"Each community and nontransient noncommunity water system must be under the responsible charge of an operator certified at a level equal to or greater than the system classification. This person has the authority to make decisions that affect water quality or quantity. In addition, “all operating personnel that make process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or quantity that affect public health must be certified” (p. 5919, section II.C.2). A certified operator must be available during each operating shift."
This is a pretty standard environmental regulation; any activity with significant public health concerns will have an individual operator for purposes of accountability.
I think he's talking about the idea of sovereignty. I think there are a few different things here.
First, when states want to perform services at a localized level, they set up branch offices (like the DMV). OTOH municipal corporations are set-up with the expectation of having a degree of independence and a more generalized portfolio.
Dillon's Rule tells us whether the municipal corporation has a power to do something. If the question is "Can my city go into the business of supplying drinking water?" Then Dillon's Rule says there has to be state legislation that specifically authorizes this activity. In state's that give municipalities home-rule authority, essentially the question is reversed: "Is there a law that prevents my home rule government from supplying drinking water?"
What I think is the more important point is that local governments, unlike state and federal government, lack sovereign power. Whatever power a local government has, it can be taken away by the state. The City of Flint could be dissolved by the State, split up into different towns, or have its name changed if the right state laws were passed.
Interesting update. But what I've not seen discussed anywhere, as someone familiar with Illinois environmental regulations, is the licensing requirements. All community water supplies in Illinois have to be operated by a certified drinking water operator. Providing drinking water services, like treating sewage or abating asbestos or operating a landfill is a technical activity that is conducted under the supervision of someone with a technical background. In most states I would assume there is licensing. And when something goes back, the state and feds go looking for that person who signed-off as the operator.
In most cases of clinical depression, the best treatment is medication and cognitive therapy. People invariably stop taking the medication for the reasons you describe, and are at risk of suicide during the withdrawal period, some argue worse than had no medication been taken at all.
My recollection of Scully's character was not so favorable. She was the straight-person to the quirky, scene-stealer, and when Duchovny left the show, it lurched into a pretty sad place. This isn't a reflection of her acting abilities, that was how her character was written. The closest analogy I can think of is Two-and-a-half Men, with Charlie Sheen getting paid more than twice per episode as Jon Cryer. The brother-relationship was at the heart of the show and I think Cryer was arguably doing the better acting. I would have assumed Anderson would get paid less, I just don't know how much less.
Historically, immigration flows have been determined by (a) push factors (fleeing from war and starvation), (b) pull factors (recruitment or creating a new economic or religious life), and (c) cost. While there is often a mixture of push and pull, immigration to America was most frequently and most successfully based upon positive attributes of "pull" migration. For most of the 19th century, immigration rose and ebbed based upon the U.S. economy and job demands, indicating that prospective immigrants were closely reading newspapers and even identifying specific cities where they believed jobs were waiting.
The mechanism that regulated the type of immigrants that came was cost, because it was expensive and for most an irreversible decision not to be made lightly. People fleeing catastrophe generally didn't make it to America until more recently when the U.S. government began loaning the cost of transfer under refugee programs.
The mass migration of the Irish from the potato famine is the best example of negative migration, but somewhat overstated in that the Irish tended to originate from the wealthier counties, often after working their fare in England. The Irish had always been coming to America, but the group that arrived in Boston/New York without jobs or opportunity were met with a backlash that was not similar to the response they received in the Midwest.
Backlash is the democratic response to immigration in the face of job competition and strains on public coffers.
Wow, this is how I learn that my old school (Tulane) left Conference USA. I'm not a big football fan either, but I can recall about 10-15 yrs ago, Tulane floated the idea of ending football or at least Div. I. The question was whether it was worth the expense, and there were reports issued, conferences held, and from what I absorbed, it really made no sense for Tulane to continue. Few teams were making money and few were truly in a position to be competitive on an increasingly national stage. Tulane was in conferences with schools both far away and of a different sports/athletic culture.
The benefits of remaining were largely intangential. Increase connection with alumni, and national name-recognition. The decision was made to remain as a positive force within the system, which the cynical side of me says that the connection with alumni increased. None none of the trends seem favorable at all. And the one game I attended, an Alabama blow-out during one of their championship seasons seemed to have little student attendance.
