Links - 4th October 2024 (2 - Harris-Trump Debate)

Thread by @DrewHolden360 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "🧵Thread🧵  The media, focused solely on Trump, haven’t seemed interested in fact checking Kamala Harris. And not for lack of opportunity.  So I decided to. Below are some false and misleading statements from last week’s debate.  I could only fit so many. But give it a read. ⤵️
For starters, I think this image typifies how the media treat the two candidates.  Dale’s sentiment here applied broadly to the rest of the media, who had eyes only for Trump. So let’s look at Harris, shall we?
1. She claimed that she was the only one on the debate stage with a plan for the middle class.  That’s the type of claim the media usually says “needs context,” as the Biden-Harris admin has failed the middle class, as even CNN acknowledged.
2. Harris claimed that Trump intends to implement Project 2025, the latest monster-under-the-bed for Democrats.  Beyond overhyping the details of the project itself, what Harris glossed over is that Trump has denounced the project, repeatedly saying he’s got no interest. Surely, fact checkers must’ve been climbing over one another to point out that this connection was bogus, right? That whatever else, Trump had clearly said he isn’t supportive of it?  Well, no. The media mostly ignored the claim, or counterclaimed that really he does support it. If you’re wondering why, I have an idea. Okay, back to the facts.
3. Harris claimed Trump would ban abortion nationwide.  Again, Trump has repeatedly said he won’t do this. He’s even taken heat for being too liberal on the issue from pro-life folks. But Harris keeps repeating it. And the media keeps ignoring it.
4. Harris also said that nowhere in the country are there full-term abortions.  This simply isn’t true. As @MaryMargOlohan explains in a recent piece and thread:
5. Harris said she was tough on immigration, and would hire “1,500 new border patrol agents”  Again, this is one of those claims that, if the political shoe were on the other foot, the press would say “needs context.”  Harris supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings. And Harris led immigration for Biden.  Much as she may deny it, I’ve got the receipts. She presided over the disastrous border policies that led to record crossings.    That those facts aren’t front and center in this conversation elides the point.
Okay, not a fact check, but Harris bragged about the endorsement of Dick Cheney.  Does anyone else think it’s really weird that the Dems are hyped that the guy who lied us into the Iraq war, whom Dems wanted tried for war crimes, supports their candidate?
6. Harris said that Trump would “weaponize” the legal powers of the federal government against his opponents.  Again, this “needs context.” The Biden-Harris admin are doing precisely this to Trump. Isn’t it a touch rich for Harris to try to call it out?
7. Harris claimed (repeatedly) that she had been “very clear” about her position on fracking.  Look at these screenshots, one from 2019, one from 2024, and tell me this is “clear.” I mean, the press have even celebrated how she’s pivoted on this topic!
8. Harris bragged about her and Biden’s investment in clean energy. But is that investment going anywhere?  As I fact checked for Biden’s DNC speech, all that money has led to a grand total of 7 new charging stations, a key climate focus.  Not 7,000. Not 700. Just 7. Nationwide.
9. Harris said “and some died” when describing law enforcement casualties at the Capitol on Jan 6.  Whatever else you think about what happened, law enforcement personal weren’t killed as a result. To imply otherwise is dishonest.
10. Harris repeated the “very fine people on both sides” lie about Charlottesville.  Even Snopes, no right wing rag, has explained that this isn’t real.
11. In a similar vein, Harris accused Trump of saying there’d be a “bloodbath” if he lost the election.  The phrase is pulled, without context, from Trump’s remarks about the auto industry.  To apply it instead to the country is bogus, and maliciously so.
12. Harris claimed that “there is not one member of the…military who is in active duty in a combat zone.”  Even NYT disputed this one. Since they let most of her claims go, I’ll give them the floor:
13. Harris claimed she has a “plan” (again) for bringing down the cost of living.  If so, why hasn’t she implemented it in three years as VP, while her admin has spiked the cost of living with inflation and other failed economic policies?  Lovely time for “context.”
Bonus: I can’t not include the most ridiculous aspect of the debate “fact checking”: claims that Trump was wrong to accuse Harris of supporting trans surgeries for detained illegal immigrants.  Problem was, she did.  H/t @guypbenson for this terribly awkward NYT reflection. And @time produced one of the most cringe-inducing corrections on record (h/t @TimMurtaugh).  Apparently @sbg1 didn’t get the memo from NYT.  And I can’t not include this “needs context” claim from NYT initially, the ‘context’ being that Trump was right, apparently.
Look, I get the protest that Trump isn’t a beacon of truth. But the American people deserve to know whether what his opponent has to say is actually accurate.  In many cases, it isn’t. And it’s impossible to ignore how all of this intersects with the media, who regularly repeat these bogus Harris claims as gospel truth.  That they can’t do their “fact checking” with any integrity says a lot about the mission such work actually serves: furthering Dem interests. As ever, there’s too much here to fit into a thread. Read the full write up at my newsletter, @Holden_Court"

Jack Poso 🇺🇸 on X - "The craziest part of ABC rigging the debate tonight was that less than 2 months ago a crazed leftist tried to blow Trump's head off on live TV and not one question was asked about it"

Pundits said Harris won the debate. Undecided voters weren’t so sure - "In interviews, these undecided voters acknowledged that Harris seemed more presidential than Trump. And they said she laid out a sweeping vision to fix some of the country’s most stubborn problems.  But they also said she did not seem much different from Biden, and they wanted change.  And most of all, what they wanted to hear — and didn’t — was the fine print."

Meme - CrossPolitic @CrossPolitic: "No states have legal late-term abortions?  From ABC News itself in June.   #Debate2024"
"Abortion Access in the United States Post-Dobbs Decision AS OF JUNE 21,2024. Near-total ban. Up to 6 weeks. Up to 12 weeks. Up to 15 weeks. Up to 18 weeks. Up to 20-26 weeks. Up to 3rdtrimester. No restrictions based on gestational duration
SOURCE STATE LAWS, GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE"
"Fact checking" means reality can be whatever left wingers want it to be

Elon Musk on X - "While I don’t think the debate hosts were fair to @realDonaldTrump , @KamalaHarris  exceeded most people’s expectations tonight.  That said, when it comes to getting things done, not just saying nice-sounding words, I strongly believe that Trump will do a far better job.   After all, if Kamala can do great things, why hasn’t she? Biden rarely shows up for work, so she’s basically in charge already.   The question comes down to this: do you want current trends to continue for 4 more years or do you want change?"

Why Harris’ debate remarks about US military in combat zones is misleading - ""And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, first time this century."... Harris’ inclusion of "combat zone" in that statement is misleading and experts said it significantly underplays the broader landscape of active duty military service abroad.  The Internal Revenue Service tracks combat zones for tax purposes. The term generally refers to "hostile areas where (the) military may serve, (including) actual combat areas, direct combat support areas and qualified hazardous duty areas," the IRS said on a webpage last reviewed and updated Aug. 19.  Citing the Defense Department, the IRS said that as of August, recognized combat zones included the Sinai Peninsula, and the Afghanistan, Kosovo and Arabian Peninsula areas.  Melanie Sisson, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said some of these combat zone designations, such as the one over Kosovo, are "holdovers" from previous U.S. military operations. But the combat zones do include areas in which U.S. service members are now deployed, she said... As of June, the nonpartisan think tank Council on Foreign Relations said the U.S. had several thousand service members stationed across multiple foreign countries and on ships at sea in the Middle East. Many of these countries are in the currently recognized combat zones listed on the IRS website.  Specifically, the Defense Department and news outlets have reported that there are about 2,500 U.S. service members in Iraq and about 900 in Syria, fighting against Islamic State militants. Additionally, thousands of U.S. service members have been deployed to the Middle East since the Israel-Hamas war started in October 2023.   There have been multiple instances this year in which U.S. service members have been killed or injured while serving abroad.  In January, three U.S. Army Reserve soldiers were killed and at least 34 others were injured in a drone strike in Jordan. In February, two U.S. Navy SEALs drowned during an Iranian weapons seizure mission. In August, eight U.S. service members were wounded in a drone attack in Syria. That same month, another seven U.S. service members were injured in a raid targeting Islamic State militants.  "It is not accurate to suggest that U.S. service members are not, today, in harm’s way," Sisson said.   Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor who specializes in civil-military relations, echoed Sisson, saying many U.S. military personnel are engaged in operations "that put them at serious risk of attack by adversaries."  "For the men and women serving on these and many other missions, not to mention their families and loved ones, this feels very much like serving in a combat zone," Feaver said...   We rate Harris’ statement Mostly False."

