Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Jason Kuznicki

@jkuznicki.bsky.social

5K followers 1K following 8.1K posts

A gay dad cultivating his garden in Puna, Hawaii. Now working on some big projects for the future.🍍🌴🌱📖🌐☸️ Newsletter: https://pacification.beehiiv.com/ Book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319839950/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

pacification.beehiiv.com

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 4d

The remedy for a president who believes he can levy taxes and spend the revenue without congressional authorization is removal from office.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 8d

The remedy for a president who even attempts to invent new crimes by decree is removal from office.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 9d

The remedy for a president who both lies to your face and also expects you to make a deal with him is removal from office.

1 90 240

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 5m

The takeaway ought to be “figure out how to do this some other way, because voters want it.” And not “voters don’t really want it.”

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 7m

The people who were polled. The fact that they didn’t like the existing trade off doesn’t mean that they don’t want its good side. They undoubtedly still want that. And they hope someone will find a more preferable bad side.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 39m

You know me better than that.

The reason I stated was that it’s inappropriate to put words into people’s mouths. If they wish ignore the trade off, you can point that out, and you should. But you went beyond that to say they oppose a thing that they support.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 1h

I disagree. For reasons I’ve already stated.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 2h

I think it makes a lot of stretches. For one, coverage for preexisting conditions IS popular. That it requires unpopular trade offs doesn’t change that, or it shouldn’t, anyway.

People will want what they want. It’s fine to point out the trade off. Saying their preference is false though? Too far.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 2h

Beyond that, I’m with @pjdoland.bsky.social that the word most seems like it’s leaving some information out.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 2h

I can’t say it’s “junk coverage” until I know (really quite a bit) more about the benefits paid out.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 2h

I haven’t seen it. I’m not ready to respond to it. I’m asking about your very first sentence, which still doesn’t seem supported. There will be winners and losers in any insurance pool, including those in Obamacare. You’ve said a lot about the losers and nothing about the winners.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 4h

Party structure is downstream from electoral law. Multi member districts with proportional representation would reliably moderate our politics and strongly push towards more than two parties.

1 1

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 4h

You answered about your plan, which is not what I was asking about.

In the second part, I’m not trying to answer your criticism in because I don’t think it’s ready for answering. I’m still wondering about the full picture of the pool. I’m not ready to call Obamacare overpriced without more.

Reposted by Jason Kuznicki

"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux @bretdevereaux.bsky.social · 5h

Post-Trump government reform is obviously going to have to include moving a bunch of agencies out of the executive, but I think it probably also needs to include the creation of a watchdog org under congress that explicitly *always* has standing for constitutional violations by the executive.

11 21 210

Reposted by Jason Kuznicki

"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux @bretdevereaux.bsky.social · 5h

I am struck by how lack of standing seems to so frequently evade court challenge to unconstitutional government actions.

It's an odd thing missing, given that this problem was solved in ancient Athens: for certain matters the entire citizen body ('ho boulomenos,' 'whoever wishes') had standing.

15 64 390

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 5h

And what about the others? How do they do?

It’s not a strike against any insurance plan to observe that most people don’t get out of it what they pay in. We understand that, and we pay for it anyway. To evaluate Obamacare vs previous status quo needs more data.

1 2

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 5h

What follows after gives only one part of the trade off.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 5h

The very first sentence of the very first post is not supported by what follows after.

2 1

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 5h

That’s good, but it doesn’t seem like your original statement has been supported. Pointing out that some will find insurance a good deal, while some will find it a bad deal ex post… that doesn’t establish the claim of overcharging.

Apologies if that’s not what you’re saying.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 6h

I mean without Obamacare.

1 1

Reposted by Jason Kuznicki

Geoff Brumfiel @gbrumfiel.bsky.social · 6h

BREAKING: CDC is apparently reversing many of its layoffs. Letters seen by NPR indicate that many employees working with infectious diseases have had their RIFs revoked.

17 63 190

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 6h

What would happen to the others?

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 7h

Without a trace of irony it beats the opposite extreme.

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 7h

Core functions of government are being needlessly destroyed—at a time when, owing to antivaxers, we’re more vulnerable to preventable diseases than we’ve been in decades. (Gift link)

More than 1,000 CDC staff receive layoff notices during government shutdown

Another round of mass layoffs has struck CDC. The agency had already been cut during a reorganization this year, and more employees are now being shed amid the government shutdown.

wapo.st

2 5

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 7h

Be sure to read @kjephd.bsky.social’s follow ups; the article is sourced from administration officials and should be taken with caution. It’s the picture that they want you to see.

1 1

Reposted by Jason Kuznicki

Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 7h

The thing about the Roberts Court is they're not evil geniuses, because they're not geniuses.

Murshed Zaheed @murshedz.bsky.social · 14h

“More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.”

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

www.nytimes.com

13 220 900

Reposted by Jason Kuznicki

Marble Liberal @marbleliberal.bsky.social · 8h

Who owns the army is THE constitutional question of the 17th century

jim0novak.bsky.social @jim0novak.bsky.social · 8h

The U.S. Constitution's Army Clause (Article I, Section 8) requires that congressional appropriations to raise and support armies must be for a term no longer than two years.

They feared standing armies.

The Founders were more radical anti-fascists than common knowledge would expect.

46 260

Jason Kuznicki @jkuznicki.bsky.social · 8h

Screenshot of a Dril tweet: “the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"”