I think there is a general sense that Indiana's government performs better than Illinois', though (and possibly because) there appears to be less government in Indiana. I think Illinois historically has had a more diverse population, including going back to original WASP settlement, through late-nineteenth century ethnic European settlement that still is not entirely assimilated, and post-War African-American migration from the South. The political response, particularly attractive to poorer groups from the South, as well as from Eastern Europe was machine politics or other means by which money or jobs were distributed to groups in exchange for their support. The Illinois tollway commission has long been associated with political corruption (it was in the background of one of Blagojevich's scandals).
"minute comparative differences between you and your equally smart classmates will produce what appear to be major disparities in scores and thus your all-important rank in the class"
One thing I observed about some of my equally smart classmates was a tendency to have trouble seeing different sides of an issue or problem. Most often they had a natural compassion for the perceived victim in the hypothetical, and a blind sport for legal rights or defenses available to the other side. Tests are often written to see if you can spot all of the legal issues that might be implicated, not just the best ones and not the just the ones you prefer.
This may relate back to the reasons they went to lawschool: "Something Is Terribly Wrong With The World And I Intend To Acquire And Use Super Attorney Powers To Fix It." In my day, those students got fun, though not lucrative jobs in public interest.
I also think the presence of state established churches had some effect in channelling the intensity of religious expressions. At the very least, religious speech threatened tax payor support and the implicit enjoyment of being a part of the state's cultural establishment.
Weren't employee stock options at Enron a big source of hardship for employees who weren't diversified when it collapsed? For working class families, this seems like it increases risk and uncertainty for people without the ability to participate in the management decisions that effect that risk.
Springfield, Illinois. I checked the zoning ordinance on MuniCode, and I think I am correct. No new building, major modification or repair to an existing building can take place without necessary off-street parking except in the S-3 district (central shopping district).
If this is odd, it might be because it's a somewhat older city with buildings over a hundred years old. Those that haven't been maintained get torn down and replaced by parking garages or lots. There is probably not a desire to make it more expensive for these older buildings to be modified from time to time to maintain their usability and appearance as historic structures.
Cowen's piece did not resonate with my experience in a city of just over 100,000 with developable land around the edges. Big retailers come in with their own studies on parking needs, and whether these are more or less than the zoning requirements is probably marginal. Do people really think Wal-Mart would have significantly smaller parking lots without government intrusion?
In our Central Business District, I don't believe there are any parking requirements. I think the assumption is that metered spaces, parking lots/garages, and a developed public transportation network suffice.
The issue would appear to be in the older residential neighborhoods that are mixed-use with commercial. The government either needs to find a balance that keeps the uses compatible, or get out of the zoning business all together. I suspect the latter is the actual true libertarian position.
Well, Lieberman says it wouldn't be automatic. Existing law allows citizenship to be stripped in a non-criminal setting with proof by mere preponderance of the evidence. Since it's non-criminal, his own statements could be used against him without any Miranda-related concerns.
As to the second point, I don't know what rights Lieberman thinks non-citizens have that citizens have. Stripping someone of their citizenship would set the stage for deporation, but AFAIK a non-citizen has the same rights in this country as a citizen.
Could someone explain to me how Lieberman's proposal is different than the citizenship stripping provisions we currently have in place: 42 U.S.C. 1481. I see one potential difference: the law may only apply to taking up service with a foreign state, as opposed to a non-state actor. We used this law to strip the citizenship of Americans who went over to Germany to fight us during WWII. The extent to which we apply concepts for state actors to non-state actors seems like a legitimate policy question.
I don't have strong views on Wilson one way or the other, but the problem with the indictment seems to me that the examples all follow U.S. entry into World War I. To me, Wilson needs be judged objectively either in comparison with other war-time Presidents or by comparison with the other WWI belligerent. I'm not sure Wilson's conduct stands out that much in either comparison.
Perhaps Wilson was slightly worse on war time civil liberties than FDR or Lincoln, and it may stand some scrutiny as to whether the U.S. moved more quickly towards these restrictions than other belligerents.
But Wilson's segregation of the federal government was novel and revealing and had nothing to do with war.