Ian Miles Cheong on X - "Kamala Harris is lying about what Trump said at Charlottesville. She repeated the lie about how he said there were "fine people on both sides," cutting off and removing any sort of context to the statement he made. Even Snopes, a far-left publication, agrees with Trump."
Fact checks are only for those who threaten the left wing agenda

Donald Trump: ABC moderator Linsey Davis admits to fact-checking Trump due to concerns raised in CNN debate - " Davis defended her approach, saying that her team had intended to fact-check both candidates. However, she also acknowledged that she and Muir couldn’t catch every incorrect statement “There is a stereotype that I am acutely aware of that I can’t be unbiased,” Davis said, addressing the criticism."
What a coincidence that they couldn't materialise their "intentions"

Kyle Becker on X - "WHOA: CNN just HAMMERED ABC News for its biased presidential debate moderation.
ABC News constantly "fact checked" Trump and let Kamala off the hook for lying and dodging questions.
Even CNN sees the double standard. Wow."

Libs of TikTok on X - "There’s a police report, police call recording, and testimony from residents about Haitains stealing and eating animals in Ohio.  ABC “fact checked” Trump on this and let Kamala get away with the bloodbath hoax, fine people hoax, and lying about police dying on Jan 6, violent crime being down, and not wanting to take away your guns."

Meme - Alex Berenson @AlexBerenson: "A counter POV on Trump's debate performance, which I am starting to think might be at least partly valid - his insanity about eating pets pushed immigration to the top of news in a way it hasn't been for months"
"Every news outlet is talking about Haitian illegals. Anyone thinking that helps Kamala is nuts. Like it's such short sighted thinking. They see a yass queen boss bitch brat summer. The rest of America is alarmed by the number of Haitians. Haiti is also... not a nice place! Some might even call it a shit hole"

ABC whistleblower reportedly files SEC complaint amid Trump-Kamala debate rigging accusations - "the whistleblower alleges that ABC News, owned by Disney, provided Kamala Harris' campaign with the presidential debate questions prior to the September 10, 2024, debate against Donald Trump. The complaint, submitted on September 20, 2024, also accuses Disney and ABC News of colluding with the Harris campaign to influence the 2024 presidential election.  Loomer shared screenshots of two SEC submissions, indicating successful receipt of the complaints. The whistleblower, whose identity remains anonymous, claims to have evidence of these interactions between ABC News and the Harris campaign. The complaint mentions alleged discussions and documents suggesting Disney may have benefited monetarily or in other ways if Harris wins the election. The whistleblower also clarified that they do not support Donald Trump and have never voted for him. They voiced frustration over media bias on both sides of the political spectrum and alleged that the media's actions in this case are intended to sway the election in Harris' favor. The documents shared by Loomer contain personal information, and the whistleblower requested that this information remain confidential for their family's safety.  Shortly after the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, an affidavit from an anonymous ABC News whistleblower surfaced online, alleging close collaboration between the network and Harris' campaign.  Billionaire Bill Ackman reshared the affidavit, tagging Disney CEO Bob Iger, and raised concerns over its credibility, pointing out that certain details, like Harris' smaller podium, were mentioned in the affidavit before becoming public. ABC News, however, denied the claims, stating that Harris was not given any debate questions in advance, rejecting accusations made by right-wing figures, including Trump."

Ian Carroll on X - "As a former liberal-  Everyone already voting democrat just watched Kamala eviscerate Trump.  Everyone voting Trump just watched a three on one with no regard for facts.  State of play hasn’t changed.  Kamala is still the establishment pick backed by the entire neocon establishment.  Trump is still the outsider backed by everyone willing to stand up to the empire.  All I could think the whole time was damn I wish Bobby was on that stage."

@amuse on X - "FACT CHECK: Kamala Harris lied during the debate when she falsely claimed that Goldman Sacks suggested she would be better for the economy, according to the CEO."

Stephen L. Miller on X - "I said the reason for how the moderators behaved in the ABC debate was simply because they were not going to let happen to Kamala Harris, what happened to Joe Biden and here she is admitting it"
Who is Linsey Davis? ABC News anchor on the Trump-Harris debate - Los Angeles Times - "Davis, wearing pink glasses while speaking to The Times over breakfast at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia, said the decision to attempt to correct the candidates was in response to the June 27 CNN debate between Trump and President Biden, whose poor performance led to his exit from the race.  “People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,” Davis said."

FischerKing on X - "The trouble with voting for Kamala Harris is that she’s fundamentally trivial and will not actually be in charge. Her debate performance beat expectations, but at root it was a series of well-rehearsed 90 second speeches someone else wrote. That is what she would be as POTUS. An actress doing the bidding of whoever is in charge now while Biden hangs out on the beach."

Western Lensman on X - "This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate.  There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span.  This is not “bias."  It’s much worse.  This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information.  When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is.  The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed.  In this clip:
1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange.
2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check.
3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check.
4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check.
5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check.
6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check.
7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check.
To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators:  "They did exactly what their bosses wanted.""

AG on X - "Trump's claim is false, but the moderators are completely irresponsible for doing fact-checking against exclusively one side. Harris has made several false claims. It's the job of opponents to do fact-checking, not moderators."
Ryan Saavedra on X - "Went through the debate transcript and counted:
Trump was fact-checked 4 times
Harris was fact-checked 0 times
Muir/Davis pressed Trump 6 times for follow-ups
Muir/Davis pressed Harris 0 times for follow-ups
Trump made ≈14 false statements
Harris made ≈16 false statements"

Meme - The Seattle Times: "Trump falsely claimed during the presidential debate Tuesday that protesters took over a big portion Seattle during the Capitol Hill Organized Protest in 2020.
Fact check: Trump's claim that protesters 'took over a big p... From seattletimes.com"
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "The Seattle Times themselves have reported on the very real incident in June of 2020 where violent protestors forcefully took control of a portion of Seattle's Capitol Hill area that was dubbed CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) or CHOP (Capitol Hill Organized Protest)"

Cynical Publius on X - "OK, obviously the 3-on-1 approach backed Trump into a corner, it made him righteously angry (as we all were) and most MAGAs are upset at how this made him look bad while they propped up Harris. But please consider these questions:
1. For families who are economically struggling, who do you believe those struggling families now believe will speak for them? Trump or Harris?
2. Who will find Harris' smug, eye-rolling, nasty girl act appealing (other than green-haired childless cat ladies on SSRIs who already will vote Harris)? Don't underestimate what a turn-off her mannerism were.
3. America loves an underdog. Who did ABC's over-the-top propaganda make look like an underdog?
4. Who talked about policies to fix America's problems and who was the nasty sorority girl who snarkily mocked somebody she didn't like?
I don't think either candidate "won." I do think, however, that over time the take-aways from this debate will be (1) the media lies and Trump was righteously angry and (2) Harris is a character from that movie "Heathers.""

Clandestine on X - "We are witnessing a fascinating post-debate shift.  The ABC “fact-checks” were not true, which has inversely drawn MORE attention to these topics, aka the Streisand Effect.
-Springfield
-Late term abortion
-Gun confiscation
Public discourse on X has thoroughly debunked ABC’s “fact-checks” and brought video receipts for every single Kamala lie. As time goes on, public perception is falling more in favor of Trump, thanks to the reach and influence of citizen journalists on X, and other social media, circulating the video evidence that disproves Kamala/ABC’s lies from the debate.  This not only proves Kamala and ABC lied, but it’s further confirmation that the MSM are in bed with the DNC, and once again proves Trump was right about the media being corrupt and out to get him. The more the media attack him with such blatant bias, the more it validates Trump’s entire narrative, and discredits the Dems for weaponizing the media against Trump. They just proved a “Deep State” exists, while the entire world was watching.  Initially, I did not think this debate would have much impact on public perception or change the calculus in November, but as I observe the public’s response on social media, I think this performance from ABC woke up more people than I projected.  Normally the moderators are more subtle with their bias, but ABC made it so obvious, that some of the remaining normies are starting to notice. Glitches in the matrix."

Kyle Becker on X - "JUST IN: A former Clinton adviser is calling for a formal internal investigation into ABC News’ rigged presidential debate.  Mark Penn called Thursday for ABC to probe if there was some effort at "rigging the outcome of this debate."  Kamala Harris’ scripted answers calls into question whether she knew the questions in advance. There are unconfirmed reports an ABC News-employed whistleblower is willing to sign an affidavit that the network gave the Harris team advance notice of the questions.  The ABC News moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir “fact-checked” Trump at least five times, while never fact-checking Harris, despite her telling lies and half-truths that have been widely fact-checked as being false.  The debate moderator Linsey Davis had previously boasted on air about literally being Kamala Harris’ sorority sister. Harris is also good friends with  Dana Walden, who is Disney’s co-chairman and oversees ABC News. She is the boss of the debate moderators.  ABC News ran a three-on-one presidential debate and thereby committed election interference.  This is a huge scandal. ABC News must be investigated!"

Meme - "Kamala during debate: We're anybody's guns away."
Kamala 3 days later: Vice President Kamala Harris @VP: "Congress must renew the assault weapons ban."

