For the Economist, having Megan McArdle work for them is is not just one strike, it is more like striking out the entire side.
Certainly not a plus. On the other hand, is/was a detailed political philosophy exam part of the Economist's hiring process? I would also note that she no longer works there. I'd want to know a bit more about the history there before leaping to a conclusion.
Not to mention that, people change. It is my recollection that she was a lot less extreme in her views, at least in what she wrote, when she was there than she is now. When she left, I thought enough of her writing to read her stuff elsewhere. Definitely didn't last; it was like reading a differe
3 weeks ago
I'm not sufficiently up on UK politics to describe their stance beyond "underwhelmed by the currently available options" among politicians and parties. They were appalled by Brexit, but then anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that would be the fiasco that it has indeed become.
As for the US, they have the same challenge everyone else does: selecting which of each week's insanities to even talk about. They still have a bit of a libertarian lean, but rather less than a couple of decades ago. More like "Surely we can simplify and rationalize the kludge that has grown up over the years."
3 weeks ago
O brave new world, that has such leaders (and past leaders) in’t.
Trump is, no doubt inadvertently, accomplishing one thing: a lot of previously covert misbehavior is moving into the open.
Where, down the line, the perpetrators can be dealt with. Probably an improvement over them remaining in the shadows.
The Economist does manage some nice turns of phrase.
3 weeks ago
Turns out, multiple companies already have in progress law suits to require the government to refund the money collected from them by Trump's tariffs. I admit to mixed feelings on that. For me, it comes down to whether, and to what extent, they absorbed the added costs themselves, vs passing them thru to their customers.
If they held the line on prices, absorbing the tariffs by accepting lower profits? No problem at all with them recovering their loss. But if they passed all, or even part, of their tariff-induced cost? I'd have to see from them something on how they proposed to similarly pass along those refunds to those customers.
IANAL, but it looks like it could take multiple cases to establish an equitable answer.
3 weeks ago
SCOTUS knocks down Stinky’s tariffs ?
there is some justice in the world ?
I'm sooo tempted to read this as some of the justices discovering at least a hint of a spine when it comes to Trump. Doesn't mean they won't continue to be reactionary as hell. But perhaps on stuff where the focus isn't ideology, but just Trumpic insanity...?
But realistically? I want to see several more examples before getting my hopes up.
4 weeks ago
By my count (and I’m not going to go back and check) today’s accusation by Trump that Keir’s deal is “a very big mistake” is his third volte face in a few weeks where he has said this, and then the opposite,
The thing is, Trump's memory is shot. So he tends to go with whatever the last person to talk to him said. If a couple of people close to him have different opinions on some topic, you can expect to see exactly that sort of flip-flopping.
4 weeks ago
In case you missed it:
In November the administration announced changes that are expected to allow more than half a million seasonal workers to enter the country each year — an increase of more than 25%. In a regulatory filing, the Department of Agriculture said the expansion was necessary because “qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers.”
Apparently Agriculture isn't talking to ICE. If they are, ICE isn't listening. Quelle surprise.
Or, I suppose, Agriculture had the wit to carefully avoid talking to Miller. Miller, after all, would probably be dumb enough to see it as a challenge. And focus ICE on agricultural workers for a while.
Mightbe more accurate to say "the Mountain West." Because, the total lack of rain the last 6+ weeks notwithstanding, in California the reservoirs are all full. Not as much snow pack as we'd like, but we're not looking at drought conditions.
Having several days in a row (in February!) with highs above 75° was weird. But considering the weather east of the Mississippi, I'm definitely not complaining.
Certainly not a plus. On the other hand, is/was a detailed political philosophy exam part of the Economist's hiring process? I would also note that she no longer works there. I'd want to know a bit more about the history there before leaping to a conclusion.
Not to mention that, people change. It is my recollection that she was a lot less extreme in her views, at least in what she wrote, when she was there than she is now. When she left, I thought enough of her writing to read her stuff elsewhere. Definitely didn't last; it was like reading a differe
I'm not sufficiently up on UK politics to describe their stance beyond "underwhelmed by the currently available options" among politicians and parties. They were appalled by Brexit, but then anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that would be the fiasco that it has indeed become.
As for the US, they have the same challenge everyone else does: selecting which of each week's insanities to even talk about. They still have a bit of a libertarian lean, but rather less than a couple of decades ago. More like "Surely we can simplify and rationalize the kludge that has grown up over the years."
O brave new world, that has such leaders (and past leaders) in’t.
Trump is, no doubt inadvertently, accomplishing one thing: a lot of previously covert misbehavior is moving into the open.
Where, down the line, the perpetrators can be dealt with. Probably an improvement over them remaining in the shadows.
Veering off in a different direction, here's the title of today's Economist podcast:
And the Arrest is History: Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
The Economist does manage some nice turns of phrase.
Turns out, multiple companies already have in progress law suits to require the government to refund the money collected from them by Trump's tariffs. I admit to mixed feelings on that. For me, it comes down to whether, and to what extent, they absorbed the added costs themselves, vs passing them thru to their customers.
If they held the line on prices, absorbing the tariffs by accepting lower profits? No problem at all with them recovering their loss. But if they passed all, or even part, of their tariff-induced cost? I'd have to see from them something on how they proposed to similarly pass along those refunds to those customers.
IANAL, but it looks like it could take multiple cases to establish an equitable answer.
I'm sooo tempted to read this as some of the justices discovering at least a hint of a spine when it comes to Trump. Doesn't mean they won't continue to be reactionary as hell. But perhaps on stuff where the focus isn't ideology, but just Trumpic insanity...?
But realistically? I want to see several more examples before getting my hopes up.
The thing is, Trump's memory is shot. So he tends to go with whatever the last person to talk to him said. If a couple of people close to him have different opinions on some topic, you can expect to see exactly that sort of flip-flopping.
In case you missed it:
Apparently Agriculture isn't talking to ICE. If they are, ICE isn't listening. Quelle surprise.
Or, I suppose, Agriculture had the wit to carefully avoid talking to Miller. Miller, after all, would probably be dumb enough to see it as a challenge. And focus ICE on agricultural workers for a while.
Mightbe more accurate to say "the Mountain West." Because, the total lack of rain the last 6+ weeks notwithstanding, in California the reservoirs are all full. Not as much snow pack as we'd like, but we're not looking at drought conditions.
Having several days in a row (in February!) with highs above 75° was weird. But considering the weather east of the Mississippi, I'm definitely not complaining.