I think michael raises some good points about marriage being entirely a social convention, though ultimately I disagreed with him. My main disagreement is that I don't think any one of the sources of conventions listed is sufficient to undo the idea of marriage. But if the idea of marriage dissolved into "whatever two people agree to," I would find the notion of my being married largely irrelevant.
1. Still married. I find this one easy since I believe many of my American ancestors would have considered themselves married without any government imprimatur.
2. More problematic. Our wedding was conducted in a church, but marriage is not considered a religious sacrament in my denomination. The notion of void by a technicality is probably abhorrent to it. I think I would be consistent with it's teachings that religious imprimatur is important, but not necessary. So, I would probably seek to correct the technical error, but wouldn't feel "unmarried."
3. Easy, family opinion wouldn't matter at all. It's easier than the first two because the first two address the social conventions of marriage. People's opinions of whether I and my wife are fit for those conventions mean far less, so long as my wife and I feel that we are.
I think one needs to look at British finances as well, which had been decimated after the Great War, and restoring the strength of the Pound was essential to a British economy that could fight another war. The Depression didn't help, nor IIRC did Americans in refusing to flex loan terms.
So my own quick brush of the history is the British were involved in substantial drawdowns on government expenses, including some fairly unpopular military reductions that Churchill participated in after 1919. After Munich, Britain ramped up for war. I think Chamberlain is portrayed as more naive than he really was.
My insurance provider has negotiated with local healthcare providers to pay 80% of approved charges; IIRC the House government option would have something similar. As I see it, the principle is similar. The government or dominant insurance companies in a given market can demand cost reductions due to leverage.
Now you are probably right that these savings are passed on, but I assume they are passed on proportionately to those with less leverage.
Ezra Klein has never made any sense to me about the reasons for a public option, other than it exists as a compromise on the Left on a single-payor system. At least I understand the virtues of a single-payor system: the government has monopolistic power to set price and it has compete discretion to charge (or not charge) premiums based upon public equity. It also solves portability and removes the employers from the role of primary decisionmaker.
If the public option increases competition, it is not likely to reduce healthcare costs. It may increase them because healthcare insurance monopsonies have leverage to demand price reductions from healthcare providers. (Competition may promote some better insurance practices, i.e. competition in those services that the insurance company actually provide, but where the insurance company is acting as agent to negotiate cost reductions from third parties, it would appear to work the opposite)
"There’s something very paternal about bans. In effect it’s saying even though people want it, clearly they aren’t smart/rational/classy enough to know that they shouldn’t. "
A quick glance at the most recent Pew studies on the media appear to indicate that people who watch cable news are "younger, more educated and more knowledgeable about current events. " They also like to get news from the internet.
So, yes, I don't think people consume cable news in the fashion projected.
I find the whole discussion creepy, but I'm confused about what is being proposed.
I assume that news-entertainment industry is making money doing whatever it's doing. As point of evidence, I believe MSNBC has increased its rating share by mimicking Fox from the Left.
That said, what is the process by which certain individuals are banned? It has to be the government, no? Or are we merely talking about gnashing our teeth and waiting for the gods to answer?
I'm a Midwesterner (Illinois), who attended grad school in New Orleans, where about a third of my classmates were from the Northeast Corridor. The Nor-Easterners self-reported that they were surprised how nice and laid-back the South was, and as time went on, they felt changed when they talked to friends and family back home. Of course, these were my friends; it wasn't that they weren't nice, but they might have been more abrupt, talked faster, been more harried, more striving . . . (I need a thesaurus)
I personally have found from week long stays that there are some cultural affinities across the Northern part of the country (Washington, Minnesota, Maine), and less so across the Sourthern, but staying with wife's family in Central Arizona, I did feel some of the laid-back charachter of the rural South. So, I do wonder about the impact of climate on culture or our east-to-west settlement patterns.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Flint Water Crisis Update”
There is supposed to be a certified operator managing the plant. I found this Very Small Water System Operators’ Guidebook (pdf) published by the USEPA that explains:
"Each community and nontransient noncommunity water system must be under the responsible charge of an operator certified at a level equal to or greater than the system classification. This person has the authority to make decisions that affect water quality or quantity. In addition, “all operating personnel that make process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or quantity that affect public health must be certified” (p. 5919, section II.C.2). A certified operator must be available during each operating shift."
