If the Israeli state apparatus warned Bibi and have the receipts he's going to have a mighty hard time getting away with this. It's the biggest failure of Israeli intelligence since, what, Yom Kippur?
I agree with your analysis, welcome to the Democratic Party, Dark. Your voiced opinions won't qualify you for the open borders crowd because "assimilation is oppression" but there's an open chair next to AoC.
I've never claimed xenophobia regarding this- that's more the open borders crowds language though, I'll grant, Trump and the Magats make it -really- easy for xenophobia charges to stick to immigration restrictionists.
I think you have half a point with Unions but the economics allegations on immigration depressing wages or draining social services used by the poor both strike me as ranging from economically dubious to flat out false.
But these aren't tourists, they're immigrants who want to, ya know, go places and live. Sure the Vineyards could have them sitting around there doing nothing, but the immigrants didn't want to do that so they were briefly housed there and then moved on to the places they actually wanted to go with the assistance of the authorities. I guarantee you not a single Vineyard resident went populist over that.
Sure and, as Dark noted in his useful NYT link, Bidens administration is also obeying the law and building barriers that he's required, lawfully, to build and has gamely tried to humanely discourage illegal immigration. There's plenty of examples for anyone to pick from.
That said, I'm quite content being on the side that's trying to remove barriers intended to shred living people alive when they try and cross the border. Especially when said barriers are performative and inhumane rather than effective or even remotely ethical.
The Vineyard stuff is just incoherent. Were they supposed to set up a camp on a lawn there and force the folks to stay and work as, what, barristas or something? During the off season when everyone has left? It's a little tony summer enclave- that's why they got shipped there in the first place. If DeSantis had bussed them to Aspen in the Summer should they have been forced to stay on the grassy skii slopes with barbed wire?
If AoC even did that it'd make her enormously different than Trump who lacks both the wit, the capability and the inclination to follow instruction even for his own good.
What you are complaining about is that the Democratic Party can't conjure the political equivalent of anti-gravity. and that, accordingly, strikes me as unfair.
To enforce current immigration law to the letter would require resources that current law does not allocate to enforcement. It is paradoxical.
To expend political capital on trying to address the law without cooperation with the GOP would, quite literally, be lose/lose in that it'd send the open borders crowd to their fainting couches while being mischaracterized and lied about by the right all while not accomplishing anything and thus not helping on any level.
And the Martha's Vineyard example remains entirely a canard. The immigrants that were shipped there were treated humanely and helped to go where they actually were trying to go. I guarantee you not a single one of them set out to get to Martha's fishin Vineyard when they left their homes, let alone when they were lured onto those busses.
Hmm? Surprised or disappointed in what, the Dems practical position vis a vis immigration? I would probably describe my own attitude as more resigned.
I can't even say the party's position is wrong. Immigration strikes me as something that'd need a bipartisan deal to resolve and the right desperately doesn't want to solve it (the elites because they like the status quos and the populists because without it they have virtually nothing).
The worst I can say about the current, literal, Dem position is that it's so passive that it allows the open borders position to be easily painted onto them.
Frankly I see no commonality with Trump at all. She's a team player- he's entirely self interested. She's quite clever with her language- he's basically a walking incoherent word salad. She assuredly has certain principles she cares about outside of self interest and he's entirely unmoored except for self interest.
They do both have charisma, I will readily grant, and both get winger and media adulation that strikes me as entirely disproportionate but overall they seem profoundly different.
Mhm, that's the view from the open borders and leftier than thou crowd*.
*note that AoC may be the more left edge of her party but she is a very good congresswoman and also a very good member of the party. She's a strong advocate for her groups point of view but when the chips have been down she's been there for the overall party. I may not agree with her but I respect her enormously.
The article says the wall you're talking about was appropriated for and commissioned under Trump and Biden doesn't have the authority to refuse to build it since congress refused to reverse that policy. That seems literally the opposite of Trumps policy of "I'll do what I want regardless of the law".
I've not claimed Biden is open borders. Heck, -I'm- not open borders. But the idea that the Dems, outside of the open borders crowd, is actively anti-immigrant is nonsensical.
Every example in this article just underlies my core point. The Dems, generally, don't have a unified policy on immigration and generally think that trying to change the status quos is not worth the effort. Instead they just deal with it on a political level as it waxes and wanes in political salience.
Where you and I agree: The Democratic Party is not for open borders and they're far more restrictionist on immigration than the GOP and the right says they are.
Where we disagree: You think the left, outside the open borders crowd, is hostile to immigration in principle. That's definitely not the case. Various constituencies have different attitudes primarily driven by if undocumented immigrant issues are causing them practical headaches in their spheres.
