There is a unique smell to a foot recently unfettered from a shoe as opposed to a foot that never had a shoe, but was always in a sandal. I can’t explain the science, but the smell is real and substantial. Don’t be the rude person that forces the rest of the freaking plane to smell your unpleasantness. Being on a plane is miserable enough as it is.  

[W]e're just trying to pour too much water in and I wish it were actually true that even a third of the money was going to people who were in poverty. Most of it is not. Most of it is going to the middle of the population and it is going in one shot transfers, not in things that are ultimately going to build and strengthen the economy. And that's why as much as I admire the effort and as much as I admire the progress against poverty, I am worried that the sheer scale is going to crowd out our doing what we need to do to compete with China, to build back better the president's principal aspiration. And I'm very worried that this is going to lead us to difficulty down the road as inflation picks up and the Fed has to respond.

Here is the irony: there is a lot that is good in this program, but I think its advocates try to have it both ways. On the one hand when a concern about inflation is raised, they explain that it is mostly temporary and transient, just a relief program, and really just a special one-year thing. On the other hand, most of the time they are explaining how it is the most fundamental revolution in American policy since the New Deal. And you can't really have it both ways. You can either have long term transformation or you can have temporary action. And what I would have liked to see more, is a program of this scale or larger that was paid for and was focused on investment and contained the necessary relief. This program goes vastly beyond ... what was necessary to provide relief. And it doesn't - with the exception of the childcare/antipoverty thing, which is very important - it doesn't really do much that either represents a revolution in social investment on social policy or a revolutionary investment in the future of our country. And I think that is something we are going to look back on and regret. Not that we didn't do something, but that we weren't more careful and calibrated in the design of what we did.

Larry Summers, debating Paul Krugman on Fareed Zakaria's GPS.

Indianapolis is really showing their true colors here. The man gives the city all seven years of his professional football career, during which time he was voted to four Pro Bowls and took the Colts to the playoffs four times, only to get booed in his last appearance because his body has become so broken while playing for the team.

And Colts fans, what do you think this is going to do for the morale for the rest of your team, to see their beloved teammate, who has literally put his body on the line for your team for seven years, get unceremoniously booed by the same "fans" they play for? Classy.

Israel's banning two U.S. lawmakers into Israel on an official visit is an attack on two vital institutions. The first is that of allowing U.S. representatives to travel freely, which is one most entrenched global institutions for preserving America's continued role as a global watchdog. Indeed, no less than Israel's ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, recognized this principle just last month.

Supporters of the ban focus on Representatives Omar and Tlaib's political ideologies and blithely levy personal attacks against them. In doing so, they only reinforce why institutions are necessary: institutions create rules that view all actors blindly. When we allow exceptions, the institution is compromised. Seriously consider this question posted by the WaPo editorial board: "How many dictators are rejoicing today that a U.S. president has given them full permission to bar members of Congress who in the future might want to visit their countries to monitor elections or speak up for human rights?"

The second institution attacked by the ban is that of democracies. What does it say that the only democracy in the Middle East bans its ideological opponents? 

Institutions, despite their powerful foundations, are incredibly fragile. While they take generations to build, they can be destroyed overnight.

While Harris successfully landed a heavy blow on Biden, she has now exposed her own hypocracy: Harris herself admits that she does not support federally mandated busing; rather, she claims it should merely be a tool for local school districts. This is the exact same position Biden has held for 40 years. But her portrayal Biden's position, entirely hid this fact. How an Harris honestly attack Biden for a position that she herself - and nearly every other American - agrees with? This episode has exposed the extent to which she will shamelessly distort truth to gain political points. Isn't this why the chief reason that the left despises Trump?

Sources: https://www.apnews.com/586b1e81cb684654b0cf689b9074c1cb

It is incredibly difficult to divorce oneself from the moral depravity of Trump's latest political stunt and analyze his actions objectively. But beneath the utter malevolence of breaking into immigrants' homes and deporting them to what, for many, will be their certain death in violent countries, the move shows that Trump's decisions are always purely political: he creates a crisis, and then plays himself the hero when he relents. In Trump's mind, this is not about what is right and wrong: it's about scoring political points and fostering fear.

The most salient fact from this most recent foreign policy catastrophe: as the United States was initiating military action against an excitable and capricious adversary, the Commander in Chief was unaware of the likely casualty rate, and upon discovering that 150 Iranians could die, he realized that the strike was completely unfounded. There is no excuse for such a reckless disregard of the thin line that separates countries from full-blown war or America's historical role as the world's moral compass. Make no mistake, President Trump was initiating military action against one of the most volatile nations without first educating himself on the most conspicuous risk factor of likely casualties.