Mediaboss Marketing

One idea that seems to have become widespread online is the political compass, a graph dividing political ideologies into four groups: Authoritarian Left (left-wing economically, but socially conservative and/or favoring a strong state), Libertarian-Left (also economically leftish, but more pro-civil liberties), Authoritarian Right (economically and socially conservative, generally favoring activist government in order to ensure law and order), and Libertarian Right (economically conservative, socially tolerant).

It seems to me that the political compass is easy to adapt to arguments about urbanism. For example, one axis of conflict is "status quo vs. YIMBY"- people who favor lots of new housing (colloquially referred to as "YIMBYs") vs. people who favor the zoning status quo. Another axis of conflict is "Sprawl vs. Smart Growth"people who view additional suburbanization as essentially harmless vs. people who view it as environmentally or socially harmful.

So for example, a libertarian purist would be at the "YIMBY/Sprawl" extreme, because a pure libertarian would believe that a) government has no business limiting the housing supply but b) also has no business limiting sprawl. For example, market urbanistScott Beyer is somewhere in this quadrant; he values the benefits of urban life and supports new infill housing, but views suburban development as a legitimate consumer choice that should not be overly restricted.

On the other hand, Todd Litman (who has written extensively on the Planetizen blog) is perhaps in the YIMBY/Smart Growth column; he has written extensively about the benefits of more walkable development, but has also discussed the importance of new housing supply in holding down housing costs. I am instinctively sympathetic towards this group, although in regions with housing shortages, I am more willing than I used to be to support additional suburban housing.

The "Status Quo*/Smart Growth" grouping seems to be very popular among older urbanists. The core idea animating this group is that even though sprawl is environmentally harmful, new infill development should still be carefully regulated. The major constituency for this group is older urban homeowners, who benefit from rising home prices, and who see no obvious benefit from new housing in their neighborhoods. Members of this group seem to be motivated by a variety of concerns, such as fear of gentrification, fear of low-quality architecture, and dislike of tall buildings. Others simply are unwilling to believe that the law of supply and demand applies to market-rate housing. More moderate members of this grouping claim to favor new housing is long as it is "affordable" (i.e. subsidized so it can cater to low- and moderate- income urbanites).

The "Status Quo/Sprawl" grouping tends not to have as much support among planning commentators as the other three groupings, but is arguably popular among suburban homeowners and the politicians who represent them. People in this grouping are perfectly happy with suburbia the way it is, and fear that new housing might bring a variety of unwelcome change. They tend to favor new housing, as long as it is low-density sprawl. President Trumps claims that he was protecting suburbia from civil rights laws was an attempt to cater to this group; similarly, sprawl advocate Joel Kotkin has criticized attempts to add density to existing neighborhoods.

I also note that the two "status quo" groups share a variety of concerns: both urban and suburban opponents of new housing fear that new housing might bring increased traffic, limit automobile parking, or otherwise stress infrastructure.

It also seems to me that the two "status quo" groups tend to be more politically extreme than the two YIMBY groupings: in my experience, YIMBYs tend to be center-left, while right-wingers and socialists tend to be more skeptical of new housing. In New York, the most "YIMBY" candidate was moderate Democrat Kathryn Garcia, while both the leading Republican and the more left-wing candidates tended to favor more obstacles to non-subsidized housing. However, I do not know if New York City is typical of the nation in this regard, so perhaps I am overgeneralizing here.

*More colloquially, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). However, this term is a bit underinclusive, since some people seem to be against new housing in anyone's back yard.

Visit link:
The Political Compass of Housing and Urbanism - Planetizen

In these confusing and confronting times might there be some ancient wisdom that we could turn to that will help guide us through. Amanda Ruggeri argues that 'whether it's war or a pandemic, our health or finances, no matter how challenging our lives might feel, the Stoics tell us, we still can thrive'.She explains the history of the Stoics and reminds us that 'for Stoics, it isn't the thing itself that causes turmoil. It's how you think about it. And few things cause more distress than fighting against circumstances outside of our control, or getting attached to an outcome that isn't in our power'. The Stoics teach us to recognize what you can (and can't) control, choose how to respond, see every challenge as a learning opportunity and to remember that change and loss is constant. She explains what that means in our times and why we need to remember that this too shall pass.

