FamousMockingbird
@famousmockingbird.bsky.social
Civic educator seeking truth and sometimes finding it in the depths of a 30 minute Tweezer.
Can we also say: Steve Kerr losing his shit cost 2 additional points and that also feels pretty important. It was a totally incompetent missed call, but I don't think the meltdown was smart, and when Dray does crap like that, he gets called on it.
January 6, 2026 at 5:38 AM
Can we also say: Steve Kerr losing his shit cost 2 additional points and that also feels pretty important. It was a totally incompetent missed call, but I don't think the meltdown was smart, and when Dray does crap like that, he gets called on it.
Perhaps we could furrow our brow in order to tactfully signal our displeasure with this course of action? Schumer will need a whip count before calling for a vote on the brow furrowing resolution. Call your Senators!!
January 3, 2026 at 9:41 PM
Perhaps we could furrow our brow in order to tactfully signal our displeasure with this course of action? Schumer will need a whip count before calling for a vote on the brow furrowing resolution. Call your Senators!!
Shanahan's system should work well... McCaffrey and Kittle will break more tackles in the open field. But we'll miss Warner and Bosa on the other side for that reason of containment.
January 2, 2026 at 8:07 PM
Shanahan's system should work well... McCaffrey and Kittle will break more tackles in the open field. But we'll miss Warner and Bosa on the other side for that reason of containment.
I especially love the "ooops I posted disinformation could someone find me some better propaganda to shore up my predetermined conclusion" part.
January 2, 2026 at 7:36 PM
I especially love the "ooops I posted disinformation could someone find me some better propaganda to shore up my predetermined conclusion" part.
Unfortunately Roger's politics are mostly brainless tankie BS with a healthy dose of Putin apologia, draped in the garb of mid century antifascism. I won't be giving that tool any more of my money.
January 1, 2026 at 5:51 AM
Unfortunately Roger's politics are mostly brainless tankie BS with a healthy dose of Putin apologia, draped in the garb of mid century antifascism. I won't be giving that tool any more of my money.
30 years um wow and yay for us!!I was up in 202 apparently, this was the highlight of the run until Drowned on NYE itself. The Who was my favorite band growing up (before Phish ofc) so I was extra psyched (now could I get a Sparks?) #phish
December 29, 2025 at 8:26 PM
30 years um wow and yay for us!!I was up in 202 apparently, this was the highlight of the run until Drowned on NYE itself. The Who was my favorite band growing up (before Phish ofc) so I was extra psyched (now could I get a Sparks?) #phish
Amarone / Valpolicella would be perfect!
December 29, 2025 at 6:29 AM
Amarone / Valpolicella would be perfect!
Understood, top 2 / prop 14 does not apply to presidential primaries bc of the precedent I'm citing. There's no crossover voting/raiding problem for the major parties to object to (unlike the old blanket system with reserved ballot lines for each major party in the general election.)
December 27, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Understood, top 2 / prop 14 does not apply to presidential primaries bc of the precedent I'm citing. There's no crossover voting/raiding problem for the major parties to object to (unlike the old blanket system with reserved ballot lines for each major party in the general election.)
The SCOTUS case that rejected CA's blanket presidential primary was based on the 1st amendment. Perhaps that's never been tested for other offices because there's a political cost of proposing bills or suing to exclude voters!
December 27, 2025 at 6:07 PM
The SCOTUS case that rejected CA's blanket presidential primary was based on the 1st amendment. Perhaps that's never been tested for other offices because there's a political cost of proposing bills or suing to exclude voters!
Keep in mind that state laws are written by 1 or both of the major parties so its relatively easy to keep the party organizations and state law aligned.
December 27, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Keep in mind that state laws are written by 1 or both of the major parties so its relatively easy to keep the party organizations and state law aligned.
Parties do not have to allow open primaries to influence their candidate selection. For presidential races, CA GOP is closed, Dems are only open to independents. The top 2 system works around the ban on blanket primaries by limiting access to the November ballot. 1/
December 27, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Parties do not have to allow open primaries to influence their candidate selection. For presidential races, CA GOP is closed, Dems are only open to independents. The top 2 system works around the ban on blanket primaries by limiting access to the November ballot. 1/
No, he's functionally but not literally correct. Democratizing candidate selection was a progressive reform that weakens the party organization in favor of empowering the 'party in the electorate' (no dues required however) and this hurts party unity & contributed to polarization.
December 27, 2025 at 5:38 PM
No, he's functionally but not literally correct. Democratizing candidate selection was a progressive reform that weakens the party organization in favor of empowering the 'party in the electorate' (no dues required however) and this hurts party unity & contributed to polarization.
And that state law is limited by a right of association derived from the 1st amendment, among other things (CO not allowed to block Trump in 24). The national party organizations do not have to use the results of statewide presidential primaries for delegate allocation.
December 27, 2025 at 5:32 PM
And that state law is limited by a right of association derived from the 1st amendment, among other things (CO not allowed to block Trump in 24). The national party organizations do not have to use the results of statewide presidential primaries for delegate allocation.
