Exactly. Sheer decadence that we've lost our own capacity to manufacture scale-model railroad stuff. I'd've reached out directly to Manchin with a proposal for a WV plant. Bump up the Amtrak angle and that's an easy attach.
Not sure if Younger's Commandments can be expanded to a meta-Trial theory... but this seems to violate at least 4 commandments given how the trial has gone so far.
For clarity, when I talk about Infrastructure Bills my point of reference isn't short term disruptions like the Coronavirus, but long-term policy questions brought up by Autor and the China Shock analyses.
I think supply chain, manufacturing and raw material issues that were made explicit and more visible during Covid-19 should add to the discussion, but part of what I'm suggesting in my primary comment is that Infrastructure is almost always a long game... and it's not clear to me that this Infrastructure Bill wanted to address some of these other aspects of long term infrastructure health.
What's mildly interesting is that TMobile just started offering direct market access to the Grey Market service for $50/month. So nature is healing.
I'm currently subscribing to both as I test the differences / expand capacity. Key takeaway, the TMobile direct service uses terrible hardware compared to Grey Market... so it's less reliable in actual use. Ugh.
Thanks I missed that reference; partially because I've become accustomed to the reporting that implies that coverage is available -- which the Pew Report reinforces on the surface.
In my case, technically I have access to fiber, but practically I do not. My coverage for several years has been 'Grey Market' unlimited 4G from a broker that's leveraging artifacts from past mergers which aren't available on the 'open market'.
This is pretty common when Providers report on their contractual obligations and provide coverage numbers upline. So if you poll me, yes, I have Broadband Access ($150/month for 10-25mbs) ... but not reliable and not under the coverage my county/state think they've negotiated.
That's why I bring this up in execution/sizzle... saying there's $65B in broadband expansion is one of the primary voter experiences with the infrastructure package. If the Dems rely on the current pathways for Broadband? I'm saying explicitly that those $$ will be poorly (and seriously probably fraudulently) allocated.
Relevant to your link to Pew above... what y'all are missing is that most 'rural' folks have 'access' to some broadband - usually cellular - but the access isn't reliable, consistent, or ubiquitous. It's not enough to build a business upon, or make a life-decision upon, or open up new opportunities.
You can, however, if you stand in the right part of the house, watch Netflix.
But secondarily (or Primarily depending on how you want to sell it) getting the ultra fast business backbone connections more widely dispersed is likely the main focus... and that's good. But as someone surrounded by ultra-fast business backbone infrastructure... it doesn't alleviate rural issues if the state/counties don't make use of the infrastructure so that the best internet connection isn't only at the MacDonald's wifi hotspot.
There's a ton of self-dealing/self-regulating/self-reporting by the providers... if the $65B is just being fed into that meatgrinder, then prepare for disappointment.
How and Why are related... you have to have a commitment to ubiquitous Communication/Electricity so that the Why can be within striking distance.
But yes, I agree tangentially, if we're expanding broadband so that people may watch Netflix, and we're indifferent to the requirements of Work/VPN/App/WFH requirements... then we're just making Porn more available... like VHS.
Question: I tried to see what 'redirected funds' amounted to, but couldn't... do you have a link/descriptor? If the bill is $1.2T with $400B in new spending, understanding the other $800B is relevant.
Observation: There's a reason fundraisers always talk about the problem of Infrastructure... it's necessary, but the value is soft... you notice it in its absence, not in its fulfillment. The old joke in Church circles is that people will fund a new decoration for the Church, but no-one wants to pay for the boiler repairs.
Onward: Where I think the 'Progressives' are correct (though I disagree with their priorities/preferences for spending the money) is that the BBB bill is the 'Vision' bill that would impact how people experience a Democratic legislative agenda -- for good *and* for ill.
Execution: Of the above $400B there's certainly a lot of good investments/repairs that are needed. However, capping wells and expanding ports will not change any votes... not because they oughtn't be done, but because everyone expects the boiler to provide heat. Conversely, we're still in a volatile position vis-a-vis Globalization where the focus on Global Supply Infrastructure without a clear plan for re-shoring runs risks with it's own success. Plus, infrastructure at this level is never 'shovel ready' it takes years to execute and see any sort of notable return. So, I don't expect any payoff, even if a lot of this is likely money well spent (eventually).
