On supposed gerrymandering in New England

This gem is making the rounds again.  

So let's go over it state by state.  

For starters, the OP's figures on voter percentage are utter nonsense.  I fact-checked the percentages with the secretaries of state offices for the various states to come up with the real numbers.  Some Trumpublicans claim the numbers are based on the vote share for Trump in the 2024 election, but those numbers are wrong too, and in any event they don't matter when it comes to congressional districts.  

Since the OP didn't bother to list the number of districts in each of these states, I did.  

MA. 9 districts. According to the MA Secretary of State, MA voters are only 8% Republican. Massachusetts is so dominated by Democrats that they would have to gerrymander in order to give Republicans a seat.  Plus, MA has an election system that would make gerrymandering extremely difficult to impossible.  MA has a "semi-closed" primary system with election day affiliation, and over 60% of MA voters are unaffiliated with any political party.  

CT. 5 districts. 21% Republican. The state has been losing population and trending Democratic for decades.  With only a little over 1/5 of the electorate registered Republican, they would have to do some heroic gerrymandering to give them 1 district.  

ME. 2 districts. 29.8% Republican. Maine only has 2 congressional districts, so not a lot of opportunity for gerrymandering.  Keep in mind, this is the state that elected Paul LePage, a Republican, as governor twice, each time with a little over a third of the total vote, because more left leaning candidates split the left, and gave him a plurality.  The end result of this was ME enacting a version of ranked choice voting.  Which Republicans keep challenging in court, because they know they can't get a majority with the candidates they currently choose.  

NM. 3 districts. 31.4% Republican. Not much gerrymandering possible.  Republicans are sufficiently spread out in NM that it would take a heroic feat of gerrymandering to give them even one seat.  

NH. 2 districts. 31.9% Republican. Not much gerrymandering possible.  Giving the Republican Party a seat would require gerrymandering one district with a +20 advantage while keeping the populations equal.  Good luck with that.  

RI. 2 districts. 14.3% Republican. Come on, man.  

HI. 2 districts. 38.5% Republican. There is not much gerrymandering possible with only 2 districts.  Further, HI elects both their Representatives at-large, so no gerrymandering is possible.  Though I'm sure some people will claim that the at-large system is a form of gerrymandering in itself.  

DE. 25.3% Republican. Delaware has only 1 congressional district. Come on, man.  

Infrastructure costs in context

When considering the costs of infrastructure people often balk at the number of zeros between the left side of the decimal and the significant digits.  Older people, particularly, tend to think in "Boomer Bucks", which had more value than today's money.  For this reason, it is better to think about the cost of infrastructure compared to Gross Domestic Product.  

Much ink has been splattered over New York City's East Side Access project costing $11 Billion.  But the GDP of the New York Metropolitan area is $2.299 Trillion.  In that context, the East Side Access project is 0.48% of the areas GDP.  If you want to consider it only in the context of New York City, then the GDP is $1.286 Trillion, which makes it 0.855% of The City's GDP.  

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA GDP is $243.47 Billion as of 2023.  

Hillsborough County GDP is $152 Billion.  

The cost of the proposed light rail and bus expansion for Hillsborough County is around $2.5 Billion.  

Pinellas County GDP is $78.13 Billion.  

We can afford light rail, or at the very least a proper BRT system.  We simply lack the political will to make it happen.  

Remember that this election season.  

A lecture on the philosophy of freedom, by Robert Arnold

These 2 videos are a lecture on the philosophy of the founding of the United States.  Don't let Arnold's Arkansas accent or low production values fool you, he is actually very well educated and very widely read.  

Part 1

https://youtu.be/B8fw_bptDW8

Part 2

https://youtu.be/sAmI-o7sO18

Where was the Republican outrage?

 With the right wing falling all over itself at the murder of right wing activist and influencer Charlie Kirk, I have to ask where they were at the other political violence in the United States during the Trump era?  

Where was the right wing political outrage over the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband?  And their dog?  

Or the attempted murder of John Hoffman and his wife?  

Or the kidnap and murder plot against Gretchen Whitmer? 