Because the OP is only half correct. For example, parties do not have to accept blanket primaries even if the state wants one. Parties accepted state involvement bc of political necessity, but the turnover from rigged insider caucuses to open public partcipation took decades.
December 27, 2025 at 6:06 AM
Because the OP is only half correct. For example, parties do not have to accept blanket primaries even if the state wants one. Parties accepted state involvement bc of political necessity, but the turnover from rigged insider caucuses to open public partcipation took decades.
Gen X eventually got around to finding meaning in this humdrum world, but largely found it through narcissistic indulgence & wishful projection. Should stuck to slacking!! "Keep Austin Wierd" but we didn't.
December 27, 2025 at 1:17 AM
Gen X eventually got around to finding meaning in this humdrum world, but largely found it through narcissistic indulgence & wishful projection. Should stuck to slacking!! "Keep Austin Wierd" but we didn't.
Alternately, you can calmly point out that they are a brainwashed right wing douchebag and ask them why they follow a fascist con-man and child sex predator while putting on their holier-than-thou bullshit act.
Happy Holidays!!
Happy Holidays!!
December 24, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Alternately, you can calmly point out that they are a brainwashed right wing douchebag and ask them why they follow a fascist con-man and child sex predator while putting on their holier-than-thou bullshit act.
Happy Holidays!!
Happy Holidays!!
The Robert's court hypocrisy and dishonesty about judicial activism is not "often a good thing." Everyone pretending that SCOTUS running cover for installing authoritarian rule & unpopular policies as just a matter of high minded differences of judicial interpretation are part of the problem.
December 18, 2025 at 8:01 PM
The Robert's court hypocrisy and dishonesty about judicial activism is not "often a good thing." Everyone pretending that SCOTUS running cover for installing authoritarian rule & unpopular policies as just a matter of high minded differences of judicial interpretation are part of the problem.
Other than the fact that a developer pitched a project to my city that would require ED if any one of a dozen homeowners didn't want to sell voluntarily, & the city council discussed it.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
December 18, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Other than the fact that a developer pitched a project to my city that would require ED if any one of a dozen homeowners didn't want to sell voluntarily, & the city council discussed it.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
Mass upzoning has its issues but fine, go for it. Still going to take way longer than some YIMBY types can stand.
I didnt argue that the only effective reform was eminent domain, but that the specific conditions here meant more palatable alternatives would take a loong time to manifest. You haven't been radicalized, apparently, as the actual radicals are dripping with resentment & want immediate pricing relief.
December 18, 2025 at 2:00 AM
I didnt argue that the only effective reform was eminent domain, but that the specific conditions here meant more palatable alternatives would take a loong time to manifest. You haven't been radicalized, apparently, as the actual radicals are dripping with resentment & want immediate pricing relief.
Point being, the only reforms that can work at scale for "100 million Californians" are going to involve eminent domain & evictions by the state, and the people who already live here have every right & reason to oppose that because it will involve arbitrary wealth dilution of middle class families.
December 17, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Point being, the only reforms that can work at scale for "100 million Californians" are going to involve eminent domain & evictions by the state, and the people who already live here have every right & reason to oppose that because it will involve arbitrary wealth dilution of middle class families.
SFH near transit has been upzoned by SB79 with 5 stories of air rights, but it's going to take years to make deals and break ground. It is unclear whether developers will be able to offer homeowners a true replacement cost of their properties when all they want is the land (& not in small parcels).
December 17, 2025 at 9:58 PM
SFH near transit has been upzoned by SB79 with 5 stories of air rights, but it's going to take years to make deals and break ground. It is unclear whether developers will be able to offer homeowners a true replacement cost of their properties when all they want is the land (& not in small parcels).
Absolutely true - and I support changing policies to incentive more building like SB79 and AB130 recently have done. But most of the land area is SFH with incumbent homeowners, so the idea that reform is going to allow *significant* population growth w/o turfing people out of their homes is fantasy.
December 17, 2025 at 9:14 PM
Absolutely true - and I support changing policies to incentive more building like SB79 and AB130 recently have done. But most of the land area is SFH with incumbent homeowners, so the idea that reform is going to allow *significant* population growth w/o turfing people out of their homes is fantasy.
This article from 2020 starts by predicting mass evictions after Covid subsidies expire... which didn't happen... and casts doubt on its magical thinking about policy changes that will quickly run into the problem of incumbency and how to equitably decide who exactly pays the transition costs.
December 17, 2025 at 7:45 PM
This article from 2020 starts by predicting mass evictions after Covid subsidies expire... which didn't happen... and casts doubt on its magical thinking about policy changes that will quickly run into the problem of incumbency and how to equitably decide who exactly pays the transition costs.
So you want to use eminent domain on existing homeowners? Exactly how do you propose doubling the population without turfing people out of their homes? Building up and out of existing lots and convertible properties only goes so far. The people who already live here count more than your hypo.
December 17, 2025 at 7:41 PM
So you want to use eminent domain on existing homeowners? Exactly how do you propose doubling the population without turfing people out of their homes? Building up and out of existing lots and convertible properties only goes so far. The people who already live here count more than your hypo.