ruraljuror

I think it's a gas station maybe.

Any team relocation will be named whatever the relocating ownership group wants. The Stars is the name being promoted by the main local ownership group looking to secure an expansion team, but I can't imagine that having a big impact on any relocation effort's new branding unless there's some kind of public outcry that influences the relocating ownership group, which seems very unlikely to me.

Good points all around, Smeagols. I also think you hit upon a really key point that gets to the core of a lot of the issues we're talking about when you said that 'everyone wants a radical solution.' Progressivism is designed to be radical and challenge the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, there are changes (from minor tweaks to major overhauls) that can be made to the systems around us that can lead to better outcomes. Conservatism, on the other hand, is designed to protect the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, any changes that are made (big or small, no matter how well-intentioned) have a very real possibility of making things worse. Both of these ideas are true, but the result is that there really is no such thing as radical conservatism whereas the very core of progressivism requires some degree of radicalization. That's why radical progressives were responsible for promoting a lot of ideas that have become common and mundane despite being radical at the time (e.g. workplace protections, minimum wage, food/drug regulation, social security, interracial marriage, lgbtq rights, etc...) whereas I can't think of a single concept introduced by "radical conservatives" or the far right that has become similarly woven into the social fabric. That's not because conservatism doesn't have good ideas - in fact, it's because conservatism is founded on one of the most singular and important ideas that could possibly exist in the political realm. To borrow the wording from the medical field, that idea is 'first do no harm. I would argue that any political commentary or policy coming from the right that is not rooted in this very foundational idea is in fact not conservative at all. So you're right, Smeagols, everyone is looking for a radical solution but the problem is that one side's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with radicalism. As a result, instead of radicalism what we get is a reactionary response and radical regressivism, which are very different things than traditional conservatism (which we could use a little more of these days). As an analogy, lets pretend that our government is actually just a pretty great recipe for chili. Different factions of progressives are going to spend a lot of time doing research and making the argument that our recipe for chili should have the ingredients apportioned differently. Some progressives think the recipe should have fewer beans, and some think it should have more cheese, and some of the more 'out there' progressives think we should forget about making chili at all and instead should shift gears toward tomato soup or a beef and bean stew. Given the opportunity to experiment, some of these progressive groups are going to make some damn tasty chili and some of them are going to go overboard and end up with a giant bowl of soggy onions or a big mound of melted cheese and chili powder that tastes awful and no longer resembles the serviceable chili we used to enjoy. Thus is the nature of progressivism: it will probably lead to some recipes that are arguably better than the status quo, but unchecked it's almost certainly going to lead to a lot of really terrible, inedible recipes too. Our conservative chili cooks, however, think we've got a pretty good chili recipe already, and they're right that a lot of the kitchen experiments proposed and attempted by progressive chili cooks will ultimately lead to worse outcomes. Many conservatives will even prefer the original chili recipe over a lot of the new recipes that progressives believe are superior to the original, though many will also come to appreciate the new recipes over time and will slowly come around to preferring it even (e.g. the "get your government hands off my medicare!" meme). Thus is the nature of conservatism: it's never going to win top prize at the chili cook off, but it's going to be much more consistent in flavor and quality relative to the progressive batches. Throughout the history of the US, we've had various proportions of conservative and progressive cooks in the kitchen all whipping up new variations of the American chili we've all been wolfing down for generations. At our best, the conservative cooks have put a stop to some of the worst of the progressive ideas so we don't end up with too many bowls of soggy onions and cheese mounds, and conservatives have also done a great job of then shaping some of the better progressive ideas into a dish that's more palatable to everyone. While this happens in reverse upon rare occasion too (e.g. Romney care morphing into the ACA), this sort of conservative moderation has truly been an essential function that has allowed our country to thrive for 245 years now. What does a radical conservative chili cook bring to the kitchen, however? When progressive cooks want to try more cheese in the blend, the traditional conservative chili cook may make the argument that the chili is pretty cheesy already and if we're going to add more cheese, then we should at least start out by adding just a very small amount of additional cheese and seeing how it goes. The radical conservative chili cook, however, responds to the progressive proposal by making the case that there should actually be 'less' cheese in the recipe, that the status quo is too cheesy already, and that maybe we should get rid of cheese from the recipe entirely. When the progressive cook makes the case that maybe less chili powder would yield better results, the radical conservative responds by making the case that more chili powder is needed, and maybe a lot more. To be fair, of course, the radical conservative may be "right" that less/no cheese and more chili powder will lead to a better recipe (or at least a recipe that radical conservatives will prefer), but the bottom line is that they are no longer adhering to the most fundamental element of conservatism when doing so. By becoming radical, by definition, they have become something other than conservative. That chili is no longer a safe bet. These are the uncharted waters we find ourselves in today. What happens when the right becomes equally if not more radicalized than the left? At the Grand Ole Tennessee Chili Cook-offs in the years to come, I think we're all going to be longing for a big old pot cooked up by the Bill Frists, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, and Bill Haslams of the world in the not-too-distant future. Their particular batches have always been a bit bland for my taste at least, but please sir, can I have some more.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear, Smeagols. I wasn't questioning your assessment of Nashville's economic situation, I was merely pointing out that it seemed you'd incorrectly identified your source as non-partisan. No big deal, of course, I just wanted to clarify. The main point I was trying to make was simply that your attempt to equate both sides of the political spectrum in your post this morning isn't particularly accurate or helpful, which is an issue I've raised with you before. If you'd like to put your statistical research skills to use, however, maybe you can prove me wrong by showing how the 20% from the extreme left and 20% from the extreme right are equally culpable for problems in this country or that each side's activism is equally problematic. I'd certainly be curious how you arrived at those figures in the first place, unless I misunderstood your point. I've said it before and I'll say it again, talking about politics in general is a waste of everyone's time and energy if we're not talking about the advantages and disadvantages of specific policies. I don't think we gain much ground by talking about what people or groups are good or bad in general, I want to hear about what ideas and policies you (or anyone) think are good and bad and why you think those are good or bad policies. To reiterate, if one group thinks we should be driving on the left side of the road, and their political opposition all think we should be driving down the right side of the road, are centrists wise for proposing that we should all be driving right down the middle? Seems to me that's just a lazy answer and the only practical solution it provides is to the person using it to dodge the question at hand.

