Quick hits:
1. Process... 'emergency' tariffs seem like a silly thing to delegate, but delegated they've been. I suppose a future president can simply not veto Congress pulling that 'imperial' power back.
2. Goals... Whelp, I suppose officially it's drug interdiction and border control.
3. Outcome(s)... drug interdictions and border control? Some increased prices? Recession? Sky fallls?
4. Prudence... seems low.
Recommended path: Offer better solutions for ostensible goals; suggest poor outcomes to watch for; judge actual outcomes; make political gains off of bad outcomes; or acknowledge political outcomes did not match priors and adjust political rhetoric and future solutions for new or similar goals accordingly.
Personally I'd avoid adopting Free Market Fundamentalism on the Left in a reactionary(!) response to Trumpian stuff.
I'm in the same rut... fire-up Total Warhammer, nah nothing new here; POE1 is basically dead - no update since August and they just announced that all Devs are working on POE2 and no update until maybe April?, POE2 sucks; Last Epoch's next update is in April; Diablo IV is so bleh.
30-yrs ago I played Civ1... Civ7 releases in two weeks. I'll buy it, of course, but I'm not sure I've enjoyed it since Civ3 and the evolution into an ultra-micro-management game; the irony of the early games is that the technology constraints gave it depth but only so much depth. Well, unlimited compute hasn't really made the game better even if it's made it visually lovely.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'll be playing it two Saturdays from now... but I'm not likely going to pop for the 5-day early access. Hopefully it's awesome and it carries me into April and can become the ultimate, 'I've got nothing to play, let's fire-up Civ and see what the first 30 moves reveal...
If the reporting on this is correct, the 'shocking' takeaway will be that it constricted applicants in a demand heavy field.
That is, whatever good it thought to have been achieving was so horribly executed that it did harm to the common good -- without reference to race, diversity or equity.
I think the critiques I'm seeing from the front row Lib Normies is that the Centrist economic policies, were horribly impeded by requirements added by 'the groups' such that it wasn't good enough to build more broadband or EV chargers, you had to build them with the proper intentions and deference to theoretical concerns not relevant to broadband or EV chargers...
A theoretical 'healthy' Biden might have objected to having his signature legislation undermined by omnicause goals orthogonal to the objectives.
I actually supported aspects of his foreign policy... but just taking Afghanistan withdrawal -- his popularity tanked after that -- unfairly I think. BUT, as I said at the time, he never held the Military accountable for poor execution. Also at the time I chalked it up to his excessive Washington Establishmentarianism ... but it's possible that his decline prevented him from acting more forcefully (but that's just speculation, I go either way on that one).
On the Trans stuff... yes, that's also a losing proposition, especially as it's framed by 'the groups'
As far as I can tell, he'd have to get Bluesky to do the restricting...
There's a billion $ start-up for the people who invent the app that combines all the various feeds into one space.... so you can comment and link to other people's bad ideas. Like old-twitter.
I said long before the Biden implosion that we never really got to see what a Biden Presidency would look like; the best Biden could've done for the Dems was make the avuncular pivot to a 'normie' liberal position... but he didn't. I think a lot of folks who voted for him wanted this kind of normalcy, but for various reasons, Biden didn't deliver, and Harris couldn't distance... To be honest, I'm not sure they were being 'insincere' just that they were proverbial frogs in the pot who didn't notice that they were no longer in the Normie Lib space.
MattY kinda buries his more controversial take on 'the groups' in the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html
Biden's the bait for putting it back on the table.
But yes, in general, the Impeachment Power is quiescent during this era of Presidential EO governance and Omnibus Reconciliation Legislation Congresses.
Small point of order, even if you impeached a President, you couldn't prosecute him for exercising his Constitutional Powers... so there's no 'going to jail' as part of the deal. SCOTUS is correct on this front.* I also strongly suspect that the Pardons themselves would still stand.
Impeachment is a political check, not a legal finding -- which I wish the (too) many Lawyers in Congress would understand and step back from the overly 'legal' reading of the constitutional stipulations on conducting the Impeachment process.
But yes, throw Biden under the bus to build a consensus around Constitutional limitations; it may pay dividends in the future.
*unless there is a separate unique crime to which the Pardon was attached, like, say, bribery.
Now I'm genuinely curious to run a real-world tariff experiment on shifting preferences and policy objectives.
More seriously, the American Empire is crumbling... there are good arguments to divest into a multi-polar world (I personally like some of those arguments), but increasingly there are good arguments to 'own' the Empire and fix it.