Then, (at 14 mins) Amanda gets on her soapbox to rant about one person making a difference.

Also, (at 15 mins) what are the limits of libertarianism? Joel Kotkin explains that 'in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and thetech-oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism'. He goes through some core libertarian beliefs and how they've changed and says that 'in many ways, libertarians, like all of us, are victims of history' and that to become relevant again, libertarians need to go beyond their dogmatic attachments, focus on bolstering the vitality competitive free markets'. That 'libertarian ideas still have great relevance, but only so much as they reflect markets that are open to competition and capable of improving everyday lives'.

Then, (at 28 mins) have Russia and Ukraine always been so intertwined? Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick explains the history of their shared history and says that ' Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991. For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called Ukraine were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries'. She says that 'it is not clear if the younger post-Soviet generation in particular, young men liable for military conscription see Ukraine and its current Western orientation in the same way as their elders' and that 'it remains to be seen how the Russian Army and Russians back home will feel about the killing of Ukrainians: Slavic kith and kin'.

Finally, (at 40 mins) are all natural disasters caused by climate change? Fred Pearce argues that 'there is a growing debate among environmental scientists about whether it is counterproductive to always focus on climate change as a cause of such disasters. Some say it sidelines local ways of reducing vulnerability to extreme weather and that it can end up absolving policymakers of their own failures to climate-proof their citizens'. He goes through some recent disasters such as the floods in Germany, the food crisis in Madagascar and the dry state of Lake Chad in West Africa, all of which were blamed on climate change but in reality was a mix of poor irrigation practices or government polices. He believes that 'no doubt climate changes intensifies the situation, however other drivers are key' and we ignore them at our peril.

Read the rest here:
Stoics and storms - Counterpoint - ABC News

When Im asked to explain Web 3.0 I always try to start by explaining that the world is far more diverse than just coins and financial assets.

This is similar to my old saw about history being more detailed than just who won what war and why. Culture is not just coinage.

The entirety of the human experience, which arguably will be predominantly expressed via the web if anywhere in technology, is vast and rich beyond monetary action. Only about half of transactions even involve money at all.

Yet, for many people their only topic of interest or focus on technology is how to capitalize as quickly as possible on anything new. Beware their depictions of the Web solely as finance instead of encompassing our most rich and interesting possibilities.

Geolocation data, as just one facet, has long been recognized as a source of power and authority. Think of it in holistic terms of the English and Dutch cracking the secretive Portuguese spice trade routes and upending global power, instead of just focusing on the spices being traded.

Knowledge is a form of power, which have been expressed as political systems far more vast than markets alone could ever encompass.

Here is an example to illustrate how oversimplification of humanity down to financial terms becomes an ethical quagmire, highlighting some very important mistakes of the past.

Ukraine cancelled a Crypto airdrop.

a lot of people were abusing the possibility of an airdrop by sending minuscule donations just to benefit themselves. This is a common tactic among crypto investors, known as airdrop farming.

Farming is in fact the opposite of what is described here. Growing food at low margin so that others may gain has somehow been framed backwards: extraction of value from someone elses plan to help others.

In other words airdrop farming is far more like airdrop banking as it has nothing in common with farms but a lot in common with banks. It begs a question why there there was any direct return and benefit of donations, given what has been said in past about that loop.

Appropriation of the term farming in this context thus reads to me as propaganda; we may as well be in a discussion of Molotovs WWII bombs as a delivery of bread baskets.

Likewise in the same story Krakens CEO displayed complete ignorance by saying his company would be on the side of Russia in this war and could not help Ukraine because in his mind political Bitcoin only has libertarian values.

Exchanges including Coinbase, Binance, KuCoin, and Kraken all refused Fedorovs February public request that they freeze all Russian accounts, not just those that were legally required by recently-imposed sanctions. The companies said such an action would hurt peaceful Russian citizens and go against Bitcoins libertarian values, as Kraken CEO Jesse Powell put it.

Calling Bitcoin libertarian is like calling diamonds bloody.

