Good writing Steve. Your comment on Presidential power over the Executive Branch reminds me of a government class forced (not a bad thing) on engineering students 60 years ago. The prof was asked about how much authority the President had. He replied that the President can do most anything until someone stops him. That's why Congress need to pass real laws instead of cranking out bills that are merely suggestions to the bureaucrats. Once the President signs legislation into law, the rulemaking process is totally under the purview of the executive branch.
Nice article Mr. Berman. I agree with the majority of your comments regarding the rush to push too fast towards a greener society. I have even wondered if all these shows that promote tiny homes isn't in some way a form of manipulation or behavior modification. However I would just like to point out that complete power over government agencies works both ways. I have been closely following several independent journalists along with house judiciary hearings regarding the issue of censorship as one example and I believe the evidence provided supports the claims that abuse of our 1st amendment has been greatly expanded under the Biden administration. Between this, the covid cover-ups, the involvement with Ukraine, most especially the use of cluster bombs, the continuing breakdown of our sovereign borders, etc., I fear for how we as a nation will move forward. EV's might be the least of our worries.
There are plenty of details out there and I'm sure you have time to do your own research,l but if you sincerely have an interest, here's a few names to help get you started: Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Mate, Tulsi Gabbard. And of course you can also go out and watch the hearings. As far as cluster bombs go they are indeed banned in many countries and they are not isolated to just military targets. Innocent people including children are still to this day being maimed and harmed by the "dud" cluster bombs scattered throughout Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, the Balkans, Yemen, etc,. But hey, it's not our kids right?
No: if you're going to claim something, be specific. Your references to Matt Taibbi are assumedly regarding the "Twitter Files", which showed the FBI making legal requests for information related to crimes (like child pornography) and reimbursing Twitter for the cost - per the law. If you have something else specific where the GOVERNMENT is censoring people illegally, then post it. No more generalization BS.
Ukraine will be using cluster ammunition on their own soil: they have a vested interest in targeting only military personnel, knowing where said cluster munitions were used, and cleaning up those areas. Unlike Russia, which has been indiscriminately using cluster munitions against civilians in Ukraine, Syria, and in the past in Chechnya and Georgia.
I said in my comment that I believe the evidence provided supports the claims of abuse of the 1st amendment.. The key words being "I believe". As far as I know I am entitled to my beliefs and do not have to convince you or anyone else of them. If you chose to belief differently that is your prerogative. You by the way also made a claim that the FBI only made requests for child pornography. If so there must be a heck of lot of child pornography going on since the FBI and their hired NGO's have made thousands of requests to Facebook and Twitter to remove specific content. Again, if you chose to believe that all those requests were only related to pornography or other such crimes, that is your privilege. I am not here to try to convince you or change your mind or do your research for you. And of course if Russia does something then it must be okay so by all means, lets applaud the US sending our own cluster bombs.
1st Amendment violations are about facts, not feelings.
There's a difference between alerting Twitter/FB/et al that there's violations of their respective terms of service, and outright stating "Take this down". The latter would be a violation of the 1st amendment: the former is not.
I understand perfectly about the 1st amendment. And once again, you can interpret the facts however you want as can I. You believe what you want to believe. If your "facts" are coming from the main stream media, then I can't take your seriously anyway. Have a great day.
Yet again another head-scratchier for me Mr. Berman. Is donald trump not the face of the republican party these days? I get it, as conservatives, he should make you uncomfortable because as David noted yesterday, tired old Joe is more conservative than trump.
All of which brings me full circle to a question i asked on one of David's columns a few weeks back that was ignored or simply missed, Let me repost and see if i can get any takers this time (i'm not holding my breath).
Several columns have been posted now by The Racket News. all proclaiming "victory" for conservatives. Celebrate while you can; i guess, but the real question for me is...what the heck is a conservative these days?
All of which sent me scurrying about the internet looking for articles defining what conservatism is. There's lots of good stuff out there, much of crafted by George Will. The more i read, the more i'm scratching my head; "how does any of this fit the modern day conservative?
Because most of what i read can be traced back to his lament about "populism" replacing conservatism. These words ring out loud and clear: "Populism is the belief in the direct translation of public impulses, public passions. Passion was the great problem for the American Founders,” Will points out.