Time magazine issues correction for calling claim Harris supported funding migrant sex changes 'false' - "Time magazine was forced to correct its coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate after implying former President Trump’s statement that Vice President Kamala Harris supported free gender-transition treatment for detained migrants was "false."... "The original version of this story mischaracterized as false Donald Trump's statement accusing Kamala Harris of supporting ‘transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.’ As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris filled out a questionnaire saying she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for detained immigrants," a correction read. Many other far-left reporters also considered it too absurd to be true, implying Trump made the concept up during the debate.  "’She wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison’ is the WILDEST thing I've ever heard in any debate. EVER," former CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill wrote.  The New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser wrote, "Trump made history last night for sure. Who will ever forget him ranting on stage about immigrants eating people's dogs? Or insisting that the Vice President 'wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in jail'?"  She also mocked the line in her piece about the debate Wednesday.  "His line about how the Vice-President ‘wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison’ was pretty memorable, too. What the hell was he talking about? No one knows, which was, of course, exactly Harris’s point," Glasser wrote.  The Atlantic staff writer Jennifer Senior joked, "’Transgender operations on illegal aliens’ is really unfair to those Americans playing drinking games."  "’Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison.’ That’s verbatim," The Insider editor Michael Weiss reported.  The Daily Beast also listed Trump’s quote as one of the "best memes" of the night without mentioning Harris’ past support. CNN brought Harris’ position back into the spotlight Monday night after senior editor Andrew Kaczynski reported to host Erin Burnett about the recently uncovered 2019 ACLU candidate questionnaire featuring Harris' policy position. "It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates," Harris pledged. She continued, "I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment." Burnett was stunned by Harris’ answer... She later remarked, "I mean these are things that, you know, it would be hard to think that you would come up with taxpayer-funding gender transitions for detained migrants, and yet, as you say, written and verbally.""

Geiger Capital on X - "This is incredible… CNN’s Erin Burnett literally in shock about what Kamala Harris supported. “Taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained illegal migrants? She actually said she supported that??”"

Debunking Urbanist Delusions

I got inspired to do a fuller debunking of Not Just Bikes' video, I GOT A NEW TRUCK!! (AND A MILLION SUBSCRIBERS!) - YouTube, which I had briefly critiqued last year.

Besides the usual general urbanist myths, he also was talking rubbish about the areas he was filming in:

There's a lot to unpack here, especially because he was lying about what he was filming.

Ignoring the stupid jibes at pickup trucks and conservatives (given that he throws the "fascist" label around willy-nilly and blocks lots of people, you can see what we have here) and just dealing with this claims about the built environment:

1) He claims that if you get your stuff from a quick service restaurant via the drivethru it takes a long time. But usually I find choosing pickup takes longer than using drivethru. And when you order stuff for pickup, they often don't call your number/name, and sometimes they forget your order.

On the other hand, when you are at the drivethru there's active pressure on the service staff to clear you because there're cars behind you, and people get their stuff one by one at the pickup counter, so they need to give you something.

2) He insinuates that you need to use the waiting lot to get your stuff when you go via the drivethru. This rarely happens to me. It happened a bit more during covid but I can't remember the last time it's happened to me.

3) He mocks low property taxes and links them to lousy roads. But a 2013 study found that drivers paid for 70-90% of road costs "through fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls".

That aside, whenever you hear urbanists/left wingers bitch about how other people are paying too little property tax, note that to make this claim they always look at property tax *rates*. Yet, a low property tax rate doesn't mean you have low property tax, since property tax is paid based on the value of your house. If the property tax rate is low but the value of the house is high, you still end up paying relatively high property tax.

In 2023, Zoocasa released a data compilation of property tax rates, house values and property taxes on average house values for 32 regions in the Greater Toronto Area. Unfortunately, this was a graphic rather than more tractable data, so I had to convert this into a spreadsheet.

When you look at the dollar value of property taxes paid, you can see that the rank of the non-Toronto municipalities for property taxes paid falls and they no longer are the municipalities with the lowest property taxes.

Ironically, the roads in the York region (where he filmed much of this video) are actually better than in Toronto, so he's not even accurate in his claim that suburbs have bad roads. Consistently, the roads consistently voted the worst in Ontario are mostly in Toronto and Hamilton, which are 2 of the 3 densest population centres in the province.

He also deceptively edits the video.

At 5:03 where he complains about roads, he seems to be entering Highway 404 at Highway 7, which is between Richmond Hill and Markham.

But at 5:06, where he complains about being stuck in traffic, he's on the 404 near Finch & Sheppard, he's actually in Toronto itself, not the suburbs.

Then he claims he is "25 minutes to the grocery store, 35 minutes to work". I can't comment on the commute to work, because that would require assumptions about workplaces (but I will note that not everyone works in the downtown of a big city, and one reason people move to small towns is for a shorter commute), but from around where he "lives" (see below), he is only 5 mins from the grocery store (Food Basics).

As an aside, you often hear people bitch that property taxes in Toronto are "too low". But these are the same people who advocate city living because it's more efficient to service cities as more taxpayers share infrastructure. In other words, if property taxes in big, dense cities are "low", that's a feature, not a bug.

4) He makes a stupid remark about sitting on "supple red leather seats" despite traffic being "pretty bad". But given that he praises the Netherlands at the end of the video (and in his other videos) and that he spends most of his time bashing the USA, it is super ironic that the average commute in the Netherlands is 34.5 minutes but 26.7 minutes in the US.

5) Naturally, he alludes to one of urbanists' favourite myths - that induced demand means that expanding roads is pointless since traffic will just increase to fill the road.

In reality, studies which produced this result had poor methodology, since there were no/poor controls (if the roads had not been expanded, traffic would've gotten worse anyway). In reality, studies find the coefficient of induced demand to range from 0 to 0.25, i.e. increasing road capacity by 10% will cause traffic to increase by 0-2.5%.

In other words, expanding roads does indeed improve traffic.

6) He pretends to diss bike lanes, but in reality, bike lanes can worsen congestion. If no one uses a bike lane (on many of the roads he films on, I never see anyone riding a bike), all this congestion is absolutely for nothing, but even if a few cyclists do use them, net welfare is not necessarily higher.

For example, one study found that there was 1 cyclist for every 400 vehicles. So even on a naive calculation, bike lanes taking up more than 0.25% of road space would be a waste. But when you consider that bicycles can be ridden on the open road and don't need a bike lane, bike lanes become even more inefficient (bike lanes can only be used for cycling, whereas a normal road can accommodate both a motorised vehicle and a bicycle).

Ironically, multiple studies find that bike lanes actually reduce cyclist safety, so the cycling lobby's ego is actually harming cyclists.

7) He then goes "home", which he calls "semi-rural".

Yet, the area which serves as his "home" is somewhere around Woodspring Avenue in Newmarket. Newmarket is a town and in 2021, it had a population of 87,942. It is also in the Greater Toronto Area, and the mayor thinks it may be the only 15 minute town in Ontario, or even Canada. As such, calling it "semi-rural" is just fake news.

8) He then makes snide remarks about homeowners' associations (HOAs) and being fined for his front door being the wrong colour. Urbanists like to promote dense living, which is often in high- or medium-rise apartments. However, ironically, the restrictions through bylaws when you live in a condo are usually much stricter than those in a HOA.

9) He then claims he needs to turn rooms of his house into a gym, a bar, a library, a church and mini-golf, because there're none of these nearby. In reality, all of these are near where he's filming. From the intersection of Woodspring Avenue and Ford Wilson Boulevard (where he's at at 7:56), you're 5 mins drive from a gym (GoodLife Fitness Newmarket in York Town Square) or a bar (St. Louis Bar & Grill), 8 mins drive from the Newmarket Public Library, 4 mins drive from a church (Crosslands Church) and 8 mins drive from mini-golf (Cardinal's Northern Adventure Mini Putt).

You are also 19 minutes *walk* away from Upper Canada Mall, which is the 27th largest shopping centre in Canada and the 12th largest in Ontario.

10) Lastly, he makes some comment about his neighbor's leaf blower being loud, which is ironic, because cities are louder than suburban areas, and much louder than rural ones.

Sadly, feel-good myths bashing the suburbs play well to a large crowd, so such videos continue to be popular.

