Favorite Rejects 2022-04-24
www.tugboattoday.com
A lot of folks claim to believe the right way to assess a controversy is to completely ignore the specifics of the controversy and instead do a comprehensive moral assessment of all the actors on both sides and line up with the good guys.
This seems obviously wrong to me.
This then leads to the conclusion that it is really important to ascertain who is acting in “bad faith” which again strikes me as wrong — on lots of issues I learn informative things from lobbyists who are acting in total bad faith.
During the Export-Import Bank reauthorization controversy, it was very interesting to hear from the Delta lobbyists (anti-ExIm) and the Boeing lobbyists (pro-ExIm) because they had a ton of facts at hand.
But they’re lobbyists, of course bad faith — on both sides.
Still, I formed a view — the case against the Export-Import Bank was sort of abstracting persuasive but scrapping it would have been short-term economically harmful given the conditions of the time so I side with Boeing.
Under today’s different conditions, I’d be with Delta.
The French welfare state is genuinely huge so if people want to mostly argue about other stuff who am I to tell them they're wrong.
But we are not so fortunate in the United States and still really need a politics that centers such matters.
Climate activist dies after setting himself on fire outside of Supreme Court building on Earth Day.
nypost.com/2022/04/23/wyn…
Or one inspired by @owasow — what if Martin Luther King wasn't assassinated, we didn't have the riots that followed the assassination, and Hubert Humphrey won the 1968 election?
That also seems better to me.
omarwasow.com/APSR_protests3…
I just want everyone to know that I am consistent in my pro-pandering views — I don’t like to see courageous left-wing stands or courageous centrist ones.
Electoral politics is too important for principled leadership. https://t.co/gusUR9exvn
Ben Ritz 🇺🇦 SAVE STANDARD TIME @BudgetBen