In fact, Bitcoin is notoriously slow-moving (terrible for payments) and notoriously volatile (terrible for currency) just like blood diamonds being extracted from dirt at artificially low cost to artificially inflate their value to a very small group desperate for power.

Mining doesnt have to be an exercise in oppressive asset hoarding with a total disdain for the value of human life, but Kraken clearly displays here they operate intentionally to repeat the worst thinking in history.

So what values are we talking about really? Proportionality (tailoring response to the level of the attack, avoiding collateral impact) is not a libertarian concept, obviously, because its a form of regulation (let alone morality).

Note instead there is complete lack of care for victims of aggression on the principle of protecting peaceful among aggressors, with absolutely no effort to prove such a principle.

Its sloppy and exactly backwards for a Bitcoin CEO to claim he cares about impacting others. The inherent negative-externality of Bitcoin means it carries a high cost someone else has to pay, proving that if Kraken cared about peaceful Russian civilians it would shutdown all Bitcoin since it harms them all while benefiting few if any.

Systemically redistributing transaction costs from selfish individuals to society instead, while claiming to be worried about societal impact of an individual action is dangerously reminiscent of nobles and clergy of pre-revolutionary France who ignorantly stumbled into their own demise.

The Web already is so much more than a narrow line of thought from the ugly past of feudal thinking, and 3.0 should be more broadly representative of the human condition instead of boxed in like this by selfish speculators trying to get rich quick through exploitation and manipulation of artificially constrained assets.

See more here:
Feudalistic Threats to Web 3.0 - Security Boulevard

A few times during his hourlong speaking engagement at UC Hastings School of Law on March 1, students briefly stopped shouting down Ilya Shapiro and goaded him to speak. Each time, the prominent constitutional law scholar and mouthpiece for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute managed only a few words before students banged on tables and chanted Black lawyers matter to drown him out again, according to a video recording shared by the law schools Black Law Students Association.

Shapiro was on the San Francisco campus that day to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy as part of an event organized by the schools Federalist Society, a conservative libertarian group. But Shapiro had shared his thoughts on the matter more than a month earlier. In a since-deleted series of tweets, he said President Bidens pledge to nominate a Black woman would result in a lesser black woman serving on the nations highest court.

Shapiros casually racist tweet quickly got him suspended from a new administrator job at Georgetown University Law Center, but didnt scotch his appearance at UC Hastings, which triggered the student protest.

On March 2, UC Hastings Chancellor David Faigman and his fellow deans sent a letter to students scolding them silencing a speaker is fundamentally contrary to the values of this school, the letter reads and hinting at possible disciplinary action. The letter also argues that legal professionals must be able to engage with the full range of ideas, legal arguments, or policies that exist in the world as they find it.

More from Justin Phillips

UC Hastings spokesperson Elizabeth Moore told me the school would not provide further comment.

The way the schools leadership chided students made me think about how Black people are expected to be docile in the face of insensitivity. In this vein, Shapiro is a lot like the Republican mob attacking federal appeals Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings. Both use the topics du jour of white nationalism Shapiro implying that Black folks are intellectually inferior; Republicans grasping at culture war talking points that have nothing to do with Jacksons record.

Not challenging rhetoric that is ignorant or actively intolerant only serves to legitimize inequality. The responses from UC Hastings students and Judge Jackson reveal the necessity of speaking up.

A few weeks after the Shapiro event, the Black Law Students Association, with support from allies and some of the schools faculty, sent UC Hastings leadership a letter and list of demands regarding how the school can address its racial equity issues.

Included in it was data from a 2021 UC Hastings Campus Climate Advisory Committee assessment, which was shared with The Chronicle and found that 40% of respondents of color, including multiracial people, experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct at the school within the previous two years. Only 8% of white respondents reported the same experiences.

Among the students demands was for the school to ensure that no disciplinary actions will be taken against students who exercised their free speech rights during the Shapiro protest.

Dominique Armstrong, a co-president of the Black Law Students Association, told me that as much as the protest was about Shapiro, it was also about Black students not feeling welcome on campus.

