America - The Official Thread

[Omnis]

Oh, I agree with you. Just putting in my 2 cents and giving some perspective as a denizen of Ft. Lollerdale.

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh, I agree with you. Just putting in my 2 cents and giving some perspective as a denizen of Ft. Lollerdale.

OK. I was worried, because that seemed very uncharacteristic of you to defend new regulations.

 

[Omnis]

http://blog.acton.org/archives/73903-theres-story-90-year-old-man-charged-feeding-homeless.html

 

[Keef]

If the government can't make a profit off of it they make it illegal.

The official story is that by being outdoors it is a public nuisance as a gathering without a permit and they are serving food without a proper license. If I read the town ordinance correctly it would be allowed if they had an indoor venue.

The thing is that the way it is written and enforced only affects programs like this. A family reunion or a birthday party at the same park with the same number of people is completely legal.

This isn't the first city in Florida to do this kind of thing this year. Daytona Beach busted up a similar event in the spring.

I'm not saying that it is just Florida, but I seem to hear about them more. I am suspecting that this is an issue regarding appearances in tourist destinations. You don't want tourists seeing a huge gathering of homeless people. Cities have been known to send out police to either run homeless off or temporarily put them in jail shelter overnight during special events. Ultimately, what it comes down to is outlawing homelessness, going beyond vagrancy laws.

Most homeless people in ft. lauderdale that ask for money are going to use it for drugs or alcohol. There is a huge salvation army center where they can always get a meal.

Feeding the homeless outside is against the law because it's hot as hell most of the time and food can spoil. It's not so much about outlawing homelessness or charity. It's more about sanitation and safety. It's more of a secondary law to comply with laws already there for food service and public health.

Here's the real story @Dennisch. At the bottom you see what the government tells people and what most people think. At the top you see what is actually going on but they don't tell anybody because if they did we'd all be rioting in the streets. Consider which set of reasons a person who actually wants to be in a position of power - most politicians ever - would be more interested in.

In my opinion, a person who actually desires to be in a position of power over other people is precisely the person that should not be in power.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://blog.acton.org/archives/73903-theres-story-90-year-old-man-charged-feeding-homeless.html

I see a few issues with that post. The author takes the mayor at his word. What he fails to mention is that the mayor only began working to find indoor spaces for these events after Channel 10 Morning Edition had both men to discuss the situation on air. The mayor told him he could do it indoor and Abbott told him that they don't have the space in the church and the city does not have the spaces available, or doesn't make them available, for that use.

What doesn't make sense in this food safety narrative is the being 500 feet away from certain types of locations or the fact that outdoor feeding permit will only be issued for one location once a quarter. So, even if you meet the standards of location and food safety you can only feed the homeless outdoors once every three months. Honestly, it sounds a lot more like this report on Ft Lauderdale's overall number of proposed homeless laws.

Much like a similar law passed months ago, the homeless encampment law will be about aesthetics. As the ordinance puts it, "the City of Fort Lauderdale has a substantial interest in the revitalization, preservation of property values and the prevention of the deterioration in its downtown."

The mayor can claim its about food safety and random blogger guy can believe him, but the fact that this is really one in a list of ordinances, one of which specifically mentions it being about beautification. And they really make it hard to explain how all this safety stuff meshes together with:

Earlier this year, commissioners passed an ordinance that allows police the authority to confiscate a homeless person's possessions after a 24-hour notice and keep the possessions in storage until the person either pays a fee or can prove that they have no means to pay that fee.
If the confiscated items are not retrieved in 30 days, the city can then dispose of them, according to the ordinance.
The ordinance even had tricky language that would have allowed officers to disregard the 24-hour notice rule if the personal property caused public harm or if it merely smelled bad.

Again, government can't make a dime off charity and it makes it hard for them to find away to suck every dime from the homeless. That can't stand.

