July LC thread so PVN will stop posting LAST - Page 33 - Politics and Economics

What Cuomo has done in the Senate is the most prominent example of how he has undercut New York’s progressive architecture and neutered opposition from his left flank. On a legislative level, the coalition between the GOP and the renegade Democrats—known as the Independent Democratic Conference—allows Cuomo to control the pace of the reform coming out of Albany. It has hobbled the ability of the Democratic Party, which technically won a majority in the state Senate in 2012 and 2016 (Republicans won the majority in 2014), to push for progressive policies in areas like health care, voting reform, reproductive rights, and immigration. And it precludes the threat of a Democratic Senate majority leader with clout.

On an electoral level, Cuomo’s machinations have weakened the party further. According to Ross Barkan at the Village Voice, the New York State Democratic Committee, which is supposed to help Democrats get elected across the state, spends much of its money on Cuomo’s campaigns and policy priorities. As Barkan notes, “In the 2016 cycle, the state party sent $11,000 to three Democratic candidates in contested races. The campaign committees for Senate and Assembly Democrats didn’t receive anything.”

.....

Cuomo has worked to debilitate the left beyond the state legislature. Take his relationship with the Working Families Party, New York’s progressive third-party alternative. In 2014, the WFP recruited Teachout to challenge Cuomo from the left. In talks brokered by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Cuomo promised, in exchange for the WFP’s support, to back progressive policy priorities, including a higher minimum wage, the DREAM Act, decriminalization of marijuana, and the public financing of elections. Crucially, he also promised to push for a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the end, WFP backed Cuomo instead of Teachout. As Cuomo stated at the time, “It’s very simple. At these political conventions, you either win or you lose. And I won.”

Then Cuomo failed to uphold his end of the bargain, most egregiously in allowing Republicans to maintain control of the state Senate. The WFP had little to show for its compromise, while its reputation as a liberal bastion was damaged. “Over three years ago, the governor promised the WFP State Committee to bring the IDC back, build a strong progressive majority, and pass legislation in a host of critical areas,” Lipton says. “With the election of Trump, those unkept promises are smoldering.” That year, Cuomo also created another third party, the Women’s Equality Party (WEP), which was seen as a jab at the WFP and an attempt to siphon off its voters. Progressive critics have observed that the WEP’s acronym is only one letter off from the WFP.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1438...eps-left-check

07-17-2017 , 04:35 PM

#802

iron81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 17,729

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

Privatizing social security was on Bill Clinton's agenda when he got sidetracked by Monica Lewinsky.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-newt-gingrich

It's interesting how the DEMe was focused on cutting benefits because the expense was deemed unsustainable, but the current DEMe would rather expand benefits.

07-17-2017 , 04:49 PM

#803

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

A quick article on the subject of progressive taxation not being the solution to all problems: What American liberals could learn from South Africa

Quote:

South Africa has the world's most progressive tax system, according to a new report. South Africa is also, by another measure, the world's most unequal country -- making it a cautionary example for U.S. liberals about the limited power of taxation to remedy inequality.

Yes, taxing the rich more and the poor less can have benefits, but many experts argue inequality is more meaningfully addressed by spending on public programs that provide for people's basic needs while giving them an opportunity to get ahead.

07-17-2017 , 04:58 PM

#804

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

If you want to be bleak about climate change this article is for you

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html

If you want to be more optimistic, WaPo notes that climate scientists are not happy about that article

Quote:

Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann, a climate researcher known for skewering skeptics of climate change, took the lead in debunking the Wallace-Wells story Monday, writing, “The article argues that climate change will render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article fails to produce it.”

Mann objected in particular to Wallace-Wells’s statement regarding “satellite data showing the globe warming, since 1998, more than twice as fast as scientists had thought,” calling it “erroneous.”

Quote:

As Mann also notes, the story starts out by describing the massive amount of carbon that lies in Arctic permafrost, “all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up,” and suggesting that much of it will be released as the hard-hitting greenhouse gas methane.

That’s very difficult to square with existing research: A major study published in 2015 by a large group of permafrost experts found that only about 5 to 15 percent of permafrost carbon was likely to be released during this century, and that most of it would be in the form of the slower-warming carbon dioxide, not methane. (Granted, that’s still a substantial addition to the world’s emissions.)

07-17-2017 , 06:31 PM

#805

O.A.F.K.1.1

Ted Patrick

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

A quick article on the subject of progressive taxation not being the solution to all problems: What American liberals could learn from South Africa

South Africa tho.

The article seems to refer to what would appear to be a truism, what you spend revenue's on matter.

