This is so pathetic. Opening position should be no funding for DHS at all. Then let the other side make a case for parts of it that are working *for* us.
February 5, 2026 at 1:25 AM
This is so pathetic. Opening position should be no funding for DHS at all. Then let the other side make a case for parts of it that are working *for* us.
I have long been saying this should be the first priority of a democratic-controlled congress. Just pass a law saying that there must be enough congressional districts so that none is more than 10 percent larger than the smallest. Call it "The one-man, one-vote bill."
November 22, 2025 at 8:49 PM
I have long been saying this should be the first priority of a democratic-controlled congress. Just pass a law saying that there must be enough congressional districts so that none is more than 10 percent larger than the smallest. Call it "The one-man, one-vote bill."
Problem is, if they held out this long for ACA and give up without it, some of us will conclude the only ones at fault are them. Could've gotten this on day -1.
November 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Problem is, if they held out this long for ACA and give up without it, some of us will conclude the only ones at fault are them. Could've gotten this on day -1.
#3 is is a killer for me. #2 is a built-in inefficiency. I have to believe if there were one risk pool and single payer, $640 / month would buy a lot more.
November 4, 2025 at 10:13 PM
#3 is is a killer for me. #2 is a built-in inefficiency. I have to believe if there were one risk pool and single payer, $640 / month would buy a lot more.
How about you start a company that gets bought by a company that gives you 2.5b, the company that bought it subsequently goes broke so the 2.5b wasn't for curing cancer, it was for doing nothing. You still got the 2.5b, and what should happen is you should pay income tax on its proceeds.
October 24, 2025 at 2:30 AM
How about you start a company that gets bought by a company that gives you 2.5b, the company that bought it subsequently goes broke so the 2.5b wasn't for curing cancer, it was for doing nothing. You still got the 2.5b, and what should happen is you should pay income tax on its proceeds.
This immediately brought to mind Asimov's 1957 short story "Profession", where a tiny minority of people capable of independent learning are responsible for all progress. We may be seeing a transition to something like that as AI contamination erodes the ability to create.
September 12, 2025 at 9:55 PM
This immediately brought to mind Asimov's 1957 short story "Profession", where a tiny minority of people capable of independent learning are responsible for all progress. We may be seeing a transition to something like that as AI contamination erodes the ability to create.
In my daydream a boatload of CHP cruisers would show up, block in their vehicles, and then one of LA's efficient towing companies shows up to impound their improperly parked vehicles.
August 14, 2025 at 9:18 PM
In my daydream a boatload of CHP cruisers would show up, block in their vehicles, and then one of LA's efficient towing companies shows up to impound their improperly parked vehicles.
Gerrymandering isn't the only problem. To have equal representation, we should have 573 districts instead of 435. That doesn't take an Amendment just an act of congress. Until 1913 the number of representatives increased roughly with the population, and was capped in 1929.
August 5, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Gerrymandering isn't the only problem. To have equal representation, we should have 573 districts instead of 435. That doesn't take an Amendment just an act of congress. Until 1913 the number of representatives increased roughly with the population, and was capped in 1929.
Pretty sure the Hatch Act was invalidated by the first Trump administration. I would love to see any prosecution on these grounds dismissed with prejudice.
August 3, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Pretty sure the Hatch Act was invalidated by the first Trump administration. I would love to see any prosecution on these grounds dismissed with prejudice.
When we changed the definition of "insurance" from "spread the risk of unaffordable loss" to "a way for rich people to get richer." You don't need to exclude pre-existing conditions to balance the books if there is only one universal risk pool.
July 30, 2025 at 3:14 PM
When we changed the definition of "insurance" from "spread the risk of unaffordable loss" to "a way for rich people to get richer." You don't need to exclude pre-existing conditions to balance the books if there is only one universal risk pool.