The Frankish Reich

Mr. Drew Allen didn't get the memo. This was the APRIL 2023 defense. "I could have declassified it when I was President, now I can't"

I've just adapted to the new reality. Something's wrong, it's apparently not life threatening, the primary care provider basically goes with the most things resolve on their own in a couple weeks. If not, come back. And if it's not resolved, it's a referral to a specialist. The gatekeeper function. I always laugh when I see these medical commenters suggesting that we "have a talk with your doctor" about something or other. Yeah, in 10 minutes I'll have a chat about all the probably ordinary crap that a guy my age has ...

Who knew? But I'm always concerned about jobs like radiology that can be outsourced. I just had a CT scan. The results came back really fast. I asked: the doc told me they simply send the electronic image to a remote radiologist, presumably working at home. So ... other than licensing requirements, why not send it to some radiologist in India? Or better still, just have an AI program interpret the results? (I say this because I think of such things as my kids embark on career paths ...)

Just a quick comment about relying on second-hand Twitter hot takes from people who aren't lawyers, or certainly haven't had time to read the opinions even if they are -- see that there's a contradiction here in these 2 posts? Some guy named Clay Travis says Biden's student loan forgiveness plan was "unconstitutional." That was not what the Supreme Court decided! "AGHamilton29" says the more accurate "did not have the authority." Under the Supreme Court's decision, if Congress had said "in the event of a declared national emergency, the President may modify or cancel existing student loan debt," presumably the case would've gone the other way. "Unconstitutional" is thrown around too liberally (including by conservatives, haha). Some things are not authorized by statute without being against the constitution. EDIT: and I just heard some liberal commenter say "would not bake them a wedding cake because they are gay." NO! If the gay couple had said they want a generic cake, the decision presumably would have been different. And well it should be. That's because a generic cake is not a work of art (hence "speech" protected by the 1st Amendment).

Student loan bailout was, to me, a closer case, but only because on its face Congress stupidly gave the President (Bush 43, post-9/11) ridiculously expansive authority to tinker with student loans. The language should have been narrow: "for borrowers able to show a temporary hardship in making payments that is based on the attacks of September 11 and its immediate consequences, the Secretary of Education shall have the authority to delay required payments, without further accrual of interest, for a period not to exceed 18 months." Or something like that. I hope Congress learned something; I doubt they have.

I think that would be huge. Oh, when that new car finally comes it'll be something to behold. #DelayedGratificationIsTheBestGratification Now I need to finish my kids' college so they can make big money and buy me one.

You are correct. A lot of legal scholars argue that the whole concept of "standing" is now just a gate-keeping function, employed by the Court when it wants to shoot down a plaintiff for whatever reason, ignored by the Court when it wants to find in favor of a plaintiff. There's some of that here. But the results are, to me, pretty sensible, in the immigration and student loan cases at least. Yes, results-oriented, but sensible.

Narrow decision, based on the wording of the congressional authority allowing the Executive to "modify" (not including "cancel") student loan debt/repayment. Hey, I'll admit it. I'm a law geek. This was an interesting term with respect to separation of powers. I thought the immigration case would go the other way (the Court rejected the attempt of Texas to force Biden to arrest/deport all illegal entrants). The Court was unwilling to go so far as to let States dictate the exercise of federal authorities. But here, they narrowly construed a congressional authorization allowing the President to do something that would implicate spending. I'm gonna say that on these two cases they got it right. You'll hear about how the Court is conservative and enacting a conservative agenda. Yes and no. With respect to separation of powers, it's pretty much down the middle; people can argue about how much the other cases (abortion rights, affirmative action) are about a conservative agenda instead of the law.

Good thing I didn't get to my 3rd hypothetical, in which I'm a landscape architect ...

We're getting something that sounds kind of ... sensible? The Supreme Court is drawing a blurry line, but at least a line. - I own an auto repair shop: state laws banning discrimination are fine. There's no "speech" or artistic expression in fixing a car. - I am a florist. Gay couple wants me to do a special arrangement celebrating their marriage, with some kind of "expression" (those creepy bride/groom figures, but with two grooms). You can't make me create "art" celebrating something I disagree with. - I am a florist. Gay couple comes in, says they want a floral arrangement for their daughter's graduation. No artistic expression celebrating the gay relationship there; just celebrating the graduation. Make the damn arrangement.

Trickle down, baby, trickle down ...

This is so Miami/Orlando ... I do see a lot of the hispanic kids struggle (and remember, I am not in Florida, so it's a different hispanic demographic), mostly because the parents have minimal education and are just happy that the kids are in school at all. That's somewhere I think school outreach could really help. Of course, that also ties into the immigration issue. And that's changing, now that we see a lot of educated Venezuelans and Colombians coming in ...