Given the horrible baseline of inequality you are starting out at in SA, just PT on its own not solving income inequality seems hella obvious.

07-17-2017 , 08:18 PM

#806

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,840

An overdose, a young companion, drug-fueled parties: The secret life of USC med school dean
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...htmlstory.html

07-17-2017 , 08:23 PM

#807

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Terminal stupidity

07-17-2017 , 08:25 PM

#808

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,913

Sad news from the math world, Maryam Mirzakhani died. The first and to date only women to win the Fields Medal. She was only 40.

07-17-2017 , 08:30 PM

#809

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

An overdose, a young companion, drug-fueled parties: The secret life of USC med school dean
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...htmlstory.html

Quote:

Puliafito has no known criminal record, and public records show no blemishes on the medical licenses he holds in California and three other states. A review of court records in those states found no malpractice claims against him.

He is highly regarded in the field of ophthalmology and regularly addresses doctors at national conventions and training seminars. Over the last decade, he has coauthored more than 60 medical journal articles on retinal disease and other topics. Since 2008, he has served on the governing board of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, the state agency that oversees stem cell research.

Not sure why I should care about the lurid details of this guy's personal life.

07-17-2017 , 08:47 PM

#810

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,840

Well, I'm old enough to remember the days when leaders of major academic medical institutions were not supposed to go on meth-fueled benders with a crew of young hookers and addicts. But if it's good enough for the leader of the free world, allegedly, then why not. YOLO.

07-17-2017 , 08:53 PM

#811

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Well no, they're not supposed to ideally, but they frequently do anyway, because humans. If this guy was making a mess of his professional life, screwing up the university, injuring patients, whatever, then sure, publicly rake him over the coals. But it sounds like his only crime was not being discreet enough and he was quietly forced to resign. I don't understand why there needs to be a long form expose in the Times when nobody was harmed. It strikes me as lurid sensationalism that serves no purpose.

07-17-2017 , 08:59 PM

#812

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

To be clear, I said all throughout the primaries that I was much closer to Sanders but strategically, it made sense to support Clinton. Just this weekend I argued that Clinton's loss had no less than half a dozen potential causative variables, from Russia to voter suppression to unfair media scrutiny that would absolve her political posturing. Tactical things (didn't visit Wisconsin) aren't ideological, simply practical. Those may have mattered. But I do think one potential causitive failure leading to her defeat is her failure to really inspire and motivate ideologues on the left. But other variables existed that may have been dispositive. 60k votes is razor thin, etc. etc., anything could have mattered or been decisive on its own, or perhaps all of the stories are true, that literally all of the variables mattered.

So actually, I make no super grand claims about knowing what will win but I am throwing in the towel on risk-averse New Left triangulation centrism or whatever the in vogue term is. It's electoral wisdom is entirely precarious and as someone who wants to see far more leftism in actual policy, I'd rather what wins and power we do accumulate count for something more than just as a buffer against ever more extremist right-wingerism. In fact the whole strategic appeal of the neo liberal order is that the left bargained away a lot of what we would want to keep the regressive, fascist forces at bay. But look at the President, the retrograde GOP, and how much power it has. The old centrist/neoliberal/left consensus failed and it's time to chart new paths. I do not promise success but know only the old bargain provided little durable outcomes but we have a political culture besieged with anger, an almost holistic trash culture and an ascendant populist right movement. We had some successes (gay marriage high-five) but they were few and far between to be honest. Some of the anger is inchoate and unjustified and some is truly righteous, and when I survey the righteous anger, I can underlying it failures that the former New Leftian sort of bargain accepted if not championed.

Here's what I don't understand about your framework. Your view seems to be that the Democratic Party is really a left-wing party that has made a bargain with neo-liberal centrists that they can be party leaders in return for marginal improvements in policy plus holding the GOP at bay. Maybe this describes your own reasoning of why you supported these type of candidates. I also think this is a plausible critique of Blairism. But it doesn't make sense of the Democratic Party. We already use primaries to select our Presidential candidate, and it is Democratic voters that have been selecting these neoliberal candidates for decades, including in 2016. Maybe all these voters have been voting strategically like you suggest, but I'm very doubtful. It looks more like they just support those kinds of leaders.