George Will and the Supreme Court aside, what are "conservatives" these days? Are they a function of their beliefs or are the politicians they elect representative of their beliefs? And while that's an unfair question for some of you who may not be fond of trump et al, it is the reality of a party who is trapped in a maize of miscreants and malcontents who hate the norms most of us embrace.
Being somewhat populist, I still think you ask some good questions. What is anything these days. Language is so fluid that Mazie Hirono can change "sexual preference" to a pejorative at the drop of a hat during congressional hearings. We have dozens of genders or sexes or whatever to choose from. Morality is what I think it is or what you think it is. Both are correct. Conservatism is also changing. It's certainly no longer what George Will says it is. No more than half of "conservatives" will agree on anything except that Joe Biden is nowhere close to conservative.
Your comment is curious to me Curtis. I enjoy our exchanges and love the fact your are willing to engage. You are intelligent and straight forward in your responses. In fact, exactly what i would expect from a staunch conservative and a member of the greatest generation (all of which were intended as compliments BTW).
It's why i don't see you as a populist (even somewhat), but a conservative who loves his country. Lord knows i've been wrong before, but living in a retirement community (the original Sun City AZ) for 20 years i've known more than my share of guys like you. While we didn't agree, we respected one another's beliefs and remained friends.
I guess it's why i struggle so much with any real discourse online, it seldom is open and friendly.. In fact, it appears to me (an early baby-boomer) that the next wave of retirees, Gen X, are more interested in what they write, rather than having any interest in a two-way dialogue. Perhaps i am wrong (again), but one can only judge by what one sees and reads (or doesn't).
Thanks, but I'm a pre-boomer. Missed the greatest generation by at least a dozen years. I do believe right wing populism is a real thing arising from conservatism not being well represented in the federal government. Career politicians, especially in Congress, care only about reelection. There is no prioritization of their agenda other than what will get them the most votes or make the other party look bad.
Regarding BEVs: there's an argument from Toyota that it'd be better to have more full hybrids (AKA plug-in hybrids) than BEVs, as the limited number of battery cells need to be as fully utilized as possible - and 10+ PHEVs (or 50+ "standard" hybrids) will reduce more emissions than one BEV.
Good writing Steve. Your comment on Presidential power over the Executive Branch reminds me of a government class forced (not a bad thing) on engineering students 60 years ago. The prof was asked about how much authority the President had. He replied that the President can do most anything until someone stops him. That's why Congress need to pass real laws instead of cranking out bills that are merely suggestions to the bureaucrats. Once the President signs legislation into law, the rulemaking process is totally under the purview of the executive branch.
Nice article Mr. Berman. I agree with the majority of your comments regarding the rush to push too fast towards a greener society. I have even wondered if all these shows that promote tiny homes isn't in some way a form of manipulation or behavior modification. However I would just like to point out that complete power over government agencies works both ways. I have been closely following several independent journalists along with house judiciary hearings regarding the issue of censorship as one example and I believe the evidence provided supports the claims that abuse of our 1st amendment has been greatly expanded under the Biden administration. Between this, the covid cover-ups, the involvement with Ukraine, most especially the use of cluster bombs, the continuing breakdown of our sovereign borders, etc., I fear for how we as a nation will move forward. EV's might be the least of our worries.
Provide details re: censorship from the government.
Cluster bombs are legal, and their use against military targets are legal.
There are plenty of details out there and I'm sure you have time to do your own research,l but if you sincerely have an interest, here's a few names to help get you started: Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Mate, Tulsi Gabbard. And of course you can also go out and watch the hearings. As far as cluster bombs go they are indeed banned in many countries and they are not isolated to just military targets. Innocent people including children are still to this day being maimed and harmed by the "dud" cluster bombs scattered throughout Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, the Balkans, Yemen, etc,. But hey, it's not our kids right?
No: if you're going to claim something, be specific. Your references to Matt Taibbi are assumedly regarding the "Twitter Files", which showed the FBI making legal requests for information related to crimes (like child pornography) and reimbursing Twitter for the cost - per the law. If you have something else specific where the GOVERNMENT is censoring people illegally, then post it. No more generalization BS.
Ukraine will be using cluster ammunition on their own soil: they have a vested interest in targeting only military personnel, knowing where said cluster munitions were used, and cleaning up those areas. Unlike Russia, which has been indiscriminately using cluster munitions against civilians in Ukraine, Syria, and in the past in Chechnya and Georgia.
