I've started reading a lot more non-fiction, mainly history.

Oddly enough, so have I. Right now I'm on a book about Aaron Burr. Before that was Andrew Jackson and before that was James Madison. Then there was the book about how the Pilgrims and Puritans screwed over the Native Americans in New England (wonderful title: God, War, and Providence) despite Roger Williams' best efforts. And who couldn't read history without delving into World War II and the German army, Panzer Battles.

That last two chapters of the book should be required reading for anyone in the Ukrainian military. Literally, in the truest sense of the word, nothing has changed in Russian tactics and actions in the past 80 years. The words written sound like they were written last year.

And there we have it. Thank you for those who marked my comment down. You proved my point admirably.

Right now the vast majority of the sci-fi/fantasy books are all Game of Thrones type, set in some medieval-style world where evil lurks around every corner.

Then you have the Kim Harrison types (which usually have fantastic cover art), followed by sci-fi itself which generally revolves around some Earth/Solar System/Universe threat which only one man (it's almost always a man) can solve.

I've tried reading various books at random, but either I've lost my ability to immerse myself in the story or the stories aren't well written to hold my interest.

I'm not sure what the answer is, and maybe my situation is unique, but perhaps publishers should take more chances on new or fledgling authors so different styles of storytelling can get out.

but when activists are actively against Israel policies then it's NOT OK.

For the simple reason any criticism of Israel is not allowed. Nothing. Any criticism of any kind for any reason immediately brands you as anti-semitic. No exceptions. Even when Israel does to others which was done to them you are not allowed to say a single word. If you do, you're an anti-semite. Full stop.

There is ample evidence that we screwed up an entire generation of kids with constant exposure to screens and social media. The addictions we're seeing right now are just the tip of the iceberg, compared to what we're going to see as Gen Z grows up. Kids are growing up and missing out on very important developmental milestones because of what we're willingly exposing them to.

We can't sound these alarm bells loud enough. We have plenty of evidence of what kids who miss out on actual socialization end up as when they become legal adults, and it's not great.

Within the framework of the Constitution itself, Congress is king. They can override a veto by the Executive and remove them from office if they so choose. For the context we were speaking, tax and spend, Congress has effective unlimited authority if they so choose to use it.

Names of bills don't mean shit, they never have. Trying to tie anything to what politicians *name* a bill is pointless and childish. (Hello "Patriot Act").

Inflation hasn't gone down because people are still spending, raised prices or not. Talk is cheap, actions are what matter. People bitch up a storm that fast food prices (for example) are thru the roof (they are), but they're doing it while buying enough fast food the companies are making record profits.

And it isn't just essentials that are absolutely required, but everything. Prices will go back down when people start taking more action and stop spending.

It doesn't work that way. Everything works because people follow the basic rules -- the Constitution itself. Amending the Constitution itself isn't a simple vote of Congress, much less something signed by a President into law. There's an explicit process.

Your question is akin in seriousness to "what if EVERYONE just stopped paying taxes".

They didn't. They went up variable amounts, often higher, depending on what they were. And those prices went up YEARS before this legislation was passed, so the link you're implying is imaginary.

Unless SCOTUS officially rules "Unconstitutional", essentially. That's the check and balance we have.

It's about time we gave free money to someone other than oil companies and coal miners.

Isn't it funny how people conveniently forget the decades we've been giving money to these two? How many billions (trillions?) of dollars have we the taxpayers been forced to hand over to these companies? Shall we include all that free money handed over to corn famers for their ethanol subsidies?

At least if people would be consistent in their "outrage" they might be heard more.

You seem to have a problem understand the word "over". It isn't a lump sum at the end of the decade, it is accumulated over the 10-year period -- like like the spend.

Congress and their powers to tax and spend in general. That doesn't vary by specific technologies like solar vs oil, etc.

Not free, paid for by large corporations. The Inflation Reduction Act raises $300 billion over a decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 percent minimum tax on their profits and by enacting a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks and redemptions.

Don't blame people for problems that corporations cause.

How is it a "corporate" cause if people are too lazy to move around, stare at their 3 inch screen all day, eat bags of chips each day, don't bother to drink water, and don't make healthy lifestyle choices? Does personal responsiblity not enter into the equation?