Links - 4th October 2024 (1 - Left Wing Economics)

NHS is 'broken' and must 'reform or die', says Keir Starmer - "Keir Starmer warned that the 'broken' NHS must 'reform or die' today after a damning report found billions of pounds in extra investment has failed to boost performance... he will make clear there is no prospect of pouring more money in without root and branch changes. Instead he argued resources must be shifted from inefficient hospitals to community care and preventing illness developing. 'We have to fix the plumbing before turning on the taps. No more money without reform,' Sir Keir said - suggesting the process would take a decade. In a round of interviews this morning ahead of Sir Keir's keynote speech, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the NHS 'unquestionably' wastes money and could go 'bust' without fundamental change. He also criticised the British Medical Association - which doubles as regulator and industry body - for 'sabre-rattling'. Professor Sir John Bell, who was a member of the Covid Vaccine Taskforce, echoed concerns about the BMA saying it has been a 'major drag' on reform. The radical approach is being unveiled after a damning new report by Lord Darzi, a pioneering surgeon and former Labour health minister, concluded the NHS is in a 'critical condition'... Lord Darzi, who now sits as an independent peer, said he was 'shocked' by the scale of the failings he unearthed... the NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy and has become less productive with the money it receives... 'The NHS is at a fork in the road, and we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands. 'Raise taxes on working people to meet the ever-higher costs of an ageing population - or reform to secure its future. 'We know working people can't afford to pay more, so it's reform or die.'... 'I want to frame this plan around three big shifts - first, moving from an analogue to a digital NHS. A tomorrow service, not just a today service. 'Second, we've got to shift more care from hospitals to communities... And third, we've got to be much bolder in moving from sickness to prevention.' Lord Darzi's report highlights a lack of investment in new buildings, scanners and technology - all of which have hampered productivity... 'My colleagues in the NHS are working harder than ever but our productivity has fallen. 'We get caught up frantically trying to find beds that have been axed or using IT that is outdated or trying to work out how to get things done because operational processes are overwhelmed... Former Tory health secretary Victoria Atkins has written to Mr Streeting, outlining how the Conservatives were already working to improve outcomes for patients. Her letter criticises the Darzi review for only focusing on England, highlighting the NHS performs worse in Wales, which has been run by Labour for 25 years... Regulatory-type organisations now employ some 7,000 staff, or 35 per NHS provider trust, having doubled in size over the past 20 years."
Clearly, the NHS just needs even more money. Why is Keir Starmer starving the NHS of money so he can privatise it? NHS Underfunding is always the root of all its problems, even if the UK spends slightly more as a percentage of GDP on public healthcare than the OECD average

Brits treat their own wounds and make slings over fear of hospital waits - "While the NHS in England – which was run by Conservative governments for 14 years until Labour’s election victory last month – is struggling, the health service is also failing to meet targets in other parts of the UK run by different parties. A Conservative Party spokesman said: ‘In government, we boosted NHS funding by over a third in real terms, increasing total funding to £165 billion, and recruited records numbers of doctors and nurses, allowing the NHS to recover from the pandemic and waiting lists to fall at their fastest rate in a decade. ‘Whilst we put record sums into the NHS, the Labour-run Government in Wales has overseen Welsh NHS funding fall, meaning waiting lists are at a record high and ambulance response times are at record lows.’"

Ramon Agusta on X - "#NHS  In 1999, the population was 58m with 1m NHS staff.       In 2023, the population is 68m with 1.8m NHS staff.      The population has risen 15% (which is far too high also) but staff has risen 80%.      What on earth are they all doing?  #Starmergeddon"

Nate Silver on X - "In 2007, the UK had higher GDP per capita ($50K) than the US ($48K). Now (2022) ours is $76K and theirs is $46K! (Source: World Bank) Their economy has actually shrunk on a per-head basis. And stuff like this is going to make the gap bigger:"
Max Roser on X - "The last time Americans were poorer than people here in the UK was in the 19th century. Here is the data, taking differences in the cost of living into account."

TracingWoodgrains on X - "UK retail workers who admit they would not take warehouse jobs without a substantial raise nonetheless successfully sue for their wages to be raised to the level of warehouse workers embarrassing abuse of law"
Left wing ideology is about equal pay for unequal work

Equality Act 2010 - "The UK’s Orwellian sounding Equality Act 2010 is strikingly Marxist. It demands equal pay for work of equal value where these are defined as follows:
'A’s work is equal to that of B if it is like B’s work, rated as equivalent to B’s work, or of equal value to B’s work.      A’s work is like B’s work if A’s work and B’s work are the same or broadly similar, and such differences as there are between their work are not of practical importance in relation to the terms of their work.      …A’s work is rated as equivalent to B’s work if a job evaluation study— gives an equal value to A’s job and B’s job in terms of the demands made on a worker      …A’s work is of equal value to B’s work if it is neither like B’s work nor rated as equivalent to B’s work, but nevertheless equal to B’s work in terms of the demands made on A by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making.'
In short, supply and demand have been replaced by judges and labor boards with the authority to deem which jobs are “equal” and therefore should be paid equally. And the labor boards do so based on vague and subjective considerations that do not change with changing circumstances. Imagine replacing “jobs” with “condiments” and having judges decide whether ketchup and mustard should be priced equally because they are similar, broadly comparable, or rated equivalent in terms of the effort, skill, and decision-making that went into their production.  You think I am joking. I am not. Here’s an example of a case just decided in the UK.
'More than 3,500 current and former workers at Next have won the final stage of a six-year legal battle for equal pay.      An employment tribunal said store staff, who are predominantly women, should not have been paid at lower rates than employees in warehouses, where just over half the staff are male.'
The tribunal ruled that retail workers and warehouse workers were “equal” and thus had to be paid equally. Next replied that they paid everyone market wages. Verboten!... No one is alleging that male and female warehouse workers were paid unequally or that male and female retail workers were paid unequally or that there was any direct or indirect discrimination. The only claim is that warehouse workers, who are less likely to be female than retail workers, earn more than retail workers. And since these jobs have been judged “equal,” the company has violated Equality Act 2010.  Who could have predicted that jobs as disparate as warehouse and retail jobs might one day be deemed “equal.” Yet because Next failed to foresee such lunacy they are now required to pay millions in back wages to their retail employees. Software engineers, particularly in AI, are currently in high demand. A British firm looking to hire them may hesitate to raise wages, fearing that a future ruling could classify software engineers as “equal” to a larger, lower-paid group like HR administrators. Such a decision could easily push the firm into bankruptcy.  The warehouse workers were almost 50% female (47.25%). So females were not barred from the higher paying jobs. The fact that 77.5% of the retail workers were female suggests that retail work has special appeal to females relative to males and thus that there are compensating differentials. Any of the three female plaintiffs could have taken jobs in the warehouse. If the jobs are equal and the warehouse jobs pay more this is, on the plaintiffs’ theory, “puzzling”. [Or, as Ayn Rand would say, blank out.]   In fact, the court case reveals that Next was struggling to fill the warehouse positions and offered any retail employee—including the plaintiffs—the opportunity to switch to warehouse work. On cross-examination, one of the plaintiffs admitted that, given the unpleasant conditions in the warehouse—described by the court as “the drone of machinery,…vibration, alarm sirens and the screeching of machinery, wheels and rollers, continuously present in all areas”—the warehouse job “did not seem particularly attractive” compared to the greater autonomy and more appealing environment of the retail job. The plaintiff added that she would only have considered the warehouse job if it paid “a lot more money.” Thank goodness for the men and women who were willing to take such jobs for only a little more money! It should not shock that different people have different preferences over jobs, just as they have different preferences over ice cream. In particular, it will perhaps surprise only the judges to learn that men tend to be more wage-focused and “women are relatively more attracted to employers with low pay but high values of nonpay characteristics (NBER 32408).” The court, however, recoiled from this idea, noting that if they were to take demonstrated preferences seriously this would be tantamount to applying “an unfettered free market model of supply and demand.” The horror... if you think that a skill is vital for a job, that’s discrimination!... The evaluators are thrilled–because the fact that the jobs are unequal proves that they are equal!... Labor boards will inevitably lead to the misallocation of labor, diminishing both wealth and fairness. Severe misallocation may lead to further intervention, in the worst scenario, even to the allocation of labor by fiat. Politicization breeds division, rent-seeking, and a stagnant, unpleasant society.  More generally, it pains me that there is no recognition that the market is a discovery procedure, including the discovery of the value of different skills and people’s preferences over different jobs. No recognition that the market harnesses tacit knowledge and knowledge of particular circumstances of time and place–knowledge that is difficult to quantify, communicate, or communicate in a timely manner–and that “society’s economic problems are primarily related to adapting quickly to changes in these circumstances.” No recognition that a price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive."

Meme - "Taylor Swift when grocery stores make a 1.6% profit *Angry Hulk*
Taylor Swift explaining why her concert tickets are $5,000 *Smart Hulk*"

Meme - "Me: By taxing churches, we could generate an extra $71 billion per year.
Them: Yeah, but my church feeds the poor!
Me: That's awesome! They can write it off when they file their taxes."
Left wingers really don't understand why churches aren't "taxed", but this is no surprise, since they don't understand the difference between income and wealth. Of course, if you suggest "taxing" non-religious charities, they'll get very upset
It's telling that even Politifact rated this claim "False"

Reasons to question child-care studies funded by Ottawa - "child-care organizations advocating for more federal control of the sector released a trio of separate reports. One was published by the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, which received a combined $346,432 in transfer payments from two federal departments last fiscal year, and whose latest report in particular was funded by Employment and Social Development Canada — a fact noticeably absent from media stories about it. The second was published by the Atkinson Centre at the University of Toronto, one of whose co-authors previously received $150,235 from the Trudeau government for a child-care project. And the third, published by the Prosperity Project, was written by a member of the Trudeau government’s national child-care council. Anyone notice a pattern among these organizations and authors cheerleading for more federal control of child care? The problems with the Trudeau government’s national daycare program are so severe, however, even government-control cheerleaders cannot deny them. For example, the Childcare Resource and Research Unit report notes government subsidization “intensified demand” and that, as waiting lists exploded, “the visible mismatch between child-care supply and demand became a leading media story and an overarching concern.” But the Childcare Resource and Research Unit’s raison d’être is to work towards a universal publicly-funded child-care system, so its confidence in a government-controlled system is not easily shaken by such inconvenient facts as widespread shortages and market imbalance as a result of government control. In line with the Trudeau government’s ideological bent, its advocacy disregards parental choice and its report disparages private for-profit child-care providers as it pushes for national government-controlled daycare... In some communities, educator shortages are so severe that programs operate without any qualified staff. Disabled children in particular are “acutely impacted” by child-care shortages. But even after highlighting these shortages and quality reductions and the market imbalance created by the federal program, the Atkinson Centre authors’ prescribed solution is more government spending, more government control and a further reduction in the private sector’s role. Evidently the problems created by government control must be fixed through more government control — a strategy unlikely to succeed given the horrendous track record of government control in the first place... In arguing for more federal control, the Prosperity Project report also claims federal spending on government-controlled centres is preferable to funding parents directly and letting them decide how to care for their children. The problem with this claim is that if parents really preferred government-controlled care over other options, they would use the funds to get their children government-controlled care. The fact is, many parents don’t like the government-controlled option. In addition to attacking parental choice, the Prosperity Project report, consistent as always with the Trudeau government’s agenda, applauds “public management” of private child-care providers — a comment that drew sharp criticism from these same private providers. “This report,” wrote Krystal Churcher, chair of the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs, “exhibits clear bias and hostility toward private child-care operators while undermining the valuable contributions of women entrepreneurs” in the child-care sector and also unfairly discounting family-based care. The trampling of parental choice, the bias against family-based care and the hostility towards private providers are themes common to these organizations’ advocacy and the Trudeau government’s child-care agenda. It is no wonder they and the government are so intertwined."

Do wealthy Canadians pay enough taxes? That depends how we define 'fair share' - "When the federal government announced an increase in capital gains taxes in its recent budget, the hike was defended, in part, as a way to ensure the wealthiest Canadians pay their fair share. But how exactly do we determine what a "fair share" is? Especially, as some data suggests, the wealthiest are already paying a larger share of the overall income tax burden. "That word fair is completely subjective," said Trevor Tombe, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary. "What's needed in any kind of statement around what is or isn't fair is clarity around what the person means when they say that word." Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute, echoed that a lot of these discussions are not informed by definitions, which is why the institute releases an annual report about Canada's tax system that has found high-income Canadians are paying disproportionately more in taxes... the top 20 per cent of income earning families pay 61.9 per cent (that's nearly two thirds) of all the country's personal income taxes, while accounting for just under half of its total income. As well, the study found that those top income earning families pay 53.1 per cent of total taxes. Similar data was also compiled by Statistics Canada on those who pay higher income taxes"
Left wingers always claims increased taxes on "the rich" are justified so they pay their "fair" share. Presumably nothing will ever be too much. Maybe not even a 100% tax rate, since when they say they want to "tax the rich", they mean they want to tax them so much, they're no longer "rich"
Left wingers get around inconvenient facts by dismissing and mocking the Frasier Institute. Too bad that means they'll need to dismiss and mock the government too

Reviewing the Impact of Taxes on Economic Growth - "With the Biden administration proposing a variety of new taxes, it is worth revisiting the literature on how taxes impact economic growth. In 2012, we published a review of the evidence, noting that most studies find negative impacts. However, many papers have been written since, some using more sophisticated empirical methods to identify a causal impact of taxes on economic growth. Below we review this new evidence, again confirming our original findings: Taxes, particularly on corporate and individual income, harm economic growth... We investigate papers in top economics journals and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working papers over the past few years, considering both U.S. and international evidence. This research covers a wide variety of taxes, including income, consumption, and corporate taxation. All seven papers reviewed here find that tax cuts have positive effects on growth, although some papers note that the strength of this effect depends on which taxes are cut, for whom, and when. Mertens and Olea (2018) used time series data from 1946 to 2012 to estimate the impacts of marginal tax rates on individual income. They found that marginal rate cuts led to both increases in real GDP and declines in unemployment. A 1 percentage-point decrease in the tax rate increases real GDP by 0.78 percent by the third year after the tax change. Importantly, they find that changes in income following a tax change are responsive to the marginal rate change regardless of the change in the average tax rate. This illustrates that the positive GDP changes the authors find are the response to changes in the incentives, rather than due to an increase aggregate demand through the consumption channel. Cuts in tax rates for the top 1 percent also have positive impacts on other income groups, consistent with a supply-side narrative of how reductions in top marginal rates can increase incomes for other groups over time. However, tax cuts for the top 1 percent do increase inequality. Zidar (2019) examines the impact of federal tax burdens on economic growth and labor supply across different income groups and states from 1950-2011. He finds positive impacts of tax cuts on economic growth following two years after the change in policy but finds that tax cuts for low- and moderate-income taxpayers affect growth more than tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. The paper finds that a 1 percent of state GDP tax decrease for the bottom 90 percent of earners increases state GDP by 6.6 percent. Looking at labor supply effects in particular, he finds that a 1 percent of state GDP tax decrease increases labor force participation for the bottom 90 percent of earners by 3.5 percentage points and hours worked by 2 percent. He does not find any significant impact on labor force participation rates, hours worked, or GDP growth for the top 10 percent of earners from a similarly sized tax change, somewhat in contrast to the results found in Mertens and Olea (2018) for top earners... the paper provides compelling evidence of tax cuts impacting growth through the supply side, consistent with neoclassical economic theory. Ljungvist and Smolyansky (2018) look at 250 state corporate tax changes from 1970-2010 to assess their impact on employment and income. By comparing nearby counties across states, this allows the authors to isolate the impacts of corporate tax changes relative to other policies that might affect economic growth. They find that a 1 percentage-point cut in statutory corporate tax rates leads to a 0.2 percent increase in employment and a 0.3 percent increase in wages. They find that tax increases are almost uniformly harmful, while tax cuts seem to have their strongest positive impact during recessionary environments. As with some of the other studies discussed here, the paper mainly examines short-runs effects, and it is possible that these positive effects could grow over a longer time horizon. Gunter et al. (2019) use a data set of 51 countries from 1970-2014 to examine the impacts of value-added taxes (VAT) on economic growth. They find that the effect of taxes on growth are highly non-linear: At low rates with small changes, the effects are essentially zero, but the economic damage grows with a higher initial tax rate and larger rate changes. For this reason, increases in the VAT in countries with high VAT rates, such as much of industrialized Europe, will have more significant impacts on GDP than increases in countries with low VAT rates. These non-linearities imply strong Laffer curve effects... Alinaghi and Reed (2021) conduct a meta-analysis on the effects of taxes on growth for OECD countries. Their sample includes 979 estimates from 49 studies. Unlike other papers discussed in this review, this paper considers both the effects of taxes and spending on growth. The authors disaggregate policy changes into three categories: tax negative fiscal policies, tax positive fiscal policies, and tax ambiguous fiscal policies. Tax negative fiscal policies include increases to fund unproductive investments, or increases in distortionary taxes combined with a decrease in non-distortionary taxes. Tax positive fiscal policies include tax increases to fund productive investment, decreases in distortionary taxation combined with increases in non-distortionary taxation, or tax increases to reduce the deficit. Tax ambiguous fiscal policies are those where the overall economic effect is unclear. Using these classifications, the authors find a 10 percent decrease in taxes of a tax negative fiscal package increases GDP growth by 0.2 percent. The same sized tax decrease for tax positive fiscal policies reduces GDP growth by 0.2 percent."

Dr. Naomi Wolf on X - "I’m a small time landlord in that I saved up month by month as a broke single mom for 12 years to pay the mortgage on a rental property for my longterm financial security. Yesterday I learned from my broker that as of Jan 1, NYC and the Federal gov’t are giving people with zero jobs or money, rental vouchers equivalent to the rent for my property. This makes me wonder: why did I work so hard?"

Matthew Yglesias on X - "Waymo's self-driving taxis are, as best as we can tell, considerably safer than human drivers. A perfect example of how you can't just think about regulatory issues in terms of sympathetic little guys against evil "corporate power.""
Left wingers don't love the underdog. They hate the "powerful"

Meme - Swann Marcus @SwannMarcus89: "Progressives never bother to ask a simple question, which is this: How many countries have a higher median income than the United States?  Answer: 1 and it is a country of 650k ppl  They talk about our median income in a vacuum in order to mislead morons into thinking it's low"
"Median equivalised Country disposable income (US$, PPP)
1 - Luxembourg 49,748
2 - United States 48,625"
Our Revolution @OurRevolution: "To solve a problem, start by asking the right questions"
Alexis Cardarella @thatquietsong: "Half of America makes less than 35k. Stop asking us why we're not having children. Stop asking us why we're not buying homes. Stop asking us why we can't save. Stop asking why we don't get a better job. Ask corporations why they're paying their employees low wages."
Readers added context: "The median household income as of 2023 is $80,610 per year according to the Federal Reserve. The median individual income is $42,220"

Meme - Memetic sisyphus @memeticsisyphus: "Perfect analogy for how they view taxes. Closed system, direct competition with everyone, your neighbor doing well doesn't improve your life, one pie that does not grow, wealth is not created only taken. They're upset someone has more than them. They think that's unfair. So they'll build a system to take what you have."
James Medlock @jdcmedlock: "Not having progressive estate taxation is just bad game design"
"LET'S SEE... I GOT 31, YOU HAVE 28, 35 FOR YOU, AND-"
"-I'VE GOT 10,019."
"*SIGH*"
"HEY, ADD ANOTHER 20 TO EVERYONE, ON ME!"
"I HATE THIS."
"NO ONE WANTS To PLAY BOARD GAMES WITH ME EVER SINCE I INHERITED 4,000,000 VICTORY POINTS FROM MY GRANDFATHER."

Rutger Bregman on X - "Devastating review of the degrowth literature (561 studies):
--> 'few studies use quantitative or qualitative data...'
--> [those that do] 'tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases'
-->'large majority (almost 90%) are opinions rather than analysis'"
Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?

Thread by @YIMBYLAND on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "The average NEPA impact statement takes 4.5 years to complete. That's ridiculous.  Here's a list of things that took less time to BUILD than it takes to complete a 575 page impact statement...
1. Golden Gate Bridge - 4 years, 4.5 months
2. Empire State Building - 1 year, 45 days
3. Hoover Dam - 4 years, 1 month
4. NYC's original 28 station subway (IRT) - 4 years
5. Willis Tower - 3 years
6. The Manhattan Project - 2 years, 2 months
7. Gateway Arch - 2 years, 8 months
8. The Pentagon - 1 year, 4 months
9. Disneyland - 1 year
10. Seattle Space Needle - 400 days
11. The Boeing 747 - 2 years, 7 months
12. The Alaska Highway (1,700 miles) - 234 days
13. USS Nautilus (1st nuclear sub) - 3 years, 6 months
NEPA was very important for the time in which it was created.... In 1970.  Today, NEPA is holding us back from building clean energy, transit, infrastructure, and much needed housing.  It’s time for reform."

Swann Marcus on X - "I've mentioned this to people before, but we built the transcontinental railroad in 6 years using dynamite and dudes with sledgehammers whereas California's high speed rail line was authorized in 2008 and they didn't even start construction until 7 years later"
Patrick Metzdorf on X - "Elon isn't wrong with his assertion that "large infrastructure projects are effectively illegal in the west", due to regulatory constraints and accumulated red tape."
Thomas Edwards on X - "Not “the west”, just “the US”. For example, even Italy has high speed rail." Patrick Metzdorf on X - "Fair. The UK has also largely failed at their High-Speed Rail projects for similar reasons, and even Germany is lagging quite behind. But you're right, a lot of Europe seems to be able to do more than the US in this regard."
Grübelmonster  on X - "Meanwhile, Spain has built the largest HSR network in Europe. Second only to China. IDK what the Brits are doing with their HS2 project and its insane costs - are they using golden rails or what?"

Links - 3rd October 2024 (2 - Diversity)

Grummz on X - "Kyle Brink, the fired Executive Producer for DnD who said that white males needs to leave the hobby and got his wish....  Has gone protected.  You'd think this was the perfect moment for him to talk about what a great decision DnD made.  Oh yes, btw, he was replaced by a woman, Jess Lanzillo (who's probably much better, we'll see!).  These wokies talk big about "stepping aside and making room for other voices, but they mean YOU, never themselves."

Meme - i/o @eyeslasho: "In all states, the reason for removing the bar exam requirement has been to increase the number of black attorneys.  Blacks enter law school with significantly lower LSAT scores than whites and Asians, drop out at higher rates, mostly graduate near the bottom of their classes, and pass the bar at lower rates.  Why? Because their distribution of intelligence is significantly less favorable than that of other groups — the single most important fact about group disparities in America that, while firmly scientifically established, isn't permitted to be entered into public discourse."
"TABLE 34.1 Estimated percentage of racial/ethnic group members who exceed various IQ score cutoffs"
@amuse @amuse: "DEI: Washington joins Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire as the fourth state that no longer requires the bar exam to become a licensed attorney. Supreme courts in California, Minnesota, and Utah are considering similar moves."
"WASHINGTON STATE NO LONGER REQUIRES LAWYERS TO PASS BAR EXAM. Washington state has concluded that the traditional bar exam "disproportionally and unnecessarily blocks" Black individuals from becoming practicing attorneys. Washington joins Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire as the fourth state that no longer requires the bar exam to become a licensed attorney. Supreme courts in California, Minnesota, and Utah are considering similar moves."

Surely liberals should support white nationalism? - "Since Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, American liberals have become obsessed with the threat of white nationalism. As you can see in the chart below, there’s been a huge spike in mentions of the term in books, which began in 2016. Likewise, Zach Goldberg and David Rozado have shown that mentions of terms like “racism” and “white supremacy” in newspapers skyrocketed in the mid 2010s.  All this is despite the fact that white nationalists comprise a tiny percentage of the US population. In a 2018 poll for the Washington Post, only 1% of white Democrats and only 3% of white Republicans said they considered themselves “supporters of the alt-right or white nationalist movement”.  There may well have been some socially desirable responding (people saying they weren’t white nationalists when they really were). But when George Hawley tried to identify white nationalists in the 2016 American National Election Survey, he still only got up to 6%. And he used a rather questionable definition, namely holding all three of the following beliefs: being white is “very or extremely” important to one’s identity; whites should “work together to change laws” that are unfair to whites; and whites face a “great deal” of discrimination in the US... in the 2018 Washington Post poll Hispanics were more likely to say they were “alt-right” than were whites... assuming it’s true that, say, 1% of white Americans are white nationalists, that equates to around 2 million people. Which means that the majority of white nationalists are not violent. By the same token, there have been terrorist attacks by opponents of the Republican Party and by supporters of Black Lives Matter, but clearly most people who belong to those groups are not violent... The fact that liberals are so outraged by white nationalism (a racist is pretty much the worst thing you can be in their eyes) is particularly interesting in light of what we know about modern America: racially diverse liberal cities are highly segregated. Which means that white liberals choose overwhelmingly to live among other whites.  As this graphic from the FT shows, American cities are far more segregated than British cities, and the most segregated cities are strongholds of Democratic Party support. Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York and St. Louis – the most segregated cities in America – all voted for Biden by a large margin.  Here’s a map showing racial segregation in New York City. Each dot represents 120 people of a particular race: blue dots represent blacks; orange dots represent Hispanics; red dots represent Asians; and green dots represent whites. As you can see, there’s almost no overlap among the different races. The white liberal New York Times-readers who are so horrified by white nationalism live largely amongst themselves. It’s a similar story when you look at friendship networks. A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 66% of white Democrats report an all-white friendship network – which is only seven points less than the percentage of white Republicans who do. And a 2015 Pew Research survey found that white liberals were more likely than white conservatives to have no close black friends... if ethnic separatism is as horrible as white liberals say, why do so many of them choose to live, well, separately from other races?  In fact, shouldn’t white liberals support white nationalism (of the ethnic separatist kind)? For the price of giving up a small amount of territory, they’d be removing a large share of the most racist white people from the country – thereby presumably improving the lives of all the non-white Americans left behind. “These racists have to be part of society” seems like a strange position to take... Ironically, the people who appear to be most outraged by white nationalism tend to live in overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods. Which makes it hard to take their outrage seriously."

Nathan Cofnas on X - "University of Tokyo students say it will be "great" when Japan becomes like Paris with "people with different skin colors," and that immigration "will positively disrupt the existing values and lead to more diversity, creating a more stimulating world."  Japan is on the same trajectory as the US circa 1960. 10% of Tokyo residents in their 20s are foreign born (not including non-Japanese born in Japan), and 70% of Japanese say it's good to have more foreigners.  There are several theories about why the West opened its borders: whites fell victim to Jewish mind control, liberal politicians wanted to import friendly voters, Northwest Europeans are uniquely individualistic, etc. But a key part of the story is that, unless they're indoctrinated to be nationalists, most people of all races just don't care about racial purity, and their culture means less to them than a kebab stand."

