Author Topic: Politics at the State & Municipal level  (Read 66715 times)





DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #205 on: December 19, 2023, 06:14:25 AM »
"Government should leave there too."

 I think that was Ron DeS plan .

 move to "red" areas.
 hire conservatives into the Fed government and replace the 90% of them who are Dems

Vivek wants to one up this and shut them down altogether.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #207 on: January 06, 2024, 09:24:28 AM »
 :x

kick her the hell out

go back to your shithole
if you don't like this country.

what is she doing here if that is how she feels

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Look Whut Dat Awful “Climate Change” has Dun Now
« Reply #212 on: February 06, 2024, 08:59:22 PM »
Muai fire cleanup (caused by “climate change,” don’tcha know?) being slow walked. Is a crisis being used to a political end, you kinda like the manufactured climate crisis is being used to reverse engineer the Industrial Revolution.

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1754627473348899021?s=61&t=L5uifCqWy8R8rhj_J8HNJw


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: GA Squatters
« Reply #214 on: March 04, 2024, 04:12:28 PM »
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/03/04/helpless-homeowner-finds-squatters-broke-into-his-home-changed-locks-as-he-was-caring-for-his-sick-wife-1442213/?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get%20Response&utm_term=EMAIL

"It could take months for a Georgia homeowner to see justice if he waits for an eviction order to work its way through the court system."

  - [Doug]  Too bad we don't have a first world thing called ... property rights.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #215 on: March 05, 2024, 10:14:59 AM »
Back in the day getting a favor from the Mafia might have been an option , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #216 on: March 05, 2024, 10:37:42 AM »
had a patient who apparently married into John Gotti family.

an uncle or something -

stated Gotti went up to him at the wedding and said "you get one favor, nothing more."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #217 on: March 05, 2024, 02:46:44 PM »
 :-o :-o :-o

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Politics State & Municipal, Oregon counties want to join greater Idaho
« Reply #218 on: May 26, 2024, 07:08:37 PM »
https://www.greateridaho.org/

As of May 2024, thirteen counties in Oregon had approved ballot measures in favor of Greater Idaho: Baker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Idaho_movement

https://geology.com/county-map/oregon.shtml
----------------------------------------------------

Oregon (Dems) would lose electoral votes and Idaho (R) would gain.  Democrats in Oregon would never let that happen and Democrats in DC would never let it happen.  It could only happen if Oregon became a swing state and wanted to ditch their hated Republicans.

The point is still made, the Democrats have no qualm about making these people live without consent of the governed.

Almost every blue state and swing state has this same problem, outstate is ruled against their will by the urban, metro, coastal liberals.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2024, 04:09:20 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20065
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #219 on: May 27, 2024, 07:32:21 AM »
"Oregon (Dems) would lose electoral votes and Idaho (R) would gain.  Democrats in Oregon would never let that happen and Democrats in DC would never let it happen."

and at the same time Democrats would be happy to make DC and Puerto Rico states.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #220 on: May 27, 2024, 08:12:07 AM »
Important Tenth Amendment questions lurking here.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Sports Complexes Aren’t
« Reply #221 on: June 19, 2024, 01:37:00 AM »
They’re simple: they suck up far more funds than they claim and indeed promise to provide:

Boosters Beware: Stadiums Aren’t Magic

June 18, 2024

By ART CARDEN

Also published in American Institute for Economic Research Fri. June 14, 2024

twitter sharing button facebook sharing button email sharing button print sharing button sharethis sharing button
Another day, another push to give many millions to multimillionaires. The Jacksonville Jaguars are pushing hard for the city to renovate their stadium. Not far away, St. Petersburg, Florida is shoveling money at the Tampa Bay Rays. As economists never tire of pointing out, however, government funding for stadiums throws bad money after good. Instead of going after what C. Montgomery Burns called “the American dream: a billionaire using public funds to build a private playground for the rich and powerful,” cities would put the money to better use filling potholes, improving schools, or just cutting taxes.

The “economic impact studies” on which stadium subsidies are based have another name: lies. In a recent volume honoring the economist Robert A. Baade, who from a relatively obscure academic position at Lake Forest College helped create modern sports economics and especially the well-developed literature on the effects of stadiums and mega-events, a group of distinguished economists have contributed a series of essays in his honor. The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Events is expensive, but it should be required reading before anyone talks about paying for a stadium.

Baade is responsible for the tongue-in-cheek “Baade Rule”: Any time you see an “economic impact” estimate, move the decimal point one space to the left.

Stadium subsidies are classic exercises in the broken window fallacy. Anyone who has ever had small children can think of a lot of things they have had to replace because one of the kids broke something. It’s a mistake to infer from the spending you have to do that the economy is “stimulated” as a result. After all, you could have spent that money on something else, while also having the services of the window one of the kids broke.