I said in my comment that I believe the evidence provided supports the claims of abuse of the 1st amendment.. The key words being "I believe". As far as I know I am entitled to my beliefs and do not have to convince you or anyone else of them. If you chose to belief differently that is your prerogative. You by the way also made a claim that the FBI only made requests for child pornography. If so there must be a heck of lot of child pornography going on since the FBI and their hired NGO's have made thousands of requests to Facebook and Twitter to remove specific content. Again, if you chose to believe that all those requests were only related to pornography or other such crimes, that is your privilege. I am not here to try to convince you or change your mind or do your research for you. And of course if Russia does something then it must be okay so by all means, lets applaud the US sending our own cluster bombs.
Right: it's about your feelings, not about facts.
1st Amendment violations are about facts, not feelings.
There's a difference between alerting Twitter/FB/et al that there's violations of their respective terms of service, and outright stating "Take this down". The latter would be a violation of the 1st amendment: the former is not.
I understand perfectly about the 1st amendment. And once again, you can interpret the facts however you want as can I. You believe what you want to believe. If your "facts" are coming from the main stream media, then I can't take your seriously anyway. Have a great day.
Yet again another head-scratchier for me Mr. Berman. Is donald trump not the face of the republican party these days? I get it, as conservatives, he should make you uncomfortable because as David noted yesterday, tired old Joe is more conservative than trump.
All of which brings me full circle to a question i asked on one of David's columns a few weeks back that was ignored or simply missed, Let me repost and see if i can get any takers this time (i'm not holding my breath).
Several columns have been posted now by The Racket News. all proclaiming "victory" for conservatives. Celebrate while you can; i guess, but the real question for me is...what the heck is a conservative these days?
All of which sent me scurrying about the internet looking for articles defining what conservatism is. There's lots of good stuff out there, much of crafted by George Will. The more i read, the more i'm scratching my head; "how does any of this fit the modern day conservative?
Because most of what i read can be traced back to his lament about "populism" replacing conservatism. These words ring out loud and clear: "Populism is the belief in the direct translation of public impulses, public passions. Passion was the great problem for the American Founders,” Will points out.
George Will and the Supreme Court aside, what are "conservatives" these days? Are they a function of their beliefs or are the politicians they elect representative of their beliefs? And while that's an unfair question for some of you who may not be fond of trump et al, it is the reality of a party who is trapped in a maize of miscreants and malcontents who hate the norms most of us embrace.
Being somewhat populist, I still think you ask some good questions. What is anything these days. Language is so fluid that Mazie Hirono can change "sexual preference" to a pejorative at the drop of a hat during congressional hearings. We have dozens of genders or sexes or whatever to choose from. Morality is what I think it is or what you think it is. Both are correct. Conservatism is also changing. It's certainly no longer what George Will says it is. No more than half of "conservatives" will agree on anything except that Joe Biden is nowhere close to conservative.
Your comment is curious to me Curtis. I enjoy our exchanges and love the fact your are willing to engage. You are intelligent and straight forward in your responses. In fact, exactly what i would expect from a staunch conservative and a member of the greatest generation (all of which were intended as compliments BTW).
It's why i don't see you as a populist (even somewhat), but a conservative who loves his country. Lord knows i've been wrong before, but living in a retirement community (the original Sun City AZ) for 20 years i've known more than my share of guys like you. While we didn't agree, we respected one another's beliefs and remained friends.
I guess it's why i struggle so much with any real discourse online, it seldom is open and friendly.. In fact, it appears to me (an early baby-boomer) that the next wave of retirees, Gen X, are more interested in what they write, rather than having any interest in a two-way dialogue. Perhaps i am wrong (again), but one can only judge by what one sees and reads (or doesn't).
Thanks, but I'm a pre-boomer. Missed the greatest generation by at least a dozen years. I do believe right wing populism is a real thing arising from conservatism not being well represented in the federal government. Career politicians, especially in Congress, care only about reelection. There is no prioritization of their agenda other than what will get them the most votes or make the other party look bad.
Regarding BEVs: there's an argument from Toyota that it'd be better to have more full hybrids (AKA plug-in hybrids) than BEVs, as the limited number of battery cells need to be as fully utilized as possible - and 10+ PHEVs (or 50+ "standard" hybrids) will reduce more emissions than one BEV.