This is a pretty standard environmental regulation; any activity with significant public health concerns will have an individual operator for purposes of accountability.
"
I think he's talking about the idea of sovereignty. I think there are a few different things here.
First, when states want to perform services at a localized level, they set up branch offices (like the DMV). OTOH municipal corporations are set-up with the expectation of having a degree of independence and a more generalized portfolio.
Dillon's Rule tells us whether the municipal corporation has a power to do something. If the question is "Can my city go into the business of supplying drinking water?" Then Dillon's Rule says there has to be state legislation that specifically authorizes this activity. In state's that give municipalities home-rule authority, essentially the question is reversed: "Is there a law that prevents my home rule government from supplying drinking water?"
What I think is the more important point is that local governments, unlike state and federal government, lack sovereign power. Whatever power a local government has, it can be taken away by the state. The City of Flint could be dissolved by the State, split up into different towns, or have its name changed if the right state laws were passed.
"
Interesting update. But what I've not seen discussed anywhere, as someone familiar with Illinois environmental regulations, is the licensing requirements. All community water supplies in Illinois have to be operated by a certified drinking water operator. Providing drinking water services, like treating sewage or abating asbestos or operating a landfill is a technical activity that is conducted under the supervision of someone with a technical background. In most states I would assume there is licensing. And when something goes back, the state and feds go looking for that person who signed-off as the operator.
On “Jesse’s Off His Meds Again”
In most cases of clinical depression, the best treatment is medication and cognitive therapy. People invariably stop taking the medication for the reasons you describe, and are at risk of suicide during the withdrawal period, some argue worse than had no medication been taken at all.
On “The Disparity Is Out There”
My recollection of Scully's character was not so favorable. She was the straight-person to the quirky, scene-stealer, and when Duchovny left the show, it lurched into a pretty sad place. This isn't a reflection of her acting abilities, that was how her character was written. The closest analogy I can think of is Two-and-a-half Men, with Charlie Sheen getting paid more than twice per episode as Jon Cryer. The brother-relationship was at the heart of the show and I think Cryer was arguably doing the better acting. I would have assumed Anderson would get paid less, I just don't know how much less.
On “Morning Ed: Immigration {2016.01.21.Th}”
Historically, immigration flows have been determined by (a) push factors (fleeing from war and starvation), (b) pull factors (recruitment or creating a new economic or religious life), and (c) cost. While there is often a mixture of push and pull, immigration to America was most frequently and most successfully based upon positive attributes of "pull" migration. For most of the 19th century, immigration rose and ebbed based upon the U.S. economy and job demands, indicating that prospective immigrants were closely reading newspapers and even identifying specific cities where they believed jobs were waiting.
The mechanism that regulated the type of immigrants that came was cost, because it was expensive and for most an irreversible decision not to be made lightly. People fleeing catastrophe generally didn't make it to America until more recently when the U.S. government began loaning the cost of transfer under refugee programs.
The mass migration of the Irish from the potato famine is the best example of negative migration, but somewhat overstated in that the Irish tended to originate from the wealthier counties, often after working their fare in England. The Irish had always been coming to America, but the group that arrived in Boston/New York without jobs or opportunity were met with a backlash that was not similar to the response they received in the Midwest.
Backlash is the democratic response to immigration in the face of job competition and strains on public coffers.
On “The Hammer Falling Or The First Domino?”
Wow, this is how I learn that my old school (Tulane) left Conference USA. I'm not a big football fan either, but I can recall about 10-15 yrs ago, Tulane floated the idea of ending football or at least Div. I. The question was whether it was worth the expense, and there were reports issued, conferences held, and from what I absorbed, it really made no sense for Tulane to continue. Few teams were making money and few were truly in a position to be competitive on an increasingly national stage. Tulane was in conferences with schools both far away and of a different sports/athletic culture.
The benefits of remaining were largely intangential. Increase connection with alumni, and national name-recognition. The decision was made to remain as a positive force within the system, which the cynical side of me says that the connection with alumni increased. None none of the trends seem favorable at all. And the one game I attended, an Alabama blow-out during one of their championship seasons seemed to have little student attendance.