Building a stadium with government money is a lot like paying to fix a broken window. The resources have to come from somewhere, and that “somewhere” is going to be taxpayers’ pockets. Furthermore, it is easy to see all the hustle and bustle happening around the new stadium without appreciating the fact that the hustle and bustle is probably coming from somewhere else in the metro area. The money I spend near Progressive Stadium when I go there to watch Stallions or Legion games is money I’m not spending in my neighborhood of Avondale. As city spending goes, stadiums mostly redistribute economic activity within a metro area, much more than they increase it.

As the essays in the volume show, what cities pay for stadiums outstrips any measurable positive spillover effects. They redistribute and waste, but they do not create. It is not a new insight: Heywood Sanders’s Convention Center Follies, which goes into detail about the logic as it applies to municipal civic centers, is a decade old. We have yet to learn the lesson.

Stadium boosters frequently come to the table armed with “economic impact studies” that, the contributors to the volume argue, are best thought of as “advocacy studies” and promotional materials more than serious analysis. They rely on unrealistic and implausible multiplier effects and other assumptions that do not withstand serious scrutiny. They are, however, attractively produced and presented by attractive and persuasive professional people, and they rely on a credulous public who gets wowed by phrases like “multiplier effect” and quantitative sophistry. Rarely, if ever, are there well-done follow-up studies. For economists, the professional rewards are usually scarce and the social penalties are severe.

One of the scholars doing the Lord’s work on this issue, however, is Kennesaw State University economist JC Bradbury, referred to as “Professor Nutjob” by one online critic and regularly savaged on social media for having the courage to speak out and say what just about every economist knows: Publicly financed stadiums are boondoggles that, if anything, imperil cities’ financial positions.

The book suggests a new direction for the ethics of sports journalism. It noted that one “news” story about the economic impact of a new stadium in Nashville was basically identical to the press release. It refers to the economic impact of stadiums as a perfect example of Zombie Economics: “bad ideas that just will not die.” Despite, for example, evidence that the tax revenue effect for Arlington of attracting the Cowboys were trivial, we still keep getting deals like the abominable Buffalo Bills stadium deal and the even more abominable Tennessee Titans stadium deal: “...when economists suggested it was hard to imagine a worse stadium deal than the one in Buffalo, Nashville said ‘Hold my beer,’ and proposed a $2.1 billion stadium with $1.26 billion in public money which was later approved.”

If your only metric for success is “be a big league city,” then of course a lavish stadium deal that attracts or retains a big league team will be a success. But that raises a lot of important questions. Are there substantial local benefits to being a big-league city that won’t be reflected in ticket prices and TV deals?

So beware the special interest group bearing the economic impact study. It’s poorly done and based on a lot of questionable assumptions, and it’s being waved by someone looking to pick your pocket and expecting you to thank him for the honor.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14960
« Last Edit: June 19, 2024, 01:39:29 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Re: Sports Complexes Aren’t
« Reply #222 on: June 19, 2024, 07:00:31 AM »
My furthest Left old friend and I found this one area of agreement,  opposing stadium subsidies.  We lost.

He was nominated for green party candidate for Congress and then Governor of MN. His greatest thrill was sharing a stage with Ralph Nader. Not subsidize millionaires and billionaires seems like common sense.

The argument for goes something like, a quarter cent of every purchase is nothing and look at all the economic benefit.  But a quarter or half cent more for every wish item is adding up to tens of trillions we don't have, taken every day with every purchase from every other business and consumer.

But every other city is doing it...

Is that logic you raise your kids to use?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2024, 07:14:58 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Re: Sports Complexes Aren’t
« Reply #223 on: June 19, 2024, 08:20:13 AM »
My furthest Left old friend and I found this one area of agreement,  opposing stadium subsidies.  We lost.

He was nominated for green party candidate for Congress and then Governor of MN. His greatest thrill was sharing a stage with Ralph Nader. Not subsidize millionaires and billionaires seems like common sense.

The argument for goes something like, a quarter cent of every purchase is nothing and look at all the economic benefit.  But a quarter or half cent more for every wish item is adding up to tens of trillions we don't have, taken every day with every purchase from every other business and consumer.

But every other city is doing it...

Is that logic you raise your kids to use?

I appreciated the zero sum aspect of the argument: money spent at the stadium is money not spent elsewhere in the municipality, and indeed frivolous spending on gladiatorial analogues sucks dollars from more critical needs or obligations. Hadn't considered that aspect or argument previously....