Likely the median democratic position on immigration is something like this: "If we could wave a wand and have a well funded border control system with a more Canadian like admittance criteria, a lot more legal immigration and clear definitions for asylum claims with immigrants being briskly processed and either admitted or sent home that'd be great and we'd kind of like that. But since our open borders allies would raise heck on one side and since the right is insane and would raise heck from the other side there's little point in trying to actually move towards that outcome and we have no significant powerful internal constituency that wants to move towards that policy as a primary interest. So we'll just deal with it as it comes and wait for circumstances to change."
I don't think your analysis is correct. The Democratic Party has a huge range of opinions on immigration but most of the constituencies opinions average out to "spending political capital to try changing the status quos on immigration is more trouble than it's worth".
Of course they aren't serious about immigration reform- it's only on their radar at all because the right constantly inveigles about it. It's not been a priority for ages. The difference is that it's not a huge priority and they don't claim it's a huge priority. Whereas the right claims it's a huge priority while actively wanting to do nothing about it. That's one of the reasons (along with the money-libertarian wing) why the rights voters despise their elites.
My own thinking runs along the same lines as yours. That said, I do think there's a persuasive argument to be made that McCarthy honestly didn't expect the Dems to back the 45 day CR and when they did it completely took him by surprise and he was on his backfoot from that point on.
Or, considering how little new credit Trump could access by 2016, he wasn't that great at hiding it but everyone who explicitly knew had no reason to pull the plug on him.
Indeed, I'd dare to say it's an entirely legit and normal business practice to manage debt that way. There has to be more to it considering that Trump had flat out run out of ordinary financial institutions that were willing to lend to him except Deutsche Bank by the time he ran in '16. Perhaps his myriad fraudulent and failed businesses burned too many fingers as they went down.
As in... Bank #1: give me X loan at generous interest rates and fees. I'll pay it all back by getting a new loan from bank #2. Bank #2: give me X+1 loan at generous interest rates and fees. I'll pay it all back by getting a new loan from bank #3. Continue cycle and everyone wins except for Bank #X who agrees and Trumps unable to find a new bank to join the scheme?
1. Ask and ye shall receive.
"Results confirm that work outcomes are the main reason most people chose higher education, with 58% reporting job and career outcomes as their primary motivation. This is true across all higher education pathways and demographic subgroups. Work outcomes are also more than double the next-most prevalent reason, with 23% reporting a general motivation to learn more and gain knowledge without linking it to work or career aspirations."
So DOUBLE the number of people said "work" rather than "enlightenment" as to why they go to higher ed. And that's respondents who're answering a poll. You know some of those "enlightenment" people were probably giving the answer they felt made them look better.
Trades follow a cycle though. You have a dearth of tradesfolk of a given trade and then it propagates a glut. In theory you could move to a region with the right stage of the cycle but moving ain't easy and the relevant region may not be appealing.
I've seen the charts. Administrative bloat is the core of the whole mess. Declining student enrolment, adjuncts being treated like crap, overbuilding all directly trackable back to administrative bloat. Even the more risible overreaches in identity politics and other politics can be tangentially connected to this problem.
I agree with you on #1. I'm dubious on your allegation that #2 is "dangerous" and I think #3 is pointless. Jaybird is just speaking for a likely majority (maybe supermajority) of students who view higher education as instrumentally as a way to get a better job. I know this gives arch liberals the vapors but a lot of people, probably most people, really would like remunerative jobs and have very limited interest in the higher parts of higher ed. I also doubt that “money isn’t important” lectures from comfortable liberals who don’t worry about money would help move the needle on that one.
It's entirely possible the upper tier universities have decent instruction. If you can get in. They're offering a limited number of slots so you can hobnob with the future elite of the country and they aren't going to expand that number much.
The common problem is they're all getting utterly devoured by administrative bloat. University presidents get paid fortunes now and oversee massive apparatus of departments that are only tangentially related to instruction.
If money being sent to universities is going to largely be consumed by paying another, say, Assistant director of affinity group leadership or three Academic success coordinators for peer-led instructions, and it largely is, then I expect opinions about universities to continue to plummet and voter appetite for funneling money to them in any way to follow it downward.
On “From CNN: Israel says it is ‘at war’ after Hamas surprise attack”
If the Israeli state apparatus warned Bibi and have the receipts he's going to have a mighty hard time getting away with this. It's the biggest failure of Israeli intelligence since, what, Yom Kippur?
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/2/2023”
I agree with your analysis, welcome to the Democratic Party, Dark. Your voiced opinions won't qualify you for the open borders crowd because "assimilation is oppression" but there's an open chair next to AoC.