Or the firebombing of PA governor Josh Shapiro's house while his family was inside?  

Or the attack on district judge Esther Salas, which killed her son?  

Or the attack on the CDC?  

Or the January 6th attack on the US Capitol? 

Or, going back a bit further, the attack on Gabrielle Giffords?   

Chicago, Immigration, and Drunk Driving

 The Trump administration is sending federal agents and national guard troops into Chicago,  and elsewhere in the State of Illinois, for a mass deportation event, and doing it in the name of a young mother who was killed by a drunk driver who happened to be an undocumented immigrant.  

OK.  What is the Trump Administration going to do about the 13,000 other deaths attributed to drunk driving every year?   (MADD)  

What is the Trump Administration going to do about the 39,000 other traffic fatalities every year?  (NHTSA)  

What is the Trump Administration going to do about the 7148 pedestrians struck and killed by vehicles?  (GHSA) 

Take a Florida, for instance.  Florida had 85,089 hit and run crashes in 2024, resulting in 205 deaths, 76% of whom were pedestrians or bicyclists.  (FDOT)  In fact, the Tampa Bay region is the deadliest area in the country for pedestrians and bicyclists.  

The vast, overwhelming majority of traffic fatalities in the United States involve citizens.  It's such a ubiquitous problem that it doesn't even make the headlines.  It's just accepted as a fact of life.  It's a roadside memorial that gets turned into a roadside plaque if someone wants to sponsor one.  

If the Trump administration is going to spend hundreds of millions on Illinois rounding up people who had nothing to do with this one crash, and this one tragic traffic death in the name of one person killed in traffic then the Trump administration should put their money where their collective mouth is and do something about the other 39,000 traffic deaths we have every year, and the 13,000 drunk driving deaths, and the 7100 pedestrians killed in traffic every year.  But they won't, because the whole exercise is nothing but a show to endear Trump to his jingoist base. 

Trump on crime.

The cities with the highest homicide rates in America are Birmingham, AL, St. Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN. When is Trump going to send troops there? Instead he is taking troops from those areas and using them to patrol DC, which is number 10 on the list, and threatening Chicago, which is number 22, and New York City, which is number 127. Trump is literally taking troops from areas with high crime and using them to patrol areas with lower crime. This isn't about crime. This is about control. And making Trump look like a tough guy.

EVs and Taxes.

 

Fuel taxes vs. EV taxes.

This is a comparison between the fuel taxes paid by ICE vehicles and the proposed registration fees for EVs.

I have a Chevy Bolt, so I will use that as my baseline.

The bolt has a 3600 pound curb weight. Looking at ICE vehicles on the market around the same weight, I calculated the average fuel economy is 24.7 city, 32 highway, 26.9 combined.

I have a 44 mile daily commute, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. That calculates out to 11,000 miles per year for my commute. Add in miscellaneous other driving, and call it 12,000 per year.

The State legislature of Florida is proposing a $200 annual registration fees, and now the federal government is proposing a $500 annual registration fee, for a total of $700 per year in annual registration fees on EVs.

The State of Florida charges 37.325 cents per gallon in fuel tax. The federal government charges 18.4 cents per gallon.

The overwhelming majority of my driving is highway, so I’ll take the highway mileage figure for simplicity.

12,000 miles divided by 32mpg is 375 gallons of gasoline, which comes out to $140 for the State of Florida, and another $69 for the federal government, for a total fuel tax of $209 for the average 3600 pound vehicle driven by a person who commutes like I do.

To sum that up, that’s $700 in registration fees for EVs “to replace what they don’t pay in fuel taxes”, when an equivalent ICE vehicle would pay just $209 in fuel taxes.

Why are congressional Republicans, and Florida state Republicans, proposing to charge me combined nearly three and a half times what an equivalent ICE vehicle would pay?  Why are Florida Republicans proposing to charge me an additional 30% over what an equivalent ICE vehicle would pay? Why are congressional Republicans proposing to charge me over 7 times what an equivalent ICE vehicle would pay? My speculation is that their owners in the petroleum industry are terrified by electric vehicles, and are trying desperately to tie back the hands of time so they can continue to make profits from their products.