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
MD
« Reply #224 on: June 19, 2024, 11:37:37 AM »
FOX regular Brian Kilmeade was interviewing the MD Gov. and gave him gracious props on getting the channel to the port open again very efficiently.

=============


Sanctuary state Maryland governor wants immigration reform: One sure sign that a presidency is in dire straits is when one politically ambitious party member after another begins to stake out positions in clear opposition to their incumbent president. An El Salvadoran illegal immigrant was arrested for murdering Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, last August while she was out hiking. In response, promising young Maryland Democrat Governor Wes Moore scurried off the Bad Ship Biden. "My heart is broken for the Morin family, as is our entire state," Moore said. "She should still be here." Moore, who perhaps has forgotten that the state he governs offers sanctuary status to illegal immigrants, is now calling for something to be done. "We have an immigration policy that needed to be dealt with and was not. The consequences then fall on us as the leaders of our individualized jurisdictions." Sadly, though, for Rachel Morin and her five children, the governor's words can only ring hollow. Morin's blood, as well as the blood of Laken Riley, is on the hands of every Democrat who failed to denounce Joe Biden's disastrous border policies from the outset.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2024, 11:39:58 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Qualified Immunity Takes a Hit at the School Board
« Reply #225 on: July 16, 2024, 09:57:16 PM »
This kind of officious abuse of office deserves a strong rebuke. Hopefully there’s also renumeration involved so these clowns get hit in the wallet good and hard, too:

No Qualified Immunity when "Public Officials … Baselessly Threaten[] a Citizen-Journalist With Legal Action"
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Jul 16, 2024 at 12:37 PM
["if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law."]

From Berge v. School Committee, decided yesterday by the First Circuit, in an opinion by Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, joined by Judges David Barron and Lara Montecalvo (though there's a lot more going on in the opinion as well):

On a motion to dismiss a case, does qualified immunity protect public officials who baselessly threatened a citizen-journalist with legal action if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law? We answer no …. {[A]s a heads-up for the legal neophytes out there, qualified immunity gives officials cover when they decide close questions in reasonable (even if ultimately wrong) ways—sparing them from money-damages liability unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time (much more on all that soon).} …

Inge Berge is a citizen-journalist living in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Back in early March 2022, he went to the city's school superintendent's office—which is open to the public (during specified hours, we presume). He wanted to buy tickets to his daughter's sold-out school play. And he wanted to hear from officials why the school's COVID-19 rules still capped the number of play-goers when the state had already lifted its COVID-19 mandates by then.

Visibly filming as he went along (he kept his camera out for all to see), Berge made sure to also tell everyone he met that he was recording. And no sign banned or restricted filming in the building's publicly accessible areas either.

Talking to executive secretary Stephanie Delisi, Berge said, "I'm filming this. I'm doing a story on it. If that's okay with you." "No, no I don't want to be filmed," Delisi answered back. Berge kept openly filming. Delisi then walked into superintendent Ben Lummis's office.

Standing at the door of his office, Lummis asked Berge to stop recording. "You do not have permission to film in this area." Berge kept openly filming. "I'm happy to speak with you," Lummis added, "if you turn that off." "You do not have my permission to film here right now," Lummis said as well. Berge kept openly filming. And Lummis closed his office door.

Assistant superintendent Gregg Bach then walked over to Berge. And with Berge still openly filming, Bach took notes about Berge's bid to see his daughter's play. Unlike the others, Bach voiced no objection to Berge's filming.

Hoping to "expose" the "unreasonableness" of the district's "policy," Berge uploaded the video (along with his commentary) to Facebook that very day. And he made the material publicly viewable as well.

None too pleased, district-human-resources director Roberta Eason fired off a letter to Berge within hours. Citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C), she accused him of violating Massachusetts's wiretap act by not getting "the consent" of all participating officials before recording and posting the film. And she "demand[ed]" that he "immediately" remove the video or face "legal action" (his supposed wiretap act violation was the one and only reason she gave for the removal demand).

Turns out she was way off base in relying on the wiretap act. And that is because this law pertinently bans "secret" recordings, which Berge's most certainly was not….

Berge did not do as directed, however. He instead sued …. According to that count, defendants threatened "bogus legal" action under the state wiretap act to "frighten him into suppressing his own First Amendment rights." …

[W]e—after taking Berge's allegations as true (though knowing that discovery or trial evidence may cast the case in a different light)—have a hard time picturing a more textbook First Amendment violation.

Berge very publicly recorded public officials performing public duties in the publicly accessible part of a public building—all to get information about the district's COVID-19 policies, in a form he could then share, with the goal (to quote again from the complaint) of "expos[ing] and comment[ing] on the unreasonableness" of those "polic[ies]." And his speech (front and center in the complaint) about COVID-19 protocols—the kind that has sparked much political and social debate (and litigation too)—strikes us as sufficiently "a subject of legitimate news interest" to come within the sphere of public concern.