Sizzle: If there's 'sizzle' in this package, it probably comes from the $65B in Broadband expansion... but here I refer back to execution... I'll be impressed if this actually delivers meaningful Broadband expansion to the areas of the country that would benefit from the opportunity that it would provide -- instead I suspect it will go mostly to improve speeds in metro areas so that more meaningless Netflix content may be consumed. There's also some danger/temptation that expanding Broadband to the hinterlands (where it happens) won't also have policies designed to decentralize commercial concentration... such that all we do is expand meaningless Netflix content to the hinterlands. A sort of opiate of the masses to go with their opiates.
Applause: As I note above, sometimes you need to direct funds to repair the boiler. We all benefit from that; but I get what the Progressives are warning y'all about... repairing the boiler without a heavenly vision won't raise the funds you need to keep things going.
Faint Praise/Caution: From what I've seen of the BBB, I'm not sure that it's a good vision for America, and passing it isn't without risk. Whether that risk is worth taking resides with the Dem caucus... I'd recommend a lot of different directions from what I see in the BBB outlines, but then the American Solidarity party is a loooong way from influencing National priorities. So, good luck storming the castle.
Sure... but now we just run head-long into "what's a state."
Minimally it's an arbitrary boundary in a Federal scheme; maximally it is a sovereign entity whose inhabitants have subscribed to a power-sharing arrangement with a Federal Power that balances the interests of those several states.
Yeah, I'd like to assume good faith, but I don't. DC Statehood is so transparent when compared to simple retrocession (if the goal is 'representation') that any other scheme I run through a filter.
Like Nuclear is to Green Energy Reform : Reapportionment Act (reform) is to Electoral College/Representation/Gerrymandering reform. If we aren't starting with the simple things that don't require constitutional level approvals, then we aren't really starting anywhere.
How? Seriously... it has no unique privileges or duties that aren't wholly dependent upon the State dividing administrative boundaries somewhat arbitrarily.
I guess I don't find the tricky part guessing what Cities might be candidates for becoming a City-State so much as what that would mean in practice.
Also... I wouldn't think that Arlington would qualify for City-State status... it's just a plain old small city.
But likely I'm not quite getting what you're going for here?
Ultimately I think there are two competing objectives:
1. Team Blue needs/wants more Senators.
2. Are we governing our Giant State well
I'm open to discussing #2 and am somewhat indifferent to the pleas of #1 becuase addressing #2 will likely reshuffle the deck and make #1 moot -- or so I surmise.
If #2 were the overriding factor *and* we were willing to jettison both historical and constitutional ties... then we could just re-apportion the states to whatever number we want. Let's say that while we abandon all other ties, we sentimentally decide to adhere to the number 50 states. Cool. Each State is reapportioned into a 'district' that incorporates approximately 6.6M souls. Congressional districts would then be equally divided among all 50 'states'. Voila.
Of course, now we have massive battles on where the lines are drawn for each state every 10-yrs (assuming we keep that artifact) and we still have the battle over what principles we use to draw the state lines (Compact? Communities of interest? Preferred historical borders, etc. etc.).
But mostly I think people are just trying to snake their team's interests into some theoretical 'democratic' principal that doesn't hold up to scrutiny if we aren't willing to drop all constitutional bonds -- drop one, drop all.
My position is that if we want to take seriously the notion of expanding the Polity to include new entities that impact politics at the Federal and State levels, then we should look at what that means.
It's ok to say, MOAR STATES... I'm just not sure that creating a State out of Chicago makes as much sense as saying... what if we look at some sort of Autonomy for City-States which has greater discretion on funding local projects, but which also has duties/taxes to the surrounding state(s), and which has some new electoral capacity yet to be defined...
Or, we should all take baby steps and simply focus on the Reapportionment Act of 1929 -- let that change settle for a decade or two, then reassess.
I grew up in Chicago too! And if we're exploring the concept of a City-State, would it make more sense to emphasize the City vs. State? That is, Cook and DuPage make sense... Maybe even NW Will... but I'm not entirely sure what the objective is by going all the way to, say, DeKalb.