"
I've never claimed xenophobia regarding this- that's more the open borders crowds language though, I'll grant, Trump and the Magats make it -really- easy for xenophobia charges to stick to immigration restrictionists.
I think you have half a point with Unions but the economics allegations on immigration depressing wages or draining social services used by the poor both strike me as ranging from economically dubious to flat out false.
"
Heh, I guarantee you that doing it for pipelines would make the greens a heck of a lot angrier and would be a heck of a lot more illegal.
"
But these aren't tourists, they're immigrants who want to, ya know, go places and live. Sure the Vineyards could have them sitting around there doing nothing, but the immigrants didn't want to do that so they were briefly housed there and then moved on to the places they actually wanted to go with the assistance of the authorities. I guarantee you not a single Vineyard resident went populist over that.
"
Sure and, as Dark noted in his useful NYT link, Bidens administration is also obeying the law and building barriers that he's required, lawfully, to build and has gamely tried to humanely discourage illegal immigration. There's plenty of examples for anyone to pick from.
That said, I'm quite content being on the side that's trying to remove barriers intended to shred living people alive when they try and cross the border. Especially when said barriers are performative and inhumane rather than effective or even remotely ethical.
The Vineyard stuff is just incoherent. Were they supposed to set up a camp on a lawn there and force the folks to stay and work as, what, barristas or something? During the off season when everyone has left? It's a little tony summer enclave- that's why they got shipped there in the first place. If DeSantis had bussed them to Aspen in the Summer should they have been forced to stay on the grassy skii slopes with barbed wire?
"
If AoC even did that it'd make her enormously different than Trump who lacks both the wit, the capability and the inclination to follow instruction even for his own good.
"
What you are complaining about is that the Democratic Party can't conjure the political equivalent of anti-gravity. and that, accordingly, strikes me as unfair.
To enforce current immigration law to the letter would require resources that current law does not allocate to enforcement. It is paradoxical.
To expend political capital on trying to address the law without cooperation with the GOP would, quite literally, be lose/lose in that it'd send the open borders crowd to their fainting couches while being mischaracterized and lied about by the right all while not accomplishing anything and thus not helping on any level.
And the Martha's Vineyard example remains entirely a canard. The immigrants that were shipped there were treated humanely and helped to go where they actually were trying to go. I guarantee you not a single one of them set out to get to Martha's fishin Vineyard when they left their homes, let alone when they were lured onto those busses.
"
Hmm? Surprised or disappointed in what, the Dems practical position vis a vis immigration? I would probably describe my own attitude as more resigned.
I can't even say the party's position is wrong. Immigration strikes me as something that'd need a bipartisan deal to resolve and the right desperately doesn't want to solve it (the elites because they like the status quos and the populists because without it they have virtually nothing).
The worst I can say about the current, literal, Dem position is that it's so passive that it allows the open borders position to be easily painted onto them.
"
Frankly I see no commonality with Trump at all. She's a team player- he's entirely self interested. She's quite clever with her language- he's basically a walking incoherent word salad. She assuredly has certain principles she cares about outside of self interest and he's entirely unmoored except for self interest.
They do both have charisma, I will readily grant, and both get winger and media adulation that strikes me as entirely disproportionate but overall they seem profoundly different.
"
Mhm, that's the view from the open borders and leftier than thou crowd*.
*note that AoC may be the more left edge of her party but she is a very good congresswoman and also a very good member of the party. She's a strong advocate for her groups point of view but when the chips have been down she's been there for the overall party. I may not agree with her but I respect her enormously.
"
*shrugs* That is literally what I said except cast as some kind of hypocrisy which it, generally, is not.
"
The article says the wall you're talking about was appropriated for and commissioned under Trump and Biden doesn't have the authority to refuse to build it since congress refused to reverse that policy. That seems literally the opposite of Trumps policy of "I'll do what I want regardless of the law".
I've not claimed Biden is open borders. Heck, -I'm- not open borders. But the idea that the Dems, outside of the open borders crowd, is actively anti-immigrant is nonsensical.
Every example in this article just underlies my core point. The Dems, generally, don't have a unified policy on immigration and generally think that trying to change the status quos is not worth the effort. Instead they just deal with it on a political level as it waxes and wanes in political salience.
Where you and I agree: The Democratic Party is not for open borders and they're far more restrictionist on immigration than the GOP and the right says they are.
Where we disagree: You think the left, outside the open borders crowd, is hostile to immigration in principle. That's definitely not the case. Various constituencies have different attitudes primarily driven by if undocumented immigrant issues are causing them practical headaches in their spheres.