If the First Amendment means anything in a situation like this, it is that public officials cannot—as they did here—threaten a person with legal action under an obviously inapt statute simply because he published speech they did not like. "[T]o prevent the pursuit of legal action in this matter," the Eason-signed letter "demand[ed]" that Berge "immediately remove the

from [his] Facebook account and/or any other communications." Which shows the complaint plausibly alleges that the individual defendants knew the legal-action threat centered on Berge's right to publish. What is more—and as already explained—the letter cited the state wiretap act as the only basis for the removal demand (no one defends the threat on any other ground). But—as also earlier noted—the wiretap act only bans "secret" recordings (in which the persons recorded did not know they were being recorded) and thus does not apply here. Which shows the complaint plausibly alleges that the individual defendants knew such action was baseless….

Shifting then from qualified immunity's step one (constitutional rights violation) to step two (clearly established law), we also think it follows naturally from the above cases that Berge has plausibly pled a violation of a clearly established right to publish on a topic of public interest when the violators acted (as a reminder, but using a different case quote, a right is "clearly established" when it is no longer among the "hazy" area of constitutional issues that might be "reasonably misapprehend[ed]"). And by "acted" we mean (as the complaint alleges) threatening Berge with an obviously groundless legal action: Surely no sensible official reading these long-on-the-books opinions could believe that that act—assuming it represents an adverse action—was not a burden on Berge's First Amendment right to publish on a matter of public concern. So given all this, Berge's complaint plausibly alleges that the threat constituted First Amendment retaliation in violation of his clearly established right….


Marc J. Randazza, Jay M. Wolman, and Robert J. Morris II (Randazza Legal Group, PLLC) represent Berge.

The post No Qualified Immunity when "Public Officials … Baselessly Threaten[] a Citizen-Journalist With Legal Action" appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/16/no-qualified-immunity-when-public-officials-baselessly-threaten-a-citizen-journalist-with-legal-action/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #226 on: July 17, 2024, 06:46:51 AM »
This is really interesting-- and is likely to be the first of many interactions and cases fleshing out the meaning and implications of the SCOTUS decision.

May I ask you post it and related matters on the Lawfare thread instead?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
FO: Big spending cuts at State level
« Reply #227 on: July 22, 2024, 09:58:18 AM »


(3) STATES CUT SPENDING AT FASTEST RATE SINCE GREAT DEPRESSION: According to analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts, states are on track to cut general-fund spending an average of 6% this fiscal year, the biggest spending cut since the Great Recession.
Pew said about half of states planned to spend more this year, but this is dwarfed by spending cuts in states like California and Arizona, which cut state budgets to make up deficit shortfalls.

Why It Matters: Pew’s analysis says state spending cuts are coming after the COVID era influx of federal assistance, which is now drying up. However, some states are likely cutting spending due to the impact of the immigration crisis, as the influx of at least 12 million illegal immigrants since 2021 means more immigrants competing with citizens for state and local resources. Some municipal governments in states impacted by the immigration crisis, including in the Midwestern and Northern U.S., have announced local spending cuts in the last year as government services were overwhelmed by immigrants and refugees. – R.C.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
WT: Gov race: Go Winnie Sears!
« Reply #229 on: September 27, 2024, 11:12:21 AM »


VIRGINIA

Early polling finds race to be next governor in dead heat

Earle-Sears, Spanberger tied for lead at 39%

By Kerry Picket THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The two leading candidates in next year’s Virginia gubernatorial election are in a dead heat.

Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger are tied at 39%, according to a new statewide poll by the University of Mary Washington’s Center for Leadership and Media Studies.

The rest of the 22% of respondents in the survey said they were undecided, did not plan to vote, would back another candidate or declined to respond.

Pollsters also found that, if Virginia Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares was his party’s nominee, he would also be just as competitive against Ms. Spanberger in a general election.

If Ms. Spanberger and Mr. Miyares faced off, 40% of survey respondents said they would support Ms. Spanberger while 39% they would favor Mr. Miyares.

Mr. Miyares has not announced he’s running for governor, but has strongly hinted that he’s eyeing the job.

The poll is similar to results from another UMW survey that found Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in a dead heat in Virginia. That poll of likely voters showed Ms. Harris at 47% and Mr. Trump at 46%.

Ms. Spanberger, who has represented Virginia’s 7th Congressional District since 2019, launched her gubernatorial bid in November 2023.

