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.  

Israel in Florida terms

My fellow Floridians.  I would like to explain Israel and Gaza in terms most Floridians can understand.  

First, Israel.  

Look at a map of Florida.  Look at the Gulf coast.  Now take a section of the Gulf coast that includes these counties: Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Sumter, Levy, Dixie, Gilchrist, and the western fifth of Marion.  Now into that area put 2/5 the population of Florida with 1/3 the GDP.  That's Israel.  

Now consider again Pinellas County.  Draw a line up the map from the Skyway north along the eastern shore of Lake Tarpon to the county line.  Look at the land area to the west of that line.  Into that area put 2.5 times the population of the county with half the GDP.  That's Gaza.  

This is the area around which the United States is bending our entire foreign policy.  

Let's make of the SCOTUS Bruen ruling what it is not what it isn't

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which ruled that New York’s gun licensing law was unconstitutional, let’s make of that ruling what it is, not what it isn’t.  

For a quick primer, for decades New York has required gun owners to get a license to own and carry firearms.  That in itself isn’t the problem.  The problem is that the law required the applicant to prove “proper cause exists” in order to get a license to “have and carry” a firearm outside the home.  Even then, if the applicant successfully proved proper cause then the state “may issue” a permit.  This was the crux of the issue, as this infringes on the 14th Amendment protections on due process.  

Twice before the Court has ruled that “may issue” firearms permit laws are unconstitutional.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, and in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court found that the 14th Amendment presumptively protects an individual’s enumerated right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.  

The bottom line in this case is that such laws must be written on a “shall issue” basis.  That is, if the State cannot prove that an applicant’s personal conduct precludes that individual from possessing and carrying a firearm then the state shall issue a firearms license, and shall do so in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.  

New York’s law requiring an individual to prove “proper cause”, and even then stating the state “may issue” the requested license was blatantly unconstitutional, as it placed the burden of proof on the applicant to show the ability to keep and bear arms rather than on the state to prove otherwise, and put the final decision in the hands of bureaucrats.  

The ruling still permits New York to require a license to have and carry a firearm, but requires the state to issue those licenses on a “shall issue” basis rather than a “may issue” basis.  That’s it.  Period.  The ruling will not allow people to carry whatever they wish whenever they wish wherever they wish.  The law will not “flood the streets with guns”.  Allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms will not cause the streets to run red with blood.  In the past, every time detractors of gun legislation, on both sides of the issue, have claimed that proposed changes to gun laws will “cause the streets to run red with blood” they have been wrong, and they’re wrong in this case as well.  

The ruling in Bruen does not mean that states cannot regulate firearms.  The ruling in Bruen, and likewise in Heller, and in McDonald, means that when states regulate firearms they must do so in accordance with 14th Amendment protections on due process.  The state can still require licenses to have and carry firearms.  The state can still prohibit the carry of firearms in certain areas, such as court houses, government offices, schools, and mass transit.  Property owners can still prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises, and the state can still make violating those prohibitions a crime.  

But these rulings mean more than that.  These rulings have broader applications than just gun rights.  The rulings in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen are precedents that regulations on any enumerated right shall comply with the protections on due process in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Whether you like the decision or not, it protects your rights to due process.  That’s what the Bruen decision is.