When not in real life, I spend my time here.
followed tags: 11
followed domains: 3
badges given: 56 of 94
member for: 2046 days
And let's not forget that this example and mine both fall under the auspices of the EPA, an organization that was created by Richard Nixon (and later bolstered by Reagan and Bush I). Oh for the days when environmental protection wasn't a partisan issue.
- Can you cite an example of regulation done well that I could look into?
Well the Cuyahoga River hasn't set on fire in some years.
Irrational exuberance plus trading pools always leads to silliness. Add in the extra component of individuals who control enough to move the price on their own and a completely unregulated market and you've got yourself a stew going.
FWIW, NYT disagrees with me about the likelihood of an IRS leak: https://nyti.ms/2m6S3sL
I'd like to remind everyone also that "The American people deserve to know if their president is a crook, and I am not a crook" was spoken not about Watergate, but about the president's tax returns, which he declined to make public, tax returns which basically impugned Nixon as a crook. It was exactly that that led to the tradition in all major candidates releasing their returns. Romney prevaricated a bit, but not because he was a crook ,but because he was unsure how people would react to finding out that his "income" was a "pittance", and his real money was barely taxed. Truth is a hard thing to hide when everyone is looking. Someone is going to leak Trump's taxes. I'll admit I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, but it will. That's the only prediction I'm willing to make about this administrator anymore (because I've been wrong a lot).
The title of this piece in confounding, to use an understatement. Talk about burying the lead. It's as if they don't want people to read it. It's not a literary or rhetorical exercise; it's an expose of the fucking President doing illegal business with one of our biggest adversaries. I read it at lunch today, and my lunch break turned a lot longer than I originally had anticipated.
My guess is that this whole stunt is a way for Paul Ryan to not really have to repeal the ACA. The entire republican machine since 2009 has been defined by the idea that national health is un-American and anti-freedom. To replace the ACA with anything is to concede that it isn't, and to repeal it without replacement is to solidify your party's place as the minority party for many years. They can't win. So Ryan figured out that he just has to propose a law that is repugnant enough to all of his members who love freedom that they will never vote for it. That way, he can say he tried, but that the political will just isn't there. If we learned anything in the 2016 election it's that Paul Ryan will do literally anything he thinks is politically expedient, without regard for or second thought of his own professed ideology. (Except maybe I'm wrong. Maybe his confessed ideology is that he has no other allegiance than to himself--isn't that the whole point of 'objectivism' to being with? In that case, this and his behavior last year would be in perfect lock goose step with his creedo.)
I wonder how long it takes before Wikileaks is designated as an enemy combatant. Can't say it would bother me.
- I'm just more terrified of other drivers.
Yeah that's the problem. We all are. None of us is aware of the limits of our own attention span. I use my podcast app while driving, and I answer phone calls, but I don't answer texts. I'll admit to reading them at red lights, but I don't really think that's a good idea either. There have been times when I'm reading a text and see a green light out of the corner of my eye, so I step on the gas only to realize it was the left turn arrow.
I would say on my daily drive to work, which is 17 miles each way, I see at least 1 bonehead move by some asshole looking at a phone. I'm actually surprised the rate of accidents isn't higher.
To Brooks' point, there's a big difference, apparently, between conservative and Conservative, between republican and Republican. I wonder what the opposite might look like from the left. That is, could a modern Leftist demagogue arise to oppose Trump, a person who doesn't embody inclusion and government intervention so much, but perhaps weaponized identity politics and socialism? As much as I didn't agree with Sanders' economic agenda, I voted for him in MI's primary because he at least believes that justice means economic/financial justice, and that most other problems derive from that starting point. Trump is a demagogue of a sort that we haven't seen in our lifetimes, and we're finding that no amount of supposed 'ideas' from the Paul Ryan set are as important as the 'R' by his name. I really hope that the democrats have the fortitude to resist this kind of politics and not fall into the fight-fire-with-fire sort of game.