This is not from a non-partisan group, unless you consider the TEA Party a non-partisan group... I suppose it's time for a regular reminder that putting the word Center in your name does not mean that one's positions are in the middle of the ideological spectrum. More importantly, the ideological center between a serial killer and a Buddhist pacifist would be occupied by someone who only kills other people on rare occasions. There are good ideas and bad ideas, but averaging them out together is not typically a very good or productive philosophy.

Haha. Too many words apparently, since that's not what I meant to say at all!

This is a really bad take from Betsy and Bob. Pressuring companies to avoid conducting business in (and relocating to) states that are attempting to regressively legislate the culture wars is a legitimate tactic, but it literally doesn't work if you try to do it to your own state from within. To spin an analogy, if you're getting chased by someone who wants to cause you harm, shooting your pursuer in the foot might be an effective way to improve your situation, but shooting yourself in the foot will not yield similar results. If there were a point where "we" would actively oppose growing the state's economic engine by preventing outside companies from moving in, then logically there would also have to be a point that "we" actively oppose growing the state's economic engine from the inside as well. Are we going to stop issuing business licenses locally, or shun all new restaurants and startups on moral grounds? In fact, on a microeconomic level, for each of us as individual Nashvillian and Tennesseans, our very presence here and any labor we conduct within state lines (including the economic output of Betsy and Bob) is furthering the state's economic engine as we speak. If this is the line of thinking, it seems to me that a proactive general strike would be more effective at capturing the attention of our fellow Tennesseans and the General Assembly we've elected than scaring off a would-be-relocation and missing out on bagging a corporation or two that were never guaranteed in the first place. It should also be noted that missing out on any given corporate relocation is a pretty mundane occurrence that doesn't tend to make too many waves since that same loss is experienced by 49 out of 50 other states for just about every major corporate move. Or is the idea that we're going to continue majorly wooing big corporate relocation prospects and stirring up excitement among the people (who mostly aren't paying attention anyway and many of whom oppose growth/relocations in the first place) only to then change our tune and shoo the Oracles of the world off just to hang the albatross around the GA's neck in a bid to generate resentment and therefore change- because it seems to me that strategy could only work once maybe twice at most, but more likely not at all. As I see it, anyone from Tennessee who would oppose the relocation of Oracle and the jobs that come with it for the reasons stated in the Scene article without also reducing or eliminating there own economic output within the state is simultaneously preventing the arrival of institutions, people, and money that can potentially help positively influence the state's cultural and legislative trajectory while also continuing to do their part on a personal level to keep the state's economic engine humming along and ensuring the maintenance of the status quo they are purportedly seeking to disrupt. Taking their logic one step further, the moral thing to do then would be to relocate their own personal labor and resulting economic output out of Tennessee altogether in protest of the legislature's regressive actions, but even this option is only available to those privileged enough to have the skills and resources necessary to pack up and leave - which of course would worsen the status quo for those whom the leavers want to protect and would be leaving behind. While their hearts may be in the right place, the better course of action for Betsy, Bob, and all of us is to welcome and encourage those people and entities interested in coming to Tennessee that we believe can help to make it better for everyone - in spite of the legislature. Better jobs and more people can lead to better education and more resources for the state as a whole, which has a much better chance for improving the quality of our state governing bodies than deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot.