So what to do about this? The transition to electric vehicles is unstoppable. In one thing Republican legislators are correct: EV owners do not pay their fair share of the taxes necessary to support the infrastructure they use. (In fairness, ICE owners don’t either, but that is a different subject.) I don’t object to paying my fair share, but I do object to paying my share and 7 other people’s as well.  The only fair solution I can see is to eliminate fuel taxes altogether, and charge all vehicle owners road use fees based on the weight of the vehicle and the miles driven. That would even the playing field between ICE vehicles and EVs.

Rumeysa Ozturk Op-Ed

 This is the Op-Ed that got Rumeysa Ozturk arrested for "support for terrorism". 

https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj

Op-ed: Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions

By Rumeysa Ozturk, Fatima Rahman, Genesis Perez and Nicholas Ambeliotis

Published Tuesday, March 26, 2024

 
 
 

On March 4, the Tufts Community Union Senate passed 3 out of 4 resolutions demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel. These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

Unfortunately, the University’s response to the Senate resolutions has been wholly inadequate and dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Graduate Students for Palestine joins Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine to reject the University’s response. Although graduate students were not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting, which lasted for almost eight hours, our presence on campus and financial entanglement with the University via tuition payments and the graduate work that we do on grants and research makes us direct stakeholders in the University’s stance.

While an argument may be made that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange, the automatic rejection, dismissive nature and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression. According to the Student Code of Conduct, “[a]ctive citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protests, gatherings, and demonstrations, is a vital part of the Tufts community.” In addition, the Dean of Students Office has written, “[w]hile at times the exchange of controversial ideas and opinions may cause discomfort or even distress, our mission as a university is to promote critical thinking, the rigorous examination and discussion of facts and theories, and diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Why then is the University discrediting and disregarding its students who practice the very ideals of critical thinking, intellectual exchange and civic engagement that Tufts claims to represent?

The role of the TCU Senate resolutions is abundantly clear. The Senate’s resolutions serve as a “strong lobbying tool that expresses to the Tufts administration the wants and needs of the student body. They speak as a collective voice and are instrumental in enacting systemic changes.” In this case, the “systemic changes” that the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right that is guaranteed by international law. These strong lobbying tools are all the more urgent now given the order by the International Court of Justice confirming that the Palestinian people of Gaza’s rights under the Genocide Convention are under a “plausible” risk of being breached.

This collective student voice is not without precedent. Today, the University may remember with pride its decision in February 1989 to divest from South Africa under apartheid and end its complicity with the then-racist regime. However, we must remember that the University divested up to 11 years after some of its peers. For instance, the Michigan State University Board of Regents passed resolutions to end its complicity with Apartheid South Africa as early as 1978. Had Tufts heeded the call of the student movement in the late 1970s, the University could have been on the right side of history sooner.

We reject any attempt by the University or the Office of the President to summarily dismiss the role of the Senate and mischaracterize its resolution as divisive. The open and free debate demonstrated by the Senate process (exemplified by the length, open notice and substantive exchange in the proceedings and the non-passing of one of the proposed resolutions), together with the serious organizing efforts of students, warrant credible self-reflection by the Office of the President and the University. We, as graduate students, affirm the equal dignity and humanity of all people and reject the University’s mischaracterization of the Senate’s efforts.

The great author and civil rights champion James Baldwin once wrote: “The paradox of education is precisely this: that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which [they are] being educated.” As an educator, President Kumar should embrace efforts by students to evaluate “diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Furthermore, the president should trust in the Senate’s rigorous and democratic process and the resolutions that it has achieved.

We urge President Kumar and the Tufts administration to meaningfully engage with and actualize the resolutions passed by the Senate.

This op-ed was written by Nick Ambeliotis (CEE, ‘25), Fatima Rahman (STEM Education, ‘27), Genesis Perez (English, ‘27) and Rumeysa Ozturk (CSHD, ‘25) and is endorsed by 32 other Tufts School of Engineering and Arts and Sciences Graduate Students.