Obviously this could change. Maybe Democratic voters really are shifting more towards the left* and Senator Sanders will win the nomination in 2020. If he does, I'll vote for him in the general. But the Democratic Party will still be the same combination of social democrat and market-friendly liberals we have now, just tilted a bit more towards the social democratic side. Most of the people in the Senate will be the same boring ones we have now. Legislative logic will still give disproportionate influence to those at the margins on close bills. I just don't see any plausible nearby future world where the coalition between the left and the center-left breaks apart without consigning both to long-term minority status. There aren't enough social democratic/democratic socialist types on their own to win power at the national level in the US. You say you are throwing in the towel on this coalition, but what does this mean? You'll be unhappy about supporting the neoliberal candidate who might end up winning in 2020 or '24? Or you think the people will all just decide they like those left-wing candidates after all? If Bernie Sanders wins he should act like the centrist Democratic Senator from x are not actually Democrats? Or is this just a power fantasy like the Chapo Boys going on about centrists swearing fealty to them?

*I do think this claim is overblown on the basis of Sanders' performance in the primaries. Presumably the idea is that he almost won against Hillary, so there really is a lot of support for an openly "socialist" left-wing candidate. But this view is usually coupled with the claim that Hillary was a horrible candidate that somehow couldn't win against an orange clown. Doesn't that make Sanders' relative good showing in the primary less meaningful as a signal for increased support for left-wing leaders in the Democratic Party?

Quote:

Right. See my response to Max. I think the goal here for people that share my worldview is to build the consensus that taking a stronger left turn is wise because it will provide more of what we want and that risk-averse strategies aren't paying off to justify the sacrifices.

I agree the process will play out roughly the same, that the primaries are a large multi-variate process with lots of inputs and millions of atomized decisions.

I assume most people here realize our reach on 2p2 is extremely, extremely limited, basically non-existent but the pose of mini-thought-influencer and chatting on the internet is at least cathartic and entertaining. Obviously the practical, real-world effect ("who are you really talking to?") is basically none. But that could describe ~any post here on any topic about anything.

Sure, obviously I don't object to discussions about politics on the internet. I was talking more about the model of politics that seems to underlie a lot of the discussion here, where political coalitions are a matter of choice rather than necessity. Sanders didn't step aside to let Hillary win because she would be a stronger candidate in the general. He just didn't convince enough voters to support him.

07-17-2017 , 09:01 PM

#813

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,840

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

If this guy was making a mess of his professional life, screwing up the university, injuring patients, whatever, then sure, publicly rake him over the coals.

If he was not actively doing such things, he was certainly upping the probability well beyond what his employer, colleagues, and students could expect.

Also, USC is going to likely lose a big lawsuit, after spending millions, over this guy's underhanded poaching of one of the nation's preeminent Alzheimer's research program from UCSD.

07-17-2017 , 09:15 PM

#814

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

If he was not actively doing such things, he was certainly upping the probability well beyond what his employer, colleagues, and students could expect.

...and he was forced to resign. And I think you may be overstating the probabilities a bit and treating this guy like he's some fringe outlier. You do realize there are millions and millions of people in respectable, high profile positions who take lots of drugs and go to orgies with prostitutes and stuff, right? This is super standard human behavior, at all levels of society. Always has been. Society seems to keep plugging along.

07-17-2017 , 09:36 PM

#815

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,724

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

*shrug* sometimes news outlets just do human interest stories.

07-17-2017 , 11:32 PM

#816

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Sad news from the math world, Maryam Mirzakhani died. The first and to date only women to win the Fields Medal. She was only 40.

The best remembrance for a general audience Ive read is from The New Yoker. Including a very funny story about Mirzakhani and a fellow Fields Medalist solving a simple, but very real, combinatorial problem.

07-18-2017 , 06:45 AM

#817

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

Are there centrists Dems championing privatization of state assets and services? I don't recall ever coming across someone like this. I think I'm reasonably centrists compared to folks like einbert, and those ideas all sound horrible.

Booker is one obvious example:

Corey Booker:

Quote:

In Newark, Booker drew criticism from liberal allies for embracing charter schools and voucher programs advocated by libertarians. He also championed “enterprise zones,” a free-market approach to solving urban blight credited to the late Jack Kemp, a hard-core supply-sider and occasional Republican presidential contender who helped raise money for Booker’s first mayoral campaign.

This is a good overview of the fetishization of privatization during the Clinton years:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature...atization/one/

Quote:

In fact, Clinton succeeded where Reagan and Bush failed. Writing in 1997, the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt (who had been Reagan’s “privatization czar”) praised Clinton for pursuing “the boldest privatization agenda put forth by any American president to date,” and noted that his proposals were “virtually all drawn from recommendations made in 1988 by President Reagan’s Commission on Privatization.” In 2006 Reason Foundation’s Robert Poole declared that “the Clinton administration’s privatization successes exceeded those of Reagan.”