Yeah, it suddenly felt like running a marathon in a hamster wheel. Good conversation though!

I think that's a fair point, in general, but your decision to insert yourself here and nip this topic of discussion in the bud today seems a bit inconsistent since you seemed to think it was relevant and worth your time literally 24 hours ago when you took it upon yourself to update the board regarding Delta, Southwest, and United's child mask-wearing policy. And to be clear, I'm not attempting to reference your mask post from yesterday as a gotcha moment to highlight some kind of perceived malevolent hypocrisy on your part or anything. We're all going to be a little off-topic from time-to-time, as you noted. In fact I happen to think that's a good thing as it allows for conversations to naturally evolve, but I also think (and your actions imply that you would agree) we should do a little self-policing on the topic drift so that the moderators don't have to constantly step up and play the role of babysitter when we stray too far from the core thread. That said, we probably shouldn't elevate the self-policing so far to such an extent that we're trying to constrain topics that we ourselves were happy to discuss just one day prior without at least giving it a second thought. If I'm excessively devouring the latest issue of Rolling Stone in the magazine aisle of Barnes & Noble, and I hear someone say "this isn't a library" - before I've even acknowledge the source of the comment, I'm going to immediately recoil and put the magazine back as the minor feelings of guilt start to seep in that someone had to take time out of their day to correct my behavior, even though nobody really got hurt through my infraction. If I close the magazine and put it back on the shelf only to then discover that it wan't actually an employee who made the library comment, however, but instead it was another customer who had been thoroughly perusing the magazines of their choice in that very same aisle not moments before, I'm still probably going to feel those guilt pangs, but the aftertaste is going to be very different, you know what I mean? And to be clear, this kind of inconsistency is something we're all guilty of for the most part too. It's human nature to indulge our own tangents and whims blindly while expecting others to hew more closely to the rules, and I can't count the number of times I've seen people on this board say "take it to the coffeehouse" for discussions they'd been readily discussing mere posts before. In fact, it's practically an epidemic. Speaking of epidemics...now I guess we're back on track.

Which part of my post are you referring to? Or are you referring to the posts before mine that cover mask mandates on kids/airplanes and WHO guidelines?

You're right of course that it's advantageous for developing kids to read the faces and emotions of their classmates. Similarly, it would also be advantageous for developing kids to read the faces and emotions of their teachers too. Do the teacher's at your kid's daycare wear masks? I'm curious, if your kid's teachers do wear masks, would you prefer they didn't in order to maximize child developmental opportunities? I think it's also worth noting that the WHO doesn't seem to actually dissuade against the using of masks on kids. It appears to me that a better framing of the WHO's position is that they are declining to recommend masks for kids under 5, and their decision is mostly based on the belief that it would be nearly impossible to keep the masks on the kids in a way that would be very effective, so there's little point in trying especially given the cost and PPE shortages in various parts of the world. For the WHO, the matter comes down to practical issues more than a theoretical ones, and the WHO explicitly defers to local guidelines because they can be more more specifically tailored to the needs of a given area than the WHO guidelines, which are designed to be considerably more broadly applicable. That said, as far as practical solutions go, for kids who don't have access to masks and/or are not accustomed to wearing them, there is no better practical solution than just keeping them off airplanes through the duration of the pandemic whenever it is at all possible.

