But she can't introduce bills in the same way.

It's one thing to be critical of this piece. It's another to then be outraged at the wrong things.

She can't directly affect any of those things, so that's irrelevant. My question is why she's focusing on this as a trans issue, or why outlets are, when this has been happening for as long as married women have been changing their name, and other people have decided for different names for other reasons, for a long, long time. I'd say thousands of years, but it depends where, and credit bureaus have only been around so long.

People have been changing their names for a long time. Why is this specifically a trans issue and not a reform on credit companies, barring the obvious - she can’t reform them at her station. Still, I’d imagine this affects anyone who’s changed their name.

It would be the latter, but it doesn't make sense, since you took the time to respond.

I understand there's a news effect, where if you hear news of, say, a suicide, suicide rates go up. Same thing happens, horrifically, with school shootings.

But is it literally everything? Trains just derail now? Or have they always derailed like this and we just haven't gotten reports?

Because they're juggling a few things that don't work together. Dense housing is a neat idea for a static environment, but New York is dense. New York is still expensive. Building densely doesn't compare to building intelligently, and right now, companies want to be in Boston. Instead of making companies go to other locations, they're making towns build up like they're Boston, only at break-neck speeds.

Don't just say "yup" to go along with things lmao

What's that "solid evidence" no article has ever listed? And if it's from Jim Crow, why don't other parts of the country even know the term? I asked a girl for jimmies in the South and she was amazingly confused.

No, and this comes up so much that I wonder if people like you are just saying that to stir conversation. You can Google it.

There was one in JP, but it just shut down 25 years ago.

Drivers who know it won’t be enforced would love to have a lane to themselves.

Maybe he was on thesaurus.com.

We can't possibly act as soothsayers for which judge you'd get.

And executive appointments, being undemocratic in practice, can still be made to be democratic by aligning with the interests of everyone. That's the idea. The governor isn't given carte blanche by the people to then hire anyone uncritically.

>What I'm saying is that if people from western regions are asking for more representation, and want to advocate for their regions, that's great, but it can also be a curse

I know what you're saying. I'm saying it's horrendous that people with a representative government are being told to be cautious about asking for representation.

It's not a popularity contest or student council lmao. It's representative government, and we're talking about an office that represents more than just Boston.

Boston's status as a regional hub is neat for people riding the wave, but fewer are as time goes on. Because Boston is one location with a near monopoly on everything, it means other areas aren't flourishing, and that's bad for everyone.

So fund psychiatric help for people lmao. Why not just order houses to stop burning down to save money on fire departments?

Not the same thing. Teachers will still have to work a day of the year regardless. It's just tacked onto June, instead, where students will be expected to show up anyway. Doesn't work like that in medicine.

Why shouldn't the public fund pensions?

And even the creator of the 401k regrets what it did to the system.

>Ideally

So pretty much the idea for everyone in the area, including those who are getting priced out by transplants who want to buy their way in? At this point, people need to post what they don't want that everyone else typically does.

Democracy.

I'm standing by for upcoming transmission.

Good correction to whom though. Big fan of people who get it.

You're rationalizing. It's a photo of someone just going about, with a dog that someone may even recognize. Maybe they're on here. We can't readily identify the person but that's a rule of thumb for the media, not posters online. Most people wouldn't like this.

>a dude who wears shorts and a hoodie in cold weather and/or snow, which there are a lot of in this state.

Right, but then it's not remarkable, which is also something to consider. Post yourself, not people doing nothing wrong.

Some guy is just out for a walk with a dog, and now his photo is posted online, because you're new to the area and don't know how to handle the cold?

States have been reduced to entities that cater to consumers. The speed at which things have changed isn't manageable. It's why so many nations haven't even figured it out, let alone states that have less power.

Boston is too important to the state and the region. That's not good. You see the same sorts of things with monopolies, and Boston is a monopoly. People are leaving MA for a lot of reasons, but an MA where people don't leave isn't necessarily one where people come to. The region is too crowded. Sorry, but it is. Housing is too spread out and car-dependent. The area has changed even since I was a kid and I was a kid not too long ago. There's no direction other than up for some people.

We need more housing, we need more people, we need more more more. That's not going to work even if everyone's onboard. MA is trying to manage a neoliberal society that's "post" production (really just moved abroad), but these kinds of jobs that follow are weak and ephemeral. How can you build up anywhere when a decade could spell disaster for a whole industry - and when other recessions loom?

MA is no different from so many other places. It's just trying to always play with big dogs, and it's tiresome.

I'm from here, so it's different. Why do people move here, though? Opportunity. They move elsewhere as a secondary option. That means we're constantly trying to keep up with other trends just to say attractive, but attractive to whom? Things were way different decades back, but the economy was totally different too. Are we supposed to want more people here? We can't handle them. Are we supposed to want fewer?

Ideally, the state would make sure that the region were condensed in some parts and that industry were spread out. People should be asking "Boston, Worcester, or Springfield" at a minimum. They don't. It sucks. This is why we have people scrambling for the same things, so that when they can't live in Boston, they often jump states - not even regions within MA.