I then I stand corrected. He had no say in that, huh? At any rate, as I said, the whole confrontational headline isn't the issue as his solution was very different than the adminsitration's on substance. If he wasn't allowed to overrule that headline or have any say in it, then he certainly isn't guilty of rhetorical bombast, and in this case, he is getting flack for words that were not approved by him. Although I think it is totally insane that papers run editorials by authors word for word, except the title itself. I had no idea that was common, -really stupid in fact. Guess every publication need their own version of link bait. This is, after all, a business, isn't it?
I only know that because they had a story about the editorial in another newspaper recently and they pointed that out. But you're right that a rose by any other name still smells as, well, terrible in this case. Private capital was as good as dead at that time. Ford did themselves a service by hedging a year or two previous. Bush and Obama did what they had to do for GM and Chrysler. Anyway its not as if precedent doesn't exist. Bush bailed out the airlines after 9/11, and that was the right choice there, too edit: sorry tons of typos on draft one of this post. Its really hard to type on a phone while flying through heavy turbulence. Thank god for autocorrect.
You should complain to the stewardess, "look, I don't mind a little turbulence, but its really fucking with my ability to comment on Hubski". You flying Delta? Have a ginger cookie for me. LOVE those things.
That's what Xanax was invented for -they go particularly well with alcohol. Good luck pal.
Sorry you had a bad flight, I don't get "scared" either but Xanax can be fun ;) Never really tried it much but I have a buddy that swears by it for flying purposes. Sleep, wake up and you're there.