First Principles of Government

 'An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads a man to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself'.

 - Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795).

We've seen Trump's plans before

 This all sounds familiar somehow. 🤔

In 1923 Adolf Hitler incited an insurrection against the German government. He was tried, given a slap on the wrist, and became a convicted felon. Despite being treated charitably by the judge, Hitler claimed the trial was political persecution and successfully portrayed himself as a victim of the “corrupt" Social Democrats. 

Hitler cleverly positioned himself as the voice of the "common man," railing against the "elites," cultural "degeneracy," and the establishment, who he all labeled as "Marxists." He claimed the education system was indoctrinating children to hate Germany, and promised to return Germany to greatness.

To solidify his base, Hitler masterfully scapegoated minorities for the nation's problems, exploiting societal divisions with an "us vs. them" narrative. Many Germans took the bait. Hitler's Nazi Party continued to gain traction, until he became Chancellor in 1933.

Hitler appointed German oligarchs as his economic advisors. He proceeded to privatize government run utilities, solidifying support of the economic elite.

With the working class divided along cultural and ethnic lines, the Nazis shut down workers unions and abolished strikes. 

Progressives and trade unionists were imprisoned and sent to concentration camps. Corporate profits skyrocketed while working class Germans lived paycheck to paycheck. 

Hitler, who became a billionaire while in office, knew he and his clan of oligarchs could get away with the scam if they constantly had an "enemy within" to blame while the corporatocracy robbed the country blind. 

An easy target was one of the smallest minorities. Hitler removed birthright citizenship rights of Jews and started rounding them up for mass deportations for being "illegally" in the country. 

The German press under Nazi rule highlighted instances of violence by Jews to convince the public that Jewish immigrants were a danger to the "real Germans." 

Hitler wasted no time dismantling democratic institutions. Loyalty wasn't just encouraged; it was demanded. Opponents were silenced. Media that dared to questioned[sic] him were vilified as "the enemy" and "Marxists."

Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, bragged about how the Nazis were able to intimidate the media into giving them favorable coverage, and didn't need to give direct orders.

The Nazi regime and its followers collected all books they saw as promoting "degeneracy" or what would be considered "woke" today, and burned them in large bonfires. They also burned books that promoted class consciousness. 

Berlin had a thriving LGBTQ community in the 1920s, and even had the first transgender clinic. The Nazis burned it to the ground. LGBTQ people were sent to concentration camps and forced to wear triangle badges. Many were killed in the Holocaust. 

The Nazis also saw manhood as under threat by independent women who didn't rely on men. In 1934, Hitler proclaimed, “A women’s world is her her husband, her family, her children, her house." Laws that had protected women's rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. (This is actually part of Project 2025)

Reproductive rights were severely rolled back, and doctors who performed abortions could face the death penalty. 

Despite all of this, the German people didn't have a similar historical parallel to look upon as a warning.

Most Germans never acted like the sky was falling.

Most just went along with their lives as usual, until many of their lives were snuffed out. 

By the time Hitler's reign was forced to an end by the Allied Powers, 11 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, and 70-85 million were killed in WW2 .

Medical price transparency

Trump is claiming credit for making medical prices transparent.  

He didn't do shit. This was already in place! 

---- 

On December 11,2023 - the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act (H.R. 5378) by a vote of 320–71. If enacted, effective January 1, 2026, the bill will require ASCs to disclose to the public all standard charges and prices, including information relevant to ASCs on the list of 300 shoppable services or an indication that such service is not furnished by the ASC. This price transparency provision is similar to the price transparency legislation H.R. 4822 that ASCA reported on over the summer.

And 

BEFORE THAT 

Hospital price transparency helps Americans know the cost of a hospital item or service before receiving it. Starting January 1, 2021, each hospital operating in the United States will be required to provide clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide in two ways:

As a comprehensive machine-readable file with all items and services.

In a display of shoppable services in a consumer-friendly format.

Trump and the Panama Canal

 Trump says that he wants to take back the Panama Canal because the Canal Authority is "charging American shipping too much".  