 

[Omnis]

The whole area is going through some major gentrification. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the big real estate developers are behind all the homeless antagonism. I think they're trying to drive them West. Only problem is the west is not urban enough and doesn't provide access to the services these people need. It's like the city is mad that all the homeless resources are downtown or near it. They want everything east of US1 to be yachties, and everything between US1 and the train tracks to be neo-yuppie inhabited. Push the poor back across the highway.

 

[FoolKiller]

The whole area is going through some major gentrification. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the big real estate developers are behind all the homeless antagonism. I think they're trying to drive them West. Only problem is the west is not urban enough and doesn't provide access to the services these people need. It's like the city is mad that all the homeless resources are downtown or near it. They want everything east of US1 to be yachties, and everything between US1 and the train tracks to be neo-yuppie inhabited. Push the poor back across the highway.

When looking up the different ordinances I saw an article about this very thing and why living in a rural area isn't an option for them.

I think rural areas would be good for anyone that wanted to stay clean and find work. I know plenty of farmers who would be more than willing to hire an effective homeless American over a potentially illegal alien. Any Farmer that can house migrant workers in a work house can house a homeless guy too.

 

[Keef]

The whole area is going through some major gentrification. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the big real estate developers are behind all the homeless antagonism. I think they're trying to drive them West. Only problem is the west is not urban enough and doesn't provide access to the services these people need. It's like the city is mad that all the homeless resources are downtown or near it. They want everything east of US1 to be yachties, and everything between US1 and the train tracks to be neo-yuppie inhabited. Push the poor back across the highway.

Look at Chicago and Cincinnati for examples. If developers have plans, they're using the city council to push it through. In Cincy there was a homeless shelter owner, a man of charity, who basically wanted to form Over-the-Rhine into a center for low income housing with the idea of helping the poor blacks in the area. This was long after white flight basically left the neighborhood empty. Anyway, he convinced the city council to make his plans happen and eventually he was murdered by a homeless guy in the area.

I guess my point it that the developers want the prime real estate to make money, sure. But they can't move the poor folks somewhere else. The city has to do that. The city is the one giving into business interests and basically designating ghettos to drop all the undesirables into.

I think rural areas would be good for anyone that wanted to stay clean and find work.

Find work, maybe. But around here, and I have a feeling in Kentucky as well, rural areas aren't exactly "clean". They're just as bad if not worse than some of the poorest inner-city neighborhoods. The heroine that has run so rampant in my area didn't come from the city, it came from the country where people can cook and use without anybody noticing.

 

[Omnis]

Homeless people here are usually too burned out to work. The ones that panhandle on the streets are actually there dealing crack to those that know what to ask for. I know some major crackheads-- that's how they get their stuff. The rest of them are either doing something, or they're just pathetic wrecks shambling around the city. There's a difference between homeless and bums.

 

[FoolKiller]

Find work, maybe. But around here, and I have a feeling in Kentucky as well, rural areas aren't exactly "clean". They're just as bad if not worse than some of the poorest inner-city neighborhoods. The heroine that has run so rampant in my area didn't come from the city, it came from the country where people can cook and use without anybody noticing.

Staying clean is a qualifier for work. A farmer won't hire a user.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An interesting story about the Californian drought, into its third year.

Are people really painting their turf?

 

[FoolKiller]

An interesting story about the Californian drought, into its third year.

Are people really painting their turf?

Probably. It is California, where keeping up with the Jones's is a way of life.

If the people, and government accepted that they actually live in a desert and did what this author's neighbor did their lives would be a lot easier. I would do it to save yard work, but we get enough rain here that erosion would be an issue.

 

[Omnis]

Keystone Pipeline failed today. Not that it matters. It probably would never have been built even if the bill passed. Now that the price of oil is at around $75 and falling, it's not worth getting it from the oil sands. They should've authorized this thing years ago.

 

[Swagger897]

Keystone Pipeline failed today. Not that it matters. It probably would never have been built even if the bill passed. Now that the price of oil is at around $75 and falling, it's not worth getting it from the oil sands. They should've authorized this thing years ago.

