7 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2017
    1. What does draw the ire of yours truly is when a film maker casts two females who look nearly identical in roles that bear little distinction from one another as a result of either poor writing or bland acting.

      What draws the ire of yours truly is that you say "yours truly" in your writing.

    1. Banning Baby Jesus

      "Banning Baby Jesus" is an interesting way to phrase the subject of this fake news article. Certainly, using the word "banning" is meant to elicit stronger, negative feelings about what is being done. Also, phrasing the alleged action in terms of banning "baby Jesus", as opposed to say, banning "the nativity scene" is also a way to elicit stronger, negative feelings.

  2. Feb 2017
    1. an increase in the prices that investors and retirees must pay to gain access to retirement services.

      Seems pretty straightforward to me that the rule benefits investors and retirees if they're paying less for fees and commissions, which should happen. But what does it mean to examine whether or not prices for "access to retirement services" increase?

    2. Whether the Fiduciary Duty Rule is likely to cause an increase in litigation,

      Seems like the rule could very well cause an increase in litigation since advisers would be liable for not abiding by the rule, whereas now advisors have no legal obligation to abide by it. So this would be an easy way to find a reason for revising or scrapping the rule.

    3. dislocations or disruptions

      How are these terms defined? I wonder if executive orders are always this vague. Seems like it could be an easy way to find reasons for revising or scrapping the rule.


      The Secretary of Labor nominee is Andrew Puzder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Puzder He's the CEO of a major corporation and it doesn't look like he likes government regulations on companies (he opposes minimum wage laws). I don't think this bodes well for the Fiduciary Rule if he's confirmed by the Senate.

    1. I think this kind of apocalyptic language is pretty far out there relative to the kind of language you see from politicians today, but it may be that I've just gotten used to some of the rhetoric you hear today that's pretty over-the-top. For example, I never really had much of a reaction when listening to Ted Cruz last year talk about what would happen if Hillary Clinton were elected even though his rhetoric may have been just as extreme as the rhetoric in the passages on this page. And I'm sure Hillary is guilty of similar such language--I just can't really remember. I think I'm just used to completely over-the-top rhetoric coming from our politicians. But I guess some people actually get riled up by this language--like Trump supporters on the right and Bernie supporters on the left. It's pretty weird for me to think about because I just take this sort of language as par for the course and then go about my life as though I've heard nothing of consequence. It's scarier for me to see a politician come into office and completely ignore the facts or explain them away in absurd ways, the way Trump does. That does not seem normal to me at all.