As usual with Trump's irredentist ravings, this is nonsense.  But let's unpack it.  

The first question you have to ask is "what American shipping"?  The American merchant marine is not what it was at the end of WWII, when we had the largest merchant marine in the world.  

Disclaimer: I own shares in some of these corporations, and they have made me a lot of money. 

This is a list of the world's largest container ship lines. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_shipping_companies

You don't find an American line until you get to Matson at number 28, with 0.2% of world container capacity.  

This is a list of dry bulk shipping lines.  

https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/biggest-bulk-shipping-companies/ 

You don't find an American dry bulk company until you get to Genco at number 10 with only 43 ships. 

This is a list of tanker ship companies.  

https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/top-12-tanker-shipping-companies-in-the-world/

You don't find an American tanker ship company until you get to Overseas Shipholding Group at number 12.  (I own shares in them. They aren't a good performer, but they're based in Tampa Bay, so it was a sentimental purchase. Fortunately, their stock is cheap.)  

There is a lot of crossover among these companies, with none of them concentrating on a single sector.  They are all transnational corporations.  

So again I ask, "what American shipping"?  

Looking at the Canal itself, fortunately, the Canal Authority publishes statistics for Canal transits.  

https://pancanal.com/en/statistics/

Selecting for laden transits by flag, the largest single flag is Liberia.  No surprise there, because Liberia is the most popular open registry, so it is the flag of convenience for a lot of the world's shipping.  United States flagged vessels are number 15 on that list.  

Again I ask, "what American shipping"?  

If you look at the graph by route, the number one route is between the US east coast and Asia.  

88,428,454 of the total 210,306,847 long tons transiting the Canal are between Asia and US east coast ports, or a little over 42%.  But again, considering this freight is almost all on non-US carriers, is it really "American" shipping?  

Then there is the question of how much the Canal Authority is charging for transit.  The Panama Canal Tariff Schedule is complex, and is available here: 

https://pancanal.com/en/maritime-services/maritime-tariff/

Needless to say, shipping companies have professionals to wade through this mess.  

The font of all knowledge, Google, says

"According to available information, the average cost per ton to transit the Panama Canal is not a fixed number, but varies depending on the ship's size and type, with estimates ranging around $2- $3 per ton; however, the exact cost is calculated based on a complex system considering the vessel's length, beam, and Panama Canal Universal Measurement System (PC/UMS) tonnage, making it difficult to give a single "average" cost per ton."  

The Canal Authority Tariff Schedule puts the cost per container at $30-45 per twenty foot equivalent container.  Considering that the cost for transporting that container will already be anywhere from $2000 to $10,000 depending on a number of factors, the $45 tariff is pocket change.  

For bulk freight, the Tariff Schedule puts the cost at around $1.50 per long ton.  A large bulker would pay a fee for the ship, and an additional fee for the freight.  A bulker exporting, say, 60,000 tons of wheat would pay about $90,000 for the freight and another $60-100,000 for the vessel.  But again, the cost of shipping dry bulk freight is already $23-27 per ton, so the additional $3-4 per ton is only a slightly larger cost.  

If you're interested enough then you can calculate the full fee using the tariff estimator here: 

https://www.wilhelmsen.com/tollcalculators/panama-toll-calculator/

The whole point of the Canal is that going through it saves time, fuel, and ultimately money.  Yes, going through the Canal costs a lot of money.  For a Panamax class container ship the tariff may be over a million dollars.  But that passage may save several million dollars worth of fuel and under way time, not to mention weeks in sailing time.  

Also consider that a container ship may be carrying cargo worth billions.  Literally several times the value of the ship itself.  At that point the cost of the Canal passage amortizes pretty quickly, in addition to the savings on fuel.  

Looking at all of this, there is one important thing to consider: Ships don't have to go through the Canal.  The problem is that the options are not good.  One option is to go around Cape Horn, through the Straights of Magellan, which is about 8000 miles longer, and subject to violent weather.  The shortest route from Asia to the US east coast is actually the Arctic Sea Route, but that is only available for a few weeks in the summer, and requires an ice strengthened hull.  Another option is the Atlantic route through the Suez Canal, but because of the geopolitical situation in the middle east that can be problematic.  The final option is to go around the Cape of Good Hope on the southern tip of Africa.  Any way you slice it, the Panama Canal is the best option.  Being good capitalists, they charge accordingly.  Despite the tolls, ships still save millions over going other routes. 