One of the schools big things is telling us to be advocates, Armstrong said. But if you cant advocate for yourself, how can you advocate for your clients?

Shapiro described the protesters as an unruly woke mob taking part in a national cancellation campaign. But what I saw were passionate students taking a stand for change they felt is long overdue. I saw the faces of individuals who could one day follow Judge Jacksons path, on which theyre forced to both confront Americas shortcomings and help the country overcome them.

Thats grueling, thankless work, as Armstrong already knows. Its exhausting for Black students like myself to constantly have to explain how something is racist.

Which is why, for me, it has been equally spectacular to watch Jackson push back against often-hysterical Republicans during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Republican senators have floated absurd QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories in their desperate attempts to make Jackson seem like a judge who is sympathetic to people convicted of possessing images of child sexual abuse and who uses critical race theory to shape her decision-making.

Jackson has been calm and measured in her responses, often pointing out that her record is a balanced one that cant be seen as supporting one viewpoint or another.

Underneath the GOP theatrics is their palpable fear of Black people like Jackson attaining positions of power.

Jacksons loudest moment, in my mind, came toward the end of Wednesdays marathon session when Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., asked her to address young people who may want to follow her path. Jackson capped off an emotional reply with this line: I would tell them to persevere.

In other words, silence simply isnt an option.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Justin Phillips appears Sundays. Email: jphillips@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JustMrPhillips

Excerpt from:
When Black people refuse to quietly endure intolerance, amazing things can happen - San Francisco Chronicle

Lincoln County Election Board

The Lincoln County Election Board offers the following information on upcoming deadlines, elections and candidate filing periods.

DEADLINE TO CHANGE PARTY AFFILIATION APPROACHES

Oklahomans who want to change party affiliation, must submit their change no later than Thursday, March 31, Lincoln County Election Board Secretary Melissa Stambaugh said. Voters may change their party affiliation online using the OK Voter Portal at oklahoma.gov/elections/ovp or by completing a new Voter Registration Application.

Stambaugh reminds voters that no party changes are allowed between April 1 and August 31 during an even-numbered year.

If we receive your request after March 31, we are required by law to hold that request and process it in September, Stambaugh said.

Oklahoma has three recognized parties: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian.

In Oklahoma, voters must be a registered member of a party to vote in that partys primary election. Independents are permitted to participate in a primary election, only if a party officially requests its elections be opened to Independent voters. Currently, only the Democratic Party allows Independents to vote in its primary elections.

All registered voters, regardless of political affiliation, can vote for any candidate during a General Election.

Voter Registration Applications can be downloaded from the State Election Board website at oklahoma.gov/elections. Applications are also available at the Lincoln County Election Board located in the courthouse at 811 Manvel Avenue, Suite 15, Chandler. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. For questions, contact the County Election Board at (405) 258-1349 or lincolncounty@elections.ok.gov.

APRIL 5 ELECTION DAY REMINDERS AND TIPS; EARLY VOTING BEGINS MARCH 31

Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2022, for the McLoud School District and the Perkins-Tryon School District Board of Education General Election. Lincoln County Election Board Secretary, Melissa Stambaugh, offers these important tips to votersespecially those who will be casting a ballot for the first time.

Early voting for the April 5 election begins Thursday, March 31, 2022, for voters in Lincoln County. Voters who will not be able to make it to the polls on Election Day, have the option of voting early at their County Election Board.

***

CANDIDATE FILING TO BEGIN APRIL 13

The statewide candidate filing period officially begins at 8 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, said Melissa Stambaugh, Secretary of the Lincoln County Election Board.

Filing will be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday through Friday. The deadline for filing as a candidate is 5 p.m. Friday, April 15, no exceptions.

Candidates for state offices file with the Secretary of the State Election Board. Candidates for county offices file with the Secretary of the County Election Board.

Stambaugh said the following offices are expected to be filled this year in Lincoln County: Assessor, Treasurer, District 1 and District 3 County Commissioner.

Filing forms and information may be obtained by contacting the Lincoln County Election Board at (405) 258-1349 or lincoln

More:
Lincoln County Election Board: Deadlines, election dates and filing - The Shawnee News-Star