In the first year of his administration Clinton assigned Vice President Gore to oversee a major initiative to “reinvent” government under the auspices of an intergovernmental task force, the National Performance Review (NPR). Clinton embraced the ideas popularized by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, in their 1992 bestseller Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, and later on by a follow-up book by Osborne and Peter Plastrik, Banishing Bureaucracy.

The Gore initiative was about making the federal government more effective, but the idea of privatization was also baked in from the start, as it was in Osborne and Gaebler’s work.

Clinton’s 1992 campaign promises included a plan to cut 100,000 federal jobs. Downsizing was a significant part of the plan and further baked in pressure to contract out public services and functions that still needed to be performed.

In 1995 President Clinton asked Vice President Gore and the task force to identify programs that could be reinvented, terminated, privatized, or sold. Each agency identified potential functions to privatize including the Seafood Inspection Service, the OSHA and MSHA Accreditation Process, the Office of Personnel Management’s background investigations service (which became USIS, the company that performed background checks on contractors including Edward Snowden and was found to be “flushing” background checks to meet monthly quotas ), the DOL Penalty and Debt Collection, and the Federal Helium Program.

Perhaps Clinton’s most significant contribution to privatization was ideological. The NPR reports redefined government services in market terms – “citizens” became “customers” of public services and competition became a guiding management principle. The NPR’s final recommendations (1995) called for “more competition, more privatization,” an idea first articulated by Friedman and Savas, who called in 1971 for “competition to reduce the monopolistic control many governments have over their customers.”

The NPR institutionalized downsizing and contracting out across federal government agencies. But the 1996 Welfare Reform law supercharged privatization. The law removed restrictions that prohibited states from contracting out welfare intake and eligibility in what the Washington Post described as potentially “the largest transfers of public sector operations into private hands.”

Quote:

On the other hand, the administration has increased the number of publicly funded, privately operated charter schools with billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies. At the same time, for-profit charter management companies are growing. Obama has embraced the use of public-private partnerships that would attract private investment to needed infrastructure projects, but that also privatize the operation of transit systems, water and wastewater plants and other critical infrastructure. And the number of immigrant detention beds in privately operated centers continues to increase.

In the last decade, much of the battle over privatization has shifted to states and cities across the country. Obama’s initiatives incentivize privatization, but state and local governments are making it happen – more aggressively by red-state politicians motivated by ideological and political aims, but also by politicians in blue regions facing budget constraints.

A good article about how even in 2016, Democrats upset their allies in public school teacher unions with triangulation, taking private-education-industry PAC money, which then filters into mealy-mouthed policies that borrow from private-education-industry propaganda:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9629dd4d4542

Quote:

Many of those same charter advocates welcomed Clinton’s remarks Tuesday. “We were happy to see her specifically affirm her support for high-quality public charter schools,” said Shavar Jeffries, president of the pro-charter group Democrats for Education Reform. “Her statements today reiterate her commitment to reform.”

NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia said some of her members are deeply angry about charter schools because of the way they have siphoned money away from traditional public school systems. But Eskelsen did not take umbrage at Clinton’s remarks: “There are some successful charter schools,” she said. “Let’s look at what makes them work.”

Quote:

Education historian and activist Diane Ravitch was among those who were unimpressed. She wrote on her blog:

Quote:

The section on education contains a lot of reformer lingo. Zip codes. Options. Accountability. The Democratic party favors “high academic standards.” Who favors “low academic standards?” The party opposes too much testing; who favors too much testing?

The rhetoric about “high academic standards” brings echoes of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to see a statement about meeting the needs of all children? Or ensuring that all schools have the staff and resources they need for the children they enroll?

And then there’s the section on charters. The party is against for-profit charters: so far, so good, but how about saying that a Clinton administration will stop federal funding of for-profit schools and colleges, because they are low-quality and predatory, with profit as their top priority?

The party favors “high quality charters.” Does that mean corporate charter chains like KIPP, Achievement First, and Success Academy? Probably. How about a statement opposing corporate replacements for neighborhood public schools? How about a statement insisting that charters accept English language learners and students with disabilities at the same rate as the neighborhood public school? How about a statement opposing draconian disciplinary policies and suspensions?

I mean the private prison industry literally ****ing taunts the Democrats that they'll get their way in the end:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/27/...trump-clinton/

Quote:

The chief executive of the largest private prison company in America reassured investors earlier this month that with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House, his firm will be “just fine.” Damon Hininger, the chief executive of Corrections Corporation of America, was speaking at the REITWeek investor forum.

