|
this is such a myopic way to understand regulation, it's dizzying.
what is required for ace or ustwo's position to be coherent is that you see regulation as an end in itself carried out in the interest of the technicians who fashion the regulation. which means that you exclude up front anything and everything that could make of regulation something coherent--you even exclude the end=point. i don't understand--maybe it's something that happens in conservativeland to normalize the way of "thinking" that has resulted in the iraq war--you know, whaddya mean incoherent, this is a way of thinking across the board.
in the context of any negociated process, there are going to be trade-offs--it's what negociation is about--i don't see anything particular problematic in this particular situation--obviously pm supports this because if they don't, they are concerned about more draconian regulation against tobacco further down the road. obviously it is in the interests of other organizations who support such regulation to have something rather than nothing to show for their efforts. obviously it is in the interest of congress to appear to be operating in a direction that distinguishes it to some extent as an actor or arbitor. all this requires is that you think in a vague way about the process itself--but if you're going to claim that this is somehow about trial lawyers alone, you can't even do that: no wonder ace and ustwo oppose regulation in principle--they have views of it that MAKE regulation incoherent, and so they see only incoherence in it.
it's mind-boggling, really, that this sort of construct has any purchase with anyone.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|