Michael Hiltzik takes us in the wayback machine to a time when "Anti-Communist Hysteria Almost Destroyed the University of California." Long story short: UC's institution of a loyalty oath in the early 1950s drove a lot of its faculty away -- a few by choice, 30 more by firing after refusing to take the oath. At least the U.S. Supreme Court ordered them reinstated two years later; today you can more easily imagine a Justice Roberts combing through arcanities to excuse inaction, or a Justice Gorsuch openly wondering why Big Gummint should have to do anything about anything.
From Noelle Sullivan at TruthOut we're reminded of another reason U.S. health care prices are so jacked up: "the cost of health care itself." When you get to the part where "there are many other ailments that companies won't fund research for, specifically because these ailments aren't good investments," you'll be reminded of the scientist who said we'd already have an ebola vaccine if anyone thought they could make money from it. It's really not "Communism" or "socialism" to say that we shouldn't leave health care up to the "free" market. I'm happy to leave the movie industry up to the "free" market, after all.
Surprise, surprise, President Trump has appointed a bankster lawyer to head up the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (or OCC), which has the power to pre-empt state laws curbing bankster misbehavior. You know, like charging onerous ATM fees, which states often legislate against more quickly than our federal government does. And if a state passes a law about a matter our federal government doesn't address, and that law doesn't abridge our Constitutional rights, why does our federal government get to nullify it? Does that sound particularly conservative? And more to the point, why do we even have national banks again?
This is a generally good article about the rise of "the Resistance" and the Democratic Party's own resistance to that resistance -- particularly when Jeet Heer points out that "the Resistance" is born not just of anger but abandonment, and abandonment by Democrats -- but I've got a bone to pick with paragraph 26, which blithely assumes that Bernie Sanders applied an "ideological litmus test" to Jon Ossoff and thus "threatened 'to create divisions where none previously existed.'" The party of "innovation" and "entrepreneurship" applies an ideological litmus test to the rest of us all the time, mostly by declaring their pet center-right candidates the only "electable" ones, and if Mr. Heer really thinks no "divisions" "existed" before then, then he didn't read his own article.
Two more things about the story where Rep. Frelinghuysen outed a protestor as an executive at one of his big donor's banks: where does he get off in paragraph nine suggesting that people protesting Republican policies are "ma(king) it difficult for us to meet our constituent needs"? The agenda we're protesting makes it difficult for him to meet his constituents' needs! And where does he get off suggesting that "highly orchestrated" speech somehow isn't free speech? He said exactly the same thing about the Tea Party, right? (And no, "I'm not suggesting people don't have a right to speak" doesn't get you off the hook right after you suggest people don't have a right to speak. That's not how argument works. That is, however, how lying works.)