. We have the mayor of NYC opposing "Stop and Frisk". There are people all over the country of all ethnicities and political stripes coming out in huge numbers to protest police brutality. While it is still in the early stages, prison and sentencing reform are starting to be discussed in earnest.

Maybe "Tough on Crime" is giving way to actually addressing crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom