junebug2 [comrade/them, she/her]
Prop 2 is another bond, which i think is an inefficient way to fund anything. On the other hand, it’s the only way voters are allowed to influence the budget. i know some people thought the climate bond was more important, and they only wanted to approve one bond. i voted yes for it, but i can’t blame people for thinking it’s an increase in tax obligations that the government will waste.
Prop 34 is a no, and it’s written very confusingly. It’s a smokescreen to disguise the fact that exactly one organization will be affected: the AIDS healthcare foundation. Why is that? The foundation is a leading advocate for rent control measures across the state and operates affordable housing in Skid Row. 34 is a prop written by a bunch of billionaire landlords to punish the AIDS foundation.
i agree with your other prop stuff, but if you have questions about them i can answer those too
Chevron has been developing a methodology for pushing back on attempts to regulate it. In 2022, they (and Aera, another oil company) spent $8 million to defeat a county measure. Ventura County has roughly 500,000 registered voters (for roughly 850,000 residents). That is, generously assuming that all those people voted, oil companies spent $16 per voter and achieved the desired result. Compare that to the cost of having to rip out and replace on shore and off shore oil rigs in order to comply with environmental regulations.
Their main innovation in methods for dealing with voters is relentless test messaging. They did not use the mass texts and form letters ‘from’ the candidate or the party, as we see even the current presidential candidate do. Instead, they made up five characters, hypothetical locals who would have their jobs and bills impacted negatively. i think most residents ended up getting messages ‘from’ two or three of them. To someone used to political texts or following events, not much of a change. But to someone used to skimming over or ignoring a form letter that’s way too long for a text message, there was a tighter emotional core. Go marketing! They also tried a nonsense television campaign about foreign oil leading to higher electricity prices (that’s not how California makes power).
i don’t know what Chevron might do differently for influencing assembly people, but the last time they tried to influence the law they got exactly what they wanted and didn’t get punished. Probably comes down to whether Caesar Newsom wants it or not. God help us all
shoutout to the combahee river collective statement, absolutely critical text. if people like that one, i also recommend cathy cohen’s “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens”
If you look up ‘beyul khenpajong’ on yandex or duckduckgo, you get almost exclusively articles about Chinese aggression and some tourism stuff. Most of them came out between March and August 2021, and the original source in English appears to be a Foreign Policy article from February 2021. That same article is what they are following up on, here. They also all use some variation of a phrase about the valley (which is what ‘beyul’ means) being sacred to Buddhism or important to the royal family of Bhutan. The smug phrasing about how awful and aggressive China is sets my teeth on edge.
Reading between the lines of this article, China and Bhutan have had a number of territorial disputes since the 80s, running down from the PRC liberating Tibet. In the FP article, they even quote a Tibetan exile slaver who refuses to comment on whether Tibet has a right to the lands in question even though he says China does not. The point of these articles is to create a unfalsifiable sense of truth. If there are ten articles, all saying more or less the same thing, from different sources, across months or years, then they must be on to something. It hardly matters if it’s the same three claims from the same source, repackaged over and over.
It looks like China is building up in two valleys or villages in the hopes of switching them for the ones they actually want. i do not know what areas, specifically, they want or why they want them. Taking over an important valley and giving it infrastructure improvements in hopes of a swap seems to reflect a rational negotiating strategy. Any and all mention of fortifying the border with India or provoking India is journalistic malpractice if they do not mention that this is the border where members of the Chinese and Indian army cannot have guns, and beat each other with pole arms. This region is rough terrain, to put it mildly, so there is no risk of an army from either side sneaking in via a handful of extra runways and helicopter pads. If China was actually the devil, they would take the land they wanted by force of arms or they would offer some BRI project or debt relief plan that Bhutan couldn’t refuse
Even if it turns out that Mr. Ghaani has been killed, this article is mere Western speculation. The mention of Iranian media does not erase the original source: the New York Times. Many others have posted these rules, but they bear repeating. Most especially:
Never spread the occupation’s propaganda, and do not contribute to instilling a sense of defeat
i mean no disrespect, comrade, but you can see how this could be bait to reveal information about Ghaani, right? Or bait to demoralize parts of the Resistance, or to provide cope for zionists. If the general is dead, Iran will tell us so in a matter of time. i do not personally think it is reasonable, at least outside of the PR-based warfare of the West, to provide photos of your general while they are presumably planning and coordinating in the field as Lebanon is invaded
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-u-s-navys-missile-production-problem-looks-dire/
An article from the Burger Eagle Freedom Center American Enterprise Institute from a few months ago about the Imperial Navy’s missile production. The two USA ships that attempted to intercept Iranian missiles on Monday launched 12 missiles between them. The 2025 military budget, and allocations for the next five years, will produce 12 SM-Block IIA missiles annually. While about a hundred of another missile type has been ordered, this is apparently 10% of the number ordered in 1985. This year, the White House has passed several budget cuts for USA Navy missile production. Point and laugh.