The City-State concept, seems to me, should be compact, dense and rich. But it still has to act as an engine to surrounding areas... so giving the City-State some *extra* autonomy/representation might be a good idea, but it should still be circumscribed somewhat aggressively.
So my counter would be to *not* try to create new 'States' but to think through what a revival of an older concept of 'City-State' might look like. But that would come down to are we trying to create 'free' senators to swing existing balance of power, or are we trying to find a new modus of governing vast geographies in a mass democratic paradigm?
Ok, in consolation and con-fraternity with Dems, we do have to point out that there's an excellent chance that the Republican Party will *also* have all the wrong take-aways.
If you look carefully at the exit polls, he akshually increased his vote among the sort of people he likes to have vote for him. The people who voted for Biden but not for him? Bad Voters.
I think this is a fair point... it was never really clear to me that Youngkin had a 20-point plan for, well, anything in particular.
His victory speach put "school choice" front and center:
"We're going to restore excellence in our schools," Youngkin said. ... "We're going to introduce choice within our public school system. How about that? Choice within the public school system."
But I've been informed that Political Parties have multi-laterally ended the 20-point plan for success during campaigns. We have to elect our politicians to find out what's in our politicians.
On “Democrats Confront The Real Limits Of Their Messaging Problems”
The toxic luminescent paint hardly bothers their little lungs. Competitive Advantage in a nutshell.
"
Exactly. Sheer decadence that we've lost our own capacity to manufacture scale-model railroad stuff. I'd've reached out directly to Manchin with a proposal for a WV plant. Bump up the Amtrak angle and that's an easy attach.
On “A Victim, By Any Other Name”
Not sure if Younger's Commandments can be expanded to a meta-Trial theory... but this seems to violate at least 4 commandments given how the trial has gone so far.
On “Democrats Confront The Real Limits Of Their Messaging Problems”
For clarity, when I talk about Infrastructure Bills my point of reference isn't short term disruptions like the Coronavirus, but long-term policy questions brought up by Autor and the China Shock analyses.
I think supply chain, manufacturing and raw material issues that were made explicit and more visible during Covid-19 should add to the discussion, but part of what I'm suggesting in my primary comment is that Infrastructure is almost always a long game... and it's not clear to me that this Infrastructure Bill wanted to address some of these other aspects of long term infrastructure health.
"
Heh, solidarity :fist:
What's mildly interesting is that TMobile just started offering direct market access to the Grey Market service for $50/month. So nature is healing.
I'm currently subscribing to both as I test the differences / expand capacity. Key takeaway, the TMobile direct service uses terrible hardware compared to Grey Market... so it's less reliable in actual use. Ugh.
"
Thanks I missed that reference; partially because I've become accustomed to the reporting that implies that coverage is available -- which the Pew Report reinforces on the surface.
In my case, technically I have access to fiber, but practically I do not. My coverage for several years has been 'Grey Market' unlimited 4G from a broker that's leveraging artifacts from past mergers which aren't available on the 'open market'.
This is pretty common when Providers report on their contractual obligations and provide coverage numbers upline. So if you poll me, yes, I have Broadband Access ($150/month for 10-25mbs) ... but not reliable and not under the coverage my county/state think they've negotiated.
That's why I bring this up in execution/sizzle... saying there's $65B in broadband expansion is one of the primary voter experiences with the infrastructure package. If the Dems rely on the current pathways for Broadband? I'm saying explicitly that those $$ will be poorly (and seriously probably fraudulently) allocated.
"
If you really think those are the only two options, then I appreciate the hesitation to attempt to redress.
"
Relevant to your link to Pew above... what y'all are missing is that most 'rural' folks have 'access' to some broadband - usually cellular - but the access isn't reliable, consistent, or ubiquitous. It's not enough to build a business upon, or make a life-decision upon, or open up new opportunities.
You can, however, if you stand in the right part of the house, watch Netflix.
