@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

Still, aesthetics that conjure images of 1930s Germany are to be avoided (that means you Greg).

I can squint and see where the comparisons are coming from, but Bovino's coat looks much more like an M1939 US Army wool overcoat (link is to reproduction) than any German historical examples I can find, which seem to all have different lapels and mostly aren't olive green. And WWII US army issue kit is as definitionally anti-fascist as you can get. This page has a picture of Japanese-American troops in the highly-decorated 442nd wearing these coats.

I don't think I can construct a coherent reason to carry while protesting that takes the premises seriously that doesn't involve an active intent to use it aggressively.

For some definition of "protesting", the Bundy standoffs might qualify as examples here (not endorsing, just observing): as far as I'm aware, the guns were never fired (although perhaps pointed aggressively), and it was quite plausibly IMO part of the fed's decisions to stand down there, rather than repeat Waco or Ruby Ridge.

grainy bus video of a Russian woman

If you mean Iryna Zarutska, she was a Ukrainian refugee of the Russian invasion, and it was a light rail line, not a bus.

Gold/Silver -The discovery of a large new lode made available through new tech.

Eventually (and I'm not going to hold my breath) the asteroid mining folks seem likely to strike it rich.

Fair. His (citizen) father's killing was ordered extrajudicially. The son was a bystander in a separate ordered extrajudicial killing.

I know people on the right who fit into (1) pretty well too: "We're fine with immigrants, but we should enforce the laws as written because that's the process. Those laws could maybe be improved (exact direction unclear), but distributed decisions to not enforce laws is not the way to change them." Those folks are generally pretty positive about legal immigrants and naturalization, although maybe there's some skepticism of specific programs (H1-B).

if a future liberal administration massively expanded the ATF and descended on Jacksonville

This sounds a lot like what the ATF was up to in the 90s. Ruby Ridge and Waco really did prompt some effective red tribe organization: on the bad side McVeigh and Nichols, and less-violently a bunch of grassroots interest in gun rights that has been pretty politically effective, like the defeat of renewing the assault weapons ban, constitutional open carry in several states, and all-time highs in gun sales. The political weight of the NRA (and adjacent organizations) in the last couple decades is exactly what "effective organization" should look like.

imagine having to work with whistles like that all the time

IMO "subjecting federal agents to noise likely to cause long-term hearing damage" (impossible to tell from the videos, but quite believable) probably shouldn't be allowed. Having them don hearing protection and ignore people talking to them seems the worse option there.

He also ordered the extrajudicial killing of a teenage American citizen.

My mind keeps comparing it to accounts of melee infantry battles of antiquity: both sides have lined up and squared off, but mostly they just yell and taunt back and forth from outside of arms reach until someone is stupid enough to actually step forward. In this case, there's the added meta oddity that both sides would claim that they're not there for battle, although their formations suggest otherwise.

Are the businesses hiring illegal immigrants ones that have C-suites? I would have guessed the majority are employed by small firms (potentially contracting for larger ones) as, if nothing else, plausible deniability. And I think quite a few work in cash --- residential construction, yard work, and housekeeping. Are there significant numbers in formal office jobs with tax paperwork?

This feels a lot like cope, but at least "was this gun discharged" is something that forensics can probably answer definitively.

On the other hand, even if it were, it's still unclear to me that it's still justifiable, if at least a bit understandable: surely police aren't justified in shooting someone on the ground being arrested just because a loud noise happened nearby (actual gunshots elsewhere, fireworks, cars backfiring). I do think intentionally making such noises in these sorts of situations is just asking for trouble (I recall saying that fireworks shot at police during the 2020 protests/riots were grossly negligent), but I wouldn't condone immediate "return" fire.

But I'm also of the opinion that permanent-hearing-damage levels of intentional noisemaking (all the whistles going on, among other things) should probably be considered "assault" (otherwise I'll start working on a "194dB Free Speech Canon"), and I'd much prefer everyone take a couple of deep breaths and discuss things civilly.

Would a straight quid pro quo tying state/local law enforcement cooperation with federal funding to those agencies run afoul of that? We manage to tie highway funding to highway drunk driving laws.

Alternatively, mandatory E-Verify, but the lack of interest there hints in a deep unseriousness about the issue overall.

the idea of admin higher-ups who think that creating a scene like that is necessary to intimidate would-be illegals and deter illegal immigration.

Don't border crossing numbers suggest that they've basically already done this even before the current drama?

The most strategic thing Trump could do would be to get the ring leaders locked up.

IMO it'd be to push Congress for a bill to mandate a minimal level of local/state cooperation with federal immigration authorities in exchange for federal funding eligibility, and in return offering a stand down of current operations. I don't see another real offramp available to the right, here: they can't practically expect to focus so exclusively on Minnesota indefinitely.

What other practical political goal are they trying to achieve while they're there burning political capital like The Joker burns piles of cash?