Kind of a "how it started, how it's going" thing. Here's Trump in 2016: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/10/18/donald-trump-rally-colorado-springs-ethics-lobbying-limitations/92377656/ Donald Trump on Tuesday pushed a package of ethics reforms he said would "drain the swamp" of Washington, D.C., including strict limitations on lobbying and a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congress. Trump said the proposals, some of which would have to be approved by Congress and others by the American public, would restore faith in what he repeatedly called a rigged system that rewards the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the common man. Speaking to a rowdy crowd estimated by police at 1,500, Trump said Hillary Clinton has benefited time and time again from system where lobbyists move between government, political campaigns and the private sector. On debate eve, Trump proposes new ethics rules, term limits for Congress “Either we win this election or we lose this country,” Trump said. “Under a Trump administration, it’s going to be America First.” Speaking for the second time in two days about his ethics plan, Trump called for: • A constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress • A ban on federal employees lobbying the government for five years • A ban on members of Congress lobbying for five years • Tighter rules about what constitutes a lobbyist, instead of letting people call themselves consultants • Campaign finance reform limiting what foreign companies can raise for American political candidates • A ban on senior government officials lobbying for foreign governments “We have to give new voices a chance … so we can have a government that works again and can function properly …” Trump said.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-found-a-staggering-281-lobbyists-whove-worked-in-the-trump-administration We Found a “Staggering” 281 Lobbyists Who’ve Worked in the Trump Administration That’s one lobbyist for every 14 political appointees, and four times more than Obama had appointed six years into office. But, but, but ... He alone can Drain the Swamp!

Re: Reagan. https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/11/leadership-advice-from-ronald-reagan/ Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided on is being carried out. Compare Trump. He started out spouting the Reagan advice: "I have the best people." And then he appointed the people he thought were best - "my generals." And then he fired them. All of them. And fired them again. And got in the way of every decision possible. Got in his own way. And got in trouble by not keeping out of the way. Reagan clearly had dementia, certainly evident by his second term. Maybe Trump did too? One surrounded himself with the best people he could find (well, not all the best - there was James Watt and Oliver North), pointed them in the direction he wanted to go in, and left them alone to do it. One surrounded himself with the best people he could find, immediately began second-guessing them, fired them, and had to rely on a series of "Acting" fools and clownish advisors (Rudy Giuliani, anyone?) by the end.

Totally impressionistic/anectodal: Asian-American parents (or I'll expand it a bit, since I've seen the same thing with children of African immigrants) hold their kids responsible for their own successes and failures. You got a B? You didn't study hard enough! We'll get you a tutor who makes sure you do all the work. White parents: "My kid is very intelligent, he just doesn't test well. One of the other parents said the same thing, and they took him to a psychologist who diagnosed him with ADHD, so now he gets additional time on exams." And typically does a little better, but still trails well behind the tiger mommy kids.

Very true. And I also see a lot of parents who sink tons of money into things that are really unlikely to pay off: club sports travel teams for their good (not great) athlete kids while they give short shrift to the academic side. I know one family where that ostensibly "worked" - the kid got a full ride basketball scholarship to a college nobody's heard of. And then promptly said "I'm out" after being burned out on constant basketball from the age of 6. Meanwhile we see a lot of Asian kids whose parents pay for tutors, extra assignments, violin lessons, even spelling bee coaches. Those latter things don't often translate directly into success (there aren't many jobs for concert violinists or professional spelling bee competitors), but they build study skills that translate into success as doctors, research scientists, etc.

Do you think Reagan was a great leader?

Probably the most annoying thing about Trumpies - they buy his bs that he's the outsider who's ready to continue "draining the swamp," getting rid of that revolving door of government-to-lobbyist-to-government. Check out what his advisors are doing now; this is a great example. Or sometimes he just cuts out the middleman and keeps it all in the family, like with son-in-law Jared and his deals. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

You mean like the poster who responds to everything with "groomer?" Or the one who just says "what a mess?" We've got a lot of those one trick ponies round here!

Let's say that's true. That Biden is pretty much out of it and he's delegated White House decisionmaking to various advisors. Is this such a bad thing? I can't stand Trump. But if he'd left foreign policy decisionmaking to "my generals," tax/spend policy to Paul Ryan, and outsourced judicial nominations to the Federalist Society (something he did stick to), wouldn't his administration been more successful? Wouldn't he (gasp!) still be President? I consider Reagan's presidency to be the most successful overall since FDR. And he famously set a tone and then got the hell out of the way of most decisions. Oh, and was senile by the end to boot. The presidency by committee is a feature, not a bug.

There's some sacrifice by the parents too. I mentioned in another thread that my wife and I drive cars that are over 10 years old. I live in a big city with a big city school system that is, by any account, troubled. Yet I park next to coworkers with beautiful new $100,000 cars who send their kids to those same public schools. I could have had one or two of those if my kids had gone to public school ... (Patting myself on the back)

This has been our experience with our kids. Although not Asian-American, I think maybe my wife and I have a bit of the tiger mommy/daddy thing in us, so we really pushed commitment to schoolwork and excellence. So far, so good. Part of that was probably going the private/catholic school route. Not necessarily because the teachers are better (my impression: they aren't), but because your kid is with a similar group of kids with parents who are heavily committed to academic success. Kind of a self-selection thing. To get a little political here: this is one of the problems with our school boards/officials. We could do the same thing with public/charter schools, setting up some for the academically gifted (I hate that word; academically committed?). But that might require the dreaded "test-in" thing that the progressives hate. So we tend to settle for the lowest common denominator in the public system.

Wow. That's depressing. There's room for snark in this forum (and I'll admit I am a participant in that), but I actually check out these topics because it's kind of like a tiny reddit - there are people who actually have experience in a certain area who can provide some insight into things I don't know much about. So ... how did we get to this place? I know COVID made things worse, but the trend was already well in place. Checked out or entitled parents? Social media distractions? Bad/bloated school administrators? Burned out teachers? All of the above?

Still love my A5, 10 years into its lifespan. Now if they could figure out a way to make an EV version, I'd finally be ready to trade up.