On “Trumwill’s Trek: Staid Sangamon”
I think there is a general sense that Indiana's government performs better than Illinois', though (and possibly because) there appears to be less government in Indiana. I think Illinois historically has had a more diverse population, including going back to original WASP settlement, through late-nineteenth century ethnic European settlement that still is not entirely assimilated, and post-War African-American migration from the South. The political response, particularly attractive to poorer groups from the South, as well as from Eastern Europe was machine politics or other means by which money or jobs were distributed to groups in exchange for their support. The Illinois tollway commission has long been associated with political corruption (it was in the background of one of Blagojevich's scandals).
On “Malice Aforethought: Getting Through (Law School, Part 3)”
"minute comparative differences between you and your equally smart classmates will produce what appear to be major disparities in scores and thus your all-important rank in the class"
One thing I observed about some of my equally smart classmates was a tendency to have trouble seeing different sides of an issue or problem. Most often they had a natural compassion for the perceived victim in the hypothetical, and a blind sport for legal rights or defenses available to the other side. Tests are often written to see if you can spot all of the legal issues that might be implicated, not just the best ones and not the just the ones you prefer.
This may relate back to the reasons they went to lawschool: "Something Is Terribly Wrong With The World And I Intend To Acquire And Use Super Attorney Powers To Fix It." In my day, those students got fun, though not lucrative jobs in public interest.
On “Rick Perry’s Christian America”
I also think the presence of state established churches had some effect in channelling the intensity of religious expressions. At the very least, religious speech threatened tax payor support and the implicit enjoyment of being a part of the state's cultural establishment.
On “Uncertain America”
Weren't employee stock options at Enron a big source of hardship for employees who weren't diversified when it collapsed? For working class families, this seems like it increases risk and uncertainty for people without the ability to participate in the management decisions that effect that risk.
On “Free parking and/or markets.”
@David Schaengold,
Springfield, Illinois. I checked the zoning ordinance on MuniCode, and I think I am correct. No new building, major modification or repair to an existing building can take place without necessary off-street parking except in the S-3 district (central shopping district).
If this is odd, it might be because it's a somewhat older city with buildings over a hundred years old. Those that haven't been maintained get torn down and replaced by parking garages or lots. There is probably not a desire to make it more expensive for these older buildings to be modified from time to time to maintain their usability and appearance as historic structures.
"
Cowen's piece did not resonate with my experience in a city of just over 100,000 with developable land around the edges. Big retailers come in with their own studies on parking needs, and whether these are more or less than the zoning requirements is probably marginal. Do people really think Wal-Mart would have significantly smaller parking lots without government intrusion?
In our Central Business District, I don't believe there are any parking requirements. I think the assumption is that metered spaces, parking lots/garages, and a developed public transportation network suffice.
The issue would appear to be in the older residential neighborhoods that are mixed-use with commercial. The government either needs to find a balance that keeps the uses compatible, or get out of the zoning business all together. I suspect the latter is the actual true libertarian position.
On “Miranda!”
@Mike Schilling,
Well, Lieberman says it wouldn't be automatic. Existing law allows citizenship to be stripped in a non-criminal setting with proof by mere preponderance of the evidence. Since it's non-criminal, his own statements could be used against him without any Miranda-related concerns.
As to the second point, I don't know what rights Lieberman thinks non-citizens have that citizens have. Stripping someone of their citizenship would set the stage for deporation, but AFAIK a non-citizen has the same rights in this country as a citizen.
"
Could someone explain to me how Lieberman's proposal is different than the citizenship stripping provisions we currently have in place: 42 U.S.C. 1481. I see one potential difference: the law may only apply to taking up service with a foreign state, as opposed to a non-state actor. We used this law to strip the citizenship of Americans who went over to Germany to fight us during WWII. The extent to which we apply concepts for state actors to non-state actors seems like a legitimate policy question.
On “Critics of Woodrow Wilson strangely ignore the worst aspects of his presidency”
I don't have strong views on Wilson one way or the other, but the problem with the indictment seems to me that the examples all follow U.S. entry into World War I. To me, Wilson needs be judged objectively either in comparison with other war-time Presidents or by comparison with the other WWI belligerent. I'm not sure Wilson's conduct stands out that much in either comparison.