Ms. Earle-Sears, the first Black woman to serve as lieutenant governor in Virginia and is looking to make history again as the state’s first Black woman governor. She previously served in the state legislature.

She announced her campaign earlier in the month.

Virginia does not allow its governors to serve consecutive terms, so the commonwealth’s popular Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, must leave office in January 2026.

Mr. Youngkin became the first Republican elected governor of Virginia since Bob McDonnell in 2009. He defeated former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who was running for a second nonconsecutive term, by just over 60,000 votes.

“Virginia elections are often close, and the look ahead to next year suggests more of the same in the campaign for governor,” said Stephen J. Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington and director of UMW’s Center for Leadership and Media Studies. “The big challenge for these potential candidates is becoming better known across the commonwealth.”

Virginia voters were less optimistic about the direction of the country than where they thought the commonwealth was going.

Twenty-four percent said Virginia was going in the right direction and 26% believed it was headed in the wrong direction. The remainder suggested mixed opinions.

However, 51% said the country was headed in the wrong direction, while 16% thought the U.S. was headed in the right direction. Thirty percent offered mixed views.

“Elections never stop in Virginia, and 2025 looks to be another very interesting electoral year in the commonwealth,” Mr. Farnsworth said.

Research America Inc. conducted the UMW poll between Sept. 3 and 9, 2024. The survey included a total of 1,000 Virginia residents, consisting of 870 registered voters and 774 likely voters. The margin of error was +/- 4.1%.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Tim Walz loses Minnesota State House of Representatives
« Reply #230 on: November 06, 2024, 02:39:33 AM »
You heard it here first.

Republicans win Minnesota State House of Representatives.

Update:  Tied pending recount.
https://startribune.com/battle-to-control-the-minnesota-house-on-the-ballot/601174841
« Last Edit: November 06, 2024, 08:00:49 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #231 on: November 18, 2024, 09:36:30 AM »


(3) DEMOCRATS’ NEW ANTI-TRUMP STRATEGY TAKING SHAPE: Democrat-aligned legal advocacy groups, including Democracy Forward, are planning legal challenges to Trump administration regulations and executive actions, beginning on the first day of Donald Trump’s presidency.
Democratic strategists Arkadi Gerney and Sarah Knight circulated a private memo in January, urging top Democratic Party donors to heavily invest in transforming Democrat-controlled states into Democrat power centers and coordinating policy across state lines.
Democrat-aligned group Two Plus Two Coalition said it plans to “target the hidden sources of disinformation and expose them for what they are,” and will target pro-Trump public figures, including Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk.
Two Plus Two Coalition senior advisor Rick Wilson said the group will function as an opposition research firm with “a military-grade intelligence gathering operation.”
Why It Matters: The Democrat strategy to resist the Trump administration is now focused on building state power, using pressure campaigns, and lawfare against the Trump administration. The Democrat strategy will also likely include “stay behind” federal employees, who will take action inside the administration to slow or block Trump’s agenda. – R.C.


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1064
    • View Profile
Heather Mac Donald
« Reply #233 on: December 11, 2024, 06:36:39 AM »
This two days ago from the always-excellent Heather Mac Donald on the prosecution of Daniel Penny. The emphasis is mine. Mac Donald always backs up her assertions with solid, inarguable data.

Heather Mac Donald

New York’s Government Is the Real Villain in the Daniel Penny Trial

Mentally ill addicts are certain to attack more innocent New Yorkers—what will city officials do to protect them?

Dec 09 2024

Now that Daniel Penny has been acquitted of the absurd homicide charges against him, perhaps New York City and State officials can be put on trial. They are responsible not only for the death of Jordan Neely, the drug-addicted schizophrenic whom Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg accused Penny of recklessly killing, but for the assaults on and killings of hundreds of New Yorkers by mentally ill vagrants whom politicians allow to roam the streets. Yet according to Bragg and his office, it was Penny who needed to be imprisoned, for the safety of city residents, for having protected his fellow citizens from a potential murderer.

For now, the heroic male virtues of chivalry, self-reliance, and initiative have been vindicated, in the face of government’s effort to snuff those values out. How much longer those traits will survive under elite pressure remains to be seen. New York officials should take the Penny acquittal as a wakeup call, however. Their authority may be slipping away, a development adumbrated by last month’s national election results.

The Daniel Penny homicide trial was a travesty of justice. On May 1, 2023, a psychotic, wildly gesticulating vagrant burst into a New York subway car as it travelled beneath Manhattan’s SoHo district. The new arrival, Jordan Neely, started screaming that he wanted to return to jail and was ready to die. Some eyewitnesses recalled that the 30-year-old Neely threatened to kill the straphangers.