The issue here isn't really about the source of the energy, it's about the regulations (or lack thereof) that protect and maintain those power plants. The wind turbines and solar cells were just as poorly winterized as the non-renewable power plants, and the only reason we're even talking about power generation sources in the first place is because some of the Texas leadership brought up the green new deal as a red herring to distract from their own contributions to the mess their state is in. For what it's worth, I agree with you about nuclear potential - but that just raises the stakes when it comes to the need for stronger and better run regulatory processes, especially with regard to extreme weather events. You also made a good point earlier in the thread that there's always going to be some degree of inherent risk that historic storms just nail us, which is true, but Texas is compounding that risk by running a grid independently from the rest of the states since geographic diversification of power facilities is one way to mitigate that risk. As with most things, there is a cost benefit tradeoff here, and there are certainly both costs and benefits associated with the way that Texas has managed it's power infrastructure. We will see if last week's blizzard inspires enough Texans to see about reevaluating and maybe revamping the cost benefit equation they're currently operating under, but change is hard and slow, and survivorship bias can be a major demotivating factor once the snow melts (or once the waters recede, as we have seen with our own flood wall).

Your raw numbers may be correct here in terms of annual averages, Dragonfly, but it seems you're neglecting to account for seasonality, which is obviously a big factor when it comes to renewable energy. During the winter season, Paul's number appears to be accurate that renewables like solar and wind are only expected to carry about 7% of the load from what I've read. And I'm sure your'e right that there has been a lot of taxpayer investment and subsidization of specialized transmission lines and other renewable energy infrastructure, but if you want to make that argument then you're going to have to compare the renewable infrastructure investments and subsidies against the investments and subsidies that have gone into non-renewable energy production. I'm not going to dive into that research here for you, but I'd be curious to see what you come up with - given that it's Texas, however, my strong suspicion is that it's not going to be supportive of the point you're trying to make. As I see it, the situation here is pretty cut and dried. Texas chooses to have very little oversight/regulation over energy providers. Instead of requiring energy production infrastructure to be winterized to some kind of minimum operational standard, they instead chose to rely on market forces to encourage that winterization. The idea is that any energy providers that could remain operational during an "extreme" weather event like last week would make so much money from spiking prices while their competitors sat on the sidelines that enough of them would take that carrot and independently choose to prepare themselves both in terms of winterization and the ability to ramp up production capacity and meet demand when needed. As last week made clear, however, those market incentives were obviously insufficient and did not have their intended result - in fact many of the companies that were actually able to continue distributing energy won't even see the fully realized benefits of those spiking prices because more than a few of their customers will likely end up filing for bankruptcy as a result of being unable to pay a 5 to 6 figure power bill that they weren't prepared for. Perhaps the market smartly/accurately factored in those kinds of collections issue to the equation, which could have been in part responsible for what led to the current mess, but that just serves to reinforce the premise that market forces alone and a laissez fair approach to regulation is probably not ideal for something as essential as the power supply.

Biden said: "there’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months." Your paraphrase left out the part in bold, which seems pretty crucial to the meaning of the sentence to me, so I thought it might be helpful to get that on the record here for anyone else who may be interested.

Special flights....to a motorcycle rally?

