Jump to content

High Plains Drifter

Full Members
  • Posts

    8500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by High Plains Drifter

  1. 13 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Any nonsense out of her should be met with a "Will you shut up, woman?"

     

    Pretty much what he did last year when they started howling when he claimed they wanted to cut social security. "Good, I'm glad we all agree, social security is off the table." 

     

    • Like 2
  2. On 2/1/2024 at 11:48 AM, Incredulity said:

    O

    Addiction and homelessness require assistance and treatment.  That assistance and treatment needs to be able to be compelled as the majority absolutely will not seek help voluntarily.  What they are doing now is facilitating more of the problem.

     

    On 2/1/2024 at 12:44 PM, We’reTexas said:

    Well, Housing First is a pretty good example of the moral hang up in our politics. It’s not a radical concept - W.’s administration adopted it as HUD’s housing policy, for chrissakes. It has shown success, but its successful implementations have shown that it requires substantial and sustained federal and state alignment and investment. But for some reason, conservatives have for years opposed it on some fundamental discomfort with what they perceive to be a handout to enable drug use. Progressives, on the other hand, have pushed initiatives in localities totally unequipped to handle the enormity of the task on the grounds that, despite its practical unfeasibility, it’s the right thing to do (see: basically every major West Coast city). There’s not really a pragmatic conversation going on. 

     

    According the article linked below, NY City has had some success with Housing AND Treatment (drug or mental health or both), which for some reason is incorrectly called "Housing First". Success being defined as getting a large (not all) number of homeless off the streets. 

    Yes, it is expensive, requires caseworkers, social workers, etc. But when done right, it does seem to work. One thing it does not do is force homeless people to into the program against their will. And if every NYC homeless person did willingly enter the program, it would be vastly inadequate. 

    Funding seems to be a mix of city, state, corporate, and federal, along with a lot of volunteer work. 

     

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/09/18/a-journey-from-homelessness-to-a-room-of-ones-own

     

    Warning: Long read of a complex problem. 

     

    I found these snippets interesting (bolded is mine: 

     

    This strategy, known as “housing first,” was pioneered in New York, in the early nineteen-nineties, by Sam Tsemberis, a psychologist whose organization, Pathways to Housing, began renting apartments for homeless people with mental-health diagnoses and delivering medical and psychiatric services to them at their new residences—debunking the prevailing belief that people could not remain stably housed without having first undergone treatment. Study after study showed Tsemberis’s approach to be far more successful than requiring treatment in advance. Housing first became a federal policy in the United States with passage of the HEARTH Act, in 2009, though advocates say that its implementation is spotty.

    ...

    New York State has the second-highest number of homeless people in the nation (largely living in New York City) after California, but whereas almost seventy per cent of California’s homeless live on the street (a sizable portion in vehicles), fewer than six per cent of New York’s do, making homelessness far less visible here. Many factors account for this disparity, chief among them the fact that New York City is the only municipality in America to guarantee a legal right to shelter for individuals and families—the result of court-approved agreements between advocates and the city that date back to the nineteen-eighties. (Massachusetts has a right to shelter for families.) Research disproves the notion that homeless people migrate to the West Coast for the weather; rather, a comparative paucity of shelter beds likely explains the more overt presence of homelessness there.

     

    Anyway, if you really give a shit about homelessness and the drug addiction that goes with it, you should read the article. 

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    It is bad for him. The GOP *IS* the Trump party. He’s losing 1/3-1/4 of GOP voters in what should be a coronation of a primary and especially bleeding support in the suburbs and college towns. Those are voters who have been shifting left the last 8 years, quickly. 

     

    No he's not. Vast majority of those Haley voters will vote for him in the general. 

     

  4. 23 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    Is there some high school or college campus club where you get mad pussy or dick by decrying Biden’s position in the Gaza Strip and proudly vote for Trump instead, that I’m just too old and lame to know about?  
     

    when you vote for that fuckstick and he puts you and your family on a Muslim registry.  Remember my words “I warned you.  And I no longer care.  I’m a partially Jewish Mexican.  But I can easily re-assimilate back into white nationalist Christian Republican America.  When the bullets hit your parent’s skulls, what difference will it make the reason why?”   You fucking pedantic children and your obsession with being performatively bold.  

     

    Nice rant. You think it'll change the minds of the ones voting "uncommitted"?

     

    Hint: It won't. 

     

     

  5. On 3/5/2024 at 7:23 AM, dcbc said:

    There is no absolute safe haven from litigation bullshit, but the appellate side of the coin comes as close as anything.  If I hadn't landed in that area, I'd have burned out on commercial litigation a long time ago.

