@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

I think if you want to see this sort of thing simmer down, you’ll need to appease the red tribe - not just give them empty promises that’ll be rolled back the moment they aren’t watching, but actually give something up.

The problem is as soon as they violate the empty promise, they'll say "Well, we didn't make the promise with wording that absolutely forbids that" and/or "Well, the promise was with those other guys over there, not us, we're totally separate". And they can maintain this forever, and half of Red will believe them too.

The Obstructing part is problematic because what the judge did doesn't fit into anything that's actually described under the obstruction statutes. chapter 73 of the US Criminal Code has 21 sections, and while §1505 doesn't specifically define obstruction, the sections that do make references to things like destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribery, and suborning perjury.

After the January 6 charges, there can't possibly be any limits on "obstructing an official proceeding".

There's been tariffs, since the Democrats don't want to interrupt their opponent when he's shooting himself in the face. Also deportations, though the Supreme Court has put the kibosh on those for now. But mostly nothing that won't just be #resist'ed until he's out of office.

The right is generally in favor of this whenever the left wants to do things.

But it does not get its way in this regard.

Whichever way it comes out, it's a point towards "Calvinball" in the "All this is the result of the right not understanding the orderly business of governing" vs "The business of governing is Calvinball."

But do you honestly believe the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government the unlimited ability to interfere with how states delegate municipalities the power to decide how they're going to charge people for using vehicles on their roads?

In this case, yes. The statutory authority for this program is Federal and is conditional on the approval of the Secretary of Transportation.

There would need to be an analysis by a disinterested observer. Unfortunately, there aren't any.

It is certainly strange that whichever elections the right wins, and whichever court battles they win.... those aren't the ones which result in any change.

Elasticity of demand is very low.

Public subsidy is a funny charge. Typically after all fuel taxes from every level of government are accounted for, it adds up to a quarter of the budget for road construction and maintenance in America.

This probably isn't true; it probably fails to count fuel taxes diverted elsewhere (such as mass transit). But note that even if it were, 100% of the operating cost of the rolling stock is covered by users of automobiles. The mass transit target is typically 50%. 100% of the capital cost of the rolling stock is covered by users of automobiles; for mass transit that number is 0%. And even if the amount for road construction collected from drivers is 25%, that number for mass transit is, again, 0%.

Usually the target for mass transit is a 3-seat ride. Collector, trunk, distributor. This is already bad, but in fact there will be many destinations for which you can't even get that, and they're even worse. Manhattan has some advantages for mass transit; overall density (meaning the walking leg can get you a lot of places) and the linear layout of the island. The linear layout means a one or two seat ride is practical for lot more users than in a typical mass transit system. That there are express tracks helps too, though those could have been built elsewhere; they just weren't.

That is obviously false as seen by the actual massive drop in traffic after the congestion pricing scheme went on.

Since they were declaring victory in the first week of the year (always lighter traffic than usual, and with a snowstorm, no less) based on comparing cherrypicked routes on those days to similar days during more normal commute periods, I know they will lie about this and claim a massive drop in traffic regardless of what actually happens.

It doesn't matter. Civil rights is like gun control -- the conservatives on the court (with 1 or 2 exceptions) believe one side is in accord with the Constitution, but they want what the other side wants. That is, they want "the blacks" to succeed without discrimination in their favor, but their second choice is the appearance of same, with "Asian and white Harvard" WAY behind. So they will do the "Supreme Court as a debating society" thing where they'll agree that yes, the Fourteenth Amendment means you can't discriminate against white people, but really, can't The Man give a brother a chance for crying out loud?

Of course now park-and-rides are having capacity issues, but that is a problem we can deal with. We're American. Building more parking lots is in our blood.

On the New Jersey side, some years ago they built a very large station one stop from Penn Station... with no commuter parking. Most of the train towns won't allow any more parking, so unless you applied for a permit 10 years ago you probably don't have a spot and are stuck taking a bus (or cab, which gets expensive fast) to the train. If they did build parking you'd get stuck in a traffic jam trying to park, because of course everyone is trying to arrive all at once to get the train.

Or you can take a bus across the Lincoln Tunnel express bus lane, and spend half your morning in bus congestion to get into Port Authority Bus Terminal, and half your evening lining up to get a bus out (that you'll likely be standing on). I've tried all the ways in and out of Manhattan to suburban NJ, and they're all terrible.

It describes Manhattan pretty well. The Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn badly, and Staten Island not at all.

Good for getting lots of people through bottlenecks though. "Everyone commuting to downtown across the same bridge" is a pretty common situation in American cities, and one transit can solve well.

Except not really. You have to collect the people on one end of the bottleneck and distribute on the other, and that introduces more delays and bottlenecks.

Of course, using congestion pricing just means that all the lawyer software devs working downtown pay the fee just like they all pay to park in the same downtown highrise parking lot.

Why would they drive, if transit works so well?

Mass transit is so much more efficient at moving people through dense areas.

It's efficient at moving large numbers of people who are coming from the same place and going to the same place. It's pretty terrible at anything else.

This is leaves out its genuine major benefit.

What benefit? Less congestion? We won't see such a benefit.

Most urban planning studies show that people will adapt to whatever transit conditions are present, and the impact of induced demand is quite real.

What urban planners call "induced demand" is simply "pent-up demand"; the roads were so oversubscribed that when a new lane or road opens of course it is still at LOS F. The demand wasn't caused by the road; it was caused by the useful things along the road.

It's a different Supreme Court. You cannot at the same time have

  1. Lack of disparate impact according to a protected characteristic

  2. Lack of disparate treatment according to a protected characteristic

  3. A test which truly measures merit.

  4. Merit which is correlated with the protected characteristic.

If the Supreme Court were to confront this head-on, they'd have the job of deciding between

A) Banning tests based on merit. This is practically absurd but legally sound

B) Deferring to the legislature and allowing disparate treatment (discrimination against the group whose membership is correlated with greater merit) in such instances. We are, in effect, here.

C) Ruling that "equal protection" in the Constitution bans disparate treatment and striking down the requirement to avoid disparate impact.

However, the Supreme Court will not confront this head-on; they will do almost anything to allow B) to remain the case while pretending that it isn't and 4) does not attain.

Obvious sophistry. It's a way to get people from outside the city to pay for NYC transit unions.

Too late for that. If we're going to switch back to "states rights", it has to be for a Red issue or it doesn't look like "state's rights" but rather "who/whom".

We've tried the method of making whites take all the rancor and blame. It didn't work out too well. All the other solutions put a significant amount of burden of changing this on blacks, and that's anathema to progressives (especially white progressives).

GiveSendGo hosted Rittenhouse's fundraiser; it was GoFundMe which banned it. They ended the ban after the acquittal, pretending the issue was that they never allowed money to be raised for defense of alleged violent crime.

Schoenfeld, arguing for Montgomery County, says these books that are part of a curriculum that preach uncontroversial values like civility and inclusivity. Alito, skeptical, said Uncle Bobby's Wedding had a clear moral message beyond civility or inclusivity.

Alito should have been more skeptical that "civility" and (especially) "inclusivity" are uncontroversial. Any teaching of "civility" is teaching not just that people should act in ways which are civil and not in ways which are uncivil, but teaching WHICH ways are civil and WHICH ways are uncivil, and those things vary sharply across the population. "Inclusivity" is worse, in that it's basically a positive label for progressive values rather than a label for anything uncontroversial at all.

Yes, but parents and kids take it seriously now. And I think the official punishments have gone up, like losing your license until age 18 for a single violation.