How Japan Increased Immigration Without Stoking Xenophobia - "the latest immigration reform has faced little scrutiny by the media or in wider conversation. “In general, there has not been much controversy regarding the law,” Yashiro said.  Much of that can be traced to the clear government messaging behind the reforms—and the messenger. Conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has based his support for the changing immigration policy not on any humanitarian concerns but rather on pragmatic, demographic arguments... Rather than simply relaxing immigration restrictions overall, however, Japan has developed a unique program of customized immigration, based on specific requests for workers from various countries... “It’s important to understand that Abe’s government introduced these reforms not to change Japanese society, but to sustain Japanese society,” said Eiji Oguma, a sociologist and historian at Keio University in Tokyo, who has spent most of his professional life researching and writing about immigration and Japanese identity...   The strongest support for the bill came from the most conservative wing of parliament, and opposition has largely come from Abe’s left, over concerns about a lack of regulation on employers, which they fear could lead to exploitation... This dynamic was common in the immigration debate in Europe and the United States in the 1980s and ’90s, when pro-business conservatives often pushed for more immigrants and guest workers, while labor unions raised concerns for workers’ rights and downward pressure on wages... The widespread xenophobia in Japan is hardly a myth. In 2010, the U.N.’s human rights experts called out Japan for racism, discrimination, and exploitation of migrant workers. Increased immigration has not changed the country’s notoriously strict asylum policies. In 2018, only 42 asylum-seekers were approved, out of around 10,000 applicants."
From 2020. European countries also invoked demographic reasons, but the reception was very different. Because the types of immigrants and the controls on them are very different

Dan Snow on X - "The idea that Britain is a ‘powder keg’ because of its diversity is in itself stunningly racist. Millions of us live in diverse families bound by ties of love & respect that are as combustible as granite."
Thread by @wanyeburkett on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - " This is the core progressive position on immigration: the fact that the powder keg exists at all is racist. It doesn't matter that all the data show that immigration decreases social trust, because it *shouldn't* do that. When it lowers social trust that's only because the people are *wrong* and *bad* and so you don't have to consider their reaction. It just gets factored out, rounded down to zero. You don't have to think about what *is* because what *is* is racist. One thing I wish I could popularize is the view that progressivism is deeply anti-intellectual. They never care about measuring reality as it actually exists, because it's irrelevant, anyway. If the data show that a progressive policy leads to bad results, then that's just because bad racists aren't getting in line. It's never the fault of the policy. They have no concept of, "this policy doesn't work because it doesn't create the results we want with the people we actually have."  No, a policy is good if it's good in the abstract. And if the people you actually have aren't getting inline, then something should be done about them.  This isn't a small point. This is how you get gulags."
The moralistic fallacy in action

Thread by @aaronsibarium on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "NEW: Doctors at Seattle Children's Hospital were forced to attend a racially segregated DEI training that claimed black people are "systematically targeted for demise" and pressed white docs to "tap into their repressed racial memories" to develop a white "race-consciousness."🧵
Held in August 2022, the training was mandatory for the gastroenterology department and divided participants into three "racial caucuses"—a white caucus, a black caucus, and a "Non-Black POC Caucus"—to "minimize harm to our black learners and facilitator." Each caucus completed separate "racial identity development exercises" based on the work of prominent diversity consultants, including White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo. The black group was asked how "you work against internalizing anti-Black messages," while the "Non-Black POC" group was asked to consider "which of your actions are anti-Black" and "how Black people will always be more susceptible to structural racism than other non-Black POC." White doctors, for their part, were told to "divest" from "whiteness" and "unpack their racial stories" by drawing on "repressed racial memories." They were also asked to "commit to practicing racial storytelling with at least one other white person." The training, which began with a land acknowledgment, spanned four separate workshops and was led by a child psychiatrist at Seattle Children's, Roberto Montenegro, who "uses a social justice lens to help children and youth surmount the trauma inflicted by systemic racism(s)."
At the end of one session, the slides suggested that doctors "need to implement" systems to "prioritize" black patients. Seattle Children's Hospital did not respond to a request for comment about whether it was prioritizing certain patients based on race.
The training offers a window into how one of the top-ranked pediatric hospitals in the country has made racial identity—including white racial identity—a touchstone of its diversity efforts. From scholarships for "minoritized" medical students to a "microaggression reporting system," Seattle Children's has a panoply of programs that encourage doctors to view themselves, and their patients, through a race-conscious lens. Residents "identify implicit bias and structural racism in clinical scenarios" as part of the hospital's "health equity rounds," case-based conferences that address "issues of equity, bias, and racism that play out in medical settings today." They can also join race-based affinity groups that, according to the hospital, provide "safe spaces to process sensitive resident experiences related to diversity, equity and inclusion." "We build protected spaces for minoritized residents as they undergo training as physicians," the hospital's website says. "In doing so, we hope to build inclusivity while celebrating people's intersectional identities."
These efforts kicked into high gear with an "Anti-Racism Action Plan," launched in 2021, that called for "organization-wide training" on "equity, diversity, and inclusion." The August 2022 sessions were part of a pilot program that was designed to fulfill that mandate and has since expanded to both the hospital's rheumatology department and bioethics center. All divisions will eventually complete similar trainings, according to the hospital, which says its approach will "dismantle racism with bottom-up, rather than top-down, pressure."
Seattle Children's did not respond to a request for comment about who would facilitate those trainings or whether the trainings would separate participants by race. Once the province of graduate school seminars and human resources departments, racial caucusing is an increasingly common practice in health care settings. UCSF medical school has used affinity groups to "supplement longitudinal antiracism education," according to a 2020 paper about the school's initiatives, which initially offered participants a choice of three groups: "Black or African American, all people of color, and White." "In a space without White people," the paper said, "BIPOC participants can bring their whole selves, heal from racial trauma together, and identify strategies for addressing structural racism."
UCLA medical school likewise planned to divide students into three categories—white, black, and "NBPOC"—to engage in "collective healing and self care." UCLA canceled the exercise in January after a civil rights complaint was filed against the school. At Seattle Children's Hospital, which is affiliated with the University of Washington School of Medicine, stomach doctors were encouraged to self-segregate even after the training ended. "BIPOC learners" should commit to "immersing" themselves "in racial/ethnic experiences and group settings," one slide says, while "white learners" should work with other white people to foster "racial identity formation." During the third workshop, in a section called "Setting the Tone," facilitators presented doctors with a list of statements adapted from the official Black Lives Matter organization. "We believe black stories," one statement read. "We do not question them." If a story doesn't check out, the slides explain, that may be because "anti-Blackness" is "not always easily quantifiable by those outside of the Black community who have not shared the lived experience of anti-Blackness." "We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise," the statements read. "We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.""
The people who go on about "white fragility" claim black people are harmed when interacting with other races

Meme - "KNOW THE WORK RULES: APPROPRIATE
"IM MOORISH, WE CONQUERED WHAT IS NOW SPAIN AND PORTUGAL"
"AWW, DIVERSITY, IS SWEET AND GREAT"
INAPPROPRIATE
"IM A SPANISH CONQUISTADOR, WE CONQUERED THE AZTECS AND INCAS"
"HELLO, HUMAN RESOURCES?"

White Man Sues IBM For Firing Him So 'They Could Hire More Women And Minorities'; Slams Company's Diversity Targets - "A white man has filed a lawsuit against IBM, alleging that he was terminated to accommodate the company's diversity hiring initiatives. According to Randall Dill, he was a highly regarded employee at IBM, cultivating relationships with the Pentagon and other major clients. Much to his dismay, Dill said he was terminated to make room for hiring more women and minorities. According to a lawsuit filed in a Michigan US District Court on Wednesday, Dill's superiors did not clearly explain his termination. Instead, they falsely claimed that he needed to generate more business, even though this was never part of his job... According to the 18-page complaint, he consistently received high marks in performance evaluations and earned praise at monthly meetings. The lawsuit claims Dill's boss, Jay Zook, informed him in July 2023 that he was "not bringing in enough work" and placed him on a performance improvement plan (PIP).  This remark surprised Dill, who had only worked with existing IBM clients and had never been responsible for acquiring new business. Despite this, Dill attempted to secure a contract for the company. However, when he requested support, Zook told him, "You are on your own." He was terminated in October 2023. Weeks after Dill's termination, a video surfaced in which IBM's CEO, Arvind Krishna, disclosed that managers were facing pressure to fulfil DEI hiring quotas. "All executives in the company have to move forward by 1 percent on both underrepresented minorities ... and gender," Krishna said.  "That leads to a plus on [their] bonus. By the way, if you lose, you lose part of your bonus," the top executive added. In a video from 2021 that has since been made public, Krishna stated that hiring managers needed to increase the number of women, Black individuals, and Hispanic employees at IBM to receive their bonuses. He further noted that there were already sufficient white and Asian male employees within the company. The lawsuit says the performance improvement plans were a tactic employed by IBM managers to "quickly and cheaply" eliminate white male employees, such as Dill, allowing Zook and other executives to achieve more significant bonuses... This is the second lawsuit AFL, a conservative legal action group, has filed against IBM. In May, a former sales chief sued IBM's Red Hat subsidiary, alleging that he and 20 other white men were terminated during the company's aggressive DEI initiative."

