Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6838
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. 5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    I think it makes things less likely for a re-opening. They know they are going to get smashed next year so why not inflict as much pain and cruelty as possible in the meantime?

    Because as last night makes very clear, Republicans are taking a disproportionate amount of the blame for the shutdown.  Hell--even Trump has said so.  And by the way, once the president (of any party) says "we're taking the blame" for anything, the blame is placed.  There's no walking that back.

    If I'm the Democrats, I hold out for everything I've ever had on my wish list.  Because why would I want to reopen the government and let Trump pass his priorities through a unified Congress?  Fuck that--leave the government shut down for the next year, and let Republicans take the blame.  They'd get fucking wiped out in the midterms.

    Which is why, one way or another, there are going to be just enough Republicans who like their jobs to get through some compromise.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  2. On 11/3/2025 at 5:27 AM, dieucla98 said:

    6am out of AUS this morning and it was the fastest I've made it to the gate in recent memory. No issues. But 6am isn't really peak departure time here.....

    Six in the morning actually is the peak departure time from AUS.

    The airlines want to maximize an airplane's productivity, so they want to get it in the air as early in the morning as possible.  But there's really a hard stop around 6:00 AM for most people--they're not going to buy a ticket for a flight that leaves at 5:00.  So virtually every gate at AUS has a flight that is going to leave within 20 minutes of 6:00.

    There's no other time of day at AUS that is that busy.  After 6:00, the flights start to get staggered.  So the early morning is the busiest it's going to be all day.

    54 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    I see no reason for Dems to back down as the last time they did so with the promise that Rs would come to the table the Rs told them to shove it.

    Why would they ever believe Rs will negotiate in good faith?  

    They shouldn't.  Trump and the Congressional Republicans have demonstrated over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith.  If the Republicans want the government to reopen, then they need to give on the ACA subsidies.

    And it's pretty clear at this point that Republicans should want the government reopened.  They're the ones taking the blame for this.  You can see that in Trump's approval ratings, which are steadily declining.  Every poll shows Republicans taking more of the blame for the shutdown.  And when people can't go visit grandma for Thanksgiving, shit's going to get real focused.  It's one thing to say you blame the ebil Democraps for the shutdown while it's not really affecting you.  But when you're standing in an endless TSA line on Novmeber 25 and you know goddamned well the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, that facade cracks a little bit.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  3. 11 hours ago, Leanderman said:

    May be an image of football and text that says '4 Football FootbalTexa Texas @NTfootballUT Texas fans, be prepared for the officiating in next game.'

    I'm actually not that worried about the officiating in the Georgia game, at least from the standpoint that I don't think Georgia is going to get some inherent favoritism from SEC officials.  I say that for two reaons:

    1) The SEC doesn't have an interest in Georgia beating Texas.  The SEC wants more teams in the CFP, full stop.  If Georgia wins, they're probably still in the CFP with only two losses.  Texas, on the other hand, is probably out (not definitely, but probably).  So if anything, the Conference should favor Texas winning that game.

    2) I'm very skeptical of the conspiracy theories about conferences wanting certain teams to win.  It would be just too big a conspiracy to keep a lid on.   It's one thing for two or three referees on a crew to agree to something among themselves; it's quite another to have a crew agree with the league office about something.  I just don't think it's realistic scenario.

    What is a realistic scenario--and one that could affect any game--is gambling.  It's just really hard to watch the fourth quarter of that Vanderbilt game and conclude that one or more of that crew didn't have an interest in Vanderbilt +3.5.  I think that's exceedingly rare.  But as we saw--it does happen.  But next time, it could just as easily happen in favor of Texas.  It's completely unpredictable.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. On 10/31/2025 at 5:47 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No it’s an indictment of the voters and the citizens of a city that has overcome incredible strokes of good luck and natural advantages in order to avoid being a great city. Our council isn’t great, but it’s 100x better than the voters deserve.

    I mean, ok.  I'm not going to argue with you that Austin voters suck.

    But they suck largely because Council does everything it can to reduce voter turnout among groups that would not suck nearly so much as the NA-ocracy that runs this place.  So there's a little bit of a chicken-and-egg situation going on here.

    Regardless--the suckiness of Austin voters is no reason to vote for Prop Q.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    After some back and forth, I’ve decided to vote for prop Q.  To be clear, I expect Prop Q to fail. I also expect the failure of Prop Q to launch careers and other initiatives that will cause this city real harm. 

    Im voting for prop Q for three main reasons:

    1)  Half of this increase covers essential needs. Yes, our homeless strategy is an incoherent, inhumane mess and it’s likely that 25-30% of this will be wasted or actively increase misery. That’s unfortunate but there is no reality but this one. 
    2) Austin’s city taxe rates are not too high and won’t be if this passes. We’re getting killed by recapture, and the people bitching the most about this increase are the same people who vote for the people robbing us blind while their party bans books and refuses  to reform property taxes.
    3) Most importantly, opposition to Prop Q has united the worst and most dishonest people in Austin’s public life, and they have run their campaign on the basis of misinformation and kicking down. Fuck them. 
     

     

    I gotta tell you--you're Point 3 makes absolutely no sense to me.  The fact that someone you hate is going to vote against Prop Q is no basis to conclude that you should vote for it.  Some things should be non-controversial.  Matt Mackowiac could vote against a proposition to kill all puppies in Austin, that doesn't mean that you or I or anyone else should vote for it.  