Warning for Haaretz, but it’s the absolute other end of perspective on “20 F-35s destroyed”. And they give satellite imagery of the Nevatim base after Monday. The cope about missile interception might be entertaining for some. While the destruction of 20 F-35s is probably exaggerated, the F-35 has something like a 30% mission capability rate. So while the warning from Iran likely let them get some of their F-35s in the air, at most a third of them were actually capable of missions. Now i am not a plane person, but i believe a plane that isn’t fully mission capable can still be flight capable. So if we very generously flip that ratio and say only 30% of F-35s could not fly, there were at least 6 planes grounded when the missiles hit. The red circles in this top image are a bit strange to me, because the entire top row of cubbies (?) is covered in what look like blast marks to me. It’s possible only one plane has been destroyed, but individual F-35s fail all the time. Maybe “israel” has too much invested in its reputation to come up with a training accident story, but it seems likely several were damaged if not destroyed.
it’s mostly just the deranged fascist demons. Russia also recently announced a draft of official changes to their nuclear policy, but apparently they have that meeting annually. Ukraine has been kinda sorta pushing for nuclear war for a while, but that’s just because they want to keep escalating and they are otherwise facing a wall. the USA and UK has been saying no to deep strikes, and hopefully they keep doing that.
my biggest doomer take is based on the paper talking about the climate effects of nuclear war. i believe a (relatively) low yield strike in either the Middle East or between Pakistan and India is hypothesized to decrease global temperatures by over a degree and didn’t threaten agriculture enough that politicians or rich people would feel it. the USA is internally incoherent at its best, so i’m confident there’s at least one person in the government who thinks this way. no clue how close they are to the button, though
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/09/an-american-coup.html
An article from a few weeks ago about the Pentagon allegedly putting their foot down over the President. i agree with Yves that this does not count as a coup. The current zionist escalations can be seen as either taking advantage of the lack of leadership or driving hard to get the Pentagon in the war. i can imagine General John Quartermaster looking at USamerican arms supply, production, and recruitment rates and saying, “We cannot do all of that shit, please stop.” i also know that liberalism can easily detach itself from negative numbers. The CIA (and the gang, i don’t have a better umbrella term) has operated as an independent arm of military and foreign policy since its inception. Additionally, the professionalism and competence of the federal bureaucracy, already a joke on account of the career path into lobbying, has been seriously upended by waves of inter-liberal partisan purges. i believe the Biden administration made it past the first year with hundreds of positions not filled across the government, including ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state. The military, intelligence, and state departments are pulling three different ways. i believe the role of the President is to wrangle and command the different branches of the federal government. Intellectually, many liberals declared victory in ‘91, which led to complacency. “We’re America, who cares about diplomatic decorum or procedure, let’s start a 30 year long invasion of Iraq.” Complacency has led to an empire running on fumes, and now that our alleged drivers can hear the engine sputtering, they assume they have all the diplomatic power in the world. i’d like to say they are wrong, but i have no words or explanations for the gullibility of the President of Iran.
https://www.eastisread.com/p/zheng-yongnian-asia-pacific-destined
A translation of an interesting article about why and how Asia is shaping to be a theatre of global conflict. The comparison between the rapid economic growth and militarism in Europe in the 30 years before 1914 and the last 30 years in Asia is particularly fascinating to me. i don’t know how anyone can say “China is the main enabler of Russia’s war aggression against Ukraine,” with a straight face, let alone the Secretary General of NATO. The West can issue out a constant stream of actions and threats to froth up the water, but certainly it will be the mendacious and dangerous Other who starts this conflict. In terms of nationalist tensions, i believe the South Koreans dropped all complaints about Japanese actions in World War Two in order to start military drilling and training together. That is nothing other than provocation towards the Chinese and Korean people. How to respond to these changes is an imminent and serious question.
https://archive.ph/20240823141136/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl6547 (i’m sorry that my archive link doesn’t come with graphs, but you really just need to see the abstract and then i’ll copy down the policies that achieved success.)
A Science article about which policies in the last twenty years have actually led to emissions reductions. Broadly, in the studied countries, most actual reductions in emissions occur when two or more policy or enforcement mechanisms overlap. Successful policies include carbon price floors, phasing out coal, requiring renewables in a portfolio, stricter air pollution standards, and “strengthening financing mechanisms for energy efficiency investments” (it’s one of those articles). Labeling standards, reducing fossil fuel subsidies, building code reforms, and energy efficiency mandates all only work to reduce emissions when combined with other policies. The standalone policies pretty much double in effectiveness when used in a package. In developed countries, the most effective type of reform is pricing. In developing countries, the most effective type of reform is regulation. The paper cautions that all of these are only effective when pricing, regulation, information, and subsidy reforms are used together. i don’t know how exactly those categories are defined. Now, to translate that, climate change reform is good, and it has the most effect on emissions when we do a lot of it. Doing a lot of it entails multiple kinds of climate reform in multiple countries and multiple industries within a country. The policies that are enacted and that people are asking for work, they just aren’t being implemented enough. Now there’s a Science article that confirms what most of us would probably call common sense.