We should probably do an above-the-fold post on yesterday NYT op-ed. It was startling. I understand where they're coming from -- using the 25th Amendment to remove a President with 40% support would cause riots. But the op-ed is only going to make thing worse.
I had a post on the Right-Thinking site about why I dislike the historical ratings of Presidents. The main reason is that historians tend to rate more by politics and interest than by quality. So Coolidge -- a good President who mainly just kep the country going -- is low ranked. Jackson -- who defied the Supreme Court to murder thousands of native Americans and cause a massive economic crisis - is rated top ten. Segregationist and authoritarian Wilson is rated above corrupt but competent Harding. It's full of that sort of garbage.
Hoover wasn't good but, as you note, was blamed for a lot of things beyond his control.
Your point is based on a false premise: that switching to an NHS-like would magically undo the cost growth of the last 40 years. The cost of the US healthcare system right now is baked in. That's where you start. Even the most optimistic economist thinks the most you could do is slow down the growth in spending.
And the cost will go up because you are suddenly insuring people whose healthcare spending is currently very low because they have no insurance. You're also expanding it to people with pre-existing conditions, the most expensive part of the insurance pool.
For all the talk of how Obamcare was going to "bend the cost curve", it didn't. Individual insurance rates soared and healthcare spending grew at the same pace it has for the last two decades.
Very true. A lot of our political discourse seems to have descended into people flinging insults for things that they do in a different context. So protesting ICE is "virtue-signaling" but standing up for the anthem isn't. Liberals are "snowflakes" are getting upset about racism, but conservatives are stalwarts for getting upset about kneeling NFL players.
I'll agree that if "virtue signaling" is paired with political pressure toward a specific, achievable goal, that's good. It's why I hesitate to use the term, because it is often abused to just write off "political actions/beliefs I don't like" as meaningless.
Good points. As I said in the post, I'm not against trying to get people to use less plastic. Maybe it will spur the kind of innovation that "trickles down" to other countries and allows them to reign in their plastic consumption.
I've generally been opposed to making changes in the Court but it's gotten so out of hand, I've moved to a neutral position. That, and the Court tenures have gotten ridiculously long. We should have the occasional justice who practiced law since I was born.
The right proposal could sway me. The problem is that this discussion is entirely academic. You'd have to amend the Constitution and neither side wants to give up what they see as a tool to bash the other side.
No, that means you have 15 years to negotiate a new treaty. The START I treaty with Russia had an expiration date too. By the time it ran out, we had New START almost in place.
These are very good points. One of my concerns on our foreign policy is that we seem to be taking sides in a growing Shia-Sunni Cold War. This is one of the reasons why rapprochement with Iran would serve us well.
This didn't fit into the theme of the post but my general feeling of the Iran situation is that a nuclear Iran is inevitable. They are going to look at what has happened in Iraq, Libya and North Korea and conclude, not unreasonably, that they need nukes to survive. I reluctantly supported the Iran Deal because, while it had its issues, it delayed that day at least a few years. The longer we can delay a nuclear Iran, the more likely we are to see a reformed and less dangerous Iran.
Anytime I think of the coal industry, I think of Claire Berlinski's Thatcher biography. She visited a lot of coal towns that were ruined when Thatcher quit propping up a dying industry. And her response was "good riddance". It's a filthy industry that produces one of the dirtiest fuels in existence and takes young men underground to break them.
The failure (in the UK and here) is that we didn't do anything to help those towns once coal started dying. We still aren't.
On “14 Reasons Why”
We should probably do an above-the-fold post on yesterday NYT op-ed. It was startling. I understand where they're coming from -- using the 25th Amendment to remove a President with 40% support would cause riots. But the op-ed is only going to make thing worse.
"
Literal LOL
"
I had a post on the Right-Thinking site about why I dislike the historical ratings of Presidents. The main reason is that historians tend to rate more by politics and interest than by quality. So Coolidge -- a good President who mainly just kep the country going -- is low ranked. Jackson -- who defied the Supreme Court to murder thousands of native Americans and cause a massive economic crisis - is rated top ten. Segregationist and authoritarian Wilson is rated above corrupt but competent Harding. It's full of that sort of garbage.
Hoover wasn't good but, as you note, was blamed for a lot of things beyond his control.
On “Has Universal Healthcare Really Come to California?”
Your point is based on a false premise: that switching to an NHS-like would magically undo the cost growth of the last 40 years. The cost of the US healthcare system right now is baked in. That's where you start. Even the most optimistic economist thinks the most you could do is slow down the growth in spending.
And the cost will go up because you are suddenly insuring people whose healthcare spending is currently very low because they have no insurance. You're also expanding it to people with pre-existing conditions, the most expensive part of the insurance pool.
For all the talk of how Obamcare was going to "bend the cost curve", it didn't. Individual insurance rates soared and healthcare spending grew at the same pace it has for the last two decades.
No, it can get much more expensive. And it will.
On “Straw Dogs”
Very true. A lot of our political discourse seems to have descended into people flinging insults for things that they do in a different context. So protesting ICE is "virtue-signaling" but standing up for the anthem isn't. Liberals are "snowflakes" are getting upset about racism, but conservatives are stalwarts for getting upset about kneeling NFL players.
"
This is where I disagree. Because, based on past campaigns at awareness raising, the response is more like, "Oh, I guess the problem is solved then."
"
I'll agree that if "virtue signaling" is paired with political pressure toward a specific, achievable goal, that's good. It's why I hesitate to use the term, because it is often abused to just write off "political actions/beliefs I don't like" as meaningless.
"
Good points. As I said in the post, I'm not against trying to get people to use less plastic. Maybe it will spur the kind of innovation that "trickles down" to other countries and allows them to reign in their plastic consumption.
On “The Judicial Depoliticitization Amendment”
I've generally been opposed to making changes in the Court but it's gotten so out of hand, I've moved to a neutral position. That, and the Court tenures have gotten ridiculously long. We should have the occasional justice who practiced law since I was born.
The right proposal could sway me. The problem is that this discussion is entirely academic. You'd have to amend the Constitution and neither side wants to give up what they see as a tool to bash the other side.
On “Iran, Iraq and Path Dependence”
No, that means you have 15 years to negotiate a new treaty. The START I treaty with Russia had an expiration date too. By the time it ran out, we had New START almost in place.
"
These are very good points. One of my concerns on our foreign policy is that we seem to be taking sides in a growing Shia-Sunni Cold War. This is one of the reasons why rapprochement with Iran would serve us well.
"
This didn't fit into the theme of the post but my general feeling of the Iran situation is that a nuclear Iran is inevitable. They are going to look at what has happened in Iraq, Libya and North Korea and conclude, not unreasonably, that they need nukes to survive. I reluctantly supported the Iran Deal because, while it had its issues, it delayed that day at least a few years. The longer we can delay a nuclear Iran, the more likely we are to see a reformed and less dangerous Iran.
On “King Coal: West Virginia’s Abusive Love”
Anytime I think of the coal industry, I think of Claire Berlinski's Thatcher biography. She visited a lot of coal towns that were ruined when Thatcher quit propping up a dying industry. And her response was "good riddance". It's a filthy industry that produces one of the dirtiest fuels in existence and takes young men underground to break them.
The failure (in the UK and here) is that we didn't do anything to help those towns once coal started dying. We still aren't.