Bloomington is great. Was there for grad school. My wife and I talk about retiring there. Enjoy if you do. There is a lot for someone to get involved in.
Right on about the “will sort itself out” bit. Life principle I have to often remind myself about (especially in regard to social media) there is a limit to how much I can and should stress about things that will ultimately resolve themselves at some point in the future.
I’ve taken my father—not a soccer watcher—to a USL game, then a MLS game, then to the La Liga summer tour last year in SF. I don’t think we were in our seats for a minute when he said something recognizing the quality differences.
That seems like something I’d agree with. I’d add that this seems an even bigger difference to me once you factor in population size. But you also see something very similar when you look at league play.
This is the actual, original article The Imperial Supreme Court. Accept no imitations from the New York Times, which decided to take the title and idea without attribution (after turning down my op ed with the same title, no less)
harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who understand everything has an opportunity cost and those who do not know what opportunity cost is. It will be interesting to see how this policy space sorts itself out over the next few years.
I’d love to hear more. This sounds like the type of nuts and bolts of government that is important, fascinating to me, and doesn’t get talked about enough.
"They were losing knowledge so fast they had to resort to drastic, even criminal, acts."
"You mean?..."
"Yes, they had to,"
*sunglasses*
"stele it."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEAH
Just something to get me started on thinking about how to empathize, respond, and what not. It seems to me if one has a better understanding of the thrust of the arguments another is making, you can better empathize, respond, etc.? Does that make sense? Does it help clarify? Thanks for responding.