Harrahs opened in New Orleans back in 1999. I'm not sure if there are other civic or natural restrictions in place that have kept New Orleans from becoming more Vegas-like, but from my perspective the gambling has in no way overshadowed the city's bourbon street/mardi gras/gritty/creole vibes in terms of their tourist positioning. If Tennessee legalized gambling, we might just discover that Memphis and Beale Street are more interested in and better positioned than Nashville to really go after the 'vegas-of-the-south market' - especially if some of the existing businesses in Tunica are able to take advantage of the head start they've got 50 miles down the road. What would be most interesting to me is if Tennessee legalized gambling only on functioning riverboats (no platforms a la Tunica). The riverboat fleet would provide an interesting infrastructure connection between opry mills and downtown, the extra boat traffic and land value would certainly expedite the departure of PSC, and I think real riverboat gambling (as opposed to Vegas' warehouse-sized casino floors full of slot machines) would have a certain dinner-theater/Dollywoodesque charm that could be a nice complement to the Nashville brand as it currently exists.

Thanks Mark! Just to clarify - the list is alphabetized, so it's not a ranking. "Nas" just happens to fall in the 27th position, but there's only like 15 or so cities on the list and we're in pretty good company.

Your point would be fair if Samson were talking about general 'economic impact' estimates that could be loosely linked to the MCC, but I believe he's talking about actual hotel tax receipts that are directly attributable as MCC non-operational revenue. At risk of overstating the obvious, when operational and non-operational revenue are accounted for, if there are no losses then there would be no losses to either socialize or privatize. There are, however, direct earnings in excess of expenditures on our local government's balance sheet as a result, which is what Samson is referring to when he says they're socializing the profits. As the captain said, it seems what we'e got here is a failure to communicate. No harm done either way, of course, and I think most of us are opposed to arrangements where profits are privatized while losses are socialized, which happens all too often.

It seems to me that you've got it backwards. If you want Nashville to be/remain a place where Politics. Is. Not. Everything. then you might be a little more wary about recent transplants like Tami and Ben for whom Politics. Is. Literally. Everything - from their public identities to their income. And this same principle would apply to the left as well. I'm much more sympathetic to the arguments of the dirtbag left than I am to those of the alt-right (to say the least) but I wouldn't be especially pumped if Chapo Trap House decided to relocate it's broadcast to Nashville, and I certainly wouldn't expect their presence here to have a de-politicizing effect on our city. That wouldn't make any sense. Also, I too want everyone (regardless of politics) who comes to visit Nashville to have a great time and leave with a positive impression, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the relocation of a purely political operation. And to be clear, aside from disagreeing with him about almost everything, I actually think that Shapiro is on the smarter and more reasonable end of the new-right-wing-media-figure spectrum. Hell, he makes Lou Dobbs look like a regular Judge Jeanine if you know what I mean - that's what makes it so funny when he walks right into a ridiculous argument as in the tweet I posted above. But it seems to me that having a political operation like the Daily Wire become linked with Nashville's brand is unlikely to help keep Nashville the kind of place where Politics. Is. Not. Everything. Just the opposite seems the far more likely result. All that said, our state just signed onto an amicus brief trying to get the Supreme Court to toss out 4 whole states worth of votes - which I am confident is taking the crazy train at least a whistle stop or two further than even Mr. Shapiro would be comfortable with, so maybe you're right and he can actually be a moderating influence around the statehouse when he gets to town. Fingers crossed.

Same.

I have never seen these contracts and have no idea about the nature of the rights that Ward is claiming here... That said, the fact that he's anchoring his argument on the idea that the Sounds have helped spur development makes me think that it's not as cut and dried as he'd like us to believe. Further, in my experience, people who claim they 'should' or 'would' have a seat at a table where no seat for them currently exists - typically don't actually have a seat at the table. Also, Ward's 'leg up' quote gives the posturing game away, in my opinion, as well. Ward claims he's got leverage, but does he actually think that he's going to put together a rival investment group to compete with the current group that's out there making waves, or is he just hoping to pressure them to carve off a little slice of equity for him to avoid the hassle? My suspicion is the latter. And to piggyback on Mark's point, there's also the very practical issue that publicly attempting to stop an MLB expansion/relocation is unlikely to be viewed favorably by local baseball fans, the most hardcore of which make up a significant portion of the Sounds fanbase. That's not going to be good for business. This all reads to me like a plea for the Stars to just give him something/anything to go away quietly when the time comes.

