"Sadly, in most metropolitan areas suburbs have more voters and money than the city they are next to..."
It doesn't need to be done by election, at least not immediately or in all cases if a town or city government falls into state receivership. And for the grimier suburbs, having access to city money could be a symbiotic arrangement. The thing is, a lot of suburbs aren't well-heeled — a lot are just places to sleep for workaday people with jobs in the city, without a local economy. They could benefit from annexation. Like, even if a complete takeover of the entire Route-128 area is ideal and in the long run, inevitable, Boston will not in the short term convince Cambridge or Brookline to accept annexation, but it just might with struggling suburbs like Somerville and Revere
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jul 19th 2019 at 12:45:53 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
rollin' on dubs
The problem won't be solved by annexation - the things that forked over the city won't be resolved by giving the city more area to screw things up.
A lot of cities were planned around one bit industry - and those industries moved out or closed down. The Great Recession hit a lot of small towns - traditionally the "bedroom communities" of big cities and those far from them -hard. The result is that cities either tried to work with their strengthens (like EL Paso when they lucked out with Ft. Bliss) or they catered to one industry at the expense if everything else (as the Silicon Valley area has).
El Paso isn't perfect - a Justice Department investigation sent 10 city officials to prison. Just wanted to get that out there before I get
with the "why are you picking on big cities". They did give the developers and light industry loose reigns so that there isn't a housing shortage. See my previous post on how the developers got slapped when they got too greedy.
This article
, written by a New Yorker, talks about how forcing people to move backfires.
It turns out that government spent your billions on urban transit based on surveys that asked people if they want to live in "walkable communities." Of course people said yes! Who doesn't want to live in a neighborhood where you can "walk to shops"?
But if they'd asked, "Are you willing to spend about four times as much per square foot to live in a city instead of a spacious suburban home?" they'd get different answers.
No amount of "urban planning" is going to create something that will invite all families.
There has to be an environment where families are welcomed but a watchful eye is kept on the budget and business.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
rollin' on dubs
@Septimus Heap - The problem is the open spaces. People think that they can just build out. It's only when disaster strikes that it becomes clear.
When land is "free" it's a problem of:
- Remoteness
- lack of water
- lack of infrastructure
- Screwed by the Lawyers - no really, there is a lot of land tied up in legal issues
- Noone wants to live there (yet).
AS the California wildfiles have shown - building on "free" land is NOT without cost.
The other shoe that will drop in the South West is water. AZ and CA are going to get into another spat about water in the next 10 years.
Edited by TairaMai on Jul 20th 2019 at 10:04:49 PM
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
rollin' on dubs
x-posted from the Instagram thread:
- Belle Delphine
has been "banned" from Instagram.
Time will tell if this is going to take the idea Instagram star from household name to Deader Than Disco.
But I'm going to call it. Belle was the high water mark of the "Internet Celebrity".
People are going to move on from crap like this. In about 5 years I predict that due to changes in Instagram and other social media's TOS and people sick of the idea of "influencers".
T He US will be the last to let this go. Given our pop culture's fixation on youth and superficial attractiveness, Instagram took off. But the honeymood has long been over.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor...."Influencers" are just the standard celebrity phenomenon without the gatekeeping effect of the entertainment industry. You can't be a famous musician without a record label, you can't be a famous actor without a movie studio, you can't even be "famous for being famous" a la Paris Hilton without the news media deciding you're worth talking about.
But with the advent of social media, any rando can become famous without major corporate backing. Those are your "influencers".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
rollin' on dubs
I think that this will cool after all the problems and bad actors.
There will still be people who follow youtube makeup and DIY gurus, "models" who post on social media.... but I think that the public is souring on the "I'm internet famous!" crowd.
Time will tell.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....I'm not American, however there's something I would like to know: is one of the reasons why the "American Won WWII" trope is a popular viewpoint due to wanting to downplay the Russian involvement? Because given the Cold War that happened almost immediately afterwards, I imagine the fact Russia was one of the biggest boots to kick Hitler's ass was ignored
Yeah, Cold War. It's honestly even worse with China, who is just outright ignored. Again, not helped for the fact that those two countries ended up being authoritarian regimes with open hostility towards USA, with China's case being basically USA getting kick with Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy
Said this, I really don't think that it's a common attitude anymore. People mocking "Those dumb Americans that believe that USA won the war" are...pretty much in every single Youtube video. It even goes to the laughable statements that the URSS did not only defeat Nazi Germany alone (Not true, but I'm willing to admit they were the most important part)...but that they also singlehandely defeated Imperial Japan (Usually as a way to spin the Atomic bombs as some type of uniquely For the Evulz War crime)
In even reaches hilarious statements of saying that the URSS was the most important ally (nevermind the term of most important Allied power is a debate in itself)...because apparently, your usefulness is based on how many people you lose (literally the worse way to qualify usefulness).