The passengers were terrified, and rightly so. New York’s seriously mentally ill residents are time bombs who regularly explode. They push subway riders in front of moving trains; above ground, they club, shoot, and stab their victims. Three weeks after the May 1, 2023, subway incident, another street denizen slammed a woman’s head into a subway car, paralyzing her for life. This November 18, a 51-year-old vagrant with the inevitable long rap sheet and seeming immunity from extended incarceration went on a stabbing rampage throughout Manhattan, slashing to death a 36-year-old construction worker, a 67-year-old man fishing in the East River, and a 36-year-old woman sitting on a park bench. As recently as December 1, a screaming female pushed a 43-year-old man onto the subway tracks in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. She has not been apprehended, but it is a virtual certainty that she, too, has had numerous run-ins with outreach workers and the police that resulted in no long-term confinement.

Americans who have never ridden a subway can only imagine the fear that grips someone sealed underground when a deeply disturbed person starts to act out. The near-universal reaction is to put one’s head down, avoid eye contact, and rush out of the car when it pulls into the next station. But on May 1, 2023, something archaic occurred: a passenger put his own well-being at risk to protect his fellow riders. Daniel Penny, now 26, stepped up to the screaming Neely, wrapped his arms around him, and took him to the subway floor, with Neely’s body on top of his, until help could arrive at the next station. Neely, who was high on a large dose of synthetic marijuana, subsequently died. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—he who seeks not to “destroy lives through unnecessary incarceration”—charged Penny with second degree manslaughter—i.e., with recklessly causing the death of another person—and with criminally negligent homicide.

The Penny proceeding was more than a travesty of justice, however. It exemplified two intertwined traits of our time: government’s abandonment of law-abiding citizens in favor of the dysfunctional and antisocial, and the hatred of values associated with white males and the Western civilization that they created.

The Penny-Neely incident was racialized from the onset. News coverage invariably led with Penny’s whiteness and Neely’s blackness. (By contrast, black-on-white attacks are presented in a colorblind fashion on those rare occasions when the media report on them at all. Blacks commit 76 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites despite being just a fifth of the white population.) New York’s leading race-baiters—Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and Al Sharpton—demanded that Penny be prosecuted. The city comptroller called Penny a “vigilante.” Yusef Salaam, one of five delinquents accused of assaulting and raping a jogger during a nocturnal reign of terror in New York’s Central Park in 1989 and who is now an up-and-coming politician, announced at Neely’s funeral that the incident was “a lynching in the public square, a lynching of a Black man who was never given a chance by the system that was designed to keep him oppressed.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that Neely had been “murdered.” New York mayor Eric Adams noted that his son was also named Jordan and that Neely was “black like me.” “No family should have to suffer a loss like this,” Adams added. “And too many black and brown families bear the brunt of a system long overdue for reform.” (Adams subsequently denounced the Penny prosecution.)

During the Penny trial, members of Black Lives Matter and of the National Action Network (Sharpton’s race-hustling organization) shouted that Penny was a “murderer” and “subway strangler” as the defendant entered the courthouse in the mornings. On December 6, NBC News Now declared that the Penny-Neely incident has come to stand for “racial injustice.” (Initial news coverage also invariably described Neely as a “former Michael Jackson imitator and subway performer,” as if such subway “performances” in the middle of moving crowded cars are moments of gaiety and entertainment, not of implicit threat and extortion.)

Penny was worse than white, however. He was the nightmare of every Women’s Studies major: a blond, tall, former Marine. If Hollywood still made traditional Westerns, Penny would be the sheriff that introduces order to the wild frontier. Penny was not defending himself; he was defending those weaker than himself. Such self-sacrifice is the essence of male chivalry, which must be eradicated to pave the way for the nanny state’s monopoly on human action.

The prosecution argued that Penny should have known that his chokehold was allegedly going on too long and that it could result in Neely’s alleged asphyxiation. Penny recklessly disregarded the risk of death, according to the initial manslaughter count of the indictment. The jury deadlocked on the manslaughter charge, which the judge threw out on Friday, December 6, leaving the jurors to move on to the negligent homicide charge. The prosecution’s analysis remained the same, however: while Penny might have initially been justified in taking Neely down, according to the prosecutors, once the subway train arrived at the next station and the other passengers were able to stream out, there was no longer a need to restrain Neely since ostensibly he could no longer pose a risk to others. Penny should have been carefully monitoring Neely’s vital signs, despite the chaos and stress of the moment. The defense countered that Penny was not applying undue pressure to Neely’s neck or chest, that Penny was justified in holding Neely down until the police arrived, and that the chokehold did not cause Neely’s death. Penny didn’t even know that Neely had died until told by NYPD detectives during his voluntary interview with them after the incident.