This doesn't touch the fact that operating and maintaining the Canal is expensive.  The operating budget for the Canal is $5.7 Billion per year.  That budget comes entirely from tolls. 

In summary, Trump's claim that the Panama Canal Authority is overcharging American shipping is entirely irredentist nonsense from hat to boots. 

Deportations in perspective.

 When Trumpublicans talk about "deporting all illegal immigrants" I don't think they realize just what a large number they're talking about.  

Assuming their number of 11 million undocumented immigrants is correct, let's put that into perspective.  

For those in the Northeast Corridor, that's like the population of New York City plus the population of Philadelphia.  

For those in the North, that's like the population of Wisconsin plus the population of Minnesota.  

For those in the Rust Belt, that's like the population of Ohio.  

For those in the South, that's like the population of Georgia.  

For those in the far west that would be the population of Arizona, New Mexico, and most of Utah. 

You're talking about 4 out of every 100 people across the entire US population.  Think about the logistics of what that would take.  Not to mention the expense.  Then there are the government structures needed to find them, detain them, process them, and give them the constitutional due process to which they are entitled.  

Good luck.  

Better carry your papers.

Republican rejectionism

The problem with today's Republican Party is not the rejection of Democratic ideals, but the rejection of democratic ideals.  In short, the rejection of democracy, and even of the idea of a constitutional democratic republic.  With the election of Donald Trump, and the most anti-democratic government in our history, we may well have just had the last free and fair election in our history.  

As one who is registered Republican, I've thought about intentionally voting for candidates so extreme that even Republicans would reject them.  Unfortunately, every time I plumb the depths of Republican extremism those depths seem to have no bottom. Republicans seem determined to vote away not only everyone else's rights, but their own as well. Somehow they manage to do this in the name of "freedom".  It's a feat of ideological contortionism that I just can't understand.

Your 15 Minute Zone

 Today's urbanists like the 15 minute city concept in which everything a resident needs for daily life can be accessed by a 15 minute walk, a 15 minute bike ride, or a short trip on mass transit.  Somehow, the idea has permeated through the conspiracy theory network that the 15 minute city concept includes fees, tolls, or fines for residents leaving their 15 minute zones.  As usual with this crowd, there is little if any documentary support for this, but that has never stopped them.  

As usual, they have it backwards.  What we have in most of North America today is "the other 15 minute city", in which everything residents want to do is preceded and followed by a 15 minute car trip.  This situation already imposes a fee to leave your zone, only we're so accustomed to paying this fee that it has become invisible.  

When everything you need to do in your everyday life requires a car then you have to pay the fee consisting of all the expenses involved in car dependency.  Residents of the other 15 minute city pay this fee every day in the tens of thousands of dollars needed to buy cars, tens of thousands more to finance, insure, register, fuel, and maintain them, and tens of thousands yet more in the taxes needed to build and maintain the infrastructure for them.  These are the direct expenses of the other 15 minute city. 

The fee involves a lot more than just the direct expenses of car ownership.  There are other, less obvious fees involved in the other 15 minute city, such as the expense of building and maintaining vast parking lots, which are needed because everyone has to drive absolutely everywhere.  Further, because of these vast parking lots, all of the potential destinations are so spread out from each other that residents have no choice but to drive.  All of these costs are hidden in the prices of the goods and services residents need, so they become invisible. 

 

A further toll on leaving your zone in the other 15 minute city is the horrific carnage among pedestrians, bicyclists, and even other car drivers.  The medical expenses from this toll of deaths and injuries drives up medical expenses for everyone, not just in the other 15 minute city, but everywhere.  

All of these tolls are mandatory in the other 15 minute city.  Over the past century all of these tolls have come to be taken as a normal part of everyday life.  Next to these tolls, the supposed fees associated with the actual 15 minute city pale in comparison.  

