Republicans are in a tizzy that Democrats are threatening to use the budgetary procedure known as reconciliation -- it reconciles policy with fiscal guidelines -- to overhaul the health care system, possibly enact legislation on climate change and rewrite education policy.
On Thursday, the Board of Governors will debate and possibly enact policies that involve placing netting in front of some arena seats to protect spectators from flying pucks, and more flexible boards and glass to protect players during collisions.
Preferences are conditional on two different kinds of expectations: the empirical expectation that a sufficient number of people adhere to the behavioral rule, and the normative expectation that other people expect one to follow the behavioral rule as well, and possibly enact positive/negative sanctions for conformity/transgression.
The designs are so damn eye-catching (the Saint Laurent version features an eagle and a tiger, possibly re-enacting a scene from Life of Pi), that it is best to keep the rest of your outfit simple.
If you looked at the grim, unsmiling Republican faces that the television cameras picked out of the crowd of legislators on Thursday night, you would have to conclude that these proposals have no real chance of being enacted, except possibly for the tax cuts.
Probably no positive law will say that I can do so, and possibly no more general enacted right will imply it.
In California, though, voters this year did retain the state's 12-cent per gallon gas-tax increase, which was enacted in 2017, possibly because Gov. Jerry Brown (D) defended it as a way to pay for better highways, not to fight climate change.
Whatever else takes place that night, some people in the audience will be aware that (possibly) what they are hearing is likely being enacted in only a few rare places.
When you're talking about solutions that must be enacted by Congress, how can you possibly set political considerations aside?
