While more work than I would be interested in doing, I would think with existing online presence of newspapers, as well as national paper local coverage sections and online local news one could directly verify the claim of reduced coverage.

I do agree that over influence by national party line positions will push towards more polarization - and I would suggest poorer outcomes and policies locally. I've wondered why States don't view out of state campaign funding in the same way the USA considered out of country (foreign) contributions given the diversity or subculture and economies within the 50 States. And while I suspect a lot of funding probably comes from the parties I would suspect a large amount also just comes from outside interests that operate more at the national level than locally and will likely support candidates on either side that will provide support for those outside interests regardless of overall Party position.

It does seem that we're standing the old claim of all politics being local on its head in the 21st Century with the dominance of national party and its ability to control the local agenda and candidates. (This is more hypothesis than something I've establish for myself but certainly seems to fit the narrative about the current Republican party and some older grumbling from both parties in the past)

While I'm not surprised with the findings. From a quick search:

The Pentagon features over 30 distinct food service locations, including more than 20-24 various restaurants, fast-food chains, and cafes catering to its 23,000+ employees. The facility includes three main food courts—most notably the 875-seat Concourse Food Court—along with numerous individual kiosks, branded vendors (e.g., Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, Popeyes), and the Center Court Café.

When asking specifically about delivery:

Food orders can be delivered to the Pentagon, but not directly to offices; they must be screened at a remote facility or picked up by personnel at designated secure areas like the Pentagon Metro. Perishable items are generally prohibited from being delivered directly to the building, but staff frequently order from local spots during long shifts. 

Key details regarding food deliveries to the Pentagon:

• Delivery Procedures: All items must go through the Pentagon Remote Delivery Facility, where they are screened and inspected.
• Pickup Location: Employees often meet delivery drivers at secure, accessible points outside the main building, such as the Metro.
• Internal Options: The Pentagon contains its own food court with options like McDonald's, Five Guys, Starbucks, and Subway, which are accessible to employees.
• "Pentagon Pizza Theory": Sudden surges in local, late-night pizza orders to the Pentagon have historically been noted as a potential, unofficial indicator of increased, high-stakes military activity.

But you do have the mention of the theory you're debunking. 

Seems like outside delivery is really complicated and time consuming (though I don't know if the internal food halls can deliver to office door but seem like it might still be much quicker than leaving the building to meet the delivery person). Plus, a lot more than pizza can be delivered these days (but perhaps the "Pizza" in the name should not be taken literally).

As a side note, years pass when I working in the Intelligence field, when I first started reading some of the CIA's classified documents and studies I was surprised by just how much of the source information was from general, publicly available and unclassified information. 

I heard similar story to that of the Alchian story many years back. Ph.D. candidates dissertation was about the risks to the power grid (for get if it was just electric or if other distribution networks were considered) which pointed out a number of ways an adversary could disrupt and disable the gird. If got published as is usual and then got noticed, classified and perhaps is no longer even searchable in the dissertation archives (if so it's highly redacted I suspect).

I would lump such cases into the bucket of info hazards.

Source: I made it up! 

LOL -- HSI hallucinations? 

No worries, we all make some mistakes with our assumptions at times and forget to double check every fact. I think it was a minor, and largely trivial error to the larger point. i just wasn't sure and did a quick google check (so had Gemini answering, but I've seen it hallucinate enough to not take it as certian) but that can easily miss some finer points.

I think it is very easy to read into a post like this and essentially fall into the very behavior you're ascribing to the author. Regardless of the OP's view, the post is not naming names but is very topical. It's worth considering.

But I do agree that whoever is getting told their actions are unconstitutional will typically see that as an attack if they truly believe they are doing something within their powers. But I also suspect any that refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling never cared about the Constitution or the checks and balances that were implemented in the Constitution. It's simply a case of someone refusing to accept they are not a good judge of their own case which is pretty much at the heart of any rule of law society.

Generally I do agree but given the current Secretary and some of the appointees I would question how strong that "magic" might be. Do you think some Generals or Armies/Divisions would rise up to oppose some core units that are aligned with such a President/Administration? At what point might they do that -- the first case of S.C ruling something unconstitutional but the President continues? Or is it more likely they stay in their place and we just keep sliding down the slippery slope?

Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall's Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.

Separately, I do wonder if we're speculating about cases that might be labeled in the gray area of the incomplete contract (Constitution), I wonder what might happen if States claim their right to call out their National Guard and perhaps even the more general malitia (interesting if that could be State draft or purely voluntary -- i.e., giving military arms to able bodied men), President calls out military, and then Congress tell all the military their pay is frozen -- meaning not only DoD and it's branches but the service men and any contractors -- what might happen.

If Treasury just says go ef' yourself Congress and cuts the checks not much hope. But what if the banking system refused to honor them given the S.C and Congress's rulings?

Seems like at this point we're talking about some serious brinkmanship, and to be honest I would really prefer not to live in such times (like many actually get a choice here) given the potential for escalation to all out civil war. But I do wonder if perhaps the bigger checks here might not be the informal checks and balances. It seems that perhaps in the scenario envisions (as I understand it -- a serious breakdown in government processes and checks-balance among the branches) even applying any presumably defined law or division of power is very problematic -- which is a bit different from saying the other branches should not try.

But I would also think (as seems true today) you simply don't get to the situation suggested without the government processes and functions related to checks and balances already having deteriorated to the point of disfunction -- which I would suggest is the case and has been developing for many years -- 50? 100?  We've seen a lot of political structure innovation that is not quite consistent with the Constitution (Congressional delegation of powers, partnership among the branches for efficiency reasons, party domination that serves to eliminate the assumed checks and balances...).

I don't quite like the framing "Don't Exist". I suspect a lot will depend on the specific context you need to use the term and the point one wants to make. Should I make a blanket statement "Murder Does Not Exists" simply because across cultures and national laws there is not 100% agreement on what defines a killing as murder or not murder? What about many of the technical standards that end up producing incompatible implementations that break interoperability? Are there really no standards?

I am probably more sympathetic to the last claim that to the one about murder or treaties.

I'm not sure there is the trap you claim. I do agree that enforcement, which does mean applying some level of force or power in some cases, is needed. Property rights, or any rights generally, don't just get respect and adherence from all. It's complicated but I do think one might suggest property rights emerging as preferred to just relying brute force and power as the determinant. Both Demsetz and Olson have some good work that suggests property rights and respect of property rights arises as much (more?) from desire and incentives to escape from the conflict and application of force/projection of power. 

How well human history and social/cultural evolution might apply to any ASI futures is a big unknown, but for that very reason I tend to think projecting ASI behavior from human history and experience might itself be a bit problematic.

I had a bit of the same reaction (logic being many loose their jobs, income craters, good demand craters, corp earning crater stock price higher????). But I kind of see it from a I don't have a good handle on AI and equity market levels in the future so maybe stick to a strategy that historically makes sense.

I would only add some slight shifts to the suggestion. While it is also an open question for the average investor as to buy-hold versus timing the market works well, I do think most here can think though well enough to consider timing for the option allocation. Simple mean-reversion type entry points might increase the odd tempered by where one things the overall market is in the cycle.

I wonder if situations like the Cuban missile crisis are good examples for your position. But then I also wonder if that (I think apparently worried but calm about the world ending in a nuclear conflict) isn't contrasted by the claims about the mass hysteria after the radio broadcast of Well's War of the Worlds.