    Proposed legislation should stand or fall on its own merits.  And the other two points you outline indicate that Prop Q has none.

    Austin's tax rates are too high when applied to to the residential real estate in this city.  Compare the tax burden a citizen in Austin pays to any other peer city.  I don't care whether we're talking San Antonio or San Jose--Austin residents pay more, and generally get far less.

    Otherwise, you beg the question when you write that the increase covers essential needs.  The increase covers "essential" needs only because so much of the budget is already taken up covering non-essential needs.  The budget is bloated.  But many budgets are bloated.  Austin's is bloated in in ways that are both highly publicized and intensely stupid.

    And that's why you're exactly right that this ill-concieved, ill-considered, and ill-timed proposition will launch careers and initiatives that are going to be bad for the City.  But that's an indictment of the Council who put this proposition on the ballot just weeks after the airport-art debacle and the city-logo kerfuffle.  And you advocate giving that Council more money?

    • Hook 'Em 4
  6. 2 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

    Of course ticket sales have bottomed out.  Cletus and Lerlene aren't lining up to buy tickets to La Boheme (it's an opera).

    Two different Simpsons references and a Trading Places reference all in one sentence?  Bravo to you, sir.  That's some peak Gen-X energy right there.

    1 hour ago, Superhero said:

    Didn't want to CR the Wives Stupid Shit thread, but my wife voted No on California Prop 50 (temporary redistricting to counter Texas gerrymandering). She doesn't like Trump and wants to see him gone, but doesn't want to pay the price for redistricting. Told her sometimes it takes sacrifice for democracy, but nope, she's pretty stubborn.

     

    Well, it's not like she's going to have to worry about voting in future elections.  So she might as well blow this last one.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  7. 23 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

    It is not legit.  Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was closed in 1996 and has been being redeveloped since that time.  

     

    I'm pretty sure the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard got teleported to Newport News in 1943.  It was some World War II experiment, I guess to spread out heavy industry across the Atlantic Seaboard.  I'm pretty sure it was called the Move A Shipyard To Newport News To Impress Churchill Experiment.

    • Haha 2
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  8. 3 hours ago, Deej said:

    I'm impressed, I would have assumed that most phone calls to the families would end more like this...

     

    crank-pulp.gif.875db911bcb87c82cf5252aaab3d1564.gif

    I kind of would've, too.  But I talked to the guy in Houston who was in charge of their program and he had some really interesting insight on that. 

    A lot of them fell out of touch with family not because of any conscious desire on the part of the family.  Instead, it was more often at the initiative of the person who eventually fell into homelessness.  Without a home or a job, there was no physical place to find them.  And very often, the homeless person was too ashamed about their circumstance to answer a call on their cell phone (if they were able to retain that).

    It's only when a social worker gets involved and convinces them to make that call that they get over that shame and reach out to their family.  And in the vast majority of cases, the family is (1) relieved that they're alive and ok and (2) willing and eager to help.

    17 minutes ago, Modessit said:
    3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:
    Dallas.
    I mean, before the One Big Beautiful Bill cut the funding the city was using to address homelessness.  But Dallas actually had a very successful program to address homelessness.  
    And before that, Houston developed a really good program.  It's similar to what Dallas was doing.  Essentially, you target a homeless camp and send in police, santitation, and social workers in a single sweep.  You take the people to a temporary center for processing, where they stay for 72 hours.  During that 72 hours, the city identifies what they need.  Some just need a call to a family member who takes them in.  Other people need serious mental-health services.  Anyone still there after 72 hours gets sent over to a longer-term facility that gives them an apartment for some amount of time (I think it's six months), where there are various social services available.  The end result was that something like 90% of the people left before six months, having found permanent housing (often with family who didn't have the first clue that they were homeless).
    Anyway--there is a formula for successfully addressing homelessness.  Cities that are pretty close by have implemented it.  It's not rocket surgery.  We just refuse to do it.

    Pretty sure a lot of their "solution" was buying them a bus ticket to Austin. Not sure Austin can use that strategy.

    That's Williamson County's solution, for sure.

    I don't remember the specifics, but I think Houston will buy a bus ticket if there is a family member in the destination willing to receive them.  But they're not just buying a ticket to some random city (whether it be Austin or San Francisco).

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Dude banked $594 million.  All he's gotta do is "invest" $50 million or so in the new "Trump coin" venture, and he'll have a pardon in his safe deposit box within the week.

    image.thumb.png.52239361637fe1b03e539ff14e8efa79.png

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm sticking around while all you richy-riches bail so I can be the richy-rich.  (Sort of.)

    I know you're joking.  But that's not really how it works.

    Look at 19th Century Ireland or 20th Century Calabria or 21st Century Syria.  When you cause the upper middle class to leave, that class doesn't get filled in by people who were lower on the socio-economic ladder.  It's that the oligarchs (the Anglo-Irish nobility, the Mafia, the regime-adjacent Alawites) take over whatever wealth is left over while the lower classes get even poorer from the reduction in economic activity.  And really, that's when real poverty takes hold, leading to mass emigration and foreign restrictions on migration.

    The lesson for the investing classes is this: emigration from a failing state is like a run on the bank--it's irrational to start one, but once it has started, it's irrational not to participate.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...