541–550 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t give someone only two options, one less bad, then claim there was a free choice made.
Sure you can. That is every choice in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so much an informed electorate as a rent-seeking one.[1] The regulatory capture [2] of obscure local boards is much easier than that of state agencies. Voters who are part of a special interest group are much more aware of what and who they're voting for. The prime example are landlords and homeowners. They have managed to strangle the supply of housing to inflate prices, creating the crisis we're in now. [1…
The home ownership rate in my county is 75%, so “landlords and homeowners” is the vast majority of the population, not a “special interest group.” And your point doesn’t contradict mine. The homeowners in my county are highly informed and conscientious voters, and their decisions are good for most of the people who already live in the county. I agree in certain circumstances, including land use, you want to make deci…
In any case, we don't seem to disagree all that much. My original point was more legislative than executive in nature. Local executive accountability is desirable, provided that the budgeting and rulemaking were made uniform state-wide. Education already works that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I understand some of the criticism now. 1.) She cut funding to the fire department budget by millions of dollars. 2.) There is a video floating around where she is totally unresponsive to questions.
She cut some 2% of the LA fire department budget, 17M out of 837M. The outrage is politically fueled more than any rationale reasoning.
The fact that otherwise intelligent people are eating it up has made me give up for a generation.
It is a truly depressing state of affairs.
This is sad, devastating, and not surprising. Yet, people voted for policies that will further accelerate climate change and its consequential destructions in the next four years. As someone not living in the US, this is unbelievable to witness. Where did it all go wrong inside of people's heads?
Because no one thinks their house will burn down or flood, or that they will starve. We're supposed to be self-interested individuals, but sadly most people only seem to wake up the moment their own safety is directly threatened. Such a shame that 50 years of climate warnings have done practically nothing to stop us reaching the tipping point. If we aren't there yet, we will be in our lifetimes no doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the source link it's hard to tell if these prisoners are even working voluntarily. Prisoners can be enslaved under the 13th amendment.
They are volunteering and usually get time reduced for doing so.
Most of these wildfires are caused by humans. Not just because of climate change but because of people intentionally starting fires who want to watch the destruction unfold. There were fires near these exact areas where fires in homeless camps were found to be the cause. Not enough was done to enforce the law and stop street people from intentionally causing destruction and being pushing for it.
This is happening and we need to discuss solutions - https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/la-homeless-enc... We also need to discuss clearing plants and other fuel that comes back as part of the drought / rain weather patterns we are seeing. Goats and other firefighting clearing efforts need to be discussed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are volunteering and usually get time reduced for doing so.
"Work for us or we'll keep you locked up for 3 years longer than if you did" isn't really volunteering - more like extortion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, I expect there are some foundational differences in world view at play. IMO, its not slavery because it is 100% optional. It is a restricted privilege that prisoners actively seek and compete for. It is sought after because it is an improvement over the alternative. I'm honestly unsure how this can be framed as a negative.
> yeah, I expect there are some foundational differences in world view at play. Agree. I find it fascinating that perspectives can be so different. > It it is sought after because it is an improvement over the alternative. Yep, no objection from me. > I'm honestly unsure how this can be framed as a negative. To me it's the part where prison is apparently even worse than risking your life fighting fires for free. The…
It's the benefit of promised freedom early that is in play. Not that prison is unendurable (many endure it). It's that freedom is preferable. The entire point of prison after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait a second - you're suggesting to cut LAPD funding because "crime is still rampant in Los Angeles"? Wouldn't that be the same as advocating for cuts in the LAFD funding because they weren't able to do much about the wildfires anyway? That doesn't seem to be the best way to go about things, at least not to me.
How much of the city budget does the LAPD need for crime to finally go down then? 60%? 80%? Maybe all of it, replace the mayor with the police commissioner and run the city like a quasi-military dictatorship? Studies have found "no consistent correlations between increased police spending and municipal crime rates". Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/world/canada/canada-lette... Unlike policing, where clear a…
Meanwhile, people aren't necessarily concerned with the crime rate, per se. There are crimes we care about more than others, namely, violent personal crimes: muggings, felonious assault, rape, and murder. Close on its heels are property crimes: breaking and entering, vandalism, and robbery.
Given the crimes the majority of the people actually care about, can we say that the LA crime rate has not gone down?
Meanwhile, 20% of the hydrants ran dry in the Palisades. Increased LAFD funding isn't going to change anything about that. This isn't even getting into whether it's reasonable for a municipal government to be prepared to battle a wildfire enveloping an entire region. I don't think there's a city in the United States that could take that on.
Los Angeles Fire Department funding was cut by over $23M only a few months ago. The fires are currently being fought by a skeleton crew of remaining fire fighters and volunteers. Can't say if that funding would have prevented it, but cutting it definitely has not helped. Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/los-angeles-fires-m... Edit: Changing a word, "gutted" -> "cut"
Someone tweeted $23 million .. your linked article (thank you for source) follows that with: City budget documents show the department’s more than $800 million budget decreased by around $17 million compared to the previous budget cycle. Which makes the cuts less than %2.12 "Gutted" as a descripter seems extreme and the details that matter are whether these reductions simply trimmed fat, or denied something essential…