Would definitely like to see how prices would be now knowing how low they are...

In other news, Senate Republicans block an overhaul of the NSA...

Mr. McConnell said before the vote... that the program was a vital tool in the fight against terrorism.

Ohh terrorism they say.. What a pathetic excuse. And what a knob this guy is.... Now that he is here for another six years, I expect the next two to block everything out of the White House. By next June a rejuvenation of the Patriot Act's ability to keep track of phone records needs updated, so I expect McConnell to block that do if Democrats take on the job...

 

[AnthonyD1993]

To be fair, McConnell actually would negotiate when he was the minority leader. I worry more about how he will get along with the radicals (mostly Republican, but there are some radical Democrats too) more than how he gets along with Democrats.
Keystone also would have went through tribal lands if it passed, and it is worth noting that some Native Americans called Keystone an act of war. Of course, that doesn't really matter now since the Keystone Pipeline didn't pass.

 

[Swagger897]

I just wonder looking at the map of the project pipeline and a US map of the Interstates, why not just build it within the right-of-way limits, and extend some areas where needed...

Edit:

And the only thing McConnell is trying to do is bluff. Just more fuel for anti-democrat radicals to pump adverts against them. Unless he will actively help anyone republican or GOP like-minded, this was worthless...

 

[Omnis]

Native Americans are so butthurt. It's a pipeline, not a superhighway. We're talking like 10 feet of space.

 

[Swagger897]

Not sure if I take that serious or not..

 

[Keef]

Native Americans are so butthurt. It's a pipeline, not a superhighway. We're talking like 10 feet of space.

But it shouldn't go through their land if they don't want it. All you gotta do is make it go around.

You already know that oil supply isn't why our gas is so expensive. Our problem is refining capacity and regulation. There are loads of crude to be had but actually making it into something useful is where our problem is.

EDIT: Pretty sure I just found a loophole in the swear filter but whatever.

 

[Omnis]

Not quite. Not when oil is at $100/barrel anyway. The dip in fuel costs right now is due to (1) elections, but mostly (2) OPEC dramatically bumping up production to try to bring the price back down. Why? Because they don't want Russian and North American oil to be exploited and to overtake their hegemony. It's working-- the pipeline and the oil sands are now completely unfeasible. It'd be cheaper to buy and refine from OPEC.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not quite. Not when oil is at $100/barrel anyway. The dip in fuel costs right now is due to (1) elections, but mostly (2) OPEC dramatically bumping up production to try to bring the price back down. Why? Because they don't want Russian and North American oil to be exploited and to overtake their hegemony. It's working-- the pipeline and the oil sands are now completely unfeasible. It'd be cheaper to buy and refine from OPEC.

Now it would, but in ten years' time it would be a little late to begin infrastructure reinvestment, surely?

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Ah, good old supply and demand at its finest. Then again, oil is an odd good since it's pretty inelastic regardless of the price. It's a given that OPEC will eventually raise the prices again which will lead to countries trying to produce their own oil. Then OPEC will bring the price down to keep it from happening. Sooner or later, the US for sure will be looking at producing a lot more oil. It's only a matter of time. Keystone might not have passed, but America will aggressively look to produce more oil eventually.

 

[Brett]

I just wonder looking at the map of the project pipeline and a US map of the Interstates, why not just build it within the right-of-way limits, and extend some areas where needed...

Most of the right-of-way limits tend to be already at or near their limit as is. For the most part, the minimum, and maybe a hair extra, amount of right-of-way is purchased. It is unfortunate that it happens that way, but budgets tend to demand that be the case.

Additional right of way purchases add up quickly in cost, especially when future expansion of the infrastructure in those right-of-ways are considered.

