terrorist groups, wbut they re hybrid. and until we start looking at them as evolved beyond just criminals, it s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. our strategy to counter them and the mexican government s strategy to counter them is treating them like they re just criminal punks and they re much more sophisticated than that. and if you look at our counterinsurgency strategy, if we were using that, it seems like we would be blowing everybody in mexico to smi smithereens with drones and making matters worse. some people think that that is the answer, is send a bunch of special operations forces in there to clean house. but that s not practical to do that. not only that, but the mexican government and the mexican people don t want u.s. troops on the ground. the number of mexicans who would approve of that has definitely grown over the last few years, but we have a long, negative history with mexico and we re very, very careful about keeping u.s. troops out of there. all right. li
government and public/private partnerships to be able to cluster development around our strengths and michigan s unemployment rate dropped six times faster than the national average. we wanted to document the evidence of that. and the book is that body of evidence, which is the point that you re making. and i think it s a wonderful exercise, because you re a lab experiment, in a sense, with real government in real life having real policy and real data, which is your point. and i think it s magnificent. dan, if you were to look at the writing of this book and the prosecution of this argument, how do you prosecute the argument that you re arguing, which is the bogus debate of lower taxes and markets aren t going to do it without immediately getting into a boomerang effect, if that s not the answer, you must mean the government should do everything? how do you avoid that ping-pong effect and rhetoric where you indict one body of language, but don t necessarily mean to boomerang to what
court justices ruled on that decision, lewis powell. he wrote in the early 70s the famous powell memo in which he told corporations, he advised corporations, you need to stop funding universities that don t promote your corporate interests and you need to start funding only people thinkers and institutions that promote your interests. and so then suddenly you have the rise of these parallel, you know, what are think tanks? they didn t really exist or barely existed before the mid- 70s. they re sort of set up as a parallel structure to compete against the ideas coming out of universities, which they can t control as easily. yeah. no, it s you have to understand it and acknowledge it as disgusting, as so much of this is. if we re going to begin the process of resolving it. i congratulate yasha on a keen eye, to say the least. thank you very much. thank you, yasha. if you re looking to learn more about this particular piece of
this letter from charles koch to hayek, which championed social security and hard sells hayek on social security, is the only letter that i know of or that the index lists that is from charles koch personally to hayek. so, think about this. the only letter that charles koch ever wrote to hayek was to tell him to get on the social security and medicare bandwagon, and, you know, reminding him that, hey, you signed up for social security. you opted in, so don t worry about it. and the hypocrisy is that this man is being paid to advocate the disassembly of what he s worried about losing. how prevalent, mark, is the culture of purchasing and seeding ideas in this sense and how much has money in our political system, not in the campaign sense, but in the ideological sense, infected the entire debate framing? well, first of all, i would say this is worse than hypocrisy. hypocrisy is a kind of moral