The problem is that they've been convinced the reason everything in our lives is increasingly shitty is down to hordes of 6-year-olds with leukemia who've crossed the border for free medical care. It couldn't be more obvious that this is a scapegoating operation being pushed by the ultra-wealthy who are gaining from widening precarity and exploitation. But a "solution" that involves just inflicting a bunch of harm to the powerless is inherently more appealing than wresting control from the powerful, which will involve real work & sacrifice.
It's not just this administration, it's been essentially open season for fraud in the U.S. financial system ever since 2008. If you're a hoi polloi dentist who makes $100,000 trading options off of some insider info then yes, there are SEC cops on the beat who will come after you. Otherwise, you can pretty much do whatever you want until & unless a whole lot of people lose money, at which point it's too late.
Your questions in here give the impression you do, and that your opinion is in favor of some kind of intervention. Military interventions have all gone poorly for us, while using diplomacy has worked over and over. Results should matter here and results say bombing is the wrong choice.
I don't understand how the NYT, which is well known for having done the U.S. security state's bidding in fomenting regime change in the region in the past, would have access to actual Iranian officials and internal workings like this.
Either these problems are fixable, and the institutions involved have simply decided not to fix them for some other reason, or they are not. The latter case would imply some kind of grossly ruinous effects from climate change, which those same institutions seem to be expressing no particular urgency to address.
You cannot address climate change as an insurer. You can either price the risk or withdraw from offering policies where the risk exceeds the economics. Insurance is for tail risk events, not chronic payouts.
reply