1) Well, isn't it always one's mother - rreading/travel/nature/family-ancestors/architecture-design/history/
2) The location - the earliest english experience west of the appliciations/railroads/industry/technology
3) G. Washington - prototype of leader
4) Thomas Edison - the practical creative/technology
5) Braddock expedition - military/ logistics
6) Brownsville - economics/patterns of development/evolution.
7) roots of architecture/urban design. - Colonial villages/walkable places
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The best read on the elction yet!
Watch for it. That moment in the debate were it becomes clear that the zingers are not enough, or the other gimmicks they are training him for run their course and he's left standing there with just himself, his authentic self to draw from. Obama will be kind if not even generous in the moment, but make no mistake he will finish Romney right then and there. Because that's what a winner does when it's winning time. - BadGimp @ DemocraticUnderground 9-30-2012.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Chicago - mass transit that serves nowhere (3-28-2013)
nowhere. The failure of a transit strong American city. Service to a lot of locations is poor or non-existent. Case in point: Soldier Field, McCormick Place, Navy Pier, United Center, Comiskey Park vs. Wrigley Field.
mass transit accellorate development. Answer: it doesn't. It creates disfunctional development that ultimately fails and leads to urban decline.
My 14 years here - discovered several thimngs about chicago - its history / influence of roads, railroads and transit. growth , mid-west sensibility.
the magnets of development. south loop railyard / near wset side / ball parks / future of gambling.
party twons - america has seven: New York, Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Vegas, LA, SF.
How tying the major magnets into & together with mass transit would accellorate economic development by achieving two factorors: ability of the workers to get to their jobs easily and economically. and secondly, provide the visitors to these venues with a variety of choices of how to get to these places.
-transit corridors are natural avenues of development.
- Brookfield / Hollywood / Congress-Park stations.- a set of suggested development principles.
- Chicago's major mistake - no mass transit to entertainment venues.
mass transit accellorate development. Answer: it doesn't. It creates disfunctional development that ultimately fails and leads to urban decline.
My 14 years here - discovered several thimngs about chicago - its history / influence of roads, railroads and transit. growth , mid-west sensibility.
the magnets of development. south loop railyard / near wset side / ball parks / future of gambling.
party twons - america has seven: New York, Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Vegas, LA, SF.
How tying the major magnets into & together with mass transit would accellorate economic development by achieving two factorors: ability of the workers to get to their jobs easily and economically. and secondly, provide the visitors to these venues with a variety of choices of how to get to these places.
-transit corridors are natural avenues of development.
- Brookfield / Hollywood / Congress-Park stations.- a set of suggested development principles.
- Chicago's major mistake - no mass transit to entertainment venues.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The NFL maintains twice the
number of players that it actually uses. What does that say about labor? American labor in general. Twice the number of workers, so a 50% umployment rate is acceptable.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Medicare Differences
The New Republic's Jonathon Cohn has an exhaustive guide to the Medicare debate playing out in this election. Or, nearly exhaustive, because of course neither Romney or Ryan has produced sufficient details to answer all of the questions Cohn poses.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Isn't this what right-wingers believe
about Obama? While not my work - This says it best: courtesy 'NonPartay" @ HP.
They should really cast Obama as the next James Bond. He's obviously the best Secret Agent that's ever lived. Just as he was born, he was able to slip out of a Kenyan hospital, plant his own birth announcement in two separate Hawaiian newspapers, and then stealthily return to the maternity ward without being spotted. In subsequent years, he was able to master the teachings of everything from socialism and communism to critical race theory all while infiltrating Ivy League schools that he was not smart enough to attend. While running for President, he was able to outsmart every Intelligence Agency in America as well as millions of citizens in hiding his true identity and agenda to bring down this government and this country. Pretty cool, isn’t he?
They should really cast Obama as the next James Bond. He's obviously the best Secret Agent that's ever lived. Just as he was born, he was able to slip out of a Kenyan hospital, plant his own birth announcement in two separate Hawaiian newspapers, and then stealthily return to the maternity ward without being spotted. In subsequent years, he was able to master the teachings of everything from socialism and communism to critical race theory all while infiltrating Ivy League schools that he was not smart enough to attend. While running for President, he was able to outsmart every Intelligence Agency in America as well as millions of citizens in hiding his true identity and agenda to bring down this government and this country. Pretty cool, isn’t he?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
2016 election.
I'll say this here and now, the candidates for the two major parties in 2016 will be individuals currently not on the radar. The baby boom generation is exiting and a younger, more diverse generation is taking hold. The effective and likely candidates will be from unique, non-political can-do backgrounds and get in late. Four year running candidates will be shunned. The winning candidate will keep America's historic promise to the elderly while describing a path for the other generations to have and keep the American dream. Obama will ultimately win in 2012, and none of the existing names - Hillary, Jeb, et. al. or Ryan will be seen as viable. I love youth for all its frailities. This from an aging baby boomer.
This election may actually break the Republican party apart and in the process reset the entire American political system. I've brought this up elsewhere but 2016 will be the true first election of the new century. None, I repeat none of the current crop of potential or under consideration candidates for President will be seen as relevant. Jeb, Hillary, Timmy, Ryan, Liz, you name them will appear out of sync with the world of 2016. The effective candidates will get in late and come with a solutions based background that projects fairness and equality. The party that satisifies the baby boomers fears and needs while appealing to the new American electorate will dominate for a generation. Technology/information, meaningful living, energy/environment are reshaping the paradigm. I'm a child of the sixties and want to see the dream as reality before I move on.
This election may actually break the Republican party apart and in the process reset the entire American political system. I've brought this up elsewhere but 2016 will be the true first election of the new century. None, I repeat none of the current crop of potential or under consideration candidates for President will be seen as relevant. Jeb, Hillary, Timmy, Ryan, Liz, you name them will appear out of sync with the world of 2016. The effective candidates will get in late and come with a solutions based background that projects fairness and equality. The party that satisifies the baby boomers fears and needs while appealing to the new American electorate will dominate for a generation. Technology/information, meaningful living, energy/environment are reshaping the paradigm. I'm a child of the sixties and want to see the dream as reality before I move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