I don't think Trump is the right person to transform the Empire, but people who don't understand that the Empire *is* are not serious people. The American Empire was the first 'post-modern' financial Empire, so we didn't fully acknowledge it's existence in a traditional sense... but the unraveling of it will require skill.
Yeah, it's also interesting that the Media team is prepped with notes, have gamed out responses and have follow-ups and 'gotchas' based on expected answers.
The interviewee? No notes (this is for everyone, not just Vance).
Still... I go back to my football scripted opening -- he's clearly ready for the first round of projects, policies and objectives.
We'll see what happens when Trump starts to audible or assumptions go awry.
But technically, he's supposed to do that (send the fleet, not drive the boat)... anytime Congress wants to review the War Powers Act and act like a big boy part of the government it's open to them.
Yeah, I wasn't calling out your comment specifically with regards alcohol... was trying to be polite about the opposition thinking these were good vectors.
Hegseth is the most dangerous Cabinet Secretary... not because of his sexual past or drinking (I have bad news about our War Machine leaders) ... but because he is a 'Ride or Die' man who lacks prudence (or, more specifically, Phronesis).
That sort of man at DoD is bad for the republic... McConnel's comments about him having no idea or plan for geo-political concerns is absolutely the tell and disqualifying.
May his tenure be uneventful; but I hope we don't look back and wonder why the primary line of attack was womanizing and boozing. McConnel (heaven help me) may have cast the only correct and internally consistent vote in the entire Senate.
As someone who works with Life Science companies... testing their drugs on different populations isn't a DEI thing... they will do it for simple $$ reasons. What they won't do is check boxes on populations where the science doesn't indicate a good fit.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Kinda thought we'd have a main page Tariff Talk... but absent that:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/
Quick hits:
1. Process... 'emergency' tariffs seem like a silly thing to delegate, but delegated they've been. I suppose a future president can simply not veto Congress pulling that 'imperial' power back.
2. Goals... Whelp, I suppose officially it's drug interdiction and border control.
3. Outcome(s)... drug interdictions and border control? Some increased prices? Recession? Sky fallls?
4. Prudence... seems low.
Recommended path: Offer better solutions for ostensible goals; suggest poor outcomes to watch for; judge actual outcomes; make political gains off of bad outcomes; or acknowledge political outcomes did not match priors and adjust political rhetoric and future solutions for new or similar goals accordingly.
Personally I'd avoid adopting Free Market Fundamentalism on the Left in a reactionary(!) response to Trumpian stuff.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Just looking for something *FUN*”
I'm in the same rut... fire-up Total Warhammer, nah nothing new here; POE1 is basically dead - no update since August and they just announced that all Devs are working on POE2 and no update until maybe April?, POE2 sucks; Last Epoch's next update is in April; Diablo IV is so bleh.
30-yrs ago I played Civ1... Civ7 releases in two weeks. I'll buy it, of course, but I'm not sure I've enjoyed it since Civ3 and the evolution into an ultra-micro-management game; the irony of the early games is that the technology constraints gave it depth but only so much depth. Well, unlimited compute hasn't really made the game better even if it's made it visually lovely.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'll be playing it two Saturdays from now... but I'm not likely going to pop for the 5-day early access. Hopefully it's awesome and it carries me into April and can become the ultimate, 'I've got nothing to play, let's fire-up Civ and see what the first 30 moves reveal...
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Agreed; there are some layers here to unpack.
"
If the reporting on this is correct, the 'shocking' takeaway will be that it constricted applicants in a demand heavy field.
That is, whatever good it thought to have been achieving was so horribly executed that it did harm to the common good -- without reference to race, diversity or equity.
"
I think the critiques I'm seeing from the front row Lib Normies is that the Centrist economic policies, were horribly impeded by requirements added by 'the groups' such that it wasn't good enough to build more broadband or EV chargers, you had to build them with the proper intentions and deference to theoretical concerns not relevant to broadband or EV chargers...
A theoretical 'healthy' Biden might have objected to having his signature legislation undermined by omnicause goals orthogonal to the objectives.
I actually supported aspects of his foreign policy... but just taking Afghanistan withdrawal -- his popularity tanked after that -- unfairly I think. BUT, as I said at the time, he never held the Military accountable for poor execution. Also at the time I chalked it up to his excessive Washington Establishmentarianism ... but it's possible that his decline prevented him from acting more forcefully (but that's just speculation, I go either way on that one).
On the Trans stuff... yes, that's also a losing proposition, especially as it's framed by 'the groups'
"
Iceberg <--> Tip
"
Nightmare fuel.
On “Email Blast: White House Offers Federal Workers “Deferred Resignation””
Pretty awesome for those folks who were planning to exit in the next 8-months.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
As far as I can tell, he'd have to get Bluesky to do the restricting...
There's a billion $ start-up for the people who invent the app that combines all the various feeds into one space.... so you can comment and link to other people's bad ideas. Like old-twitter.
"
I said long before the Biden implosion that we never really got to see what a Biden Presidency would look like; the best Biden could've done for the Dems was make the avuncular pivot to a 'normie' liberal position... but he didn't. I think a lot of folks who voted for him wanted this kind of normalcy, but for various reasons, Biden didn't deliver, and Harris couldn't distance... To be honest, I'm not sure they were being 'insincere' just that they were proverbial frogs in the pot who didn't notice that they were no longer in the Normie Lib space.
MattY kinda buries his more controversial take on 'the groups' in the link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html
"
Think of it as an agency restoring act for Congress. A therapeutic impeachment.
"
Biden's the bait for putting it back on the table.
But yes, in general, the Impeachment Power is quiescent during this era of Presidential EO governance and Omnibus Reconciliation Legislation Congresses.
"
Small point of order, even if you impeached a President, you couldn't prosecute him for exercising his Constitutional Powers... so there's no 'going to jail' as part of the deal. SCOTUS is correct on this front.* I also strongly suspect that the Pardons themselves would still stand.
Impeachment is a political check, not a legal finding -- which I wish the (too) many Lawyers in Congress would understand and step back from the overly 'legal' reading of the constitutional stipulations on conducting the Impeachment process.
But yes, throw Biden under the bus to build a consensus around Constitutional limitations; it may pay dividends in the future.
*unless there is a separate unique crime to which the Pardon was attached, like, say, bribery.
On “Group Activity: First Press Briefing of Trump’s Second Term”
Prediction: 9 months.
She's too invested and earnest to survive the inevitable miscues, lies, and reversals. Not the right temperament for this role.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
Now I'm genuinely curious to run a real-world tariff experiment on shifting preferences and policy objectives.
More seriously, the American Empire is crumbling... there are good arguments to divest into a multi-polar world (I personally like some of those arguments), but increasingly there are good arguments to 'own' the Empire and fix it.
I don't think Trump is the right person to transform the Empire, but people who don't understand that the Empire *is* are not serious people. The American Empire was the first 'post-modern' financial Empire, so we didn't fully acknowledge it's existence in a traditional sense... but the unraveling of it will require skill.
"
Yeah, it's also interesting that the Media team is prepped with notes, have gamed out responses and have follow-ups and 'gotchas' based on expected answers.
The interviewee? No notes (this is for everyone, not just Vance).
Still... I go back to my football scripted opening -- he's clearly ready for the first round of projects, policies and objectives.
We'll see what happens when Trump starts to audible or assumptions go awry.
"
He's as good a wordcel as the journalists.
"
Heck, he's driving the big boat.
But technically, he's supposed to do that (send the fleet, not drive the boat)... anytime Congress wants to review the War Powers Act and act like a big boy part of the government it's open to them.
"
Everyone already knows this; I don't see why people keep bringing it up.
"
Yeah, I wasn't calling out your comment specifically with regards alcohol... was trying to be polite about the opposition thinking these were good vectors.
"
Hegseth is the most dangerous Cabinet Secretary... not because of his sexual past or drinking (I have bad news about our War Machine leaders) ... but because he is a 'Ride or Die' man who lacks prudence (or, more specifically, Phronesis).
That sort of man at DoD is bad for the republic... McConnel's comments about him having no idea or plan for geo-political concerns is absolutely the tell and disqualifying.
May his tenure be uneventful; but I hope we don't look back and wonder why the primary line of attack was womanizing and boozing. McConnel (heaven help me) may have cast the only correct and internally consistent vote in the entire Senate.
"
As someone who works with Life Science companies... testing their drugs on different populations isn't a DEI thing... they will do it for simple $$ reasons. What they won't do is check boxes on populations where the science doesn't indicate a good fit.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Was Last Year This Cold?”
That's analog bluetooth.
"
Just tell her it has micro-plastics ... I understand that this is the new kryptonite for women.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
compromise: only flavor for vapes is Menthol.