ahem, that's a *pretty bad* link to the scene in question--like, low-res and smeared by vaseline. The Clip people are commercially questionable but at least you can *see* it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsSYpN093c
I only say this because this is at the level of clip-quotation scripture: thou shalt not make The Princess Bride unviewable.
"What has changed in recent years is less the polarization of foreign policy and more the polarization of attitudes towards expertise more generally. Republicans will now often rail against mainstream foreign policy views by tying them to the Blob, or tying them to past failures like Iraq, or tying them to the idea that scarce government resources are being allocated overseas rather than to problems at home. This last gambit was available to politicians for decades; only recently, however, has it gained real traction."
With regards to foreign policy as projected by mainstream media, other than the actual reported event, what has been lacking is the rationale of why intervention is necessary. For this particular war in Ukraine, the ostensible reasons given have been generally rote and cliche, too much to justify risking global thermonuclear war. The media seem to be doing a little better with the potential confrontation with China, but honestly, I have already discovered that real news is difficult to find. Generally, one needs to pay for it. For the average American, that is too much effort to discover an actionable pearl.
Regarding the economy, the Populist wave of 2016 seems to be a reaction to a stagnant economy during the Obama era. Combined with loss of confidence in the system working for them, the MAGA message was quite seductive. I do believe the powers that be understood the economy to be a serious issue. TPP was never resurrected. CHIPs and IRA are infrastructure bills that are geared towards domestic spending, which a good start. Honestly the majority of the money in the country is tied up in a handful of Fortune 500 companies. So far it is Elon Musk who has decentralized his operations to a certain degree, thus spreading more jobs across the country, which helps to alleviate Populist pressure.
I would hope that with delivery of more transparent news along with stimulating the economy across more states, Americans can begin to view national challenges on more common ground. The last time I remembered this type of event was during Desert Storm, about 30 years ago.
Have fun storming the castle.
ahem, that's a *pretty bad* link to the scene in question--like, low-res and smeared by vaseline. The Clip people are commercially questionable but at least you can *see* it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsSYpN093c
I only say this because this is at the level of clip-quotation scripture: thou shalt not make The Princess Bride unviewable.
"What has changed in recent years is less the polarization of foreign policy and more the polarization of attitudes towards expertise more generally. Republicans will now often rail against mainstream foreign policy views by tying them to the Blob, or tying them to past failures like Iraq, or tying them to the idea that scarce government resources are being allocated overseas rather than to problems at home. This last gambit was available to politicians for decades; only recently, however, has it gained real traction."
With regards to foreign policy as projected by mainstream media, other than the actual reported event, what has been lacking is the rationale of why intervention is necessary. For this particular war in Ukraine, the ostensible reasons given have been generally rote and cliche, too much to justify risking global thermonuclear war. The media seem to be doing a little better with the potential confrontation with China, but honestly, I have already discovered that real news is difficult to find. Generally, one needs to pay for it. For the average American, that is too much effort to discover an actionable pearl.
Regarding the economy, the Populist wave of 2016 seems to be a reaction to a stagnant economy during the Obama era. Combined with loss of confidence in the system working for them, the MAGA message was quite seductive. I do believe the powers that be understood the economy to be a serious issue. TPP was never resurrected. CHIPs and IRA are infrastructure bills that are geared towards domestic spending, which a good start. Honestly the majority of the money in the country is tied up in a handful of Fortune 500 companies. So far it is Elon Musk who has decentralized his operations to a certain degree, thus spreading more jobs across the country, which helps to alleviate Populist pressure.
I would hope that with delivery of more transparent news along with stimulating the economy across more states, Americans can begin to view national challenges on more common ground. The last time I remembered this type of event was during Desert Storm, about 30 years ago.
*Desert Shield
Personnel make policy? Ever since WWII our presidents had served in the military, and leading senators also had military service. That started to fade with Clinton, and none of his successors had significant service. John McClain was the most prominent veteran in the Senate. see this graph: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/07/new-congress-will-have-a-few-more-veterans-but-their-share-of-lawmakers-is-still-near-a-record-low/ft_22-12-05_veteranscongress1/
Wjem I started I thought maybe the House was seeing a revival of veterans, but apparently not.