I suppose my interest here is that the two are at opposite ends of the "justified use of lethal force" scale: there is probably broad, but not universal agreement that the Good case is at least a regrettable case ("justified" is almost certainly more split), and that the Uvalde case is almost unconscionable in its lack of use of force (although this jury declined to convict in this specific case).

I was hoping to use this to better pin down clear boundaries for the acceptable range of force, but I don't see clear choices there still.

I keep wanting to compare this to the recent ICE shooting, loathe as I am to discuss that more here. In that case "the officer should not have put himself in potential danger (standing in front of the car) so that lethal force wouldn't have been necessary" seems a common talking point (and I'm not interested in debating the specific facts of the case further). In the Uvalde case there seems to be plenty of ire that the officers did not place themselves in such danger regardless of the risk to the suspect, especially since it sounds like they were informed of a barricaded shooter, not a spree shooting.

Both sets of logic make sense to me in isolation, but I have trouble fully squaring them. "It's good that the Uvalde cops say around: if they had charged in someone (the shooter) might have gotten hurt" is plausibly true, but laughable. It somewhat works if you assume Good wasn't intent on ramming lots of pedestrians, but that isn't always true: there was a deliberate truck attack in New Orleans last year, for example. That driver didn't have priors, and we'd plausibly be having a similar discussion if officers had blocked the car and ended up shooting the driver there, 14 lives would have conceivably been saved.

Obviously the details are quite different, but I have trouble imagining generic bright lines that don't lean heavily on verboten characteristics: "of course the white woman wasn't trying to be a spree killer."

This seems more a human factors problem than a technical one: "within tolerance from install time" is probably fine from an engineering perspective: many complex systems manage by just painting alignment marks on bolts to spot movement. That lazy technicians might just photocopy it is a QA issue: even if they had to write it, they could just rewrite the values without actually taking measurements.

Setting up systems like this is its own art. There are plenty of watch clock systems to make sure your security guards actually patrol your facility and don't just nap at the desk and sign the forms. Otherwise "establish a high trust culture" doesn't seem scalable, but maybe works in a few life-critical industries (airplane mechanics). There are probably some modern computer-driven solutions (see electronic charts in medicine?), but even then those are pretty modern takes on a process they've been doing for decades.

With such low ridership, the promised emissions reductions from mass transit are pretty questionable, no? A city bus (<4mpg) with 5 riders is effectively 20 passenger-miles per gallon. A hybrid gets around 30mpg, even assuming a solo driver. Even the average 2020 model exceeds 20mpg! Maybe there are worthwhile access and congestion arguments otherwise, but it sounds like the Ft. Worth and Indianapolis buses may be a net emissions negative.

Is the stopping distance on a subway train such that an attentive human driver can stop it in time? I know for freight trains stopping distance is measured in miles and it's a solid "no". Access control seems like an easier investment for subways, but not a panacea for human stupidity.

I'd bet modern automotive-derived sensors could do nearly as well as human eyeballs watching the tracks ahead given some effort.

I have come around to this thinking: "My UBI isn't enough to afford rent and food" is an evergreen opinion article, and can paper over your gambling and drug habits pretty easily. "I can't afford rent and food" in the current system (discrete section 8, SNAP) is a lot easier to counter with "you got $1000 for rent and $200 for food this month."

Does this show the weakness of UBI or weakness of American administrative capacity? California can't do HSR but HSR is still possible.

For a slightly-slower speed of "high-speed", the privately-owned Brightline HSR in Florida opened a few years ago and connects Miami to Orlando. American administrative capacity does suffer from analysis paralysis in general, but California is probably the worst offender in that regard, and things do "just get built" elsewhere sometimes.

Self-driving trains seem like an easier problem to solve than self-driving cars, especially for a metro system like D.C.’s.

They already exist in some locales, mostly outside the US. IIRC Singapore has a fully-automated metro system. But from what I understand, the unions (I've at least heard this about the NY metro several times) effectively prevent trying to implement these upgrades because a transit strike would cripple the city. But driverless trains and platform screen doors are things that exist elsewhere, so they can be done.

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".

California and Texas had Hispanics before they had Anglos.

This is one of those oft-repeated claims that is really tenuous at best: the number of Mexicans living in all of Texas (with drastically larger borders than the current state) in 1824 was under 8000, and likely much smaller than the number of Native Americans in the region at the time. The Spanish (and then Mexican) claims on the region were pretty sparse to begin with, which is part of why they were so interested in importing settlers under their flag. That the Anglos would eventually push for independence is a more complicated story (yes slavery, but also yes Mexican imperialism) for another post.

We don't talk about how Nebraska and Oklahoma were French before they were Anglo because despite being ceded in the Louisiana Purchase, actual French influence on the ground there was quite limited, unlike, say, New Orleans.