But secondarily (or Primarily depending on how you want to sell it) getting the ultra fast business backbone connections more widely dispersed is likely the main focus... and that's good. But as someone surrounded by ultra-fast business backbone infrastructure... it doesn't alleviate rural issues if the state/counties don't make use of the infrastructure so that the best internet connection isn't only at the MacDonald's wifi hotspot.
There's a ton of self-dealing/self-regulating/self-reporting by the providers... if the $65B is just being fed into that meatgrinder, then prepare for disappointment.
"
I think it's too 'central planned government' when Dems talk about it... but that's what I'd call a 'Real Limit of Their Messaging Problem' :-)
"
How and Why are related... you have to have a commitment to ubiquitous Communication/Electricity so that the Why can be within striking distance.
But yes, I agree tangentially, if we're expanding broadband so that people may watch Netflix, and we're indifferent to the requirements of Work/VPN/App/WFH requirements... then we're just making Porn more available... like VHS.
"
Question: I tried to see what 'redirected funds' amounted to, but couldn't... do you have a link/descriptor? If the bill is $1.2T with $400B in new spending, understanding the other $800B is relevant.
Observation: There's a reason fundraisers always talk about the problem of Infrastructure... it's necessary, but the value is soft... you notice it in its absence, not in its fulfillment. The old joke in Church circles is that people will fund a new decoration for the Church, but no-one wants to pay for the boiler repairs.
Onward: Where I think the 'Progressives' are correct (though I disagree with their priorities/preferences for spending the money) is that the BBB bill is the 'Vision' bill that would impact how people experience a Democratic legislative agenda -- for good *and* for ill.
Execution: Of the above $400B there's certainly a lot of good investments/repairs that are needed. However, capping wells and expanding ports will not change any votes... not because they oughtn't be done, but because everyone expects the boiler to provide heat. Conversely, we're still in a volatile position vis-a-vis Globalization where the focus on Global Supply Infrastructure without a clear plan for re-shoring runs risks with it's own success. Plus, infrastructure at this level is never 'shovel ready' it takes years to execute and see any sort of notable return. So, I don't expect any payoff, even if a lot of this is likely money well spent (eventually).
Sizzle: If there's 'sizzle' in this package, it probably comes from the $65B in Broadband expansion... but here I refer back to execution... I'll be impressed if this actually delivers meaningful Broadband expansion to the areas of the country that would benefit from the opportunity that it would provide -- instead I suspect it will go mostly to improve speeds in metro areas so that more meaningless Netflix content may be consumed. There's also some danger/temptation that expanding Broadband to the hinterlands (where it happens) won't also have policies designed to decentralize commercial concentration... such that all we do is expand meaningless Netflix content to the hinterlands. A sort of opiate of the masses to go with their opiates.
Applause: As I note above, sometimes you need to direct funds to repair the boiler. We all benefit from that; but I get what the Progressives are warning y'all about... repairing the boiler without a heavenly vision won't raise the funds you need to keep things going.
Faint Praise/Caution: From what I've seen of the BBB, I'm not sure that it's a good vision for America, and passing it isn't without risk. Whether that risk is worth taking resides with the Dem caucus... I'd recommend a lot of different directions from what I see in the BBB outlines, but then the American Solidarity party is a loooong way from influencing National priorities. So, good luck storming the castle.
On “Restating: Rethinking States, Cities, and Redistricting”
We could and should on all counts.
The Empire of Guadeloupe.
"
Sure... but now we just run head-long into "what's a state."
Minimally it's an arbitrary boundary in a Federal scheme; maximally it is a sovereign entity whose inhabitants have subscribed to a power-sharing arrangement with a Federal Power that balances the interests of those several states.
And then there's DC.
"
Yeah, I'd like to assume good faith, but I don't. DC Statehood is so transparent when compared to simple retrocession (if the goal is 'representation') that any other scheme I run through a filter.
Like Nuclear is to Green Energy Reform : Reapportionment Act (reform) is to Electoral College/Representation/Gerrymandering reform. If we aren't starting with the simple things that don't require constitutional level approvals, then we aren't really starting anywhere.
"
How? Seriously... it has no unique privileges or duties that aren't wholly dependent upon the State dividing administrative boundaries somewhat arbitrarily.