Likely the median democratic position on immigration is something like this: "If we could wave a wand and have a well funded border control system with a more Canadian like admittance criteria, a lot more legal immigration and clear definitions for asylum claims with immigrants being briskly processed and either admitted or sent home that'd be great and we'd kind of like that. But since our open borders allies would raise heck on one side and since the right is insane and would raise heck from the other side there's little point in trying to actually move towards that outcome and we have no significant powerful internal constituency that wants to move towards that policy as a primary interest. So we'll just deal with it as it comes and wait for circumstances to change."
"
I don't think your analysis is correct. The Democratic Party has a huge range of opinions on immigration but most of the constituencies opinions average out to "spending political capital to try changing the status quos on immigration is more trouble than it's worth".
Of course they aren't serious about immigration reform- it's only on their radar at all because the right constantly inveigles about it. It's not been a priority for ages. The difference is that it's not a huge priority and they don't claim it's a huge priority. Whereas the right claims it's a huge priority while actively wanting to do nothing about it. That's one of the reasons (along with the money-libertarian wing) why the rights voters despise their elites.
On “Blowing Out the Speaker”
My own thinking runs along the same lines as yours. That said, I do think there's a persuasive argument to be made that McCarthy honestly didn't expect the Dems to back the 45 day CR and when they did it completely took him by surprise and he was on his backfoot from that point on.
On “Trump Lawyers Fail to Demand a Jury Trial: Malpractice, Strategery, or Both?”
Or, considering how little new credit Trump could access by 2016, he wasn't that great at hiding it but everyone who explicitly knew had no reason to pull the plug on him.
"
Indeed, I'd dare to say it's an entirely legit and normal business practice to manage debt that way. There has to be more to it considering that Trump had flat out run out of ordinary financial institutions that were willing to lend to him except Deutsche Bank by the time he ran in '16. Perhaps his myriad fraudulent and failed businesses burned too many fingers as they went down.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/2/2023”
Thank God(ess?)!
On “Trump Lawyers Fail to Demand a Jury Trial: Malpractice, Strategery, or Both?”
As in... Bank #1: give me X loan at generous interest rates and fees. I'll pay it all back by getting a new loan from bank #2. Bank #2: give me X+1 loan at generous interest rates and fees. I'll pay it all back by getting a new loan from bank #3. Continue cycle and everyone wins except for Bank #X who agrees and Trumps unable to find a new bank to join the scheme?
On “From The New York Times Magazine: Americans Are Losing Faith in the Value of College. Whose Fault Is That?”
I think so.
"
1. Ask and ye shall receive.
"Results confirm that work outcomes are the main reason most people chose higher education, with 58% reporting job and career outcomes as their primary motivation. This is true across all higher education pathways and demographic subgroups. Work outcomes are also more than double the next-most prevalent reason, with 23% reporting a general motivation to learn more and gain knowledge without linking it to work or career aspirations."
https://news.gallup.com/reports/226457/why-higher-ed.aspx
So DOUBLE the number of people said "work" rather than "enlightenment" as to why they go to higher ed. And that's respondents who're answering a poll. You know some of those "enlightenment" people were probably giving the answer they felt made them look better.
"
Trades follow a cycle though. You have a dearth of tradesfolk of a given trade and then it propagates a glut. In theory you could move to a region with the right stage of the cycle but moving ain't easy and the relevant region may not be appealing.
"
Many humans are very interested in experimenting with drugs during the time of their life that they typically go to college. Yeah.
"
I've seen the charts. Administrative bloat is the core of the whole mess. Declining student enrolment, adjuncts being treated like crap, overbuilding all directly trackable back to administrative bloat. Even the more risible overreaches in identity politics and other politics can be tangentially connected to this problem.
I agree with you on #1. I'm dubious on your allegation that #2 is "dangerous" and I think #3 is pointless. Jaybird is just speaking for a likely majority (maybe supermajority) of students who view higher education as instrumentally as a way to get a better job. I know this gives arch liberals the vapors but a lot of people, probably most people, really would like remunerative jobs and have very limited interest in the higher parts of higher ed. I also doubt that “money isn’t important” lectures from comfortable liberals who don’t worry about money would help move the needle on that one.
"
It's entirely possible the upper tier universities have decent instruction. If you can get in. They're offering a limited number of slots so you can hobnob with the future elite of the country and they aren't going to expand that number much.
The common problem is they're all getting utterly devoured by administrative bloat. University presidents get paid fortunes now and oversee massive apparatus of departments that are only tangentially related to instruction.
If money being sent to universities is going to largely be consumed by paying another, say, Assistant director of affinity group leadership or three Academic success coordinators for peer-led instructions, and it largely is, then I expect opinions about universities to continue to plummet and voter appetite for funneling money to them in any way to follow it downward.