@3TomatoesShort I always thought internal monologue was a metaphor. Same for "that voice inside you".
...but apparently it's real for some people?
@rnd Yeah, I do prefer a policy of assuming good intent (with the very important footnote that an "assumption" does not mean "continue to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary", which is a thing that apparently some people are confused about).
@riley Clearly someone threw the book at them -- it was an open-and-shut case. I'd shelve it for now, and wait to see how things stack up.
@FranceskaMann @coldfish @blogdiva
I think to a large extent they're thinking about public policy as being like a game the two sides are playing against each other -- the point is to win, not be the most correct.
If you can win by doing stuff which has evil consequences in-game, then, well, that's fine, because that's just how the game is played; stop whining, losers, just because you based your strategy on a policy of truth and lost.
Further thought: what those local governments should do now is pass a flurry of laws which violate the ban, and force DeSantis to act against them -- which will push the issue into the headlines just in time for the midterms.
@MichaelTBacon More to the point (or at least more easily graspable by money-heads), though, electric trucks are cheaper to fuel and maintain.
@rnd I probably have more thoughts on your (very thoughtful) post, but this is the one which is willing to raise its hand at the moment:
Part of the problem is that The Right is stratified (in a way that The Left generally is not) into leaders and followers.
The more honest motives you suggest are, I think, probably largely true of the followers.
The leaders, however, are generally in position to know better -- but they also know a truth which is much more important to the right-wing mind: that they can gain a following (and funding) more quickly by telling them comfortable lies than trying to lead them gently to the truth.
So when I, for example, ascribe malign motives to the Right -- which, yeah, I definitely do -- I'm principally talking about the leaders, the people who stand to gain from leading people to believe certain lies.
I'm not saying the followers should be considered entirely innocent, but they are not really the core of the problem; they are more like semi-autonomous weaponry.
@ASprinkleofSage @therivercrow
I always just add one word to that: go woke or go broke.
(added: ...because, in actual fact, it does tend to work out that way: the majority are not again with all the bigoted shenans.)
@MichaelTBacon I agree completely that it's a good are to prioritize.
Relatedly: my daughter works for a GA org which helps companies and governments electrify their fleets, and she mentioned to me recently that at least one large not-at-all-lefty retail-chain with a notoriously large trucking fleet is quietly proceeding with their fleet electrification, because it gives the best outcomes for their long-term bottom line.(They've just asked for their name to be unincluded from any promotional literature because they don't want to draw the ire of Certain People.)
This is not unlike the NC government passing a law which bans local governments from making laws that allow for climate change (which happened during the Dubya administration, iirc, and is still in effect as far as I know).
They don't care about reality.
@MichaelTBacon I want all of it: electrify all the vehicles, but also make them less necessary by spending serious money on other transit infra.
I want to see a law which says that money the government currently spends on building, maintaining, and policing roads needs to be no greater than what's spent on bike/ped and rail.
...or, maybe better, that spending on transit modes should be proportional to its efficiency in terms of passenger-meters-traveled per watt-hour-equivalent*.
(*Energy in fossil fuels should be counted by its theoretical capacity, not energy delivered after conversion losses. ...and there should probably also be terms that penalize for CO2 emissions and other environmental effects.)
@brooke @cwebber ...but if you can't please all of the people all of the time, how will you ever quiet the head-demons which insist you're not trying hard enough and that people are annoyed by you?
June round-up. This month’s scribbles from the wayside.
@QasimRashid Somehow, I thought they had already done that in Citizens United, but.... yeah, of course, there's always a way to make things worse, and by gub they'll find it.
(How can we push back on this whole "money is speech" excrement? Why do so many people seem to accept that idea uncritically?)
When "conservative" USSC justices vote against a "conservative" initiative, it's not because they think it's wrong but because their best evaluation is that we haven't been crushed enough to accept it yet (without delegitimizing the court completely, or some other consequence that might actually affect them).
@somecat I somehow feel like these should be lyrics from a song by Parliament. :blobcatthinking: