Jump to content

Gramarye

Moderators
  • Content Count

    7,353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

130 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Gramarye

    Global Warming

    India is definitely hot but I wouldn't exactly use dry to describe that much of it ...
  2. Gramarye

    SCOTUS

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent treatment for tumor on pancreas https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-underwent-treatment-for-tumor-on-pancreas/2019/08/23/546fdeb8-c5d5-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg completed radiation treatment for a malignant tumor found on her pancreas, the Supreme Court disclosed Friday. It is her second treatment within a year for cancer. The court said the treatment began earlier this month, and no additional treatment is planned. “The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” the court’s spokeswoman said in a statement. “Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans. No further treatment is needed at this time.”
  3. Law is perennially running a deficit? That's a little bit of a surprise. Those are profit centers to most universities, I thought. I think @CbusTransit had a good point on that earlier, though, regarding the Common Application. I applied to three schools when I graduated from high school in 2000. I had applications to dream schools (Penn and Princeton) in process but abandoned them when I realized it was really unlikely I'd go there even if I got in, for financial reasons. So my personal acceptance rate was 33%--I accepted one of three. And only two schools out there got a "ding" on their matriculation rate from having made me an offer that I declined. Today, I might well apply to 8 or 16. The "barriers to entry" to apply to any one school beyond the first are just lower. What's interesting to me is the decline in Ohio resident students from 2278 in 2008 to 1350 in 2018. That's a very significant drop. I wonder if that's because of admitting fewer Ohio students or Ohio students expanding their application pool and ultimately choosing to go elsewhere.
  4. I'm no fan of socialism but I read Jacobin regularly. I read the softcore, politically-correct-welfare-state-limousine-liberal material of The Atlantic and Mother Jones, too, but Jacobin can be more intellectually rigorous because they make no pretenses about what they are. That means that they often explore specific proposals in surprisingly hard-hitting detail, whereas others often focus more on human-interest stories rather than ideas.
  5. ^ Very key point ^ Kind of ridiculous, typical Bernie. Did he ever think that cost savings for employers might actually help him sell M4A to the business world, or at least decrease the opposition? Agreed on almost all of this and I added some more to the second quote from the article for context. I'd note that most actual pensions are already protected by the PBGC, and the real issue is that fewer than 10% of large employers still offer defined benefit pension plans at all. Defined contribution pension plans do not have minimum benefit levels to insure and therefore don't have anything for the PBGC to guaranty. That said, while Jacobin is obviously an outlet for hard-left, unreformed socialism and has been aggressively (and not shyly) promoting Bernie against all his Democratic rivals since he announced his campaign (and honestly, even before then), I actually agree that a plan structured like this throws down a marker that requires other Democratic candidates to respond, and would play well in the heartland states that formed the break in the Blue Wall that allowed Trump to win. There are a lot of points in this that I would vigorously oppose, particularly the elimination of the secret ballot for unionization votes in favor of signed authorization cards (so holdouts can be named and subject to union pressure, while management would of course be barred from supporting those holdouts in any significant way), and the extension of union rights to all public sector workers (even FDR didn't go that far, understanding that in the public sector, the workers actually have the ability to vote for their own counterparties and could conceivably control both sides of the table). But some of the other proposals in here are low-hanging fruit and will put defenders of the status quo on the defensive. In particular, I'm actually looking at some of the lower-down items like the more, erm, aggressive uses of the terms "franchise/franchisee," "supervisor," and (perhaps most importantly) "independent contractor."
  6. I remember being in HS (HS class of 2000) when I was in cross country and track and hearing tales about Alan Webb. No YouTube back in those days or I'm sure we've have been watching clips of him.
  7. Not to be a skinflint, but is that Dispatch-exclusive content or are the renderings available elsewhere? Paywalled.
  8. I didn't want to play this game. But if the other side plays that way, then I'm not going to refrain from turning it around. And I've been on the receiving side of it for long enough that at this point, at some point turning the other cheek is just more than I can manage.
  9. I unblocked jonoh for all of five minutes to respond to this post, because I knew it would make my job effortless, and I barely had to go back a week: That is the id of the modern progressive movement and the Democratic Party it increasingly controls. And it is what I meant when I wrote what I wrote, and I stand by it. If you really think it is propaganda, tell your ideological fellow travelers not to make it so effortless for me. As to all those 2.4 million Ohioans who voted for Hillary Clinton or those other elected officials, allow me to flip the script that is so habitually used to tar all Trump supporters with bigotry and racism. No, you personally may not hate the country, the mayors of those other Ohio cities may not hate the country, and many of those Ohioans who pulled the lever for Clinton may not hate the country, but you and they are apparently at least willing to vote with many others who do. It is not a dealbreaker for you.
  10. Let me come at this a different way, then. What do you think of his cabinet? Do you approve of the various regulatory rollbacks instituted at EPA, Education, Justice, etc. during his presidency? I think we both know that many of those rollbacks were not brainchildren of Trump personally. I'm quite OK with that. What do you think of his judicial picks? It's common knowledge that his public shortlist of potential nominees was not his own creation. (And as a proud FedSoc member since law school, I have some predictable opinions on whether he made the right move in coming to us.) Do you have a different opinion of the Trump Presidency (the topic of this thread) than of President Trump? Or are they one and the same in your book? (Le presidency, c'est moi?) Or is it just an issue of weight and you think the issues you have with Trump personally outweigh everything else, and/or you consider the problems that has created with cabinet personnel and staffing more important than the substantive policy victories his cabinet has delivered?
  11. Well, certainly a Trump opponent. Someone who thinks he does more bad than good on a typical day at his desk.
  12. To clarify: Would you actually rather he be at his desk those days? If you think he's so bad, wouldn't you rather he be out wasting his term in office in America's most neurasthenic aristocratic timesink? Shouldn't it be conservatives who ought to be most vexed by his inability to focus?
  13. Grant was a great general but is widely acknowledged one of our less impressive presidents. Lincoln was a great president (in fact, I'd put him in our top three), but that doesn't mean he was immune to major power grabs (perhaps understandable in wartime, but it is precisely in wartime that threats to republican government tend to reach their heights). Suspending the writ of habeas corpus was still wrong and a threat to the Constitution, notwithstanding the Emancipation Proclamation and the preservation of the Union itself, which of course are Lincoln's greater claims to fame.
  14. I know you and I have had this discussion before, but it bears repeating here: I see no threat to the Republic. We survived President Grant. We survived President Buchanan. We survived President Jackson. We survived President Nixon. One could argue there was at least a minor threat to democratic institutions or norms from FDR (in particular his decision to run past 8 years before the passage of the presidential term limits amendment), or from Abraham Lincoln (suspending the writ of habeas corpus). We addressed those in due course and the Republic endured in the meantime. Since you're more inclined to see threats to the Republic from the Republican side, does that also apply to similar possible-threats from the Democratic side? For example, their threat to pack the Supreme Court when they get the opportunity? Or, for that matter, at a more fundamental level, their general apathy or even antipathy towards the United States itself, other than its most progressive metropolitan areas?
  15. And if those two conflict?
×
×
  • Create New...