Done. One thing that ought to be widely brought up as an argument against, besides the obvious, is that this regulation (as I understand things) is being proposed under the authority given to regulators under the Chevron deference law of I think 1984. In any case, this was thrown out by the supreme court last year, and quite correctly. The case that got it thrown out was about the ATF’s ability to make up whatever gun laws they wanted to. Dems argued that it needed to be preserved because it allows agencies to regulate things, but I asked myself if that was true, and decided that the wild deregulation of the 80s were enabled by it, and that things like net neutrality were able to be killed by appointed bureaucrats because of it. The argument for it is that lawmakers shouldn’t have to be subject experts on everything, but the argument against it is that any law too vague for a legislator to understand is unconstitutionally vague and laws should be required to be written well. Also, it’s the job of congress to make laws, not appointees of whatever President who happens to be sitting in office who’re doing as they’re bid.
At this stage, anything pushing back on executive power is a fine thing indeed.
This exactly. And with this conflict in particular, question everything you read and take every step you can to find the truth. If you hew strictly to what’s true, you’re never wrong, that’s the beauty of it.
Also, in this one, you gotta learn a good bit about local and regional history, and the religions as well. This is essentially a sectarian conflict framed as a fight over territory. And with the daily news, my god. I clicked on one link where the headline was “Scholars find evidence of genocide in Gaza”, and the substance of the article was actually about how the evidence in question was falling apart under the weight of independent review and single source reporting that came from Hamas. You really have to put the work in to get to the facts.