Perhaps Wilson was slightly worse on war time civil liberties than FDR or Lincoln, and it may stand some scrutiny as to whether the U.S. moved more quickly towards these restrictions than other belligerents.
But Wilson's segregation of the federal government was novel and revealing and had nothing to do with war.
On “What Would It Take to Un-Marry You?”
I think michael raises some good points about marriage being entirely a social convention, though ultimately I disagreed with him. My main disagreement is that I don't think any one of the sources of conventions listed is sufficient to undo the idea of marriage. But if the idea of marriage dissolved into "whatever two people agree to," I would find the notion of my being married largely irrelevant.
"
1. Still married. I find this one easy since I believe many of my American ancestors would have considered themselves married without any government imprimatur.
2. More problematic. Our wedding was conducted in a church, but marriage is not considered a religious sacrament in my denomination. The notion of void by a technicality is probably abhorrent to it. I think I would be consistent with it's teachings that religious imprimatur is important, but not necessary. So, I would probably seek to correct the technical error, but wouldn't feel "unmarried."
3. Easy, family opinion wouldn't matter at all. It's easier than the first two because the first two address the social conventions of marriage. People's opinions of whether I and my wife are fit for those conventions mean far less, so long as my wife and I feel that we are.
On “Revisiting Munich”
I think one needs to look at British finances as well, which had been decimated after the Great War, and restoring the strength of the Pound was essential to a British economy that could fight another war. The Depression didn't help, nor IIRC did Americans in refusing to flex loan terms.
So my own quick brush of the history is the British were involved in substantial drawdowns on government expenses, including some fairly unpopular military reductions that Churchill participated in after 1919. After Munich, Britain ramped up for war. I think Chamberlain is portrayed as more naive than he really was.
On “improvements to the current health care reform proposals”
My insurance provider has negotiated with local healthcare providers to pay 80% of approved charges; IIRC the House government option would have something similar. As I see it, the principle is similar. The government or dominant insurance companies in a given market can demand cost reductions due to leverage.
Now you are probably right that these savings are passed on, but I assume they are passed on proportionately to those with less leverage.
"
Ezra Klein has never made any sense to me about the reasons for a public option, other than it exists as a compromise on the Left on a single-payor system. At least I understand the virtues of a single-payor system: the government has monopolistic power to set price and it has compete discretion to charge (or not charge) premiums based upon public equity. It also solves portability and removes the employers from the role of primary decisionmaker.
If the public option increases competition, it is not likely to reduce healthcare costs. It may increase them because healthcare insurance monopsonies have leverage to demand price reductions from healthcare providers. (Competition may promote some better insurance practices, i.e. competition in those services that the insurance company actually provide, but where the insurance company is acting as agent to negotiate cost reductions from third parties, it would appear to work the opposite)
On “response to Conor”
"There’s something very paternal about bans. In effect it’s saying even though people want it, clearly they aren’t smart/rational/classy enough to know that they shouldn’t. "
A quick glance at the most recent Pew studies on the media appear to indicate that people who watch cable news are "younger, more educated and more knowledgeable about current events. " They also like to get news from the internet.
So, yes, I don't think people consume cable news in the fashion projected.
"
I find the whole discussion creepy, but I'm confused about what is being proposed.
I assume that news-entertainment industry is making money doing whatever it's doing. As point of evidence, I believe MSNBC has increased its rating share by mimicking Fox from the Left.
That said, what is the process by which certain individuals are banned? It has to be the government, no? Or are we merely talking about gnashing our teeth and waiting for the gods to answer?
On “question for readers – america the beautiful edition”
I'm a Midwesterner (Illinois), who attended grad school in New Orleans, where about a third of my classmates were from the Northeast Corridor. The Nor-Easterners self-reported that they were surprised how nice and laid-back the South was, and as time went on, they felt changed when they talked to friends and family back home. Of course, these were my friends; it wasn't that they weren't nice, but they might have been more abrupt, talked faster, been more harried, more striving . . . (I need a thesaurus)
I personally have found from week long stays that there are some cultural affinities across the Northern part of the country (Washington, Minnesota, Maine), and less so across the Sourthern, but staying with wife's family in Central Arizona, I did feel some of the laid-back charachter of the rural South. So, I do wonder about the impact of climate on culture or our east-to-west settlement patterns.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.