Wait. You mean if you read it on the Internet, it might not be true?? People will have to apply critical judgment to what they view/read/hear? We're so doomed.
Because I like to support the NPS, I'd usually buy a year pass any time I went to a national park (well, OK, I would also buy one because I sometimes forgot to bring it).
Maybe I'm way too cynical, but I think having you decide not to visit national parks is part of the "game"*:
1) make it unpleasant to visit a national park
2) say: "see, no one visits national parks, we should privatize them"
3) profit!
Yes, this is galling, but lawyers joke about the kind of client who would kill his own parents and then throw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
* the game as described by Eric Arthur Blair:
> O’Brien: How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?
> Winston: By making him suffer.
> O’Brien: Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?
Wrong tribe. The outrage is reserved for the D-tribe actors (e.g., imagine the reaction if this was done in the Biden or Obama administrations), not the R-tribe, at least until members of the R-tribe are personally and individually impacted.
Trust the US for what exactly? Looking out for US (business) interests? Sure. Wanting access/control of oil. You betcha. The interests of the people in those countries? Pull the other one.
I imagine the people of Venezuela and Iran, at least some of them, want a replacement for their current regimes, hoping recent actions by the US proves to be a tipping point. It is opportunistic. This in no way suggests they trust the US. Given the history of the US in both Latin America and Iran, it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
I had the same experience recently and felt similarly (more or less, I didn't really find it embarrassing, more irritating). If the restaurant I was calling had simply said "Hi, I'm an automated service" at the beginning, I'd have be less irritated. I guess I'll have to start calls by asking "are you human?" when I call for reservations (or other services I suppose).
Call me cynical, but I figure in our post-truth world, faith depends on the tribe you belong to, not "transparent investigation". To me, this is yet another episode of one side screaming "conspiracy" and the other side screaming "conspiracy to create a conspiracy" in order to drive clicks on both sides. The actual truth will likely never be publicly known or acknowledged.
Or the more than 42K NGOs getting billions of dollars in Minnesota alone are not legitimate and this will just be the tip of the iceberg.
Ilhan Omar has a $174K salary, and she went from nearly broke to having a net worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million in the space of six years... and her only "work" is the Senate? This is an amazing rags-to-riches story! Journalists should be knocking down her door to discuss it. But it's "not news," right?
You miss my point. I have no idea whether or not something is there and can't be bothered to look into it as, to me, even if it's true, it's just a drop in a planetary ocean of incompetence, fraud, waste, and abuse.
The reality is that the perception of "truth" (whether this is something or there isn't) is going to highly dependent on which tribe you're in. That is, if you're republican, the fraud will be obvious and if you're democrat, it's obvious that even if there is some fraud, it is blown out of proportion.
As we have seen time and time again, whether there will be repercussions will be dependent in who is in power.
<eyeroll>. Not a big fan of warning labels like this. While I might agree that "social media" (whatever that gets defined to be) can have a very significant negative impact on mental health and/or society as a whole, trying to forcing platforms to putting a label to that effect seems like another instance of politicians "doing something", just like the stupid cookie warning crap we all get to click through to visit websites. I figure the money spent coming up with this bill (and that will be spent on lawyers appealing and/or developers implementing) could've been better spent on a wide array of other, more useful activities.
reply