Private prisons have received a great deal of criticism this election cycle, first with Bernie Sanders campaigning to end for-profit incarceration, followed by Clinton taking up a similar pledge.

After The Intercept revealed that the Clinton campaign had received campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, a number of activist groups confronted Clinton, leading her to announce that she would no longer accept the money and later declaring that “we should end private prisons and private detention centers.”

But Corrections Corporation is apparently not concerned. Asked about prospects under Trump or Clinton, Hininger argued that his company has prospered through political turnover by taking advantage of the government’s quest for lower costs.

“I would say that being around 30 years and being in operation in many, many states, and also doing work with the federal government going back to the 1980s, where you had Clinton White House, you had a Bush White House, you had Obama White House, we’ve done very, very well,” Hininger said.

07-18-2017 , 07:02 AM

#818

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I'd formulate it in a different way: again, I don't know where the 'true' median Democratic voter is on the political spectrum. What I do know is that there's a critical mass of leftists in the party, or failing a coherent ideologue test, people who express preferences for leftist policies and outcomes in public opinion polls. Are they 20% of the party? A majority of the party? 75% of the party? I don't know.

But I remain confident that as the GOP realigned the parties in the 1960s and as Reagan solidified the party as a mix of hardcore market orthodox types plus southern white supremacists and other anxious white populists, what's been created on our side is a coalition between small-l liberals, moderates, centrists, and the left. As you described.

My point is that the left needs to be far more insistent about seeing our goals through in this coalition. My take is that the centrist, market-friendly forces have driven policy for the Democrats largely over the last 30-40 years and the left has acquiesced because of the premise that it was necessary to keep the fascist, authoritarian, "unleash the total market forces and dismantle the welfare state" of the right at bay, that it was the smart way to win power and avoid the worst possible outcomes. We didn't get alot of what we wanted, but at least we could hold offices and power and prevent really bad outcomes.

But here are we in 2017 with total GOP control over the government and no signs of being able to beat any of that back with centrists guiding the party. I do not make any predictions about whether some pivot to the left will automatically be successful nor can I really know where the true preferences of the coalition lies. That seems to be the point of confusion, that you assume I do. I don't. I'm simply making a results oriented kind of conclusion, that 30-40 years of milquetoast centrist approach, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, has left the party basically in shambles and a new approach is required.

07-18-2017 , 07:34 AM

#819

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,840

Dems would be a lot better off with a harder left message that included calling someone like Caitlan Jenner a co**sucker, but for some reason supporting unions and regulations, ect. seems to correlate with being touchy feely in other areas for lefty democrats. Dems needs to do less 'celebrating' diversity and more tolerating it. It ain't like there is another political option for the tolerated. I'm thinking more LBJ than HRC. Lady Gaga can do what she wants, I'm all for it, but it's a good way to lose elections while being more popular on actual substance. E.g., I consider myself a pretty solid feminist, but having good college sports for women should not mean risking healthcare for millions.

07-18-2017 , 10:09 AM

#820

TrollyWantACracker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,184

Democrats desperately need to find someone who only speaks in couplets.

07-18-2017 , 10:26 AM

#821

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,724

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

This just seems like the triangulation strategy for social issues.

07-18-2017 , 10:52 AM

#822

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,499

the dems should privatise more. if you love public transit then you should find a way to get so much of the running of it as possible out of government hands. similarly if you care about poor kids in ****ty schools then you should make sure the always have a decent and subsidies privat alternative.

call it scandinavian (neo)liberalism and hope it'll keep the sanders types happy

07-18-2017 , 11:03 AM

#823

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Those great privatizers the Scandinavians.

07-18-2017 , 11:07 AM

#824

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Speaking of the laziness of right-winger attacks on Elizabeth Warren that just call her a Fake Indian, check out how lazy the privatization crowd has gotten:

"if you love public transit then you should hand it over to for-profit companies"
"if you care about poor kids we should subsidies private alternatives"
"just call it Scandinavian"

Literally just "come to think of it hand your tax monies over, here's some asinine branding thing I guess."

Not even trying hard anymore. Am I at least not entitled to a story about low public school test scores, something about Uber on the verge of some ingenuous driverless cars while the state can't make the trains run on time. Something?

07-18-2017 , 11:16 AM

#825

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Those great privatizers the Scandinavians.

probably the most neoliberal countries on earth

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

we cant all spend our time writing 2000 word post that nobody will read. that doesnt make it wrong

and **** knows if it's good politics or not, but it would be good policies.

Page 33 of 53

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43

Last

...

Page 33 of 53

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43

Last