What kind science is permissable, for instance, is inherently an ideological decision. Unless you want to permit, and in a real world, fund every bit of science presented to you, then you have ideology in the mix.
Also woke is made up, but whatever.
]]>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause
Why they did it is speculative, but it's probably some combination of getting around the rule against perpetuities and screwing with Florida.
]]>They don't - since there's no guarantee of a winner and the length of number you need to match remains the same, the odds don't change.
]]>Because it isn't the argument.
The Libertarian Argument is that people have the right to do what they want to themselves, and the circumstances under which the social cost outweights that right is high, and drugs do not pass that bar.
The other argument is that a lot of the bad social effects of drugs are because they're illegal. These arguments are not mutually exclusive.
The latter is true, in the US. Being an opioid addict is bad for you. But the real societal cost comes from the fact that they're illegal, because of the compounding effects of our legal system.
You can see this with alcoholism fairly easily. The consequences of being an alcohol addict are bad. But they're not exacerbated by alcohol itself or using it being illegal*, so the social costs of being an alcoholic aren't as high as they would be IF they were. You won't get arrested, have to get illegal alcohol, end up in jail for being an alcoholic, have a criminal record that prevents you from getting a good job, ending up with legal fees.
You can incur those for the stuff you do while drunk, but since alcohol is legal, you don't get them JUST because you're an addict.
*Except for The Youths and specific places. Even with the age thing, you can actually see the difference in social costs.
These are arguments interact, because smarter Libertarians will use the second one to reinforce the first.
]]>Look, I'm a professional writer, and it's been my sole source of income for a looooong time. If I were independently wealthy, or provided a well off living without writing for money I would...write.
And that's most writers, in my experience. It's too hard to do as a living for most people to do that you aren't more or less compelled to do it.
But even if you ignore that, and just go with politicians - the idea that they wouldn't write memoirs without money motives is just demonstrably wrong. Politicians in particular are hard to stop writing them, and many of them vanity publish the damn things.
]]>In the US, they don't even need to do that. Cops are judged able to just eyeball that, so "they were speeding" is literally all it takes.
]]>I suspect very strongly it was a result of having (probably) Covid in March. I wasn't sufficiently sick to go to the hospital and confirm the Covid, but my Doctor and I both think yes, it probably was.
But whatever it was, it had two (probably related) lingering effects - I would get periods of light headedness with no predictable cause, and my blood pressure became unstable for lack of a better term - it would range from 90/60 to 140/90. None of which is terrible, but it was notable that this started with whatever I had.
There's confounders - I'm diabetic, for one - but I am fairly convinced that the illness lead to the heart attack now. For sure, it did something to my cardiovascular system.
]]>But Nojay has nuclear as his thing, so all his statements about energy have to be viewed in the light that, consciously or not, he must promote building more nuclear plants and downplay any other option.
]]>There's a lot of reasons for that, and I have no idea if they're changeable in a short frame.
]]>