I agree with you. The US actually has some very strict fishing rules and regulations... but how can we change the way China is fishing, on a massive (and illegal) scale?
I don't pay attention to French politics. But, how much truth is there to her claims that the trial was a witch hunt. We've seen plenty of those here in the US as well.
I've purchased so many things off Instagram in the past couple of years. I'm building a new house and half of it is going to be filled with Instagram advertised stuff. It just seemed so accurate for the stuff I needed. (my kitchen sink, master shower set, furniture, etc.)
There is a fan theory that Ferris Buellers Day Off is like groundhog day. That's how he plans the perfect day and gets away with everything so perfectly.
The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
Anything can be dangerous.... lots of states find a way to manage without banning fireworks. Driving is extremely dangerous. Obesity kills more people than anything else, yet they haven't banned high fat/sugary foods. Hell, they legalized fentanyl and other drugs in California. But fireworks? That's too much.
With the dryness and the fires I can certainly understand the ban... but let's not pretend it's because of safety for people.
I look at the closing paragraph: Perhaps decades from now, we will be able to tell a similar story about housing. Today, New York City’s rental market is defined by two colliding forces: tenants’ need for affordable rents, and landlords’ need to repay their creditors. Only public ownership offers an escape from the mounting pressure. If New York moves towards a model of social housing, it will be because public ownership is consistent with stable rents in a way that ownership by private investors fundamentally is not.
They forget that replacing the landlords with political figures just brings in another colliding force. Politics. Politicians. Human greed is still there, but now you've added a layer of bureaucracy and taken away any incentives to actually be cost or time efficient. Not to mention that every politician from that day on will run on reducing rent or whatever they think will "buy" them votes.
What is incorrect? This is what he said: "And they were rushed out, and many people still sit with the issues they caused. Not a win - at the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave credence to the anti-vaxxers. Well done."
So, let's break that down.
1. Were they rushed out? I think we can all agree that yes, they were rushed out and sped up beyond what we had seen typically.
2. Many people still sit with the issues they caused? I think we can all agree that yes, there were side effects that they didn't let us know about or didn't know about themselves. So, I think some people (maybe young, healthy people especially) wish they hadn't been forced to take the vaccine. I think this is likely... but even if you don't, you can't state that it's a fact that it's untrue.
3. Your statement now, that populations with higher vaccination rates saw fewer deaths and hospitalizations? Yes, I think I can agree with that. That has nothing to do with points 1 and 2 above though. It doesn't invalidate either above point, and it won't invalidate point #4 below.
4. At the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave creedence to the anti-vaxxers - not a win? -- I can agree with the above statement as well. Given I believe that all of the above are true, this statement is still true. It's not a win long term to have abused the process (even if the net was a positive) and hide information from people and you can't blame those people for now having doubts or reservations.
I think all of the above can be true at the same time. Just my 2c.
Or completely violated the law by deleting emails. Using personal emails on purpose to avoid FOIA requests. Then lying to Congress about it. Getting caught red handed in all of the above and still getting a golden parachute. Really sad to see, anyone that lies to Congress should be punished for it.