Well if this is the last thing we're going to say on the matter in this thread then I better take the opportunity to tell you what I really think about you, Titanhog... To be honest, I think you're probably a really nice lady who has some good political ideas and some bad ones. But even for the ideas you're holding onto that I happen to think are wrong, I don't attribute any malevolence to you for holding those opinions, I just think you've latched onto some bad information at some point along the way - which I then try to address. In terms of one of your good ideas, it seems you've got a pretty clear-headed view about who Trump is, but if we're being fair I think that's a pretty low bar to clear. If you really wanted to prove your non-partisan analytical credentials, it would seem that the next question you'd have to ask yourself would be 'why does Trump have the greatest proportion of support within the Republican party of any Republican president in history'? You seem to be projecting some imagined free pass that you think I'm giving to Democrats while seemingly ignoring the uncomfortable truths about the state of your own party that you're glossing over in order to avoid. It also kind of sounds like you voted for Trump despite thinking he's terrible, which is sort of definitionally putting party before country - though I'd love for you to tell me I'm wrong about that so at the very least my view of you could incorporate that redemptive light. And to be clear, I've never tried to pretend that "my side isn't guilty" - in fact, my whole argument has been that both sides are not equally to blame, which is a premise that implicitly concedes that both sides are at least in part to blame. The issue is degree of blame and how it is apportioned, and while the simplest answer is to blame both sides equally, that is actually almost never the truth - and yes, there are many issues on which the Democratic Party has been more in the wrong, but given that we were talking about Covid-19 it seemed incumbent to me to remind everyone that on this particular issue, the Republican party and it's leader shoulder the majority of the blame. If you disagree with that position and want to rebut it, I'm open to hearing you out and even changing my mind if you can put together a compelling case, but I would ask that you include some specific details about what the democrats did that you think worse than the Trump administration's response instead of supporting your point with generalities like your ill-defined 'dangerous rhetoric.' As you've said before "...if you can not see the fault in your party's own behavior, you are being nothing but a partisan." Truer words never spoken, Titanhog. You mention the Russia hoax, but neglect to note that it got 7 or 8 convictions and actually even paid for itself through the seizure of illegal assets. I think those are the facts anyway, but please look it up and tell me if I'm wrong - and while you're at it, go ahead and look up how many criminal convictions resulted from the Whitewater investigations or Benghazi, or Fast and Furious, or Watergate, or Iran Contra so we're on the same page. Maybe we could both learn something. See you in the politics thread if you want to discuss any of this further - I've got a laundry list of grievances with the Democratic party that I could hammer away on if that would make you feel better. It just so happens that my list of grievances with the modern Republican party is bigger in size and scope (or in other words, my party grievance lists are not equal...for a little call back to my original thesis in the summary here), and I'm always happy to do my best to explain why.

It's a little sad to me that you can absolve the stupidity of Trump (The President of the United States) with a flippant throw-away line about how he makes 'stupid remarks' all along. The fact that this is taken as a given even by a Trump supporter is a pretty strong testament about the unfortunate state of affairs in this country. It makes me even a little sadder that after glossing over Trump's stupidity, you then go on to state that the the remarks made by the Democrats are 'dangerous.' I truly don't believe you could possibly think that Biden saying that we should 'listen to scientists over Trump' is dangerous, especially relative to Trump saying that Covid is just like the flu, or that we have it under control, or making fun of Biden for wearing a mask, etc. This is a false equivalence on your part to the nth degree and it makes it seem like you're not putting forth an argument in good faith. Also, I'm not sure what your purpose is in diverting blame to the CDC - it's a federal agency run by a Trump appointee, so if they're putting out bad information then that buck would seem to stop with the administration, as well. But all that said, I'm pumped that the vaccine development has gone faster than the experts predicted that it would. It turns out that Trump was relatively close to being right on this one, and that is truly great news. The sad part is, that with access to the best information, intelligence, analysts, and experts all over the world - the fact that Trump wasn't actually saying something stupid for a change (as you've acknowledged is the norm) when he made his predictions about the vaccine development timeline and was in fact right shouldn't be a surprise at all. In fact, it should be expected, yet here we are. This is the plight of the boy who cried 'my inauguration crowd was the biggest in history' and never let his foot up of the gas when it comes to playing fast and loose with the truth, and we have all suffered for it.