If one follows the prosecution’s logic, New York’s government should have stood trial. If Penny was reckless regarding the risk that his restraint of Neely would allegedly cause Neely’s death, the state and city have been worse than reckless in their disregard for citizen safety. It is not just a possibility or probability that in the near future, another mentally ill drug addict will assault an innocent civilian—it is a certainty. Calculating that risk is far easier than the second-by-second reevaluation of harm that Penny supposedly should have performed regarding a thrashing Neely. Every day that New York officials fail to torpedo the status quo regarding street vagrancy is a day that they are abandoning their responsibility to protect life and civil order.  If Neely had not killed anyone by May 2023, it was not for lack of trying. In 2019, Neely punched Filemon Castillo Baltazar in the head as the 65-year-old waited for a subway in Greenwich Village. In June 2021, he walloped Anne Mitcheltree in the head inside a deli in the East Village; she was in her late sixties. In November 2021, Neely broke the nose and fractured the eye socket of a 67-year-old woman as she exited a subway on the Lower East Side.

When he was not assaulting the elderly, he was terrifying other New Yorkers. In June 2019, Neely banged on the door of a subway ticket agent’s booth and threatened to kill her. Yet Neely was still allowed his freedom.

The homeless lobby regularly intones that the mentally ill are no more likely to be violent than the sane. That claim ignores the fact that the drug-abusing mentally ill, which category encompasses virtually all of the madmen roaming America’s city streets, are far more likely to be violent. Even Neely’s heavy use of the synthetic marijuana K-2, however, was not enough to get him permanently locked up. K-2 is even more likely to trigger violent outbreaks than other illegal drugs, due to its strength and powerful psychological effects. No matter. Neely’s 42 arrests resulted in brief jail stints, at best, and Neely’s hundreds of encounters with outreach workers always left him free to return to the streets, even though he was on the city’s Top 50 list of most intractable vagrants.

Why have governments opted to protect the purported rights of mentally ill drug addicts rather than to protect the rights of peaceful citizens to be free from threat? In part, we live with the legacy of the radical libertarian Thomas Szasz, who claimed that mental illness was a construct slapped on nonconformists by an uptight establishment. Szasz’s critique made it much harder to confine the mentally ill against their consent, even if the mentally ill are incapable of rationally assessing their capacity to live outside a mental institution. Race plays a role, too, since the schizophrenic population is disproportionately black. Confining the drug-addicted schizophrenic population will thus result in a disparate impact on black schizophrenics. Disparate impact is viewed as per se proof of racism by today’s elites.

But a final factor is the government’s abandonment of the law-abiding and hardworking in favor of the welfare-dependent, anti-social, and criminal classes. This shift has been pushed along by an ever growing cadre of nonprofit groups that set themselves up as advocates for the marginalized, without ever signing a contract with their clients or receiving a popular mandate. Homeless advocacy groups have a financial interest in keeping vagrants in plain view. How else will those groups fundraise and rake in million-dollar government contracts to perform feckless “outreach” work? So the homeless organizations fight every effort to compel vagrants into treatment and off the streets, even though such compulsion would be in the best interests of the advocates’ “clients.”

Just because the massive NGO sector demands policies that destroy safety and order does not mean that governments have to accede. Governments do accede, however, because the membrane between the NGO world and the public sector is porous. And public officials have simply lost interest in ordinary taxpayers. It is more exciting to fight for the rights of the apparently downtrodden. Doing so means treating non-welfare-consuming citizens simply as ATMs for officials’ pet redistribution projects. Any of New York’s recent string of homeless assaults should have resulted in New York officials dropping everything else in order to prevent any recurrence. Those officials should have done whatever it takes to guarantee public safety—including challenging judicial rulings that prioritize the so-called interests of the homeless (read: of their self-appointed advocates) over the interests of the housed and the law-abiding. But such single-minded focus on government’s core duty never occurred. Instead, city and state representatives went back to worrying about migrants, Donald Trump, trans rights, abortion, climate change, welfare, and subsidized housing.

Jordan Neelys are still roaming New York streets because protecting their autonomy is government’s paramount concern. Never mind that the autonomy of the law-abiding is proportionally restricted. Many New Yorkers now avoid the subways, losing access to a vital public service that they are paying for, simply because government refuses to maintain order.

