Could you revisit the topic of domestic oil production? Is it really the case that US oil companies could be producing more but just don't want to? What role does the federal government play in this? Are we really helping the global climate by limiting oil production in the US while trying to reopen oil markets in Iran and Venezuela, and begging the Saudis to open up the spigots?
The power vested in the Speaker of the House has fluctuated over time. Currently, we're in an uber-powerful phase. Theoretically, limiting the power vested in the Speaker seems objectively better for depolarization and overall congressional activity, for example enabling rank and file members and/or early-career, pre-corruption representatives to make bold moves if they can whip the votes. How did power accumulate in the Speaker and how could we get back to a "weak" Speaker?
This is a question I've been thinking about since Russia invaded Ukraine in February: It seems to be in our (and the world's) vested interest that Russia NOT become suicidal or behave like a cornered animal with nuclear weapons in hand - and it got me thinking about what it would take for that to become reality. It's almost as if some form of artificial statis would need to be imposed (where the world just agrees to placate their leaders and ensure some sort of decent standard of living for their people), and the more I think about that the less is seems realistic that such a statis could be stable for a significant time. Countries will inevitably decline (as will ours), and for countries with the ability to instigate the destruction life as we know it - is it possible for them to safely decline (i.e. decline without eventually finding a reason to shoot off every last nuke) - or - will their eventual certain decline also mean certain nuclear apocalypse?