This does not touch the fact that the supposed fees for "leaving your zone" do not exist in any of the written material proposals for the 15 minute city, and exist entirely in the imagination of the people protesting the 15 minute city concept.  The fees in the car dependent "other 15 minute city", however, are pervasive, inescapable, and invisible. 

Trump military engagements

 Trumpublicans like to claim America had no wars under Trump.   

Let's see... 

Google://US military engagements 2017-2020.  

Afghanistan, 2001-2021. 

Cameroon, 2015-present. 

Shayrat missile strike, 2017. 

Damascus missile strikes, April 2018. 

Operation Sentinel, 2019. 

Kataeb Hezbollah attack and response, 31 Dec 2019, 2 Jan 2020. 

So remind me again how we didn't have any wars under Trump?  

That doesn't even begin to address his promises of "fire and fury".  

Retreating into isolationism isn't a way to "make America great again", it's a way to make America irrelevant again.  

EVs lost in the market at the beginning of the 20th century

 Yes.  Electric vehicles couldn't compete with internal combustion at the turn of the 20th century.  

But the entire world has changed since then.  

At the turn of the 20th century electricity in the home was a luxury for wealthy people, and for those in a very few major cities.  The grid as we know it today, a century and a quarter later, did not exist.  The first rudimentary interconnects would not exist for another 2 decades.  The fundamentals for the continent spanning grid we know today would not exist until the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1934, and the Rural Electrification Program of the New Deal.  

Prior to the creation of the grid, if someone wanted electricity in their house then they would have to build their own generating station, or they would have to be fortunate enough to live in one of the few areas served by local electric companies.  

In that context, of _course_ internal combustion took over the market.  

Add to this the problem that, at the turn of the 20th century, the state of the art battery technology was nickel-iron, which is problematic at best for electric vehicles.  Of _course_ electric vehicles failed in that market.  

I understand this may be a difficult concept for ICE fans to grasp, but the entire world has changed in the past century and a quarter.  The pieces have only come together in the past few years for electric vehicles to take over the market.  

When internal combustion vehicles became widely affordable in the early 20th century, in 20 years they almost completely displaced horses from transportation.  We are now only about a decade into the market context for electric vehicles to displace internal combustion.  Electric vehicles will continue to improve.  In another two decades electric power will displace almost all internal combustion from the market, with the exception of a very few specialty applications.  

Anti-EV nabobs are lying about EV fires

 https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/

And Facefuck gave me a spam strike for posting this.  

Comments to the "Transit Open House" in St. Pete Beach

 I'm Alan Petrillo, I live in the Euclid-St. Paul neighborhood of St. Petersburg, and I occasionally take the bus.  

I'm a Florida native, a lifelong resident of Pinellas County, and I've been driving in Pinellas County since 1982.  

I have a side job as an Uber driver.  I drive the First Avenue Corridor a lot.  I drive Central Avenue a lot.  I drive Pasadena a lot.  The traffic on First Avenue is flowing better than I've ever seen it.  I consistently see speed limit drives from downtown all the way to the beaches even in the heart of rush hour.  I've never seen that before, since 1982.  The BAT lanes are great because they get turning traffic out of the flow of through traffic.  You don't have to tell me about the traffic on First Avenue because I'm out there driving it professionally.  

<host interrupts> 

Thank you.  

What I would have liked to say if I'd had more than 90 seconds to comment: 

If the proposed changes to 34th St, Alt-19, and the other places will have the same effects on traffic as the changes on First Avenue then DO IT!  

People have the illusion that the BAT lanes are somehow lost to car traffic.  They aren't.  Turning traffic can still use those lanes.  In fact, the BAT lanes improve the flow of traffic because they get turning traffic out of the flow of through traffic.  This means that turning traffic slowing down to turn will not interfere with through traffic.  Further, it means that drivers in through traffic will not tailgate turning drivers.  This means increased safety for both through traffic and turning traffic.  I know the theory behind the BAT lanes, but I'm not talking theory.  I've seen this in the real world, from the perspectives of both through traffic and turning traffic.  