The Penny jury rebelled against the delinquency of government and the rule of the dysfunctional. Bragg should face a recall. For those still calling Penny a vigilante, the government brought such citizen action onto itself. Such self-action is what you get when government fails. Despite the acquittal, future potential Pennys are now on notice that they risk a homicide indictment if they guard their fellows from harm. The best solution to America’s self-willed urban chaos is to throw out current authority and start over from fundamental principles of law and order.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of When Race Trumps Merit.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 05:49:53 AM by Crafty_Dog »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Republican control of Minnesota State House
« Reply #234 on: December 23, 2024, 03:12:23 AM »
Final nail in the Tim Walz jump to national fame.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/12/21/gop-takes-control-of-minnesota-house-n2649396

If course it would take an R trifecta to start undoing the damage Dems have wrought.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19774
    • View Profile
Shutting down the Minnesota State House
« Reply #235 on: January 12, 2025, 07:54:37 PM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/constitutional-crisis-in-minnesota.php

You haven't heard about this because...
  ... no one cares. California gets more attention but Minnesota is nearly equal in terms of Left rule, yet the state is now equally divided divided. The State House elections ended up at 67 to 67. But one Democrat cheated so now Republicans have a temporary one seat edge.

Democrats control everything else, but that isn't good enough. They planned to shut down the house to prevent a quorum.

Make sure I have that right. The party of democracy wants to shut down the people's house, because they didn't win.

Final nail in the Tim Walz jump to national fame.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/12/21/gop-takes-control-of-minnesota-house-n2649396

If course it would take an R trifecta to start undoing the damage Dems have wrought.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2025, 08:34:34 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
PA: Shapiro makes energy play
« Reply #237 on: January 31, 2025, 06:42:32 AM »
PENNSYLVANIA

Shapiro rolls out plan to fast-track, subsidize power plants, hydrogen projects

By Marc Levy ASSOCIATED PRESS HARRISBURG, PA. | Gov. Josh Shapiro said Thursday that he wants to fast-track big energy projects in Pennsylvania and offer hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for projects that provide electricity to the grid and make hydrogen.

Mr. Shapiro’s announcement comes a few days before he delivers his third budget proposal to lawmakers amid an energy crunch that threatens to raise electricity bills across Pennsylvania, the nation’s second-biggest natural gas-producing state.

Mr. Shapiro, a Democrat, said he wants to start the “next chapter in Pennsylvania’s long history of energy leadership” and keep pace with other states that are attracting big projects, such as data centers and electric vehicle factories.

“Pennsylvania, it’s time for us to be more competitive, it’s time for us to act, we need to take some big and decisive steps right now, build new sources of power so Pennsylvania doesn’t miss out,” Mr. Shapiro said at a news conference at Pittsburgh International Airport.

Mr. Shapiro said Pennsylvania is one of just 12 states that doesn’t have an entity to fasttrack siting decisions for energy projects. He wants to change that by creating the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition Board to streamline permitting and support for new energy projects.

“We need shovels in the ground now, not in the years to come,” Mr. Shapiro said.

The tax credits Mr. Shapiro is proposing are aimed at large projects producing electricity, hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel.

A power plant could qualify for up to $100 million per year for three years, under Mr. Shapiro’s plan. The Shapiro administration did not immediately say what sort of power plants would qualify.

In addition, a hydrogen producer could qualify for up to $49 million a year and an aviation fuel producer could qualify for up to $15 million a year, under Mr. Shapiro’s plan.

The plans would likely require approval from lawmakers. Republican lawmakers have been critical of Mr. Shapiro’s energy policy, saying it is a major hurdle for Pennsylvania to attract companies that want to build big new natural gas-fired power plants.

One project Mr. Shapiro said he wants to help is a proposal by natural gas producer CNX Resources to build a $1.5 billion facility at Pittsburgh’s airport to make hydrogen-based fuels.

However, CNX has said it would only go through with it if the federal government allows coal mine methane to qualify for tax credits that were central to former President Joseph R. Biden’s plan to fight climate change.

The rapid growth of cloud computing and artificial intelligence has fueled demand for energy-hungry data centers that need power to run servers, storage systems, networking equipment and cooling systems.

That’s spurred proposals to bring nuclear power plants out of retirement, develop small modular nuclear reactors and build utility-scale renewable installations or new natural gas plants.

However, the growth in energy demand comes at a time when the power supply is already strained by efforts to shift away from planet-warming fossil fuels and the closure of aging nuclear power plants

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3472
    • View Profile
Re: PA: Shapiro makes energy play
« Reply #238 on: January 31, 2025, 10:22:37 AM »
PENNSYLVANIA

Shapiro rolls out plan to fast-track, subsidize power plants, hydrogen projects

Someone w/ his eye on the White House is reading the room….

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile
Re: Politics at the State & Municipal level
« Reply #239 on: January 31, 2025, 01:01:48 PM »
Exactly.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73360
    • View Profile