     

    pos repped from my wife, who agrees 1000%. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 2 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

    West Lake Hills city tax rate: $0.16
    Rollingwood city tax rate: $0.19
    Austin city tax rate: $0.54

    Other benefits:
     

    If the Lost Creek mayor went to Mexico and recorded a video telling other Lost Creek residents to stay home, the mayor would be forced out of office upon return.

     

     

    rage

  7. On 2/29/2024 at 4:20 PM, Ghost of LL said:

    It's just Lost Creek that is being put to a vote.  It's the result of a very specific piece of legislation passed last year by the 88th Legislature, following years of lobbying by a handful of residents.  Perhaps it won't surprise you to learn that there are a few lobbyists who live in Lost Creek.

    Anyway, it's just a majority of votes cast needed for disannexation.  That's why the City's move here is so puzzling.  In a low-turnout election, it's going to be the highly motivated people who carry the day.  And on this issue, that's clearly the pro-disannexation people.

     

    So, honest question here, just curious: what are the pros (for those in Lost Creek) to be disannexed? 

     

     

     

    On 2/29/2024 at 8:08 PM, onsager said:

    This is a pretty abysmal take, in my opinion. When public transit is done well (and to be clear, I'm not saying it's done well in Austin), people will use it instead of driving. For example, I used to drive almost everywhere when I lived in the Houston area. After I moved to the Bay Area, I walk, bike, or use public transportation for 95% of my trips, and only use my car when going to the beach/mountains/camping/etc. with friends.

    If you are someone who loves driving, it is in your best interests to have well-designed public transit. It means there will be fewer cars on the road and you'll be stuck in less traffic, which saves you time. And, it means people like me can save money and be healthier by walking, biking, and taking public transit instead of driving. In fact, for trips that are <2 miles, biking is usually faster than driving for me here, making it kinetically favorable.

    Right now, we are stuck in the high energy transition state between two energy minima, which is what results in these non-idealities. But if Austin commits to doing this right (and in a cost-effective way) I think it'll be very good for the city in the long run.

     

    Pos repped just because of all the cunts that negged it. 

     

     

     

     

  8. On 3/2/2024 at 8:19 PM, CooterBrown said:

    My experience with my teen is that no one drinks. They all just smoke weed.  

     

     

    OK, so asking for all those weed smoking teens...

     

    is weed ever laced with fentanyl? If so, is smoking fentanyl as bad as ingesting? 

     

     

  9. 45 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

    Put "EV charger" into Google Maps. They'll show up. Most interstates and major metros have some level of coverage these days. Electrify America charges pretty quick (I charged a rental EV from 30% to 70% in about 20 mins in a Target parking lot) and charging is cheap. My understanding is EVs work best between 20% and 80% charge but not an expert.

     

    I think in order to maximize battery life, its best not to go below 20% or charge above 80%. Battery should work the same no matter how much charge it has, unless it gets really really low (<~5%).

    But yeah, charging stations are out there, you just don't see them because they aren't advertised on giant signs like gas stations usually are. 

  10. 17 hours ago, slorch said:

    This week i was on my next rental at ORD.  4 e-vehicles listed.  WTF?

    I cycle through and about 10 min later, it finally offers me a traditional rental.  Boom. Done.  Again, I am driving considerable distance and don't have the time/ inclination to mess with managing charging stops.

    Got home yesterday and I'm like, something has to be fucked up in my profile.  None of my preferred vehicle are remotely EV selections.  I go look at it, and my #1 choice is E-class, and not a fucking Mercedes either.  I never changed it.  It happened in the last 2 weeks.  I haven't even opened my profile since about November.

    Not saying AVIS changed it, but something is haywire.  I'm not opposed to renting an EV if I'm in a metro only run and charging stops are not an issue; which is going to be hardly ever for me.  I changed it back to what it should be and hopefully it stays put.  

     

    You will be drug into the future, kicking and screaming if need be. 

  11. Just now, HouTex said:

    It wasn’t even at an intersection.  I forget the road in SW Austin but it was not a small two lane road.  I came across the same thing in Houston a month or so ago.  The bus was probably 50 yards or more from my lane.  I was lucky to see it.  I stopped but no one else on my side of the median did.  So a bus stop can be in the middle of a busy street, drop kids off and kids can jay walk across a lane, then a median, then two more lanes—all not at a cross walk/red light?  Whether it’s a legit bus stop or not, it’s extremely dangerous because many drivers just don’t notice something so far away from their own lane.  

     

    just yanking your chain.  I agree its probably not a good idea to have a bus stop on a median divided road.

  12. 8 hours ago, HouTex said:

    In Austin they send you a $300 ticket in the mail.  It happened to my daughter.  In her defense, it was a four lane divided road with a wide median.  She was in the far right lane and the school bus was three lanes away across the median going the other way.  She never saw it that far away.  she doesn't know traffic laws. It was all on video.  

     

    fixy

     

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...