I guess I don't find the tricky part guessing what Cities might be candidates for becoming a City-State so much as what that would mean in practice.
Also... I wouldn't think that Arlington would qualify for City-State status... it's just a plain old small city.
But likely I'm not quite getting what you're going for here?
"
Ultimately I think there are two competing objectives:
1. Team Blue needs/wants more Senators.
2. Are we governing our Giant State well
I'm open to discussing #2 and am somewhat indifferent to the pleas of #1 becuase addressing #2 will likely reshuffle the deck and make #1 moot -- or so I surmise.
If #2 were the overriding factor *and* we were willing to jettison both historical and constitutional ties... then we could just re-apportion the states to whatever number we want. Let's say that while we abandon all other ties, we sentimentally decide to adhere to the number 50 states. Cool. Each State is reapportioned into a 'district' that incorporates approximately 6.6M souls. Congressional districts would then be equally divided among all 50 'states'. Voila.
Of course, now we have massive battles on where the lines are drawn for each state every 10-yrs (assuming we keep that artifact) and we still have the battle over what principles we use to draw the state lines (Compact? Communities of interest? Preferred historical borders, etc. etc.).
But mostly I think people are just trying to snake their team's interests into some theoretical 'democratic' principal that doesn't hold up to scrutiny if we aren't willing to drop all constitutional bonds -- drop one, drop all.
"
Of what though?
My position is that if we want to take seriously the notion of expanding the Polity to include new entities that impact politics at the Federal and State levels, then we should look at what that means.
It's ok to say, MOAR STATES... I'm just not sure that creating a State out of Chicago makes as much sense as saying... what if we look at some sort of Autonomy for City-States which has greater discretion on funding local projects, but which also has duties/taxes to the surrounding state(s), and which has some new electoral capacity yet to be defined...
Or, we should all take baby steps and simply focus on the Reapportionment Act of 1929 -- let that change settle for a decade or two, then reassess.
"
I grew up in Chicago too! And if we're exploring the concept of a City-State, would it make more sense to emphasize the City vs. State? That is, Cook and DuPage make sense... Maybe even NW Will... but I'm not entirely sure what the objective is by going all the way to, say, DeKalb.
The City-State concept, seems to me, should be compact, dense and rich. But it still has to act as an engine to surrounding areas... so giving the City-State some *extra* autonomy/representation might be a good idea, but it should still be circumscribed somewhat aggressively.
So my counter would be to *not* try to create new 'States' but to think through what a revival of an older concept of 'City-State' might look like. But that would come down to are we trying to create 'free' senators to swing existing balance of power, or are we trying to find a new modus of governing vast geographies in a mass democratic paradigm?
On “Video Throughput: Astronomy Unsolved Mysteries”
What if the aliens are rubbing the magnetars together?
Nice show.
On “About Last Night: Youngkin Wins In Virginia, GOP Has Strong Night”
Didn't really come up. Youngkin didn't try to run against Northam... he had plenty to work with in McAuliffe.
McAuliffe spent so much money and airtime running against Trump that I think Trump will have a tough time if he tries to run for governor.
"
Good point... they tend to be about Big Little Ideas, like: Repeal the Car Tax! or Fish the Arlington NIMBY's widen 66!
Or about nothing, like Excellence in Education! Restore Virginia! or Virginia is for vaccine lovers!
"
Are we sure uterus havers are up to the task?
"
Ok, in consolation and con-fraternity with Dems, we do have to point out that there's an excellent chance that the Republican Party will *also* have all the wrong take-aways.
"
If you look carefully at the exit polls, he akshually increased his vote among the sort of people he likes to have vote for him. The people who voted for Biden but not for him? Bad Voters.
"
I think this is a fair point... it was never really clear to me that Youngkin had a 20-point plan for, well, anything in particular.
His victory speach put "school choice" front and center:
"We're going to restore excellence in our schools," Youngkin said. ... "We're going to introduce choice within our public school system. How about that? Choice within the public school system."
But his website doesn't really say what he means by choice... maybe more Charter schools?
But I've been informed that Political Parties have multi-laterally ended the 20-point plan for success during campaigns. We have to elect our politicians to find out what's in our politicians.