FamousMockingbird
@famousmockingbird.bsky.social
Civic educator seeking truth and sometimes finding it in the depths of a 30 minute Tweezer.
The Robert's court hypocrisy and dishonesty about judicial activism is not "often a good thing." Everyone pretending that SCOTUS running cover for installing authoritarian rule & unpopular policies as just a matter of high minded differences of judicial interpretation are part of the problem.
December 18, 2025 at 8:01 PM
The Robert's court hypocrisy and dishonesty about judicial activism is not "often a good thing." Everyone pretending that SCOTUS running cover for installing authoritarian rule & unpopular policies as just a matter of high minded differences of judicial interpretation are part of the problem.
Other than the fact that a developer pitched a project to my city that would require ED if any one of a dozen homeowners didn't want to sell voluntarily, & the city council discussed it.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
December 18, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Other than the fact that a developer pitched a project to my city that would require ED if any one of a dozen homeowners didn't want to sell voluntarily, & the city council discussed it.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
I didnt argue that the only effective reform was eminent domain, but that the specific conditions here meant more palatable alternatives would take a loong time to manifest. You haven't been radicalized, apparently, as the actual radicals are dripping with resentment & want immediate pricing relief.
December 18, 2025 at 2:00 AM
I didnt argue that the only effective reform was eminent domain, but that the specific conditions here meant more palatable alternatives would take a loong time to manifest. You haven't been radicalized, apparently, as the actual radicals are dripping with resentment & want immediate pricing relief.
Point being, the only reforms that can work at scale for "100 million Californians" are going to involve eminent domain & evictions by the state, and the people who already live here have every right & reason to oppose that because it will involve arbitrary wealth dilution of middle class families.
December 17, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Point being, the only reforms that can work at scale for "100 million Californians" are going to involve eminent domain & evictions by the state, and the people who already live here have every right & reason to oppose that because it will involve arbitrary wealth dilution of middle class families.
SFH near transit has been upzoned by SB79 with 5 stories of air rights, but it's going to take years to make deals and break ground. It is unclear whether developers will be able to offer homeowners a true replacement cost of their properties when all they want is the land (& not in small parcels).
December 17, 2025 at 9:58 PM
SFH near transit has been upzoned by SB79 with 5 stories of air rights, but it's going to take years to make deals and break ground. It is unclear whether developers will be able to offer homeowners a true replacement cost of their properties when all they want is the land (& not in small parcels).
Absolutely true - and I support changing policies to incentive more building like SB79 and AB130 recently have done. But most of the land area is SFH with incumbent homeowners, so the idea that reform is going to allow *significant* population growth w/o turfing people out of their homes is fantasy.
December 17, 2025 at 9:14 PM
Absolutely true - and I support changing policies to incentive more building like SB79 and AB130 recently have done. But most of the land area is SFH with incumbent homeowners, so the idea that reform is going to allow *significant* population growth w/o turfing people out of their homes is fantasy.
This article from 2020 starts by predicting mass evictions after Covid subsidies expire... which didn't happen... and casts doubt on its magical thinking about policy changes that will quickly run into the problem of incumbency and how to equitably decide who exactly pays the transition costs.
December 17, 2025 at 7:45 PM
This article from 2020 starts by predicting mass evictions after Covid subsidies expire... which didn't happen... and casts doubt on its magical thinking about policy changes that will quickly run into the problem of incumbency and how to equitably decide who exactly pays the transition costs.
So you want to use eminent domain on existing homeowners? Exactly how do you propose doubling the population without turfing people out of their homes? Building up and out of existing lots and convertible properties only goes so far. The people who already live here count more than your hypo.
December 17, 2025 at 7:41 PM
So you want to use eminent domain on existing homeowners? Exactly how do you propose doubling the population without turfing people out of their homes? Building up and out of existing lots and convertible properties only goes so far. The people who already live here count more than your hypo.
I block all anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, bigoted shitbirds so you won't even get the pleasure of reading this buhbyeforeverasshole comment.
December 14, 2025 at 5:40 PM
I block all anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, bigoted shitbirds so you won't even get the pleasure of reading this buhbyeforeverasshole comment.
I was going to insult you but I think I might as well just block you, because this is just fucking stupid. Voting 3rd party in the USA is political masturbation -- and ignorant of how politics works when married up with our electoral system. Oh well.
December 14, 2025 at 2:30 AM
I was going to insult you but I think I might as well just block you, because this is just fucking stupid. Voting 3rd party in the USA is political masturbation -- and ignorant of how politics works when married up with our electoral system. Oh well.
Agreed! But I'm still going to be a nitpicky editor pointing out errors of haste when I see them... :)
December 11, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Agreed! But I'm still going to be a nitpicky editor pointing out errors of haste when I see them... :)
I wish this were true, but Trump won the popular vote and has a compliant SCOTUS. The GOP also has a structural advantage not just in terms of the Senate, but in how the urban concentration of liberal/progressive voters acts to "pack" districts independent of gerrymanders.
December 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM
I wish this were true, but Trump won the popular vote and has a compliant SCOTUS. The GOP also has a structural advantage not just in terms of the Senate, but in how the urban concentration of liberal/progressive voters acts to "pack" districts independent of gerrymanders.
Gerrymandering doesn't have anything to do with Trump's election / the Electoral College. SCOTUS disallowed a criminal prosecution of Trump and disallowed CO from enforcing the 14th Amendment IRT the insurrection, but the redistricting/gerrymandering game is specific to the House of Representatives.