 

[Swagger897]

Not quite. Not when oil is at $100/barrel anyway. The dip in fuel costs right now is due to (1) elections, but mostly (2) OPEC dramatically bumping up production to try to bring the price back down. Why? Because they don't want Russian and North American oil to be exploited and to overtake their hegemony. It's working-- the pipeline and the oil sands are now completely unfeasible. It'd be cheaper to buy and refine from OPEC.

For now it is, but when will we need it again if prices go back to say $120 (that's the highest I can remember from NBC).
If we have the ability to make profits, I'm for it. But I'd rather still some sort of agreement from OPEC not to inflate when production now seems feasible (now for the moment).

 

[Omnis]

Now it would, but in ten years' time it would be a little late to begin infrastructure reinvestment, surely?

Infrastructure for what? Uneconomical oil sands? We don't need a pipeline for expensive oil that nobody is going to produce. It would be cheaper to buy crude off a boat in Vancouver and then send it through the pipes.

Here's the thing: the oil companies will build the pipeline when they need it. And you can be sure they'll spend whatever they need to spend in DC to get it authorized.

It isn't something they need to spend their money on right now. If I were them, I'd sit on the sands until OPEC ran dry. And that's a long time to wait.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We don't need a pipeline for expensive oil that nobody is going to produce. It would be cheaper to buy crude off a boat in Vancouver and then send it through the pipes.

Here's the thing: the oil companies will build the pipeline when they need it. And you can be sure they'll spend whatever they need to spend in DC to get it authorized.

But you need it now because in net US imports 33% of refined petroleum, why not upgrade this pipe? Most of it's already there after all.

To address the fuel deficit the US needs to up refinery capacity on the gulf, which they're doing. Currently the Keystone pipe already takes Canadian and US feed to the gulf... but doesn't have the capacity to feed the new refineries (hence the XL-ing of the pipe and the new, controversial shortcut). With the XL pipe Canada and US will be able to feed the refineries, the refineries will produce more fines and America's net dependence on petroleum imports can be significantly eased if not eradicated.

I see that as vital for the US economy - not least because their greatest non-NA oil friend (House of Sa'ad) is under increasing reverse-pressure from IS and other Arab nations. America needs to separate her energy security from those matters.

Whether or not one agrees with the way Big O does business I see the above as simple economic facts. The problem is incidents like the Mayflower burst, a demonstrable series of episodes of wilful ignorance on the part of Exxon. It's easy to see why people find it difficult to trust Big O when they say the pipes are safe.

EDIT: For those who haven't seen the new pipe section's (very rough) route, it's the dotty line, the continuous line already exists but needs upgrades.

 

[Omnis]

Oh, sure, I think it should have been authorized. I'm just saying that the build may not make sense right now. But that's for the oil companies to decide. Let them build it.

 

[Swagger897]

I cannot recall what the job stats were if this was to go through, but I don't think it was much about 5,000.
Even though, those are most likely part-time, with about 250 full-time if I recall anything correctly.

Anything to help the numbers for Obama is what he is for at this point, to prove (attempt to) he himself is actively working on helping the economy. With this not going through, it neither helps nor hurts his status, but imo hurts those who opposed because I think a large amount of people I know wanted it to go through.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I cannot recall what the job stats were if this was to go through, but I don't think it was much about 5,000.
Even though, those are most likely part-time, with about 250 full-time if I recall anything correctly.

Anything to help the numbers for Obama is what he is for at this point, to prove (attempt to) he himself is actively working on helping the economy. With this not going through, it neither helps nor hurts his status, but imo hurts those who opposed because I think a large amount of people I know wanted it to go through.

The figures I've seen suggest up to 40,000 construction positions will be required but only 50 ongoing maintenance positions. I don't know how accurate that is but it seems about right from my experience.

 

[Swagger897]

The figures I've seen suggest up to 40,000 construction positions will be required but only 50 ongoing maintenance positions. I don't know how accurate that is but it seems about right from my experience.

Are those numbers for keystone or for reconstructing the current line that runs by the chef?