Meme - Jeremy Kauffman 🦔 @jeremykauffman: "The worst part about this is there's no solution other than becoming a racist.  There aren't third party metrics for dentist quality. You are strongly incentivized to avoid black medical and legal professionals until they restore meritocracy."
memetic_sisyphus @memeticsisyphus: "The funniest grifts on the internet are black women pretending they write excellent personal statements that are good enough to overcome shitty grades and scores."
"Reasons I Shouldn't Have Been Accepted into Dental School
Graduated from an HBCU. No dental related volunteers hours. Applied the day before the deadline. Scored a 14 on the PAT. Accepted on 1st Application Cycle. Find out how in the caption"

MIT diversity data confirms 'worst fears' about end of affirmative action - YouTube - "What is so tragic about it is there are also those reading this outcome as an example of what happens when merit is taken as the principal, deciding factor. When in fact this is actually proving the opposite... So what does it mean that we can't take into consideration race? What it will mean is they can't build the kind of diverse class they want to build and we know that focusing on class alone cannot address this issue. So part of what we have to deal with is the bad faith of these actors who are pressing this issue... I think institutions need to live their values and not be afraid of being sued."
Clearly, being born black means you have merit
Prioritising merit means you are a bad faith actor
No one is above the law - unless it pushes the left wing agenda

Richard Hanania on X - "People debated whether the Supreme Court banning affirmative action would have an impact on university admissions.  MIT is the first elite university to release data. For the class of 2028, underrepresented minorities are down to 16% from 25% in recent years. In one year, the number of blacks went from 15% to 5%. Asians increased their numbers, from 40% to 47%.  If you know anything about test numbers, you know they're still putting their thumbs on the scales. A purely meritocratic system wouldn't get you anywhere near 16% black, Hispanic, and Native American.   But the Supreme Court did make their lives harder, and significantly cut the number of undeserving minorities admitted. Political and legal victories do matter."

steve hsu on X - "MIT admissions data, before and after the 2023 SCOTUS decision eliminating Affirmative Action.  Asian American representation in freshman class went from 41 to 47 percent. The White percentage went from 38 to 37 percent.   This suggests that under Affirmative Action spots that should have gone to Asian Americans based on merit were instead allocated to underrepresented groups.  Note, factors like socioeconomic status, family background, etc. can still be considered. Only race-based preference has been eliminated.  Defenders of Affirmative Action claimed that Asian Americans were NOT disadvantaged by race preferences, but these numbers suggest otherwise."

Thread by @kiyahwillis on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I'm a black woman who went to MIT. Here's why I'm anti-affirmative action 🧵
1. Affirmative Action is explicit bigotry, and I'm not a bigot. If someone works hard and achieves excellent grades, extracurriculars, and test scores, they should not be discriminated against or seen as an inferior applicant based on demographic, no matter their demographic.
2. When I was there, I saw kids from all demographics struggle to keep up with the workload. Many of them took more than four years to graduate. Some didn't graduate at all. I think many were likely admitted due to AA policies and were set up to struggle/fail from the start. They would have had a better college experience elsewhere, but now some have loans they probably can't quickly repay because they don't have the degree they hoped to get. Many of them struggled with anxiety and depression because they were overwhelmed with the workload. Many of the unqualified graduates went into jobs unrelated to their degrees because they weren't qualified or were burnt out. They didn't retain much of what they were taught in their classes because they put all their efforts into barely passing.
3. I want the best people going into STEM industries. I don't care about the sexual orientation of the person who built the bridge; I don't want it to collapse. I don't care about the skin color of my doctor; I want the one who knows the best about medicine and can cure me. When you prevent the brightest, most talented, and most hard-working in any field from getting the best education, you prevent the most excellent people from making the most positive change in the world.
4. I want people to have healthy self-esteem. I don't know whether I was an affirmative action admit. I did well and graduated in less than 8 semesters, so I doubt I was unqualified, but I will never know if it was my hard work or my skin color that ultimately got me admitted. When MIT or any of these colleges or activists focus on demographics instead of ability, qualified people question whether they are competent and deserving of what they have achieved, and ammunition is given to people who doubt the merit of their achievements.
To summarize: Affirmative action benefits no one.  It's bad for bright students who miss opportunities because of their race, for unqualified students who struggle academically, for qualified students who doubt their abilities, and for society to miss out on its fullest potential"

Crémieux on X - "Harvard has chosen to defy the Supreme Court's ruling against it and is continuing to blatantly engage in racial discrimination in admissions. Bizarrely, their Class of 2028 profile doesn't even list Whites. Instead, they're treated as a residual race."

Yale, Princeton, Duke Threatened With Lawsuit Over 'Not Complying' With Supreme Court Ruling On Racial Preferences in Admissions - "The group behind the lawsuit that brought down affirmative action in college admissions is demanding answers from universities that saw almost no change in the racial breakdown of their classes after the ban took effect, arguing that the similarity is evidence of discrimination and possible grounds for a lawsuit.  Students for Fair Admissions, which won its landmark case against Harvard before the Supreme Court last year, sent letters on Tuesday to Yale, Princeton, and Duke, urging their lawyers to "preserve all potentially relevant documents" in the event of litigation...       At a conference of law school officials last year, Mark Alexander, the faculty chairman of Villanova Law, suggested that religious schools might have a First Amendment right to practice affirmative action.  As a "Catholic institution," Villanova believes that "we are strengthened by individuals of diverse backgrounds," Alexander said. "If we were not allowed to pursue those values, would that be a violation of our religious freedom?""
Nobody is above the law - unless they push the left wing agenda

Meme - Underlord @da_underlord: "jews make up 2% of the population but somehow account for 32.7% of White House staff. That’s a staggering 1,635% over-representation compared to their percentage in the U.S. population.  Separation of synagogue and state is long overdue."
The White House: ".@SecondGentleman met with Jewish White House staff in celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month. Our Administration is proud to recognize the Jewish staffers who help carry our nation forward each day and are helping create a more inclusive tomorrow."
"155 People in this Picture. https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/16585 19373881933833 474 People work as White House Staff https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/July-1-2022-Report-Final.pdf
155/474=32.7% 32.7% of White House Staff are Jewish. 2.4% of All US Adults are Jewish https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/the-size-of- the-u-s-jewish-population/ This is completely normal."

Meme - Grummz @Grummz: "Kotaku reporter who issued "fight me IRL" video challenges, attempted to cancel and dox an entire discord (@kabrutusrambo ) and cyber-staked dozens of accounts is now claiming harassment and is going to sue."
Alyssa Mercante @alyssa_merc: "It's been nearly six months since my SBI report and the start of the GG harassment campaign. During this time, I've been gathering info and seeking advice from lawyers and can finally confirm that I'm moving forward with legal action against several parties for and defamation. I'm funding this myself, but will probably have to create a GoFundMe to help with expenses. Appreciate all your support!"

Meme - "Sometimes I think Disney was more inclusive when it wasn't trying so hard to be. *Princess and the Frog* *Brother Bear* *The Emperor's New Groove* *Lilo and Stitch*"

Meme - evan loves worf @esjesjesj: "Elon got owned by the doctor from Voyager"
Elon Musk: "Let's make Starfleet Academy real!"
Robert Picardo: "First step : Support a leader that embodies Starfleet values like diversity, inclusion and ethical behavior."
Christian @ccreech911: "Ummmmm. You have to be the best at what you do to get a post on a starship."
Mr. Reality @MrReality_sp: "How's DEI working out for the two astronauts Boeing's decaying tech can't get off the space station?"
Comments (elsewhere): "Starfleet academy was open to all but it didn't have diversity quotas, there weren't reserved spots for tellerites or a cap on humans or putting vulcans on a curve. You want assigned diversity quotas look no further than the borg. Your biological distinctiveness will be added to their own. Your culture will adapt to service them."
"You know what's funny, one of the best Doctor episodes of Voyager was literally about what happens when you use racism to correct past racism and rewrite history to make the formerly oppressed minority look better. Spoiler: it didn't end well."
"Ah yes the "Ethical behavior" of fabricating evidence and false-flag assassinations of envoys to draw neutral empires into war"
"Starfleet was all about merit. DEI would have meant the Borg assimilating the entire quadrant"
"Well, Starfleet functions on hard facts and rationality. So the democrats/far left in America couldn't get along with it. They think maths is racist, FFS."
"The trick to creating a spacefaring civilization is to hire based on race rather than merit"

TENET Media on X - "NASA’s DEI trainings include engineers vocalizing they “feel shame” for being white and for taking part in “white supremacy culture”."