December 11, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Gerrymandering doesn't have anything to do with Trump's election / the Electoral College. SCOTUS disallowed a criminal prosecution of Trump and disallowed CO from enforcing the 14th Amendment IRT the insurrection, but the redistricting/gerrymandering game is specific to the House of Representatives.
Interesting... the GOP has overruled the Parliamentarian in the past so it's a good sign that they didn't on this measure.
But again, to your original question... my take is that they keep returning to this as a political cudgel, not bc it's important policy, but I still wouldn't feel good abt it.
But again, to your original question... my take is that they keep returning to this as a political cudgel, not bc it's important policy, but I still wouldn't feel good abt it.
December 9, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Interesting... the GOP has overruled the Parliamentarian in the past so it's a good sign that they didn't on this measure.
But again, to your original question... my take is that they keep returning to this as a political cudgel, not bc it's important policy, but I still wouldn't feel good abt it.
But again, to your original question... my take is that they keep returning to this as a political cudgel, not bc it's important policy, but I still wouldn't feel good abt it.
Yeah, that's even worse news. They could let the Dems have their ACA vote now, and then put all these changes in the next reconciliation package and vote them through with a simple majority. Point being: this could become law a few ways, even if the Dems hold the line. One day at a time I suppose.
December 9, 2025 at 2:34 AM
Yeah, that's even worse news. They could let the Dems have their ACA vote now, and then put all these changes in the next reconciliation package and vote them through with a simple majority. Point being: this could become law a few ways, even if the Dems hold the line. One day at a time I suppose.
Then you are more up on the details than I am, and as previously stated, with amendments this can be stripped out / won't be put in. Since Thune actually controls what reaches the floor, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull a bait and switch here, or in a conference report to reconcile w the House.
December 9, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Then you are more up on the details than I am, and as previously stated, with amendments this can be stripped out / won't be put in. Since Thune actually controls what reaches the floor, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull a bait and switch here, or in a conference report to reconcile w the House.
But with a poison pill they can fulfill their promise to Schumer, try to blame Dems for the lack of funding if Dems tank the package on this basis, and placate Trump et. al. who want to kill the ACA even if it hurts families / the GOP politically. This is why Schumer's deal was so weak to begin with
December 9, 2025 at 2:17 AM
But with a poison pill they can fulfill their promise to Schumer, try to blame Dems for the lack of funding if Dems tank the package on this basis, and placate Trump et. al. who want to kill the ACA even if it hurts families / the GOP politically. This is why Schumer's deal was so weak to begin with
I think they did commit to holding _a_ vote as part of the Schumer cave-in on the govt. shutdown, which is why they might just be attaching a poison pill here. The GOP has a strong incentive to restore the funding lest they make political enemies out the beneficiaries not already leaning Dem. /x
December 9, 2025 at 2:15 AM
I think they did commit to holding _a_ vote as part of the Schumer cave-in on the govt. shutdown, which is why they might just be attaching a poison pill here. The GOP has a strong incentive to restore the funding lest they make political enemies out the beneficiaries not already leaning Dem. /x
Maybe... if the floor debate is "open rule", should be NP to amend it out of the _Senate_ bill... but if forced to vote on the GOP package, only some Senate Dems have a spine. The GOP picked this as a wedge issue on purpose, knowing that Dems will fear blame for ACA costs if they don't go along.
December 9, 2025 at 2:07 AM
Maybe... if the floor debate is "open rule", should be NP to amend it out of the _Senate_ bill... but if forced to vote on the GOP package, only some Senate Dems have a spine. The GOP picked this as a wedge issue on purpose, knowing that Dems will fear blame for ACA costs if they don't go along.
Take solace in the knowledge that you are correct as a matter of pedagogy & law & that your intolocutors are censorious bullies who think in terms of narrative and not substance. 0 grades are frowned upon as a matter of equity by most progressive educators & also Tom N... you're in good company!
December 7, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Take solace in the knowledge that you are correct as a matter of pedagogy & law & that your intolocutors are censorious bullies who think in terms of narrative and not substance. 0 grades are frowned upon as a matter of equity by most progressive educators & also Tom N... you're in good company!
CNN being spun off away from this deal is a potential silver lining.
December 6, 2025 at 7:44 PM
CNN being spun off away from this deal is a potential silver lining.
What's up, Doc??
December 6, 2025 at 4:55 PM
What's up, Doc??
In a discussion of presidential primaries and presidential general elections I correctly stated that CA doesnt have reforms to facilitate a multiparty system & you changed the subject... misunderstandings ensued... enough already.
December 6, 2025 at 4:17 PM
In a discussion of presidential primaries and presidential general elections I correctly stated that CA doesnt have reforms to facilitate a multiparty system & you changed the subject... misunderstandings ensued... enough already.
What set me off was seeing a political journalist who was encouraging people to abstain even though abstaining actually works against the normative values they supposedly stand for. Fin.
December 6, 2025 at 4:01 PM
What set me off was seeing a political journalist who was encouraging people to abstain even though abstaining actually works against the normative values they supposedly stand for. Fin.
Newsom himself not favoring reforms that will polarize instead of moderate isnt relevant - and fwiw Prop 50 will result in a more pro trans CA delegation in the House of Reps. Politics doesnt work for people when they abstain for structural reasons. /
December 6, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Newsom himself not favoring reforms that will polarize instead of moderate isnt relevant - and fwiw Prop 50 will result in a more pro trans CA delegation in the House of Reps. Politics doesnt work for people when they abstain for structural reasons. /