Edited by KazuyaProta on Sep 2nd 2019 at 1:23:09 PM
Watch me destroying my country
rollin' on dubs
Hollywood kinda wrote the popculture history of the World War II -until the late 70's and early 80's there were very few books on the Soviet version of the war.
For Hollywood it was an easy sell - the older folks would watch John Wayne shoot "japs" and other movies from the 40's and the younger audiences would watch movies about battles their parents and grandparents fought in. Therefore many of the WWII movies coming out of Hollywood had American characters fighting in battles the US fought.
And for most American audiences, China, Russia etc was all "tl;dr" as the younglings say on the interwebs.
European audiences had the war in Europe. Outside of Asia, unless you were a real grognard you never heard about the war besides war movies and documentaries.
As cinema outside of the US got more money, they told their side of the story.
The internet has allowed everyone to get a fuller picture of the war.
Most wargamers knew in the 90's what we know now. More books from the USSR came over as the wall was coming down and even the US Military had been taking a look outside of Dirty Communists since The '60s (the Vietnam War had something to do with that).
America Saves the Day also allows Hollywood films to play well overseas. None of the baggage of the Europeans fighting for their colonies. Just bankable Hollywood stars fighting fascists.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....See, my understanding is that the Soviet version of events was already known in the 1940s but that time was dismissed as Commie propaganda in favour of German accounts ... which in the 1960s were gradually exposed as being self-serving lies by former Wehrmach officials and their fanboys. But it took some time for Anglophone historians and popculture to catch up, and the process isn't yet complete if last year's Wikipedia drama is any indication.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanOr in the context of WWII, that the US got in late and barely contributed to winning the war while the Soviets did all the work of defeating the Axis.
Which is wrong on so many levels but what I always found darkly amusing it that no matter which view you use, the British and first two years of the war still get ignored entirely.
The Soviets came very close to losing in that first German advance. If the Nazis had invaded on schedule, they could well have taken Moscow before winter, and then what?
It's also sometimes forgotten the material aid that the US gave to the UK before they officially entered the war. Keeping the UK supplied (which the rest of Commonwealth helped with I believe) while it was essentially besieged by Europe was very important to keeping the Brits from starving.
And let's not forget Italy. Yep, they were so inept the Germans had to repeatedly divulge men and arms to go and bail them out, which cost them strength during their "real" battles.
"Blaming the Soviets for everything" and "blaming the US for everything" and referencing the Iraq war is no longer exclusive WW 2 territory. That tends to accompany the Imperialist grieviances that people have with both superpowers during the Cold War.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 3rd 2019 at 1:38:21 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Let's not forget Canada's contribution. The Canadian Military Pattern truck, produced at such a high volume that the British and Commonwealth forces had one of these trucks for every three soldiers in the field, making them the most mobile army in the world.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."![]()
Some people have a feeling that Soldiers are the most important part of a war, so the Soviets losing tons of soldiers is seen as a sign of success or "sacrifice".
Yeah, calculating the war effort by measuring your own bodycount.
...not a smart metric IMO
Watch me destroying my countrySome says that it counts for German soldiers killed in Combat.
If we go with that Metric, then USA won the Vietnam War.
Also. The idea that USA got into WW 2 "just as the war was ending" is just absurd. They entered in December of 1941. Those were solid 3-4 years of war.
The Soviet-German war started in Juny of the 1941.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Sep 3rd 2019 at 8:27:31 AM
Watch me destroying my countryWith America Wins the War, I would say the reasons behind it are less deliberate. Basically, it's because a lot of those stories were written in the US. Less deliberate misdirection and more apathy and ignorance.
Mind you, it should definitely be noted that the US did have a major influence on the war, and it also wasn't just sitting there doing nothing while the war was going on. It was definitely one of the top five players in the conflict. It also was the biggest allied player in the Pacific War, which tends to be forgotten due to America Wins the War's Evil Counterpart: Nazis Fight Alone.
Though, to be fair, I have been told, even when I was a kid by my patriotic parents, that the biggest reason the Nazis lost was attacking the Soviet Union, and they might have won had they not. Not exactly true upon further research (and moreover, it would be too out of character for Hitler to not attack it), but it is what I was taught.
I would say there also isn't a lot of interest in the west writing about the Eastern front, for various reasons. In particular it was one of the biggest examples of Evil Versus Evil in history, and makes for a very depressing story. It is a good example of the self-destructive nature of evil, though: Hitler attacked the Soviets because he is a Nazi, which accelerated his defeat rapidly.
Leviticus 19:34

In El Paso, there has been some pushback against rampant development. The "Lost Dog Trail" was going to be runover with 'burbs due to the area around it already being sold off.
But the hikers and other people voted NOT to let that happen as they wanted some desert around the area.
The problem with suburbia is that if developers are given an inch, they will (literally) take a mile.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....