Philadelphia journalist who advocated for homeless and LGBTQ+ communities shot and killed at home
Philadelphia journalist who advocated for homeless and LGBTQ+ communities shot and killed at home
Authorities say a journalist and advocate who rose from homelessness and addiction to serve as a spokesperson for Philadelphia’s most vulnerable was shot and killed at his home early Monday.
A journalist and advocate who rose from homelessness and addiction to serve as a spokesperson for Philadelphia’s most vulnerable was shot and killed at his home early Monday, police said.
Josh Kruger, 39, was shot seven times at about 1:30 a.m. and collapsed in the street after seeking help, police said. He was pronounced dead at a hospital a short time later. Police believe the door to his Point Breeze home was unlocked or the shooter knew how to get in, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. No arrests have been made and no weapons have been recovered, they said.
Authorities haven’t spoken publicly about the circumstances surrounding the killing.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I definitely agree that FPTP is a weak voting system, though I think the US is a lot further away from it than the UK. There are a few places that have rank choice, but it doesn't seem to be gaining much popularity nationally.
There does not seem to be any trusted bodies where people can turn to for an honest opinion on truth.
This is definitely a huge problem. There used to be some non-partisan bodies that could be trusted like the Congressional Budget Office, but the ones I am aware of have lost most or all relevance over the last 15-20 years. Independent oversight might be nice, but I suspect that there will be a constant battle of infiltration against those entities.
a lot of ultimate power positions like SCOTUS need a much wider oversight committee.
I agree that SCOTUS is a problem, though I am not sure oversight is the right answer. I think a constitutional amendment or two is in order regarding them; probably further limiting when or how they take court cases, and more importantly not allowing new precedents to be set when the court cannot even agree with itself. At the very least a 6-3 vote should be required for precedent but even better would be 9-0. If they cannot even agree amongst themselves whether something is constitutional at the time of a specific case, then setting new "constitutional" rules or rights anyways is foolishness. They could continue to take and decide cases by 5-4 majorities on an individual basis but those resolutions should be specific to those cases and make no declaration of being more.
In my mind, SCOTUS has always has been a problem. When I look at history, it seems to me, as often as not, SCOTUS has inserted itself into highly contentious issues and driven a legalistic wedge through the nation by picking sides in issues where there is no clear popular opinion.
Also, the thing that people see as SCOTUS' prime responsibility, judicial review, is not actually mentioned in the constitution, it was co-opted by them shortly after our current constitution was signed. In the same case that they declared the constitution was not just a statement of ideals, but in fact a legal document, they also ignored that legal document and declared their right to unilaterally strike down the nation's laws. Marbury v Madison In my mind, it is disgusting that the same body that functions as the interpreter of the constitution felt free to disregard it when it suited them, from its very beginning.
Besides its overwhelming impact on US history, the reason for the Marbury v Madison itself is an interesting insight into how contentious US politics has always been.
The biggest problem of all politics though has to be corruption. Politicians should not be able to earn money from secondary sources.
I could not agree with this more if I tried. It is absolutely disgusting to see how many US politicians become rich while in office.
Not all republicans are bad. But the longer the good ones wait to take the bull by the horns, the harder it will be.
Thank you for the clarification.
We have exactly the same problem with the house of Lords.
As a side note, I have always found the House of Lord's to be an interesting if problematic institution.
Leveson Inquiry 2.0
I tried to read through the wiki about this, but I suspect that my own free press bias was getting in the way of what I was actually reading. I will need to sit down sometime and look more into when I have time to process it all.
Besides its overwhelming impact on US history, the reason for the Marbury v Madison itself is an interesting insight into how contentious US politics has always been.
Thanks, I read the wiki and watched a lecture from the Uni of Virginia. There is obviously a lot more history around the outcomes of the case, but it asked the question which always seemed blaringly obvious to me and the SCOTUS. How does a non elected body get such power? I will look into it more. I find the diversion between UK law and US law interesting. I have to own up to be an bit of a history geek.
How does a non elected body get such power?
It is a great question.
I find the diversion between UK law and US law interesting.
Same here. I occasionally dive into something random about UK law and am blown away.
I have to own up to be an bit of a history geek.
If I had some better history teachers at a young age, I think I would have been also.
I found the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan a few years back and binged the entire thing twice, as well as his Revolutions podcast. Been having a hard time finding other things that engaged me as much. I do like most anything by Dan Carlin but there is a lot less depth to it.
Added it to my lists.
My current ones are: https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE/videos (one of the most interesting. For someone who talks about rocks, it is actually very insightful) https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryTime/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/HistoryHit/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/HistoryHit/videos
Added it to my lists.
Fair warning, History of Rome was his first podcast and it took some episodes to get rolling. I would say the first 10-15 are slower and of a bit lower quality. It starts getting better as he gets more experience and better equipment.
History for granite is similar in as much the second one shows how much the guy has looked into it.
I have watched a ton on history. With vloggers I generally watch for the bits I didn't already know now. Vloggers tend to focus on the same stuff. What artists would consider pot boilers. It is great when you find someone with the different angle.
American politics is a new fad of mine. I have been following Trump closely, along with the legal break downs that come with that. I strongly dislike the scum that are the Conservatives in the UK. The UK Conservative party is very much aligned with the US Republicans. They share the same think groups. The parallels with tactics are very stark.
Maybury and Madison was brand new to me and filled in a fair few hours. I tend to read the fine print and follow the explanation links. My wife was not impressed when I told her that equal rights for women had not been ratified in the US as part of the constitution. More so when I told that Virginia had rejected another vote on it in 2019. It is the little things in life that make you smile. Education can be a dangerous thing, I will be inspecting my food for a few days.
The Equal Rights Amendment is definitely another one of those real oddities of American politics.
Supported by the GOP and Southern Democrats until the 80s, opposed by Northern Democrats and Labor Unions for most of the same time period. Now generally supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Both supported and opposed by various feminist groups at the same and different times.
The UK Conservative party is very much aligned with the US Republicans. They share the same think groups. The parallels with tactics are very stark.
Is this a relatively new thing? I was under the impression that the UK conservative party was fairly different than US conservatives. I had heard that Johnson was a bit of a johnson himself, but assumed things went back to "normal" with his ousting.
It is the little things in life that make you smile. Education can be a dangerous thing, I will be inspecting my food for a few days.
It seems that you are a man of not just culture but wisdom as well.
Is this a relatively new thing? I was under the impression that the UK conservative party was fairly different than US conservatives. I had heard that Johnson was a bit of a johnson himself, but assumed things went back to “normal” with his ousting.
I really don't know when it infiltrated the Tories. Thatcher from the 80's for all she was hated because of the way she attacked unions was certainly not of that ilk. Part of Thatcher's persona was honesty and integrity.
Major who followed her did not seem that way. I listened to him giving an interview on TRIP, he seemed extremely genuine. He was also a major feature of Thatcher's government.
I think the rot started when the Tories took a major arse kicking in 2005. I have no real evidence or insider information to back that up.
There was a lot of talk within the party regarding reform so they could get back on track. There was a very disturbing report written up from a group within the party. It was based around manipulation and where the party should aim for. One particular notable part pointed out that educating the poor was not good for Tory votes. People from poorer back grounds who gained degrees were less likely to vote Tory than any other group. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: An Agenda for a New Model Party. Page 12
The decline in Conservative support has been particularly marked among the most educated. This is not always obvious since more education is associated with higher income, and higher income is still (just) associated with stronger Conservative support. However, other factors being held constant, the more educationally qualified someone is, the less likely he or she is to support the Conservatives. This is a problem to the extent that the more educated are likelier to vote, and are often influential in leading the opinion of others. It is also, of course, a problem in a country where nearly half of young people are now going to university.
There is a conspiracy theory thrown around from time to time that defunding education in poor areas is done by design to increase the vote share. Something that is hard for a Tory to argue against in the UK, especially when you show the stats on funding.
If you read the report in entirety you will see republicans are mentioned many times over.
The first Tory PM in power after this was Cameron with Osborne as chancellor. I listened to Osborne on TRIP and was not impressed. I am going to say imo here, I CBA to dig up more details, it really annoyed me to listen to him. He told lies on his figures, he ducked and dodged with inuendo. It just felt massively different to Major talking. I have seen people quote stats on things that were wrong under Cameron and Osborne. This was not the view I had on them at the time, but that has since changed in hindsight.
Teressa May who followed them seemed genuine to me. She also did an interview on TRIP. I felt at the time she got a bad deal from the Tory MPs and the infighting. That view has not changed.
The rest is as they say history. Johnson, Truss and Sunak, all I can say is shithouses. And that is unkind to the toilet.
Both parties are known for gerrymandering now, the Tories are changing the boundaries across the UK. Both are recognised for hiding information through obfuscation. Both have shown designs to bully influential depts (judicial system, elections control, police etc). Both have shown a prevalence for gaslighting and talking nonsense to fog over issues. Both are reputed to have Russian influence running through them. I would guess the Republicans are known for selling government contracts to donors, something the Tories are going to loose the next election over.
This was a really interesting read, thank you for laying it out.
Are PDFs like that Direct Democracy common releases from the UK parties? It really spells things out, at least as far as I made it through before getting distracted.
There did seem to be a couple sections that I read that the data didn't seem to match what was being claimed. Particularly the section on the Broken Pendulum (Pages 8,9). The authors seem to claim that in 2001 and 2005 were unique in that the opposition party wasn't able to gain from losses in the government. If however you look at 1964 and 1983 they seem to be even more stark examples of the same. Seems like the pendulum was a general trend at best.
I believe it was a report that was sold at the 2005 conference. The PDF was available for purchase on Amazon last time I looked. It made a few pounds in 2012 when Jeremy Hunt (the main author) was promoted.
As for the discrepancies, they were trying to sell an idea. Truth was not at the top of their agenda.