My experience driving here this afternoon 5:15 PM on a Monday, which is typical for driving First Avenue during rush hour, is that I turned onto First Ave N at 16th St, I had a speed limit drive to 31st St, I stopped for the light at 31st St, then I had to wait through 1 cycle of the light at 34th St.  Continuing on from 34th St, I had a speed limit drive all the way to 66th St, at which point I switched over to Central Ave to make the left turn onto Pasadena, on which I had a nearly speed limit drive all the way here to the Community Center.  This is a typical drive along 1st Av during rush hour.  I overheard one gentleman here complaining he had to wait through two cycles of the light at 34th St.  Prior to the changes to 1st Av he would have waited a lot more than that.  Prior to the changes he would have waited at least 3 cycles of the light at 34th St, and at least 2 more at the light at 31st St.  In fact, prior to the changes it was not unusual for traffic on 1st Av N to back up from 34th St all the way to 16th St.  Today that never happens.  Traffic simply flows better than I've ever seen it.  There has been a similar effect on 1st Av S, which used to regularly back up all the way to 49th St, and now never does.  The changes on the First Avenue Corridor are nothing but win.  

The arguments against the changes on First Avenue are all arguments I've seen before.  Prior to the changes in the late 1990s, to add bicycle lanes to the First Avenue Corridor, there were 4 travel lanes in each direction, plus on-street parallel parking on both sides.  In the mid-1990s I dated a woman who lived in that area.  Using those on-street parking spots was a scary experience because they were so narrow that the driver's door opened into traffic.  Installing the bicycle lanes, and widening the parking lanes, involved reducing the travel lanes from 4 to 3.  And people screamed about it and predicted carmageddon in traffic.  It didn't happen.  Traffic flowed as well, or as badly, as before, and the crash rate, and the body count went down.  The same thing is happening this time, only this time the timing of the stoplights has been addressed to insure good flow of through traffic.  Two through lanes are plenty on the First Avenue Corridor.  Again, I'm not talking theory, I've seen it in real life.  

With respect to the on-street parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to the First Avenue Corridor, I've heard complaints about both the loss of the subsidized parking along First Avenue, and traffic backup particularly in Historic Kenwood. Prior to buying our house, back in 2012, my spouse and I looked at houses all over the city, notably in Historic Kenwood.  We spent quite some time investigating the neighborhood.  The biggest traffic tie-up we saw was consistently associated with drop-off and pick-up times at the high school.  Those residents of Historic Kenwood who are blaming the congestion on First Avenue are looking in the wrong direction.  As for the loss of subsidized on-street parking, the neighborhoods along the First Avenue Corridor all have alley access and perfectly good driveways on the alley side of their properties.  Use them.  

The point has been brought up that PSTA gets 97% of its funding from subsidies.  You know what else gets 97% of its funding from subsidies?  Roads.  Florida is doing pretty well on highway funding, because only 50% of our highway funding comes from subsidy.  Once you get away from the interstate the fraction of subsidy goes up to unity.  Arterial roads get about 90% of their funding from subsidy.  By the time you get down to residential streets, they get nearly all of their funding from property taxes.  Think about that before you complain that PSTA gets 97% of its funding from subsidy.  In fact, because PSTA gets so much funding from subsidy, PSTA management might look into going all the way to 100%, and make PSTA free for users.  

United States political map by population

One of the favorite talking points of the right wing is a political map which shows cities as little islands of blue surrounded by a sea of red, the blue representing Democratic, relatively liberal affiliation, and the red representing Republican, so-called "conservative" affiliation.  But there's a problem.  According to the census, 48% of US land area is empty. This map corrects for that.  Of course, as this map was created in 2016, the picture will change.  

 https://carto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8732c91ba7a14d818cd26b776250d2c3

A similar map for 2020 is here: 

https://carto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ef4a986a1caa429ea3b46fffe323c8e3

In 2023, 3/4 of new voters identify as Democrats.  Because of that, this map has gotten bluer.  Given the antics of the Republican Party over the past decade, that trend is likely to maintain.